Religion

[had]

Errr... no, not quite. There's no qualitative difference between a modern train and a steam-driven train. All that's changed is the form of power.

There is a qualitative difference between 'precursor' scientists and modern science. Specifically, 'precursor' scientists didn't apply the scientific method in the same rigorous way it is applied today. They weren't empirical in the same way.

[Dark One]

But that shouldn't matter. A scientist is still a scientist no matter what era they were born into.

As i said, just because they don't follow todays methods doesn't make them any less of a scientist

[had]

Sure it does. Would you describe the people who practised trepanning as doctors?

Science is all about the method. That's what it is. It's rigorous empiricism. The scientific method. It's not science if you do something else.

[Kangaruth]

Speaking as a scientist, I don't think that's true - it's also about a drive to understand things. Sure, you'd find it difficult to publish unrepeatable results and yes, scientific method is usually an important part of modern science, but science in itself is just about trying to understand the physical world around us. There were plenty of scientists, and plenty of scientific discoveries before we started using modern day empirical methods.

Yes, trepanners (is that a word) were doctors, of their time. They were trying to cure people. Modern doctors have a similar approach (try what seems to work for others) - which isn't always rigourously scientific!

[Dark One]

Very true. If we'd used modern techniques for medicene back then, we would't have certain things.

For example: Animal testing is used in a lot of drug trials. When Alexander Flemming discovered penicillin, he would have done animal tesiting with todays methods. However, he may have got very bad results as penicillin is fatal to guinea pigs.

Its the same with todays scientists and their latter day counterparts. They all had a thirst for knowledge and understanding, and went about things in their own way, just as modern scientists sometimes do

[Lauren Hedgehog]

kangaruth said:

but science in itself is just about trying to understand the physical world around us. There were plenty of scientists, and plenty of scientific discoveries before we started using modern day empirical methods.

I completely agree ;D , A train is still a train no matter what powers it


sorry DO, I can't help myself but.... Alexander Fleming only observed that colonies of Staphylococcus aureus could be destroyed by the mold Penicillium notatum. Howard Florey and Ernst Chain were the ones who developed penicillian

Flemming wasn't even the first to notice it, Ernest Duchesne reported the same findings in 1896.

[~Ethereal~]

Uh, guys, whilst I appreciate all your opinions on Science (even if I disagree , don't you think we're straying a little far from the topic of Religion? I know threads have a tendency to wander, or go completely off topic, but it'd be nice to keep this once mostly on topic if we can.
I'm sure you guys could discuss to your hearts content in a new thread about science

[had]

Another forum I inhabit has a rule about that - all threads will go off-topic within fifty posts. They decided to make it more then unwritten. Quite amusing.

Anyway, someone get it back on topic! I mean, what silly person started talking about science in a thread on religion? <_< >_>

[Fuil Dearg]

for some people science is their religion, quite literally. even so, it has gone fairly off topic.

[MajiKat]

so maybe we should talk about the science of religion, or the religion of science?

*sorry*

[Kaylan-R]

But science is a major topic concerning religion!! I'm aetheist and I believe the scientific side of evolution!! So we are really discussing religion...in a way...hehe

[had]

Define believe.

I've always considered it to mean 'accept without evidence', or some such thing. In which case I certainly don't 'believe' in evolution, I accept it.

Anyway, you can accept evolution and still be a member of several faiths. As long as you don't go around taking the Holy Book of whatever faith is concerned literally - which is generally a silly thing to do, anyway, given the rather interesting values of the people who wrote them originally - you'll probably find there's no conflict. This has been said before, but a creator that designs a machine that can go on to make more and better machines is clearly better then a creator that has to keep tinkering to make its creations work. There's really no problem in accepting that humans are related to other animals AND in believing that an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being exists.

[Dark One]

Definition of believe: accept as true; take to be true

[MajiKat]

okay, but can we define true/truth?

[had]

That which is true?

Really, a definition of 'truth' is a little difficult to state. That which is correct? That which is not false? Yeah, you see the problem. You still know what it means, though.

Of course, it only really makes sense if there's an objective reality. Of course, if there's no objective reality, all bets are off. Plus, if there's no objective reality, it's quite surprising that science works so well.

Yeah, I don't like solipsism much. Damn you, Descartes!

[MajiKat]

ahh Descartes strikes again!

[shadowoutcast]

ethereal said:

Uh, guys, whilst I appreciate all your opinions on Science (even if I disagree , don't you think we're straying a little far from the topic of Religion?

I believe Science and Faith can co-exist.

Science in my understanding in questioning, probing and pulling part this world we live in to understand how it works.

Since I would consider myself a Christian and place my faith in that God created this world then my thirst for understanding this world and universe comes from the reason of wanting to know the creator of it more.

(I feel as if I've said this else where in the tread... my bad)

mysterikat said:

okay, but can we define true/truth?

true from a basic stand point is relative, ie one persons definition of truth and what to be true is based on experience. The Boolean form of True/False is a black to white statement that can't stand up often in this world we living because there are more variables then 0 and 1

[had]

Of course it can coexist. Science tells us how the world works, religion is a form of moral instruction and a set of beliefs about spiritual and moral stuff. Science has nothing to do with morality. The last Pope recognised this, but it's looking like the current one doesn't understand that a religion that tangles with established observable facts (Such as evolution) is asking for trouble.

Really, though, science sinks into any topic discussed in the modern day. It's such an amazing tool for figuring out how the world works that it's become ubiquitous. It sort of makes sense that it would come into a discussion, particularly one about religion - because some religions try to address questions that science can answer (E.g., "How old is Earth?")

[~Ethereal~]

had said:

. Science has nothing to do with morality.

That's an awfully dangerous line of thought to head down, don't you think? Whether it's a religious morality or not, I think that morality certainly should have a lot to do with science.


And I wasn't suggesting we don't discuss science, I jsut felt that we were heading into a discussion about definitions of medicine almost, and wanted to drag it back jsut a little.

[had]

Possibly I didn't make myself clear - I don't mean that morality shouldn't be applied to science. On the contrary, discovering a great new way to kill lots of people isn't really a good thing. What I meant is that science can tell us absolutely nothing about morality, because moral issues aren't testable.

[shadowoutcast]

had said:

religion that tangles with established observable facts (Such as evolution) is asking for trouble.

And a person looking for more trouble is the one that states that a theory (ge Evolution) is observalbe fact. Evolution, as the theory states happens over a period of time. Yet documentation and records of animal history don't extend the millions of year provided fro Evolution to be 'oberserved'. Although it is widly excepted as the most likely outcome it is still cased as a theory.

had said:

Really, though, science sinks into any topic discussed in the modern day.

As does ethics and morals and pollitics and belief and faith, science is just the tip of the human conversations of today as has been for years before. Science being disscused in any coversational form not a new concept.

had said:

It's such an amazing tool for figuring out how the world works that it's become ubiquitous.

Yet philosophy, and modern science can't define or come to a unanimous understanding of what life is or means. I would rather have an understanding of life rather then have the answer to the physical questions answered.

had said:

It sort of makes sense that it would come into a discussion, particularly one about religion - because some religions try to address questions that science can answer (E.g., "How old is Earth?")

Science, answer "how old the Earth is?" hmm on resent debates and articles I've read that they are re-thinking how old the universe may be, at the moment it points to it being younger then expected. But that aside. If the are still debating on the bigger picture (ie the Universe) how could they have 'to the tee' that Earth is as old as they think. Carbon dating has been shown to be ineffective in giving accurate results and there are still theories coming from people on how old the Earth may be.

had said:

What I meant is that science can tell us absolutely nothing about morality, because moral issues aren't testable.

Not all things in science can be proven. Say the existence of Dark Matter. We know it's there but to 'prove' it is we can not. String Theory is now a commonly excepted form of understanding, yet we have no way of completely testing what it states. Although we have knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, we still don't have the means of completely understanding it.

Still saying that Evolution is the only way life could have came to be is rather closed minded. Say I created a painting and I believed it was the best painted ever. Then believing so I tell everyone to stop painted and exploring how to understand different views of painting. Would people really stop paint more? I would hope not. Same goes with the 'art' of science. You just can't stop at Evolution and say "Hazza I need no more answers." You're calling for trouble if you do.

[had]

And a person looking for more trouble is the one that states that a theory (ge Evolution) is observalbe fact. Evolution, as the theory states happens over a period of time. Yet documentation and records of animal history don't extend the millions of year provided fro Evolution to be 'oberserved'. Although it is widly excepted as the most likely outcome it is still cased as a theory.

Sure, we haven't been watching for millions of years. We can find these things called 'fossils', though, and we can look at genetic and physical similarities between species today, and find that they follow roughly the pattern we would expect if the modern version of Darwin's idea were true, we can observe 'micro'evolution - and, in fact, we have observed instances of speciation. Evolution, in the sense of 'Animals change over time', is a fact. What drives evolution? That's something that's not entirely settled, but natural selection is shaping up to be the big one. There are other ways that it happens, they don't seem as big.

Also, your comments suggest that you don't know what a theory is in the scientific sense - of course evolution is a theory, it can't go any higher. Theories are the highest form of scientific knowledge. A theory is an idea that is testable, ties together several known phenomena with some sort of coherent explanation, and survive the rigorous testing that accompanies any new idea. Laws are mathematical relations - theories explain why those relations. Just keep in mind that 'theory' in science means 'really good', rather then 'slightly shaky and unproven idea', and you'll be fine. Really, you can't prove anything with science anyway - because it's inductive logic - but you can certainly demonstrate that it's damned likely.

Yet philosophy, and modern science can't define or come to a unanimous understanding of what life is or means. I would rather have an understanding of life rather then have the answer to the physical questions answered.

What life is? Complex chemical reactions.

Oh, you wanted a definition? Some sort of process that performs a thermodynamic work cycle and can reproduce.

Oops.

Also, stating that science "can't tell us what life means" is a serious weasel question - firstly, because you're assuming that life does 'mean' something, secondly because I've already stated that science can't address unfalsifiable issues - and I've yet to see a testable idea of 'the meaning of life' - and finally because "telling us what life means" is fairly useless if we don't live past thirty because nobody invented science.

Science, answer "how old the Earth is?"

Yep. About three billion years, give or take a few million.

hmm on resent debates and articles I've read that they are re-thinking how old the universe may be, at the moment it points to it being younger then expected.

How is the 'age of universe' stuff relevant to the age of the Earth? They're derived from completely different means.

As for how old the universe is, this has been argued for a long, long time. It's somewhere within 10 to 15 billion years old. If you start getting more precise then that, that's when you run into the complex scientific debates. AFAIK, the current consensus is about 12.7 billion.

Really, it depends on your model of the hubble expansion. Dark energy or none? How much dark energy? How does inflation work in your model, if it exists?

But that aside. If the are still debating on the bigger picture (ie the Universe) how could they have 'to the tee' that Earth is as old as they think.

Several lines of different evidence. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.

It's a lot harder to figure out how old the universe is because it depends on how the expansion of the universe has changed with time, and we're not absolutely certain about that. Earth, on the other hand, we have sitting right here - we can use radiometric dating techniques.

Carbon dating has been shown to be ineffective in giving accurate results

Errr... duh? Given that values that have been carbon-dated generally are given +- a few thousand years, that sounds slightly inaccurate to me. Not massive, but slightly. It's fairly accurate on the whole.

Unfortunately, carbon dating wouldn't be used to check the age of the Earth, for two main reasons:
1 - Carbon dating only works for a fairly brief window - up to about 60, 000 years. Given that the Earth is much older then that, this presents a serious problem in trying to use it to measure the age of the Earth.

2 - Carbon dating only works if we know how much C-14 was in the air at the time we're dating from. That works for stuff back 60, 000 years. It doesn't for stuff back three billion.

What is used to measure the age of the Earth are different radiometric dating techniques, using different materials, and a helluva lot of clever playing around to account for various sources of errors.

Finally, if you tell me that radiometric dating techniques are all flawed because somebody measured xyz and got some ridiculous date, I'm going to be seriously disappointed in you. Firstly, because often such examples involved someone measuring something that shouldn't have been measured using that technique - such as carbon dating dinosaur bones, or carbon dating material from the Mt. St Helens eruption (Do you use a metre ruler to measure the width of hairs, or the height of a tree?), or use a sample that's been contaminated - and the contamination would have been noticed in the lab, because you would get clearly ridiculous results.

and there are still theories coming from people on how old the Earth may be.

Nope. Those aren't theories, those are figures for a given number.

And it's pretty much settled at three billion plus or minus a bit. The uncertainty may be reduced in the future - and likely will be - but it's going to be in the same range.

Not all things in science can be proven. Say the existence of Dark Matter. We know it's there but to 'prove' it is we can not.

If it's not testable, it isn't scientific. Period.

Dark matter is testable. In fact, it has been, and the evidence suggests that it exists: this, for example.

String Theory is now a commonly excepted form of understanding, yet we have no way of completely testing what it states.

String 'theory' isn't commonly accepted, nor is it a theory (Despite the name). It's not even a hypothesis, because it's untestable. It's still valid for scientific study, because it might be testable in the future. We're going that way. Once we do, we can see whether there's a version of string 'theory' that checks out.

Although we have knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, we still don't have the means of completely understanding it.

Your point? We have a fairly good understanding of QM. Pretty much the only thing that lies out of reach so far is an understanding of gravity from the QM perspective. Once we have that, the rest of it should fall into place.

Why is this a problem? Why is bringing up minor inaccuracies at the scientific coalface relevant to the stuff that has been checked out repeatedly, tested, and concluded decades ago?

Still saying that Evolution is the only way life could have came to be is rather closed minded. Say I created a painting and I believed it was the best painted ever. Then believing so I tell everyone to stop painted and exploring how to understand different views of painting. Would people really stop paint more? I would hope not. Same goes with the 'art' of science. You just can't stop at Evolution and say "Hazza I need no more answers." You're calling for trouble if you do.

I've said it before, I've said it again - I'm not being closed minded. I'm perfectly open minded - if you can demonstrate you have a better idea then evolution, I'll drop the idea.

But nobody has managed to come up with a better explanation. Evolution fits all the evidence we've looked at. It's essentially irrefutable - as irrefutable as the existence of gravity. We may have a slightly different understanding of evolution in the future, our idea of the driving force behind it may have changed, but the basic idea is here to stay - just as Einstein's gravity was different to Newton's, but the basic idea was the same. I've never said we should stop here. What I'm saying is that it's incredibly unlikely that you'll come up with another testable explanation that fits the evidence better then evolution.

Also, your comparison to painting is seriously flawed. Painting is very much subjective - 'good painting' depends on the observer. Science is objective - 'correct theory' depends entirely on the evidence, which stays the same regardless of observer. Also, science is a group effort - evolution only became accepted because multiple people tried to disprove it and failed. Your example doesn't have other people taking up your cause and lauding your painting as the best ever. Finally, science occurs over time - evolution didn't become the best theory for diversity in species overnight - it took hundreds of years. Your example has you suddenly discovering the 'best painting' and then telling everyone about it, rather then centuries of toil which never manage to demonstrate that some idea is a bad one.

If many, many, many educated people have been trying to knock on an idea for centuries, and it survives every test put to it, that demonstrates that it is a really, really good idea. Evolution has done that. It is as good as fact.

...

ARGH OFF TOPIC AGAIN. <_<

[MajiKat]

uh guys, do you think we can chill out a little bit here? its fine to have a debate, and Obernet is all about interesting debate and discussion, but perhaps try and modify your tone a bit...the problem with the written word is that no one can hear you, so good intentions may be misinterpreted. Use the smiley's.

Thats all

[~Ethereal~]

had said:

Possibly I didn't make myself clear - I don't mean that morality shouldn't be applied to science. On the contrary, discovering a great new way to kill lots of people isn't really a good thing. What I meant is that science can tell us absolutely nothing about morality, because moral issues aren't testable.

Yeah, sorry, I misinterpreted you. Probably a symptom of being involved in an impromptu arts students vs science/business students debate/argument at uni that day.

[LinJa]

Off topic, or maybe not -

Christianity is not a religion for me, it is a lifestyle. The way Jesus Christ taught us to live our life so we can have as much of a smooth road to Heaven as possible, (with tonnes of bumps along the way, definately).

I agree, that lots of people label/call themselves Christians, but don't have much knowledge about their belief, with little or no practice of it. Which is sad, because it gives Christians a bad name, thinking we're this and that, and very hypocritical. So when someone says they are a Christian, I look at their behaviour. As Christians, our behaviour should reflect Jesus Christ and what we believe in.
I have studied Christianity alot (and extensively), so I know what I believe in, and yes it makes perfect sense to me.

God came down to earth as man, Jesus Christ, so He can be fully human, taking on our sins, and also being fully God, can die on the cross for us and conquer death, so we can be forgiven and given eternal life for those who accept this truth.

How do we know? Not from the Bible, but from the witnesses and accounts written in the Bible. From other history books that do not support Christianity, but have written about Jesus Christ and the miracles He performs. There is a system to (whats the word?) something like credit the validity of the books written to be true that scholars long ago used before allowing those books to be formed into what is now called a Bible.

God created the world. Big Bang?? Yes, I'd also like to know where all those dust came from to start the BB or the chemicals etc.
God didn't come from anywhere, He'd already existed. If someone or something made God, that someone/something would be God.
It's hard for us to imagine something to already exist, because our mind is finite. God is outside of time and is infinite. It is possible for Him to create the world.

I respect other religions, but if given the opportunity will tells others about mine. It's upto each individual person to weigh and assess the truth of what is being said, and accept or reject. (or be curious enough to find out more before making a decision)

God is a fair and a just God. Being fair and just, He will give us what we deserve if we reject the truth about His son, Jesus Christ.

Christianity is also being mixed up with other 'Christ-related' religion.
Alot of people would call Catholics Christians. But they aren't. They are Catholics. Totally different religion.
A Christian is someone who believes in:
- The Trinity: being God, the Father. God, the son, Jesus Christ,
and God, the Holy Spirit. And all are one God. (Worship of only one God)
- The truth of The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to save us
- After accepting the truth and asked to be forgiven, to live the life Jesus Christ wants us to live to thank Him and gloriy Him.

Most of all, I believe, it comes down to experience. You can tell someone all you want about your religion, but unless they have experienced it in someway or another (for some people, for others: if it makes more sense than other religions, then they may accept) will they be able to believe. I have experienced God, therefore it acts like a certainty and proof to what I believe.

As for those who have no beliefs, well, I don't know what to say.
All I know is that looking nature and the world, stars, sun, moon, there is no doubt in my mind, God had to have made such a complex universe. To come from nothing is ... unthinkable.
(By the way, The Big Bang Theory is called that because it's a only a theory, not an actual fact, right? But some schools pass it out as factual information rather than emphasising that is it only a theory.)

There was a guy (Journalist) called Lee Strobel who was against Christianity. So much to the point that he wanted to disprove its belief as much as possible. So he went and investigated it, and along the way, found so much evidence to support Christianity, that he came to believe it himself. And then he wrote a book about it.
The Case For Christ - Lee Strobel

** oh buGGa, if only I'll put just as much time as I did to typing this post up as elegantly as possible, I wouldn't be so stressed for my exams ..