tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post9206844942930630549..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: Debate on Science and ReligionJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-44896299551983066222013-09-23T02:35:45.552+01:002013-09-23T02:35:45.552+01:00The debate on science and religion won't end. ...The debate on science and religion won't end. The most important thing to do is to use their influences to spread knowledge to their followers.Australian broadband service providerhttp://www.vinternet.com.au/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-89401709721133086552012-03-23T07:53:46.224+00:002012-03-23T07:53:46.224+00:00Most scientists are not atheists. It is true of ev...Most scientists are not atheists. It is true of every body of scientists I have interacted with from multiple countries across the world.<br /><br />Science and religion have nothing to do with each other. I'm not an atheist because of science, and one does not need to give up science to have faith.<br /><br />While I find Dawkins and other obnoxious atheists to be entertaining, I consider it a major fallacy to apply scientific arguments to attempting to disprove one or any religion. They are different spheres of the human experience and it is pointless to use one to attack the other.<br /><br />The conflict is not at all the result of non-Christians trying to sabotage a harmonious existence between religion and science. The conflict is cultural--especially in the US. In schools and in politics, being too smart is not cool and does not get you respect. It often results in bullying, alienation, derision. <br /><br />In fiction, scientists used to be heroic figures that figure out the disease or come up with the required superweapon; now, scientists are derided and are if not directly the cause of the problem in the first place, they are clumsy eggheads that die first because of being impractical and overspecialized.<br /><br />This cultural shift has resulted in polarization, with the rise of ultra-conservative Christians who lash out at evolution as if it is a direct assault on faith, and combative atheists like Dawkins who I would contend are also the manifestation of a defensive reaction to a perceived assault on science. <br /><br />Among other things, science is hard. Kids don't like to take it. And they grow up not understanding it, even as they eat domesticated crops and animals, live longer because of modern medicine, and use a dizzying array of electronic devices that only exist because of scientists and engineers. When people don't understand something, it's natural to feel fear, and that fear also leads to derision to disarm their anxieties about these complicated things they consider useless (and the people who study them).<br /><br />I always shake my head at creation 'science' believers who say that evolution is just a theory. It is only a theory in the strictest sense of the word, but we see evolution all around and it is undeniable. Drug-resistant bacteria spontaneously evolving in parallel across the world, the thousands of years it took humans to breed all these different dogs out of domesticated wolves, the difference between the corn people eat and how it used to look when Europeans first saw it in South America, the very DNA sequences in our cells which can be compared across the DNA of apes, all these things and more ARE evolution in action. Mutation can be observed down to a single nucleotide change, and selection can be observed just in the way invasive species like carp out-compete American freshwater fish.<br /><br />But it's a hell of a lot easier to deny something and cherry-pick or manipulate facts to come up with any number of other 'theories' than it is to spend 4 years in college training to become a biologist and having ingrained knowledge that proves creation science is bunk.<br /><br />Incidentally, I'm an atheist, but my wife is a devout believer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-74195577459611740782011-11-16T00:49:20.291+00:002011-11-16T00:49:20.291+00:00Hi, I am from Australia.
Please find a completely...Hi, I am from Australia.<br /><br />Please find a completely different Understanding of the never-ending religion versus science shouting match .<br /><br />Einstein and Jesus<br /><br />www.dabase.org/christmc2.htm<br /><br />http://science-and-religion.avatar-adida.org/index.php<br /><br />www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-science.aspx<br /><br />www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism.aspxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-36754303992886734622011-10-12T07:07:17.453+01:002011-10-12T07:07:17.453+01:00Thank you for posting this discussion in its entir...Thank you for posting this discussion in its entirety.<br /><br />It is observed in Psalms that there are those who say "there is no God,". Atheism isn't new since evolution. Rather, I am convinced that unbelievers since prehistory gain initial doubt about our God from the false witness of certain People of God, now Christians, in their lives. This is both 1) a more biblical explanation of the 'sequence to atheism', and 2) is more observably correct in my experience than the sole inability to "square the bible with science", as a previous poster (J. Marx) put it.<br /><br />One can almost always wait long enough through an anti-Christian rant starting off with science and philosophy to hear the seed story of professed Christians (parents, friends, or social idols) living decidedly un-Christ-like..."and then I knew it couldn't be true". Is it any wonder that the bible is more filled with the discipline of believers than wrath upon oppressors of Hebrews and Christians?Weshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12347021959563752238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-25539083470161617362011-10-06T18:03:58.234+01:002011-10-06T18:03:58.234+01:00I also wonder what out of the clay could mean in t...<i>I also wonder what out of the clay could mean in terms of an evolutionary understandingy</i><br /><br />In my opinion, it doesn't mean anything evolution related. The book of Genesis isn't a scientific treatise and isn't to be interpreted as such. It's this highly wrong approach that causes all these troubles and controversy. <br /><br />As a religious text the primary meaning of Genesis is the theological one. What theological significance does Genesis have? In this light that text ought to be analyzed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-63247549237502269502011-10-05T20:28:52.822+01:002011-10-05T20:28:52.822+01:00I concur with natehardee and have blogged on this ...I concur with natehardee and have blogged on this several times. . Many young evangelicals have lost their faith because they cannot square the Bible with science. Sad.<br /><br />I did not read as thoroughly as need be due to time restraints, but one issue is Genesis 2 clearly gives a different time line on creation. That is really important data in the discussion. I also wonder what out of the clay could mean in terms of an evolutionary understanding... I also wonder where evolution as a philosophical system can be differentiated from the science. I think Christians believe in creation, i.e., not accidental. I am greatful for this site. Thanks and God bless!Jeff Marxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050839922405054732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-38475283905712759802011-10-05T16:49:01.733+01:002011-10-05T16:49:01.733+01:00Well done, it makes me a little sad that christian...Well done, it makes me a little sad that christians like the ones you debated are so hard hearted about evolution. I wonder how many people would have still believed and not fallen away if there fellow christians weren't so militristic about 6 days creationism.natehardeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01595640613008680082noreply@blogger.com