Very timely deros. I saw a guy, Cavanaugh, speak on this topic, but from the religion angle. He talked about how the separation of religion was created during the scientific revolution and that has allowed “science” to define religion and control it and then blame it for things like violence in the name of god. It was convoluted.
I think you can see this in the history of Jesus as Richard Carrier describes it. As that myth and liturgy developed, they developed the idea that you don’t have to see the god or sacrifice to it, you just accept it in your heart, the god became personal. There were other “mystery” religions, but this is one we have a lot of data on.
God v Science
Take a wild guess how many man hours have been spent on this subject over the last one-hundred years.
The wheels just keep spinning and no progress is achieved.
The attackers win little battles but never win the war.
What do you say that we give this God v Science 10 more weeks and if we don’t have a winner, we stop the battle?
God v Science Take a wild guess how many man hours have been spent on this subject over the last one-hundred years. The wheels just keep spinning and no progress is achieved. The attackers win little battles but never win the war. What do you say that we give this God v Science 10 more weeks and if we don’t have a winner, we stop the battle?We have a winner.
I didn’t watch the video - the subject’s just plain boring. What these dumbells don’t realize is, everytime one of them argues for the god side, She’s up there slapping Herself on the forehead thinking “Jesus christ I gave these morons brains so they could lift themselves out of the swamp, and all they do is sit around and pray. What a waste.”
Or it laughs at them while it sets up a gang rape and gives a toddler cancer.
But may be the problem is that the whole thing has been addressed in the wrong way. Why should the problem be stated as god v science?
In my opinion we should address the issue as “god and science”.
What if God doesn’t give a damn about science and there is no reason for science to give a damn about God?
All bow down and worship mutual indifference!
psik
Does it and/or does He (or it if you prefer)?
What does science say for instance about the origin of the Universe. And what do the abrahamic religions say about the origin of the universe?
They both (coincidentally?) indicate that the universe had a similar beginning !
From Genesis:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness …
3 And God said, “Let there be light," and there was light.
Not much different from the Standard Cosmological Model. From Wikipedia:
The model includes a single originating event, the “Big Bang” or initial singularity, which was not an explosion but the abrupt appearance of expanding space-time containing radiation at temperatures of around 10^15 K. . The early universe remained hot (above 10,000 K) for several hundred thousand years, a state that is detectable as a residual cosmic microwave background, or CMB, … The “Big Bang” scenario, with cosmic inflation and standard particle physics, is the only current cosmological model consistent with the observed continuing expansion of space, the observed distribution of lighter elements in the universe (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), and the spatial texture of minute irregularities (anisotropies) in the CMB radiation. .
So far there is no problem between god and science, therefore no reason to talk about god vs. science.
Does it and/or does He (or it if you prefer)? What does science say for instance about the origin of the Universe. And what do the abrahamic religions say about the origin of the universe? They both (coincidentally?) indicate that the universe had a similar beginning ! From Genesis: 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness ..... 3 And God said, “Let there be light," and there was light. Not much different from the Standard Cosmological Model. From Wikipedia: The model includes a single originating event, the "Big Bang" or initial singularity, which was not an explosion but the abrupt appearance of expanding space-time containing radiation at temperatures of around 10^15 K. . The early universe remained hot (above 10,000 K) for several hundred thousand years, a state that is detectable as a residual cosmic microwave background, or CMB, .... The "Big Bang" scenario, with cosmic inflation and standard particle physics, is the only current cosmological model consistent with the observed continuing expansion of space, the observed distribution of lighter elements in the universe (hydrogen, helium, and lithium), and the spatial texture of minute irregularities (anisotropies) in the CMB radiation. . So far there is no problem between god and science, therefore no reason to talk about god vs. science.I've often wondered why so many religionists don't make the mental leap that maybe god created science. My guess is, science doesn't provide the psychological crutch religion and faith does. IMO god's up there totally exasperated..."jesus christ i gave them magnificent brains, that led to math and science, and all they want to do is sit there and pray for my help. That's it, I'm moving onto the next planet where they appreciate my gifts!"
Not sure CJ you are addressing the point, is it god vs. science or god and science ?
The idea is that both science and religious thought or if you want you can call it faith (at least in the abrahamic religions), state that the universe had a beginning.
We can´t really add much to the religious claim but we can consider from the point of view of science what the alternatives are, which are not many. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn´t. Actually the later, posited by the Steady State Theory, was the position held for a while by Einstein, Hoyle and other physicists, but it was soon abandoned considering the overwhelming scientific evidence (Hubble, LeMaitre, Penzias and Wilson and the CMB, etc)
If the evidence had indicated that the universe did not have a beginning then the creation story would be questionable, but given the scientific evidence we have, which is build into the Cosmological Standard Model, the universe had a beginning and the creation story is not contradicted by science.
Not sure CJ you are addressing the point, is it god vs. science or god and science ? The idea is that both science and religious thought or if you want you can call it faith (at least in the abrahamic religions), state that the universe had a beginning. We can´t really add much to the religious claim but we can consider from the point of view of science what the alternatives are, which are not many. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn´t. Actually the later, posited by the Steady State Theory, was the position held for a while by Einstein, Hoyle and other physicists, but it was soon abandoned considering the overwhelming scientific evidence (Hubble, LeMaitre, Penzias and Wilson and the CMB, etc) If the evidence had indicated that the universe did not have a beginning then the creation story would be questionable, but given the scientific evidence we have, which is build into the Cosmological Standard Model, the universe had a beginning and the creation story is not contradicted by science.God made the first man out of clay, and the first woman out of that man's rib. It doesn't seem consistent with what we know of biology. Oh! But that part of the story (NOW that is clearly fantastical to most people) is just a metaphor, if one wants compatibility with science. God created the world in 7 days. It doesn't seem consistent with geological or a number of other branches of science. Oh! But that part of the story (NOW that is clearly fantastical to most people) is metaphorical. I could make the most outlandish assertions, for which there is not, yet, any evidence to the contrary. When evidence to the contrary arises, I could claim that I was speaking metaphorically, and that my essential message remains true.
Not sure CJ you are addressing the point, is it god vs. science or god and science ? The idea is that both science and religious thought or if you want you can call it faith (at least in the abrahamic religions), state that the universe had a beginning. We can´t really add much to the religious claim but we can consider from the point of view of science what the alternatives are, which are not many. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn´t. Actually the later, posited by the Steady State Theory, was the position held for a while by Einstein, Hoyle and other physicists, but it was soon abandoned considering the overwhelming scientific evidence (Hubble, LeMaitre, Penzias and Wilson and the CMB, etc) If the evidence had indicated that the universe did not have a beginning then the creation story would be questionable, but given the scientific evidence we have, which is build into the Cosmological Standard Model, the universe had a beginning and the creation story is not contradicted by science.God made the first man out of clay, and the first woman out of that man's rib. It doesn't seem consistent with what we know of biology. Oh! But that part of the story (NOW that is clearly fantastical to most people) is just a metaphor, if one wants compatibility with science. God created the world in 7 days. It doesn't seem consistent with geological or a number of other branches of science. Oh! But that part of the story (NOW that is clearly fantastical to most people) is metaphorical. I could make the most outlandish assertions, for which there is not, yet, any evidence to the contrary. When evidence to the contrary arises, I could claim that I was speaking metaphorically, and that my essential message remains true. Certainly the Bible is not a science book and should not be judged by its scientific content. The Bible has many authors who in the course of thousands of years conveyed what is supposed to be god´s revelation. If they had tried to make up a phoney story it would have been much more consistent. Just take for instance the story of creation; there are two different stories and it is not possible that both are true. So clearly there isn´t an intention, or a conspiracy, to write a story which is to be interpreted literally and, if you care, you have to look into what the essential message really is, which is not really the topic of this thread. Now back to the thread, where do we find that science and religion seem to be converging. As we mentioned before, it seems science and religion agree that the universe, had a beginning; the obvious question then from the point of view of science, considering the scientific evidence we have, mainly the Cosmological Standard Model and the Laws of Thermodynamics, is how this beginning came about. Did the Universe came out of nothing or was it caused by something else ? Was it a natural event ? What are the possible scenarios ? It either sprang out of nothing, or it was caused by something else, or we just do not know? where is the scientific evidence leading us to understand?
I don't get the god vs science or God and science connection. I know science exists.And is there anything the scientific evidence we have today and the way is has evolved tells you about the existence or absence god? It seems that the origin of the universe might be a good instance to look for some answers to this question.
Not sure CJ you are addressing the point, is it god vs. science or god and science ? The idea is that both science and religious thought or if you want you can call it faith (at least in the abrahamic religions), state that the universe had a beginning. We can´t really add much to the religious claim but we can consider from the point of view of science what the alternatives are, which are not many. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn´t. Actually the later, posited by the Steady State Theory, was the position held for a while by Einstein, Hoyle and other physicists, but it was soon abandoned considering the overwhelming scientific evidence (Hubble, LeMaitre, Penzias and Wilson and the CMB, etc) If the evidence had indicated that the universe did not have a beginning then the creation story would be questionable, but given the scientific evidence we have, which is build into the Cosmological Standard Model, the universe had a beginning and the creation story is not contradicted by science.God made the first man out of clay, and the first woman out of that man's rib. It doesn't seem consistent with what we know of biology. Oh! But that part of the story (NOW that is clearly fantastical to most people) is just a metaphor, if one wants compatibility with science. God created the world in 7 days. It doesn't seem consistent with geological or a number of other branches of science. Oh! But that part of the story (NOW that is clearly fantastical to most people) is metaphorical. I could make the most outlandish assertions, for which there is not, yet, any evidence to the contrary. When evidence to the contrary arises, I could claim that I was speaking metaphorically, and that my essential message remains true. Certainly the Bible is not a science book and should not be judged by its scientific content. The Bible has many authors who in the course of thousands of years conveyed what is supposed to be god´s revelation. If they had tried to make up a phoney story it would have been much more consistent. Just take for instance the story of creation; there are two different stories and it is not possible that both are true. So clearly there isn´t an intention, or a conspiracy, to write a story which is to be interpreted literally and, if you care, you have to look into what the essential message really is... Actually, I think that each original story teller did know that they were making it up (or were under a delusion of sorts). But once it attained the status of something holy to be believed by faith, believers are gonna believe, despite logical discrepancies. But when believing the literal, by faith becomes, too much of a strain to credulity, then metaphorical interpretation comes to the rescue. You do know, that there are people even today, living thousands of years after those conflicting creation stories were originally told, who have faith that the stories are a literal truth? They don't require retreating to metaphor, in order to believe. A person, such as yourself, who has decent critical thinking skills, does need to transform the stories' message in such a way that it can be credible. But when one does that through metaphor, I suggest that it is done, in retrospect and influenced by one's contingencies, that are vastly different than those of the original storyteller.
I don't get the god vs science or God and science connection. I know science exists.And is there anything the scientific evidence we have today and the way is has evolved tells you about the existence or absence god? It seems that the origin of the universe might be a good instance to look for some answers to this question. I cannot comprehend looking to the origin of the universe for answers to any questions much less a question that I have no interest in. I would love to say I could do that but it is beyond my ability to even know where to start. Good luck in your quest. Just go into a supermarket and take away everything that was created or not in its form that Mother Nature intended and you end up with maybe fish. So yes, god created earth for mankind. What more scientific evidence do you need? But I have seen no proof where religion had anything to do with god creating earth for mankind. Two different roads that had nothing to do with each other until the Age of Deities when man’s greed took over and wanted to control the power of knowledge.
I don't get the god vs science or God and science connection. I know science exists.And is there anything the scientific evidence we have today and the way is has evolved tells you about the existence or absence god? It seems that the origin of the universe might be a good instance to look for some answers to this question. I cannot comprehend looking to the origin of the universe for answers to any questions much less a question that I have no interest in. I would love to say I could do that but it is beyond my ability to even know where to start. Good luck in your quest. Just go into a supermarket and take away everything that was created or not in its form that Mother Nature intended and you end up with maybe fish. So yes, god created earth for mankind. What more scientific evidence do you need? But I have seen no proof where religion had anything to do with god creating earth for mankind. Two different roads that had nothing to do with each other until the Age of Deities when man’s greed took over and wanted to control the power of knowledge. Mike, I know you believe that passionately and that is just fine for you. I just can't go there. I just believe another way of understanding how our planet formed. There is nothing you can say to dissuade me from that position. Interesting. If you don’t believe in that our protein base was created by scientific methods. Then just what is your belief, magic or supernatural?
Just go into a supermarket and take away everything that was created or not in its form that Mother Nature intended and you end up with maybe fish. So yes, god created earth for mankind.That makes no sense whatsoever.
Very timely deros. I saw a guy, Cavanaugh, speak on this topic, but from the religion angle. He talked about how the separation of religion was created during the scientific revolution and that has allowed "science" to define religion and control it and then blame it for things like violence in the name of god. It was convoluted. I think you can see this in the history of Jesus as Richard Carrier describes it. As that myth and liturgy developed, they developed the idea that you don't have to see the god or sacrifice to it, you just accept it in your heart, the god became personal. There were other "mystery" religions, but this is one we have a lot of data on.The scientific revolution or Renaissance was the the reaction of centuries of Christian oppression of free thought, there was no real science being done during those dark years. This mostly arose out the attempt to conceal the Pagan roots of Jesus Christ who is most likely an amalgam of mythical figures created by much earlier mystery cults to express esoterically inner truths that couldn't be expressed any other way. Esoteric became exoteric as political pressure in the Roman Empire turned Jesus Christ into a literal figure during the Council of Nicene and everything that has followed since has been dominated by that. Science is a return to a much older mode of thinking that was largely subsumed by the Catholic Church as it engaged in profound intellectual fraud. And did an incredible amount of violence and destruction of knowledge and lives to cover this up.
Just go into a supermarket and take away everything that was created or not in its form that Mother Nature intended and you end up with maybe fish. So yes, god created earth for mankind.That makes no sense whatsoever. I agree that it is confusing at best. I wish I had the communication skills to make it easy understand. Just work with me and I’ll do my best. If a tomato for example is not in the form Mother Nature intended, then it was either manufactured or altered to create the tomato we eat today. This is done by selective farming for the use of a bigger protein base products. By this selective farming of the past and GM systems of today we are creating the foods we eat today. The chicken for example was a tree bird in Vietnam that was created into the bird we have today, it was not an act of Mother Nature, and it was an act of mankind. The oldest Genesis stories say that God created earth for mankind. Being that we cannot date prehistory very well we don’t know how old or how far back in history these stories go. But they were before the Age of Deities, Therefore God at that time in history had to be a word that meant knowledge or the people of knowledge known to us as the upper and lower gods. And if there was no deity gods at the time of the first Genesis stories, then god obviously referring to something other than a deity. Basic human history that is now being studied is in the range of 80K years. We need to step out of the biblical thinking if we are going to view history as a whole. Darron, the point is, if you are going to try and understand God vs Science, then one should understand that god started out in history as science. If we are going pigeon hole the meaning of god to the deity, then we are working with miss translations, or fairy tales at best and in a very limited time of our history.