|
2 registered members (TipmyPip, izorro),
556
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: Why_Do_I_Die]
#207005
05/17/08 02:12
05/17/08 02:12
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Well we arent good , and thats the problem That's also an assumption which we are unable to prove right or wrong. Thus it stands as YOUR starting assumption but not a consensus on humanity. nd if there is no real good or bad , then how can you punish the act ? Punishing is for children; by the time you are 22 years or older, you are "hard wired" and no amount of punishment will change you. Now if your viewpoint is that all humans are "children" that need to "be told what to do", then this makes sense. But that is not my assumption. Should we put in jail animals for killing other animals ? Non-sense question: Starting with an absurd statement you will naturally end with an absurd statement. o , morality cannot exist without GOD So God doesn't exist accoding to you: Yes , and then you realize the world you are living in today , where the human race is basically enslaved Which shows that we are an immoral race. Hence, since humans lack morality, God cannot exist. The morals we have today , have all stemmed from religion , thye have provided a moral template so correct our judicial system still follows it's same rules, if we are to just forget about religion The judicial system is derived from a religious moral set, that is correct. However, it has ALREADY forgotten about religion. Thus you won't find that killing is wrong for it's the second commandment, but that killing is wrong because it negatively affeects the social fabric. So in conclusion, your points are: 1) Morality cannot exist without God. We live in an immoral time. Hence God doesn't exist. 2) Without religion, the judicial should be dropped. However the judicial system already has dropped religion and it's still very much around.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: AlbertoT]
#207006
05/17/08 02:24
05/17/08 02:24
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
" science and religion inhabit "to non-intersecting planes "
IMHO It is absolutly false for the reason explained above Making hypothetic scenarios about a topic already as subjective as "love" and "religion" will get us no where. The problem is that I can state the following completely opposite statement... "Science will never be able to understand how love is mapped in the brain" ... and there is no way for either of us to move forward since both statements are unprovable and merely assumptions. Maybe one day , neuro scientist will throw the sponge Maybe they will be forced to admit that human coscience entails the existence of a spiritual entity Exactly! We don't know which way it's going to go and thus any good scientist cannot dismiss science. They simply can't because then they are making a factual decision (god doesn't exist) based on no data and rather "feelings" or "intuition"... and that is the mark of bad science! Sticking to non-hypothetical scenarios, I maintain that as long as religion and gods have not been scientifically disproven (how that can be done I have NO idea) and as long as there are mysteries that science does a poor job of explaining if at all, then my statement holds true and religion can compliment science's weaknesses.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: AlbertoT]
#207008
05/17/08 02:30
05/17/08 02:30
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
You are making a circular reasoning If our behaviours, emotions, feelings, in one word , if our " coscience " is fully controlled by our brain activity than it does not make any sense to claim " He may not want" since his will and his brain are the same stuff
I really don't get your point here. Okay, we can safely assume that our conscience is in our brain. Next, we assume that we have a perfect understanding of this concscienceness, so I can point to the brain and say "there is love", "there is hate". The fact that we understand the brain doesn't mean that we change it, so if I'm a killer today, why would that understanding not make me a killer tomorrow? I'm sorry but I'm still no following how understanding, a passive act, would lead to direct behaiviour change, an active act.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: fastlane69]
#207021
05/17/08 07:31
05/17/08 07:31
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
We don't know which way it's going to go....
We dont know which way science is going to go, do you mean ? Exactly but we know that the final judgment on religion depend on this way Should neuro science prove , beyond any reasonable doubt, that "soul" is not necessary to explain human coscience, than you can draw yourself the consequence Sooner or later religion and science will intersect, this is what I meant You said that "Science will never be able to understand how love is mapped in the brain" Sorry but this is not a scientific approach Some women affected by cerebral diseases could not recognize anymore their children They were self standing, up to a ceratin extent but their sons turned into strangers
Last edited by AlbertoT; 05/17/08 07:33.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: AlbertoT]
#207032
05/17/08 09:09
05/17/08 09:09
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
We don't know which way it's going to go....
We dont know which way science is going to go, do you mean ?
Yes, but amended with "Or religion". We don't know at this point in time in human and scientific history if religion has the upper hand or science; 3000 years of the former vs. 300 years of the latter and still things are equal when it comes to sin, morals, good, and evil. IM(not so)HO, today, at this point in history, it could go either way. I know which way "I" want it to go, but there is no way to point to science or religion as "THE" definitive answer just yet. Thus -- ironically, beautifully, paradoxically -- the scientist in me MUST accept the possibility of religion as an answer until it it is discredited by our own rules (ie: unless religion is discredited scientifically... somehow). You said that "Science will never be able to understand how love is mapped in the brain"
Sorry but this is not a scientific approach Absolutely correct and I stand corrected. That was a gross hyperbolization on my part and I was trying to make a point with too much poetic license. I thus rescind my earlier statement and change it with: "Science MAY never be able to understand how love is mapped in the brain" and thus religion remains a viable alternative until such time. Does this work better for all?
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: fastlane69]
#207037
05/17/08 09:45
05/17/08 09:45
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819 U.S.
Why_Do_I_Die
Warned
|
Warned
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819
U.S.
|
"That's also an assumption which we are unable to prove right or wrong. Thus it stands as YOUR starting assumption but not a consensus on humanity."
Well thats also YOUR assumption about things.
It can't be proven right or wrong ? So you are saying there have never been murders , rapes , war , genocide ? None of this things have happened ? Wait , are you saying we dont know if people who commit this crimes are good or bad people ? If we were good , there would be no crime , we wouldn't do it , but even with the heavy police force , militaries , and secret services , you have crime happening left and right at an enormous rate , and penetantiaries are constantly full , this is sufficient evidence to conclude human beings are not good and pure hearted , so it can be proved , it was just proven , and it shows your perversed method of analizing things only acording to what you have in mind as you type , withought fully evaluating anything your saying.
"Punishing is for children; by the time you are 22 years or older, you are "hard wired" and no amount of punishment will change you. Now if your viewpoint is that all humans are "children" that need to "be told what to do", then this makes sense."
So we don't have a government , laws , and a judicial system which "punishes" people who dont "obey" the laws ? We don't have jails where we put our "bad" citizens in for a couple of years so they will learn their lesson? Are you saying our government views it's citizens like children and that's why they punish/encarcerate/kill them ? So your saying if a cop pulls up behind you with his lights on you just keep going ? LOL . I'm sure you'd stop and obey every single one of the officers orders and requests , or you'd go to jail right ? So , are you saying you are a child who gets treated like one by his government and it's system ?
"Non-sense question: Starting with an absurd statement you will naturally end with an absurd statement."
Really ? This is nonsense ? LMFAO. So you first state we ARE animals , decendants from monkeys, then state encarcerating animals is non-sense , but putting people in jail (ALSO ANIMALS) is perfectly fine and normal ? See how you and your theory completely and utterly contradict themselves to the point where it doens't make any sense , you however , ignore this because it's in your face and make like it isn't there.
"So God doesn't exist accoding to you:
Quote: Well we arent good
Quote: Yes , and then you realize the world you are living in today , where the human race is basically enslaved
Which shows that we are an immoral race. Hence, since humans lack morality, God cannot exist. "
Twisting words around to make a pointless and might I say irrational statement. The bible states , the world is in the hands of the devil , thats why there is a massive lack of morals.
"So God doesn't exist accoding to you"
Are you saying you did not understand what I meant ? I think a child could understand the meaning of what I wrote , but I see for a science fan , it's too much. So here it is , in simplest terms possible: If we are the product of bacteria, and evolved bacteria ,we have no soul , and there is no other life realm for us , we are not devine , and we are not spiritual , we are chemical , and there is no good or bad or right or wrong , and if there is no wrong , then anything you do is right. I hope you understood that , if not , read it 30 to 40 times and i'm sure it'll sink in.
"Which shows that we are an immoral race. Hence, since humans lack morality, God cannot exist. "
God knows this , THATS WHY THERE IS A BIBLE . Because we sinned , since our beginnings , we were created to be perfect , BUT SINNED , we are dissobidient , and God knows this , hence there is a bible and a code of rules and morals to live by , for us to abide by , withought this , we would all be cannibals by now. Death was brought by sin , all stated in the Bible , it was our punishment.
Now , you that know so much about science , after annylizing how our system works , and how it rejunivantes itself constantly ,recreated cells , remaking itself , dont you wonder why we still die ? Our body has the full potential to live forever , There is no reason for any cells to grow old , it has the capacity to remake any cells it could want over and over , we could be eternal , but there is a reason we arent , but we dont know hwat it is. No one knows why the body starts slowing down it's process after time , there is technically no reason for it , we can continue leeching energy from the planet forever , but our body doesnt allow it , it's intention is not to be eternal , but it definately could if it was.
"The judicial system is derived from a religious moral set, that is correct. However, it has ALREADY forgotten about religion. Thus you won't find that killing is wrong for it's the second commandment, but that killing is wrong because it negatively affeects the social fabric."
That is again , your opinion , according to evolution , killing is not wrong, it is a process and part of life , and killing a weaker specimen is survival of the fittest , so that is just your opinion , of course , since you cannot justify killing without sounding like a psychopath , you make up a reason for why it's not right , but you fail to remember in a purely scientific world there is no wrong or right , so that proves your statement completely wrong and contradictory of your believes.
"1) Morality cannot exist without God. We live in an immoral time. Hence God doesn't exist. 2) Without religion, the judicial should be dropped. However the judicial system already has dropped religion and it's still very much around."
#1 Already explained how your argument has no base or sense.
#2 Yes , that is because society and scientists are complete hypocrites. They are asking the citizens to abide by laws of religion and teaching religion is false , but they must do this because in the evolutionist world you cannot have this laws because they contradict the theory , views , and believes of this system , there is no right or wrong and that means they cannot stop anyone from doing anything or put people in jail for anything , it basically rids the governing bodies of any authority to dicipline it's population. So what do they do , they keep the old and wise system , keep deceiving people , and keep pushing their non-sense and contradictory religion/science theory. Oh yeah , and lets not forget , they dont follow any of this rules/morals , they do as they please , only the civilians follow this (Religion Based) code of conduct and ethics , the government bodies and people in power do whatever they want whenever they want and are untouched, that is , because they dont believe in God , but they need the people in line , so they preach the laws of God , while they act by the laws of Satan.
And , you support all this fastlane ?
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: fastlane69]
#207051
05/17/08 13:24
05/17/08 13:24
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
still things are equal when it comes to sin, morals, good, and evil.
Right, but you can provide an explanation in the frame of the theory of evolution "comandaments" which are supposed to have a divine origin might be nothing else than a set of rules for the progress and the defense of the comunity I make a simple example Islam claim that you are not allowed to eat pigs while you must cut the throat of other animals and let them bleeding before eating them It is evident that this has much more to do with "health" rather than with " religion "
Last edited by AlbertoT; 05/17/08 13:34.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: AlbertoT]
#207108
05/17/08 19:04
05/17/08 19:04
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Right, but you can provide an explanation in the frame of the theory of evolution As usual Alberto, we agree on 100% of the facts but come up with different conclusions. And my point is that any explanation in the frame of evolution vs. any explanation in the frame of religion will still lead to the same behavior and thus morality is unchanged. I may understand how it's happening and I may even know how to change it but that doesn't mean I won't do it. Consider an example of this: we know/suspect that the pre-frontal cortex is where memories reside. People with amazing brain skills, savants or not, show unusual behaiviour in this area of the brain. So lets assume then that this is fact. Does this in any way help me remember better or recall lost memories? No, my brain functions the same with or without that understanding. Now let's take the arguement a small step in your original direction and assume that this pre-frontal assumption is correct and we state "there is memory 1", "there is memory 2", etc... ie: we understand that wiring on the pre-frontal. What then? How has my behavior changed any with this knowledge? I maintain that it doesn't, that knowing this about your brain does not affect your brain. Likewise, knowing where love and hate are located in the brain will do nothing to eliminate or strengthen those feelings... thus free will remains... thus evil continues... and as I've stated the others you mentioned, sin, salvation, heaven and hell, these are religious constructs that have no bearing on our brain... ie: IMO it is impossible to point point in the brain "there is sin" or "there is salvation" whereupon we both agree that it is not impossible to have our brains mapped at some near or distant future.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: fastlane69]
#207111
05/17/08 19:52
05/17/08 19:52
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
There is one point where we agree 100% You said
" the scientist in me MUST accept the possibility of religion as an answer until it it is discredited by our own rules (ie: unless religion is discredited scientifically... somehow)."
Even though I am not a religious guy I disagree with many modern scientists It seems to me that they consider their duty to prove that God does not exist rather than going wherever experiments and theory lead to. An example Some physical constants must have the exact value, with a very narrow tollerance range , otherwise our universe could not exist The explanation of some scientists is....the multiuniverse....my God it is at limit of ridicoulus IMHO It would be more serious to claim that an intelligent architect has set these parameters for us, or even better ...we dont know ...
Getting back to the original topic , probably I did not explain myself well, since what I was saying is so obvious that anybody must agree
Suppose that human beings are just " machines " ..I am not saying they are, I said..suppose The difference between a robot a monkey and a man is just a matter of some bilions neural connections
Would it still make sense for Jesus Christ to die on the cross (salvation)? To send some machines, pardon some people to heaven and someone else to hell ? To speak of sin ?
Nope it is evident
Religion entails " free will " and free will entails the existence of "soul" and soul entails that human mind is not made of neurons only
Neuro science is still young, we will see
Last edited by AlbertoT; 05/17/08 19:59.
|
|
|
Re: compatibility of science and religion
[Re: Why_Do_I_Die]
#207112
05/17/08 19:54
05/17/08 19:54
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377 USofA
fastlane69
OP
Senior Expert
|
OP
Senior Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,377
USofA
|
Wait , are you saying we dont know if people who commit this crimes are good or bad people ? I That's correct. According to which religion or world-view you follow, the following can be good OR bad, criminals or citizens: medical doctors, soldiers in iraq, policemen on-duty, and murder in self-defense. All do or have done what we would normally consider to be "bad" (killing another human) and yet we don't punish them because we also consider what they have done as "good". This is because motivation is a hard thing to pin down and even the most horrible of "bad" crimes may be motivated by "good" reasons (as in the case of the sexually abused killing their abusers) you have crime happening left and right at an enormous rate , and penetantiaries are constantly full , this is sufficient evidence to conclude human beings are not good and pure hearted , Accusing me of not analyzing things? Mr. Kettle, my name is Mr. Pot and I call you black! I've never seen you do a single bit of analysis so you'll forgive me if I hardly feel judged by you in this respect. Here's some analysis: There are about 10M people in prisons around the world. There are about 6.6B people in the world. Now then maybe you can explain to me how the fact that .001% of the worlds population is in prison proves that we as a race are evil exactly?? We don't have jails where we put our "bad" citizens in for a couple of years so they will learn their lesson? Ah, thanks. I knew that if you kept talking you'd eventually stumble onto the point. Here's some analysis: According to a survey 67.5% of all incarcerated individuals were rearrested within 3 years, and 51.8% were back in prison. So perhaps you can explain to me how this statistic shows that they have "learned their lesson"? So you first state we ARE animals , decendants from monkeys, then state encarcerating animals is non-sense , When you have an undisciplined mind that can't differentiate between a monkey and a human and ask me to treat one like the other, then yes, this is non-sense. A monkey is not a human and thus should not be treated as such. Conversely, a human is not a monkey and thus should not be treated thus. The fact that you can't see this difference lends a lot of insight into your overall worldview on evolution... for if you can't accept how monkeys and humans are different, that humans ARE monkeys, then it's no surprise evolution is ridiculous to you.. Twisting words around to make a pointless and might I say irrational statement. The bible states , the world is in the hands of the devil , thats why there is a massive lack of morals. Twisting or logic? You decide: Did you not say that there is no morality without god? 1. no god = no morals Did you not say (many times) that we live in a world with no morals? 2. current world = no morals Then doesn't it logically follow that there is no god? 3. current world = no god Please correct my logic. God knows this , THATS WHY THERE IS A BIBLE Again I ask you: which bible and which translation says that? If we are the product of bacteria, and evolved bacteria ,we have no soul Unfounded assumption. I can state that bacteria do have souls and there is nothing you or I can say to prove or disprove that point. Our body has the full potential to live forever Unfounded assumption. I can state that our body lacks the full potential to live forever and there is nothing you or I can say to prove or disprove that point. dont you wonder why we still die ? No, I just accept it. Remember that I don't deal in WHY but rather in HOW. And I know how we die... the why is entirely subjective and up to the individual. No one knows why the body starts slowing down it's process after time , there is technically no reason for it You are right, we don't know why... but that is because in science we don't deal in why but how. But as far as not knowing how, there you are very wrong and the death gene proves it. That is again , your opinion , according to evolution , killing is not wrong, Evolution makes no such moral statements so this is an invalid assumption. Furthermore, evolution is about balance so there are times when killing is non-optimal (such as killing the mother of your genetic offspring) and times when killing is optimal (such as feeding). since you cannot justify killing without sounding like a psychopath , Sure I can: I'm hungry... there is nothing to eat but animals... I kill animal. No god. No right or wrong. Just basic human instincts. However if I'm hungry and there is nothing to eat but other humans... then yes that does make you a psychopath. But that behaiviour has been evolved out of us over millenia so that this happens only in the most extreme and rare of cases (such as the Donner Party or the Airplane crash in the Andes) and does not reflect the norm for human kind. And , you support all this fastlane ? If you can restate your point in an organized fashion and without the use of any questions, then I'll comment. As it stands, you are asking me to make a blanket statement on a lengthy paragraph and don't know exactly what I'm supporting or not! So if you can restate your points clearly and without questions, I will address them. Of course you will see this as a failure on my part and a victory on yours, but indulge me and bullet point your points so I can address them and not chase after red herrings.
|
|
|
|