Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Can religion tell us more than science?
97 Answers
What we believe doesn't in the end matter very much. What matters is how we live.... The last paragraph from the link below.
A very well written article by the BBC that has not made my view even wobble about the validity of the differing philosophies of science and religion.
Although, correctly, it presents science as imperfect and therefore on a par with religion (which to be fair is also presented as imperfect), it only briefly touches on the fundamental difference - that science will change it's beliefs forever in the face of incontrovertible proof or evidence, something which religion will never do as it's tenets are revered as being solid and permanent. Religion regards challenging current beliefs as a sign of weakness and fights it with reinforcement, science reveres this as the way to future enlightenment.
I'm interested in your thoughts...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470
A very well written article by the BBC that has not made my view even wobble about the validity of the differing philosophies of science and religion.
Although, correctly, it presents science as imperfect and therefore on a par with religion (which to be fair is also presented as imperfect), it only briefly touches on the fundamental difference - that science will change it's beliefs forever in the face of incontrovertible proof or evidence, something which religion will never do as it's tenets are revered as being solid and permanent. Religion regards challenging current beliefs as a sign of weakness and fights it with reinforcement, science reveres this as the way to future enlightenment.
I'm interested in your thoughts...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14944470
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ll_billym. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanard //The the imperative for a reason the universe exists is the requirement for a repository for a valued-beyond-reason possession, we humans. Both divisions of Scripture clearly indicate the love the Creator has for us//
Sigh.
Are you familiar with the concept of circular logic? You "proved" there is a reason for the universe existing and hence a creator using the book that is the entire evidence for a creator.
The Bible is not evidence for anything.
Sigh.
Are you familiar with the concept of circular logic? You "proved" there is a reason for the universe existing and hence a creator using the book that is the entire evidence for a creator.
The Bible is not evidence for anything.
Clanard //The earliest Church father's all attest to their authorship. Many scholars, far more knowledgable that I accept the fact without doubt. //
Such is the nature of doctrine. Anyone who did not toe the line would be at least expelled and in many cases, executed for heresy.
The absence of doubt is the Achilles Heel of all Biblical debate and is quite evident in the rubbish you spout.
Such is the nature of doctrine. Anyone who did not toe the line would be at least expelled and in many cases, executed for heresy.
The absence of doubt is the Achilles Heel of all Biblical debate and is quite evident in the rubbish you spout.
Clanad, with all due respect, it's absolute nonsense to suggest that SETI's failure to locate life in the universe provides evidence for the absence of life. The most recent estimates indicate the universe is home to some 500 billion galaxies, each containing many billions of stars - 200 billion in our own galaxy, our neighbour, Andromeda, contains a massive 1 trillion stars, and the largest galaxy ever discovered a mind-blowing 100 trillion stars. NASA estimates that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe (I don't think I've left any odd zeros off!). Without concentrating for more time than I have to spare, I can't even put words to that figure - and I'm not sure I could even if I had the time!
Taking your estimate of 6%, that's an awful lot of stars that are potentially similar to our own sun - and an awful lot of potentially life-bearing planets. I hesitate to say this, but go figure.
No, religion cannot tell us more than science.
Taking your estimate of 6%, that's an awful lot of stars that are potentially similar to our own sun - and an awful lot of potentially life-bearing planets. I hesitate to say this, but go figure.
No, religion cannot tell us more than science.
SETI has been looking for a very short time if you consider the age of the uninverse. Moreover it can only hope to find quite close sources due not only to the signal weaking over distance but the fact the signal would need to have been sent a very long time ago.
Any civilisation sending the signal would have to make a lucky choice to send itin our direction or be dedicating a huge amount of energy to the project.
Any civilisation sending the signal would have to make a lucky choice to send itin our direction or be dedicating a huge amount of energy to the project.
Seems I'm not the only one that misses points... my reference to SETI had nothing to do with, nor anything to say about its success sofar. It was offered only to illustrate the criteria for any such success as being "design". The same application of the aspects of design for the entire Universe, is, however denied. it just appears that way... it's just a fluke... an accident... so there!
Again, I'm well aware of the estimates of the stars in the universe... however, again there are severe limits on when and where a planet like Earth can develop. Man, for example has appeared in the optimum time frame during the life of our star... and it's very short indeed. But then, no one cares to check any other references for the limitations and yet I'm the one that is relying only on mythological sources.
Have a nice day!
Again, I'm well aware of the estimates of the stars in the universe... however, again there are severe limits on when and where a planet like Earth can develop. Man, for example has appeared in the optimum time frame during the life of our star... and it's very short indeed. But then, no one cares to check any other references for the limitations and yet I'm the one that is relying only on mythological sources.
Have a nice day!
Clanad - thank you for that last to me, more of a sermon than an answer to anything I have asked. If you can identify any of the gospel writers, not only would I be grateful, I'd be astonished; so would the rest of NT scholarship and you would be a famous man. Enough of that, which I have dealt with at length before. Back to my questions:
1.Why does the existence of the universe have to have a reason?
2.What is that reason?
The best answers from theists up to now are:
1. Because nothing happens without a reason.
2. Because God wanted it so.
Can you do better than that? If not, then let's forget it.
1.Why does the existence of the universe have to have a reason?
2.What is that reason?
The best answers from theists up to now are:
1. Because nothing happens without a reason.
2. Because God wanted it so.
Can you do better than that? If not, then let's forget it.
Clanad, it seems to me you were saying despite millions of dollars being spent, SETI has come up with nothing - which of course is true. I thought that was your point.
I've read your link to Professor Watson's paper. He is basing his hypothesis purely on the 4 billion years of the earth's existence, and is applying the same criteria to any other planet that may harbour life. Human life on earth may be unique in its evolutionary timescale - I don't know - but he certainly overlooks the fact that other planets in other areas of the universe may have been in existence for almost 14 billion years - and therefore may have been inhabited long before the earth existed. His is a very limited vision. I agree with Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute, who said, “We have, of course, only one example of intelligent life (indeed, of life of any type). That means we cannot possibly estimate from this single instance what is the probability of life on other worlds unless we are completely confident we understand all the relevant evolutionary processes. Watson argues that intelligent life will be dismayingly rare: there is no way to prove that is true. On the other hand, if the converse is the case – if the galaxy is home to many intelligences – that is amenable to proof.”
I've read your link to Professor Watson's paper. He is basing his hypothesis purely on the 4 billion years of the earth's existence, and is applying the same criteria to any other planet that may harbour life. Human life on earth may be unique in its evolutionary timescale - I don't know - but he certainly overlooks the fact that other planets in other areas of the universe may have been in existence for almost 14 billion years - and therefore may have been inhabited long before the earth existed. His is a very limited vision. I agree with Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute, who said, “We have, of course, only one example of intelligent life (indeed, of life of any type). That means we cannot possibly estimate from this single instance what is the probability of life on other worlds unless we are completely confident we understand all the relevant evolutionary processes. Watson argues that intelligent life will be dismayingly rare: there is no way to prove that is true. On the other hand, if the converse is the case – if the galaxy is home to many intelligences – that is amenable to proof.”
Naomi... for a large number of reasons, no planet, or life can have existed for 14 billion years. One of the major reasons has to to do with the different "Population" stars. There are, generally, 3 populations of stars with variants within at least Population II type stars. Our own sun (Sol) is a Population I star and only Population I stars can support life. Ours is roughly 4.8 billions of years old (same age as its galaxy). It had to be seeded from the deaths of multitudes of preceding stars. Some astrophysicists believe they have detected ancient Population III stars (The Population numbers refer to their discovery and Population III stars are the oldest) but all agree that those oldest of stars had no heavy metal content.
In addition to the requirement for a star such as ours to be a Population I star, it must be a main sequence star... roughly middle age. It's surmised our star will last a total of roughly 10 billions of years and it's about 3/8ths of the way through that.
All I'm saying is that there are multitudes of reasons that there are few possibilities for older galaxies, suns and planet systems to have developed life of any kind, much less advanced life...
Add to that that most galaxies are globular cluster types and one very soon limits possibilities even more....
Consider... if our sun existed just a fraction of a percent further in or out in its place in a spiral arm of our galaxy... no life could exist. This is why, as I attempted to state to chakka, that life on Earth is a rare event (not rare in amounts). I see design, you see happenstance.
Chakka, if you viewed my answer as a sermon, I apologize... sort of... it was a testimony to what has occurred in my life.
Your two answers pretty well sum up what I've been trying to impart. To add anything to your simple statment results in only more analogies.
I get to say, however, you've not addressed my question as to why even the earliest copies carry the names of the authors... Matthew, Mark Luke and John. Why do all the church "fathers" (those students of the apostles and students of the students of the apostles) verify them as the authors with no digression? Why do multitudes of scholars with a lengthy list of Phd's. following their names conclude the same thing. I understand fully that you can present scholars who argue against them... so, who's right?
It's my judgement that given the extraodinary evidence for the existence of Yeshua and his impact on history, something extremely unique occurred 2,000 years ago. It's also my judgement that the words he spoke were truth, but I denigrate no one who chooses differently.
Just don't give as an answer many of the old wives tales at which I'm sure that even you must cringe... The foremost of which includes believers are easily led by the nose, can't think for themselves and only want a warm, fuzzy security blanket. Some of my closest Christian friends are captains of industry, scholars and at least two are (were) hardened criminals who were changed by the love of Yeshua... none of which would be thought of in the terms used by those who want only to belittle any believer.
Thank you for your patience...
In addition to the requirement for a star such as ours to be a Population I star, it must be a main sequence star... roughly middle age. It's surmised our star will last a total of roughly 10 billions of years and it's about 3/8ths of the way through that.
All I'm saying is that there are multitudes of reasons that there are few possibilities for older galaxies, suns and planet systems to have developed life of any kind, much less advanced life...
Add to that that most galaxies are globular cluster types and one very soon limits possibilities even more....
Consider... if our sun existed just a fraction of a percent further in or out in its place in a spiral arm of our galaxy... no life could exist. This is why, as I attempted to state to chakka, that life on Earth is a rare event (not rare in amounts). I see design, you see happenstance.
Chakka, if you viewed my answer as a sermon, I apologize... sort of... it was a testimony to what has occurred in my life.
Your two answers pretty well sum up what I've been trying to impart. To add anything to your simple statment results in only more analogies.
I get to say, however, you've not addressed my question as to why even the earliest copies carry the names of the authors... Matthew, Mark Luke and John. Why do all the church "fathers" (those students of the apostles and students of the students of the apostles) verify them as the authors with no digression? Why do multitudes of scholars with a lengthy list of Phd's. following their names conclude the same thing. I understand fully that you can present scholars who argue against them... so, who's right?
It's my judgement that given the extraodinary evidence for the existence of Yeshua and his impact on history, something extremely unique occurred 2,000 years ago. It's also my judgement that the words he spoke were truth, but I denigrate no one who chooses differently.
Just don't give as an answer many of the old wives tales at which I'm sure that even you must cringe... The foremost of which includes believers are easily led by the nose, can't think for themselves and only want a warm, fuzzy security blanket. Some of my closest Christian friends are captains of industry, scholars and at least two are (were) hardened criminals who were changed by the love of Yeshua... none of which would be thought of in the terms used by those who want only to belittle any believer.
Thank you for your patience...
Clanad, the suggestion isn't that life on any particular planet has existed for 14 billion years, simply that there's no reason to assume it may not have evolved at some time during the lifespan of a planet. Suns die, and planets with them, but others continually emerge, and for some the road to evolution is just beginning, so it's rather short-sighted to assume that the young earth is the first planet in the long history of the universe to have produced life, or that life elsewhere requires the same criteria to evolve and survive. There are creatures on our own planet that exist in conditions totally alien to human beings, so if it happens here, why not elsewhere? You see design because it suits you to do so. I see logical reasoning. Contrary to the popular belief held within some circles, our planet cannot be exceptional.
//given the extraodinary evidence for the existence of Yeshua and his impact on history, something extremely unique occurred 2,000 years ago.//
If extraordinary evidence existed there would be no doubt and we wouldn't be arguing. There is no verifiable evidence - extraordinary or otherwise.
//given the extraodinary evidence for the existence of Yeshua and his impact on history, something extremely unique occurred 2,000 years ago.//
If extraordinary evidence existed there would be no doubt and we wouldn't be arguing. There is no verifiable evidence - extraordinary or otherwise.
Naomi, how many things do believe that have no evidence let alone extraordinary evidence? What I mean is this: you believe, from what I can gather from your postings, that life arose on other planets and was transported here. (If I've misunderstood, I apologize). What's the evidence for that?
More to the point... if you drive a car, you believe the car hurtling towards you on a two lane road with a closure rate of over 100mph will stay in their lane and not crash head-on to you. What's the evidence?
More to the point... if you drive a car, you believe the car hurtling towards you on a two lane road with a closure rate of over 100mph will stay in their lane and not crash head-on to you. What's the evidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal
The SETI 'Wow!'
The SETI 'Wow!'
Clanad, No, you haven't misunderstood. I think there's a distinct possibility that people from other planets came here in the past - in fact I think it highly likely that your god was one of them. The abundance of cave paintings, rock drawings, artefacts, 'impossible' structures, etc, etc, that exist on this earth - not to mention the plethora of ancient traditions and ancient texts - including the bible - from practically every corner of the globe, lead me to that conclusion. Having said that, although I find the subject intriguing - and the possibility very exciting indeed - and I do think that by dismissing the theory without proper investigation we are ignoring a vital link to our past - my conclusion is not 'faith', and therefore I would be very happy to be proven wrong.
I don't understand your reference to the car crash. When I'm driving I don't 'believe' other cars will stay where they're supposed to be. I just hope they will.
I don't understand your reference to the car crash. When I'm driving I don't 'believe' other cars will stay where they're supposed to be. I just hope they will.
God visiting? Now I am worried about you Naomi. ;-)
The liklihood of anythng visiting us across the vast expanse of space that separates us from other stars is incredibly remote. If you really had any idea of the enormity of these distances you would understand this.
Artworks have always been done by humans and there are no structures on the planet beyond the capabilities of the people at the time.
The ancient traditions (pointless rituals) and confused texts are hardly inspirional to any but the primitives of the time and their indoctinated descendents. I see mainly ignornace, bigotry and prejudice in the old texts.
The liklihood of anythng visiting us across the vast expanse of space that separates us from other stars is incredibly remote. If you really had any idea of the enormity of these distances you would understand this.
Artworks have always been done by humans and there are no structures on the planet beyond the capabilities of the people at the time.
The ancient traditions (pointless rituals) and confused texts are hardly inspirional to any but the primitives of the time and their indoctinated descendents. I see mainly ignornace, bigotry and prejudice in the old texts.
beso, I am well aware of the enormity of the distances - structures do exist on this planet for which there is no explanation - and I find it very sad when supposedly scientific minds, which ought to be curious, dismiss the artwork and the writings of the ancients without applying them to current knowledge - but then you clearly haven't taken the trouble to investigate the subject as well as I have.
Latest Posts
Music1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Star Wars Quix...f A O Mozz....
Film, Media & TV14 mins ago
Body & Soul20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.