1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Celtkin, May 19, 2008.

  1. DOLPHAN1

    DOLPHAN1 Premium Member Luxury Box

    i think science in it's truest nature is an attempt to understand what has been "created". which came first; the egg or the chicken?
     
  2. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    18,892
    11,589
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    Well said Kelly.

    IMO, science is our way of investigating what is not overly evident.

    Brother Gish, Keith (Ohio) is the only member on the board who has a strong background in both ideas that we are discussing in this thread. We can learn a lot from everyone here but he is uniquely qualified to discuss the balance between religion and science.

    For my part, I am a religious scientist who has a background in evolution from the perspective of a molecular biologist. None of my science learning dissuades me from accepting a reasonable compromise that allows science and religion to live together.
     
  3. n9necount

    n9necount New Member

    538
    140
    0
    Nov 26, 2007
    I think the biggest road block in these discussions is almost always when it boils down to Strict Creationism vs Strict Atheism. When this happens, both parties may as well continue the debate with a brick wall. Science as a whole and Religion as a whole however, are not mutually exclusive. Science does not dissprove prove God and does not try to.
     
  4. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,739
    22,200
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    "Science is trying to discover that, which God already knows."

    That's what I thought when I read the title of the thread and a few posts.

    Does science attempt to explain the afterlife? Spirits, ghosts, etc.? I know science has been used to try and spot it (on TV etc.) but does it attempt to explain why, not if, the afterlife exists?

    I ask this, because, some crazy stuff happened to my family about 15 years ago with my sister and two "spirits." Mind you, I am skeptical of ghost stories, and even if you told me one today, I'd probably be skeptical too. but I know what I saw, what my family went through, and everything that happened. I don't expect anyone else to believe it, because I am of the same skeptic opinion. My parents are the Catholics in the strictest way, but we were forced to go to a buddhist "medium" so to speak (these things are common in Vietnam and that has followed here to the US) for an exorcism (just typing that word scares me since the movie of the same name has traumatized me since I was a kid). Lets just say it played out over several weeks, and there's been some incidents after.

    I ask because I see it as somewhat related to science's view of religion.
     
  5. n9necount

    n9necount New Member

    538
    140
    0
    Nov 26, 2007
    Interesting story you have there, but I have a bone to pick with that quote "Science is trying to discover that, which God already knows.""

    The quote is simply wrong because Science doesn't try to discover anything that "God already knows" because it's taking a grand assumption that God exists to begin with, and Science does not work off assumptions. The burden for proof is always on the party making the claim, NOT "This is what I believe, now prove me wrong".

    And also, speaking from only a Physics background.

    No to the afterlife. What evidence, exactly, do we have to work with to answering that question? As far as ghosts are concerned, we cannot begin to explain ghosts, spirits, etc because the few evidence we have of the matter has been in most cases thoroughly debunked and or/inconclusive. So until further evidence that can be documented and tested emerges, as far as Science is concerned, it's a folk story.
     
  6. BigDogsHunt

    BigDogsHunt Enough talk...prove it!

    22,603
    9,988
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    DC Metro Area
    yeah, I posted this earlier, but its why I think this says it best:

    SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT AT ODDS. SCIENCE IS SIMPLY TOO YOUNG TO UNDERSTAND.

    As Science uncovers more and more it gains on the "belief system"!!!! I dont think it comes down to proving or disproving Religious ideals.
     
  7. n9necount

    n9necount New Member

    538
    140
    0
    Nov 26, 2007
    No offense, but I have a problem with that statement. You make it sound like Science is just not "there yet". It's taking into assumption that for one, God exists and we are too stupid. And two, that over time we will believe.

    This is all based off faith, which is not in the realm of Science. As Scientists, this is a dangerous mentality to endorse.
     
  8. BigDogsHunt

    BigDogsHunt Enough talk...prove it!

    22,603
    9,988
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    DC Metro Area
    What you infer and what I stated are not the same. I made no such statement. Science is young...its learns more and more each day.

    I stated its not about proving or not proving Religioius belief systems. I cant be anymore clear than that.

    I dont have an agenda here.
     
    n9necount likes this.
  9. n9necount

    n9necount New Member

    538
    140
    0
    Nov 26, 2007
    Oh, I agree with you on that :up: I just disagree with that quote.
     
    BigDogsHunt likes this.
  10. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,739
    22,200
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    I'm no scientist, so entertain me for a bit. Science doesn't work off assumptions? Is that right? I thought science was based on assumptions. Unless you mean all scientific discoveries are accidental, aren't theories etc. based on assumptions, then the scientist goes about testing and then proving or disproving those? Einstein said E=MC2. We all know that. But if it wasn't corroborated for 103 years, what was everyone doing since then? Assuming it was true? Did Einstein assume it was true when he put the pen to the paper? Again, I'm no scientist, so feel free to call me an idiot and that I'm 100% wrong.

    About my statement and your bone to pick, I didn't really throw that out there for the ol' "I believe this and I'm right you prove me wrong" bit. Just threw it out there for fun, no meaning or substance behind it :) It's more, "this is what I believe, and you're free to also believe it, or don't. That's fine. We're still cool. :knucks:"

    About the afterlife, that's what I'm saying. The thread is about the mixing of Science and Religion. Does one render the other obsolete. To me, religion involves the afterlife. Spirits - good or evil. I guess if science is not trying to prove the existence of God, then yes, it wouldn't with the afterlife as well.

    As for my story, yeah, like I said, if you told me the exact same story, I'd say, "meh I don't believe it really." Know this. I am what I consider to be a very rational, normal person. I experienced this over 3 weeks and believe 100% what I saw not in a flash, but had to deal with. Including my whole family, my ex-gf and a dozen friends (she was dating my buddy at the time, who was the one who brought her to me when it happened).

    Do I tell you this so you believe me? No. I fully expect you not too, because I wouldn't believe you :lol: But when I think about God, then I think about Science and how compelling sometimes the arguments against his existence are, I think about this and how it is unexplained and can never be proven. Yet it isn't something I believe on faith or assume. It is something I experienced and saw with my own damn eyes.
     
  11. Soundwave

    Soundwave Phins Sympathizer..

    7,856
    3,222
    113
    Apr 15, 2008
    Science, in the end seeks to understand the nature of God.

    Because God understands all of the math.

    IMHO
     
  12. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,692
    619
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    I think science can contradict a literal interpretation of the bible.

    Evolution goes directly against the story of genesis. While i believe it is possible a god(i would consider myself agnostic) can exist if you accept evolution to be correct i do not believe you can interpret the story of genesis literally.
     
  13. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,692
    619
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    studying cooking must also be seeing to understand god. as god would understand all food would he not?
     
  14. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,692
    619
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    the way you use the word theory is incorrect. The word you are looking for is hypothesis. a hypothesis doe not become a theory until it AFTER it undergoes a monstrous amount of testing and analysis.

    you can say hypotheses(not sure what the plural of hypothesis is....) are based on assumptions(by definition it is an educated guess), but they don't effect the experiment one way or another, as it is discarded if proved incorrect.

    The reason people followed einstein's equation is it fit. They couldn't say WHY it worked, just that it worked. Something my chemistry teacher always says, Science only cares about if it works.
     
  15. Soundwave

    Soundwave Phins Sympathizer..

    7,856
    3,222
    113
    Apr 15, 2008
    correct

    and time has nothing to do with infinity and jelly doughnuts.
     
    Dannyg28 likes this.

Share This Page