NationStates Jolt Archive

I have always wondered why people do desperatly seporate the two (Science, and religion) when looking at the subject objectivly one can easly place the two together and come up with a very logical solution...

Science itself is unable to explain a great majority of the complex systems and occrances within nature.. infact many leading sciencist agree that nature upon itself is far too complex in its daily functions to have come about randomly and that some form of higher intelegence behind the creation of nature would best explain many things. It is a fact that we as humans are simply to primitative still to understand even things about our selves (the issue with female anatomy) let alone our origin or the creation of the Universe.. how can we expect our theories to beable to explain anything and reflect the reality of it?

Mean while religion seemling ignores many of the blatent facts which exist... Dinasore bones pre-dating man, and a succession of primate bones clearly outlining an evlotuionary pass to where we are today.. Religion has few answers for htese clear pecies of evidence.. however, if you work to put the two together, like a puzzel.. suddenly things can make more sense. The advent of the Big bang and the fact that intelegent life came about in such perfect conditions can suddenly overcome the questions of randomness and the vast improbabilty of it all.. meanwhile the tangable evidence is given more perspective to the idea of creationism as evolution can serve to explain it.. Perhaps god did not make man in 1 day.. but in 1 million days.. or whatever given amount of time..

time to us is not nessesarly the same as time to god.

It boils down to the following:

There are many people who are very weak of faith. They need set-in-stone absolute TRUTH from everything in their religion, or they believe that it will all fall apart and they will lose faith altogether. For this reason, they ignore all evidence and logic that doesn't mesh with an absolutely literal interpretation of a book which, although written by *human beings*, they feel has to be infallible. When blatant contradictions are pointed out to show that said document is not infallible, they ignore it - as their faith is weak.

Because such people see anything that isn't written down in their document written by human beings, they set up a false dichotomy between science and religion, when there is really no such dichotomy there.

It boils down to the following:

There are many people who are very weak of faith. They need set-in-stone absolute TRUTH from everything in their religion, or they believe that it will all fall apart and they will lose faith altogether. For this reason, they ignore all evidence and logic that doesn't mesh with an absolutely literal interpretation of a book which, although written by *human beings*, they feel has to be infallible. When blatant contradictions are pointed out to show that said document is not infallible, they ignore it - as their faith is weak.

Because such people see anything that isn't written down in their document written by human beings, they set up a false dichotomy between science and religion, when there is really no such dichotomy there.

Scientists have done the same thing. A large majority of scientist want science to be as far from any religion as possible, when if applied correctly maybe theology and science could go hand in hand.

the only time science and religion have to be mutually exclusive is when religions start making empirical claims about the universe that are contrary to the scientific consensus and demand that their adherents believe those claims despite what the evidence says. other than that everything is a-ok.

It is a fact that we as humans are simply to primitative still to understand even things about our selves (the issue with female anatomy) let alone our origin or the creation of the Universe..
Though I agree that we still do not understand ourselves very well, that is mainly encephalic. The brain is what we have yet to understand. I have no idea what you're tlaking about in regards to the female anatomy. What's the issue there?

And religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive. However, blind faith and skepticism are. Religion enocurages blind faith, and science requires skepticism. Scientists do not claim to have an answer to everything, but they are trying to figure out as much as they can. And they're doing their best to ensure its verity.

But there are others in science who reject the idea of a higher being simply because there is no way to difiniatvly prove his/its existance.. meanwhile few things in the science of which they place their faith can be explained, and what are taken as given truths today maybe found to be falsehoods tomorrow..

The purpose of religion is not to explain why dinosaur bones exist. Science exists to explain the natural world; religion the inner, spiritual one.

Relgion and science serve two entirely different purposes, through entirely different means. This does not make them mutually exclusive, any more than music is mutually exclusive of television.

*looks around, secretively* By the way... What is the "issue with female anatomy"? :eek:

the only time science and religion have to be mutually exclusive is when religions start making empirical claims about the universe that are contrary to the scientific consensus and demand that their adherents believe those claims despite what the evidence says. other than that everything is a-ok.

This is the fault of science though.. it is based on this concsensus withint he scientific communty.. people put their faith in this concsensus.. but its proven time and time again that such concsensus is rarely infalable and usually proven wrong over an extended period of time.. our diet.. our very anatomy.. spacial anomolies (black holes) at what point can we put our faith into something with confidence that it is true ?

Scientists recently found that the ovaries in a woman acutally produces eggs along the life cycle of the woman.. and that there is no definiative number of eggs within the ovary to deplete.. whilst before this we had this idea of the "clock" for the woman where she had a certain number of eggs given at birth.. and that this number would be eventually depleted..

This is the fault of science though.. it is based on this concsensus withint he scientific communty.. people put their faith in this concsensus.. but its proven time and time again that such concsensus is rarely infalable and usually proven wrong over an extended period of time.. our diet.. our very anatomy.. spacial anomolies (black holes) at what point can we put our faith into something with confidence that it is true ?
The very base of science! Only bad scientists take anything for fact.

religion the inner, spiritual one
Or you could just say that "religion is the opiate of the masses".

Scientists recently found that the ovaries in a woman acutally produces eggs along the life cycle of the woman.. and that there is no definiative number of eggs within the ovary to deplete.. whilst before this we had this idea of the "clock" for the woman where she had a certain number of eggs given at birth.. and that this number would be eventually depleted..
I always thought the "ticking clock" and "time running out" was counting down to menopause.

Scientists recently found that the ovaries in a woman acutally produces eggs along the life cycle of the woman.. and that there is no definiative number of eggs within the ovary to deplete.. whilst before this we had this idea of the "clock" for the woman where she had a certain number of eggs given at birth.. and that this number would be eventually depleted..
What? Do you have anything to support this? Because oogenesis only occurs while an organism is developing. This is true for all ova-producing animals.

Or you could just say that "religion is the opiate of the masses".
Mmm! Opium...

I repeat my question then.. for the common person.. whose goal in life is not to study nature around him, or aproach every issue with sckeptism.. at what point can you put your faith into science.. If nothing ever told to you can be accepted as truth.. ? In other words.. those who belive the truth lies in science are miss leaded..because we will never know if scinece is offering us the truth.. or simply an answer to be disproven in the near future

They work hand-in-hand.
www.creationists.org

Douglas Adams in his vast wisdom had something so say about the matter of religion and science:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The arguement goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguements, you don't. QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

What? Do you have anything to support this? Because oogenesis only occurs while an organism is developing. This is true for all ova-producing animals.

This is not a claim im making..but rather findings made and now aparently accepted within the scientific community.. It was reported on heavliy some time ago..

because we will never know if scinece is offering us the truth.. or simply an answer to be disproven in the near future
Yes, but science is much, much, much more recent in what it says than religion is. Christianity is two millenia old. Science is now, and constantly refreshing itself. The "humours" in the Renaissance were science. We now know it to be bullsh*t, but it was science then.

Perhaps it is fair to say that in a sense, religion is science.

Science is the study of that which is true, and since people who follow religious creeds deem them to be the truth, for them, their faith is science.

However, much religion is based on assumptions that could hardly be deemed scientific or logical.

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguements, you don't. QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
I always loved that quote :) However, even though I'm an Atheist, I see no reason why science and Christianity can't work in tandem. As many Christians themselves admit, the Bible is highly open to interpretation. I don't see why, say, evolution and the Bible seem to contradict each other so much. I read somewhere years ago that the Catholic Church has accepted evolution in some quarters, but I can't remember what the source was (or even if it was credible, but it's a pretty dramatic statement to make if not true).

By the way, sorry I singled out Christianity - I just don't know enough about most other religions to be able to comment on them.

I believe that holy books are full of stories and metaphors which were the easiest ways to describe the scientific ideas at the time. the bibles old testament for example, cannot be taken literally. in genesis 1, the 7 days in which the world was created is a poetic way of describing evolution. Therefore, science and religion go hand in hand.

This is not a claim im making..but rather findings made and now aparently accepted within the scientific community.. It was reported on heavliy some time ago..

Until you show us support to your claim, it IS a claim YOU are making. I haven't seen ANY reports recently like what you say...

By the way, the ovaries house hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of eggs. We don't go through menopause when we 'run out' of eggs. We go through it when it is time for our bodies to stop bearing children.

Gawh.. whoever posted that creationist.org site should be ashamed of yourself.. and the same information that site is putting forth..

its commentary on mutation alone is filled with falsehoods.. how it never produces postive effects.. first of all in science recessive traits are accepted as "mutations" as they defer from dominate traits.. in this sense.. having white skin is a mutation..

But if u need evidence of positive mutations you only need look as far as simple insects such as mawths.. MAwths who developed physical charactertis through mutations to resemble the monarch butterfly.. a butterfly who produces toxins which creates a poor taste in the mouths of birds.. as such.. these mawths which look like monarchs flursih because birds do not eat them.

I urge you to better inform yourself on simple issues like high school biology before putting forth such weak evidence that science and religion are mutally exclusive T_T

Gawh.. whoever posted that creationist.org site should be ashamed of yourself.. and the same information that site is putting forth..

its commentary on mutation alone is filled with falsehoods.. how it never produces postive effects.. first of all in science recessive traits are accepted as "mutations" as they defer from dominate traits.. in this sense.. having white skin is a mutation..

But if u need evidence of positive mutations you only need look as far as simple insects such as mawths.. MAwths who developed physical charactertis through mutations to resemble the monarch butterfly.. a butterfly who produces toxins which creates a poor taste in the mouths of birds.. as such.. these mawths which look like monarchs flursih because birds do not eat them.

I urge you to better inform yourself on simple issues like high school biology before putting forth such weak evidence that science and religion are mutally exclusive T_T


One question... What in the world is a 'mawth'?

I assume you mean MOTH. However, you should try using spell-check if you can't spell. It makes you appear to be more intelligent, at least.

They work hand-in-hand.
www.creationists.org

Pssst... That isn't really science, darling.

I could say that 2+5=88 and you could call me a mathmetician, but I wouldn't really be applying mathematics, now would I?

Does Science and religion HAVE to be Mutually Exclusive ?

Of course not ... the Prophet(pbuh) said "Verily the men of knowledge are the inheritors of the prophets".

Muslim acheivements in science:

Muslim mathematicians devised and developed algebra.
Al-Khawarazmi used Arabic numerals which came to the west through his work-9th century.
Al-Razi described amd treated smallpox-10th century.
Ibn Sina diagnosed and treated meningities-11th century.
Ibn al-Haytham discovered the camera obscura- 11th century.
Al-Birini described the Ganges Valley as a sedimentary basin-11th century.
Muslims built the first observartory as a scientific institution-13th century.
Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi explained the cause of the rainbow- 13th century.
Ibn al-Nafis described the minor ciculation of the blood- 14th century.
Al-Kashani invented a computer machine- 15th century.

Some religions have within them commandments to study the Universe and everything in it as much and as often as possible.

By the way, the ovaries house hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of eggs. We don't go through menopause when we 'run out' of eggs. We go through it when it is time for our bodies to stop bearing children.

Found what they are talking about, I think.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/303/5664/1593a

It is all very preliminary and has only been observed in mice. I'll wait for the full research to be published before I worry too much about it, but it is pretty interesting. There are stem cells for many different types of cells in the body, so an egg stem cell isn't *that* surprising if it is present. Of course, mouse cells are infinitely more malleable and robust than human ones anyways.

I could say that 2+5=88 and you could call me a mathmetician, but I wouldn't really be applying mathematics, now would I?

Depends on your processor. :D

Muslim mathematicians devised and developed algebra.
I'm pretty sure that algebra predates Islam, though I could remember wrong on that.

Some religions have within them commandments to study the Universe and everything in it as much and as often as possible.
Then that's more of a philosophy than a religion.

I'm pretty sure that algebra predates Islam, though I could remember wrong on that.

Well, 3rd century Greeks were the first to attempt such things, but the accepted completion of algebra was the book al-Kitab al-muhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabala ("Compendium on calculation by completion and balancing"), written by the Arabic mathematician Al-Khwarizmi in the 9th century. The word algebra is derived from al-jabr, or "completion". This book developed methods for solving six different types of quadratic equations, and contained the first systematic consideration of the subject separately from number theory.

In about 1100, the Persian mathematician Omar Khayyam wrote a treatise on algebra based on Euclid's methods. In it he identified 25 types of equations and made the first formal distinction between arithmetic and algebra. Some time later during the 12th century, Al-Khwarizmi's works were translated and became available to Western scholars. In the 13th century Leonardo Fibonacci wrote some important and influential books on algebra. Other highly influential works were those of the Italian mathematician Luca Pacioli (1445-1517), and of the English mathematician Robert Recorde (1510-1558).

Then that's more of a philosophy than a religion.

Most Muslims are pretty comfortable with thinking of Islam as such. I'm assuming from your name that you're Gnostic? Then I'm sure you can understand when I say those who have only a Foxnews impression of Islam could never think of it in terms of philosophy or way of life.

Well, 3rd century Greeks were the first to attempt such things, but the accepted completion of algebra was the book al-Kitab al-muhtasar fi hisab al-jabr wa'l-muqabala ("Compendium on calculation by completion and balancing"), written by the Arabic mathematician Al-Khwarizmi in the 9th century.
Alright, I'll take you word for it. You seem pretty learned on this.

In about 1100, the Persian mathematician Omar Khayyam wrote a treatise on algebra based on Euclid's methods.
He also wrote the The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, I'm guessing. And I love that piece of poetry!

I'm assuming from your name that you're Gnostic?
No. My name comes from the Greek gnôstikos, which means "of knowledge". I'm actually an agnostic. And I think that I'll do a little more research on Islam, you've piqued my curiosity with some of what you said.

Religion and Science are (as ideas)completely seperate by my definition.

Religion is your belief, the way you convince yourself that you don't just rot away when you die to make yourself feel better about life. Also comes with a built in moral compass that may be demagnitizes very easily, but still very useful nonetheless.

Science is just a tower of theories glued together by the scientific method and reason in general. The ones at the bottom are generally more sound than the ones at the top, but by no means all of them. Science is based on "The Best Evidence Available" and can seem very "true" and groundbreaking when it is first put forward, and other things can be built upon it, but if it is replaced with a better theory or simply disproved, the who tower of cards can come tumbling down.

Essentially, Science is based on reality (but by no means IS reality) and religion isn't/doesn't have to be. They do not follow the same code. Hell, no religion, no matter how silly it may seem, is disprovable. Even by the almighty tower of Science. You can believe in Science if you want to, but the evidence of an afterlife and basic good in people is currently lacking and believing in Science may leave you feeling depressed.

Personally, I believe than something created the universe at some point. I really like to joke about him and blame my problems on him, so I find it convenient to believe in him for now, tomorrow I may believe differently for no particular reason. Science, however is almost as crazy and out there as some religions. Just pick a basic science you like (Physics, Bio, Chem as examples) and look up how the theories currently used came up, the ones used before them, and some of the crazy complicated stuff they'd come up today. I read a Physics book about Quark theory and was blown away by how un-scientific they acted, but thats because they have not been layed out and fully dissected like some ideas in Physics, like Momentum or D=VT for instance.

I hate making closing sentences.

Alright, I'll take you word for it. You seem pretty learned on this.

Well ... I've been known to be wrong. Have studied some math in my day, though.

He also wrote the The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, I'm guessing. And I love that piece of poetry!

The one and same! Fine bit of poetry there.

No. My name comes from the Greek gnôstikos, which means "of knowledge". I'm actually an agnostic. And I think that I'll do a little more research on Islam, you've piqued my curiosity with some of what you said.

Ah! Agnostic ... gotcha. That explains your knowledge and love of the Rubaiyat ... it is a poetry of modern agnosticism (well ... 11th century modern, anyway). By all means study Islam ... you may find (or may not) it is of a wonderful simplicity that allows you to love and honor God (Allah) while at the same time enjoying all of the fruits of science, math, medicine, the arts, and nature.

We've been getting a bad rap for the last 50-60 years, but very few of us Muslims are cave-dwelling terrorists. :)