quote:

Originally posted by Lira Indeed, while there's some truth to what you're saying, the main problem here is the fact that some creationists try to inject their theological argument into science, when science shouldn't be involved in all this.

You are correct, and what they are doing is obviously wrong. Just as you believe strongly in the validity of science, they believe in Bible. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to shake a strong belief. How do you solve this problem ?

quote:

There's no certain definition over the nature of God(s in general), to begin with. There's pantheism, monotheism, polytheism, henotheism and so on. Different from other kinds of speculation (such as the nature of atoms, where atomic models are designed as a way to describe empirical observation), there's no possible observation or measurement about the nature of God. Therefore, God doesn't belong to science.

I would respectfully like to disagree with your conclusion. I would like to believe in the existence of a monotheistic view of God, since I am a believer in the existence of a single generalized principle that governs the workings of this universe. Modern Hindu thought recognizes monotheism to be a generalization of other -isms like henotheism and polytheism. I find monotheistic view to be congruent with science which believes in the existence of a generalized principle that governs all physical laws. Indeed, we have managed to generalize all physical interactions down to four basic elementary interactions (gravitation, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear interactions ). Efforts are on to show that all four interactions are in fact special cases of a generalized interaction.

Besides, I see religion as a generalized scientific method to quantify the properties of God. Sorry, if I sound crazy. But religion (or rather methods of observation and experimentation which are collectively termed as religion)is precisely the tool we need to analyze the concept of "God". If you take the post above this into context, I believe that religion is a grossly misunderstood concept. I strongly believe it to be a science. Infact, left to itself, science will start moving towards methods which are prescribed by religion. Religion is very abstract and beyond the scope of understanding unless we study it properly. Of course I don't understand religion that well either. But I am willing to give it the benefit of doubt and not dismiss it as worthless.

quote:

The discussion, mainly, is focused against creationists that believe creation happened exactly as it is depicted in a holy book (most often in our case, the genesis).

What you say is true. When people say that creation took place as depicted by the book of genesis, they seem to discount non-Christian theories, which is absurd. I think Christian believers today are too blind to even consider the existence other religions theories. Or for that matter, that the concept of creation necessarily has to be universal and not confined to a Christian religion book. For 2000 years, the church forced its belief and interpretation of Bible on people because of its own vested interests. After two millennia of brain washing, it has become impossible to shake people's belief.

quote:

Edit: Before it sounds like I believe science is superior, or something like that, I'd like to state that I don't believe science should interfere with religion either.

I think at the fundamental level, science and religion are essentially the same

All this might sound crazy to you, but I base all my understanding of religion on Hinduism and not Christianity. I can assure you that the Hindu views on religion are quite different from those of Christianity.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M I think at the fundamental level, science and religion are essentially the same All this might sound crazy to you, but I base all my understanding of religion on Hinduism and not Christianity. I can assure you that the Hindu views on religion are quite different from those of Christianity.

That's cheating though. All knowledge systems are, at a fundamental level, the same. It's a basic problem with any form of acquiring, maintaining or creating knowledge. If you start debating at this point, then you will get nowhere, because there is nowhere to go. Everyone has to make assumptions. The advantage science confers is that the later knowledge developed from its basic assumptions usually validate it's assumptions. Sounds like circular logic, but look at it this way. Take gravity, you can't see it, you can't touch it, you can't measure it directly. But we assume that it is a force that pulls bodies towards the center of the earth, and we also assume that under certain conditions the speed is 9.8m/s. Those are assumptions that have created a wealth of knowledge. Some of that knowledge is directly measurable, such as your body falling from a plane and the speed at which you are falling. You're falling at the speed stipulated by the assumption, confirms the assumption. Religion IMO doesn't validate it's basic assumptions with the knowledge created from them. There is no way of measuring, direct or indirect, the knowledge created from religions basic assumptions. Therefore, there is no way of even indirectly confirming religions assumptions. This is way science is a more robust knowledge system than religion.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M Are you generalizing your statements to include the entire religious structure ? Or you are limiting them only to believing Christians ?

For the essence of the issue of "Intelligent Design" vs. "Darwinism", your whole digression about religion as a whole is superfluous.

The "ID" camp who are trying to force it into curricula are all protestant christians, usually evangelicals. What Hindus or Buddhists believe is not consequential to the debate because they are not on either side of the issue at hand.


MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M It is my opinion that religion is grossly misunderstood. Religion is a rigorous formalism and every bit scientific. In its true form, religion is the highest level a philosophy can attain. You have to give it it's due credit. After all, religion claims to have solved the problems which have riddled man since eternity. Christianity asks you to be too much of a believer and frankly, I find the declarations of creationism and God quite skewed. This is not what I understand a religion should teach you to be : a blind believer.

what on earth are you smoking? religion isnt the least bit scientific how on earth can you argue a belief system that relies primarily on faith is scientific? how can you not be a "blind believer"? the only way not to be a "blind" believer is to have a knowledge of religion. big deal. you're still blind.

religion is the most unsubstantiated nonsense that has ever held sway in the world. to call it even remotely scientific is utter nonsense. religion has fought against scientific discovery EVERY step of the way, as science has completely undermined traditional areas of religious influence and explanation. that isn't scientific. science is about evaluating evidence, not ignoring obvious truths in favour of dogma.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M i think at the fundamental level, science and religion are essentially the same

no. science is an evolutionary project, dynamic in its behaviour. religion is dogmatic and static, and injects superstition into the "unknown", as if faith is some kind of virtue, rather than illogical and unsubstantiated nonsense. we are surrounded by scientific marvels that make our life easier everyday, to say that religion is on an equal level with such obvious examples of scientific truth is completely disingenuous.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I never really understood why people still debate about this in North America,

I just want to jump in here for a moment,

I read recently that the Pope visited Brazil (your country) a couple weeks ago, and millions of people showed up to hear him preach about "morality" and God. Reports show that Latin America, particularly Brazil, is overwhelmingly religious.

Normally I would have agreed w/ your comment about "North America" but this report makes it look like you're ignoring your own backyard.

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

Last edited by HardTranceProd on May-28-2007 at 00:25

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd I just want to jump in here for a moment, I read recently that the Pope visited Brazil (your country) a couple weeks ago, and millions of people showed up to hear him preach about "morality" and God. Reports show that Latin America, particularly Brazil, is overwhelmingly religious. Normally I would have agreed w/ your comment about "North America" but this report makes it look like you're ignoring your own backyard.

True, Brazil is indeed a religious country , but Christian values here seems to be quite different from those in North America. This whole "Creationist vs. Evolutionist" debate is virtually unheard of down here (reason why I wrote that). I've never, ever, heard the mainstream media saying anything about it... and the only public figure to have uttered the word "Intelligent Design" (a defeated candidate to the government of Rio de Janeiro), as far as I know, was criticised for making such comments. As a matter of fact, if you re-read the news, you'll see that the Church is worried about its declining popularity, and that Brazilians Welcome[d] Pope but Question[ed] His Perspective

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd I just want to jump in here for a moment, I read recently that the Pope visited Brazil (your country) a couple weeks ago, and millions of people showed up to hear him preach about "morality" and God. Reports show that Latin America, particularly Brazil, is overwhelmingly religious. Normally I would have agreed w/ your comment about "North America" but this report makes it look like you're ignoring your own backyard.

That's irrelevant. There is no discussion in Latin America about placing creationism in the science classroom, which is the point of contention in this discussion. Yes, Latin America is a predominantly catholic 'continent', so? What's your point? People can be religious and not disagree with scientific tenants. Most Latin Americans are catholic, but very few practice and even fewer subscribe to a literal interpretation of the bible. So again, your argument is misplaced.

Edit: Damn it lira, you beat me to it

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

Sorry, Venom

(and I'm preparing a reply as soon as I finish my homework, Omega )

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

The Catholic Church is actually very "liberal" when it comes to the recognition of generally held scientific theory. They tend to look at things like evolution as being 'guided' by the hand of God if I remember an article I read about it at one point.

"The Church" has been burned enough times in the last 400 years by calling scholars and scientists "heretics" only to later change doctrine to become more in line with the knowledge of the day. One of the largest supporters of astronomy and the study of the origins of the universe is actually the Catholic church.

"Intelligent Design", "Creation Science", "Creationism", and "Genesis literalism" are all evangelical protestant rallying points. Even the established non-evangelical protestant religions support the catholic view of most sciences.

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Why does there have to be a purpose?

Because the universe seemingly is purposeful.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Because the universe seemingly is purposeful.

I haven't noticed it

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail I haven't noticed it

Things seemingly exist for some purpose. Think about irreduciable conplexity. The body cannot function if any one vital organ is destroyed. Each is serving a specific purpose that affects the entire system. Systems imply order. And by that notion, if we applied to the entire universe, it is one gigantic system so huge, we can't even comprehend it. The sun is a system, surrounded by a solar system of planets, that each are in themselves systems. The solar system is then a part of milky way galaxy, which is an even larger system. That's why I say the universe has purpose.

___________________