Religious discussion thread

[Chang Style Novice]

judge pen has it right, science is as much faith as any religion. At one time Copernicus knew how the planets rotated around the sun. Before him someone knew that the world was flat. Darwin knew that evolution must exist...

Not really true at all. Someone before Copernicus OBSERVED that the world was flat. Copernicus made more careful and detailed observations of the same data, and came to the conclusion that the planets orbit the sun. Darwin made careful observations of the data available to him (most notably the differently adapted fauna in the Galapogos (sp?) Islands and concluded that animals descended from common ancestors will adapt to their environment. Since then, many more people have observed this phenomenon in all life.

Careful observation IS science. It has nothing to do with faith.

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by MasterKiller


Einstein's "Universal Constant" was something he fabricated because he could not let himself believe there was no God.

Actually the opposite is true, he invented the "Universal Constant" because he favored a steady-state model of the Universe rather than the inflationary (Big Bang) model. He thought that the Big Bang model smacked of Creationism, which he was against. Although, he later felt that it was a blunder.

As for his religious beliefs or lack thereof, it's hotly debated but I suggest that anyone curious read his quotes at Einstein Quotes
and then decide how or if you want to label his beliefs.

[red5angel]

CSN, Religion can and has progressed just like science does.

[Chang Style Novice]

Sure, but why does religion change? It has more to do with culture clashes and changing social mores than observation of natural phenomena. As I said above - they're different critters without much in common.

[red5angel]

What's the real difference between changing with cultural changes and changing with observational changes? The source may be different but you can't "prove" anything with science that you can't "prove" with religion. you might precieve that science is more accurate or has more realistic answers because with a little experimentation you can get the answers you are looking for for the most part. WIth religion you just don't have to go through the motions of performing experimentation. You do a little reading a little thinking aand you come up with something. Eventually someone or something comes along and proves you wrong or adjust your view. As the way we percieve the world and the universe changes so to does science and religion adjust to those changes of perception. Science, is as much faith as religion.

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by ewallace
Well, you'd be good at saving yourself for marraige Xebs.

you do realised id kill both you and your family if we ever met, dont you?

[Former castleva]

"""FC, read origin of species, thngs have changed a lot since Darwins time he only had it part right."

Of course there are minor flaws here and there.That´s what I said,things change but the foundation remains.
Leading theorists of this field would seem to agree.Modern synthesis is still evolving,but anyway "part right" does not follow "part wrong",necessary fillings followed.I guess I should not need to tell this anyway...

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by Chang Style Novice


Not really true at all. Someone before Copernicus OBSERVED that the world was flat. Copernicus made more careful and detailed observations of the same data, and came to the conclusion that the planets orbit the sun. Darwin made careful observations of the data available to him (most notably the differently adapted fauna in the Galapogos (sp?) Islands and concluded that animals descended from common ancestors will adapt to their environment. Since then, many more people have observed this phenomenon in all life.

Careful observation IS science. It has nothing to do with faith.

The someone before Copernicus made observations and determined that the world was flat. He had faith in his observations and hence believed his theory.

Copernicus made more careful and detailed observations of the same data and reached a conclusion that the planets orbit the sun. He believed his conclusions because he also had faith in the accuracy of his data. They both had faith. Copernicus' faith was affirmed.

[Xebsball]

a lot of what religions support are created when people cant find real solutions to whats before them, or when their brains cant scientificly explain something -> so they create something magical/mysthical to fill in the gaps

OH! HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?!?
I DONT KNOW
SO IT MUST HAVE BEEN SOME GREATER FORCE
THE FORCE OF GOD!!
YAY!!

[red5angel]

so what you are saying Xebs is that religion is science in its most base form? You make an observation and determine the "facts" from that observation?

CSN - careful observation still relies on perception and faith.

[norther practitioner]

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

A. Einstein....

He had faith in his observations and hence believed his theory.

He had faith in his observations... he had not proved them....
Proof, theory, law, etc... these are different stages than faith. I had faith in my physics teacher, then at the end of the semester, she told us everything we learned was wrong.... or not quit right... But to my understanding of the situation at the time it seemed right. Your conciousness is all relative to the situation or thing in question. Which came first the chicken or the egg, neither.

Research into a theory can bring it so far to some that it seems to some that it is truth. Faith is for the things we can't research.

[Xebsball]

red,

im saying religion is unproven stuff used to fill in the gaps of what the humans cant explain with science

[norther practitioner]

careful observation still relies on perception and faith.

Observation does not rely on faith if one is perceptive.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by norther practitioner

Research into a theory can bring it so far to some that it seems to some that it is truth. Faith is for the things we can't research.

And here lies the heart of the debate. Some people refuse to accept that their belief is necessarily based on a leap of faith after all the research is concluded. To interpret the research is to have faith in the accuracy of the results.

Faith is a basic tenant to all religions, but you can have faith and not be religious.

The observation is not based on faith, but the conclusions one makes from the observations are based on faith.

[norther practitioner]

Faith is a basic tenant to all religions

Only when one needs to believe in something....
An example would be a god, or diety or something....
believing in the symbolism as opposed to the "TRUTHS" is not faith but understanding.