|
It's Darwin week, on the Guardian's website (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
honestly though, you cannot mix science and religion. Its best to leave the two far appart. Relgion is based on beleif while science is based on factual empircal evidence.
You will always lose an argument to a creationist as in the end it comes down to belief. How do you prove belief? you cannot.. you just do or don't. |
I think I *sort of* agree with all of that (as long as I'm interpreting it right) - because religion certainly has no business trying to describe/explain things that science is profoundly better suited to, but science (at least good science) isn't going to compel or advance any kind of moral system (nor should it).
So if what you're saying is that science and religion talk about fundamentally different things and are therefore not mutually exclusive, then +1, hear hear, etc. :p |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
I think I *sort of* agree with all of that (as long as I'm interpreting it right) - because religion certainly has no business trying to describe/explain things that science is profoundly better suited to, but science (at least good science) isn't going to compel or advance any kind of moral system (nor should it).
So if what you're saying is that science and religion talk about fundamentally different things and are therefore not mutually exclusive, then +1, hear hear, etc. :p |
correct.. if you read my posts before you can understand my views on things. But you generally have the gist of it. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
mainly due to your lack of contribution to the thread :p |
That's because I'm short of time :toothless |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
honestly though, you cannot mix science and religion. Its best to leave the two far appart. |
This is why the so called 'creation science' is the biggest load of pish. Science makes no comment on the supernatural, the phrase 'creation science' is an oxymoron.
Although it seems to be posing as 'Intelligent Design' now... |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
This is why the so called 'creation science' is the biggest load of pish. Science makes no comment on the supernatural, the phrase 'creation science' is an oxymoron.
Although it seems to be posing as 'Intelligent Design' now... |
"Intelligent Design" has been around for a long, long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
I think I *sort of* agree with all of that (as long as I'm interpreting it right) - because religion certainly has no business trying to describe/explain things that science is profoundly better suited to, but science (at least good science) isn't going to compel or advance any kind of moral system (nor should it).
So if what you're saying is that science and religion talk about fundamentally different things and are therefore not mutually exclusive, then +1, hear hear, etc. :p |
but religion isnt good at describing anything either. oooh, theology - the study of the unknowable. religion just makes up, its useless at understanding anything in the spiritual or material world. |
|
|
| RickyM |
It's irrelevant how long it's been around for, it's just a fancy phrase to masquerade the fact that it's nothing more than religious nonsense. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but religion isnt good at describing anything either. oooh, theology - the study of the unknowable. religion just makes up, its useless at understanding anything in the spiritual or material world. |
What about conduct?
:conf:
I think there are plenty of great morality tales one can pull out of religious traditions, but unfortunately they're so easily corrupted for the purposes of man that as I'm sure you'll be all too eager to point out, the "is it really worth it" question definitely has a lot of points in the "no" category.
You know full well that I disagree with such a stance, but don't begrudge you for having yours what-so-ever.
And Ricky, the only reason I pointed that out is it seemed as though you were saying ID was a relatively new idea. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
What about conduct?
:conf:
I think there are plenty of great morality tales one can pull out of religious traditions, but unfortunately they're so easily corrupted for the purposes of man that as I'm sure you'll be all too eager to point out, the "is it really worth it" question definitely has a lot of points in the "no" category.
You know full well that I disagree with such a stance, but don't begrudge you for having yours what-so-ever.
And Ricky, the only reason I pointed that out is it seemed as though you were saying ID was a relatively new idea. |
yeah, but how do we understand and conceptualise these moral tales? how do we decide which tales have something to offer and which ones really dont? through reason. thus religion is completely superfluous to reasoned logic. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
intelligent design is rubish.. The watchmaker theory doesnt make sense. Evolution is based on random mutations as well as natural selection being based on probability and adaptability to a random environment.
There is also the mousetrap analogy which also falls apart nicely.
Its best to never let relgion and science conflict with eachother. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
This is why the so called 'creation science' is the biggest load of pish. Science makes no comment on the supernatural, the phrase 'creation science' is an oxymoron.
Although it seems to be posing as 'Intelligent Design' now... |
You guys are completely ignoring the fact that there are honest religious scientists:
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the guy who first proposed the Big Bang theory. And I'm sure you can find more religious geniuses in science, such as Isaac Newton ;) |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| sure but keep religion out of science.. thats all that im saying. |
|
|
|
|
