Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: Science...A tool of the Devil?

  1. #1 Science...A tool of the Devil? 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,722
    In keeping with the scientific nature of the forum.

    A feeling I've had most of my life is one where organized religions deem science as the work or tool of the devil. Am I alone in this opinion? Is science's everlasting search for knowledge disproving accepted religious beliefs? Is this intrusiveness or revealing of falsehoods the main reason science and religion don't seem to mix well? The only way for some people to explain anti-religious findings is to give credit to the devil. Seems too easy.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Sure, if you believe in a devil then science is a tool of the devil and so is religion including Christianity. The devil will use anything to confuse, distract and set one man against another. So as long as science and or religion serves to foster misunderstanding or hatred they are apt tools of the devil.

    Religion and science have very different approaches to understanding the world and particularly the way in which they determine what is true. Religion puts tradition and traditional literature ahead of logic and evidence, whereas science puts logic and evidence ahead of tradition. Science has therefore forged ahead progressively revising its traditions in the light of new evidence. Meanwhile religion has progressed much more slowly only abandoning traditions when the evidence that they cause great misery in our life is overwhelming.

    But it would be a mistake to compare these two only on this basis alone for it is not only their methods which differ but also their subjects. The success of the methods of science is due in no small part to the fact that its truths are about something about which is particularly easy to get reliable evidence. In religion evidence is so hard to come by that tradition and texts are the only reliable source of information. It is no accident that as the success of science has cast doubt upon the reliability of tradition that we see new religions springing up like weeds. Very much like weeds since quite a few of them are a bit close to insanity. Meanwhile the older religions have reacted protectively of their traditions often in opposition to science.

    People addicted to certainty and intolerant of doubt will react to this situation in two different ways largely depending on whether they value the subjects of religion or science more. In one case they cling to tradition much more tightly as the only reliable source of truth, pointing out the falability of human logic and scientific evidence. In the other case they embrace logic and evidence as the only reliable source of truth, pointing out the lack of logic and evidence in the traditions of religion. But I think the result, in both cases, is that they are simplifying the world to suit the limitations of their own mind, refusing to deal with important aspects of life and truth, just in order to feel more comfortable in what they think they can be certain about.

    The only way to overcome this is to experience what each has to offer as fully as possible and to accept that very little in this life offers anything with certainty. Personality will play a large role in this because no doubt that you will find people obnoxious to you in both science and religion (although probably moreso in the latter). But hopefully you will take away something that you find valuable in each of them, from which you will truly have a good foundation to form an opinion that is all your own based on knowledge of both rather than on the fear of doubt. Studying philosophy, which in some sense stands between these two and away from either of these two lures to certainty, is also very helpful.


    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Hail Satan!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Where does this idea that religious people categorically drop a blanket of condemnation over all of science come from?

    I am not aware of any broad based or large scale religious opposition to science in general. There is a small sect of people who, for religious reasons, refuse to use modern equipment, but that is certainly the exception rather than the rule.

    Michael is correct that most religions which have some concept of an "evil" force would believe that evil force is capable of perverting anything to its own use and benefit.

    It does not seem to me that the major opposition to nuclear power or genetically engineered food is organized or fomented by Christian or religious organizations, but rather more by humanistic new age enthusiasts. Unless one is willing to admit that humanism and scientism are forms of religion??

    I do not think you will find religious opposition to the Theories of Relativity or Quantum Theory. Perhaps some would find String Theory a little problematical although I'm not sure anyone knows enough about it to form a reasoned opinion, other than those who glom on to any concept that come along under the aegus of science.

    Seems to me the only large scale oppositions to science one will find in main stream religion is toward evolution and certain things which they feel are demeaning to life. But even in those one does not find universal condemnation from religious people.

    To refine Mitchell's post a little, religion is perhaps more concerned with quality of life while science seems more concerned with quantity of life.
    Religion is more concerned with the morality of detonating atomic bombs while science is more concerned with the mechanics of making them.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Science...A tool of the Devil? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    A feeling I've had most of my life is one where organized religions deem science as the work or tool of the devil.
    This runs wholly counter to my own experience. In my upbringing there was no conflict between religion and science. [This is one of the reasons I find the opposition of a minority of Christians to evolution so bizarre.]

    People are fond of pointing out how science has been persecuted by Christianity, quoting Bruno and Galileo as examples, while conveniently ignoring Mendel and le Maitre.

    It is true that the fundamentalist Christian wing, mainly in the US, has strongly opposed evolution, and more recently stem cell research. The latter of these might be opposed by an atheist or agnostic on ethical grounds, with no mention of the devil. The opposition to evolution, as noted, comes largely from a small section of Christianity. Consequently if you had said A small number of organised religions view science as a tool of the Devil, then I could have agreed with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Mitchell: word.
    Dayton: word.
    Ophiolite: word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Come on people. Science is the unintended enemy of religion because it aims to replace all the BS provided by each reliigion. That's why it's the tool of the devil. It destroys religion. Evolution and the true age of the Earth, they can't be accepted by christians because they contradict the blah blah blah that originally provided explainations. That's how religion gets its charm. It's blah blah blah. While science tries it's best to find the truth, religion tries to find the best poetry. They're incompatable.

    Believing in the devil is like fooling yourself into believing that the cookie monster is a real monster, but in a symbolic sense science is the tool of the devil 'Hail Satan!" because truth is the most trying thing for a religion to face. Just like when we're little kids and we think there's a monster under our bed, we're scared, but when we look we see nothing is there, so we're not scared anymore. When you look, you kill your fear, your religion.

    Ophiolite
    People are fond of pointing out how science has been persecuted by Christianity, quoting Bruno and Galileo as examples, while conveniently ignoring Mendel and le Maitre.
    It's pretty easy for one little person to do whatever they want, but the indicator of the religion is when a governing body or angry mob comes and rips you to pieces. If I'm correct, Mendel was long dead before his work became noticed, and they weren't going to dig him up to kill him, which most likely would have happened because his work ended up being a commentary in opposition to lineage and divine right thinking (preprogramming) at the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    Science is the unintended enemy of religion because it aims to replace all the BS provided by each reliigion. .
    Crap. That is not now, and never has been the aim of science. It may be the aim of some scientists, but that represents a personal aberration, not a goal of science.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    It destroys religion. Evolution and the true age of the Earth, they can't be accepted by christians because they contradict the blah blah blah that originally provided explainations.
    Crap. Evolution is only a problem for fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. Mainstream Christians, many Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus (as far as I know), and probably more, have no problem with evolution, or with any of the other findings of modern science.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    While science tries it's best to find the truth, religion tries to find the best poetry. They're incompatable.
    Crap. Science and religion are two sides of the same coin. A spiritual and a materialistic outlook are both required for a balanced view of the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    Ophiolite
    It's pretty easy for one little person to do whatever they want, but the indicator of the religion is when a governing body or angry mob comes and rips you to pieces. If I'm correct, Mendel was long dead before his work became noticed.
    Which had nothing to do with suppression by the Church. It was the ignorance of contemporary scientists that was responsible for that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Hey, how do you do the silkworm wrote things? I can't figure it out.

    "Ophiolite"
    Crap. That is not now, and never has been the aim of science. It may be the aim of some scientists, but that represents a personal aberration, not a goal of science.
    I never said that was the aim of science, notice the word unintended. It's like this, say there's an old lady who loves a certain flower because it's pretty, so he plants them. There's a bird who lives on the flower and so the bird eats the flower. The old lady shoots the birds because they are messing up her flowers even though the bird has nothing to do with the lady, it was just trying to eat. Understand?

    Religion does things like saying some great creator lifts the sun up and carries it across the sky every day. Science says the earth rotates and orbits the sun. Get it?

    "Ophiolite"
    Crap. Evolution is only a problem for fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. Mainstream Christians, many Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus (as far as I know), and probably more, have no problem with evolution, or with any of the other findings of modern science.
    I very much wish your statement here were accurate, which it is not in the US anyway. There's been surveys that showed something like 70% of the 50% christian population here doesn't believe in evolution (same group doesn't believe the earth is warming up). I do chalk that up to ignorance more than religion, but if religion wasn't there to provide these people with such a self-important answer they'd most likely be more interested in the truth of their origins.

    "Ophiolite"
    Crap. Science and religion are two sides of the same coin. A spiritual and a materialistic outlook are both required for a balanced view of the world.
    I feel attaching zen-like qualities to non-living things is the greatest detriment to any scientific explaination and that science being the use of natural explainations for phenomena, the supernatural world spirituality takes us to has no place or valid purpose.

    "Ophiolite"
    Which had nothing to do with suppression by the Church. It was the ignorance of contemporary scientists that was responsible for that.
    I didn't say it had anything to do with suppression by the church (though it may have had, the church was powerful back then) BUT the point I was making was that they didn't have a chance to kill Mendel because he was already dead.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    Science is the unintended enemy of religion because it aims to replace all the BS provided by each reliigion. .
    Crap. That is not now, and never has been the aim of science. It may be the aim of some scientists, but that represents a personal aberration, not a goal of science.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    It destroys religion. Evolution and the true age of the Earth, they can't be accepted by christians because they contradict the blah blah blah that originally provided explainations.
    Crap. Evolution is only a problem for fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. Mainstream Christians, many Muslims, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus (as far as I know), and probably more, have no problem with evolution, or with any of the other findings of modern science.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    While science tries it's best to find the truth, religion tries to find the best poetry. They're incompatable.
    Crap. Science and religion are two sides of the same coin. A spiritual and a materialistic outlook are both required for a balanced view of the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    Ophiolite
    It's pretty easy for one little person to do whatever they want, but the indicator of the religion is when a governing body or angry mob comes and rips you to pieces. If I'm correct, Mendel was long dead before his work became noticed.
    Which had nothing to do with suppression by the Church. It was the ignorance of contemporary scientists that was responsible for that.
    Hooray for Ophiolite, considering our past differences it is amazing how similar our points of view are on many things. Silkworm's comments were so outrageous and absurd that I was going to ignore them as unworthy of a response but the triple "crap" was nice to hear.

    Though I must echo silkworm's doubt about the second point or at least point out that you use the word "many" and not "all" or even "most", which sounds pretty lame. I think these other religions (and we can include a lot more religions than those you have mentioned) have their own creation myths and those who take their religion seriously do not agree with evolution either. It is just the Christians (the majority in America but not so many in Europe) and Fundamentalist Moslems who have made a political issue about it because they seem to want to shove their religion down everyones throats.

    Silkworm has made science into his religion and is just telling us that his is the one true church.

    PS. Silkworm, just hit the quote button and watch what it does automatically. Following its example is how I and probably most of the rest of us learned how to use the quotes. We just insert additional commands in the square brackets to break up the quotes into smaller pieces. It is very similar to html so background in html does help.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Ophiolite sez:

    Evolution is only a problem for fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.
    While I really enjoyed Ophiolite's comments on slikworm's lambast, I do find this statement unsupported by reality.

    According to the three recent poll results I posted on another thread, more than half the people in the U.S. have a problem with evolution. I am pretty certain that fundamental Christians and Muslims do not make up more than half the population.

    Polls for the last 15 years in the U.S. show expanding belief in the concept that God has had a hand in the creation and development of life on planet Earth. Unless fundamental Christians and Muslims make up 55 percent of the U.S population, Godless evolution must be a problem for others, too.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Ophiolite sez:

    According to the three recent poll results I posted on another thread, more than half the people in the U.S. have a problem with evolution. I am pretty certain that fundamental Christians and Muslims do not make up more than half the population.
    It works out to something like that, but the point should be made that you can't democratically destroy the process of evolution and that only a small percent of the US population actually understand what evolution is beyond the word and an emotion, it's Pavlovian not informed.

    mitchelmckain, thanks for the help. For some reason the quote code on this board is slightly different than the others, I didn't know how until now.

    Ophiolite, I read my past posts here and I see that they're pretty incoherent for me. I've been sick and drunk and I've stopped smoking and going through withdrawl, but that's still no excuse to sound like an IDer. I apologize for my shortcomings in expressing myself on this thread, but overall I think my thoughts are there. For obvious reasons, I'm only really waiting for your response and I'm looking forward to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Science...A tool of the Devil? 
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    A feeling I've had most of my life is one where organized religions deem science as the work or tool of the devil.
    Consequently if you had said A small number of organised religions view science as a tool of the Devil, then I could have agreed with you.
    It was as I said, only a feeling.

    Would it make a difference if I had a feeling that religion was a tool of the devil? If science is in the devil's toolbox then why not religion? Religion has performed more devilish than any science I know.

    Then again, maybe my feeling is wrong. Here's a thought! Science could be God's 'mysterious way' of exposing religion as the Devil's handiwork.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    I never said that was the aim of science, notice the word unintended. It's like this, say there's an old lady who loves a certain flower because it's pretty, so he plants them. There's a bird who lives on the flower and so the bird eats the flower. The old lady shoots the birds because they are messing up her flowers even though the bird has nothing to do with the lady, it was just trying to eat. Understand?
    .
    Yes, I understand what you are saying now that you are saying it this way. Previously you very clearly said the aim of science was to replace all the BS provided by religion. That is what I emphatically disagree with. [Many scientists in the past, and several today, aim to show the glory and wonder of their God's world through science.] If you wish to say a consequence of science is ......etc, I can live with that. It is the word aim that I am targeting.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    I very much wish your statement here were accurate, which it is not in the US anyway. There's been surveys that showed something like 70% of the 50% christian population here doesn't believe in evolution (same group doesn't believe the earth is warming up). I do chalk that up to ignorance more than religion, .
    I concede that in the US evolution is an issue. I saw a recent poll for the UK that showed it to be an issue for a surprisingly large number - around 1/3, I think. Let me quote to you something I said on another forum yesterday (I don't think it was here. I usually try to be reasonably polite here.)
    The general public are a bunch of dickheads who couldn't find there arse to wipe it, were it not for the stench emanating therefrom.
    If this sounds a trifle elitist, it is probably because it is. I do stand by my original contention that globally, by the official position of most religions, evolution is accepted, or acceptable, by the majority. I also accept that there are a lot of uneducated, or ill-informed, or indoctrinated individuals who think as you say. But that is the individuals. It is not the religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    I feel attaching zen-like qualities to non-living things is the greatest detriment to any scientific explaination and that science being the use of natural explainations for phenomena, the supernatural world spirituality takes us to has no place or valid purpose.
    That would be where we differ. I'll play a rotten trick and side with the greatest philosophers and scientists over the centuries, who have also felt the importance of the spiritual. Reductionist philosophy can never hope to understand emergent properties.
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    I didn't say it had anything to do with suppression by the church (though it may have had, the church was powerful back then) BUT the point I was making was that they didn't have a chance to kill Mendel because he was already dead.
    My point was that a member of the Church, a monk, was able to pursue this research with the full knowledge and consent of the Church. The Church implicitly or explicitly encouraged him.

    [May I congratulate you on giving up smoking. Stick with it. It is worth it for yourself, your family, your friends and society.]

    Z - I understand what you are saying: my objection was to the generalisation. I like to nitpick because a) I believe precision in language is important in communication in general, and science in particular. b) it is fun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Z - I understand what you are saying: my objection was to the generalisation. I like to nitpick because a) I believe precision in language is important in communication in general, and science in particular. b) it is fun.
    Whew, indeed, I have been a target of that nitpicking and it drove me up the wall. I am not sure I would call this nitpicking though. Shooting down generalizations, especially the well established ones that everyone repeats without thinking is the duty of every free-thinking individual. Usually these are the ones with the least basis in fact drawing their strength, instead, from mere repetition.

    I was watching the documentary "Angels and Demons & Free Masonry" yesterday and it tells a bit more of the whole story about the conflict between emerging science and the Catholic church. Clearly this conflict is greatly exagerated. But then all of this was before evolution when the crap really hit the fan.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I am not sure I would call this nitpicking though.
    Shit Mitchell, now you're just nitpicking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Yes, I understand what you are saying now that you are saying it this way. Previously you very clearly said the aim of science was to replace all the BS provided by religion. That is what I emphatically disagree with. [Many scientists in the past, and several today, aim to show the glory and wonder of their God's world through science.] If you wish to say a consequence of science is ......etc, I can live with that. It is the word aim that I am targeting.
    Oh, I see what it appears I meant now. I wasn't trying to imply that scientists evolved in society in order to discredit religion. I just meant that scientist use natural explainations for phenomena that replace the supernatural blah blah blah provided by religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    That would be where we differ. I'll play a rotten trick and side with the greatest philosophers and scientists over the centuries, who have also felt the importance of the spiritual. Reductionist philosophy can never hope to understand emergent properties.
    Reductionist philosophy in terms of the study of fundamental science? I'm sorry, I'm not well versed in philosophy because doing so would be a major detriment to my life due to a paradox I authored. However, as an analogy, imagining that Abraham Lincoln is talking to you isn't going to help you figure out what the coin is made of. I don't see what your point is with emergent properties (which can be determined by the action of the whole), which would likely cause no problem it all with deconstruction (the parts).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    [May I congratulate you on giving up smoking. Stick with it. It is worth it for yourself, your family, your friends and society.]
    Thanks. I'm mainly doing it just to screw the Republicans out of $4 a day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    9
    Most hard-core christians tickle me. I do NOT believe that Science is the work of the devil, it's about curiosity and understanding living things and the world around us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    There somebody goes again perpetrating the erroneous concept that "hard core Christians" (a completely rhetorical and meaningless term) are in some way anti-science.

    What is it in science, other than evolution and slaughtering unborn embryos, that you think "hard core Christians" (and maybe define what that is) are hindering or impeding?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    No. That would make him the greatest engineer. Scientists merely investigate and learn how things work. Engineers design, build and make them work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    No. That would make him the greatest engineer. Scientists merely investigate and learn how things work. Engineers design, build and make them work.
    Now we know why it's never God's fault when things go wrong. I suppose the devil was an engineering marvel.

    I was going to stop there but I'll add this corollary: When things do go wrong, God intended for it to happen.

    Does this mean if I have to point the finger of blame for anything then I point it towards God or like a good engineer He accepts responsibility. :wink: :wink:

    We are all off the hook, blameless. But wait, that freewill thing and not following the Bible blueprint for good living probably means we are screwed anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Ouch! I suspect all the engineers of the world are going to be surprized when they find you have unilaterally removed them from the general category of scientists. So, what DO rocket "scientists" do?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Ouch! I suspect all the engineers of the world are going to be surprized when they find you have unilaterally removed them from the general category of scientists. So, what DO rocket "scientists" do?
    Reside in the popular imagination. No more than that. You recall what I think of the popular imagination, don't you Dayton? :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    There somebody goes again perpetrating the erroneous concept that "hard core Christians" (a completely rhetorical and meaningless term) are in some way anti-science.

    What is it in science, other than evolution and slaughtering unborn embryos, that you think "hard core Christians" (and maybe define what that is) are hindering or impeding?
    Well we'd have to define "hardcore Christians" but I consider fundamental literalists the most "hardcore". YEC's. So they dispute evolution and the age of the earth as the 2 big ones. And to refute those 2 topics (and support a global flood scenario and catastrophism) you not only have to reject pretty much all of geology, physics, and biology, but a lot of the rest of our scientific knowledge as well because of all the independent lines of evidence that span the sciences in support of those 2 theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I'm not sure the world of science is going to feel too comfortable with the knowledge that the entirety of scientific endeavor rests on the validity of evolution. Right, we do not believe in basalt rock, the law of inertia or pollination of plants by bees, either.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    In respect and response to Neutrino, a recent poll (sorry I do not have a link to it) shows that only about 15 percent of all Christians are YECs. But, like the evolutionary minority, they are far more outspoken and rigid in defense of their position. I am not a YEC.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I'm not sure the world of science is going to feel too comfortable with the knowledge that the entirety of scientific endeavor rests on the validity of evolution. Right, we do not believe in basalt rock, the law of inertia or pollination of plants by bees, either.
    The validity of all science rests on the validity of the scientific method, the rational working through of hypotheses which allows one to make verifiable and useful predictions. That which is supported by the scientific method acts as validation for science as a whole. Undermine one major success area for the scientific method and obviously you cast doubt upon the whole structure.

    What "the world of science" resents is the depiction of Evolution (by Creationist and ID activists only, please note) as one of the weakest established nostrums of science, instead of one of the most thoroughly validated theories there is (and, please believe me, Dayton, it is, notwithstanding your own lack of inclination to believe so).

    There really is a great deal more that is reported week after week in the newspapers as "science" which seems to me to be very far from real science or any kind of real achievement. A new study for instance has claimed horrifying increases upcoming for deaths from cancer apparently due to a) the increase in smoking amongst teenage girls (which I think I can provisionally accept), and b) the increase in passive smoking. Er, HUH?? By what measure is the incidence of passive smoking remotely increasing?? Smoking as a whole is down, and there are fewer and fewer places for non-smokers to be subjected to smoke, when compared to twenty or thirty years ago. This kind of thing, which like I say is the meat and drink of the average newpaper "science" coverage, is what Richard Feynman called "cargo cult science" - it looks like science and it uses some of its methodology, but it's evidently affected by a lack of real objectivity from the outset. Methods used in their turn of course by the tobacco companies to discredit the excellent science that had shown cigarettes to be dangerous.

    Hey, I thought I invented EC to refer to Evangelical Christians - what are YECs?? That 15% poll, Dayton, is that worldwide or just the USA? I've been reading The Last Crusade, by Barbara Victor, a book examining the rise and political power of the Evangelical movement. It keeps claiming 80,000,000 Evangelicals in the United States, which obviously is far in excess of 15% of even the entire population, let alone the Christian complement. But I must say I think she has difficulty in actually justifying that figure, so if you have an accurate number for American evangelcals, I'd be grateful. No need for a link.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    I'm just posting in support of the point that Silas made.

    It needs to be illustrated how methodology can invalidate something meant to be scientific to something that is garbage. When you truly understand science and read a study, if the methodology is flawed the work is invalid as science. Most of the studies you hear on the news are flawed in this way, so the common man does not have an accurate perception of what actual science is like, and his emotional responses as to the nature of science are baseless emotional responses as opposed to rational and intelligent ones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I did not coin YEC, but in the context of whatever it was that I was responding to, I decyphered it to mean Young Earth Christians, i.e. Christians who cling to the young earth theory. They, of course, call it the young earth fact, just like anyone else who needs to reassure himself in the absolute validity of some theory.

    Incidentally, thanks to whoever sent me the catalog of "The Great Courses."
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Oh, Young Earth Creationist, rather - sorry I thought it had to do with Evangelical Christians, not all of whom believe in the YE theories. And Creationism doesn't have to be (though invariably is) connected with Christianity per se.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    When you truly understand science and read a study, if the methodology is flawed the work is invalid as science. Most of the studies you hear on the news are flawed in this way.......
    I believe you are missing, or failing to emphasise, another important source of error. All (most, at least) studies make certain assumptions, or simplifications. When the study is found to be false, by subsequent research it is because those assumptions are shown to be faulty.
    This does not make the original study flawed science, but does make its conclusions incorrect. Those are two quite different things.
    Science advances by making assumptions and simplifying. We expect our results to be overturned one day. That is a positive and not a negative.

    I realise this is off topic, but I believe it is an important point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Re: Science...A tool of the Devil? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Is science's everlasting search for knowledge disproving accepted religious beliefs?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    Is this intrusiveness or revealing of falsehoods the main reason science and religion don't seem to mix well? The only way for some people to explain anti-religious findings is to give credit to the devil. Seems too easy.
    No. I think you are jumping to conclusions that science is revealing falsehoods.

    Religion is at odds with science because science can be described as the act of killing. Religion is about life. Protecting life, celebrating life, moving upwards in life.

    Everything about science is about death. The method of science is to dissect something into it's smallest parts. Take any living organism and dissect it into it's smallest parts and you will kill it. Take a mental idea, like belief in god, and dissect it into it's smallest parts, and you will kill it.

    Science really is evil, depending on how you define good and evil.

    Evil - Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful

    I think that anyone can see that animal testing is evil by the dictionary definition. Testing on human beings is also evil by the dictionary defintion. Many of the inventions of science indirectly fit the dictionary definition of evil.

    Religions are not at odds with science because science is superior and has revealed the inferiority of religions in some way. Religions are at odds with science because, by dictionary defintion, science works for evil. Science is the work of the devil.

    Kinda funny how that works out huh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    100
    Hmm, this reminds me something...

    You say that science is evil? Yes/No?

    Well, I was browsing trough some websites
    containing info of religiousity of our local church...

    Well, according to them, science isn't evil because
    bible supports science and:

    Science is our only weapon to fight agains this modern
    herecy...
    So even they say that, science denies belief and replace it,
    they also say that only science is a tool to proof belief...

    So isn't it so that if science is evil, so must be religion too,
    because, religion accept science as their guardian?
    Machina multa minax minitatur maxima muris

    Carminis Iliaci libros consumpsit asellus. O Fatum Troiae! Aut ecus aut asinus!

    Vita regit Fortuna, non sapientia!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: Science...A tool of the Devil? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Happeh
    Religion is at odds with science because science can be described as the act of killing.
    There are a few valid definitions for science: this is not one of them. There are some interesting descriptions of science: this is not one of them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happeh
    Everything about science is about death. The method of science is to dissect something into it's smallest parts.
    You appear to have only a partial and warped understanding of science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happeh
    Take any living organism and dissect it into it's smallest parts and you will kill it.
    This is true. However, I can list plenty of sciences that do not practice vivisection. Indeed, as an example, if you are an astrophysicist it is rather taxing to think how one might, even accidentally, kill a star.

    And yet we have dissected many stars within the hearts of sophisticated computer simulations. This has served to deepen our understanding of nature and extend our wonder at its character.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happeh
    Take a mental idea, like belief in god, and dissect it into it's smallest parts, and you will kill it.
    Belief, or non-belief in God, has nothing to do with science. Science does not concern itself with God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happeh
    Science really is evil, depending on how you define good and evil.
    Evil - Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
    I think that anyone can see that animal testing is evil by the dictionary definition. Testing on human beings is also evil by the dictionary defintion. Many of the inventions of science indirectly fit the dictionary definition of evil.
    I am not going to debate the ethics of animal testing. I shall simply observe that many moral, thoughtful people believe animal testing is acceptable.
    For the rest, you are really just rambling. Inventions are not synonomous with science. The use inventions are put to are not synonomous with science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happeh
    Religions are not at odds with science because science is superior and has revealed the inferiority of religions in some way. Religions are at odds with science because, by dictionary defintion, science works for evil. Science is the work of the devil.
    Kinda funny how that works out huh?
    Please show us the dictionary definition that demonstrates science works for evil. If it was meant to be the one above, your logic has failed you again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: Science...A tool of the Devil? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Happeh
    Religion is at odds with science because science can be described as the act of killing. Religion is about life. Protecting life, celebrating life, moving upwards in life.

    Everything about science is about death. The method of science is to dissect something into it's smallest parts. Take any living organism and dissect it into it's smallest parts and you will kill it. Take a mental idea, like belief in god, and dissect it into it's smallest parts, and you will kill it.

    Science really is evil, depending on how you define good and evil.

    Evil - Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful

    I think that anyone can see that animal testing is evil by the dictionary definition. Testing on human beings is also evil by the dictionary defintion. Many of the inventions of science indirectly fit the dictionary definition of evil.

    Religions are not at odds with science because science is superior and has revealed the inferiority of religions in some way. Religions are at odds with science because, by dictionary defintion, science works for evil. Science is the work of the devil.
    This, of course, is outrageous, but it does resonate with something I said in another thread. I realized this when I tried to dig under this persons words and tried to understand why he was saying this stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    If religion is a con, then there is usually no point at which the mark realizes he has been taken, since the biggest promises are fulfilled after death then if there is no awareness after death, then there would be no awareness of having been told a lie, would there?

    For the most part religion is simply harmless like many of the herbal and other new age cures, and even if there is no real power there, sometimes the placebo effect still works. By contrast, medicine and science has real power, and the power for harm is always there. The hippocratic oath, to at least do no harm, is not an easy oath to satisfy when our ignorance is still great and our physical individuality and uniqueness is quite real. Likewise science is destroying the world, because this is the natural result of power in the hands of the ignorant or the unscrupulous.

    On the other hand, perhaps power of this sort is an illusion, anyway, for all this science and technology cannot give us what we really want in our heart of hearts, it cannot make someone love us. Many religions believe that God has real power, but that just leaves him mostly helpless to acheive what he really wants -- for us to love Him and/or to love each other as He does. So maybe real power simply isn't that important.
    On the other hand, power, once obtained, cannot be relinquished, for that would be irresponsible (leaving it to the less scrupulous). Once power is obtained, the only responsible course is to follow through and see that this power is used for good rather than evil.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •