NationStates Jolt Archive

formation of the Earth is disrupted by earthquakes. what else you got?

What do earthquakes have to do with it? Are you thinking you suddenly lose all rock evidence if a single quake occurs?

It shifts the Earth's crust. also another thing is sediment, it can build up even after a small rain storm.

A lot of Genesis is directly related to the Gilgamesh stories, just as a lot of Levitical Law bears a striking resemblence to Hammurabi's Code of Laws... even down to being 'carved in stone'. The Hebrew scripture seems strongly influenced by a lot of local (early Mesopotamian) 'history'.

Religion is a mix of history and legend. In one part of, say, the Quran, it might say that a great heavenly army marched on pagan Mecca and destroyed it without losing a soldier. This is based on history as far as an army capturing Mecca, and there may have been few casualties, but there were casualties and it was not a heavenly army. This would be classified under 'legend'.

Yes but what if all of those stories were based off of the story of Noah just translated.

That would be remarkable! They managed to translate the Noah story before the Jews ever told it.

This water was already muddy.

How so? If we stick to a few established parameters, we can be pretty accurate in dating something - even just using Carbon 14 isotope dating - to somewhere in the ballpark of 60,000 years. How is the water muddy? That's plenty old enough to ascertain whether a Young Earth claim (for example) is based on theology or fact.

Yes but what if all of those stories were based off of the story of Noah just translated.

How did all of this new water get there to cause a flood? Did god just call up some atoms and tell them to mix?

If he wanted to he could but he really only needed water in the atmosphere.

Nope. Not evidence. A conjecture. A theory. It doesn't even come close to "disproving Christianity".

1. You say you can prove that humans are social animals and we interact with humans, animals, and the spiritual. Good. But you do not answer why we are social animals.

2. Saying that we are really insignificant and there is no reason that a god would take interest to us assumes that...you are a god and knows how gods think, or how God would think.

1) The spiritual is a social face we slap on the universe in order to talk with it and feel comfortable with it. We are social creatures because of our genes-- it helped us survive in the past and it continues to help us survive. Please reread what I wrote about the Neanderthals. They were of equal, or even superior intelligence to humans, but they were pushed onto marginal lands by bands of humans. Evidence reveals that they had less developed jaws than humans, in addition to living more solitary lives, which ultimately proved to be their downfall. Now how does this disprove God? It doesn't completely, but it makes the concept of God more unlikely. Our need to socialize makes our attempt to socialize with the universe via a God or gods less real and more farcical, especially since we already socialize with things that don't socialize back. God isn't so much a supreme creator as he is a human attempt to put a friendly face on the universe to talk to, so the universe doesn't seem so empty, or so the line of logic goes. I would recommend reading up on social psychology. It's fascinating.

2) I don't know how a god would think, but assuming that the universe would be a reflection of a god's will, placing the human race in a position of utmost insignificance and then placing them at the top of his agenda would be seemingly contradictory. It's possible, of course, all things are possible, but supremely unlikely.

Yes but what if all of those stories were based off of the story of Noah just translated.

Even the stories that existed before the Biblical myths were first recorded?

How did all of this new water get there to cause a flood? Did god just call up some atoms and tell them to mix?the planet is over 70% water.

How would you know if they came before or after did you right them?

In my opinion, that question is interesting philosophically, but is practically unanswerable in it's current form. It is just waaay to vague. 'Science' and 'Religion' can be many, many, many, many things. Now if you mean the general ideas of science and religion, well different groups of people have married the two at various times throughout history, in some cultures there is hardly even a distiction. (Animism and which doctors and the like). But when you get down to details, specific examples... You can come up with a lot of doctrines that different religious teach that are in direct contradiction to what sciences proves, and vice versa, i.e. some sects in Christianity teach a young earth, (somewhere around 6,000 years,) while an evolutionist would say, "No way, the earth is billions of years old."

So to answer your question... It is foolish to think the two are absolutely mutually exclusive, I would think that everyone beleives in varying degrees of both, but when you get down to details there can be a lot of conflict between the two.

In conclusion, I could answer the question more specifically if it was asked more specifically.

It shifts the Earth's crust. also another thing is sediment, it can build up even after a small rain storm.

'Shifting the earth's crust' is one thing... it doesn't equate to destroying the evidence, though. Indeed, we can actually use such evidences as quakes, or sediment, to help us calibrate our dating mechanisms.

Far from being destructive to the process of establishing age, sediment and earthquakes actually help us.

'Shifting the earth's crust' is one thing... it doesn't equate to destroying the evidence, though. Indeed, we can actually use such evidences as quakes, or sediment, to help us calibrate our dating mechanisms.

Far from being destructive to the process of establishing age, sediment and earthquakes actually help us.

How long does it take for sediment to build up.

the planet is over 70% water.

Yes, but then the oceans would be left bare.

Another possible source for the noah mythos (Cthulhu FTW!) is the flooding of the black sea. 10,000 or so years ago, the Black sea was a grassy plain. There were villages, rivers, all that stuff. Then, a natural 'dam' at the bosphorus collapsed and flooded the whole place.

Many cultures have flood myths. Almost all cultures arise around available water sources, which are often a double-edged blade... a blessing till they flood. From an objective viewpoint, then - it's hardly surprising that most cultures contain water to have some mystical connection to the divine, and have histories of being punished with water.

I'm going to summarise the story. The protagonist is known as Nu-wa (Noah?). Nu-wa was a goddess ("nu" is "female" in Chinese). She was a good goddess, who introduced marriage to humankind, for example.

One day, the god of water (Gong-gong) and the god of fire (Zhu-rong) fought each other. The god of water lost, but before he died, he smashed himself against Mount Buzhou. Mount Buzhou was the pillar that held up the sky from the earth, and when the god of water smashed himself on it, the pillar tilted and part of the sky collapsed. A massive sinkhole developed and water began gushing out. The forests caught fire and the beasts came out to attack humans.

Nu-wa immediately acted to stop the catastrophe. With five stones of different colour, she created a multi-colour paste which blocked the hole in the sky. Then she took a giant turtle and chopped its legs off to balance the earth. Then she killed the evil beasts and stopped the floods.

Peace came back to the earth. But the legacy of this disaster remains: the sun and the moon rises in the east and sets in the west because of the tilted sky, and rivers all flow from the west to the east because of the tilted ground (a fact which corresponds with Chinese geography).

I would say that there are uncanny similarities with the Noah story which are interesting.

Yes, but then the oceans would be left bare.

Not really the water would go back down hence the Water Cycle.

How did all of this new water get there to cause a flood? Did god just call up some atoms and tell them to mix?

Hey... If you beleive the Bible, God did some way crazier miracles than just cause water to materialize. Numerous times he makes fire appear from the sky to destory his enemies... A Christian would just argue God is omnipotent, so... basically, yeah, He might as well just have taken some matter from the air and transformed it into water...

Considering the fact that the continents and other land masses are constantly moving the world's large bodies of water are getting moved around.

How would you know if they came before or after did you right them?

The oldest extant Hebrew scriptures are somewhere in the ballpark of two-and-a-half thousand years old. If we can find evidence that can be shown to be earlier than that, we have strong reason to belief that other evidence pre-dates the Hebrew recordings.

The Hammurabi evidence is about 4,000 years old, or about one-and-a-half thousand years older than the earliest existing evidence we have for the Hebrew Scriptures.

Thus - the Hammurabi evidence alone, pre-dates Biblical myth by at least 1500 years.

1) The spiritual is a social face we slap on the universe in order to talk with it and feel comfortable with it. We are social creatures because of our genes-- it helped us survive in the past and it continues to help us survive. Please reread what I wrote about the Neanderthals. They were of equal, or even superior intelligence to humans, but they were pushed onto marginal lands by bands of humans. Evidence reveals that they had less developed jaws than humans, in addition to living more solitary lives, which ultimately proved to be their downfall. Now how does this disprove God? It doesn't completely, but it makes the concept of God more unlikely. Our need to socialize makes our attempt to socialize with the universe via a God or gods less real and more farcical, especially since we already socialize with things that don't socialize back. God isn't so much a supreme creator as he is a human attempt to put a friendly face on the universe to talk to, so the universe doesn't seem so empty, or so the line of logic goes. I would recommend reading up on social psychology. It's fascinating.

Okay. That was the statement I was looking for.

2) I don't know how a god would think, but assuming that the universe would be a reflection of a god's will, placing the human race in a position of utmost insignificance and then placing them at the top of his agenda would be seemingly contradictory. It's possible, of course, all things are possible, but supremely unlikely.

Only seemingly contradictory. They are not necessarily so.

But on with your argument. I am now satisfied - as if I need to be...

Not really the water would go back down hence the Water Cycle.

Yes, but in the short term the water cycle would be very ineffective. In the long term, the whole thing makes no sense, because all of the water would go down and make no purpose of the flood. It would also not last for 40 whole days.

How do we know how old it is do we do what other scientists do...guess?

Not strictly true - there is a lot of evidence to suggest that 'Noah' is based on an earlier Mesopotamian figure - although the 'flood' would have been a local rather than global phenomenon, and the Mesopotamian version includes a cargo of animals, but not two (or more) or every animal on the earth.

(Incidentally - it's another one of those things that exists in forensic form in the Hebrew scripture - we KNOW where the Flood is supposed to have taken place, and it's limits, because Abram is described as walking around it).

Indeed there is, archaeologists uncovering structures in Ancient Babylon have also found evidence that there may have been a large flood in that region thousands of years ago.

The interesting thing about Noah's Flood is that in the Bible it says it covered the entire world, when people living today hear that story they scoff at that suggestion and say it was impossible for all the world to be covered by water. They are more than likely correct, however, what people need to remember is that this is an ancient story, one where the 'world' was not as vast as it is today. When hearing this story people must remember that we are talking about the 'world' of Noah, his 'world' was not very big and when we hear of the flood covering the 'world' it is absolutely correct it did cover the entire 'world', the 'world' that he knew. A person who may have scoffed at this story in the 12th century would have thought how can a flood cover all of Europe, Africa and the Middle East, they would not have fought of East Asia or Australia or the Americas, simple because those continents weren't a part of their 'world' of course it could be said that our 'world' is more than just Earth it encompasses the Solar system, the Milky Way and further depths of Space than that, of course it would be downright stupid to believe that all of that was drowned in water. So while Noah's flood may not have happened as covering the world i.e. Earth, it very well could have covered the small 'world' known by Noah, somewhere in the Middle East.

Yes, but in the short term the water cycle would be very ineffective. In the long term, the whole thing makes no sense, because all of the water would go down and make no purpose of the flood. It would also not last for 40 whole days.

The water would come down wiping out cities and go down into the ocean. Are you a water expert how do you know it wouldn't last 40 days.

Check out this book:

The Bible As History, by Werner Keller. A bit old; the edition I have is 1980. I don't remember its exact arguments, for I read it some time ago.

The water would come down wiping out cities and go down into the ocean. Are you a water expert how do you know it wouldn't last 40 days.

Because if it rained for 40 days, there would have to be a controlled water system, and that is impossible. The mythos also claims that only Mt. Ararat was high enough to withstand the flood. What about Mt. Everest and all of the mountains higher than Ararat?

Maybe Mt. Everest hadn't been discovered.

It would also not last for 40 whole days.

The term 40 which crops a lot in the Bible, is something which also raises contention, it is proposed by archaeologists and language specialists that the ancient Hebrew word for "40" and (I will paraphrase) "a long time" sounded very similar, thus as the writings were translated into Greek, there was confusion and the 40 was used. Thus when you read in the Bible of 40 days or 40 years might not actually mean to be 40 but rather a long time, thus the flood may have happened for a long time and count was lost or as the story was passed down from generation to generation the exact number was forgotten and the term a long time was used. Thus the Hebrews before they invaded what is now known as Israel walked in the Arabian desert for a long time, rather than exactly forty years.

The term 40 which crops a lot in the Bible, is something which also raises contention, it is proposed by archaeologists and language specialists that the ancient Hebrew word for "40" and (I will paraphrase) "a long time" sounded very similar, thus as the writings were translated into Greek, there was confusion and the 40 was used. Thus when you read in the Bible of 40 days or 40 years might not actually mean to be 40 but rather a long time, thus the flood may have happened for a long time and count was lost or as the story was passed down from generation to generation the exact number was forgotten and the term a long time was used. Thus the Hebrews before they invaded what is now known as Israel walked in the Arabian desert for a long time, rather than exactly forty years.

That works too.

Maybe Mt. Everest hadn't been discovered.

So it wouldn't exist? If an object is hidden behind a wall, it still exists.

I'm going to summarise the story. The protagonist is known as Nu-wa (Noah?). Nu-wa was a goddess ("nu" is "female" in Chinese). She was a good goddess, who introduced marriage to humankind, for example.

One day, the god of water (Gong-gong) and the god of fire (Zhu-rong) fought each other. The god of water lost, but before he died, he smashed himself against Mount Buzhou. Mount Buzhou was the pillar that held up the sky from the earth, and when the god of water smashed himself on it, the pillar tilted and part of the sky collapsed. A massive sinkhole developed and water began gushing out. The forests caught fire and the beasts came out to attack humans.

Nu-wa immediately acted to stop the catastrophe. With five stones of different colour, she created a multi-colour paste which blocked the hole in the sky. Then she took a giant turtle and chopped its legs off to balance the earth. Then she killed the evil beasts and stopped the floods.

Peace came back to the earth. But the legacy of this disaster remains: the sun and the moon rises in the east and sets in the west because of the tilted sky, and rivers all flow from the west to the east because of the tilted ground (a fact which corresponds with Chinese geography).

I would say that there are uncanny similarities with the Noah story which are interesting.

I'm already familiar with the story - Nu Wa is one of the class of serpent gods credited (in many religions) with creating the earth and/or populating it. Like Tiamat in Mesopotamian myth. But, apart from a possible translation similarity in the name of (one of) the acting gods, there's hardly any similarity.

The Biblical god causes the flood, wipes everything out except a chosen handful, and allows the flood to expire after a set amount of time. In the Nu Wa story, Nu Wa isn't the creator of the flood, the animals aren't killed by the flood (they are enraged by the floods and fires and start attacking people, and thus, she kills the beasts because they are attacking ehr creations), and she acts to stop the flood (by quenching it with ashes). On top of that, while Nu Wa is a god, Noah is just a chosen mortal.

The stories are almost totally incompatible. If it wasn't for the fact that one of the variants of the Nu Gua (Nu Kua, Nv Wa) names is a little like the Biblical name 'Noah', the ONLY thing these stories would have in common is the fact that - like almost every other culture - they both have stories about floods.

So it wouldn't exist? If an object is hidden behind a wall, it still exists.

In the bible it said the flood covered the whole world, covering the highest mountain top.

Maybe Mt. Everest hadn't been discovered.

By God?

By God?

God didn't write the Bible and hand it to us he had people do it for him.

I was going to read this until I ran into Darwin and decided it was probably false information.

Oh, but it does. Allow me to explain, because I left that statement hanging. Contemporary religions exist because they are those best suited for survival. What that entails is that they satisfy their believers emotional needs the best, protect themselves from the encroachments of other religious ideologies, explains the universe the best, provides the best sense of community and belongingness, and is the easiest to follow. Contemporary Christianity is only one sect of a whole plethora of sects that existed in the early days of the religion. The current Pauline Christianity that most Christians follow arouse because it was the most centralized and aggressive of all the churches, enabling to eliminate weaker opposition like the Gnostics. These characteristics enable its survival but also contributed to its downfall during the reformation, when it falled to provide for the emotional needs of its believers, those causing the protestants to break away. Today, Christianity lacks the characteristics to survive in modern society. In Europe, atheism is gaining ground because it better explains the universe than Christianity, while in the United States, Christianity is losing ground at the expense of new aged spiritualism and agnosticism, which better provides for the emotional needs of the believers. This same pattern of survival of the religion with the best characteristics is also seen in the Middle East. Zoroastrianism, an ancient and wide spread religion was all but eradicated with the advent of Islam, a religion whose fierce warrior and missionary characteristics greatly surpassed that of Zoroastrianism (which had a very weak missionary stance). In India, Hinduism has lasted so long because it possesses all the desirable characteristics, and when it meets another religion, it simply absorbs the religion and its most admirable characteristics, contributing to its survival. In India, Buddhism once held a very large number of people under its sway, but has since lost almost all influence on the subcontinent due to its very weak missionary drive and its stance on nonviolence. Wherever you look you can see the concept of survival of the fittest at work on religions. There is order in why today's religions came to be so dominant while other philosophies and religions died off.

Now, of course, this view has never been taken by any scholar before, and while it makes sense, it lacks hard core documented evidence. I'm entering college next year and I think I'll use this as part of my master's thesis. I want to provide a scientific understanding of the religious phenomenon, rather than the traditional atheist understanding of "they're just a bunch of gay hating illogical dumbasses". Atheistists are to preoccupied with disliking and countering religion, then attempting to understand it and how it arouse. That's what I think, anyway.

where does it say that?

In the bible it said the flood covered the whole world, covering the highest mountain top.

In the Bible it also says that Abram walked around the flood.

Clearly it can't have literally covered the whole world, if Abram walked round it.

In the bible it said the flood covered the whole world, covering the highest mountain top.

Except Mt. Ararat, which wasn't the highest, or even moderately high.

That would be remarkable! They managed to translate the Noah story before the Jews ever told it.

Do you mean wrote it down, I am sure we could find old writings of Noah's flood hidden in a cave in the Arabian Peninsula but that is not to say that the story was not passed down through the generations, and we can't find evidence for that as they is no recording. Of course all these stories could have derived from a single source and as people travel to another town and the story spreads through that town, and goes to another town as it spreads around the world, names may change, duration may change, location may change, the Jews may have changed the name to Noah just as other communities did, and that is what stuck. That is not to say that Noah wasn't his name nor that the other stories similar to the story of Noah wasn't around before the Jews ever wrote it. Of course one thing to remember Noah wasn't a Jew himself, but rather an ancestor of the Jewish people.

Except Mt. Ararat, which wasn't the highest, or even moderately high.

Mt. Ararat isn't mentioned in the bible.

God didn't write the Bible and hand it to us he had people do it for him.

The problem with that argument is - anyone can make it. The Holy Quran is inspired by god, but written by man. Their argument is actually better, since Mohammed is supposed to have been illiterate, which would mean the simple creation of Mohammedan texts would be a miracle, just by existing.

If God inspired the Bible - why allow errors to creep in? If he had no control, why should we believe he was involved?

He did have control he told them what to write.

where does it say that?

What is this question about?

What is this question about?

The Abram thing

That works too.

What do you mean "that works too."

What do you mean "that works too."

The 40 being mistranslated

I'll be back tomorrow but I gotta go.

The 40 being mistranslated

Yes, and it does provide a reasonable explanation. It also explains why Pontius Pilate ordered Jesus to be whipped 39 times, rather than 40 which would have meant that the whipper would have continued for a long time.

In the Bible it also says that Abram walked around the flood.

Clearly it can't have literally covered the whole world, if Abram walked round it.

Thats exactly right not the whole world as we know it today, nor as they knew it 1500 years ago.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13720794&postcount=274

The Abram thing

Several places, actually:

Joshua 24:2 "And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, [even] Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods".

Joshua 24:3 "And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac."

Joshua 24:15 "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

We know where Abram went - his journey is closely catalogued: "Get thee out of thy country (Genesis 12:1)... So Abram departed (Genesis 12:4)... and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:5)... And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh (Gensis 12:6)... And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, [having] Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east (Genesis 12:8)... And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the south (Genesis 12:9)... and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there (Genesis 12:10)... And Abram went up out of Egypt... into the south (Genesis 13:1)... And he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai (Genesis 13:3)... Then Abram removed [his] tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which [is] in Hebron (Genesis 13:8).

We can easily make a map of Abrams voyage - it's a journey around the head of the Persian Gulf. Thus - unless Joshua can be shown to be false - we know that "the Flood" is limited to the geography of the immediate locality of the Persian Gulf.

To cut short the chase, I believed the difference boiled down to my parents' faith: they knew how to love properly and how to bring up their children. The way they learnt this was through Christianity.

You earlier identified yourself as a logophile, but your assertion here makes a number of assumptions (and to be fair, you did claim that you never make assumptions).

First off, why is "faith" and in particular your religion, necessary to "love properly" and know "how to bring up their children"? And if it is not necessary, (or not "universal" as you've admitted), then one can achieve all the same aims without believing in the torture-murder of an innocent man as being necessary for forgiveness.

Surely there are people of different religions, and of no religion, who love their children "properly" and raise them well. Thus, Christianity is not the only way, or even a necessary way, to learn how to do these things.

And if some parents can love and raise their children well secularly, without needing an external dogma or doctrine to accomplish this, is it not more sound a method, to be able to do it without dogmatic indoctrination?

In fact, anything that "Christianity" teaches that is of genuine value should be able to be arrived at without torture-murder, human sacrifice, etc.

Basically, there are people who can love their children and reconcile with their grandparents WITHOUT religious dogma. The fact that they are able to do so, from within their own hearts and without being told to do so by somebody else, is an asset.

There was no significant change immediately after that. I mean, you say a prayer, "accepting Jesus into your heart", and that's it. But after that, I never argued with my grandmother ever again. Just like that. Unfortunately she passed away soon after, but not before becoming Christian herself, so that's a good thing. It was only later that I gradually grasped the theology behind it. But it felt real. And it did have real consequences.

Dragons Bay, again, you presented yourself as a logophile. You've employed here some classical fallacies. If you wish me to take you seriously as a "logophile", may I ask, as an excercise, if you know what they are, and why they compromise your reasoning?



So this is one example of how personal observation and experiences first brought me to Christ. There are many other examples, which have reinforced my faith to Christ. This is really biased or delusional, you say. But there were also numerous times after that when I seriously doubted even the existence of God. The greatest challenge to one's faith isn't somebody arguing with you over scientific theories, but doubts from your own heart. But every time I'm glad to say I've returned to Him, stronger than ever.

The reason the doubts from your own heart are the most potent is that essentially, you've convinced yourself of a number of premises, and those premises are evoked and preserved by your need to have them be true. Only addressing that need would ever really be able to convince you to surrender beliefs that are such necessary coping mechanisms in your life.


And I disclaim again: I do not suggest this as evidence of the universality of Christianity. This is only evidence of personal observation which made me Christian. I typed this out only because you asked.

What you've provided is, more than anything, evidence of my pet theory that people subscribe to religion as a means of assuring themselves, of convincing themselves of things they need to be true, without actually having to provide rigorous support.

I would also point out that these "observations" don't really show that the Bible is as "accurate" a reflection of human nature as you originally claimed.

They demonstrate clearly that you, your parents, and your family were unable to arrive at meaningful familial interaction without religious dogma.

Since people of many other religions seem to have the same issue, and they receive all the same benefits from their other religions, it again provides support for the idea that, rather than being true in any sort of categorical sense, your religion (and the others) function as coping mechanism.

As you yourself have said, you make no effort to establish Christianity as "universal", but I had asked what observations demonstrate the Bible as particular insightful as to the human condition in a way that distinguishes it from other literature (including fiction) in that capacity. I don't think you've accomplished this.

You've explained why you and your family need your religion to function as family. I've met many Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, and others who use their religions precisely the same way.

Since at least some of these religions aren't "The True Religion", that means one receives these benefits even from a religion whose spiritual beliefs aren't actually true.

I'm simply pointing out that there are some who can love and raise their children without a religious Dogma, so your Bible (or the Koran, et), while it may function to help your family, is not necessary to do so.

There are secular, rational reasons to love and care for your family, and even for humanity in general. Nobody has to be nailed to wood and butchered for us to be forgiven and forgiving.

Surely there are people of different religions, and of no religion, who love their children "properly" and raise them well.

I can see this may prove to be a point of contention.

I can see this may prove to be a point of contention.

Well, Dragons Bay and I have our disagreements, but I will be very surprised if he were to claim "Only those of my religion love their children properly and raise them well". I really don't think he'll claim that.

Others might...on nationstates, its likely at least one will.

If one were to claim that at least some religion, not necessarily theirs, were necessary to love and raise children well, it would support my premise of religion as coping mechanism.

So... Home-schooled or do you live in Kansas? Those are the only possible scenarios when that issue should be brought up.

You forgot Drop-out.

So it wouldn't exist? If an object is hidden behind a wall, it still exists.

Not that I'm taking this stance, but to throw it out there anyway: Why bother relating a geographical landmark that the target audience wasn't familiar with in any way?

If I told you that the Rain waters covered Washington all the way up to the tip of Mt. Rainier, would that mean anything to you? Possibly, given the ease of information access these days--and of course if you live up here. But I trust you see my point.

You forgot Drop-out.


Well, the term need not be so perjorative ... how about "self educated"?

Well, the term need not be so perjorative ... how about "self educated"?

S'all about context. If this weren't some bible-thumper persona bein' put on I wouldn't use the term negatively. Connotation aside, isn't it a fairly accurate description of what it describes?

S'all about context. If this weren't some bible-thumper persona bein' put on I wouldn't use the term negatively. Connotation aside, isn't it a fairly accurate description of what it describes?

Sure, but soft-soaping drop-outs is always good policy, 'cause some of them will try to put a sharpened screw driver into your liver if you don't "rispek" them.

I'm thinking of dropping out of Law School, but since I don't start until August, it would seem even more capricious....but christ, I don't wanna go back to extreme condition physics....

I'm thinking of dropping out of Law School, but since I don't start until August, it would seem even more capricious....but christ, I don't wanna go back to extreme condition physics....

Oh, when I say drop-out, I mean like High School dropout. You're fine.

But I'm watching you. :p

I'm already familiar with the story - Nu Wa is one of the class of serpent gods credited (in many religions) with creating the earth and/or populating it. Like Tiamat in Mesopotamian myth. But, apart from a possible translation similarity in the name of (one of) the acting gods, there's hardly any similarity.

The Biblical god causes the flood, wipes everything out except a chosen handful, and allows the flood to expire after a set amount of time. In the Nu Wa story, Nu Wa isn't the creator of the flood, the animals aren't killed by the flood (they are enraged by the floods and fires and start attacking people, and thus, she kills the beasts because they are attacking ehr creations), and she acts to stop the flood (by quenching it with ashes). On top of that, while Nu Wa is a god, Noah is just a chosen mortal.

The stories are almost totally incompatible. If it wasn't for the fact that one of the variants of the Nu Gua (Nu Kua, Nv Wa) names is a little like the Biblical name 'Noah', the ONLY thing these stories would have in common is the fact that - like almost every other culture - they both have stories about floods.

Well, you point to the differences. Of course the two stories are different. But for the sake of fairness where the similarities?

What about the reference to the rainbow (the multi-coloured paste made from stones of five colours (and in Chinese, there are only five designated colours) to "seal the sky" (which in Noah's story, also had holes) and the reference to water gushing out from the depths?

Plus - just another spanner - perhaps, just perhaps, the fact that there are flood myths in every ancient culture suggest something of a collective cultural memory?

-snip-

I'd just like to take a moment to address your sig:

Cat Tribes does a masterful Chewbacca Defense. :D

I don't think religion in general contradict Science, I mean, yeah Christianity maybe, but Islam for instances has no contradiction with Evolution or the Big Bang Theory (which Christianity shouldn't have a problem with either, well, the later)-and I'm sure its not limited to Islam.

I think its just a coincidence, that people of the biggest faith in the world (Christianity) turns out to be the same people with one of the biggest scientific progress = conflict.

Its like Science ;)

Plus - just another spanner - perhaps, just perhaps, the fact that there are flood myths in every ancient culture suggest something of a collective cultural memory?

Possibly. Which would lead directly to the question "Which culture/religion has the correct interpretation of that event?"

If you look at it from an anthropological perspective, you can even date the event(s) to the end of the last ice age, which was a period of massive rainfall and recurring flooding. It lasted long enough and certainly was severe enough to be remembered in myths even 10 000 years afterwards.

Jhahannam: I hope your reply was in good faith. It was my trust in you that allows me to respond the following. I have a feeling you have once again taken my words further than what I intended to say, so here I try to clarify.

You earlier identified yourself as a logophile, but your assertion here makes a number of assumptions (and to be fair, you did claim that you never make assumptions).

What's your defintion of "logophile"?


First off, why is "faith" and in particular your religion, necessary to "love properly" and know "how to bring up their children"? And if it is not necessary, (or not "universal" as you've admitted), then one can achieve all the same aims without believing in the torture-murder of an innocent man as being necessary for forgiveness.
I can't say whether it's necessary or not because I do not purport to be able to observe the universal. I have only observed around me and made my conclusions. I don't know whether it's necessary or not, but since I have experience that it could, I don't know any better and it's only benefitting me and the people around me. Therefore I believe.


Surely there are people of different religions, and of no religion, who love their children "properly" and raise them well. Thus, Christianity is not the only way, or even a necessary way, to learn how to do these things.
I never said it's the only way or whether it was necessary for anybody else. I meant that it's the way I saw worked.


And if some parents can love and raise their children well secularly, without needing an external dogma or doctrine to accomplish this, is it not more sound a method, to be able to do it without dogmatic indoctrination?
One benefit of this is that if running a life is like running country, and it is good in running a country to have a set of laws, then it is also good to have a set of rules or dogma to run a life. Not all countries have the same laws, but all good countries have laws. In the same way, not all people have the same set of rules governing their lives, but all good people should have a set of rules of behaviour, or at least of basic attitude, however these set of rules are generated.


In fact, anything that "Christianity" teaches that is of genuine value should be able to be arrived at without torture-murder, human sacrifice, etc.See below.


Basically, there are people who can love their children and reconcile with their grandparents WITHOUT religious dogma. The fact that they are able to do so, from within their own hearts and without being told to do so by somebody else, is an asset.
Christians do not love because they follow rules or dogma. That is an erronous conclusion and it shows how much you underestimate the true meaning of Christianity. Christians love exactly because they can love from the bottom of their hearts.


Dragons Bay, again, you presented yourself as a logophile. You've employed here some classical fallacies. If you wish me to take you seriously as a "logophile", may I ask, as an excercise, if you know what they are, and why they compromise your reasoning?

This really makes me wonder what you understand from "logophile".



The reason the doubts from your own heart are the most potent is that essentially, you've convinced yourself of a number of premises, and those premises are evoked and preserved by your need to have them be true. Only addressing that need would ever really be able to convince you to surrender beliefs that are such necessary coping mechanisms in your life.
Well, I'm only human.


What you've provided is, more than anything, evidence of my pet theory that people subscribe to religion as a means of assuring themselves, of convincing themselves of things they need to be true, without actually having to provide rigorous support.
Any other reason that people turn to religion is wrong. While I cannot provide irrefutable physical evidence to support my claims, I can provide rigorous theoretical support for my religious claims. It is only whether you accept this support which is the question.


I would also point out that these "observations" don't really show that the Bible is as "accurate" a reflection of human nature as you originally claimed.

Well of course; I didn't try to show that these observations showed the Bible as an accurate reflection of human nature. I did only claim it - see below.


They demonstrate clearly that you, your parents, and your family were unable to arrive at meaningful familial interaction without religious dogma.
Haha. How did you arrive to that conclusion? That's a false assumption. It demonstrated clearly that me, my parents, and my family arrived at meaningful familial interaction with a religious attitude - nothing more.

It's like I'm saying "I came here on the train", but you tell me that "Without the train, you could not have come here". That's a false conclusion from my premise.


Since people of many other religions seem to have the same issue, and they receive all the same benefits from their other religions, it again provides support for the idea that, rather than being true in any sort of categorical sense, your religion (and the others) function as coping mechanism.My religion does function as a coping mechanism.


As you yourself have said, you make no effort to establish Christianity as "universal", but I had asked what observations demonstrate the Bible as particular insightful as to the human condition in a way that distinguishes it from other literature (including fiction) in that capacity. I don't think you've accomplished this.
Ah I see. Here it goes, briefly, a personal conclusion, built up from verses from the Bible:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)
God created man in His own image; (Gen. 1:27)
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23)
The wages of sin is death. (Rom. 6:23)
Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment. (Heb. 9:27)
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they...throw them [everything that causes sin and all who do evil] into the fiery furnace... (Matthew 13:41-43)

The above is the abridged version of why there is judgement. So what can Christianity do to help?

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? (Rom. 7:24)
What must I do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 18:18)
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom. 5:1)
Now the dwelling of God is with men, and He will live with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (Rev. 21:3-4)


You've explained why you and your family need your religion to function as family. I've met many Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, and others who use their religions precisely the same way. Religion shouldn't be used in any other way.


Since at least some of these religions aren't "The True Religion", that means one receives these benefits even from a religion whose spiritual beliefs aren't actually true. You can never discover what is universally true in terms of religion. You can only have faith.


I'm simply pointing out that there are some who can love and raise their children without a religious Dogma, so your Bible (or the Koran, et), while it may function to help your family, is not necessary to do so.
I am not judging whether it is necessary; I am only judging on the basis of my personal experiences.


There are secular, rational reasons to love and care for your family, and even for humanity in general. Nobody has to be nailed to wood and butchered for us to be forgiven and forgiving.I agree that reason must be present in love, but if you say the only reason we love is because we are rational, I must disagree. Please elaborate on this point.

Generally, I feel that you have a tendency to...how should I say this...jump to your own conclusions while missing out the middle stops. Half the time what you conclude isn't what I said. I don't know whether there were other Christians who spurred you to make those conclusions, but I hope that this conversation shows you that Christianity isn't just what you think.

Is there really a conflict between science and religion? ...
Science, Religion and Atheism alike are (to use a very broad brush indeed) tied by the common thread of Institutional Thought. One subscribes to a particular model (or set of models) of the world and bands together with others to enhance that model's social standing. The idea of schools of Philosophy and Politics shares this trait, particularly with regards to economics.

Conflict between these institutions is not ideological but social. People would be more than happy to be and let be, regardless of difference in opinion, if not for the rivalry for social position between their institutions. Religions do not prosper for the value of their own ideas - they succeed because of the way they both acquire and use the human resource available to them. Science does not fight Religion because of ideological concerns - they do so to prevent it stealing their resources (including its people) that could otherwise go to incredibly helpful and productive projects. Atheism does not fight religion because of a disbelief in God - it does so to create a social change of its own.

Is there a conflict? Hell yeah. It's just not what you think it is.

b. Science was a rather common justification for genocide. What is your view on that.

Really? I can only think of one, and even then it is very arguable.

Lacking belief doesn't give someone the right to criticize religion itself or those who believe in it.

Of course lacking belief does not give someone that right. They have it anyway ;)

Possibly. Which would lead directly to the question "Which culture/religion has the correct interpretation of that event?"

If you look at it from an anthropological perspective, you can even date the event(s) to the end of the last ice age, which was a period of massive rainfall and recurring flooding. It lasted long enough and certainly was severe enough to be remembered in myths even 10 000 years afterwards.

Mm. Makes sense.

Really? I can only think of one, and even then it is very arguable.

Depends how your argue it.

Depends how your argue it.

That is why I said it was arguable... ;)

But what were some of the other genocides possibly justified by science?

That is why I said it was arguable... ;)

But what were some of the other genocides possibly justified by science?

Okay, let me clarify. I should say: certain strands of science can be easily modified to justify genocide.

Okay, let me clarify. I should say: certain strands of science can be easily modified to justify genocide.
That's a pretty wildly different statement from what you originally said ("Science was a rather common justification for genocide").

If science was so common a justification for genocide, surely you can provide at least...oh, five examples? Five isn't much, considering how many genocides have been advocated or perpetrated across human history.

If, on the other hand, you're simply saying that some kinds of science could easily be used to support genocide in theory, but they haven't been used this way yet, then you're going to need to explain why people haven't chosen to use science in that way. Keeping in mind that people have used religion that way, pretty much all the time.

That's a pretty wildly different statement from what you originally said ("Science was a rather common justification for genocide").

If science was so common a justification for genocide, surely you can provide at least...oh, five examples? Five isn't much, considering how many genocides have been advocated or perpetrated across human history.

If, on the other hand, you're simply saying that some kinds of science could easily be used to support genocide in theory, but they haven't been used this way yet, then you're going to need to explain why people haven't chosen to use science in that way. Keeping in mind that people have used religion that way, pretty much all the time.

Originally the statement was made in response of another statement that said roughly along the lines of "religion is used to justify slavery". My initial intent was to show that saying this is as good as saying "science is used to justify genocide" (i.e. it isn't very good). I personally do not subscribe to this view.

Hence, when Levee en masse quoted it outside of context and seemed to want to continue exploring this, I need to clarify what I really believe.

Is that clearer? Sorry for the confusion.

Originally the statement was made in response of another statement that said roughly along the lines of "religion is used to justify slavery". My initial intent was to show that saying this is as good as saying "science is used to justify genocide" (i.e. it isn't very good). I personally do not subscribe to this view.

Hence, when Levee en masse quoted it outside of context and seemed to want to continue exploring this, I need to clarify what I really believe.

Is that clearer? Sorry for the confusion.

Before I run to class, I must reply.
The poster you were replying to was me, and I pointed out that religion has been used to justify slavery. It was, in fact, a popular (and powerful, at the time) argument. And, if you accept faith as a means of knowing truth, then their religious justification is equally valid as your religious opposition.
You replied by pointing to science being used as a justification for genocide, a claim that has been dealt with, but that I will return to later.

Originally the statement was made in response of another statement that said roughly along the lines of "religion is used to justify slavery". My initial intent was to show that saying this is as good as saying "science is used to justify genocide" (i.e. it isn't very good). I personally do not subscribe to this view.

Hence, when Levee en masse quoted it outside of context and seemed to want to continue exploring this, I need to clarify what I really believe.

Is that clearer? Sorry for the confusion.

That isn't true, or at least you weren't clear enough. It is fairly easy to go back and check btw, I feel the integrity of the context remained in tact.

Incidentaly, c. was
c. Whether you like it or not, Christianity helped end slavery worldwide.

Should we read point c. the way you apparently want us read point b.?

Though I am interested in exploring this topic as well :)


(Is it just me or was there a pretty wild edit?)

Hey, what the hell? I thought I cleared this matter on page 4 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13719637&postcount=56). Why are you still debating? :p

Science cannot justify genocide, or even any normative judgement at all, due to the is/ought fallacy.

Hey, what the hell? I thought I cleared this matter on page 4 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13719637&postcount=56). Why are you still debating? :p
Because you didn't address the actual conflict (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13721593&postcount=315).

Or, more likely, because people like to argue.

:p

As an Australian, things like this are hard to ignore. It's quite depressing to know that I'm being tagged as a "racist" just like the extremist, idiotic minority who give most of us a bad name. I've always been committed to treating everyone I meet exactly as I would wish to be treated. I think it's very sad that just because a few moronic bigots decide that they can use the press to spread their stupid message, I get associated with them. If you really want to know what Aussies are like, I'd beg you not to accept the media's story-selling view. In a lifetime of living here, I've met very few Australians who agree with the prejudiced racists you see on TV.

It's funny, though. A couple of weeks ago there were some horrible race riots in Johannesburg, South Africa (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10512527) that made the Cronulla Riots of 2005 look like a Ghandi-led protest. 50 dead, and 35 000 left homeless. Where the Cronulla Riots became worldwide news (and so they should have been, it was a disgraceful moment in Australian history), these riots just seemed to fade into the background. Why wasn't there much of an outcry over those?

And just to any Aussies out there, I think you should listen to a song called 77%, by the Herd. It has a very good take on this sort of thing.

Before I run to class, I must reply.
The poster you were replying to was me, and I pointed out that religion has been used to justify slavery. It was, in fact, a popular (and powerful, at the time) argument.

That's true. I wholeheartedly agree. But in kind would you agree that for a while arguments based on scientific discoveries and theories were also used to justify policy here and there too?


And, if you accept faith as a means of knowing truth, then their religious justification is equally valid as your religious opposition.
I accept faith as a means of interpreting a world of facts.


You replied by pointing to science being used as a justification for genocide, a claim that has been dealt with, but that I will return to later.Enjoy class!

That isn't true, or at least you weren't clear enough. It is fairly easy to go back and check btw, I feel the integrity of the context remained in tact.

I wasn't clear enough. Pardonnez-moi.


Incidentaly, c. was


Should we read point c. the way you apparently want us read point b.?

Though I am interested in exploring this topic as well :)

Very interesting indeed...though I'm really struggling not to become addicted to this thread again. I'm inclined not to have a go at it because at the end of the day it will be an argument of historical interpretation, and those never have right or wrong answers, and contribute nothing to what I need most: exam revision.

I'm inclined not to have a go at it because at the end of the day it will be an argument of historical interpretation,and those never have right or wrong answers,

Of course they do :)

and contribute nothing to what I need most: exam revision.

The joys of having left formal education :)

(Though shortly to be backin on a more informal basis :()

What are you studying for?

Science doesn't really have a problem with religion. Religion sometimes has a problem with science, since science sometimes finds things that contradict the beliefs of a religion. This tends to get the the more.....intense followers of that religion somewhat upset with science. See: Attempts to put Intelligent Design in high school science classes across America.

See:
Christopher Hutchens
Richard Dawkins
Stephen Hawking

I'd say science has a problem with religion.

well, some of them could be, in principle. the problem comes in when they are, and are found to be wrong. turns out revelation (and authority on the basis of revelation) just isn't that good at making claims that turn out to be right.

Like what?

See:
Christopher Hutchens
Richard Dawkins
Stephen Hawking

I'd say science has a problem with religion.
Science doesn't care about religion. Superstition is, by definition, IRRELEVANT to natural science. Science is about describing what is and explaining how it works. Science doesn't make moral evaluations. It's the "is versus ought" situation some have mentioned before.

The fact that some SCIENTISTS have a beef with religion is a reflection of how scientists are, you know, people. And people sometimes have opinions.

If I, a scientist, have a problem with religion, that doesn't mean SCIENCE has a problem with religion. Just like if I, a comicbook aficionado, have a problem with religion, this doesn't mean that comicbooks have a problem with religion. See how that works?

See:
Christopher Hutchens
Richard Dawkins
Stephen Hawking

I'd say science has a problem with religion.

Christopher Hitchens isn't a scientist, he's a journalist with Vanity Fair.

Stephen Hawking has never been outspoken in opposition to religion.

That leaves Richard Dawkins. OOOoooh, waaaaa. Someone call the Waaaambulance, we've got ONE mean atheist pointing out the silly little flaws in people's beliefs.

Well, you point to the differences. Of course the two stories are different. But for the sake of fairness where the similarities?

What about the reference to the rainbow (the multi-coloured paste made from stones of five colours (and in Chinese, there are only five designated colours) to "seal the sky" (which in Noah's story, also had holes) and the reference to water gushing out from the depths?


There aren't any 'holes' in the Noah story - the 'windows of the sky' are opened. There's a big difference between a window and just a hole. The rainbow thing is vaguely similar, but the meaning is totally different. We are told that the rainbow is a miraculous gesture of a repenting god, in the Noah myth. The Nv Wa story hints at a rainbow, but it's just a side-effect.

And again - the perspective is entirely different - so different, it pretty much erases any similarity between the stories. The Nv Wa story has Nv Wa as an interventionist god protecting her people from the accidental catastrophe wrought by two other gods. The biblical account has a punitive god cleansing humans (and everything else) by direct retribution.

As for 'water gushing from the depths' - it's not an unreasonable perspective for a primitive culture to assume that those flood-tides are somehow being caused by an increase in water, rather than the water just being moved around. Since there doesn't seem to be a route for the water to be arriving atop, it must be coming from below...?


Plus - just another spanner - perhaps, just perhaps, the fact that there are flood myths in every ancient culture suggest something of a collective cultural memory?

Does EVERY culture have flood myths?

Which is more likely, though - the fact that we all have some kind of global subconscious memory of a cataclysmic effect - differing (sometimes enormously) in details... or we all have more localised tradition based on the fac that almost anywhere there is water, there can be flooding?

I find it hypocritical of some atheists who talk about religion.

that word does not mean what you think it means

Science doesn't care about religion. Superstition is, by definition, IRRELEVANT to natural science. Science is about describing what is and explaining how it works. Science doesn't make moral evaluations. It's the "is versus ought" situation some have mentioned before.

The fact that some SCIENTISTS have a beef with religion is a reflection of how scientists are, you know, people. And people sometimes have opinions.

If I, a scientist, have a problem with religion, that doesn't mean SCIENCE has a problem with religion. Just like if I, a comicbook aficionado, have a problem with religion, this doesn't mean that comicbooks have a problem with religion. See how that works?

And this is different than specific religionists (for lack of a better, or actual term) taking issue with science...how?

If the former poster can claim religion has a problem with science based on the ideas and actions of a few, then it stands to reason that sciecne can be said to have a problem with religion by the same logic. If the logic is flawed, as it is, then address both my statement and the previous poster's error in thinking as such.

Pot..kettle...black..

that word does not mean what you think it means

Invocation of the Montoya Principle?

Free Soviets wins the match.

Christopher Hitchens isn't a scientist, he's a journalist with Vanity Fair.

Stephen Hawking has never been outspoken in opposition to religion.

That leaves Richard Dawkins. OOOoooh, waaaaa. Someone call the Waaaambulance, we've got ONE mean atheist pointing out the silly little flaws in people's beliefs.

Ooh, you're a good one. Come up with the Waambulance all by yourself, did you? As a matter of fact, I would also like some cheese with my whine, thank you very much.

How many people use his arguments to decry religion? I'd say it's a lot more than one atheist we're dealing with here, my friend.

And this is different than specific religionists (for lack of a better, or actual term) taking issue with science...how?

If the former poster can claim religion has a problem with science based on the ideas and actions of a few, then it stands to reason that sciecne can be said to have a problem with religion by the same logic. If the logic is flawed, as it is, then address both my statement and the previous poster's error in thinking as such.

Pot..kettle...black..

The difference might be that science has no holy scripture. The Christian Bible, for example, discourages thinking except in terms of Christian thought.

(Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.)

So - According to the scripture, a 'true' christian should have a problem with science. At least, if you believe that the whole scripture is somehow relating god's own thought. There is no such prohibition in science.

No, sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, mythology, and comparative religion disprove Christianity. Biology and astronomy merely reveal that there is no evidence for God apparent in the Universe. Everything functions by self sustaining natural laws, with no God visible in the works.

1. Please explain how those fields disprove Christianity

2. Please explain how biology and astronomy have any relevence here? I can see how they might worry a young earth creationist, but beyond that, I don't see anything

You're making the mistake that the purpose of God is to explain the physical world.

And this is different than specific religionists (for lack of a better, or actual term) taking issue with science...how?

because it isn't the fact that specific religious believers take issue with the findings of science that is the root of the problem. it is the fact that the methodologies of religion and science are fundamentally opposed. science, being nothing more than its methodology and the institutions that make the employment of that methodology possible, doesn't care. at all. religion, on the other hand, inherently must see science's success as usurpation and an attack on its rightful place of pride and dominance in the social and intellectual landscape. this is because of the very different purposes and natures of the entities involved.

The difference might be that science has no holy scripture. The Christian Bible, for example, discourages thinking except in terms of Christian thought.

(Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.)

So - According to the scripture, a 'true' christian should have a problem with science. At least, if you believe that the whole scripture is somehow relating god's own thought. There is no such prohibition in science.

Actually that's very unfair, many of the major Christian thinkers of the Church including Aquinas and Augustine explicitly encouraged scientific thought as a way of "unlocking the secrets of Gods earth".

The difference might be that science has no holy scripture. The Christian Bible, for example, discourages thinking except in terms of Christian thought.

(Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.)

So - According to the scripture, a 'true' christian should have a problem with science. At least, if you believe that the whole scripture is somehow relating god's own thought. There is no such prohibition in science.

Thats ONE verse. I would expect better of you G&I

"Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil"

1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

The point is that your verse is making, if you read it in context, is to affirm the Gospel in peoples minds, it is nothing to do with science.

So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

He wasn't asking people to be stupid. On the contary, he was asking them to be clever and try and understand the gospels better so that they could see them from many angles etc and know them to be true. So that they could see when other ideas came, they would know how to criticise them.

The difference might be that science has no holy scripture. The Christian Bible, for example, discourages thinking except in terms of Christian thought.

(Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.)

So - According to the scripture, a 'true' christian should have a problem with science. At least, if you believe that the whole scripture is somehow relating god's own thought. There is no such prohibition in science.

this reminds me - it's worth mentioning that philosophy also occupies some of the ground that religion claims for itself. we haven't been as successful as our scientist friends at finding things that look promisingly true, but we've been damn effective at finding out that some widely believed things are almost certainly false. which is why the really religious tend to disapprove of philosophical as well as scientific methods - both philosophy and science really do pose a danger to the methodologies that religion holds are right and good.

because it isn't the fact that specific religious believers take issue with the findings of science that is the root of the problem. it is the fact that the methodologies of religion and science are fundamentally opposed. science, being nothing more than its methodology and the institutions that make the employment of that methodology possible, doesn't care. at all. religion, on the other hand, inherently must see science's success as usurpation and an attack on its rightful place of pride and dominance in the social and intellectual landscape. this is because of the very different purposes and natures of the entities involved.

Erm. No

Religion and science are not fundimentally opposed if you look at it correctly.

Religion ultimately has a diffrent purpose to science. Sciences purpose is to understand and (to an extent, although aplication is more the realm of enginering) apply the mechanisims of the universe. Religions purpose is to understand and apply the meaning and purpose of the universe. It is when science claims that there is no meaning to the universe because it cannot find one, or when religion claims its superior understanding of the origins of the universe then conflicts come into play.

The difference might be that science has no holy scripture. The Christian Bible, for example, discourages thinking except in terms of Christian thought.

(Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.)

So - According to the scripture, a 'true' christian should have a problem with science. At least, if you believe that the whole scripture is somehow relating god's own thought. There is no such prohibition in science.

No holy scripture as such, certainly. But since nothing is exactly symmetric between the two, and comparisons so often fail us, perhaps what we're looking for here is a guiding principle. And for science, would that not be the scientific method? A specific process designed to direct research so that it can be continually tested, improved and if found wanting, discarded in favor of something else. If the case is such that some fundamentally untestable assertions in faith (the essence of God, for example), then science, based on the principle of testing the hypothetical, would be at odds with the asserted unprovability of God, no? By declaring certain things, essentially, to be "in faith alone" and thus untestable takes them out of the range of the hypothetical and into that of the supernatural, and out of the range, effectively, of science.
Perhaps this would represent a conflict that science would, then, have with respect to religion.

Science, Religion and Atheism alike are (to use a very broad brush indeed) tied by the common thread of Institutional Thought. One subscribes to a particular model (or set of models) of the world and bands together with others to enhance that model's social standing. The idea of schools of Philosophy and Politics shares this trait, particularly with regards to economics.

Conflict between these institutions is not ideological but social. People would be more than happy to be and let be, regardless of difference in opinion, if not for the rivalry for social position between their institutions. Religions do not prosper for the value of their own ideas - they succeed because of the way they both acquire and use the human resource available to them. Science does not fight Religion because of ideological concerns - they do so to prevent it stealing their resources (including its people) that could otherwise go to incredibly helpful and productive projects. Atheism does not fight religion because of a disbelief in God - it does so to create a social change of its own.

Is there a conflict? Hell yeah. It's just not what you think it is.

That's a good way to put it, but I don't know if each side is only fighting for resources... They are fighting for their effect on society at large... and maybe, in all three instances, that is sort of self-verification so they can prove to themselves they are correct.

But we're talking about it on this board, not necessarily acting it, and social warfar is somewhat outside of the scope of what is possible on a message board. I don't know about you, but I haven't heard of any great Preacher winning the masses on message boards, or any great thinker ruining all religion on message boards... All that I see is angsty, confused teenagers typing in boldfaced, uppercase font, making heated attempts at wit(myself included).

Thats ONE verse. I would expect better of you G&I

"Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil"

1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

The point is that your verse is making, if you read it in context, is to affirm the Gospel in peoples minds, it is nothing to do with science.


I disagree. The context supports the idea that you aren't supposed to look for answers in the teachings of men, where 'divine' teachings are already given. You are right that it is to encourage adherence to the Gospels - but not by affirmation, but by ignoring contraditiction to them.

"After the rudiments of the world" specifically speaks to earthly evidences... you are being told expressly, to favour a scriptural 'truth' over the evidence of observation of reality.


He wasn't asking people to be stupid. On the contary, he was asking them to be clever and try and understand the gospels better so that they could see them from many angles etc and know them to be true. So that they could see when other ideas came, they would know how to criticise them.

He wasn't asking people to be stupid, he was telling them to ignore non-religious evidence. Paul is the Great Architect of the "La La La I can't Hear You" defence.

this reminds me - it's worth mentioning that philosophy also occupies some of the ground that religion claims for itself. we haven't been as successful as our scientist friends at finding things that look promisingly true, but we've been damn effective at finding out that some widely believed things are almost certainly false. which is why the really religious tend to disapprove of philosophical as well as scientific methods - both philosophy and science really do pose a danger to the methodologies that religion holds are right and good.

When has philosophy ever come up with a practical argument? ;)

Seriously though, what arguments has philosophy made of its own accord against religion?

No holy scripture as such, certainly. But since nothing is exactly symmetric between the two, and comparisons so often fail us, perhaps what we're looking for here is a guiding principle. And for science, would that not be the scientific method? A specific process designed to direct research so that it can be continually tested, improved and if found wanting, discarded in favor of something else. If the case is such that some fundamentally untestable assertions in faith (the essence of God, for example), then science, based on the principle of testing the hypothetical, would be at odds with the asserted unprovability of God, no? By declaring certain things, essentially, to be "in faith alone" and thus untestable takes them out of the range of the hypothetical and into that of the supernatural, and out of the range, effectively, of science.
Perhaps this would represent a conflict that science would, then, have with respect to religion.

Science relies on the scientific method, yes. It observes, it calculates a possible mechanism, it tests the mechanism, it refines the mechanism, and it puts forth a proposition.

In that much, it IS absolutely at odds with religion, because religion starts with the proposition, requires no testing of the mechanism, and calculates it's 'observation' as the end result.

But, I'm not sure quite what you are saying about god... science doesn't 'deny god'... it simply doesn't deal with that data - it can't. The 'asserted unpovability of god' is a red herring. Science doesn't care if there is a god or not. Goblins or not. Aliens or not. What science deals in, is what can be observed, repeated, measured. God cannot be measured... almost by definition.

God isn't disproved by science. Just ignored... until god provides some way to be included in the math.

I disagree. The context supports the idea that you aren't supposed to look for answers in the teachings of men, where 'divine' teachings are already given. You are right that it is to encourage adherence to the Gospels - but not by affirmation, but by ignoring contraditiction to them.

"After the rudiments of the world" specifically speaks to earthly evidences... you are being told expressly, to favour a scriptural 'truth' over the evidence of observation of reality.


Please do some more biblical study and examine the use of the word "World" more carefully. The use of the word "World" in this case, does not mean the physical. Rather it means, that which is not good, see other common uses such as 'worldly' and 'be in the world but not of it'. He is not advocating ignorence, he is advocating an avoidance of getting too wrapped up in particular debates and basing your faith on something other than God. Tell me this, if he is about ignoring them, why does he say to critically examine everything? Surely thats an affermation to examine alternative ideas. His point was that people should analysise them to view their flaws. Paul was a debater and discusser in the ampithetres of Greece. He was not someone who shyed away from other points of view.

Erm. No

Religion and science are not fundimentally opposed if you look at it correctly.

Religion ultimately has a diffrent purpose to science. Sciences purpose is to understand and (to an extent, although aplication is more the realm of enginering) apply the mechanisims of the universe. Religions purpose is to understand and apply the meaning and purpose of the universe. It is when science claims that there is no meaning to the universe because it cannot find one, or when religion claims its superior understanding of the origins of the universe then conflicts come into play.

so it is only when religion acts totally different from the way all religions always acted up to the coming of science - up through the present day, really, except for those that have explicitly surrendered and retreated in the face of overwhelming and embarrassing defeat. so the only way to avoid the conflict, in your system, is to restrict the word 'religion' to some new and largely non-existent kind of religion. fair enough, but realize that philosophy has already undermined your new religion's fallback position as well.

anyway, the point is this; what is the methodology of religion? the answer, of course, is revelation of some sort. the gods speak to us in some way, either in the past (and thereafter handed down by authority) or in the present through dreams/drug-induced hallucinations/etc. this methodology is what gives religion its answers. and this methodology is fundamentally opposed to the methodology of science (and philosophy), and so we see religion constantly struggling against the ever encroaching moves of these other fields into areas religion claims as rightfully its own.

and since religion's claim of rightful ownership is associated with religion's power, these encroachments are institutionally viewed as attacks. on the other hand, the view from within science and philosophy is that they are just doing what they do.

Please do some more biblical study and examine the use of the word "World" more carefully. The use of the word "World" in this case, does not mean the physical. Rather it means, that which is not good, see other common uses such as 'worldly' and 'be in the world but not of it'. He is not advocating ignorence, he is advocating an avoidance of getting too wrapped up in particular debates and basing your faith on something other than God. Tell me this, if he is about ignoring them, why does he say to critically examine everything? Surely thats an affermation to examine alternative ideas. His point was that people should analysise them to view their flaws. Paul was a debater and discusser in the ampithetres of Greece. He was not someone who shyed away from other points of view.

Do some more biblical study? I'll admit, I've only been doing it 20 years. How much would be enough?

First Corinthians 1:19-23 "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness."

Destroying the 'wisdom of the wise', God has 'made foolish the wisdom of this world'. The 'world by wisdom knew not god'.

You seem to be implying that 'world', 'worldly', 'of the world' carry a separate meaning from a literal physical world, but you are incorrect. What there is - is a dual message. 'Worldly' is bad because it is of the physical world, rather than of god. Just as 'walking in the flesh' is bad, not for some philosophical meaning, but because the flesh is weak and mortal.

Clearly, the 'wisdom of the world' is the learnings of men that are not of Christian scripture - it's made explicit in these verses. And "the disputer of the world" is made foolish by revelation. It's pretty explicit - knowledge which is not scriptural is foolish.


First Corinthians 2:6-16 "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. "

Again, a clear contrast is made between the wisdom of the world, and the wisdom 'we' speak. The one knowledge is a knowledge of the world - that of princes - and the other is a revealed knowledge... the "wisdom of God in a mystery". The two systems are set as separate and contradictory - one flawed method of observation which can NEVER reveal the truth, and one of miracle, of mystery - a 'revealed truth'. And there is no doubt about which we are being told we should trust.

Indeed, this passage sets up the principle of 'discernment' - 'truth' can be seen by some special agency (an indwelling spirit) that is not compatible with learning of the world. Such truth can ONLY be obtained through intervention revelation. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned".

This 'natural' knowledge, this knowledge 'of the world' - they are the philosophies which Paul warns us against as 'traditions of man'.


First Corinthians 1:24-5 "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

The foolishness of God (preaching, as opposed to 'natural' observation) is 'wiser than man'. We are explicitly told that revealed truth is opposed to, and superior to, what can be observed by mortal man. Paul's warning against "the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world" establishes direct conflict. We are told that, where mundane evidence and 'divine revelation' differ, we are to choose the scriptural path.

Indeed, this verse establishes that - not only is this revealed wisdom OF God, it IS God, in the person of Jesus. Paul's contrast between "after the rudiments of the world" and "after Christ" becomes even more clear. The knowledge of Christ IS Christ, and is infallible and uncontestable.


Ephesians 3:8-10 "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly [places] might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God".

Again, we have the establishment of revealed wisdom: 'grace given... I should preach... to make all see... the fellowship of the mystery... been hid in God... the intent that now... might be known... the manifold wisdom of God'.

The 'manifold wisdom of God' cannot be observed, it has not been observed - it has been 'hid'. It can only be gained through discernment, through the movement of the spirit, through preaching.

Again - it is explicit - you can't find truth in nature, in the world. You can only find it in revealed 'truth'.


Colossians 4:5 "Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time."

The Great Commission in purest form - the transmission of the 'revealed truth' to a world that cannot discern.


Ephesians 5:15 "See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise".

As above. This is not a fleeting notion, this is core to the scripture.


Ephesians 1:17 "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:"

And, again - made explicit. Here is a prayer that the worldly man be given 'the spirit of wisdom and revelation' that we may have it revealed to us 'the knowledge of him'.


In the context of the scripture, Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" doesn't mean "that which is not good" - it literally means 'philosophies of men, after the rudiments of the world'... that is, sciences and philosophies based only on what can be observed. Colossians 2:8 is a direct call to arms - to oppose the knolwedge of mundane observation, and to embrace the 'truths' revealed and discerned through the spirit.

Science and Religion were street gangs, in east Denver, long ago...

Religion had been around longer, had more members...it really wasn't even one gang anymore, long since ruptured with a hundred doctrinal rifts...some members fed the poor, others warred among amongst themselves, some even founded universities, birthing a scholarly tradition from whence many future members of Science would be trained...

In Religion, joining the gang was easy...most were just born into it. You learned the handshakes, wore your gangsigns with pride...the main thing was, you had to agree that the Everything was on your side, and that your gang's rules came from the Everything that couldn't be wrong.

Now, you could be in both gangs, to be sure. In fact, before Science was its own gang, most of the geeky (literate) kids joined Religion, 'cause they had all the books. So, when Science formed up, a lot of the O.G.s from Religion were founding members.

The thing is, to join Science, it was a little different. First off, when you were hangin' with the Science Set, you really only had to believe in The Method. The Method wasn't on your side, and the Method didn't make your gang Right and everybody else Wrong. It just let you build little models which allowed sufficient predictive value to be of use in exploring the natural phenomena of the observable. And sometimes, you could use your lab servers to store porn, if you didn't work for the government.

Today, you can still be in both gangs. But some members of Religion (and a few members of Science) like to say that their gang's rules and their gang's Everything should run the whole city.

As Science got bigger and better funded, it formed its own little sub gangs, like the Chemists (smelly, poor dressers who watch a lot of Star Trek), the Biologists (they sometimes wander off to med school if they can't hack a real research PhD, or sometimes they do both), and Physicists (sexy, sexy folks).

And a few members of Science don't like all members of Religion, and a few members of Religion don't like all members of Science, but most members of both get along okay, and today...still...you can be in both gangs if you want.

And in the end, when the Everything shows up, or doesn't, when Religion and Science fill in all the gaps, when Truth is finally trapped, pierced, skinned, and eaten by the muddy tribes of humanitas, we will Know...

Only the Mathematicians had it right.

this is great! :)

and i think you're right; this is one of the things that i was trying to point out at the end of my own post on this thread: it's really all tribalism, when you boil it down to what's actually happening.

i think you're right about the mathematicians, too.

pythagoras told us---and taught his students---that mathematics was both the highest form of religion and the highest form of science, as well.

he said that math was the only pure language for speaking about the invisible.


thanks for sharing.

peace.

In my opinion, that question is interesting philosophically, but is practically unanswerable in it's current form. It is just waaay to vague. 'Science' and 'Religion' can be many, many, many, many things. Now if you mean the general ideas of science and religion, well different groups of people have married the two at various times throughout history, in some cultures there is hardly even a distiction. (Animism and which doctors and the like). But when you get down to details, specific examples... You can come up with a lot of doctrines that different religious teach that are in direct contradiction to what sciences proves, and vice versa, i.e. some sects in Christianity teach a young earth, (somewhere around 6,000 years,) while an evolutionist would say, "No way, the earth is billions of years old."

So to answer your question... It is foolish to think the two are absolutely mutually exclusive, I would think that everyone beleives in varying degrees of both, but when you get down to details there can be a lot of conflict between the two.

In conclusion, I could answer the question more specifically if it was asked more specifically.
Well said.
what do you mean 'useful social structure'? all social policy ought be informed by the relevant scientific data, and any that isn't is bad policy - it can only be good by accident.

neither science nor religion can be a basis for ethics (though ethics clearly must take empirical facts into account). science can't because of the is/ought gap, and religion can't because of the euthyphro dilemma, amongst other things.
When i say useful social structure i mean, as a certainty of a certain thing, ie religion could have God or Karma or some other random element, Science can only hold onto extended research, which however detailed is not going to be as solid as a faith in a religion could be.
Perhaps i'm not saying this how i want to, some religions can offer society to work together, or at least have something in common with other people to discuss and a way to deal with death, science doesn't really offer that as such, just some facts (i'm leaving out social science here, because i'm using the word science as in, facts proved by empirical evidence in say a laboratory).

euthyphro dilemma? well ethics are always hard to navigate into, i suppose the social sciences could try to offer some ethical guidelines, admittidly some religions can offer some ethical guidelines perhaps some types of christianity could do this (as a side note not everything they do is bad. Things like christian aid for example, or the love thy neighbour stuff sorta works).
apologies for taking so long to reply i was busy with exams.

EDIT: i'm seeing another post here, maths is better than religion or science? ye gods don't say that to a philosopher, they'l have your head on a silver platter of logic. :)

i watched your video in full, and enjoyed it. thanks for doing the work to add to the public discussion.

i think that you're mostly right on, with your central points.


i'll signal my agreement by echoing with some similar points of my own:


1) science is not the only valid way of knowing about Reality.

2) science is a way of achieving conditional knowledge about conditional objects. the "knower", the "knowing", and the "knowledge" are all conditioned by the prior, unbroken context in which they are occurring.

3) the "philosophy" that you are addressing---and that has hi-jacked the human enterprise of science, and the term, in the public debate---is actually called "scientific materialism"; it is the prior (or otherwise un-inspected) belief that only "matter" is real---or that only that which can be proven to be effectively true, under certain already-discovered conditions, is Really True.

4) this assumes that only objects are real---including (crucially!) the human mind-object of "point of view". yet, no scientist has ever proven the "scientific" existence of any "point of view"---only proven "facts", as corollaries of his/her own principal axiom: his/her own "point of view"!---a totally un-proveable "fact".

5) the knowledge of objects, as they appear to "point of view", could only be complete if objects and "point of view" were (either or both) Un-conditional and, therefore, senior as a dimension of Reality. they are not; every object and every "point of view" are self-evidently conditonal---and even scientifically provable as such. the only honest science is self-limiting, accordingly.

6) only That which is Un-conditionally True (or always already the case) can be rightly said to be Really True. therefore, the only right manner of realizing (or "knowing") What is Really True must be the method that self-locates what is prior to any possible object, in any possible moment, relative to any possible "point of view".

7) religion---at its best---is concerned with Consciousness (or Reality), as it intrinsically transcends "point of view". since What intrinsically transcends "point of view" can only be Realized (or "Known") by any individual via the intrinsic transcendence of his/her own "point of view"---!---this is the True purpose of Real religion. to realize Reality in this manner necessarily realizes the only Consciousness that intrinsically transcends "point of view"---or even everything that is mortal or otherwise limited. therefore, it is Divine Realization.



scientific materialism is a fundamentalist religion---and no less so than strictly literalist bible-based christianity. what is happening in the public debate now is a shadow-boxing sham, designed to polarize feelings, thereby maximizing debate---and thereby maximizing public spectacle and media profit. that's it. it's qualitatively no more useful---to anyone---than "professional wrestling".

thanks for sharing, and for reading.


peace.

sorry for double posting---but this was over twenty pages ago.

i did some work on it and wanted to give it a second chance.

peace to all. ;)

Actually Moses wrote it. It's called Genesis which is found in the bible.

Firstly, the Bible is not a textbook.

Secondly, Moses didn't write Genesis, even if he existed. Genesis 14:14 reads:

When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

But Dan didn't exist until after the conquest of Canaan (Judges 18:27-29) so that verse can't have existed until after that time, long after Moses' death (again, assuming he existed...)

Well, if YOU knew YOUR facts you'd know carbon dating only goes back a few thousand years.

If by 'a few thousand' you mean 'fifty to sixty thousand' then you're correct. Still long enough to debunk the Creationist Young Earth.

That would be remarkable! They managed to translate the Noah story before the Jews ever told it.

It's a miracle!

Check out this book:

The Bible As History, by Werner Keller. A bit old; the edition I have is 1980. I don't remember its exact arguments, for I read it some time ago.

I've seen it in several second hand book stores (although I've never read it) but it's almost certainly out of date by now: the archaeology of Palestine has shifted so dramatically in recent years that older books rapidly assume only historical value.

Is there really a conflict between science and religion? I mean, I am aware obviously that people who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible sometimes have large problems with certian modern theories of the origins of the universe, life, the world etc. But really, if you break it down propperly and leave each of the two to their respective correct fields, I don't think the conflict is as large scale as you might think. Also, does believing in a scientific origin of the universe and believing in science as a means of discovering objective facts lead to an athiestic worldview nessecarly? Really? I would like to see what people thought of a discussion of these questions that I placed up on youtube.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiBJVevndo

I'm going to subscribe to answering these questions as to the point as possible.

Does believing in a scientific origin of the universe and believing in science facts produce atheistic views of the world necessarily?
- I don't think it does. Many people believe in the theory of Evolution and in the Big-Bang, and believing in such hasn't brought any conflict to their belief in a God. Of course, this doesn't mean that some people do not find conflicting sentiments with science as a whole and what they believe to be the One and Final Word of God as written in the Bible. But I don't think that it necessarily must bring conflict.

He wasn't asking people to be stupid. On the contary, he was asking them to be clever and try and understand the gospels better so that they could see them from many angles etc and know them to be true.

That would have been very clever indeed, especially since 1 Thessalonians probably predates the first Gospel by at least ten years.

Science is an open system of knowledge that changes and reinvents itself to uphold accurate models of reality.

Religion is a closed system that, even in its most non-dogmatic forms, must accept tenets regardless of experiential evidence or it is not religion.

Even if religion revamped itself to accept as dogma all that science tells us about the universe today it is still in conflict with science. Religion tries to grasp for absolutes in order to maintain its power-justification, while science will gladly kill itself and repudiate any mistakes in order to find a 'truer' truth.

That's true. I wholeheartedly agree. But in kind would you agree that for a while arguments based on scientific discoveries and theories were also used to justify policy here and there too?

Yes, but I can say that they are objectively wrong on their understanding of science, because the evidence does not support such a view, and it is based on something that is an objectively false view of (say) Evolution. You cannot do this with religion-- if they have faith that they are correct, it's equally valid, religiously, as your belief, unless you can somehow demonstrate somehow that your faith is correct and those who used religion to support slavery were incorrect.

But I do not see how you could do this without delving into the realm of evidence and logic, which would support my claim that those are superior to faith in attaining knowledge.


I accept faith as a means of interpreting a world of facts.

Elaborate. I'm not sure I see precisely what you mean. In what way is faith a better way to interpret facts than logic and reason?


Enjoy class!

I did. :)

Elaborate. I'm not sure I see precisely what you mean. In what way is faith a better way to interpret facts than logic and reason?
I think a better question would be, for what purpose? Science just describes reality and explains phenomenon, nothing more (the policy deprived from some scientific things is just a use or sometimes abuse of science). In what way would faith do that better? Because obviously, faith is in the core just an opinion(ofcourse ofcourse it's not THAT flat :P), nothing more.

I think my freshman biology teacher summed it up best. In the beginning of the year, we had this big discussion. She basically said that one can believe both science and religion because they deal (in their basic forms) with different things. Science deals with the measurable, natural world, and religion deals with the immeasurable, supernatural world. Yes, the specifics of some religions and the findings of science occasionally contradict, but they are mostly compatible, One can believe in both evolution and God, for example. One can believe in both genetic (non-optional) homosexuality and the divinity and ascension of Jesus Christ. Faith and knowledge can come together, and it is ludicrous to completely separate them. Science doesn't have all the answers, and neither does religion. If that were the case, the world would be perfect. Obviously it's not. People fight between science and religion, when the two are compatible. Logic and faith can mix.

I'm back.

In the bible it said the flood covered the whole world, covering the highest mountain top.

Which requires more water than exists on this entire planet, including the atmosphere.

Actually there could've been more water at the time.

Actually there could've been more water at the time.

So where was it and where did it go?

According to the Bible this event happened very early in time, so there probably wasn't a lot of ground water so after the flood it seeped into the ground and helped complete the water cycle.

According to the Bible this event happened very early in time, so there probably wasn't a lot of ground water so after the flood it seeped into the ground and helped complete the water cycle.

Dude, I'm counting ground water. I'm talking about every single bit of water on this entire planet. There is not enough to cover all the landmasses. And, even accepting your claim, that still leaves the problem of where the water came from.

Dude, I'm counting ground water. I'm talking about every single bit of water on this entire planet. There is not enough to cover all the landmasses. And, even accepting your claim, that still leaves the problem of where the water came from.

If God created the Heavens and the Earth I'm sure he could make a little rain.(I'm sure that's not the answer you wanted but it's true).

If God created the Heavens and the Earth I'm sure he could make a little rain.(I'm sure that's not the answer you wanted but it's true).

That's it everyone! There is no answer with any sort of evidence to back it up, but TI is sure that his explanation is true anyways. End of discussion.
:rolleyes:

Not to good at this whole debate thing are you?

If what they're saying about the ozone layer eroding and there are holes in the atmosphere water vapor could escape so there could have been more water in the atmosphere at one time.

If God created the Heavens and the Earth I'm sure he could make a little rain.(I'm sure that's not the answer you wanted but it's true).

Oh, so it's going to be the whole 'it's a miracle' excuse? If that's your line then you can basically answer any evidence by saying the power of God defies scientific reality, and if that's the case then God knows why your on this forum debating it to begin with.

Oh, so it's going to be the whole 'it's a miracle' excuse? If that's your line then you can basically answer any evidence by saying the power of God defies scientific reality, and if that's the case then God knows why your on this forum debating it to begin with.

Read what I wrote at the top it's pretty scientific.

Read what I wrote at the top it's pretty scientific.
It's plausible under the current scientific model - that's not the same thing as being scientific. That's an important distinction to make.

I never said it's the only way or whether it was necessary for anybody else. I meant that it's the way I saw worked.

Thus, if Christianity is not "the only way" and isn't necessary for all, it doesn't really satisfy the criteria for being "the One True Religion". You never claimed it was, of course, but again, we've established that religion is something that is "used" as "coping mechanism", not something that reflects categorical truth.


Christians do not love because they follow rules or dogma. That is an erronous conclusion and it shows how much you underestimate the true meaning of Christianity. Christians love exactly because they can love from the bottom of their hearts.

And others don't love from the bottom of their hearts? I think you underestimate everyone who isn't Christian.

If a Christian can love without the dogma, and if people who are not Christian can just as easily love, then the Christianity is not the correlate to the ability to love.



Any other reason that people turn to religion is wrong. While I cannot provide irrefutable physical evidence to support my claims, I can provide rigorous theoretical support for my religious claims. It is only whether you accept this support which is the question.

This part of your response was directed at the part where I claimed that the reason people turn to religion is to assure themselves of things they need to be true. You feel this is the sole reason, and a good reason, to believe something?


Well of course; I didn't try to show that these observations showed the Bible as an accurate reflection of human nature. I did only claim it - see below.

What I originally asked for was for you to show how your observations show the Bible is an accurate reflection of human nature, and moreso, how it does so in any way superlative to any other literature, including fiction.


Haha. How did you arrive to that conclusion? That's a false assumption. It demonstrated clearly that me, my parents, and my family arrived at meaningful familial interaction with a religious attitude - nothing more.

It's like I'm saying "I came here on the train", but you tell me that "Without the train, you could not have come here". That's a false conclusion from my premise.

So, then, we agree that your family, and anyone else's, could arrive at all the same benefits, WITHOUT christianity.


My religion does function as a coping mechanism.


Then my pet theory has one small data point to support it.


Ah I see. Here it goes, briefly, a personal conclusion, built up from verses from the Bible:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)
God created man in His own image; (Gen. 1:27)
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23)
The wages of sin is death. (Rom. 6:23)
Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment. (Heb. 9:27)
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they...throw them [everything that causes sin and all who do evil] into the fiery furnace... (Matthew 13:41-43)

The above is the abridged version of why there is judgement. So what can Christianity do to help?

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? (Rom. 7:24)
What must I do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 18:18)
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom. 5:1)
Now the dwelling of God is with men, and He will live with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (Rev. 21:3-4)

The above is an example of rules and dogma [i.e. what MUST I do to inherit eternal life], which you claim Christianity does not have. The above verses contain a great deal of dogma (defined here, from the dictionary)

Dogma:

A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See synonyms at doctrine.
A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

So, we see your position is rife with dogma, yet if I understand your statement, even you can see that this dogma is unnecessary and not universal.


Religion shouldn't be used in any other way.

You can never discover what is universally true in terms of religion. You can only have faith.

Religion should only be used as cultural and familial utillity and coping mechanism, as opposed to any kind of recognition of some kind of universal Truth?

I think you should spread this view to other religious people.


I am not judging whether it is necessary; I am only judging on the basis of my personal experiences.

I agree that reason must be present in love, but if you say the only reason we love is because we are rational, I must disagree. Please elaborate on this point.

We can love without a book to tell us to, or how, and we can love without religious dogma. We can raise and love children without it. Your family used it, and I would not restrain your free practice of religion. As long as we agree that other religions and those of no religion can love just as well (and thus demonstrate that Christianity is unnecessary in this regard) then we can agree.


Generally, I feel that you have a tendency to...how should I say this...jump to your own conclusions while missing out the middle stops. Half the time what you conclude isn't what I said. I don't know whether there were other Christians who spurred you to make those conclusions, but I hope that this conversation shows you that Christianity isn't just what you think.

Actually, your own declarative statements have strongly supported my model of Christianity as an unnecessary* coping mechanism, and that those without religion can do just as well in family, love, children, etc.

It helped you, but it seems you've acknowledged that you could have done all the same things without it. Its just one method no more valid than others. If all practitioners of Christianity saw it that way, I think it would be progress.


Oh, by the way, a logophile is one who loves words. Your use of words seem to reveal a certain quirkiness, and your progression of predicates seem to be unsound in some cases, but I know you feel the same way about me.

I'm glad you acknowledge your use of religion, and its role as coping mechanism. But please note that you've used several scriptural citations that DO make use of rules and dogma, and you've claimed Christianity has no rules.

*NOTE: Unnecessary in the sense of your own train analogy. As you yourself show, there are other ways to arrive at a place. The train is just one method, and it could have been done in other ways. The train is thus one option, but is not necessary for travel, just as Christianity is one option for coping mechanism, but is not necessary for many.

Seriously though, what arguments has philosophy made of its own accord against religion?

on top of its fundamental modus operandi being diametrically opposed (question everything, demand justification and argument before believing anything, seek to point out flaws and conceptual confusions, etc.) to religious thinking, philosophy has thrown up a number of rather important arguments that religion hasn't been able to adequately come to grips with. take the problem of evil, for example. or the euthyphro dilemma. or hume's predarwinian take-down of the design argument.

When i say useful social structure i mean, as a certainty of a certain thing, ie religion could have God or Karma or some other random element, Science can only hold onto extended research, which however detailed is not going to be as solid as a faith in a religion could be.
Perhaps i'm not saying this how i want to, some religions can offer society to work together, or at least have something in common with other people to discuss and a way to deal with death, science doesn't really offer that as such, just some facts (i'm leaving out social science here, because i'm using the word science as in, facts proved by empirical evidence in say a laboratory).

while religion certainly provides ways to live together, science can help us figure out good ways. religion just makes us build airstrips while we await the return of john frum.

euthyphro dilemma?

is something morally good because the gods say it is good or do the gods say it is good because it is good? if the latter, then the gods are irrelevant. if the former, then the good is arbitrary and a sham - raping toddlers would be good if the gods said to do so (and they are alleged to with alarming frequency). additionally, it means that the gods aren't good at all, it makes no sense to say that they are. and it also might run afoul of the is-ought gap too, depending on what exactly it means for the gods to declare toddler rape 'good'.

is something morally good because the gods say it is good or do the gods say it is good because it is good?
The two aren't necessarily exclusive. If God or the Gods are expressions of aspects of reality (rather than external arbiters of or internal subordinates to it) then it being good and the gods saying it's good are interchangeable ways of phrasing the same thing.

The Hindu gods and Pagan Goddess, by this argument, are immune to the dilemma.

As are the Greek gods, for entirely different reasons.

If what they're saying about the ozone layer eroding and there are holes in the atmosphere water vapor could escape so there could have been more water in the atmosphere at one time.

Fake science.

There aren't 'holes in the atmosphere' - there are holes in the ozone layer, which is totally not the same thing. That's like getting some rust on your bathtub and saying the whole house has corroded.

Fake science part two - your scenario is rubbish. Water vapour is too dense to escape in any real terms, short of some kind of cataclysmic event. Your scenario would require that the water vapour would continue to get warmer as it travelled through increasingly rarified atmosphere, such that it could keep rising over cooler, more dense, layers.

If God created the Heavens and the Earth I'm sure he could make a little rain.(I'm sure that's not the answer you wanted but it's true).

We aren't talking about 'a little rain'. We are talking about enough rain to cover the tallest mountain (to such a depth that an ark could sail over it, we assume, and certainly deep enough that trees on such a mountain would remain completely submerged).

So, what we would be describing is all of the surface and ground water being liberated, plus enough additional water arriving from somewhere to reach at LEAST five and a half MILES in depth, over the whole planet. (That is about what it would take to cover Everest).

Have you any idea what effect five and a half miles of water would have on the surface? Have you any idea what kind of effect that volume of displacement would have on our atmosphere?

As are the Greek gods, for entirely different reasons.
Well quite.

Fake science.

There aren't 'holes in the atmosphere' - there are holes in the ozone layer, which is totally not the same thing. That's like getting some rust on your bathtub and saying the whole house has corroded.

Fake science part two - your scenario is rubbish. Water vapour is too dense to escape in any real terms, short of some kind of cataclysmic event. Your scenario would require that the water vapour would continue to get warmer as it travelled through increasingly rarified atmosphere, such that it could keep rising over cooler, more dense, layers.

Also in the great flood water came from beneath the ground

Also in the great flood water came from beneath the ground

and then went where?

We aren't talking about 'a little rain'. We are talking about enough rain to cover the tallest mountain (to such a depth that an ark could sail over it, we assume, and certainly deep enough that trees on such a mountain would remain completely submerged).

So, what we would be describing is all of the surface and ground water being liberated, plus enough additional water arriving from somewhere to reach at LEAST five and a half MILES in depth, over the whole planet. (That is about what it would take to cover Everest).

Have you any idea what effect five and a half miles of water would have on the surface? Have you any idea what kind of effect that volume of displacement would have on our atmosphere?

Before the great flood It had never rained. water came from the ground. the armosphere had water in it that was almost just floating above it. When it fell it caused a great flood.

If what they're saying about the ozone layer eroding and there are holes in the atmosphere water vapor could escape so there could have been more water in the atmosphere at one time.

That manages to make less sense than anything you've posted before. This is Hovind-level stuff.

and then went where?

Into the ocean and air. Hence the water cycle.

Into the ocean and air. Hence the water cycle.

You didn't answer his question.

(Also you don't know what the water cycle is.)

Before the great flood It had never rained. water came from the ground. the armosphere had water in it that was almost just floating above it. When it fell it caused a great flood.

That much water in the atmosphere would have resulted in the entire Earth being pressure-cooked. Nothing alive could survive in the hell that much pressure would create.

What does everyone mean by religion? The way I see it, religion is simply the "endless mystery" that pervades everything. A "religious" explanation to question x isn't religious, because religion doesn't explain. "Intelligent design," "creationism," and all that shit shouldn't be attached to even the slightest notion of what religion is, because religion is that which we cannot explain. It's the untranslatable, the mystical...

I think all formal "religious" systems have done a great disservice to the concept of "religion" by describing themselves in a religious context. Once you have a creed -- a "Holy Book," etc. -- you no longer have a religion, but a club. Only in the absence of language can there be anything resembling religion. Anything else is just bad history, bad science, and the inability to recognize this.

That much water in the atmosphere would have resulted in the entire Earth being pressure-cooked. Nothing alive could survive in the hell that much pressure would create.

How do you know did it happen in your lifetime.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

-Galileo Galilei

“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

-Isaac Newton

“This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

-Isaac Newton

I will let this stand here for those who appreciate the irony

How do you know did it happen in your lifetime.

It's called science.

I will let this stand here for those who appreciate the irony
Well, say what you like about Newton, but on mid-level macrophysics it's a good approximation.

*Slight sniggering*

Meet Isaac Newton, you know, one of the most famous scientists ever.

It's called science.

Yes my story is.

Meet Isaac Newton, you know, one of the most famous scientists ever.

if you knew a fraction of the science and scientific history you claim to, you'd understand where the irony of quoting newton lies.

story

Yeah....pretty much. The idea that from the ground sprung water two to three times what is on the planet now and then...left, is nothing more than a story.

Well, say what you like about Newton, but on mid-level macrophysics it's a good approximation.

*Slight sniggering*

give that man a cigar!

Also in the great flood water came from beneath the ground

Are you now arguing a hollow earth?

Let's do a little elementary math. We know that most of the earth we are stood upon is crust floating on a mantle. There are waer pockets within that crust, sure - and there are areas where water pockets actually contact magma. Both of those are exceptional, though - MOST of the earth below our feet is NOT sitting on miles of water.

Here's the math part - even if ALL of the crust was saturated with water, there would have to be... how much water? If the WHOLE surface is covered five and a half MILES deep (high enough to cover the tallest mountains), then the depth of water when it was UNDER the earth, would have to be MORE than five and a half miles, wouldn't it?

So - in order for this story to be even possible, there should be some evidence that the entire crust of our planet contains spaces five and a half miles deep (at the very least) that once held water.

So - show me ONE of these caverns?

:p Ever heard of evaporation

:p Ever heard of evaporation

Yeah, yeah I have. I'm not exactly sure you have, or have even the slightest idea where it went.

Do you think when water evaporates it goes...where, exactly? Into magic land?

Are you now arguing a hollow earth?

Let's do a little elementary math. We know that most of the earth we are stood upon is crust floating on a mantle. There are waer pockets within that crust, sure - and there are areas where water pockets actually contact magma. Both of those are exceptional, though - MOST of the earth below our feet is NOT sitting on miles of water.

Here's the math part - even if ALL of the crust was saturated with water, there would have to be... how much water? If the WHOLE surface is covered five and a half MILES deep (high enough to cover the tallest mountains), then the depth of water when it was UNDER the earth, would have to be MORE than five and a half miles, wouldn't it?

So - in order for this story to be even possible, there should be some evidence that the entire crust of our planet contains spaces five and a half miles deep (at the very least) that once held water.

So - show me ONE of these caverns?

Ever heard of ground water.

if you knew a fraction of the science and scientific history you claim to, you'd understand where the irony of quoting newton lies.

Perhaps you should explain it to him Neo

Yeah, yeah I have. I'm not exactly sure you have, or have even the slightest idea where it went.

Do you think when water evaporates it goes...where, exactly? Into magic land?

I'm gonna put all my ideas into one fact. During Noah's time the earth's crust was one land mass known as pangea. God said he was gonna flood the earth. using ground water and the water above the air (read Genesis 1:7) to flood the earth. before that it had never rained so there was no water cycle. after the flood God started the water cycle.

I'm gonna put all my ideas into one fact. During Noah's time the earth's crust was one land mass known as pangea. God said he was gonna flood the earth. using ground water and the water above the air (read Genesis 1:7) to flood the earth. before that it had never rained so there was no water cycle. after the flood God started the water cycle.

you do realize that alllll the water in the oceans and alllll the moisture in the air, combined, doesn't even come close to the amount of water it would take to cover the entire surface of the earth?

Do these words make sense to you? Do you understand this? There isn't enough water on land, in the oceans, and in the air to entirely cover the earth, from the bottom of the deepest ocean trench, to the top of the highest mounted. That would take more than twice the entire amount of water on this planet.

So, my question again, is, simply, where the fuck did it go?

I'm gonna put all my ideas into one fact. During Noah's time the earth's crust was one land mass known as pangea. God said he was gonna flood the earth. using ground water and the water above the air (read Genesis 1:7) to flood the earth. before that it had never rained so there was no water cycle. after the flood God started the water cycle.

So why is there not enough water (even if you take all the water at all parts of the water cycle) on the entire planet to cover the entire earth, then?

If there was as much water vapor in the atmosphere as you claim, why did the entire earth not roast?

If...

you know what?

I give up. You'll never listen to reason, will you?

give that man a cigar!
Thanks. I'll keep it with my champagne and huge ice cream supply for after exams.

... Aw, crap, I've just spent ~ 5 hours posting on NS. My exams are so going to hell in a hand basket.

So why is there not enough water (even if you take all the water at all parts of the water cycle) on the entire planet to cover the entire earth, then?

If there was as much water vapor in the atmosphere as you claim, why did the entire earth not roast?

If...

you know what?

I give up. You'll never listen to reason, will you?

The earth didn't roast because it wasnt water VAPOR it was just water

and your first question because of continental drift.

and your first question because of continental drift.

Wait...what?

How the fuck old are you again?

you do realize that alllll the water in the oceans and alllll the moisture in the air, combined, doesn't even come close to the amount of water it would take to cover the entire surface of the earth?

Do these words make sense to you? Do you understand this? There isn't enough water on land, in the oceans, and in the air to entirely cover the earth, from the bottom of the deepest ocean trench, to the top of the highest mounted. That would take more than twice the entire amount of water on this planet.

So, my question again, is, simply, where the fuck did it go?

you ignore my facts so I'll ignore yours.

Before the great flood It had never rained.


Evidence suggests that there has been precipitation for a lot longer than the Biblical flood story allows.

water came from the ground.


Water comes from the ground now, too. But most of it doesn't. If it DID come in greater quantity at some point, there should be evidence - cataclysmic springs.


the armosphere had water in it that was almost just floating above it.


Show me evidence. Water doesn't 'float' on the atmosphere.


When it fell it caused a great flood.

Have you even stopped to think about it?

If you look at the evidence of - for exampe - the flooding of the Black Sea, we have a whole load of evidence that enables us to pretty accurately approximate the time and duration. We can even make pretty good calculations about the volume of water.

We know that habitations grew on the banks of the Black Sea rapidly after it's flooding, and we have histories of Mesopotamian peoples that actually describe the history of the event, and the subsequent settlement. The archeological evidence supports the establishment of those settlements.

All of this tells us that the Black Sea (which started as a fresh water lake) started exchanging water with the Mediterranean about 8,000 years ago, and flooding took place maybe 7,500 years ago, and resulted in the Black Sea gaining something like a hundred meters of depth. Maybe as much as 140 meters, over about 30 years.

To move that volume of water, would have reduced the oceanic levels of the rest of the world, by about a foot.

To move that volume of water, somewhere in the order of 12 BILLION cubic feet of water had to travel between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea - every minute. At that flow rate (and the evidence supports it) the flooding water cut the bed of the Black Sea to bedrock... cutting soil, sediment and even rock away.

To move that volume of water, the banks of the Black Sea may have expanded by as much as a kilometer a day.


To apply that to your story, to place five and a half MILES of water on top of the earth, in forty days, would have left us with no soil, sediment, or rock. Indeed, it would have been the equivalent of sandblasting the whole planet's surface - we'd be left with a dead ball, blasted clean.

That's the real problem with biblical literalism - even a little casual math shows that the numbers just can't add up if you take it as literal fact.

The earth didn't roast because it wasnt water VAPOR it was just water

and your first question because of continental drift.

So... how, exactly, did liquid water, which is much, much heavier than air, float above it?

And do you have any idea what kind of impact that would have on the environment?

And what does continental drift have to do with anything? The amount of water that would be necessary does not exist on this planet.

Read Genesis 1:7

The earth didn't roast because it wasnt water VAPOR it was just water

and your first question because of continental drift.

You just said earlier that the water evaporated. Given the amount of water we are talking about, enough to cover the entire earth up to the tallest mountain, the kinetic energy of all that vaporized water would increase the earth's temperature to the point where nothing would be able to live. Your idea falls flat.

So... how, exactly, did water, which is heavier than air, float above it?

And do you have any idea what kind of impact that would have on the environment?

And what does continental drift have to do with anything? The amount of water that would be necessary does not exist on this planet.

Is it not true that as continents move apart the ocean build deeper and deeper trenches.

You just said earlier that the water evaporated. Given the amount of water we are talking about, enough to cover the entire earth up to the tallest mountain, the kinetic energy of all that vaporized water would increase the earth's temperature to the point where nothing would be able to live. Your idea falls flat.

READ GENESIS 1:7

Read Genesis 1:7

There's no reason to. It's an unsupported verse in a book whose literal accuracy is disputed even among Christians. It's of no use in a discussion on science.

READ GENESIS 1:7

no, why the fuck should I? It's about as valid as harry potter standing for the proposition that there are invisibility cloaks.

I get my information from the oldest textbook in the world...THE BIBLE

There's no reason to. It's an unsupported verse in a book whose literal accuracy is disputed even among Christians. It's of no use in a discussion on science.

IT IS SCIENCE!!!

I get my information from the oldest textbook in the world...THE BIBLE
Epic Fail.
The Bible is hardly the oldest book in the world, nor is it a textbook.

:p Ever heard of evaporation

Yes. Water evaporates, as do many other things. When those things evaporate, they become less dense, and rise into the environment until they reach an equilibrium point - a level at which they are sandwiched between layers that are more dense (below) and less dense (above).

This phenomenon, in water, is clearly evidence to us as two things - the blue tinge we 'see' to our atmosphere (which is water saturating the air), and the cloud layer (which is water settling out and beginning to condense).

Your story relies on the idea that water evaporates... and just disappears.

Is it not true that as continents move apart the ocean build deeper and deeper trenches.

Not universally. In fact tectonic plate movement can often result in those trenches decreasing in size, or in the formation and growth of mountain ranges. That's how Everest and its neighboring mountains were formed, and the same is true of the Rockies.

Try again.

IT IS SCIENCE!!!

It is not, and not only that, it isn't the oldest either.

I get my information from the oldest textbook in the world...THE BIBLE

oldest? Not by half. The hammurabi code is at least 2,000 years older than most parts of the new testament. The Rosetta Stone predates the alleged coming of Jesus by 200 years, and Plato's dialogues, which are basically the first modern textbook on philosophy, are 400 years older.

no, why the should I? It's about as valid as harry potter standing for the proposition that there are invisibility cloaks.

If you read the most read book in the world you would know.

If you read the most read book in the world you would know.

Harry Potter?

It is not, and not only that, it isn't the oldest either.

Name one that's older and then prove it's the oldest.

If you read the most read book in the world you would know.

appeal to authority. Irrelevant.

Ever heard of ground water.

Yes. Indeed, not only have I heard of it - we are now discussing my field of expertise... indeed, my daily employment.

And let me tell you, there ain't no five miles depth of ground water (OR surface water... or both combined).

So - rather than evading - show me where all this sub-terranean water was supposed to be stored? (Where it, maybe, returned to?). You need to proide me evidence that the whole world has something like 5 miles of water storage space UNDER the ground.

Name one that's older and then prove it's the oldest.

Prove yours is the oldest.

Name one that's older and then prove it's the oldest.

Meno, Gorgias, Phaedrus, Crito, Euthyphro, Lysis, Charmides, Apology, Republic.

That's a start...

If you read the most read book in the world you would know.
I have read most of the Bible, actually.

Prove yours is the oldest.

JESUS SAYS IT IS!!!

Ever heard of Moses?

Mel Brooks' Moses or Charleton Heston's Moses?

Prove yours is the oldest.

Ever heard of Moses?

He wrote it.

Moses lived during the time that the pyramids were being built.

Mel Brooks' Moses or Charleton Heston's Moses?

Oooh, oooh. I bet it's the Mel Brooke's one. Oy. *drops tablet*

He wrote it.

Did he write the part where he died, too?

Read Genesis 1:7

I've read it.

It's clearly not intended to be taken literally.

Even casual examination of the evidence shows it can't be a literal world flood. Even casual application of the numbers shows that it can't be a literal flooding action.

So - why should I IGNORE all the evidence, and accept ONE line from ONE book that contradicts even other accounts WITHIN that book?

Moses lived during the time that the pyramids were being built.

Care to prove that?

He wrote it.

What? The Bible? That's a new argument - considering he wasn't even alive to finish the Pentatauch.

Moses lived during the time that the pyramids were being built.

Moses was 3,000 years old?

I've read it.

It's clearly not intended to be taken literally.

Even casual examination of the evidence shows it can't be a literal world flood. Even casual application of the numbers shows that it can't be a literal flooding action.

So - why should I IGNORE all the evidence, and accept ONE line from ONE book that contradicts even other accounts WITHIN that book?

Indeed, it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Oh, wait.

Moses was 3,000 years old?

one question...HUH?

What? The Bible? That's a new argument - considering he wasn't even alive to finish the Pentatauch.

At least Genesis.

one question...HUH?

"The time the pyramids were built" was a 3000 year period. You're going to have to be more specific and more concrete than that.

one question...HUH?

Thanks, you made my point.

You believe in Science and Math...Well bet you didn't know Mathematically it's impossible to throw a curveball, yet pitchers do it all the time.

You believe in Science and Math...Well bet you didn't know Mathematically it's impossible to throw a curveball, yet pitchers do it all the time.

...
...
...

I have been blinded by the stupidity of that statement.

"The time the pyramids were built" was a 3000 year period. You're going to have to be more specific and more concrete than that.

I didnt say he lived till the end of it. he lived DURING it.

You believe in Science and Math...Well bet you didn't know Mathematically it's impossible to throw a curveball, yet pitchers do it all the time.

A fastball typically has backspin, giving it relatively stable aerodynamic characteristics in flight. The spin of a curveball moves in the opposite direction. This spin causes a curveball to "break", or drop down and sweep horizontally as it approaches home plate, thus frustrating the batter.

When throwing a curve, the pitcher creates downspin by rolling his palm and fingers over the top of the ball while releasing it. The direction of the break depends on the axis of spin on the ball. There are many variations of the curveball, but most are described in terms of their movement when superimposed on a clock. A "12–6" or "overhand" curve has a more or less straight downward action as it approaches the plate, while more sweeping curveballs might be described as "1–7" or "slurves". There is no specific point where a ball breaks, but the deviation from a fastball trajectory becomes progressively greater as the ball approaches the plate.

Generally the Magnus effect describes the laws of physics that make a curveball curve. A fastball travels through the air with backspin, which creates a high-pressure zone in the air ahead of and under the baseball. The baseball's raised seams augment the ball's ability to churn the air and create high pressure zones. The effect of gravity is temporarily counteracted as the ball rides on and into energized air. Thus the travel of a fastball is more or less straight, at least over the distance from the mound to home plate.

On the other hand, a curveball, thrown with topspin, creates a high-pressure zone on top of the ball, which deflects the ball downward in flight. Combined with gravity, this gives the ball an exaggerated drop in flight that is difficult for the hitter to track. The curveball may have some horizontal movement as well, depending on the tilt of its axis of spin.

It would seem the science behind a curveball is quite well understood.

Truly epic.

epic lulz

Indeed, it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Oh, wait.

:D

...
...
...

I have been blinded by the stupidity of that statement.

look it up.

...
...
...

I have been blinded by the stupidity of that statement.

Truly epic.

Now do that Mathematically.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. But if I must:

The following equations demonstrate the manipulation of characteristics needed to determine the lift force generated by inducing a mechanical rotation on a ball.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/c/e/fcee66866523879da2e9f2ef68b4c242.png
F = lift force
ρ = density of the fluid
V = velocity of the ball
A = cross-sectional area of ball
Cl = lift coefficient
The lift coefficient is dependent on the spin ratio ( (angular velocity*diameter)/(2* linear velocity) ) of the ball. The Lift coefficient may be determined from graphs of experimental data using Reynolds numbers and spin ratios. Typical lift coefficients of a smooth ball range from 0.2 to 0.6 for spin ratios ranging from 0.5 to 4.5.

It would seem the science behind a curveball is quite well understood.

Now do that Mathematically.

Now do that Mathematically.

Here's an idea. Mathematically prove that it is impossible. Go!

At least Genesis.

Okay. Assertion made. Here's where you provide the evidence that Moses wrote Genesis. Indeed - most Biblical scholars don't even believe it.

To start with, you could actually try proving that Moses even existed. Outside of religious texts, there's not a lot of evidence for a literal Moses.

I'm gonna put all my ideas into one fact. During Noah's time the earth's crust was one land mass known as pangea. God said he was gonna flood the earth. using ground water and the water above the air (read Genesis 1:7) to flood the earth. before that it had never rained so there was no water cycle. after the flood God started the water cycle.

Mate stop please just stop. I tried to defend you earlier but now you are going further and further down hill, and even I have to now laugh at you. If you want to believe in that then do so and others should just leave you alone to believe in it. Just like you should let others to believe in what they want to believe. Your above post is incorrect Noah didn't live on the mega continent he lived somewhere in the Middle East it might even have been Africa who knows anyway please read this.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13720794&postcount=274

It may not be correct but it attempts to explain why the old story might ring true.

Now do that Mathematically.

Has it ever occurred to you that, without a mathematical model for how the curve ball works, calculations of the curve balls speed and trajectory in simulations as a result of input force (especially baseball games) would be impossible?

It hasn't? Well I can't say I'm overly surprised.

Now do that Mathematically.

It's a basic application of the Magnus Effect.

F = 1/2ρ(V^2)ACl

It turns out you were wrong. Way way wrong. The math and the science are pretty well known, and certainly don't equate to it being 'impossible'. Hell - the math is grade school level.

The two aren't necessarily exclusive. If God or the Gods are expressions of aspects of reality (rather than external arbiters of or internal subordinates to it) then it being good and the gods saying it's good are interchangeable ways of phrasing the same thing.

The Hindu gods and Pagan Goddess, by this argument, are immune to the dilemma.

"expressions of aspects of reality"? huh?

As are the Greek gods, for entirely different reasons.

amusingly, the dilemma is specifically aimed at the greek gods in its original form. comes from plato.

Wait...what?

How the fuck old are you again?

I'm guessing he's 13 or less.

Okay. Assertion made. Here's where you provide the evidence that Moses wrote Genesis. Indeed - most Biblical scholars don't even believe it.

To start with, you could actually try proving that Moses even existed. Outside of religious texts, there's not a lot of evidence for a literal Moses.


Moses built the ark of the covenant which is very real.

Moses built the ark of the covenant which is very real.

prove it. Where is this ark?

Sitting in a US government warehouse, didn't you see Raiders of the Lost Ark?

pft, if it's lost how do you know where it is?

n00b.

prove it. Where is this ark?

Sitting in a US government warehouse, didn't you see Raiders of the Lost Ark?

Hey guys I think Tucker Island is a parrot.

Hey guys I think Tucker Island is a parrot.

thats not how you spell...

Is there really a conflict between science and religion? I mean, I am aware obviously that people who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible sometimes have large problems with certian modern theories of the origins of the universe, life, the world etc. But really, if you break it down propperly and leave each of the two to their respective correct fields, I don't think the conflict is as large scale as you might think. Also, does believing in a scientific origin of the universe and believing in science as a means of discovering objective facts lead to an athiestic worldview nessecarly? Really? I would like to see what people thought of a discussion of these questions that I placed up on youtube.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DHiBJVevndo

It's really a matter of what you mean by religion and what you mean by science...
For instance, I consider the argument that Evolution-Intelligent Design is Science-Religion absurd...
While the "Theory" of Evolution is generally considered Science, it's no more provable than the "Theory" of ID, whether that's fundamental literal-Genesis ID or some other interpretation...
Both are unrepeatable, unverifiable, and unprovable, whether true or false.
Therefore, origins debates are, arguably, purely religious. True, there is evidence both ways, some better than others, some actually even reasonable, but it's not Science...

I don't see why Science, being that which is provable false but highly supported, need necessarily come in conflict with Religion, being what you believe and how you live based on that. However, it seems quite easy... I really believe it would have to depend on what your Religion is, as, if it is a description of reality, Science isn't really modifiable.

The biggest problem is when people accept either without question... and thus refuse to consider anything else out of hand.

For instance, I consider the argument that Evolution-Intelligent Design is Science-Religion absurd...
While the "Theory" of Evolution is generally considered Science, it's no more provable than the "Theory" of ID, whether that's fundamental literal-Genesis ID or some other interpretation...
Both are unrepeatable, unverifiable, and unprovable, whether true or false.
Therefore, origins debates are, arguably, purely religious. True, there is evidence both ways, some better than others, some actually even reasonable, but it's not Science...

1. You might want to actually learn something about the ToE.
2. As an addendum to and proof of 1. the ToE has nothing to do with the origon of life.

ToE = Theory of Evolution

It's really a matter of what you mean by religion and what you mean by science...
For instance, I consider the argument that Evolution-Intelligent Design is Science-Religion absurd...
While the "Theory" of Evolution is generally considered Science, it's no more provable than the "Theory" of ID

At this point, your post strips off whatever shred of respectable position it might have had. Learn how science works before discussing it.

1. You might want to actually learn something about the ToE.
2. As an addendum to and proof of 1. the ToE has nothing to do with the origon of life.

ToE = Theory of Evolution

Granted... I apologise...
I was thinking more along the lines of the larger origins concept that tends to include the ToE
However, I retain my argument that it is unprovable

At this point, your post strips off whatever shred of respectable position it might have had. Learn how science works before discussing it.

and would you mind explaining my error rather than just claiming I have no clue how science works?

and would you mind explaining my error rather than just claiming I have no clue how science works?

the expectation that a theory prove anything. And considering that is the first fundamental principle of science, the fact that you don't know that suggests to me you really don't know how science works.

the expectation that a theory prove anything. And considering that is the first fundamental principle of science, the fact that you don't know that suggests to me you really don't know how science works.

I don't expect that a theory prove anything... I expect that a theory be proveABLE... false, to be specific

Granted... I apologise...
I was thinking more along the lines of the larger origins concept that tends to include the ToE
However, I retain my argument that it is unprovable

Agreed, but then science doesn't prove anything, that's not how it works.
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


They experiments are done to try and disprove the hypothesis, not to prove it.

1. You might want to actually learn something about the ToE.
2. As an addendum to and proof of 1. the ToE has nothing to do with the origon of life.

ToE = Theory of Evolution

and for the record, I have no claim that ID is any more scientific that the ToE etc., either

Agreed, but then science doesn't prove anything, that's not how it works.
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


They experiments are done to try and disprove the hypothesis, not to prove it.

thus my argument that neither is provable, true OR false...
neither can be any more disproved than proved, its a choice of what to believe

I don't expect that a theory prove anything... I expect that a theory be proveABLE... false, to be specific

A theory can never be provable. It must, however, be disprovable. Which evolution is, and intelligent design is not.

A theory can never be provable. It must, however, be disprovable. Which evolution is, and intelligent design is not.

1. please explain to me the differense between provable false and disprovable

2. What would be required to disprove evolution?

neither can be any more disproved than proved

Evolution can easily be disproved. Find something that could not have been produced via natural selection.

Evolution can easily be disproved. Find something that could not have been produced via natural selection.

meaning what exactly? something that is obviously no more fit than the various things that have gone extinct? something that is different entirely from anything else we know?

meaning what exactly? something that is obviously no more fit than the various things that have gone extinct? something that is different entirely from anything else we know?

I meant exactly what I said. Something that could not have come about via natural selection based on genetics and biology as we understand them.

Find something irriducibly complex. Find something that could not have evolved over time. The theory holds that life evolves in a certain way, so find something that runs counter to that theory.

That's what science does after all.

I meant exactly what I said. Something that could not have come about via natural selection based on genetics and biology as we understand them.

Find something irriducibly complex. Find something that could not have evolved over time. The theory holds that life evolves in a certain way, so find something that runs counter to that theory.

That's what science does after all.

Very good... point ceded.
Thus my chosen example is completely shredded, without anyone taking the time to catch my point... impressive.

prove it. Where is this ark?

Come on Neo that's not fair, the covenant could very well have been built, doesnt meant that God resided in there all it means is that the Jews built a sort of a box as a symbolic thing saying they would abide by the new laws of the Jewish people.

Next Neo you would be saying that there was no Statue of Zeus at Olympia because we can't find proof of it now.

Very good... point ceded.
Thus my chosen example is completely shredded, without anyone taking the time to catch my point... impressive.

OK, what was your point then?

OK, what was your point then?

basically, that they need not conflict, but they do not necessarily deal with completely separate parts of life...
and that it only causes problems when people refuse to accept something new purely because it seems to disagree with something they have decided to believe
but that can happen either way... people can be just as bigoted about a certain scientific theory as they can be about religion... it just doesn't happen as often, and less so now than it used to. In all fairness, though, religious bigotry has also declined somewhat.

It also comes to my attention that my "example" had nothing to do with my response to the original question...
*blush*

Science doesn't really have a problem with religion. Religion sometimes has a problem with science, since science sometimes finds things that contradict the beliefs of a religion. This tends to get the the more.....intense followers of that religion somewhat upset with science. See: Attempts to put Intelligent Design in high school science classes across America.

you could say that science doesn't have a problem with religion it's just religion having a problem with science, because religion is usually the side that starts many of the "arguments" if thats the right word

but you could equally look that science's often disdainful treatment of religion is from the same place as religions consistent arguments against science. coming from a passive aggressive as apposed to straight aggressive place.