forget about a conflict between religion and science, what about the conflict between religious scriptures and all of the far more relevant philosophical treatise written after the bronze age?
I have always had such a powerful instinctual knowledge that there is a divine aspect to man that I didn't believe serious atheists existed for a while, and when I found out they did I didn't expect them to lack belief that we are *something* more than the sum of our parts. Finding out that sso many do was quite shocking. Looking at it logically, I admit their arguments are good enough to cause significant concious doubts, but some unconcious part of me always knows that they're wrong.
We are seeking individuals for Ordination into the Orthodox Catholic Church World Wide Orthodox Catholic Ministry. The Sovereign Order of O.C.C. is a worldwide, lay, diplomatic religious order which seeks to glorify the Creator by promoting the sanctification of each member through his or her work with the sick and the poor and witness of the faith and to protect The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
looks interesting up I can feel issues already just from this...
1. human cloning happens all the time... identical twins any1...
2. "truth is more complex then just the scientific truth"... that's an opinion... it's not a fact, and it's assumptive, world view etc might not come from science, but if science can explain them, the quote is void...
This is a pretty weak attempt to equate non-knowledge (faith) with known facts and honest exploration (science). Unfortunately for anyone not putting their head into the sand in this day and age, trying to link the two and trying to use the god of the gaps principle is the only way to reconcile god with what's known today. It's so easy to say, "there's more than science to our world". There is but it's not and can't be "god". Christians are getting pushed into the corner with facts and real lif
@mtnbiker1974 I appreciate your skepticism, but these peoples academic credentials are impeccable. Have you ever worked as an Astrophysicist at NASA? Doubtful from the way you criticize these people.
We can describe chemistry in the terms the 19th century chemists used, and predict or explain reactions and properties well upto a point, it is more intuitive and hastens analysis: however some properties cannot be explained in such terms the physics of what is going on inside the atom has to be investigated. Some of this can then be incorporated in a new simplified model. Most of the time it's best to deal with these emergent properties but they're a simplified less accurate version of things.
Behaviour can be described in terms of emotions for most purposes but to be really accurate we have to look at the brain. Which is easier to understand, emotions or neurones? The verity of types of people is hard to understand with the emotion model too. Emotions are like genetics when it's dealing with unit factors, looking at the brain is like genetics dealing with DNA. A lot of the time unit factors are all you need but sometimes you have to look deeper, then alter the intuitive model.
Qualia are something that sofar is only understood in the simple unit factor or valence style, they certainly exist and could (should) be studied, at present the only way of doing that is to talk to people and hear what they say, but once upon a time microscopes weren't good enough to see cells - one day we might get equipment to study!
Emotions are also like talking about life without mentioning cells, you can get so far with organs, organelles or gene regulatory elements as just 'black boxes'
Emotions and the brain are both models to understand the same phenomenon, it's not a matter of more or less, though one is more accurate. The more detailed and complicated view is clearly the one based on cells and neurones, the more accurate one, that's the one that does more respect to who humans are IMO accepting we're part of the universe and follow simple laws but are made of so many components interacting in so many complex ways.
Being cautious about the rate of change is needed - there's a reason why mutation rates are kept low, why most changes in DNA sequence cause a loss of function. However that doesn't mean we shouldn't progress, there's a reason we have mutation promoting mechanisms like transposons.
A monozygous twin is basically a clone so the idea cloning would 'reproduce our identity' would only apply if it also applied to twins. Just because it's a radical and different idea doesn't mean it'd be wrong.
Truth should mesh with truth, but other pursuits of it don't seem to match Christianity - like all the other religions also pursuing truth and coming to different conclusions or the 38 thousand registered Christian sects in the US that don't mesh with each other. Science has disputes but it has ways of resolving them and those are mainly on the fringes (Except maybe for newer sciences like psychology). If you don't understand the science, how can you understand truth, if it's 'more complex'
Perception is the only guide to external reality we have (i perceive therefore perception) but some perceptions contradict each other and many ask more questions than they answer, science increases how many perceptions we have and builds simple models that cohere with as many as possible, it's the best method of finding truth we have. If truth is obtainable from perception, it's obtainable by science. Other methods exist to get truth (From perception) but they're not as accurate.
The reason science cannot answer questions about what we should do is because they're misprinted as semantic arguments over what the best word is (is this really food / true / knowledge / free / miracle etc). If it's over words it can't be answered by any means, because it's a meaningless question. If it's worded in a way that is answerable (what should we do IF we desire X, what is the best explanation for these perceptions, is god likely to have made X, etc)science can answer them all.
Many of the questions religion used to answer have been or are being answered by science - the origin of species, the cause of weather and earthquakes, what is out in space, what we're made of, where matter comes from, etc. Hell if we're honest about what our perceptions seem to be telling us it answers what happens when we die. Religion is being hollowed out like an apple by science, there's very little it has left to explain, economics and psychology may get ethics then it's left with nothing.
The majority of royal society and national academy of science members are atheists. In the past many theistic scientists existed but the proportion is going down. Science isn't the best challenge to theism out there, but to the extent it is a challenge it's one because it DOES step on religion's turf and can do the things religion claims to (better than religion can).
If there's no way to tell 2 states of affair apart then the difference between them is meaningless, people can agree on all the facts but not weather something is good, true, freely willed, a miracle, meaningful. To make these questions meaningful they must be rephrased into forms where there's a difference between the two, which would make the questions scientifically answerable. The long-debated questions all seem semantic in nature at present.
Every time someone says a question is un-answerable by science science goes ahead and answers it, weather it's the nature of galaxies or the structure of the atom. Questions about origins keep being answered and pushing the things 'outside science' further back in time; geology, evolution, abiogenesis, steller nucleosynthysis, the big bang, etc. A lot of answeres for the Big bang already exist as far as I know, they just have to find some evidence to decide between them.
Except the masses of people who believe it, the powerful institutions and vestigial remains in society that will keeping it alive and a powerful influence on people's values and influences even if it explains nothing and sticks out from everything perception tells us.
There are very few scientific theists - there are some but the fact i recognized all the people in this little clip (and they're all templeton prize winners as far as I can see - paying them to say they believe) makes me wonder
There's no boundary for what should be known IMO unlike for what we do but intuition and tradition vary so much and have little relation to our desires / needs. Deontological ethics stops us doing the most efficient things, maybe there's justification for setting up social norms that always restrict some actions but I doubt it'd lead to the most optimal results. How is a means to be judged, if not by it's end? you can have boundaries but I doubt they lead to the best results...
"Science will not replace Faith, it can´t"... APPLAUSES....!!! I couldn´t be more agree. I think the atheists biggest problem is their absurd wish of "replace faith" with science. But since there are believer scientists, like Mc Grath, Polkinghorne or Francis Collins, the atheist paradigm goes down.
@Teltaminoru It will be replaced by science, no doubt. All people are born atheists. We are still slaves to the superstitions of our ancestors. With time we will shed this silliness. See Christian biophysicist Dr. Francis Collins' video "The Language of God" here on youtube
@MrTruthAddict I think the opposite: all people are born believers. If all people are born atheists, then the entire mankind would´ve born atheist. And then WHO taught religion to mankind? The problem here is the idea that the religion is mere "superstition of ancestors". I think religion is actual and can be lived today. If we can arrive to God by logical thinking and reason, there is more than "superstition" in religion.
I agree, but religion is not just faith. We can use reason, and logical thinking in order to conclude there is a God. That´s Theodicy, the five ways of Thomas Aquinas, etc. Faith and Reason, together.
@MrTruthAddict I hate to see you on every video, you seem to be so filled with hate seriously. No, that has been refuted, apparently, according to later studies, children are born with a sense that there exist a creator of everything. But that does not do anything to prove that God exist, as much as if it were the case that people were born Atheist, it wouldn't prove the non-existance of God. And are you appreciating Dr. Collins work? I am a fan of him. :)
@thetraceur123 Did you just accuse me of hate after saying you hate to see me on every video?? lol
I don't hate the sinner, I just hate the sin. Your religion is evil, it endangers us all. It puts our future as a species at risk. As long as people are enslaved by your superstition, they can be manipulated into believing or doing anything.
And yes I am appreciating Dr. Collins' work. I especially love when he says he is 'uncomfortable' with the Genesis story, since he knows it's bullshit.
I only wish that it was a bit more professional. If so, I'd recommend it to everyone, but when the trailer video has this in it: "Is faith being tested to breaking point", then I just cringe.... Whoever made this video, can they please fix the English?
This is basically the "NOMA" argument. The rebuttal is: "A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." --Richard Dawkins
@eproulx Wow, I'm glad that Dawkin's "KNOWS" what a universe with (and without) a creator would look like. I'd love to be him....... What an prideful and idiotic statement.
@thesapper Wow, are you implying that a universe WITH a god cannot be differentiated from as a universe WITHOUT one? Please explain how they would differ or why they would not.
As for Dawkins, if you had read him, you would know that he's talking about a god that, among other things, 1- guided creation and 2- answers prayers. Is this prideful and idiotic??
If NOMA was valid argument then god would not interfere. But theists claim miracles, visions, demons, etc. This is absolute BS.
No, I'm not implying any sort of knowledge what-so-ever between a universe with or without God and I would hope that you aren't either. Because you don't know what one would (or should) look like.... Nor does Dawkins (or anybody else---for that matter).
Are you honestly saying that you "know" what a universe with God should look like or not? And I have read some of Dawkins (by the way).
Lastly, I'm glad you are happy to claim absolutes. I sure wish I could..... Must be nice.
@thesapper: I'm not claiming anything absolute. Dawkins' talks about claims of religions, not his own "knowledge". And we can test these religious claims.
This video is a Christian video. It implies that god exists as per the bible. The bible says that god interferes with the universe and humans. Thus for them to claim NOMA is hypocritical. This is what Dawkins was saying in his book.
You seem to imply that god does not interfere with the universe. Are you a pantheist? Or maybe a deist?
I recommend that every thinking person with an interest in religion and science looks at these videos and purchases the DVD Test of Faith which is excellent. Ian Benson
forget about a conflict between religion and science, what about the conflict between religious scriptures and all of the far more relevant philosophical treatise written after the bronze age?
zombiestripper85 3 weeks ago
I have always had such a powerful instinctual knowledge that there is a divine aspect to man that I didn't believe serious atheists existed for a while, and when I found out they did I didn't expect them to lack belief that we are *something* more than the sum of our parts. Finding out that sso many do was quite shocking. Looking at it logically, I admit their arguments are good enough to cause significant concious doubts, but some unconcious part of me always knows that they're wrong.
waldoman7 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus Is LORD!
We are seeking individuals for Ordination into the Orthodox Catholic Church World Wide Orthodox Catholic Ministry. The Sovereign Order of O.C.C. is a worldwide, lay, diplomatic religious order which seeks to glorify the Creator by promoting the sanctification of each member through his or her work with the sick and the poor and witness of the faith and to protect The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
For More Information.
Email: ChristOrthodox@yahoo.com
christorthodox 4 months ago
looks interesting up I can feel issues already just from this...
1. human cloning happens all the time... identical twins any1...
2. "truth is more complex then just the scientific truth"... that's an opinion... it's not a fact, and it's assumptive, world view etc might not come from science, but if science can explain them, the quote is void...
3. "leading scientists"
*leading religious scientists.
4. "exploration is a divinely Christian activity"
what is this woman smoking.
Carnage2K4 4 months ago
lots of activity on this page, see ya! Ima keep enjoying youtube like I originally intended to.
klownsik 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Science is the new religion
DeadJesus100 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Religion is a disease
DeadJesus100 5 months ago
This is a pretty weak attempt to equate non-knowledge (faith) with known facts and honest exploration (science). Unfortunately for anyone not putting their head into the sand in this day and age, trying to link the two and trying to use the god of the gaps principle is the only way to reconcile god with what's known today. It's so easy to say, "there's more than science to our world". There is but it's not and can't be "god". Christians are getting pushed into the corner with facts and real lif
mtnbiker1974 5 months ago
@mtnbiker1974 Did you really expect a less than two and half minute TRAILER to expound on these issues?
megaead69 5 months ago 3
@mtnbiker1974 watch the series, this is NOT a god of the gaps argument, it is that god and science work together.
mrmemanme 4 months ago
@mtnbiker1974 I appreciate your skepticism, but these peoples academic credentials are impeccable. Have you ever worked as an Astrophysicist at NASA? Doubtful from the way you criticize these people.
MHMencken 3 months ago
We can describe chemistry in the terms the 19th century chemists used, and predict or explain reactions and properties well upto a point, it is more intuitive and hastens analysis: however some properties cannot be explained in such terms the physics of what is going on inside the atom has to be investigated. Some of this can then be incorporated in a new simplified model. Most of the time it's best to deal with these emergent properties but they're a simplified less accurate version of things.
unassumption 6 months ago
Behaviour can be described in terms of emotions for most purposes but to be really accurate we have to look at the brain. Which is easier to understand, emotions or neurones? The verity of types of people is hard to understand with the emotion model too. Emotions are like genetics when it's dealing with unit factors, looking at the brain is like genetics dealing with DNA. A lot of the time unit factors are all you need but sometimes you have to look deeper, then alter the intuitive model.
unassumption 6 months ago
Qualia are something that sofar is only understood in the simple unit factor or valence style, they certainly exist and could (should) be studied, at present the only way of doing that is to talk to people and hear what they say, but once upon a time microscopes weren't good enough to see cells - one day we might get equipment to study!
Emotions are also like talking about life without mentioning cells, you can get so far with organs, organelles or gene regulatory elements as just 'black boxes'
unassumption 6 months ago
Emotions and the brain are both models to understand the same phenomenon, it's not a matter of more or less, though one is more accurate. The more detailed and complicated view is clearly the one based on cells and neurones, the more accurate one, that's the one that does more respect to who humans are IMO accepting we're part of the universe and follow simple laws but are made of so many components interacting in so many complex ways.
unassumption 6 months ago
Being cautious about the rate of change is needed - there's a reason why mutation rates are kept low, why most changes in DNA sequence cause a loss of function. However that doesn't mean we shouldn't progress, there's a reason we have mutation promoting mechanisms like transposons.
A monozygous twin is basically a clone so the idea cloning would 'reproduce our identity' would only apply if it also applied to twins. Just because it's a radical and different idea doesn't mean it'd be wrong.
unassumption 6 months ago
Truth should mesh with truth, but other pursuits of it don't seem to match Christianity - like all the other religions also pursuing truth and coming to different conclusions or the 38 thousand registered Christian sects in the US that don't mesh with each other. Science has disputes but it has ways of resolving them and those are mainly on the fringes (Except maybe for newer sciences like psychology). If you don't understand the science, how can you understand truth, if it's 'more complex'
unassumption 6 months ago
Perception is the only guide to external reality we have (i perceive therefore perception) but some perceptions contradict each other and many ask more questions than they answer, science increases how many perceptions we have and builds simple models that cohere with as many as possible, it's the best method of finding truth we have. If truth is obtainable from perception, it's obtainable by science. Other methods exist to get truth (From perception) but they're not as accurate.
unassumption 6 months ago
The reason science cannot answer questions about what we should do is because they're misprinted as semantic arguments over what the best word is (is this really food / true / knowledge / free / miracle etc). If it's over words it can't be answered by any means, because it's a meaningless question. If it's worded in a way that is answerable (what should we do IF we desire X, what is the best explanation for these perceptions, is god likely to have made X, etc)science can answer them all.
unassumption 6 months ago
Many of the questions religion used to answer have been or are being answered by science - the origin of species, the cause of weather and earthquakes, what is out in space, what we're made of, where matter comes from, etc. Hell if we're honest about what our perceptions seem to be telling us it answers what happens when we die. Religion is being hollowed out like an apple by science, there's very little it has left to explain, economics and psychology may get ethics then it's left with nothing.
unassumption 6 months ago
The majority of royal society and national academy of science members are atheists. In the past many theistic scientists existed but the proportion is going down. Science isn't the best challenge to theism out there, but to the extent it is a challenge it's one because it DOES step on religion's turf and can do the things religion claims to (better than religion can).
unassumption 6 months ago
@unassumption No, sir. There are many things outside the scope of the sciences. Meaning of life, why there is something rather than nothing, etc.
megaead69 6 months ago
@megaead69
If there's no way to tell 2 states of affair apart then the difference between them is meaningless, people can agree on all the facts but not weather something is good, true, freely willed, a miracle, meaningful. To make these questions meaningful they must be rephrased into forms where there's a difference between the two, which would make the questions scientifically answerable. The long-debated questions all seem semantic in nature at present.
unassumption 6 months ago
@megaead69
Every time someone says a question is un-answerable by science science goes ahead and answers it, weather it's the nature of galaxies or the structure of the atom. Questions about origins keep being answered and pushing the things 'outside science' further back in time; geology, evolution, abiogenesis, steller nucleosynthysis, the big bang, etc. A lot of answeres for the Big bang already exist as far as I know, they just have to find some evidence to decide between them.
unassumption 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unassumption Did you even read what I wrote?
megaead69 6 months ago
Except the masses of people who believe it, the powerful institutions and vestigial remains in society that will keeping it alive and a powerful influence on people's values and influences even if it explains nothing and sticks out from everything perception tells us.
There are very few scientific theists - there are some but the fact i recognized all the people in this little clip (and they're all templeton prize winners as far as I can see - paying them to say they believe) makes me wonder
unassumption 6 months ago
There's no boundary for what should be known IMO unlike for what we do but intuition and tradition vary so much and have little relation to our desires / needs. Deontological ethics stops us doing the most efficient things, maybe there's justification for setting up social norms that always restrict some actions but I doubt it'd lead to the most optimal results. How is a means to be judged, if not by it's end? you can have boundaries but I doubt they lead to the best results...
unassumption 6 months ago
"Science will not replace Faith, it can´t"... APPLAUSES....!!! I couldn´t be more agree. I think the atheists biggest problem is their absurd wish of "replace faith" with science. But since there are believer scientists, like Mc Grath, Polkinghorne or Francis Collins, the atheist paradigm goes down.
Teltaminoru 1 year ago
@Teltaminoru It will be replaced by science, no doubt. All people are born atheists. We are still slaves to the superstitions of our ancestors. With time we will shed this silliness. See Christian biophysicist Dr. Francis Collins' video "The Language of God" here on youtube
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
@MrTruthAddict I think the opposite: all people are born believers. If all people are born atheists, then the entire mankind would´ve born atheist. And then WHO taught religion to mankind? The problem here is the idea that the religion is mere "superstition of ancestors". I think religion is actual and can be lived today. If we can arrive to God by logical thinking and reason, there is more than "superstition" in religion.
Teltaminoru 1 year ago
@Teltaminoru Nope, that's why its called faith. It has nothing to do with knowledge. Faith means throwing logic and reason out the window.
MrTruthAddict 1 year ago
I agree, but religion is not just faith. We can use reason, and logical thinking in order to conclude there is a God. That´s Theodicy, the five ways of Thomas Aquinas, etc. Faith and Reason, together.
Teltaminoru 1 year ago
@MrTruthAddict I hate to see you on every video, you seem to be so filled with hate seriously. No, that has been refuted, apparently, according to later studies, children are born with a sense that there exist a creator of everything. But that does not do anything to prove that God exist, as much as if it were the case that people were born Atheist, it wouldn't prove the non-existance of God. And are you appreciating Dr. Collins work? I am a fan of him. :)
thetraceur123 8 months ago
@thetraceur123 Did you just accuse me of hate after saying you hate to see me on every video?? lol
I don't hate the sinner, I just hate the sin. Your religion is evil, it endangers us all. It puts our future as a species at risk. As long as people are enslaved by your superstition, they can be manipulated into believing or doing anything.
And yes I am appreciating Dr. Collins' work. I especially love when he says he is 'uncomfortable' with the Genesis story, since he knows it's bullshit.
MrTruthAddict 8 months ago
@thetraceur123 "according to later studies, children are born with a sense that there exist a creator"
Could you please inform us about those studies, so that we can get informed about them and evaluate about their scientificity?
FreeSilio 6 months ago
pitiable.
Pitiable !
tomm174 1 year ago
Thanks men. I now know that there are actually God believing people in the UK
StopFear 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Get what Jesus would have done
youtube.com/user/Glory2inri?feature=mhum
It is Jesus only who saves. Any deeds are worth filthy rags even the ones deemed as great! Fools turn to Jesus for forgivenees!!
Glory2inri 1 year ago
I only wish that it was a bit more professional. If so, I'd recommend it to everyone, but when the trailer video has this in it: "Is faith being tested to breaking point", then I just cringe.... Whoever made this video, can they please fix the English?
thesapper 1 year ago
thank you, enough said
RepindatJesus 1 year ago
This is basically the "NOMA" argument. The rebuttal is: "A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims." --Richard Dawkins
Can't separate god from science.
eproulx 1 year ago
@eproulx Wow, I'm glad that Dawkin's "KNOWS" what a universe with (and without) a creator would look like. I'd love to be him....... What an prideful and idiotic statement.
thesapper 1 year ago
@thesapper Wow, are you implying that a universe WITH a god cannot be differentiated from as a universe WITHOUT one? Please explain how they would differ or why they would not.
As for Dawkins, if you had read him, you would know that he's talking about a god that, among other things, 1- guided creation and 2- answers prayers. Is this prideful and idiotic??
If NOMA was valid argument then god would not interfere. But theists claim miracles, visions, demons, etc. This is absolute BS.
eproulx 1 year ago
@eproulx
No, I'm not implying any sort of knowledge what-so-ever between a universe with or without God and I would hope that you aren't either. Because you don't know what one would (or should) look like.... Nor does Dawkins (or anybody else---for that matter).
Are you honestly saying that you "know" what a universe with God should look like or not? And I have read some of Dawkins (by the way).
Lastly, I'm glad you are happy to claim absolutes. I sure wish I could..... Must be nice.
thesapper 1 year ago
@thesapper: I'm not claiming anything absolute. Dawkins' talks about claims of religions, not his own "knowledge". And we can test these religious claims.
This video is a Christian video. It implies that god exists as per the bible. The bible says that god interferes with the universe and humans. Thus for them to claim NOMA is hypocritical. This is what Dawkins was saying in his book.
You seem to imply that god does not interfere with the universe. Are you a pantheist? Or maybe a deist?
eproulx 1 year ago
I recommend that every thinking person with an interest in religion and science looks at these videos and purchases the DVD Test of Faith which is excellent. Ian Benson
MissionaryTraining 2 years ago 5