|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do we need science to back up religion? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I think the better question is "Can a religion which wishes to have a scientific backup support it's claims scientifically?" So far, this hasn't happened. The only reason any religions want to use science to strengthen their case is to get more people to follow the given religion. IMO it cheapens both religion and science to try to "prove" the Bible or the Talmud or the Koran with a science. If religion is based upon faith, then why does it need to be proven by modern science? Is faith so weak that it requires constant proving?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The belief in the worldwide Biblical Flood, for example, has no physical evidence to support it. YEC'ers believe in it first and then attempt to find support for a global flood in physical natural evidence while ignoring all evidence which points away from such an event. You can call it "interpreting evidence under a Biblical perspective" if you want to; it certainly sounds better phrased that way. At day's end, however, it's still and exercise in trying to prove the Bible true. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, should a child be denied a blood transfusion which would save her life (science/mind) because her parents follow a religion which forbids such procedures (religion/heart)? There need not be any struggle between science and religion. The only struggle which occurs is when religion demands that one must believe despite what science has discovered about the world. IOW, religions cause this struggle because they cannot or will not change and grow, and they demand that their followers keep their minds in ancient times. What kind of God/gods would take joy in followers who purposefully stunted their divinely-created intellects, choosing to remain ignorant and narrow-minded? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Not scientific evidence, Cobra. Philosophical evidence, perhaps, but nothing that will stand up to science. Doesn't make it less important, but it isn't fair, nor is it accurate, to imply that the evidence for the existence electrons (which any physicist can see for themselves by replicating the experiments) is the same evidence for the existence of God/s (which is purely subjective and subject to individual interpretation). Apples and oranges. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, if God decided it was good and moral behavior to murder and pilliage at will, would it then be considered perfectly OK to murder and pilliage? If you disagree that God would ever consider murdering and pilliaging at will good and moral behavior, then God, cannot possibly be the source of objective moral values. Morals must come from somewhere else if God is restricted in what God can declare what behaviors are moral.
quote: Really? How can I tell the difference between God making his existence known to me and my brain imagining that God is making his existence known to me? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, if it's a bad analogy, then the point doesn't remain the same. One uses objective, "anyone-can-get-the-same-results" methods, and the other relies on pure, subjective, individual, "all-happening-inside-the-individuals'-head-and-nobody-else's" methods. Apples and oranges. ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Except that it is OK to a lot of people (many of them Christians) to kill certain criminals, or to kill in the name of war, or to kill in self defense, etc. Infanticide is not considered murder in many cultures, actually.
[QUOTE]However, if the moral code was different, so would your opinion of what is right and wrong. For example, in this alternate universe it may be morally incorrect to give somebody a gift. In this universe, shrafinator might ask me, "What if God were to say that giving people gifts is OK?", in which case I would have to give the same explanation. Hopefully what I just said is not as confusing as I think it is.[/b][/QUOTE] No, not confusing at all, and logically consistent. I'm impressed! However, it is also not at all demonstrable that God is the source of morals. It is much more likely that cultures create their own moral codes. There are some univeral morals, but these can be explained through evolutionary means, as explained in Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: This works for Agnostics like myself, as well. I would also like to point out that it's possible to hod a belief in God, yet not believe that God is the source of all morals. If God is the source of everything, as many Christians believe, then He must be the source of all evil, as well. Otherwise the logic is inconsistent.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024