Irony . . .

[jiminski]

Religion is just belief or faith in something that cant be tested.It's the very antithesis of science.
Of course, many scientists can e religious, but hte good ones keep it seperate.

If religion is truly the antithesis of science, wouldn't it be impossible to be both religious and a scientist? Or to believe in religion and science at the same time? It seems to me that religion and science deal with different subject matter.

Glad you could make it Nath!

[suggs]

Hmm yes i trapped myself by trying to show off with the word antithesis!
You are right of course-science deals with serious didcussion, discovery and experimentation, whereas religion is just nursery ryhmes for grown ups-just a lot of luke-warm air...

[F1fth]

Religion is just belief or faith in something that cant be tested.It's the very antithesis of science.
Of course, many scientists can e religious, but hte good ones keep it seperate.

If religion is truly the antithesis of science, wouldn't it be impossible to be both religious and a scientist? Or to believe in religion and science at the same time? It seems to me that religion and science deal with different subject matter.

Glad you could make it Nath!

I think what he means to say is the the reasoning that each provides are opposite of each other (belief rooted in faith vs. belief rooted in evidence), while the explanation that both provide can overlap and be shared.

[jiminski]

I think there is a strong possibility that as science unlocks more and more of the secrets of the universe that religion and science will converge...
Not as an absolute but as an integration by alternative religions .. which in time will become dominant and supercede Christianity... don't worry we'll both be dead!

It appears that humankind has a need for religion- Nath, as a believer would say that God exists so this is a moot point.. but i would retort that religion existed in a more simple state before the creation of God in the minds of humankind...
...and we circle once more like dogs sniffing each others 'scents'.

So i don't completely agree that science is the antithesis of religion.. i just think that the antiquated religions which we cling to now have not evolved next to science and they therefore are at best grafted together uneasily!

[jiminski]

Hmm yes i trapped myself by trying to show off with the word antithesis!
You are right of course-science deals with serious didcussion, discovery and experimentation, whereas religion is just nursery ryhmes for grown ups-just a lot of luke-warm air...

It's a great word Suggs!

[luns101]

Did you see my later post Luns? (at the top of this page) ... i actually agree that Atheism has to be, by definition a belief .... where we diverge is at your imbuement of a capital 'B'..

Yes, I saw it. Then you asked me some other questions and made points which I responded to. I'm glad we agree on the fact that atheism is a belief.

Nice points. I don't agree with them but you state your position well. Thanks for a good discussion!

[F1fth]

Might I note that this topic went interestingly deep for a discussion on semantics?

Reminds me how complex people's belief systems are and how vainly we try to distinctly define them.

[hecter]

Religion is just belief or faith in something that cant be tested.It's the very antithesis of science.
Of course, many scientists can e religious, but hte good ones keep it seperate.

If religion is truly the antithesis of science, wouldn't it be impossible to be both religious and a scientist? Or to believe in religion and science at the same time? It seems to me that religion and science deal with different subject matter.

Not really. A bible or other religious doctrine are just ways of looking at the world and trying to explain it (ie the creation story. Where did we come from? God made us.). That is exactly what science does (ie evolution. Where did we come from? We evolved from lesser life forms.). However, religion is (generally) regarded as an absolute, where as science is ever changing. Perhaps you could go as far as to say that religion is the earliest form of science. Theories that were developed in the minds of early humans (or facts given to us by a heavenly body) to help us understand our surroundings.

[suggs]

No. Science is based on a method (see above, obsevation , deduction etc)
Religion is just guesswork. Thus, religion was not an early science. They are utterly different.
I belive in Unicorns-a form of science? Hmmm....

[MR. Nate]

I think there is a strong possibility that as science unlocks more and more of the secrets of the universe that religion and science will converge...
Not as an absolute but as an integration by alternative religions .. which in time will become dominant and supercede Christianity... don't worry we'll both be dead!

Theology was known in the middle ages as "The Queen of the Sciences" and I think that it will ultimately be that again - I think that science will progress until the return of Christ, at which time we will understand the relationship better.

A bible or other religious doctrine are just ways of looking at the world and trying to explain it (ie the creation story. Where did we come from? God made us.). That is exactly what science does (ie evolution. Where did we come from? We evolved from lesser life forms.). However, religion is (generally) regarded as an absolute, where as science is ever changing.

I would argue that sciences methodology (observation and hypothesis) makes it very difficult for them to answer philosophical questions, like where we come from or why we exist. I think the overstepping of it's bounds by science is a major source of conflict in our society.

No. Science is based on a method (see above, obsevation , deduction etc)
Religion is just guesswork. Thus, religion was not an early science. They are utterly different.

Thats an interesting point of view, suggs. but it assumes that you know without a doubt that no religion in the world contains any divine revelation at all, which seems to be based on your presuppositions. The second that religion is revelation from God, it becomes a science with a firmer footing than any other.

[hecter]

No. Science is based on a method (see above, obsevation , deduction etc)
Religion is just guesswork. Thus, religion was not an early science. They are utterly different.
I belive in Unicorns-a form of science? Hmmm....

What does unicorns have to do with explaining the world we live in? Something that religion does. If you can come up with a reason, then I'll be more than happy to call it a primitive form of science.

[suggs]

My point is that postualting that unicorns exist is as helpful as the postulate that God exists in explaining anything, i.e not at all.
Religion doesnt explain anything. Its account of how (sorry, i'm focusing on Xianity) the world began is simply incorrect.
The best you can hope for from Genesis is that is was an anology for much longer periods of time.
If so, a pretty unhelpful way of writing.
God has not revealed anything in the world. Certainly dont remember him putting in a big appearance at Brekanau, or in Basra recently or etc etc

[hecter]

A bible or other religious doctrine are just ways of looking at the world and trying to explain it (ie the creation story. Where did we come from? God made us.). That is exactly what science does (ie evolution. Where did we come from? We evolved from lesser life forms.). However, religion is (generally) regarded as an absolute, where as science is ever changing.

I would argue that sciences methodology (observation and hypothesis) makes it very difficult for them to answer philosophical questions, like where we come from or why we exist. I think the overstepping of it's bounds by science is a major source of conflict in our society.

Not necessarily. We come from lesser lifeforms and we're here because our primitive ancestors (which originally developed to balance out the ecosystem [something that I believe nature will do on it's own out of necessity]) adapted to new environments and were able to develop faster than any other species because of the gifts we were given ect. ect. ect. A little less philosophical than what religion would give you, but accurate (if you believe that sort of thing) nonetheless.

[hecter]

My point is that postualting that unicorns exist is as helpful as the postulate that God exists in explaining anything, i.e not at all.
Religion doesnt explain anything. Its account of how (sorry, i'm focusing on Xianity) the world began is simply incorrect.
The best you can hope for from Genesis is that is was an anology for much longer periods of time.
If so, a pretty unhelpful way of writing.
God has not revealed anything in the world. Certainly dont remember him putting in a big appearance at Brekanau, or in Basra recently or etc etc

The only reason you say such thing is because you are a modern atheist. Hence why it is a PRIMITIVE form of science. Now, the modern observation and hypothesis has/is replacing it. But I'm sure in the Middle Ages it was quite helpful for the people of the time. It allowed them to contemplate their existence and carry out their lives with the knowledge of where they came from.

[MR. Nate]

I know, I know, evolution is so CLEARLY absolute truth that it's ridiculous for anyone to disagree.
I think widowmakers has done a good job of demonstrating that for every "proof" of evolution, there is an equally valid explanation that supports a different view.
I would argue that both of you are allowing your presuppositions about science (it's fact) and religion (it's guesswork) to influence you opinions on both. suggs, you have no idea how telling your casual dismissal of the possibility of Divine revelation is.

[hecter]

I know, I know, evolution is so CLEARLY absolute truth that it's ridiculous for anyone to disagree.
I think widowmakers has done a good job of demonstrating that for every "proof" of evolution, there is an equally valid explanation that supports a different view.
I would argue that both of you are allowing your presuppositions about science (it's fact) and religion (it's guesswork) to influence you opinions on both. suggs, you have no idea how telling your casual dismissal of the possibility of Divine revelation is.

I was just trying to point out the fact that science DOES in fact have explanations for the things you stated. No need to get testy...

[suggs]

My point is that postualting that unicorns exist is as helpful as the postulate that God exists in explaining anything, i.e not at all.
Religion doesnt explain anything. Its account of how (sorry, i'm focusing on Xianity) the world began is simply incorrect.
The best you can hope for from Genesis is that is was an anology for much longer periods of time.
If so, a pretty unhelpful way of writing.
God has not revealed anything in the world. Certainly dont remember him putting in a big appearance at Brekanau, or in Basra recently or etc etc

The only reason you say such thing is because you are a modern atheist. Hence why it is a PRIMITIVE form of science. Now, the modern observation and hypothesis has/is replacing it. But I'm sure in the Middle Ages it was quite helpful for the people of the time. It allowed them to contemplate their existence and carry out their lives with the knowledge of where they came from.

It may have been helpful to them, but they were wrong.
Rather like the four elements theory of medicine-helpful to your medieval peasant possibly, but wrong.
LIkewise, religion may temporarily help people cope with life, but their beliefs are still incorrect.
I take the truth over convenient falsehood every time.

[unriggable]

Thats an interesting point of view, suggs. but it assumes that you know without a doubt that no religion in the world contains any divine revelation at all, which seems to be based on your presuppositions. The second that religion is revelation from God, it becomes a science with a firmer footing than any other.

True, but none has ever demonstrated to be so. The firmest footing religion has ever seen is when it is concrete within the government and every citizen is brainwashed to accept as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Considering every religion calls itself a revelation, it would be wasteful to analyze each one hopiung to find an answer from god. I think the answer is right in front of us in science.

[hecter]

It may have been helpful to them, but they were wrong.
Rather like the four elements theory of medicine-helpful to your medieval peasant possibly, but wrong.
LIkewise, religion may temporarily help people cope with life, but their beliefs are still incorrect.
I take the truth over convenient falsehood every time.

What makes you so sure that all our theories and discoveries will be true 500 years from now? They were the most correct (as in most accepted) theories and discoveries at the time, which were later proven wrong, just as I'm sure ours will be over time.

[Snorri1234]

Why do you need Atheism to be a religion Luns?

I don't, but atheists need to define it as not being religious in order to avoid the realization that it is a competing belief system opposed to [name your theistic belief system here].

But it's still not a religion. It's merely a belief-system. Buddhism isn't a religion either, like many other philosphies.
It is certainly a competing belief system opposed to other belief systems. But atheism has the advantage of not needing any proof. Because the burden of proof falls on the party trying to proof something to be positive. The reasonable stance on belief is that there are no supernatural things. The religious person may have reasons to believe otherwise, but it isn't reasonable.

[jiminski]

Buddhism isn't a religion either, like many other philosophies.

You must have been waiting to be picked up on this one....

can you please expand? as i can not, with all good conscience, agree with that small part of your statement.

[Snorri1234]

Buddhism isn't a religion either, like many other philosophies.

You must have been waiting to be picked up on this one....

can you please expand? as i can not, with all good conscience, agree with that small part of your statement.

Well, since it has no afterlife nor gods, I would say it isn't a religion, though many people do consider it to be one. It's a little hazy though, since you can consider it just a non-theistic religion.
I think the problem here is that religion has 2 different meanings, in my language they have seperate words, but the english language has only one. It depends on which you use. Wikidefinition.
If you use the first, Buddhism and atheism and stuff aren't religions. But if you use definition 4, you would call buddhism a religion. (But atheism still not one.)

[jiminski]

Well, since it has no afterlife nor gods, I would say it isn't a religion, though many people do consider it to be one. It's a little hazy though, since you can consider it just a non-theistic religion.
I think the problem here is that religion has 2 different meanings, in my language they have seperate words, but the english language has only one. It depends on which you use. Wikidefinition.
If you use the first, Buddhism and atheism and stuff aren't religions. But if you use definition 4, you would call buddhism a religion. (But atheism still not one.)

hmm i know what you mean and It holds some wonderful pure philosophies.

It does however deal with reincarnation and the cycle of life with a final goal the concept of enlightenment (lots of different branches of course)
So i would say it does deal with the 'supernatural' and the continuation of essential spirit, character, soul or whatever you wish to call it.

This contrasts with conceptual philosophical movements (excluding their exploration of existing religions)and i feel defines Buddhism as a religion.
.. that and the temples, priests, prayer and rituals which have become integral to it.

[suggs]

It may have been helpful to them, but they were wrong.
Rather like the four elements theory of medicine-helpful to your medieval peasant possibly, but wrong.
LIkewise, religion may temporarily help people cope with life, but their beliefs are still incorrect.
I take the truth over convenient falsehood every time.

What makes you so sure that all our theories and discoveries will be true 500 years from now? They were the most correct (as in most accepted) theories and discoveries at the time, which were later proven wrong, just as I'm sure ours will be over time.

And thats the key difference between science and religion. Just as Einstein overturned (some) of Newton doubtless some of Einsteins theories wil be disproved-but they CAN be proved or disproved. Whereas "Divine revelation" can not be-it cant be tested, and thus meaningless.
Meanwhile, Einstein one day may be disproved but its holding good now...

[Snorri1234]

It does however deal with reincarnation and the cycle of life with a final goal the concept of enlightenment (lots of different branches of course)
So i would say it does deal with the 'supernatural' and the continuation of essential spirit, character, soul or whatever you wish to call it.

This contrasts with conceptual philosophical movements (excluding their exploration of existing religions)and i feel defines Buddhism as a religion.
.. that and the temples, priests, prayer and rituals which have become integral to it.

I see what you mean. Yeah it's safe to call buddhism a religion I suppose.