3 ms·

>This lecture should put students at ease knowing that religion and science need not be at odds Unfortunately, this isn't true. Evolution and certain religions

>This lecture should put students at ease knowing that religion and science need not be at odds Unfortunately, this isn't true. Evolution and certain religions may not be directly in conflict... but science and religion? The two by definition are fundamentally at odds.

DanBC 12y ago
Christians might say that God exists in the bits we can't explain yet.
- mirekrusin 12y ago
  That would make scientists the best God discoverers, not priests.
- tomp 12y ago
  And science says that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation even for the parts we can't explain yet. Still at odds, fundamentally.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    No they're not! Even if science explains everything there's still room for God.
    - krapp 12y ago
      You're defining God as a function of human ignorance. Where exactly is this 'room for God' and why is it suspiciously never anywhere anyone looks? The belief alone that God can't be disproved, even with evidence, is a fundamentally anti-scientific point of view. Once you come to the point of science 'proving everything' but still believing in God, what are you basing that belief on? Literally nothing.
    - tomp 12y ago
      Just as much room as there is for us living in the Matrix. All fantasy, no reality.
    - willvarfar 12y ago
      Just a fun rebuttal by Neil deGrasse Tyson: Reason & Faith are Irreconcilable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy5yWdVHv3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy5yWdVHv3o :)
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  Believing in something that can't be explained and has no supporting evidence is fundamentally at odds with science.
acqq 12y ago
The confusion obviously comes also from the different definition of "religion" for different people. Religious people see the "religion" as their "identity." But realistically, a religion is a specific set of beliefs and rituals of worshiping one or more gods. In reality the "religious" people from one specific religion are the "unbelievers" for people of other specific religion, unless the later religion actually allows different gods at once. Abrahamic religions have the particular problem that they have that concept of "have no other gods but me" and the concept that "others" will actually suffer for not honoring that very god: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions The exact definition of an atheist, seen from the point of view of any of Abrahamic religions is: "he believes in just one less god than we" but they don't want to confront that fact.
ta82828 12y ago
The two by definition are fundamentally at odds. And yet, many pioneers of science were religious, some even members of the clergy.
- acqq 12y ago
  Yes, they deeply believed that by discovering the "rules that govern the world" (like the formulas of the motions of the planets or any other "law of the nature") they discover the real, deep messages of the Creator, not limited by the human weaknesses. The formulas and laws as absolute truth, which exists independently of humans. E.g. Ptolemy, ca. 100 – ca. 178 NE: "I know that I am mortal by nature and ephemeral, but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia." You can be an idealist and have the desire to learn the laws of the nature. What you can't is to just consider some book as the switch which allows you to turn off your brain. Unfortunately creationists don't have that attitude.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

DanBC 12y ago

Christians might say that God exists in the bits we can't explain yet.

mirekrusin 12y ago
That would make scientists the best God discoverers, not priests.
tomp 12y ago
And science says that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation even for the parts we can't explain yet. Still at odds, fundamentally.
- DanBC 12y ago
  No they're not! Even if science explains everything there's still room for God.
  - krapp 12y ago
    You're defining God as a function of human ignorance. Where exactly is this 'room for God' and why is it suspiciously never anywhere anyone looks? The belief alone that God can't be disproved, even with evidence, is a fundamentally anti-scientific point of view. Once you come to the point of science 'proving everything' but still believing in God, what are you basing that belief on? Literally nothing.
  - tomp 12y ago
    Just as much room as there is for us living in the Matrix. All fantasy, no reality.
  - willvarfar 12y ago
    Just a fun rebuttal by Neil deGrasse Tyson: Reason & Faith are Irreconcilable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy5yWdVHv3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy5yWdVHv3o :)
crimsonalucard 12y ago
Believing in something that can't be explained and has no supporting evidence is fundamentally at odds with science.

acqq 12y ago

The confusion obviously comes also from the different definition of "religion" for different people. Religious people see the "religion" as their "identity." But realistically, a religion is a specific set of beliefs and rituals of worshiping one or more gods. In reality the "religious" people from one specific religion are the "unbelievers" for people of other specific religion, unless the later religion actually allows different gods at once. Abrahamic religions have the particular problem that they have that concept of "have no other gods but me" and the concept that "others" will actually suffer for not honoring that very god: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions The exact definition of an atheist, seen from the point of view of any of Abrahamic religions is: "he believes in just one less god than we" but they don't want to confront that fact.

ta82828 12y ago

The two by definition are fundamentally at odds. And yet, many pioneers of science were religious, some even members of the clergy.

acqq 12y ago
Yes, they deeply believed that by discovering the "rules that govern the world" (like the formulas of the motions of the planets or any other "law of the nature") they discover the real, deep messages of the Creator, not limited by the human weaknesses. The formulas and laws as absolute truth, which exists independently of humans. E.g. Ptolemy, ca. 100 – ca. 178 NE: "I know that I am mortal by nature and ephemeral, but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia." You can be an idealist and have the desire to learn the laws of the nature. What you can't is to just consider some book as the switch which allows you to turn off your brain. Unfortunately creationists don't have that attitude.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]