Religion is Religion
Science is Science
Talking about one in terms of the other is like using Geometry to explain Shakespeare. You're not using the right language.
Amen.
.....
Religion is Religion
Science is Science
Talking about one in terms of the other is like using Geometry to explain Shakespeare. You're not using the right language.
Not really. If you were to take a religious person who believes the bible wholeheartedly, for example, he could still use science to try to, say, prove that there really was a flood that drowned the earth. If you're just talking about the spiritual aspects of them (existence of god, angels, afterlife, free will, good/evil ect) then science can also overlap. For starters most of those things aren't mutually inclusive with religion, you can question the existence of a higher power without thinking in terms of religion at all. And science can be used to formulate arguments,hypothesize, make points ect ect.
It doesn't have to be thought of in terms of either one either. Like for example, in talking about the creation of the universe, many scientist accept the odds that all the events happened just as they did are extremely poor. Some may argue that it wasn't so random, and that maybe some outside variable influenced it somehow. Some may call it a "god" others may just think of it as something undefinable or unknown to us, just for an example. They can be defined in the others terms and then applied to them, it's not like comparing geometry to Shakespeare, there is some overlap between theology and science allowing parts of one to apply to the other.
Not really. If you were to take a religious person who believes the bible wholeheartedly, for example, he could still use science to try to, say, prove that there really was a flood that drowned the earth.
It doesn't have to be thought of in terms of either one either. Like for example, in talking about the creation of the universe, many scientist accept the odds that all the events happened just as they did are extremely poor.
According to what science tells us, there never was a global flood. And even IF there would have been a global flood, it wouldn't be any evidence that any religion would be true, unless there'd be a proof that this flood would have been the result of some sort of divine intervention.
[/QUOTE]You are right. The chance that things actually turned out like this are poor. People who thought that the concept of determinism was true would think that everything would always happen the same way, since it's all just a chain of events. But due to certain uncertainty principles on quantum scale, this is unlikely.
Still, that exactly we come into existence is unlikely doesn't prove anything again. Why? Let's try this example. Imagine you have a die with a near infinite number of sides. Side 1 means, that humans as we know come into existence. Side 2 means, that very furry humans come into existence. Side 3 means, that some sort of highly intelligent octopus come into existence. Side 4 means, that some sort of highly intelligent shrimp come into existence. And so on, for the remaining sides.
Now throw the die. Let's say it's a 4. The intelligent shrimp says "oh, what for a coincidence that exactly we came into existence. Someone must have done this on purpose." The shrimp thinks that you placed the die with the four up, to have exactly the shrimp come into existence, because you wanted exactly him. Because the chance of a four being thrown on a die with a near infinite number of sides is tiny, right? But the truth is: it was coincidence!
Now throw the die again. Let's say it's a 78, the number of the intelligent birds. The birds say "oh, what for a coincidence, that exactly we came into existence. Someone must have done that on purpose". But again: coincidence. The bird thinks he is special, because it's unlikely that exactly his species would be chocen. But again: you did NOT want specifically want the bird.
In our universe, nobody throws any dice. Instead, small events that put some randomness into the creation of the universe do the job. However, no matter how the universe turns out, no matter what tiny random events happen, if life is possible, life will teem. That is no coincidence. And life will adapt. And ask questions.
The universe was not created just for us. We are just the result of the progress of evolution. Well, not THE result, as that progress will never end. We are just the current stage of evolution, and how life fits onto this planet.
There is no single scientific evidence that supporst the existence of any deity. It's more the other way round. The more we learn, the less space there is for religion. Take the solar eclipse for example. Before science made us realize what it really is, people thought it was a sign from the gods. Or earthquakes: the gods are angry with us! Diseases? A curse! And so on and so on. Everything, of which people didn't know how it works, was explained with religion. And then we learned what it really was like, and realized that religion had nothing to do with it.
Too be fair to hoddesdon, there are many accepted theories for the existence of God that are backed up by science, but there are also many that make a solid argument against the existence of one. While things like the fine tuning argument (that the odds of the series of events leading to creation of the universe are so minuscule it would be hard to believe that it happened by chance) do make a very convincing case, there are counter arguments like the multiverse argument (that there is a generator that creates and infinite number of universes, inevitably leading to one that supports life like the one we live in).
You are right. The chance that things actually turned out like this are poor. People who thought that the concept of determinism was true would think that everything would always happen the same way, since it's all just a chain of events. But due to certain uncertainty principles on quantum scale, this is unlikely.
Still, that exactly we come into existence is unlikely doesn't prove anything again. Why? Let's try this example. Imagine you have a die with a near infinite number of sides. Side 1 means, that humans as we know come into existence. Side 2 means, that very furry humans come into existence. Side 3 means, that some sort of highly intelligent octopus come into existence. Side 4 means, that some sort of highly intelligent shrimp come into existence. And so on, for the remaining sides.
Now throw the die. Let's say it's a 4. The intelligent shrimp says "oh, what for a coincidence that exactly we came into existence. Someone must have done this on purpose." The shrimp thinks that you placed the die with the four up, to have exactly the shrimp come into existence, because you wanted exactly him. Because the chance of a four being thrown on a die with a near infinite number of sides is tiny, right? But the truth is: it was coincidence!
Now throw the die again. Let's say it's a 78, the number of the intelligent birds. The birds say "oh, what for a coincidence, that exactly we came into existence. Someone must have done that on purpose". But again: coincidence. The bird thinks he is special, because it's unlikely that exactly his species would be chocen. But again: you did NOT want specifically want the bird.
In our universe, nobody throws any dice. Instead, small events that put some randomness into the creation of the universe do the job. However, no matter how the universe turns out, no matter what tiny random events happen, if life is possible, life will teem. That is no coincidence. And life will adapt. And ask questions.
The universe was not created just for us. We are just the result of the progress of evolution. Well, not THE result, as that progress will never end. We are just the current stage of evolution, and how life fits onto this planet.
The problems with the multiverse theory are first, that there is absolutely no evidence to support it, and, second, its provenance is suspect because it only arose after the fine-tuning argument was recognized. That is, scientists do not want to accept the fine-tuning argument, so the multiverse theory was dreamt up as a way out. The conclusion came first, and then the explanation.
Not really. If you were to take a religious person who believes the bible wholeheartedly, for example, he could still use science to try to, say, prove that there really was a flood that drowned the earth. If you're just talking about the spiritual aspects of them (existence of god, angels, afterlife, free will, good/evil ect) then science can also overlap. For starters most of those things aren't mutually inclusive with religion, you can question the existence of a higher power without thinking in terms of religion at all. And science can be used to formulate arguments,hypothesize, make points ect ect.
It doesn't have to be thought of in terms of either one either. Like for example, in talking about the creation of the universe, many scientist accept the odds that all the events happened just as they did are extremely poor. Some may argue that it wasn't so random, and that maybe some outside variable influenced it somehow. Some may call it a "god" others may just think of it as something undefinable or unknown to us, just for an example. They can be defined in the others terms and then applied to them, it's not like comparing geometry to Shakespeare, there is some overlap between theology and science allowing parts of one to apply to the other.
I respectfully disagree. In my experience those in favour of religion cherrypick what Science they're interested in which is very unscientific. Those in favour of Science can't wrap their heads around the idea of a belief not based on logic or fact. They are not measurable in terms of each other. They're not comparable at all.
The votes for "God" and "both" together exceed the number for "Science". Since science says that God does not exist, you can include "both" with "God" since an atheist could only vote for "Science".
but you left out 'none'
'science' and 'none' together have more votes than 'god' and 'both' together
it's that sort of overlooking of the facts to suit your own purpose that causes you to lose credibility with the sciencey people
Since science says that God does not exist, you can include "both" with "God" since an atheist could only vote for "Science".
An agnostic could vote 'both'.