What Can I Give My Dog For Tooth Pain?
Animals & Nature2 mins ago
Science?!?
Is it possible to believe in both Evolution and in God as well? Eg. Scientist have claimed that earth was formed from a big bang and humans evolued from other animals and they say the have evidence to prove it whereas we have the holy books such as the Bible saying that God created world in seven days and seven nights and then the first Humans, Adam and Eve?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lanesra. 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.
Hello Lanesra,
Yes, it is possible to believe in both - up to a point, but I don't think we will ever really know how it all began.
Science is probably right about the big bang that sent everything swirling off into space to create the universe, but there must have been something there to go 'bang' in the first place. That doesn't help us to understand life on earth as we know it, with our thoughts, feelings etc. Evolution seems very likely, but does it matter?
As I see it the Bible is partly factual, but mainly deep-thinking symbolic work of teachers and writers and it has to be interpreted. Humans have always tried to explain the inexplicable and that's where Gods and faith come into it. There are many things beyond human understanding.
Yes, it is possible to believe in both - up to a point, but I don't think we will ever really know how it all began.
Science is probably right about the big bang that sent everything swirling off into space to create the universe, but there must have been something there to go 'bang' in the first place. That doesn't help us to understand life on earth as we know it, with our thoughts, feelings etc. Evolution seems very likely, but does it matter?
As I see it the Bible is partly factual, but mainly deep-thinking symbolic work of teachers and writers and it has to be interpreted. Humans have always tried to explain the inexplicable and that's where Gods and faith come into it. There are many things beyond human understanding.
It is possible to believe anything that can be imagined or that one has been told but that does not make it so. If you wish to bridge the divide between your beliefs and what is actually real and true it is knowledge that you must pursue. The first step in this process requires that you learn what knowledge is, how it is acquired as well as the process of verification that is the scientific process that provides a degree of certainty based on non-contradictory integration of observed data.
The belief in God requires that beliefs be given the same weight of certainty without regard for the lack of evidence as well as voluntary disregard for any evidence to the contrary. Such beliefs are attributable to faith which relies entirely on its own belief that what one wishes or feels to be true shares equal status with the knowledge gained through the integration of observed and measured phenomena.
Therein lies the difference between scientific facts and religious dictates. Science does not demand that one believe anything. Science provides us with an account of the means by which evidence has been obtained and seeks to disprove its findings rather that hold dogmatically onto a belief. This practice adds veracity to the knowledge it has previously obtained while providing us with new knowledge when exceptions to its finding are observed through innovative and creative experimentation designed for this purpose.
The belief in God requires that beliefs be given the same weight of certainty without regard for the lack of evidence as well as voluntary disregard for any evidence to the contrary. Such beliefs are attributable to faith which relies entirely on its own belief that what one wishes or feels to be true shares equal status with the knowledge gained through the integration of observed and measured phenomena.
Therein lies the difference between scientific facts and religious dictates. Science does not demand that one believe anything. Science provides us with an account of the means by which evidence has been obtained and seeks to disprove its findings rather that hold dogmatically onto a belief. This practice adds veracity to the knowledge it has previously obtained while providing us with new knowledge when exceptions to its finding are observed through innovative and creative experimentation designed for this purpose.
to put this simply, the THEORY of evolution is still a theory which means its unproven and of course the idea of god and the religious belief system is also unproven so its all a matter of faith either way, a scientist that believes that evolution is true is nota real scientist just a sheep. whether or not evolution exists, there was a first modern human being which originated in africa and was dubbed the name adam. its possible to believe in god and be a scientist, you could say that god started the big bang and created evolution, evolution is really a journey not a "how" so you can believe in one or the other or both at the same time, you can't prove either you can create evidence for both if you want something to be true you'll find evidence.
It would be an utter waste of time to try to integrate science and religion.
SCIENCE helps us to understand ourselves and our surroundings. It helps us to improve our lifestyle.
RELIGON helps us to be a good person. It draws the line between good and bad.
DO NOT MIX BOTH. This would only lead to unnecesary arguments.
While Science gets its followers by giving profs and evidence (evolution and the big bang have overwhelming amount of evidence just read more and you will know what i'm speaking about), Religion gets its followers by threat.
(which is why the Heaven and Hell concepts exist).
While Science prevents us from devolving into cavemen, Religon teaches us to love & respect life.
SCIENCE helps us to understand ourselves and our surroundings. It helps us to improve our lifestyle.
RELIGON helps us to be a good person. It draws the line between good and bad.
DO NOT MIX BOTH. This would only lead to unnecesary arguments.
While Science gets its followers by giving profs and evidence (evolution and the big bang have overwhelming amount of evidence just read more and you will know what i'm speaking about), Religion gets its followers by threat.
(which is why the Heaven and Hell concepts exist).
While Science prevents us from devolving into cavemen, Religon teaches us to love & respect life.
"Religion DOES teach us (some of us) to love and respect life".
<DO NOT BLAME RELIGION FOR THE ACTIONS OF SOME CRAZY FOLLOWERS>
Without proper religion we would be living like heartless cannibals. Different religions helped the different civilizations to mature ethically.
Think of the number of crimes that have been prevented by religion.
To all the jihadists and crusaders does your religion ask you to kill your fellowmen?
<DO NOT BLAME RELIGION FOR THE ACTIONS OF SOME CRAZY FOLLOWERS>
Without proper religion we would be living like heartless cannibals. Different religions helped the different civilizations to mature ethically.
Think of the number of crimes that have been prevented by religion.
To all the jihadists and crusaders does your religion ask you to kill your fellowmen?
Dr. Robert Jastrow, who received his A.B., A.M and Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Columbia University and was founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has written a number of books. One is entitled God And The Astronomers and deals at length with this question. He concludes his book with this often quoted statement "He (the inquiring scientist) has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
There's a large body of both scientists (usually from the hard sciences) as well as theologians of all stripes that find no reason to be at odds with one another.
Both recognize the limits of their own inquiries and find many answers in each others philosophies. In general, they have a fairly good understanding of each others source materials. This is especially important in discourse.
I'd quote Jastrow again "... Although I am an agnostic, I still find much to ponder in the view expressed by the British astronomer E. A. Milne, who wrote, "We can make no propositions about the state of affairs [in the beginning]; in the Divine act of creation God is unobserved and unwitnessed."
There's a large body of both scientists (usually from the hard sciences) as well as theologians of all stripes that find no reason to be at odds with one another.
Both recognize the limits of their own inquiries and find many answers in each others philosophies. In general, they have a fairly good understanding of each others source materials. This is especially important in discourse.
I'd quote Jastrow again "... Although I am an agnostic, I still find much to ponder in the view expressed by the British astronomer E. A. Milne, who wrote, "We can make no propositions about the state of affairs [in the beginning]; in the Divine act of creation God is unobserved and unwitnessed."
Right and wrong are not determined by the percepts dictated within ancient text nor by the mindless uncritical absorption of words written by who knows who. Right and wrong are discovered by analysis of what principals brought us through and out of the intervening dark ages enabling us to survive up to this point in our history from which we can examine the vices and virtues inherent in those 'guiding' principals.
Right and wrong are determined by what contributes to the survival and wellbeing of a creature with the ability to choose in the face of options to choose from. Knowledge provides us with the options and a respect for the virtues of reason and the incorporation of those virtues into the decision making process enable us to determine what our choice should be.
Right and wrong are determined by the outcome of our actions based on what we choose to believe is right and wrong thereby demonstrating to us whether those beliefs share a correspondence with reality. Right and wrong determine whether we continue to live to enjoy the benefits of choice for as long as we are able to choose wisely and act accordingly to the extent that proves necessary for us to do so.
Individually right and wrong are determined by and determine whether you live within reason and provide you with a reason to live.
As a species right and wrong are determined by and determine whether we continue to thrive and inhabit our earned and rightful place in the universe or suffer the fate of a premature and self-imposed extinction.
Right and wrong are determined by what contributes to the survival and wellbeing of a creature with the ability to choose in the face of options to choose from. Knowledge provides us with the options and a respect for the virtues of reason and the incorporation of those virtues into the decision making process enable us to determine what our choice should be.
Right and wrong are determined by the outcome of our actions based on what we choose to believe is right and wrong thereby demonstrating to us whether those beliefs share a correspondence with reality. Right and wrong determine whether we continue to live to enjoy the benefits of choice for as long as we are able to choose wisely and act accordingly to the extent that proves necessary for us to do so.
Individually right and wrong are determined by and determine whether you live within reason and provide you with a reason to live.
As a species right and wrong are determined by and determine whether we continue to thrive and inhabit our earned and rightful place in the universe or suffer the fate of a premature and self-imposed extinction.
I think, mibn2cweus, the evidence flies in the face of your well coifed proposition. The fact is, that man is the only animal observed to display altruism... this contradicts the self-preservation dictated by Darwin as well as giving lie to the belief that 'right and wrong are determined by what contributes... etc." If that were true, then man would still be living by the 'law of the jungle'... truly the survival of the fittest. Altruism, which is universally observed in humans and never seen (at least in undisputed cases) in other species can only be explained by the observance of 'Natural Moral Law'.
In discussions such as this, I'm always amazed at how the fact of universality is either overlooked or ignored. "Moral Normativity" is one of the basis for determining if examples of prehistoric hominids achieved the status of Homo sapiens. Art, burial modes and familial structure are all universal, and observed in humans from the earliest recognizable remains.
The noted Philosopher, Robert Adams (The Virtue of Faith) makes the cogent argument that:
1. Moral Facts exist
2. Moral Facts have the property of being objective and non-natural
3. The best explanation for there being objective and non-natural Moral Facts is theism.
4. Therefore, the existence of Moral Facts provides a good basis for believing theism is true.
Contd.
In discussions such as this, I'm always amazed at how the fact of universality is either overlooked or ignored. "Moral Normativity" is one of the basis for determining if examples of prehistoric hominids achieved the status of Homo sapiens. Art, burial modes and familial structure are all universal, and observed in humans from the earliest recognizable remains.
The noted Philosopher, Robert Adams (The Virtue of Faith) makes the cogent argument that:
1. Moral Facts exist
2. Moral Facts have the property of being objective and non-natural
3. The best explanation for there being objective and non-natural Moral Facts is theism.
4. Therefore, the existence of Moral Facts provides a good basis for believing theism is true.
Contd.
Contd.
Further, rightness or wrongness pertains to actions and they are non-natural since they cannot be explained by the sciences. Since the right-wrong concept is unknown among animals, why would it be expected to evolve for our species alone when it is self defeating for propagation? Why is it even there in the first place? Why is altruism seen only in humans and why is it recognized as the ultimate in virtues in every society?
It certainly can't be denied that wrongness exists in all societies (Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) but the deeper question is "from whence emanates the recognition and condemnation of wrongness?"
Further, rightness or wrongness pertains to actions and they are non-natural since they cannot be explained by the sciences. Since the right-wrong concept is unknown among animals, why would it be expected to evolve for our species alone when it is self defeating for propagation? Why is it even there in the first place? Why is altruism seen only in humans and why is it recognized as the ultimate in virtues in every society?
It certainly can't be denied that wrongness exists in all societies (Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) but the deeper question is "from whence emanates the recognition and condemnation of wrongness?"
"The noted Philosopher, Robert Adams (The Virtue of Faith) makes the cogent argument that:
1. Moral Facts exist
2. Moral Facts have the property of being objective and non-natural
3. The best explanation for there being objective and non-natural Moral Facts is theism.
4. Therefore, the existence of Moral Facts provides a good basis for believing theism is true. "
Nice! Dodgy assumption followed by naturalistic fallacy followed by begging the question. Both classy and convincing.
In any case, your argument is wrong-footed from the very off. Altruism has been observed in the animal kingdom on countless occasions -- a quick Google will assist -- and whilst there can be altruistic acts, there cannot be altruistic motivations, only enlightened self-interest.
Good cut and pasting from Amazon, by the way.
1. Moral Facts exist
2. Moral Facts have the property of being objective and non-natural
3. The best explanation for there being objective and non-natural Moral Facts is theism.
4. Therefore, the existence of Moral Facts provides a good basis for believing theism is true. "
Nice! Dodgy assumption followed by naturalistic fallacy followed by begging the question. Both classy and convincing.
In any case, your argument is wrong-footed from the very off. Altruism has been observed in the animal kingdom on countless occasions -- a quick Google will assist -- and whilst there can be altruistic acts, there cannot be altruistic motivations, only enlightened self-interest.
Good cut and pasting from Amazon, by the way.
To further elucidate on Waldo's point about there being no such thing as altruistic motivations . . . altruism is a fallacy derived from context removal. If a mother risks her life to save her baby from harm, this is not a selfless act but a refusal to live with the loss of a child whose life she might have been able to save.
For those who have managed to achieve and maintain a modest level of self-esteem, most recognise that the value of having self-worth is not to be sacrificed on the alter of living the rest of ones life with a self that they despise. This is why brave soldiers are eager to risk their own lives if necessary to defend the rights and freedoms that bring honour to those who understand that human dignity is what is at stake. It is a shame and an outrage when soldiers are asked or forced to fight without or even against such noble causes.
The fallacy of altruism is thrown in the face of those who value there own life no less than anyone else's in an attempt to crush self-esteem thus making them pawns to be used by those who see the wielding of power as an end in itself, devoid of reason which is the only justification for its use.
The only truly selfless act possible is to turn against reason and destroy ones self, not in an attempt to leave this world a better place than one found it but for no reason at all.
For those who have managed to achieve and maintain a modest level of self-esteem, most recognise that the value of having self-worth is not to be sacrificed on the alter of living the rest of ones life with a self that they despise. This is why brave soldiers are eager to risk their own lives if necessary to defend the rights and freedoms that bring honour to those who understand that human dignity is what is at stake. It is a shame and an outrage when soldiers are asked or forced to fight without or even against such noble causes.
The fallacy of altruism is thrown in the face of those who value there own life no less than anyone else's in an attempt to crush self-esteem thus making them pawns to be used by those who see the wielding of power as an end in itself, devoid of reason which is the only justification for its use.
The only truly selfless act possible is to turn against reason and destroy ones self, not in an attempt to leave this world a better place than one found it but for no reason at all.
Lanesra - you mention Adam and Eve - I think this is the crux.
It is possible to move religious interpretations around to accomodate new science.
It is simply not possible though to accomodate a literal interpretation of a religious text like the bible with science.
Incidently Mrstephensons assertion that evolution is just a theory because it has theory in the title shows breathtaking ignorance.
That is just a historical title. We still have the General and Special theories of relativity and they have been demonstrated time after time - satnav relies on them. We do not go back and rename things
It is possible to move religious interpretations around to accomodate new science.
It is simply not possible though to accomodate a literal interpretation of a religious text like the bible with science.
Incidently Mrstephensons assertion that evolution is just a theory because it has theory in the title shows breathtaking ignorance.
That is just a historical title. We still have the General and Special theories of relativity and they have been demonstrated time after time - satnav relies on them. We do not go back and rename things
There is a real problem wit the word 'theory'. It has a number of meanings, and unfortunately two of those are almost contradictory. Using the definitions from Answers.com, a scientist describing the 'Theory of Evolution' is using definition 1. "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. "
Those who object to the whole idea of evolution on principal mischeviously, and totally incorrectly, choose to apply definition 6. "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
A scientist might use the word 'hypothesis' for this sort of thing, and I truly wish that this definition didn't exist.
In science, a Theory is about as close to 'the truth' as it is possible to get.
Those who object to the whole idea of evolution on principal mischeviously, and totally incorrectly, choose to apply definition 6. "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
A scientist might use the word 'hypothesis' for this sort of thing, and I truly wish that this definition didn't exist.
In science, a Theory is about as close to 'the truth' as it is possible to get.
You know the simplest answer to you question is yes, you can believe in whatever you want to. After all science is essentially a belief.
We "believe" in evolution because lots of trustworthy scientists have said so and we have seen enough pictures and charts to convince us.
People "believe" in God's creation because lots of trustworthy priests and family have said so and they've seen enough of God's creations to convince them
If you want to believe in both and work out the details then why shouldn't you? Many of my devout Christian friends openly disagree with parts of the bible (sex before marriage anyone?) because after all it was written by men, not god, so don't be scared to make a compromise between evolution and creation.
We "believe" in evolution because lots of trustworthy scientists have said so and we have seen enough pictures and charts to convince us.
People "believe" in God's creation because lots of trustworthy priests and family have said so and they've seen enough of God's creations to convince them
If you want to believe in both and work out the details then why shouldn't you? Many of my devout Christian friends openly disagree with parts of the bible (sex before marriage anyone?) because after all it was written by men, not god, so don't be scared to make a compromise between evolution and creation.
No one sat down one day and decided, �I�m going to create the computer�. The computer your looking at right now evolved from the humble yet ingenious abacus. The computer didn�t just pick itself up by its own bootstraps. The computer with the ability to run the software and the software to program it evolved together and neither would exist without the other. Likewise the brain is powerless to examine and evaluate complex issues such as the existence of god or the understanding of the process of evolution without the logic of reason that enables it to think, a process that itself is the product of millions of years of evolution and learning while still not widely recognized and appreciated for its ability to sort out the truth. Those who choose to believe that the knowledge to create the universe existed before there was a universe to exist in and learn about demonstrate their complete ignorance of the need to first obtain the knowledge required to think rationally.
Reality does not yield up its secrets to those who cling stubbornly to unfounded and unproven beliefs. Nor is the truth distilled from lies without the application of methods for discerning which is which that science is so remarkably famous for.
In any compromise between truth and falsehood it is invariably truth that is sacrificed on the alter of what one wishes were true. Knowledge is unyielding in its demands that it be known at the price of discovery and learning to distinguish the difference between what is real and what is believed in spite of evidence to the contrary.
If you can accept the lie that the earth and the entire universe is a creation, then you have neither asked nor answered the question of how a creator exists without a universe to evolve in.
Reality does not yield up its secrets to those who cling stubbornly to unfounded and unproven beliefs. Nor is the truth distilled from lies without the application of methods for discerning which is which that science is so remarkably famous for.
In any compromise between truth and falsehood it is invariably truth that is sacrificed on the alter of what one wishes were true. Knowledge is unyielding in its demands that it be known at the price of discovery and learning to distinguish the difference between what is real and what is believed in spite of evidence to the contrary.
If you can accept the lie that the earth and the entire universe is a creation, then you have neither asked nor answered the question of how a creator exists without a universe to evolve in.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
How it Works13 mins ago
Family & Relationships16 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
