Illuminati-R-Us

I have thought this for as long as I can remember:

Science and religion "need not be incompatible," AAAS officials emphasized. "Science and religion ask fundamentally different questions about the world. Many religious leaders have affirmed that they see no conflict between evolution and religion. We and the overwhelming majority of scientists share this view."

Please read:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml

interesting...but what exactly is your point?
states are trying to implement other possiblities other than evolution in their curriculum(sp?)...whopee

I like how my bio teacher explained evolution:
Evolution is the changing of organisims over time.

and according to that definition there is no controversy. People that believe a supreme being made the universe cant deny that things change. and people that believe the big bang and other theories...well they can say that the definition of evolution is something completely different but they can also agree to the validity of evolution

That quote pretty much sums up how I feel also. Religion tries to answer the question why. Science tries to answer the question how.

Ronoh55 wrote:interesting...but what exactly is your point?

I think his point was quite clear:

Bill_Thompson wrote:

Science and religion "need not be incompatible,"

It's a point I happen to agree with even though I am not a religious person. I think hippie said it best though:

hippietrekx wrote:When you get down to it, Science answers how. Religion answers why.

Superluminal wrote:That quote pretty much sums up how I feel also. Religion tries to answer the question why. Science tries to answer the question how.

umm...i think superluminal said it...

Ronoh55 wrote:

Superluminal wrote:That quote pretty much sums up how I feel also. Religion tries to answer the question why. Science tries to answer the question how.

umm...i think superluminal said it...

Hippie said it first, some months ago (if not longer) on (then) BABB.

oh well...who cares...it was said...and as it seems the opinion of all here it will be accepted as fact.

If you want my opinion, Religion shouldn't exist in our modern society, and hopefully, someday, we will not have need of it. I don't like how corrupt it is, how corrupting it is, and how many people use it as an excuse to hate.

But then, I'm a militant atheist, so what do I know?

Not Lonewulf wrote:If you want my opinion, Religion shouldn't exist in our modern society, and hopefully, someday, we will not have need of it. I don't like how corrupt it is, how corrupting it is, and how many people use it as an excuse to hate.

But then, I'm a militant atheist, so what do I know?

Interesting point you made there about science. I give you the Green Party who bases all of their outlandish crap on "science". I also give you any number of social scientists and political scientists.

Animal wrote:Interesting point you made there about science. I give you the Green Party who bases all of their outlandish crap on "science". I also give you any number of social scientists and political scientists.

....Okay?

I'm sorry, I don't get what you're saying. I'm making a comment on religion, not on science.

Not Lonewulf wrote:

Animal wrote:Interesting point you made there about science. I give you the Green Party who bases all of their outlandish crap on "science". I also give you any number of social scientists and political scientists.

....Okay?

I'm sorry, I don't get what you're saying. I'm making a comment on religion, not on science.

That was the point.

Superluminal wrote:That quote pretty much sums up how I feel also. Religion tries to answer the question why. Science tries to answer the question how.

I am impressed. I think that is a good way to put it.

And of course that assumes there actually is a why behind anything. SOmething for which there is no evidence.

Enzo wrote:And of course that assumes there actually is a why behind anything. SOmething for which there is no evidence.

This comment does not add up to me. With tangable evidence something becomes science and is no longer religion. Once you can see or observe something it is something to study. It is then a science.

Bill_Thompson wrote:

Enzo wrote:And of course that assumes there actually is a why behind anything. SOmething for which there is no evidence.

This comment does not add up to me. With tangable evidence something becomes science and is no longer religion. Once you can see or observe something it is something to study. It is then a science.

And why can't explaining "why" be a science? Even if the answer isn't easily answerable today, can you really say that it will never be answerable in an objective format in the future?

I'd much rather use science instead of faith to explain the "why".

Bill, as I said, there is no evidence of any kind that there even exists a WHY for things. So by your own words:

"With tangable evidence something becomes science and is no longer religion. Once you can see or observe something it is something to study. It is then a science."

Since there is no evidence, it ain't science, for sure. But your argument ignores the other side of the coin:

ANything that is evidential is science, and something non-evidential might not be. But the reverse is not necessarily the same. Something without evidence is not necessarily non- scientific.

All non-oblongs are non-eggs, but all oblongs are not eggs.

So we are left with religion to answer a question we don't even have.

If there were a WHY, then religion would be welcome to it.

Enzo wrote:
ANything that is evidential is science, and something non-evidential might not be. But the reverse is not necessarily the same. Something without evidence is not necessarily non- scientific.

I am not so sure.

Can you give me an example? What is there without evidence that is scientific?

------------------------------------------

I think there is a why.

Hawking is working on that right now and he has been stuck on it for at least the last 10 years. He said it himself that he is trying to find out "...why does the universe bothers to exist".

The biggest puzzle of all is the fact that logically there shouldn't be anything anywhere. But there is.

-----------------------------------------

I think you are defining "why" as meaning the same thing as "for what purpose" which is subjective and matter of emotion and depression.

I'm gonna have to go with Thompson on this one (shock! Horror!)

Enzo wrote:Bill, as I said, there is no evidence of any kind that there even exists a WHY for things. So by your own words:

"With tangable evidence something becomes science and is no longer religion. Once you can see or observe something it is something to study. It is then a science."

Since there is no evidence, it ain't science, for sure. But your argument ignores the other side of the coin:

ANything that is evidential is science, and something non-evidential might not be. But the reverse is not necessarily the same. Something without evidence is not necessarily non- scientific.

All non-oblongs are non-eggs, but all oblongs are not eggs.

So we are left with religion to answer a question we don't even have.

If there were a WHY, then religion would be welcome to it.

But religion makes an assumption; that's what faith is, an assumption. There is nothing to point the way, so you suddenly say, "God must've done it". It's a logical fallacy, but it's only okay because everyone else says it's okay to believe in God (except for the odd Atheist, but no one cares about them).

Just because we don't have evidence *today* doesn't mean we won't have evidence *in the future*. If so, why bother with an assumption?

I mean, how should we explain Dark Matter, then? Something out there that we can't quite explain *yet*, or God playing with the Universe? If the latter, then why bother to try to find another answer if you're relying on faith?

Explaining why the Universe came into existance could easily become a case of science; you just need to find the evidence that we currently do not have.

I was not being just rhetorical. I would really like an example. Can you give me an example?

What is there without evidence that is scientific?

I never want to miss an opportunity to sharpen or even change my opinion.

When I think of why? in the religous context, I think of questions such as Why are we here?

I guess that if one of these days, the next Space Telescope sees god sitting on a throne, then religion will become a science because we would have something to study.

Science is an approach, religion is an assertion. It becomes science when it becomes testable, whether you have done the test or not. No test, no evidence. Is why testable?

What is the logic that results in "there shouldn't be anything anywhere."? It seems to you maybe, but what is the if, then, therefore that says nothing should be here?

And let us not confuse the words "why" here.

When we ask why there is a rock on the ground, we can answer it with "it fell from up on the cliff." There is no implication of purpose. The "why" of the universe or our existence or other philosophical nonsense implies a purpose. The answer to why am I here is not that the bus dropped me off here, or that my parents bred, or that evolution finally came to its finest flower. The answer to that question is some sort of purpose from above. No reason to think that even exists.

Y'know, I think I got lost on who's arguing what. But I'll respond to Enzo, since I *think* I get the gist of his post...

Enzo wrote:Science is an approach, religion is an assertion. It becomes science when it becomes testable, whether you have done the test or not. No test, no evidence. Is why testable?

Yes, it is. We do not have the means to test it, but we constantly ask how things come to be. If we find the Origin Factor (in the far future), then it will be science to say Why. If a God is proven to exist, then we can show that this god guy had a reason to create the universe. If no God exists, and we show that it was random chance, we can probably come up with the figures (with enough time) to show how they came together.

Just because we can't answer the "how" question presently doesn't mean we never cam.

When we ask why there is a rock on the ground, we can answer it with "it fell from up on the cliff." There is no implication of purpose. The "why" of the universe or our existence or other philosophical nonsense implies a purpose. The answer to why am I here is not that the bus dropped me off here, or that my parents bred, or that evolution finally came to its finest flower. The answer to that question is some sort of purpose from above. No reason to think that even exists.

I agree with the last sentence. No reason to think that an Omnipotent force exists (if that's what you meant).

But I still think "why" is answerable, just not presently. Just because we don't have the means today, doesn't mean we can't develop it in the far future.

Enzo wrote:or that evolution finally came to its finest flower.

<sorry, carry on>

Mnyah...


Wulf, this is deeper than I have an interest in debating, but to pick a nit, how and why are not the same. If we eventually discover unequivocally how we came to be, that doesn't speak to a why, unless God pops in and says hello. If we are the result of random actions, then by definition there is no why. If something is not a purposeful act, then it has no why.

I tried in my own clumsy way to draw a distinction between why are we here as in what is the intended purpose of our being here, and why are we here in the sense of what process led to our existence. The former is the cosmic philosophical dilema and the latter is the how question.

Enzo wrote:Wulf, this is deeper than I have an interest in debating, but to pick a nit, how and why are not the same. If we eventually discover unequivocally how we came to be, that doesn't speak to a why, unless God pops in and says hello.

And if we run into our Creator, we can ask him/her. Thus, "Why" is potentially knowable.

If we are the result of random actions, then by definition there is no why. If something is not a purposeful act, then it has no why.

And if we discover that this theory is correct in the far future, then there is no why. Hence, the "Why" (or lack thereof) is knowable.

Just because we can't answer the question *now* doesn't remove it's potential answering.