Religion Re-Envisioned

[15th_account]

And God and science is not necessarily a dichotomy.

Well yeah. Science only deals with the natural. Most gods are regarded as supernatural.


DarkCrusade: I think you're trying to deduce what is already a part of the definition of a scientific theory. Mathematical proofs such as your pi example is a formal science - the scientific method isn't. If you want formal proofs and a fast answer then the scientific method isn't for you. It can only give successive approximations of reality.

You seem to be under the presumption that scientifically inclined people have a need to fill the 99.9% with faith to reach 100%. This is your own false premise. Keep your philosophy out of my science. The remaining uncertainty approaches (but never reaches) 0% because the scientific method allows for self-correcting.

In a mere 400 years we have discovered a universe with around 200 billion galaxies and left the Solar system with Voyager 1. Do you know of a better method for understanding the universe we live in?

[Blacksheepboy]

Well yeah. Science only deals with the natural. Most gods are regarded as supernatural.

Arguably, God created the natural, but yeah I think I see what you mean.

[Mittsu]

There is a reason why evolution is a theory, and not a 'fact'

and you're the one "lol'ing"? Joke's on you. Do some research before saying silly things like these, because this misconception of "theory" has been explained so many freaking times... heck, there are even entire webpages dedicated to answer this statement.

[DarkCrusade]

Just to clear things up: from my view, a fact is defined as a thing that is known or proven true. 'True' is an absolute state which cannot be altered, doubted, or otherwise questioned. A theory, on the other hand, is a system of ideas, or a supposition.

Now, before I go one, I am no Creationist. I believe in evolution.

What I meant to say was that Men have deemed a lot of things facts in the past, and were later proven wrong. Heck, people in the older times believed that if a plane runs out of fuel, it would be stuck in the sky! While quite amusing, this is of course rather stupid, and wrong.

That is why I said evolution is a theory, and not a fact.

[15th_account]

You're using specific terms that you don't know the meaning of. Your colloquial definition of a theory as a "hunch" or "guess" is completely off from the scientific one, which is a crucial distinction because the discussion was about a scientific topic.

Fact: An observable phenomena in nature.
Theory: An explanation for the facts that makes falsifiable predictions. It is inductive in that the theory is built bottom-up from the facts. A theory can be modified or replaced, but it still has to account for the previous facts.

A theory can never be "upgraded" to a fact as you seem to imply. Even something like the heliocentric theory will always remain a theory, no matter how many pictures and measurements we take of our Solar system.

When evolution is referred to as a fact, it is the observed change in traits over successive generations that is described. The theory of evolution, which is called the modern evolutionary synthesis, explains and makes predictions based on this.

[Blacksheepboy]

Yeah, actually how the world was created is open to speculation, according to the Catholic system of dogmatic beliefs.

[DarkCrusade]

I am no scientist, so what the heck. Thanks for the explanation.

[Mangled*]

What on earth are you dildos babbling on about?

Religion is merely a decaying remnant of an age gone by when the majority of people were completely uneducated and knew nothing about the world. They couldn't read and they had poor critical faculties because there was no standard for them. They passed down stories of Gods and magic and spirits for hundreds of thousands of years. Superstition was something to be abused, to strike fear into the masses to quell rebellion, to give slaves and peasants false hope of paradise so long as they were obedient and saved their children from hellfire by teaching them from a young age to be obedient too. Literacy was for the rich and powerful, a tool through which every empire ruled their corner of the world.

Science is the method by which we separate fact from fiction and it has rapidly revolutionized the world in the most recent of human history. Look at how fast technology and society is moving today. Look at the quality of life in educated and secular societies versus the still vastly religious and superstitious societies that did not see the Renaissance or the Enlightenment Era. They still decapitate and burn eachother for believing in slightly different versions of whatever superstition their conquerers preached.

If you have an ounce of curiosity and free will, go and teach yourself something worthwhile about the real world and stop clinging to fairytales and fantasies. There's no afterlife, it's an absurd notion so let go of it. Do you have any idea how crowded the afterlife would be with all the countless billions of people that have lived and died over so many thousands of years. What would be the point of it? A bunch of stupid ass ghosts pointlessly living in paradise for all eternity. If you seriously thought about that for 1 minute and still believe there's a way that can be so then you're ridiculously stupid. Stop making concessions about all this bullshit just because you're afraid to die. We all die and we have one life not to waste worshipping some made up voodoo that makes absolutely no sense unless you're tragically desperate to believe it. You really think some old book written by a bunch of semi-literate perverted arabs is worth even a second of your time several thousand years later when we have fucking spacecraft and touch screens and electric cars? Fuck off, you're an idiot.

[Blacksheepboy]

I stopped at the first sentence. I kind of expected a response like this from you. (and if you insinuate I am being mean by saying this, and that you therefore shouldn't take the time to read and/or respond to anything, fine, I am not in the mood today to confront this; it's anti-religion, I have a pretty good idea what to expect of it)

At a glimpse, you mention science. Well, turns out the Catholic Church held the forefront of science for many years. And if you bring up Galileo like every other religion-denying antic, Galileo was prideful and was using his founding to be against the Church, which was at the time, a much bigger institute. So they placed him in a frickin castle (in house arrest), and told him to wait while they sorted out his findings.

As a brief example, Thomas Aquinas was one of the more scientific doctors of the Church. And if you continue to deny this, go join the Masonists, they'd be glad to have you.

[Mangled*]

You would do well not to slip into denial of history along with your recurring denial of fundemental logic. If reality conflicts with your world view then your world view is corrupted. It is that simple.

Since you mention Galileo yourself in a ham-fisted attempt to subvert me with your sweaty Christian pamphlet propaganda, it is worth me reminding others and correcting you that Galileo was a prisoner of the Catholic Church and lived the remainder of his life under lock and key after presenting his evidence that the Earth was not the center of the universe. I surely would not have needed to mention him if you had not mentioned him yourself.

I'm sure there were many scientists and philosophers in the church. What point does that prove? It doesn't give any creedence to the church that in times when the church was powerful and reigned over the world and blasphemy was a crime punishable by death there were some scientists that were part of the church. It is not one bit as remarkable as you think it is.

[Blacksheepboy]

You would do well not to slip into denial of history along with your recurring denial of fundemental logic. If reality conflicts with your world view then your world view is corrupted. It is that simple.

You really point out the specifics effectively.

[15th_account]

Well the Dark Ages were a wet blanket on science in Europe. The Middle East being more tolerant and inquisitive at the time salvaged, translated and built upon the works by the ancient Greeks and Romans, and Baghdad became the new center of learning.

In the late Dark Ages, Arabic works and re-discovered works of Aristotle were translated into Latin, including by Thomas Aquinas. Centuries later when the Ottomans conquered the city of Constantinople - sending Greek scholars and texts flooding all over Europe - the Renaissance got some momentum.

Thomas Aquinas' works, where Aristotle's thoughts (which were technically wrong about pretty much everything) were seen as indisputable, and by that point almost 2000 years old, were used to argue against Copernicus.

That's not to say that progress wasn't made at all during the European Dark Ages... it was just a shadow of what preceded and succeeded it.