It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Turns Out, Science and Religion Get Along Just Fine

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


And a vast amount of scientist believe in a creator,


Did that vast amount use science to arrive at that belief though. Otherwise it's merely a given considering the vast majority of the populace [in the States at least] are Christian. Those numbers truly don't matter at all unless they did. Each one should be discounted if they didn't.

Then of course, as I have been stressing, we need further argument for god being a god described by any religion.




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Evolutionary origin of religions
en.wikipedia.org...

Setting the stage for human religion
Increased brain size



Robin Dunbar argues that the critical event in the evolution of the neocortex took place at the speciation of archaic homo sapiens about 500,000 years ago. His study indicates that only after the speciation event is the neocortex large enough to process complex social phenomena such as language and religion. The study is based on a regression analysis of neocortex size plotted against a number of social behaviors of living and extinct hominids




Another view distinguishes individual religious belief from collective religious belief. While the former does not require prior development of language, the latter does. The individual human brain has to explain a phenomenon in order to comprehend and relate to it. This activity predates by far the emergence of language and may have caused it. The theory is, belief in the supernatural emerges from hypotheses arbitrarily assumed by individuals to explain natural phenomena that cannot be explained otherwise. The resulting need to share individual hypotheses with others leads eventually to collective religious belief. A socially accepted hypothesis becomes dogmatic backed by social sanction.


Morality and group living



Psychologist Matt J. Rossano argues that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever-watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[17] The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival.[18] [19] Rossano is referring here to collective religious belief and the social sanction that institutionalized morality. According to Rossano's teaching, individual religious belief is thus initially epistemological, not ethical, in nature.


Evolutionary psychology of religion

Science sprung from religion



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

raymundoko
The point of this thread has already been made I feel. When it comes down to it there are the vocal anti-religion, like have surfaced here, who say "YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH!". Likewise there are the vocal anti-"science" who say "YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH!". However, as the article in the OP points out, those people are actually in the very vocal MINORITY, and the vast majority of people believe science and god are reconcilable.


Science and god can absolutely coexist. On the other hand, science and religion cannot. Not until you or someone makes a documentary on how they lived inside a fish. There is that Ark story as well that has been disproven 1000 different ways. That is just 2 but there are 1000s more reasons why religion and science can't coexist, and they are found in the religious texts themselves.
edit on 20-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by raymundoko
 


So we know that light and dark existed on day one, which means we know the Sun was already there. However, in this description it says that NOW the Sun was made. I posit that the Sun was not actually created at this instant, that it had been created on day one per the "let there be light", and it had only now become visible in it's current state to the observer.


Is the Sun a star?

It clearly states all the stars are created on day 4.

It also says the 'Great Light that ruled the day' was created on day 4.

Add those up.

I appreciate your thoughts but you're convoluting an otherwise straightforward description. One in which is very much at odds with cosmology.

Even if we rolled with your interpretation and said it was created from the onset, but the light wasn't visible until later, we are left with the other issue I surfaced. If the light isn't visible to the observer then it isn't visible to that fruit bearing tree. Now we are at odds with a different field of science.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Do you have any idea of what exactly a "god" would constitute? What makes a god a god?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Just out of curiosity what would happen if no light source shined on the earth for days? Wouldn't there be a freezing problem.

If those days were actually years then I think that would be even more of a problem especially concerning anything living.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Do you have any idea of what exactly a "god" would constitute? What makes a god a god?


As far as I am concerned it is just an idea from man, but my point is that a belief in a god/deity can coexist with science but not the religion/dogma that goes along with most.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Yeah, that makes sense.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I do not believe you need religion to believe there could be a God, but if you are required to believe in religion, you don't get to decide what you must believe.
Personally I find it impossible to maintain a scientific-evidence-based approach while holding religious beliefs, it involves way to many inconsistency's.
A rational mind lets reality dictate belief, because our beliefs are rather ineffective at dictating reality. A rational mind seeks to investigate reality so that its beliefs can be changed to match, because an unchanged belief can never become more accurate.

I have yet to discover a religion that doesn't require assuming they know some absolute truth, or adhere to a different set of laws of physics, chemistry and biology that is all but observable only to them. If any of you know of one, please clue me in.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Just out of curiosity what would happen if no light source shined on the earth for days? Wouldn't there be a freezing problem.

Yeah I had looked into this not too long ago but since forgot. It wouldn't freeze right away. It would take a bit. Not too long though and it would be uninhabitable.


If those days were actually years then I think that would be even more of a problem especially concerning anything living.

Exactly.

So as a test we could plant some fruit tree seeds and put them in a meat freezer and never give them light. See if they germinate, grow to maturation, then bear fruit.

Interesting too that Genesis talks of the oceans as if they were not frozen prior to the stars existence

edit on 20-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


There was a youtube clip a while back, where a scientists had a theory on what would happen to earth when the sun lost its magnetic field and went out.

He was theorising that the earth could go for 200 years on the surface before it became too cold to survive but we could go underground for a long time.

Eventually the planet would freeze solid and drift into another solar system where it would thaw and restart the cycles.

I just cant remember what it was called but it was something like the sun going out.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


As far as I can tell, religion is like that story you tell kids when they haven't yet discovered common sense.

Like that monster they used to threaten kids with in Germany. Santa Claus, I believe. There was a variation that involved naughty kids getting kidnapped and eaten. That's why it's always important to keep your room clean and do your homework. Common sense stuff.
edit on 20-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDualityExperience
 


If you can find it I'd like to give it a watch.

Must be said though that when the Sun starts to goes out it's supposed to expand so much it engulfs the Earth before it dies.



It's coming O_O
edit on 20-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

Ill have a look for it. It was cool and I wouldn't believe anyone when it comes to knowing how our specific sun works.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


And a vast amount of scientist believe in a creator,


Then of course, as I have been stressing, we need further argument for god being a god described by any religion.


No, we don't. Religions of all kinds are ways in which human beings attempt to make sense of the world around them and the nature of reality and divinity/spirituality. It's impossible to argue for or against a creative force that is responsible for the universe without understanding this and discarding all the dogma.

The argument for or against a created universe is currently a philosophical one. If a person reaches the conclusion that there is a God, then they have a buffet of religions and spiritual ideas to choose from. You can't start at the end result (religion) and claim it is somehow proof that the source doesn't exist (the thing which religion seeks to understand, in this case "God"). It's like saying there is no such thing as chickens because they lay different kinds of eggs, or even defective eggs.

It's entirely possible to consider whether or not the universe was created by "God" without a religion and without any sort of religious dogma attached. It's an inherent and even natural response to the world around us to question where it all came from, and that question likely precedes any religion. It transcends petty boundaries and questions of which God is the "real" god because that is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the debate.

Was/is the universe created, or isn't it? That's what the debate hinges on, and that question is not limited to Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   

TheDualityExperience
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

Ill have a look for it. It was cool and I wouldn't believe anyone when it comes to knowing how our specific sun works.


I found it LL "Cool Jay"

This guy cracks me up to.
I am no scientists but I liked his ideas.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


No, we don't.

Yes. Yes you do. That is…. if you want science and religion to be reconciled. You very much do need a strong argument.


Religions of all kinds are ways in which human beings attempt to make sense of the world around them and the nature of reality

Right. I wouldn't deny that. That doesn't make those 'ways' objectively true. It just means it was an attempt. Was it a good one? Science is about testing the hypothesis over and over, and even when it's a solid theory the evidence still needs to be continually observed. Religion doesn't have this. These are different approaches. Faith versus reason.


It's impossible to argue for or against a creative force that is responsible for the universe without understanding this and discarding all the dogma.

Can you paraphrase? Could be entirely me but I'm not sure if I followed that.


The argument for or against a created universe is currently a philosophical one.

I agree. I encourage people think about it and argue for or against it.

Now that is for a 'Prime Mover'. A religious god is NOT just a philosophical argument since religions make truth claims about the Known Universe and therefore enter the domain of science.


If a person reaches the conclusion that there is a God, then they have a buffet of religions and spiritual ideas to choose from.

Absolutely. Such is their freedom. That doesn't make a strong argument for one of them being objectively true..


You can't start at the end result (religion) and claim it is somehow proof that the source doesn't exist (the thing which religion seeks to understand, in this case "God").

I am not doing that here. I wouldn't do that.

I have been very clear with my intention to separate god belief and religious belief about a god. I already stated I and no one else can prove god doesn't exist. On that same token you and others can't prove god does.


It's entirely possible to consider whether or not the universe was created by "God" without a religion and without any sort of religious dogma attached.

I agree! Sigh. You're so stuck on this. Read the OP. The OP talks not just about god belief but about religion and science being reconcilable. I chose to address that aspect. It's on topic.


Was/is the universe created, or isn't it?

I believe in eternity. Is that good enough?

edit on 20-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDualityExperience
 


Cool thanks
I'll watch it in about 20 mins or so.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by flyingfish
 


As far as I can tell, religion is like that story you tell kids when they haven't yet discovered common sense.

Like that monster they used to threaten kids with in Germany. Santa Claus, I believe. There was a variation that involved naughty kids getting kidnapped and eaten. That's why it's always important to keep your room clean and do your homework. Common sense stuff.
edit on 20-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


* coughs *
"The invisible man who watches you masturbate."



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I find religion and science reconcilable. There is no reason to debate the bible word for word, it has been proven many times before that man has altered it to fit an agenda. Doesn't mean religion can't reconcile with science. In fact many things in the bible have some truth in my opinion. Almost all the ancients have great flood stories though this isn't proof of Noah it seems to hint there is truth there. Science can even prove what happened with the splitting of the sea possible and I find that Moses being there at that rare moment devine. Again the way I reconcile is that man wrote the bible and science can help us sort through it, doesn't mean that it is all a lie in my opinion.
edit on 2/20/2014 by ashtonhz8907 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join