Science-Religion. Which wins?

Pre-College Issues High School Life
261

<p>

</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What about those are non-demonstrable?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I certainly respect you as an individual, but creationist belief has not formed any foundation to acquire any type of respectability. The very act of debating the topic provides the notion that such is being taken seriously, which is something that it does not deserve. Even so, rationalism–creationism/intelligent design arguments cannot be won be the latter faction, simply because such a position is always on the defensive, attempting to keep its head above the water as if the creationist perspective has any sort of proper social acceptance. It is absolutely invalid and as modern times proceed, such a belief becomes less intellectually respectable and more affected by a type of moralizing amorphousness.</p>

<p>As for the “paragraph before that” in which you reference, I don’t see the relevance in determining what is correct based on some internal predisposition.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Accurate measurements are obtained through a combination of various factors, including isotope ratio mass spectrometry and taking samples from diverse locations.</p>

262

<p>

</p>

<p>I (and 90% of my class can attest to this) - you just can’t describe it adequately lol. It is by far the weirdest book I ever read. Like I said, it seriously does mess it your mind (unless you are existentialist - then I suppose, it isn’t so mind-blowing). But yeah - it’s really a strange book yet oddly brilliant, especially when you discuss it at a much greater depth.</p>

263

<p>

</p>

<p>Post something substantial or ■■■■. Mifune doesn’t need your help, he’s doing fine by himself.</p>

264

<p>^^It sounds appealing. I intend to read it. Thanks for the elaboration!</p>

265

<p>Moreover, I would also like to continue address humans’ inherent propensity to commit psychological error when deciding on belief. When one discovers the amazing complexity in the world, it is tempting to worship some particular thing or create some mental conscious conception to satisfy any overwhelming feelings. It is only natural to attribute this lack of understanding to a spiritual force, a god, multiple gods, concrete material objects, and so on, depending on the religion by which one adheres. To the human mind, doing so is a very attractive concept. Science – and evolution through the process of natural selection in particular – has achieved an emancipation from that blanketed explanation, to explain the world, and its complexity in purely factual – rather than assumptive – format. It is a supreme, magnanimous achievement of the human mind to determine that there is a better explanation for natural phenomena than by adhering to a knee-jerk, cop-out explanation. We now understand that how life is essentially derived, that we are the cousins of every living plant and animal, and that we evolved from a common ancestor as simple as a basic bacteria.</p>

<p>But very ironically, it is the process of evolution that has led to this widespread delusion of the belief in supernatural force(s). As I mentioned earlier, religion is primarily motivated out of fear of what is not known. Of course, according to the Christian faith, those who do not accept Christ as the “savior” will be relegated to an eternal, tortuous session in some farcical land. For those with any tinge of gullibility to sensitize to these claims, belief becomes less inexplicable. Moreover, human psychology naturally feels the need for a parental figure and is naturally inclined to participate in ritual and abide by social influence. </p>

<p>Furthermore, the human brain regularly errs on the tendency towards agency detection – or attributing some extramundane intervention when there isn’t any and even when there is evidence to demonstrate that that is not so. In essence, the belief in supernatural entities naturally becomes culturally fixated due to their degree of memorability. The notion of intrinsically counterintuitive beings (such as the qualities of being invisible, indeterminable, telekinetic, omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient) generate a lasting impression. Thus, it is not difficult to rationalize precisely why the supernatural is indeed a mere figment of the human imagination.</p>

266

<p>

</p>

<p>Okay, I will attempt to provide a considered response to your request tomorrow, if time permits. However, I am afraid that I will have to desist for the night in order to attend to other priorities. Take care.</p>

267

<p>I haven’t read every post here, but I love talking about religion, so I’m going to start small with this initial post (I’m supposed to be writing a paper for my class right now haha). I am subscribing though, cause I am super interested in what others believe on this topic!</p>

<p>One group that I would like to address would be the group that says that science and religion can coexist. That is completely impossible. Perhaps science and a belief in religion can coexist, but religion, as an absolute truth, and science, cannot exist together. What do I mean by this? I mean that it is impossible to believe with all your heart that X god exists once you learn scientific facts that disprove him. Take Native Americans for an example. Many of these individuals believed that placating the rain god with dances would bring rain. We now look on these individuals as foolish, because we know that rain occurs under very specific circumstances. This is because we now understand the mechanics behind that which seemed so mysterious to the Native Americans. </p>

<p>So why is this one example important? It is important because it is a singular example of what has happened to many religions throughout the course of the world. Richard Dawkins likes to say that everyone is an atheist about most of the world’s god’s…but for some reason people like to hold on to one god just to please themselves. </p>

<p>Of course, I believe this is fairly understandable, because people don’t like to think that there is nothing after death. I believe this is a human condition, as we are the first species to be self-aware, we also have needed more of a support system. Why? Well, it’s difficult being self-aware. You know that you live, you know that you will die, and you don’t want to. If we were animals, we would live to breed, hunt, and sleep, and we’d be perfectly happy doing it. </p>

<p>What I want to do, is find a happy medium between atheism and religion. It seems that, for now at least, it is too difficult for most people to break away from their religions. They are tied into them by family, friends, etc. This is why there are so many “bad christians.” I grew up in a very strict church that believed that most all other churches were so liberal that their members were likely not christians. I believe them. If you are going to follow a religion based on the Bible, you need to follow the whole thing (all of its claims, all of its restrictions on your life). IF you are going to follow that. Too many people now a days cling to religion for its comfort factor (especially christians and catholics), while following none of christianity in actuality. All of these individuals are atheists in reality, lying to themselves and others in order to live comfortable lives.</p>

<p>Sure, fooling yourself is a comfortable way to live, but what happens to the individuals in a society who are TRULY honest people? Those who wish to TRULY live what they preach? Those would be the pronounced atheists. They realize that they do not want to follow religion, and that religion is likely untrue. Only the most motivated of intellectuals will likely attempt a break from religion - only those who value truth above all else. But what of those who value both truth and family? Those like myself? I believe that the God of Abraham does not exist (though my family believes the opposite). I also believe that all of the other gods men have worshiped do not exist. I do not, however, believe that I can say that God, in some form, does not exist. It is just as impossible to prove that. </p>

<p>So what is it that individuals like myself should believe? Well, I believe that God does exist, but that he is not properly defined by any earthly audiences. I believe that I am free to live my life by my own sense of morality (which is much stronger than most christians’), and once I die, if God does exist, I am sure that he will be willing to accept me into whatever place he has for those of us who die. </p>

<p>Alright, well, I want to say more, but I have no time. I will leave you guys with this quote, by one of my favorite men ever to live on this earth. </p>

<p>“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” - Thomas Jefferson</p>

268

<p>

</p>

<p>No hurry. I await patiently.</p>

<p>Just be aware that I will make absolutely no assumptions other than the following:</p>

<p>1) We exist, i.e. the world is actually here and therefore tangible
2) I have agency</p>

<p>Any other statements will need to stem from those two and/or empiricism.</p>

<p>BTW, anticipating biological necessity as an argument, that constitutes what biology deems necessary, not what I should do as a free agent.</p>

<p>In other words, I should not kill everyone on a biological level because that would end the race. But until you establish that there is some higher reason for that being an undesirable outcome, I will not accept that line of reasoning.</p>

269

<p>Morals are derived from evolutionary principles. If people killed each other daily, the human race wouldn’t propagate. Over time, social instincts developed in human society that made not killing, not stealing, monogamy, etc. evolutionary advantageous.</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - Richard Dawkins On Morality](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs)</p>

<p>“2) I have agency”</p>

<p>That’s debatable. There’s no evidence whatsoever for free will. In fact, there’s a lot of evidence that contradicts the presence of free will.</p>

<p>By the way, how does one quote in CC?</p>

<p>The reason killing the entire race is an undesirable outcomes comes from evolutionary principles as well.</p>

<p>If species killed themselves in such a manner, they wouldn’t exist today. We exist today because we did NOT kill each other off. It’s a self selecting group.</p>

270

<p>^ To quote, type [ quote ] Stuff to be quoted [ /quote ] without the spaces. You can also start it with [ quote=name of person quoted ] to quote a specific person. Without the spaces, the above code looks like this:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

271

<p>

</p>

<p>Once again you are simply rejecting the possibility of a supernatural existence, without showing any reason that the alternative is better besides the fact that it doesn’t require a “god”.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You mean the time I said “I believe that in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth”? That is what I believe, not why I believe it. If I have ever quoted Genesis as evidence for my theory please quote it to me so I can revise it. I believe Genesis to be true and largely literal based on the evidence I see in the world, not the other way around.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why? What precludes dinosaurs having existed within the last 6000 years other than radiometric dating which I consider suspect?</p>

<p>An old earth is not incompatible with my beliefs, I just feel that there is insufficient evidence to rule out a young earth at this time.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Have you actually read that paper, or did you copy/paste it from wikipedia?</p>

<p>You yourself pointed out the danger of biased judgement: Evolutionists show a marked tendancy to leap on any small scratch in the rock and draw in a whole lineage. Considering the tiny amount of evidence supporting their theory, you’d think they would be less quick to demand overwhelming evidence from others.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You didn’t answer my question: How can two behaviors or traits that are only useful when both are present in fully developed forms evolve over stages? Especially when those behaviors are on two different creatures.</p>

272

<p>

</p>

<p>Please don’t quote half-sentences. Thanks!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Try to demonstrate them without assuming them to be true as a starting point. If you use logic, you’ve assumed #1, and if you use statistics, you’ve assumed #2 (and #1, if you interpreted the statistics.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, that is your choice. But dismissing a person’s belief as nonsense is not a very good way to prove yourself reasonable. I believe your viewpoint to be patently false, but at least I am willing to see how a reasonable person could believe it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, look at it this way: Assuming that atheism is true, and everything you do is simply the natural cause-and-effect result of the states of the molecules in your brain, try to find a way to rationalise the validity of reasoning.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Neither of those things have any effect on the need for the assumptions I listed.</p>

273

<p>“Science without conscience is but ruin for the soul” -Rabelais</p>

274

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s all true. But until you establish propagation of the race as a moral “good,” that’s no justification.</p>

<p>And the second assumption need not be true. I’m just saying he doesn’t have to justify it.</p>

275

<p>^ The usual argument is that races that do not consider propagation to be a moral “good” do not propagate, and thus we are the only ones left. But that still doesn’t answer the question of why there are things people “should” do, as opposed to things they* do* do.</p>

276

<p>“That’s all true. But until you establish propagation of the race as a moral “good,” that’s no justification.”</p>

<p>We do what we do due to biological imperatives. We are only animals. We build societies to help ourselves survive. We make laws to make lives easier. We are merely more complex animals than most. We do what we should because if we didnt do what we should, we’d die out.</p>

<p>We reproduce because not doing so would harm society. People nowadays feel its acceptable to have fewer children since the success rate of children is higher (less infant mortality). It’s the way society progresses. </p>

<p>What we are “demanded” to do comes from sociological reasons, not divine ones. We don’t have laws against killing because god told us not to kill, we have laws against killing because rampant murder would make the chances of our children surviving lesser. Humans understand this and so we do it.</p>

<p>I think once people understand that we humans are nothing more than animals with the only difference being our better problem solving and cognitive skills, it becomes easier to understand where evolutionary advocates and atheists come from. There’s no basis for a soul and there’s no basis for divine morality. There’s no basis for the glorification of humanity purely because it is humanity.</p>

<p>Animals do what they do because it helps them survive. We do the same. Every large scale society is geared towards reproduction. Ethnic solidarity at the expense of others is one way social groups wish to ensure the lives of their children are best. Other ways are transnational cooperation as well.</p>

<p>Everything that people as a society do is “for their children” or for their social group’s “children”. Even people without children have an evolutionary drive to help make sure their social group propagates.</p>

<p>Also how do I quote someone’s reply inside the box?
I’m relatively new to CC.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

277

<p>^ Would you consider it “right” for us americans to slaughter all the population of the middle east if we felt it improved our chances of survival?</p>

<p>If so, then you have a consistent worldview. If not, then you need to figure out why you make such exceptions.</p>

<p>To quote, type [ quote ] without the spaces, then the text you want to quote, then [ /quote ] without the spaces. like this:</p>

<p>

</p>

278

<p>

</p>

<p>No. Mass slaughter would have massive repercussions that would in fact reduce chance of survival. Being the only remaining group isnt the only way to maximize effectiveness. The USA competes with the rest of the world in many ways including war but all these means have a single goal and that is the well being of future generations of Americans. Allowing mass slaughter legitimizes the mass slaughter of your own people. That’s why these social norms are imposed on everyone. If I kill you, my chances of survival are marginally increased but that makes others more accepting of my death. The USA wouldnt commit democide since it would go against social norms that are based upon that golden rule principle.</p>

279

<p>

</p>

<p>But WHY should we do these things? Survival is not an adequate response until it is defined that preservation of the race is a good.</p>

<p>Biological urges are only relevant indicators of moral behavior if biology should define action.</p>

<p>In other words, given my agency, why follow biological “imperatives?”</p>

280

<p>

</p>

<p>Assuming agency exists (i personally don’t think there’s enough information to say that it does), there are many many drives built into people that makes sure they have these imperatives. For example, people in general are naturally nice to babies. In psychology, there are many “standard” practices that people have that has very very little variation between cultures. Even if agency exists, a humongous part of our actions are determined by these impulses, not by agency.</p>

<p>Since these impulses dictate our actions and our “moral” system is based on what we deem to be right and wrong actions, these impulses necessarily influence our “moral” system.</p>

<p>You’re also confusing “good” with “necessary”. Nothing is “good” or “bad”. Goodness and badness are just terms we use to determine if actions are beneficial to society or not. The end goal of any society, whether is bacteria, whales, deer, or humans, is propagation. If societies or species dont propagate, they die off and are replaced by other species that do propagate. The reason we exist is because primates and their ancestors have lived lives and had societies that promote propagation. The way they did this is through having cooperation, some semblance of laws (written or unwritten), and social codes. What we determine as right and wrong are ideas and practices that influence our behavior within the framework of natural selection. If humans adopted a kill everyone mentality, we’d be dead as a species within a few years.</p>