Science vs Faith

DoubleDutch · Post by **DoubleDutch** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:31 am

A lot of you are writing about your opinions on religion vs science - indeed, most have probabily not lived long enough to have gathered an opinion that can be respected.

For those blindly saying that religion is wrong and science is right: If you respect opinions of great scientists (enough to believe what they tell you in the school text books) then maybe you should study them a bit more and learn from them.

Did you know that Oppenheimer studied hindu scriptures and truly believed that something "mysterious" was at the edge of science. "If the radiance of a thousands suns were to burst into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One.... I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds." - that's Oppenheimer quoting Bhagavad-Gita.

There are lots of scientists who respect religion and others with religious views, but should we let Albert Einstein have the last word (in case some of you don't know, he was a theoretical physicist who is widely considered to have been one of the greatest physicists of all time):

'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'

Heathen · Post by **Heathen** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:08 am

DoubleDutch wrote:A lot of you are writing about your opinions on religion vs science - indeed, most have probabily not lived long enough to have gathered an opinion that can be respected.

For those blindly saying that religion is wrong and science is right: If you respect opinions of great scientists (enough to believe what they tell you in the school text books) then maybe you should study them a bit more and learn from them.

Did you know that Oppenheimer studied hindu scriptures and truly believed that something "mysterious" was at the edge of science. "If the radiance of a thousands suns were to burst into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One.... I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds." - that's Oppenheimer quoting Bhagavad-Gita.

There are lots of scientists who respect religion and others with religious views, but should we let Albert Einstein have the last word (in case some of you don't know, he was a theoretical physicist who is widely considered to have been one of the greatest physicists of all time):

'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'

Many scientists believe that there might have been some sort of creator, even Einstein, but that's kinda different from those who go door to door trying to convert others, or people on sunday morning television telling you how evil you are if you don't believe in jesus etc. But I guess that's the difference between 'faith' and organized religion.

PB · Post by PB » Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:22 am

As a side-note, am I the only one who prefers the simplicity of the Faith
flowchart, compared to the messy branching of the Science flowchart?

Killswitch · Post by **Killswitch** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:44 pm

Marx said:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless condition. It is the opium of the people."

And I think he's right. You can logically disprove the existance of the God of classical theism. Ok, you can't disprove the existence of some kind of creater, but that entity isn't then worth worshipping.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:06 pm

Killswitch wrote:Marx said: "... It is the opium of the people."

he did say it.
and mind the words: he said "of" not "for".
that means, people take it on their own wish, it's not given to them by an opressor.
sure there are "dealers" that use the wish of the people to opress them... no question.

as I already said: mind the difference between "religion" and "religious organisations" on the one hand and "beliefe" and "faith" on the other hand.

Killswitch wrote:You can logically disprove the existance of the God of classical theism.

well, simply wrong. repeating a sentence doesn't make it more true...

Killswitch · Post by **Killswitch** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:50 pm

Killswitch wrote:
Marx said: "... It is the opium of the people."
he did say it.
and mind the words: he said "of" not "for".

I did say 'of'.

I've also shown how the God of classical theism can be shown to be a logical contradiction.

1. God is benevolant.
2. God made the universe.
3. God made evil and allows evil to occur OR made the universe knowing anyway that evil would occur because he is omniscient.
4. God can't be benvolant OR God can't have ultimate power to do anything

The free will argument falls down, God still had to make free will and therefore made evil by proxy and is therefore responsible.

How long will it take people to realise that religion is utterly wrong, the englightenment happened nearly 300 years ago and it still hasn't sunk in!

DoubleDutch · Post by **DoubleDutch** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:17 pm

You really sound like someone obsessed. :roll:

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:40 pm

@Killswitch

note that you walk on thin ice when you try to argue without enough background knowledge...

there are different theologic approaches about "good" or "evil" that all lever your tiny argumentation out.

I just agree to DoubleDutch: you sound posessed....

Killswitch · Post by **Killswitch** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:54 pm

You really sound like someone obsessed.

I am a little bit really, I've had religion forced on me my entire life and it's made me very argumentative about it.

I'd also like to reiterate that I do have an extensive background knowledge of this subject. I have been to Catholic school my entire life (where Religious Education is always on the sylabus) and I'm currently doing an A-Level (post 16 qualification in UK) in Philosophy, so please don't call me ignorant.

As for theodicy I'm well versed in Augustine's and Irenaeus's, two main ideas the Catholic Church uses (see how the Catholic thing has been foced on me?!

) and if you'd like me to detail how both are flawed then I'm more than happy too.

Of course other's have invented their own arguments, but none are perfect.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:00 pm

> so please don't call me ignorant.
wasn't my intension. sorry.

please note that catholic view isn't the only religious view.

and please remember that religion != faith

> I'm currently doing an A-Level (post 16 qualification in UK) in Philosophy

really a good thing.
you should look for a possibility to get loose of your old obsessions that corrupt your philosopic view.

actually I often experienced that extreme religious breeding, especially catholic,
drives more people away from "god" than nearer to "it".

Killswitch · Post by **Killswitch** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:10 pm

please note that catholic view isn't the only religious view.

and please remember that religion != faith

I meant to say that, but never mind. I think we should agree to disagree - we could be far more productive programming!

utopiomania · Post by **utopiomania** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:41 am

Heres my current theories about what I feel is troublesome:

1. I think religion exists just because we all supect that our 'counciousness' is
something that is beyond pure natural life, as life has evolved on our planet.
To be alive, and at the same time to be able to feel that you are YOU, is beyond
our comprehension, so we invent a God to explain this to ourselves, and THATS IT.

Your so called 'soul' is close to the core of our existance, and is linked to the
fact that neither energy nor information can be destroyed.

This core manifests it'self in LIFE! simple as that. And if you remember your
dreams from last night, that world is where you live between your lifes!

2.UFO's are real, out of this world objects governed by intelligence. They are not
however linked with LIFE, but rather echoes of LIFE as they are machines that old
civilizations buildt to overcome the difficulties of space travel for example. They use use
techniques like nanomechanics to rebuild themselves as they propagate through the
universe, and has no other purpose than to be ALIVE. They have no sense of time,
and no sense of WAR. This is the only explanation they can show up here now.

Proove me wrong if you can.

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:54 am

DoubleDutch wrote:'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.'

Richard Dawkins wrote: One of Einstein's most eagerly quoted remarks is 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' But Einstein also said,

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Does it seem that Einstein contradicted himself? That his words can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No. By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that I am calling only supernatural gods delusional.

Here are some more quotations from Einstein, to give a flavour of Einsteinian religion.

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

In greater numbers since his death, religious apologists understandably try to claim Einstein as one of their own. Some of his religious contemporaries saw him very differently. In 1940 Einstein wrote a famous paper justifying his statement 'I do not believe in a personal God.' This and similar statements provoked a storm of letters from the religiously orthodox, many of them alluding to Einstein's Jewish origins. The extracts that follow are taken from Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion (which is also my main source of quotations from Einstein himself on religious matters). The Roman Catholic Bishop of Kansas City said: 'It is sad to see a man, who comes from the race of the Old Testament and its teaching, deny the great tradition of that race.' Other Catholic clergymen chimed in: 'There is no other God but a personal God ... Einstein does not know what he is talking about. He is all wrong. Some men think that because they have achieved a high degree of learning in some field, they are qualified to express opinions in all.' The notion that religion is a proper field, in which one might claim expertise, is one that should not go unquestioned. That clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed 'fairyologist' on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings. Both he and the bishop thought that Einstein, being theologically untrained, had misunderstood the nature of God. On the contrary, Einstein understood very well exactly what he was denying.

DoubleDutch · Post by **DoubleDutch** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:16 am

Kale: Richard Dawkins loves arguing, he often twists his circumstantial evidence (as fact) to suit his view. He is a publicity seeker, possibly hoping to get another honorary doctorate - a bit silly for a real scientist. Dawkins has an almost religious obesssion with evolution, to the point of extremism. You really want to quote him?

I am a Catholic, but I also BELIEVE that evolution happened. I cannot say that I know evolution accounts for everything (unlike Dawkins) - as there are no physical facts (I mean none - its all just a theory). But I KNOW God exists - thats why it's called faith. I personally don't think that my faith is evil or bad.

I also never said that Einstein believed in God. I just meant that he respected religion and those who has religions views (unlike a lot of the people contributing to this thread of the forum).

From what I remember reading (can't be bothered doing a google search and blindly copy and pasting a load of text)...

During conversations with Oppenhiemer, Einstein stated he didn't believe in a God who watched over us and took note of what we all did - a "personal" God. He marvelled at the simplicity of it all - Oppenheimer and Einstein both agreed with each other that the more you look at it all (life, the universe, everything), the simpler and more beautiful the equations actually got - it filled them with wonder and euthoria - an almost religious feeling. He also (famously) spoke of a his admiration for the infinitly superior spirit who reveals itself in what we know comprehend as reality.

From what I've read about Einstein I personally think that he was a deist. If that is the case, then he was religious.

On a lighter note. I liked your book!

PB · Post by PB » Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:50 am

My favorite quote about evolution is this:

"Mickey Mouse evolves too. Once he could not speak. Now he can. Once he
was only in black and white. Now he is in color. Once he didn't have pupils.
Now he does. Now he is becoming interactive. Each generation of Mickey
Mouse is a little different, a little better. Mutations and change are occurring
as Mickey Mouse and other cartoons adapt to the changing environment of
media. But it doesn't happen without Disney."