[Mars]

So religion is philosophy?

Is science a philosophy?

Dunno Webster probably knows. It's looking like both fall under the category.

I feel like saying that moderate Muslims support female circumcision is a bit of a stretch.

Yeah, it was a bad argument from the get-go. I have conceded it.

[NGTM-1R]

'Moderate' Christians largely believe in, or at least don't speak out against circumcision

I'm not entirely clear on why having a snipped willy is so bad, anyways, although that may have been Kazan's failure to communicate.

[Unknown Target]

'Moderate' Christians largely believe in, or at least don't speak out against circumcision

I'm not entirely clear on why having a snipped willy is so bad, anyways, although that may have been Kazan's failure to communicate.

Lol.

[Nuclear1]

'Moderate' Christians largely believe in, or at least don't speak out against circumcision

I'm not entirely clear on why having a snipped willy is so bad, anyways, although that may have been Kazan's failure to communicate.

Some people need as much as they can get down there.

[Mars]

That is a separate discussion for a separate time.

[Unknown Target]

I don't know, I think it's just as deathly serious as the original topic.

[Mars]

That is a separate discussion for a separate time thread.

Fixed

[Unknown Target]

That is a separate discussion for a separate time thread.

Fixed

Modify button, top right.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Such as saying that God created man, when science says that man evolved from the ape?

[Mikes]

The problem with science/religion debates is it descends to attacking personal beliefs, which gets really personal and people get offended when core ideas/identity get attacked.

My opinion firmly remains that really both groups are foolishly fighting over the totem poll of "truth maker," the problem is how the hell you define or make truth? Then it goes into the philosophical problems, and you get nowhere because you run into paradoxes. Then reality doesn't make sense anymore and everyone starts hitting their heads against walls.

The fundamental difference is that science has no inherent problems if one truth turns out to be "wrong" - the contrary... the whole point is to question everything and only accept as truth what can be rationally explained and verified. (Which in no way rules out the possibility that one theory gets replaced by an even better and more complete explanation as our understanding of the universe grows.)

If a religious truth turns out to be proven wrong...  all the fundamentalists got their panties in their bunch again and wish they could still burn people on a stake.

And while one can certainly argue that science in no way contradicts the belief in a higher power as such... the use of the scientific method certainly already uncovered several rational explanations that do not only contradict, but outright prove wrong several of the "truths" that can be found in some books that some men wrote down a few thousand years ago. (Big surprise lol)


What science can not do... is tell us how to become better persons or build better societies. More efficient ones? Yes... but "better" ones? Once you discuss what is "better or worse" for human societies you quickly reach the limits of science. 

That is I believe where a lot of the misunderstanding comes from... science is "NOT" a philosophy as such. Science can't tell you what "good or evil" is.

Religion has no problems with clear definition of "good and evil"...   yet decreeing what is "good and evil" and telling people what to do from a position of absolute divine authority - as it has so often been done in the past - is itself rather questionable - or even "evil itself - when seen through the lens of philosophy and ethics.


In summary... we can't disregard the scientific method if we don t want to go back to the dark ages.
We can't do without some kind of moral system to glue our societies together either...
... but we sure could do without religion if philosophy and ethics were there  to pick up the slack.

My prediction? The harder a religion tries to fight against verifiable facts the quicker that religion will find itself become irrelevant in the eyes of any educated person.
(... and the more it will have to depend on fundamentalism and fanatism if it doesn't want to simply cease to exist.)

[NeoKnight]

Such as saying that God created man, when science says that man evolved from the ape?

Both can be true. The Bible says that God created man in one day. However, Christians believe that God transcends space and time; therefore, one day from God's perspective (the only entity existing at the the inception of the universe according to the Genesis account) might not have any correlation to an actual 24-hour period; one "day" from an infinite spirit's frame of reference could very well be millions of years from ours. Thus, it's very well possible that God created Man over the course of millions or even billions of years, using evolution as his tool.

In the narrative account outlined in the first chapter of Genesis, God creates organisms in order of ascending biological complexity; first plants, then sea creatures and birds, then mammals, and finally man himself. This follows the basic pattern of the macroevolution theory proposed by the modern scientific community. Because some basic theological inspection reveals that the time-frame of Biblical creation is not (necessarily) restricted to a mere week, Christians can be fully reconciled with both scientific and religious beliefs by rejecting the notion that God utilizes the human definition of a day in working his miracles.

I know many Christians who believe that God made the universe by creating a dense mass of matter and energy that rapidly expanded and cooled, as conjectured by the Big Bang Theory (first proposed by a Catholic Priest and approved by the synchronal Pope btw). Evolution then took its course until the Earth had formed and life had evolved to the state of an intelligent primate. Then God selected the most evolved, intelligent, and advanced individual and gave it a soul, naming it "man." When a female primate reached a similar state, he gave it a soul and named it "woman."

I find this theory very interesting because it contradicts neither science nor religion. Like I said, the two are not mutually incompatible.

[Unknown Target]

Eh, religion - to be honest even if they're right on something they've still got all of the other baggage that I just don't agree with.

Science, well, science allows for the possibility of religion - after all, you are never 100% sure in science.

The mods are people's choices.

[Flipside]

Such as saying that God created man, when science says that man evolved from the ape?

Both can be true. The Bible says that God created man in one day. However, Christians believe that God transcends space and time; therefore, one day from God's perspective (the only entity existing at the the inception of the universe according to the Genesis account) might not have any correlation to an actual 24-hour period; one "day" from an infinite spirit's frame of reference could very well be millions of years from ours. Thus, it's very well possible that God created Man over the course of millions or even billions of years, using evolution as his tool.

In the narrative account outlined in the first chapter of Genesis, God creates organisms in order of ascending biological complexity; first plants, then sea creatures and birds, then mammals, and finally man himself. This follows the basic pattern of the macroevolution theory proposed by the modern scientific community. Because some basic theological inspection reveals that the time-frame of Biblical creation is not (necessarily) restricted to a mere week, Christians can be fully reconciled with both scientific and religious beliefs by rejecting the notion that God utilizes the human definition of a day in working his miracles.

I know many Christians who believe that God made the universe by creating a dense mass of matter and energy that rapidly expanded and cooled, as conjectured by the Big Bang Theory (first proposed by a Catholic Priest and approved by the synchronal Pope btw). Evolution then took its course until the Earth had formed and life had evolved to the state of an intelligent primate. Then God selected the most evolved, intelligent, and advanced individual and gave it a soul, naming it "man." When a female primate reached a similar state, he gave it a soul and named it "woman."

I find this theory very interesting because it contradicts neither science nor religion. Like I said, the two are not mutually incompatible.

Indeed, in fact, there is a passage in the Bible that states that trying to apply Human time to God is a futile thing to do:

‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

Peter 3: 8-9

[Mongoose]

And when you add in the fact that, from a literary perspective, the Genesis creation story was written in a very allegorical-myth style, there's no real reason for anyone to be seeing contradictions between it and basic scientific knowledge.  Not that that doesn't stop the fundie-types from doing so, much to my chagrin...

[Luis Dias]

So religion is philosophy?

Is science a philosophy?

No. It's better.

[General Battuta]

So religion is philosophy?

Is science a philosophy?

Dunno Webster probably knows. It's looking like both fall under the category.

I feel like saying that moderate Muslims support female circumcision is a bit of a stretch.

Yeah, it was a bad argument from the get-go. I have conceded it.

We need more people as sane and reasonable as you.

[Luis Dias]

And when you add in the fact that, from a literary perspective, the Genesis creation story was written in a very allegorical-myth style, there's no real reason for anyone to be seeing contradictions between it and basic scientific knowledge.  Not that that doesn't stop the fundie-types from doing so, much to my chagrin...

Which Genesis creation story? The first one or the second one?

'Cause they aren't even compatible between themselves, let alone with the "universe" at large.

[Mars]

Yeah, it was a bad argument from the get-go. I have conceded it.

We need more people as sane and reasonable as you.

Thank you!

I actually feel bad for making such an unfounded and inflammatory argument in the first place. I aspire to rational beliefs, and I suppose catching myself late is better than never.

[General Battuta]

It's the best you can do. Humans are ineptly wired for any sort of rational discourse (it's actually pretty much impossible), and after spending a few years mucking around in the scientific quantifications of our many flaws and departures from the cognitive ideal I've mostly given up on it.

We're all wired for belief, and we're blind to our own blindnesses - ignorance is invisible, conviction is self-perpetuating. The best we can do is patch up our mistakes in this respect after the fact.

[redsniper]

But if we're aware of these flaws, we can watch out for them and compensate for them!