Support NeoGAF

[FlyingTeacup]

I think that the 'Discovery Institute' has a specific agenda, their research is aimed at supporting their claims. In this sense they can be viewed as departing from the scientific method.

exactly. they have faith in their science.

 

[Almighty]

That's true, religion can be an aid and a hindrance. Although in most cases, a society that spent its time praying to god for rain instead of doing whatever they can wouldn't get very far. Most likely they'd die out. In the case of a drought, religion is probably a last resort. That's one of the main differences between how religion used to be and how it is today. Peopel were more practical minded then, even if they believed in gods in the clouds and the trees and raping their virgins and whatnot. I was only talking about the place of religion in human society centuries ago, today it occupies a very different place in our life.

I agree with you that religion would be the least resort for most people. It still seems to me that it had more of a negative effect on people understanding the world better and surviving based on that knowledge then it had a positive one. Though this is mostly based on my understanding of Christianity's role in the development of the western world and my understanding that Islam has also had a similar role in the parts of the world it has influence in the past few centuries as well. So it may or may not represent the effects that all religions had on the pursuit of knowledge throughout history.

 

[jaxword]

Or other religious documents. It was just an example.

Alright. Just clarifying against the implication the 10 Commandments are the only the source of ethics. You'd be surprised at how many influential people (in positions of power) will attempt this.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I agree with you that religion would be the least resort for most people. It still seems to me that it had more of a negative effect on people understanding the world better and surviving based on that knowledge then it had a positive one. Though this is mostly based on my understanding of Christianity's role in the development of the western world and my understanding that Islam has also had a similar role in the parts of the world it has influence in the past few centuries as well. So it may or may not represent the effects that all religions had on the pursuit of knowledge throughout history.

Look up 'Bait al-Hikma'.

 

[Iceman]

It is surreal to watch a debate over whether or not I should have the right to work as a scientist.

I earned a biology degree at UC Berkeley, yes even while having my faith (as a christian) tested and derided. I spent three more years in a masters of science program and then another six and a half earning a PhD in cell and molecular pathology. They don't just give those out because you ask for them. You have to discover something new - something that peels back the curtains of our understanding of the way the world works, provide the evidence, and defend your findings in front of a body of people with over one hundred and fifty combined years of research experience (in my case).

I am the only person in the world who knows what I know. I now have a responsibility to keep forging on, to keep scouring an unexplored ocean in the dead of night, and reporting what I find because I am the only one who can reliably describe it.

When you're at the bleeding edge your interpretations of the alien new world before you are based on concrete observations made in the past. They must, therefore, be almost always completely wrong. However, in order to move on, we have to verify that our interpretations match truth. We have to convince another several bodies of their validity or our papers (the currency of our work) and our grants (the life blood) cease. And then, and only then, do we cease to be scientists.

Science is a logical progression. It's not some special profession for the select. It's not for people we vote for based on how they make us feel or how they fit our nebulous and malleable worldview. It's for those that do it.

It's just like anything else. Being good at something takes work, lots of it. And we're all not just a bunch of cowboys that can harass the natives and make up rules as we go along. We all have to answer to people. Generally, a lot of people.

I have a boss. My boss has two bosses. Those bosses have entire boards of bosses. And that just relates to salary and basic operational costs. The actual funding for the research (which is enormous) is supported by grants which are managed by wholly separate bodies of which I am only now beginning to get a grasp.

The system we have now works. Science, and thus scientists, is funded by a combination of private and public organizations that target ideas and developing talent. It's brutally hard to stay in the game. And those who have the edge are those who are good at what they do. You need to be as good at presenting your data and selling it as the next big thing as you are at obtaining it.

I don't even see where religious faith should ever have to be brought up. The brick and mortar of the job is published papers and grant awards. That's it. Nobody cares about anything else. It baffles me. This is like debating whether religious people should be allowed to play professional sports. They both take hard work, and essentially outlasting and outperforming peers on the field of play, in order to succeed. If faith helps you get there - by some inexplicable or intangible means - why should that bother anybody. Why wouldn't their work, their touchdowns - my scientific papers - be valid, or on the same level as that produced by anyone else?

I don't get it. And I thought I was smart.

 

[RumblingRosco]

Um, that's exactly what entropy implies. You're going to have to give me a good reason why there is "no reason" we can't just throw thermodynamics out the window on this one.

P.S. the pill with a years worth of food is also stupid because that many calories would mass in the hundreds of kilograms or more. Possibly thousands. Unless your future vision of humanity has us being cyborgs with microfusion reactors in our guts and by "calories" you actually meant "deuterium".

By our current technology and understanding of the universe and the laws that govern it, yes, what I said is impossible, so me saying "no reason" might have been too strong of wording. The point I am trying to make is that there are a lot of aspects of the universe that we A) don't understand B) barely understand (or perhaps are incorrect about our understanding) and/or C) have yet to even realize we don't understand because it is something we've never witnessed or been made aware of. Hell, if I remember correctly, despite being constantly affected by Earth's gravitational pull, we still don't know "why" physical objects exert gravity.

Summary: There are too many things we do not yet understand about the universe to declare humans a doomed species.

 

[Garcia]

Religious faith? Fuck no. Science triumphs over ignorance and fairytales by proving itself constantly wrong and grows stronger by learning from its mistakes and lack of further knowloedge on any given subject.

Religons are based upon false absolutes.

If we were talking about "faith" in general then my answer would be a bolded of course. And the beauty about faith is how it can be totally opposite to religion and it can also contradict the existance of such thing as God.

 

[jgminto]

I just want to say that this has been a great discussion. It has really given me a lot to ponder.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

It is surreal to watch a debate over whether or not I should have the right to work as a scientist.

I earned a biology degree at UC Berkeley, yes even while having my faith (as a christian) tested and derided. I spent three more years in a masters of science program and then another six and a half earning a PhD in cell and molecular pathology. They don't just give those out because you ask for them. You have to discover something new - something that peels back the curtains of our understanding of the way the world works, provide the evidence, and defend your findings in front of a body of people with over one hundred and fifty combined years of research experience (in my case).

I am the only person in the world who knows what I know. I now have a responsibility to keep forging on, to keep scouring an unexplored ocean in the dead of night, and reporting what I find because I am the only one who can reliably describe it.

When you're at the bleeding edge your interpretations of the alien new world before you are based on concrete observations made in the past. They must, therefore, be almost always completely wrong. However, in order to move on, we have to verify that our interpretations match truth. We have to convince another several bodies of their validity or our papers (the currency of our work) and our grants (the life blood) cease. And then, and only then, do we cease to be scientists.

Science is a logical progression. It's not some special profession for the select. It's not for people we vote for based on how they make us feel or how they fit our nebulous and malleable worldview. It's for those that do it.

It's just like anything else. Being good at something takes work, lots of it. And we're all not just a bunch of cowboys that can harass the natives and make up rules as we go along. We all have to answer to people. Generally, a lot of people.

I have a boss. My boss has two bosses. Those bosses have entire boards of bosses. And that just relates to salary and basic operational costs. The actual funding for the research (which is enormous) is supported by grants which are managed by wholly separate bodies of which I am only now beginning to get a grasp.

The system we have now works. Science, and thus scientists, is funded by a combination of private and public organizations that target ideas and developing talent. It's brutally hard to stay in the game. And those who have the edge are those who are good at what they do. You need to be as good at presenting your data and selling it as the next big thing as you are at obtaining it.

I don't even see where religious faith should ever have to be brought up. The brick and mortar of the job is published papers and grant awards. That's it. Nobody cares about anything else. It baffles me. This is like debating whether religious people should be allowed to play professional sports. They both take hard work, and essentially outlasting and outperforming peers on the field of play, in order to succeed. If faith helps you get there - by some inexplicable or intangible means - why should that bother anybody. Why wouldn't their work, their touchdowns - my scientific papers - be valid, or on the same level as that produced by anyone else?

I don't get it. And I thought I was smart.

couldn't agree with you more. The bolded bit is what really saddens me, increasingly politics and religion start to decide which bit is the bestest science.

 

[Haly]

To Iceman: Some people think your faith "taints" your work and somehow renders it faulty or invalid.

I have no idea how that works but you have my support in this silly back and forth.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Religious faith? Fuck no. Science triumphs over ignorance and fairytales by proving itself constantly wrong and grows stronger by learning from its mistakes and lack of further knowloedge on any given subject.

Religons are based upon false absolutes.

If we were talking about "faith" in general then my answer would be a bolded of course. And the beauty about faith is how it can be totally opposite to religion and it can also contradict the existance of such thing as God.

Elaborate?

 

[jaxword]

couldn't agree with you more. The bolded bit is what really saddens me, increasingly politics and religion start to decide which bit is the bestest science.

Reverse that statement to make it more saddening: Religion decides what science the politicians will allow.

As Wazzim gave an example, Iran is further ahead with stem cell research. We're the richest, most powerful nation in the world, and we should be showing everyone else how well we can heal people. Instead we'd rather just fight over how much suffering God wants. We should be better than that.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

To Iceman: Some people think your faith "taints" your work and somehow renders it faulty or invalid.

I have no idea how that works but you have my support in this silly back and forth.

i don't give a crap about your faith. If you're getting out good papers, they are good papers. And if they're not, you'll be destroyed.

 

[Haly]

i don't give a crap about your faith. If you're getting out good papers, they are good papers. And if they're not, you'll be destroyed.

That is the attitude everyone should have!

 

[Almighty]

Look up 'Bait al-Hikma'.

Thank you I never heard of it before and it was interesting to read about it on Wikipedia. Though I am fully aware that there was a period in history when Islamic cities were the centers of learning in the world. Though I am not sure if that was do to Islam itself or not. It is why I made sure to write in the past few centuries(which still might be incorrect) as i did not want to imply that the places influenced by Islam never added to the pursuit of knowledge because they did. It is just that it is my understanding that for the last few centuries science was hindered like it was under Christianity. Though I am not sure what caused the change and don't know if it is correct to blame Islam itself for that or not.

I will try to be clearer on my meaning next time.

 

[Something Wicked]

The biggest idiots of them all are those who don't believe in some god buying books about not believing in some god. It's a fairly easy, clear cut thing to accept- why must people line the pockets of atheist media whores?

 

[OttomanScribe]

Thank you I never heard of it before and it was interesting to read about it on Wikipedia. Though I am fully aware that there was a period in history when Islamic cities were the centers of learning in the world. Though I am not sure if that was do to Islam itself or not. It is why I made sure to write in the past few centuries(which still might be incorrect) as i did not want to imply that the places influenced by Islam never added to the pursuit of knowledge because they did. It is just that it is my understanding that for the last few centuries science was hindered like it was under Christianity. Though I am not sure what caused the change and don't know if it is correct to blame Islam or not.

I will try to be clearer on my meaning next time.

There has long been a trend in modern historiography to be eurocentric in terms of the understanding of scientific advancement. In general, Christendom/Europe has been on the periphery of the world, with most scientific and technological inventions being acquired through trade with the Muslim and Chinese worlds. However due to the current dominance of the world by the descendants of Christendom, people anachronistically create narratives that centre upon Europe's understanding of science.

In reality Europe caught a break, as being on the periphery, along with having lots of wars to drive military advancement, eventually led to the current dominance. If one looked at many different parts of the Muslim and Chinese world, most were on the verge of some form of industrial revolution, however the impact of colonialism stopped this occurring.

In general the whole religion versus science thing is played out. It is a simplistic narrative that is worst in its eurocentricity.

I know that in Islam there are clear commandments to believers to seek knowledge. They are told 'all true knowledge is the property of the believer', 'seek knowledge, even if it takes you to China', 'Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim' etc. etc. The apparent 'drop' if one can call that, in the great leaps forward of Muslim science were due to the destruction of the two Jewels in the Crown of the Islamic world, Cordoba and Baghdad. The universities in both were destroyed by the Crusaders and the Mongols. Other centres of learning existed regardless, places like Sankore in West Africa, Palermo in Sicily and many other places. In general science continued to flourish under the Ottomans, with technological parity arguably existing until the First World War.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

...

Finish this scenario for me.

After 10 years of research working as a Biologist, you replicate the process of Abiogenisis in the lab. You have successfully created the conditions for these organic molecules to 'replicate', this is the biggest breakthrough in modern science, maybe ever. This research will strip 'God' of the process of creation, this information will change peoples concept of God forever.

What will you do? Will you release the information for peer review, or will you bury it?

 

[teh_pwn]

Finish this scenario for me.

After 10 years of research working as a Biologist, you replicate the process of Abiogenisis in the lab. You have successfully created the conditions for these organic molecules to 'replicate', this is the biggest breakthrough in modern science, maybe ever. This research will strip 'God' of the process of creation, this information will change peoples concept of God forever.

What will you do? Will you release the information for peer review, or will you bury it?

I would be more concerned about a scenario in which after spending years in college to obtain credentials and spending 10 years as a biologist researching a hypothesis, what do you do when strong contradictory evidence surfaces that can not be explained by your hypothesis? Do you defend it fiercely because it's what you've worked so hard on it and you believe in it, or do you adjust or abandon your hypothesis?

 

[way more]

RW: Supposing he is right?

SH: But there is no good scientific reason to think he's right.

Sums it up. Those attempting to interject faith must do so with wishy-washy, limp wristed tactics. They make statements like "Well, I don't believe in creationism/9-11 plots/falsified birth certificates/UFO's, but I don't think it's fully explained by _________. Instead I think it's a little of both."

And then we are debating the number of fairies dancing on a pin. Faith belongs in science like music does in architecture.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Religion provides an individual a morality that is untainted by self. One generally finds in religious thought the consistent application of a set of moral principles. For example, in the Islamic understanding, every action is to be judged according to its intention. Kant's ethics are a good modern similar to such an idea.

Religion, as an external to the self, is a good means to ensure that one is doing something because it is ethical, and that one is not doing something because of one's own desire, but using self-made ethics as an excuse.

Looking back at my time without religion, most of my ethics were in line with my desires, regardless of the actual morality of what I did. If I desired to do something, I would find a way to philosophically justify it. A religious or ethical code is something that externalises what is and is not ethical, so one cannot fall into that trap, or at least can avoid it to a large extent.

From my position, your morality has been placed on an arbitrary concept that is far more erroneous than 'self'. You are bound by God's moral code, anything that God does is moral, or more realistically, anything that men claim God said is moral. What a scary proposition...

 

[Raist]

Example.

ed,

a scientist is just a very general term....

They're not scientists. They're not producing any science, they're just trying to debunk evolution with religion-based arguments.

I mean, c'mon

In keeping with the Discovery Institute's October 2006 statement that intelligent design research is being conducted by the institute in secret to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community

One of the pillars of science is peer-review. Call me when they publish a paper.

 

[Almighty]

There has long been a trend in modern historiography to be eurocentric in terms of the understanding of scientific advancement. In general, Christendom/Europe has been on the periphery of the world, with most scientific and technological inventions being acquired through trade with the Muslim and Chinese worlds. However due to the current dominance of the world by the descendants of Christendom, people anachronistically create narratives that centre upon Europe's understanding of science.

In reality Europe caught a break, as being on the periphery, along with having lots of wars to drive military advancement, eventually led to the current dominance. If one looked at many different parts of the Muslim and Chinese world, most were on the verge of some form of industrial revolution, however the impact of colonialism stopped this occurring.

In general the whole religion versus science thing is played out. It is a simplistic narrative that is worst in its eurocentricity.

I know that in Islam there are clear commandments to believers to seek knowledge. They are told 'all true knowledge is the property of the believer', 'seek knowledge, even if it takes you to China', 'Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim' etc. etc. The apparent 'drop' if one can call that, in the great leaps forward of Muslim science were due to the destruction of the two Jewels in the Crown of the Islamic world, Cordoba and Baghdad. The universities in both were destroyed by the Crusaders and the Mongols. Other centres of learning existed regardless, places like Sankore in West Africa, Palermo in Sicily and many other places. In general science continued to flourish under the Ottomans, with technological parity arguably existing until the First World War.

I found this post very informative. Thank you.

 

[OttomanScribe]

From my position, your morality has been placed on an arbitrary concept that is far more erroneous than 'self'. You are bound by God's moral code, anything that God does is moral, or more realistically, anything that men claim God said is moral. What a scary proposition...

That may be your position. What I have found is that a consistent moral law is the key to selflessness, be it from a philosophical standpoint where a set of rules is used, or in my case a consistent religious framework.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I found this post very informative. Thank you.

No problem sorry for the rant, you didn't ask a question, but I will take any excuse

 

[Sutton Dagger]

That may be your position. What I have found is that a consistent moral law is the key to selflessness, be it from a philosophical standpoint where a set of rules is used, or in my case a consistent religious framework.

Do you think basing your moral code on something other than 'self' is open to corruption though? How are these moral laws made explicit to you? Through the Quran, or the Hadith? Could God personally reveal his moral laws to you? Do these moral laws change according to God's will?

 

[OttomanScribe]

Do you think basing your moral code on something other than 'self' is open to corruption though? How are these moral laws made explicit to you? Through the Quran, or the Hadith? Could God personally reveal his moral laws to you? Do these moral laws change according to God's will?

I think that no system of ethics or morality is absolutely free from the corruption of one's individual desires. There will always be some level of understanding or interpretation that exists. That this is true does not remove the usefulness of such a system, in terms of it being superior to that of no similar consistency or system.

My understanding of what is moral is based upon the Qur'an, God's word, and the example of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam).

 

[Enco]

Despite lots of very angry, insistent people who rail that religion and science don't and shouldn't "mix," the two have existed alongside one another (in individual people) for a long time. They will continue to do so, and that will continue to piss a lot of people off.

.

 

[Meadows]

Can a man of science be religious? Yes.

Can science be religious? I don't think so.

This is from a Christian.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I think that no system of ethics or morality is absolutely free from the corruption of one's individual desires. There will always be some level of understanding or interpretation that exists. That this is true does not remove the usefulness of such a system, in terms of it being superior to that of no similar consistency or system.

My understanding of what is moral is based upon the Qur'an, God's word, and the example of the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam).

I would agree, though by your conveyed 'tone', you're implying the individual desires are an immoral thing? Individual desires do not eradicate the concept of morals, in fact they are the basis of the idea of human solidarity.

How have you determined that God's actions are moral?

 

[JGS]

If you are scientific and believe in a Christian God or Krishna or whomever, then yes that's nuts. If you are a scientist and believe the universe had an intelligent hand in its creation, then there's no way to say whether that's true or not. Impossible to disprove. So, theoretically, that sort of generalized spirituality is not beyond the realm of acceptability.

That's not even remotely true.

There is only one aspect of science and faith that can't co-exist - how life started. Science has at a minimum the same abyssmal record of proof as a belief in creation. Otherwise, there's no reason for a science to require non-belief except by peer pressure which is a crappy reason.

 

[speculawyer]

Is there any place for religious faith in science?

No. Absolutely not.


Religious people can be in science and have done many many great works. But all such work is done without bringing their religion into it.


Religious faith is anti-science . . . it is believing in something without evidence which is antithetical to science.

 

[speculawyer]

It's just a dishonest strawman attempt. Atheism doesn't exist and doesn't belong in a debate that uses religious belief and culture as a criteria.

By labeling it "atheism" it makes it easier to say "Well it's just as bad!" instead of a valid criticism.

Anyone who uses "militant atheism" is, essentially, lying.

Yeah . . . you ever see Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, or Christopher Hitchens use a gun? A knife? Any weapon?

It is an utter dishonest pejorative.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

That's not even remotely true.

There is only one aspect of science and faith that can't co-exist - how life started. Science has at a minimum the same abyssmal record of proof as a belief in creation. Otherwise, there's no reason for a science to require non-belief except by peer pressure which is a crappy reason.

Please go back to the official Christianity thread and re-read our discussion on Abiogenisis. At what point has science claimed the self touted, minimal evidence for Abiogenisis as fact. Using the logical fallacy of Tu quoque (My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours) isn't a proper argument.

 

[Ashes]

Sure there is a place for spirituality. I do not believe there is a place for being religious as we know it.



That's the distinction I always make with religious individuals. We can not disprove that an entity like a "God" exists. We CAN prove that it is impossible that the God as described in the Bible or the Qu'ran or any other holy text to exist as described. We know that the idea of an omnipotent God who handed down these texts to their prophets and missionaries would not have created a text which has near endless contradictions, historical inaccuracies and straight up bullshit. This very idea goes against the God they try to paint. You can't have it all ways.

Therefore, we can argue that the God of the Bible is dead. The God of the Qu'ran is dead. The God of Judaism is dead. Krishna and Buddha and etc etc so on and so forth are all dead.

If you are scientific and believe in a Christian God or Krishna or whomever, then yes that's nuts. If you are a scientist and believe the universe had an intelligent hand in its creation, then there's no way to say whether that's true or not. Impossible to disprove. So, theoretically, that sort of generalized spirituality is not beyond the realm of acceptability.

wait what? this is a compelling argument?

Further, I might as well just quote RW:

RW: You talk as if science is an absolute, and I don't think it is at all. It isn't the truth either, because I don't believe there is such a thing as "the truth". You rail against the ultimate truth of what some people believe – ie religion, God, Jesus, whatever. I don't, because I don't think it makes any more sense than railing against scientific truths. I say "truths" in inverted commas, because truths have a habit of being altered as we develop our knowledge.

 

[OttomanScribe]

I would agree, though by your conveyed 'tone', you're implying the individual desires are an immoral thing? Individual desires do not eradicate the concept of morals, in fact they are the basis of the idea of human solidarity.

How have you determined that God's actions are moral?

I have found that my individual desires have been the foundations of those life decisions that I view as having been immoral. I find that those I view as being moral, and those actions of my own that I view as being moral, are those that are closer to being 'selfless'. The more selfish the action, the more likely it seems to be viewed as immoral.

I think I would say that the best measure I have found of viewing God's laws as being moral is that those individuals that I have known who were possessed of a deep faith and a love of the law, have also been those who were the most moral, the most selfless. Part of my coming to the religion was through discovering people who were unlike any I had met before in all their everyday conduct. What they viewed as correct, and what they did, was indistinguishable.

If the question is specifically about God's 'actions', the question presupposes a concept of God that I do not hold.

 

[Derwind]

My stance on this is "NO". Science cannot mix with Faith.

Every single supersitious bias has to be discarded when conducting scientific experiments.

A surgeon might believe voodoo or that praying to the almighty sun god RA will cure me but he/she better not try as a replacement to the regular procedures a surgeon has to go through to remove a tumor or transplant a heart.

Sure a scientist can believe in whatever philisohpical belief he or she chooses and if that includes religion, so be it. However, the Scientific method REQUIRES you to put aside your preconcieved notions of the supernatural and use evidentiary based reasoning to propel your studies.

Mixing faith with science is intellectually dishonest at best.

However, a scientist can believe in whatever they want. Thats not up to anyone but themselves to decide.

 

[Cyan]

*snip*

Very well said.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I have found that my individual desires have been the foundations of those life decisions that I view as having been immoral. I find that those I view as being moral, and those actions of my own that I view as being moral, are those that are closer to being 'selfless'. The more selfish the action, the more likely it seems to be viewed as immoral.

I think I would say that the best measure I have found of viewing God's laws as being moral is that those individuals that I have known who were possessed of a deep faith and a love of the law, have also been those who were the most moral, the most selfless. Part of my coming to the religion was through discovering people who were unlike any I had met before in all their everyday conduct. What they viewed as correct, and what they did, was indistinguishable.

If the question is specifically about God's 'actions', the question presupposes a concept of God that I do not hold.

We have completely opposing viewpoints on morals and their connection to selflessness, which is fine. Your second paragraph in particular is anecdotal evidence of God's moral law, and as I have had opposite experience with atheists, there isn't really any weight behind either of our positions as reflecting reality.

I apologise, I wasn't meaning to superimpose my notion of the God concept onto you. I should have asked, what do you believe about God and why?

p.s It's 3:30 here (same for you my fellow Aussie) and I'm off to bed. Would like to continue this conversation another time though.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

They're not scientists. They're not producing any science, they're just trying to debunk evolution with religion-based arguments.

I mean, c'mon



One of the pillars of science is peer-review. Call me when they publish a paper.

I was using that discovery institute as an example of the bad mixing of religious faith in science. I'm not using that as an example of how to mix the two.

My position is a big NO to the op's question.

 

[OttomanScribe]

We have completely opposing viewpoints on morals and their connection to selflessness, which is fine. Your second paragraph in particular is anecdotal evidence of God's moral law, and as I have had opposite experience with atheists, there isn't really any weight behind either of our positions as reflecting reality.

Indeed, that is the way of anecdotal evidence I find. I said it as a reflection of my own understanding, rather than in the expectation that another would take it as 'proof'

I apologise, I wasn't meaning to superimpose my notion of the God concept onto you. I should have asked, what do you believe about God and why?

Allah is the cause of both cause and effect, every instant and all things are an 'automatic' expression of the will of God, in that they reflect His attributes and He does not 'act' so much as 'He is, therefore all things are'. In this sense, it is an impossible task to determine the morality of God's actions, for that assumes some separation between the logical processes of the mind of a human being, and the will of God.

Call special pleading on that if you will, but that is how I understand it.

p.s It's 3:30 here (same for you my fellow Aussie) and I'm off to bed. Would like to continue this conversation another time though.

I have a night shift tomorrow, hence my excuse to stay up
Sounds like an idea, though if it starts getting theological, we might have to take it to the official Islamic thread.

 

[Lesath]

As a scientist, religion is a deviation from your standard course of reasoning, off limits to any sort of criticism you would otherwise apply to your understanding of the universe. It is strange not to logically question the concept of an omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent god, and its interaction with the universe. How does one recoil and question the concept of an immaterial soul, when neuroscience has already discovered the physical foundations of our thoughts, personalities, and memories? At the very least, why not apply any sort of historical analyses into dogmatic religious texts, whereupon any sort of probing, one can usually discover their not-so-divine roots and predecessors?

Nevertheless, can religion coexist in the minds of scientists? Of course; such compromise within thought has existed in some of the most brilliant of minds since the birth of humanity. And in this way, there will continue to be brilliant scientist who are religious. Unfortunately, I cannot help but lose a smidgen of respect for them due to what I perceive as an intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Religion is made up.
There are no verifications, no standardised tests, no results, no numbers.

Thus: No!

 

[crazy monkey]

Religion is made up.
There are no verifications, no standardised tests, no results, no numbers.

Thus: No!

numbers were also made up and so were the standards.

 

[Pollux]

Yes...of course there is.

I'm a Catholic, I believe in God, and I think that science allows us to increase our view of the world.

We don't have the absolute truth on God, we're limited, we're human. God is an infinite being. He is beyond the Universe. How can we possibly hope to understand Him? We do the best we can with the information we're provided...and in the mean time try to pass the time we're given as good men (or women).

Science can help us expand our worldview, and our view on God.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

numbers were also made up and so were the standards.

But they were proven wrong most of the times. Religion has been wrong on so many occasions, but still demands to be one of the most important things in human life.

Today's level of science is the best and most right thing of human knowledge, as far as scientists know. You can't say that from religion.

Science and knowledge are improving every day. Religion does not.

 

[crazy monkey]

But they were proven wrong most of the times. Religion has been wrong on so many occasions, but still demands to be one of the most important things in human life.

Today's level of science is the best and most right thing of human knowledge, as far as scientists know. You can't say that from religion.

Science and knowledge are improving every day. Religion does not.

Religion is more than just believing in god and afterlife for many. It is a life style that they choose to live. for the topic as i stated before If you do not change science based on your religious belief and work as a scientist than why should it matter?

 

[Raist]

I was using that discovery institute as an example of the bad mixing of religious faith in science. I'm not using that as an example of how to mix the two.

My position is a big NO to the op's question.

But my point is that what they're doing is NOT science.

 

[Ashes]

As a scientist, religion is a deviation from your standard course of reasoning, off limits to any sort of criticism you would otherwise apply to your understanding of the universe. It is strange not to logically question the concept of an omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent god, and its interaction with the universe. How does one recoil and question the concept of an immaterial soul, when neuroscience has already discovered the physical foundations of our thoughts, personalities, and memories? At the very least, why not apply any sort of historical analyses into dogmatic religious texts, whereupon any sort of probing, one can usually discover their not-so-divine roots and predecessors?

Nevertheless, can religion coexist in the minds of scientists? Of course; such compromise within thought has existed in some of the most brilliant of minds since the birth of humanity. And in this way, there will continue to be brilliant scientist who are religious. Unfortunately, I cannot help but lose a smidgen of respect for them due to what I perceive as an intellectual dishonesty.

I don't think so. At the very best, all that scientists can do is eliminate models of a god; not the idea of god it self.

Imagine if you will, that you go one step further and declare for us all that we must accept the no god theory, or the unlikely that god exists theory. This would be an absurd scientific law of nature.

Science doesn't need clause additions through back door support. And it's not only intellectually self-serving to have this position that religious scientists are second rate, but factually wrong.

 

[Raist]

I don't think so. At the very best, all that scientists can do is eliminate models of a god; not the idea of god it self.

Yep, buy I'd add that it's not an actual goal. More like a collateral effect.