It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace and observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.
Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accessibility to the human mind . . . they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. In such a world view it becomes sensible to try and understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements of the seventeenth century.
..but Christianity has played a vital role in nurturing the progress of modern science. P.E. Hodgson stated that:
So how did we come to this conclusion that the universe is orderly? Through religion and the belief in an ultimate creator of everything man began to see the universe in an orderly way.
It was not the institution of religion, but the actual religion its self that has contributed. Politics has no place in science..
Man's attempt to put rules and regulations into their religion for the purpose of control is not on trial here, science and religious belief's compatibility is.
If I can turn the discussion back to the topic at hand instead of the sociological effects of religion in man.
Time and time again, science has labeled people as liars, charlatans, or psychotics because their observations don't fit with current concepts. Examples lie in the Koala bear, Kimodo dragon, peacock, and Big Foot.
As I stated in my last post, and was not refuted by WyrdeOne, religious beliefs cannot be tested by science.
My opponent has chosen to change the debate into a linguistic analysis of the word religion and use his podium as an opportunity to slam religion, not debate if religion and science are compatible.
Religion, at its core, is belief in a God or way of life, and it establishes a moral code by which to live by.
We're questioning if they are compatible. Can science work with a religious idea? Absolutely it can! To say otherwise would be to ignore history.
If my opponent's statement that religion cannot exist without politics is true, then it is also true that science cannot exist without politics. Neither statement is true; at their heart both concepts are noble...
If it were not for religion, the medical field would never have come up with the body/mind treatment principle, where all of the patient is treated, not only the affected organs. This came to fruition because doctors, especially those working with cancer patients, noticed that patients who practiced a religion, would pray for healing and believed in something other than themselves had a far lower mortality rate than those who did not. Because science decided to be compatible with religion, science came to realize that a lot of the battle against sickness takes place in a patient's mind.
The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.
"The purpose of science is to develop, without prejudice, a knowledge of the facts and the laws of nature. The even more important task of religion, on the other hand, is to develop the conscience, the ideals and the aspirations of mankind."
"..one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion."
"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts."
"An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being."
This was an absolutely excellent debate, mainly because a very important distinction was made nearly from the start - the distinction between religion and faith. I think both debaters would agree that faith is an incredible asset to science and both discussed the point well. However, WyrdeOne's definition of religion as a political institution was the key to deciding the winner of the debate. Religion, as implied in this debate, I believe, is a political institution. WyrdeOne proved very strongly that historically and theoreticaly religion as a political institution is incompatible with science. While my vote goes to WyrdeOne, I would like to commend junglejake on an extremely well-structured, defended and organized debate.
I got to the end of this one and I just thought, "it's a dead heat". Tough to pick a winner it was, but in the end I feel Junglejake's lines of reasoning were just that little bit stronger and won the debate for him. I'll be very interested to see the results for this debate. Well done to both participants.
I believe junglejake is the victor, he in my opinion has kept more accurately on topic and debated with a higher level of skill.
Wow! Very good debate. Both participants tackled difficult positions and handled them with panache. The struggle over the question of politics in religion was classic, well-articulated and unsurprisingly central to the argument. It was a tough call. Both sides did exceptionally well, but I felt WyrdeOne made the stronger case.