CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: The "Science -vs- Religion" debate...

[DoggyDaddy]

God cannot be proved. Some use this as an excuse to claim, therefore God does not exist. Yet so many things exist that cannot be proved beyond doubt. And perhaps God prefers it that way. The Christian religion places a great deal of importance on "faith." Faith being the a belief in that which is true but lacks evidence.

Some suffering from an over abundance in confidence forget 2 things. 1. Every few years a ton of stuff that we have "proved." is found to be only partially true, untrue, or faked by the "research" team. and 2. God cannot be proved but He cannot be disproved either.

What really interests me is why Atheists get so upset about seeing Christian things and hearing Christian prayers. When hear someone talking about something that I consider to be a fairy tale, I roll my eyes and move on. I don't claim offense, I don't try to have their speech banned, I don't even care if they sing about it in public schools. What I believe is going on here is complex --but in many cases, I think these people (who claim to be offended by everything Christian) really do believe that there is a God (subconsciously, perhaps) and they know that they are acting against His will or they desire to act against His will, and thus they use these behaviours as a defense mechanism. Seriously, if you really didn't believe, how can it be that offensive to you? Hmmmm. Paging Dr. Freud....

My opinion, as a highly educated scientist and a Christian, is that God and religion are not necessarily at odds and those who think they are (from either camp,) are no where near as smart as they think they are.

Along these lines, there was a kid I went to school with that, in 8th grade, claimed he was an atheist (of course the next week he might claim he was Jesus - he was kind of out there). One day in our health class, Mr. Hunt, the very southern gym teacher that was teaching the class, confronted him about his claim. He asked, "Do you ever take the Lord's name in vain? Do you ever say God d*** it?" The kid said, "Well yeah I do." Mr. Hunt's reply was, "Then you're no atheist. If you didn't believe in Him, then why would you even use His name?"

 

[DanSwanky]

Still wondering why there is a "vs".

I suppose we could debate Glocks vs. Helium just as effectively.

It's a BOUTIN AT THE MOUNTAIN!!!!
Jesus "El Savior" Christ vs Bill Nye the Science Guy

 

[CathyInBlue]

Something that has always occurred to me in the discussion of God and science...

Using science, we can, through gas chromatography, completely burn say, an earthworm, and determine its exact chemical makeup. What we cannot do, is to take those chemicals, and put them together in the exact same proportions, and end up with an earthworm. All we end up with is a bunch of chemical "glop". What is the "essence" that we cannot reproduce, that makes a bunch of chemicals an earthworm? From whence comes that which is missing? That "spark of life" so to speak? If science is truly "all there is", why can't we make a living, functioning earthworm?

By burning the earthworm, we render it down into those constituent chemicals. We are never going to use gas chromatography to instantly derive a list of chemicals and their quantities for specimen: earthworm. I guarantee you such a gas chromatography experiment will come up short of all of the chemicals and the correct quantities for reproducing an earthworm in the lab.

What is missing is structure, the ways in which all of those chemicals are put together. Ever play with an Erector set as a kid? I did. Lots and lots of screws and spars and panels, a predefined set of constituent parts. What was missing was the design. Several predefined designs were provided in the booklet in the box, and I followed many of them to produce… I can't even remember what all now… things. Models of cars, trucks, planes. Oh, there was definitely a crane in there somewhere. But, because the parts I had to work with were limited, as a child's toy must be, the things I produced were only ever models of the real things in the world taken as inspiration for their design. I would never be able to take my Erector crane out into the yard and use it to lift a parcel of roofing shingles up onto the roof. Nevermind the strength of the Erector components, the scale alone would make that prohibitive.

Now, imagine taking a truly complete list of earthworm components. You could no more expect to pour them all into a beaker in the correct proportions and have them instantly self-assemble into a brand new earthworm than you would to be able to dump the contents of the Erector set out onto the floor and have them all self-assemble into a crane, with all its screws properly tightened and the little string properly threaded and wound on the crank. The earthworm is simply too complex for that. You would have to take all of the molecules that make up the earthworm's cells' membranes and painstakingly reassemble those membranes for each and every cell. Then, you'd have to reassemble on the molecular level all of the organelles within those cells an insert them. And once you had a pile of different cell types, skin, nerve, blood, muscle, etc., you would have to assemble the molecules which form the non-living materials, the connective tissue, the sinew, ligaments, blood vessels that organize the placement and relationship of cell to cell. And, since chemistry would be continuing to act on all of your earthworm Erector set molecules, you'd have to do this all instantly to prevent decay and oxidation which changes those molecules into other molecules that the living earthworm doesn't actually possess or can't actually live with.

If you could do all that, you would have yourself a new, living earthworm from unliving constituent chemicals.

We don't have the technology to do this with a microbe like a bacteria… yet. But we will… eventually.

This is the same basic thought problem of the Star Trek transporter. How do you take a You from location A, make the You begin existing at location B and stop you from continuing to exist at location A? The fiction writers designed an apparatus called a transporter that takes a snapshot of your constituent matter, right down to the subatomic particles, nevermind chemicals, the location and arrangement and momentum relationships of every proton, neutron, electron, not to mention the quarks, neutrinoes and force and charge carrying particles, then renders all of that matter to energy, beams that energy to some far off place, where it reassembles it all back into the exact same arrangement of which it had previously taken a snapshot, and do this nearly instantly. The place real science threw a plasmic monkey wrench into this idea was the part where the transporter was supposed to instantly measure both the position and momentum of every particle in your body simultaneously.

There's a principle in physics called the Heisenburg (nothing whatsoever to do with blue meth) Uncertainty Principle. The HUP says that it's impossible to measure a particle's location and its momentum simultaneously. You can measure its momentum with extreme accuracy, but then you don't know with any certainty where that particle was, or you can measure its location with extreme accuracy, but then you'll not be able to know with any certainty where its momentum was carrying it or how fast. To deal with this, the show's writers for ST:TNG came up with a magical device called the Heisenburg Compensator to hand-wave around the limitations of current real-world physics for their science fiction program. This doesn't in any way prevent the Star Trek transporter from being a fertile source for philosophic debate. Such as, if you just dumped a buttload of matter into the matter buffer for the transporter to use and disabled the transporter's disintegration beams so it couldn't break down the original of the You that it's transporting, and then instructed it to transport the You to location B, and it did so without harming the You at location A, could it then, essentially, clone the You. There would still be the original You at location A, as well as the version the transporter made from the provided matter at location B, which would be identical to the You at location A in absolutely every way at the moment of transport. Of course, the moment each of the Yous took a breath of air, you would be breathing completely unique molecules of air from two different locations, and the Yous' eyes would be perceiving completely unique photons from completely unique light sources, so the You, Mk. A and the You, Mk. B would begin evolving along completely unique life paths from then on, but the question remains, which one is the copy and which the original? Whither the soul? Fun stuff to think about.

I've thrown at least two verbal landmines into all of that above. Let's see who chooses to step on them.

 

[CathyInBlue]

More like Bill "The Mechanical Engineering Guy" Nye.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

*SNIP*

What is missing is structure, the ways in which all of those chemicals are put together. *SNIP*

I would suggest that even if we could get the structure right, completely right, what we would end up with would be no more than a lifeless model of an earthworm. What makes it "alive"? 'Splain that one Lucy.

 

[cobber]

How about psychiatry vs. religion?

Which is more subjective and faith-based?

(Assuming most here would grant that psychiatry is a 'science' since it's practiced by [non-witch] doctors...)

 

[ViperJock]

So Heisenberg and Schroedinger are flying down the highway and get pulled over by a cop. (Neither were carrying so that didn't come up and neither were immediately jackbooted. Can I continue now? Thanks.)
the cop says, "You boys know how fast you were going? Where you going in such a hurry?" To which, Heisenberg replies, "Sir, don't taze me, but I can only answer one of those questions, which would you prefer?" The cop (nearly oppresses him but decides not to in case someone is recording) responds "oh a wise ass, huh? You boys sit tight I'll be right back". And off he goes to his patrol car to determine which privacy rights he can violate. On his way back up to the car, he notices a cat in the back seat and says, "do you fellas know your cat is dead?" At which point, Schroedinger (having had all he could take) throws his hands in the air and yells, "well he is now!!!"

 

[CathyInBlue]

What really interests me is why Atheists get so upset about seeing Christian things and hearing Christian prayers.

I can't speak for every Atheist, but as for myself, I don't. But I suspect that that was not the real question you were trying to ask. I suspect the question you were trying to ask was two fold: "Why does anyone, Atheist or otherwise, want to eject permanent installations of Christian iconography from public spaces?" and "Why does anyone, Atheist or otherwise, want to eject religious tenets, Christian or otherwise, from public science classrooms?"

The answer to the first one is likewise two-fold: Money and equity before the law. The government which holds jurisdiction over those public spaces is forbidden by the first amendment from establishing that any one religion is preferred in public spaces over any other religions. It's therefore a slap in the face to those citizens who have been taxed by that government to see that government take the money it's taken from those citizens and put it toward the promotion of a religion that those citizens do not believe in. Second, in the same vein, it makes those citizens that do not believe in the religion the government is promoting with permanent iconographic installations feel that that government will not treat them fairly when it comes to all other required interactions the government demands of those citizens, prosecution of crime, automobile licensing, zoning, building permits, etc., etc. To this first amendment prohibitions, religious people in government have been given a choice by the SCOTUS. 1) they can choose to create no installations which promote any religion. 2) if they must create installations which promote any religion, they must allow any other religion to be represented which anyone from the community wishes to include. Christians in the county government want a Christmas tree on the court house lawn in December? Fine, but the Jewish community will absolutely be accommodated if they choose to erect a menorah, the Atheists get to erect a billboard stating their beliefs, the Festivus folks get to erect a Festivus Pole, the Kwanzaa folks get to do whatever Kwanzaa does in December, etc., etc. If you want one, you have to take all. All or none, that is the choice.

The answer to the second one is that we don't want to graduate a generation of new citizens who are scientificly illiterate. That is what happens when Intelligent Design is offered as a plausible explanation for the world around us. If earthworms formed just 6,000 - 7,000 years ago because god spoke them into existence, or if cellular biology works the way it does just because its god's will, then there's no reason for students to study the chemistry of cellular metabolism in any detail because whatever the cells do is just part of god's grand plan. If gravity is just a theory and the ways in which mechanical objects can be assembled is able to be affected by prayer, then there's no reason for mechanical engineers to worry their pretty little heads about all those structural load calculations, just build the bridge and then pray that it stays up, and that's good enough. If we want our bridges and buildings to stay up when we build them, if we want our diseases to actually succumb to the next generation of medicines that we develope to fight them, then we want only solid science to be taught in our classrooms.

Other nations see these debates that take place in American government hearings over whether there should be a chapter describing Intelligent Design in our high school biology textbooks and they have basicly three reactions. One is horror, because so many in those countries want to move to our country to gain the benefit of what would otherwise be our top notch education system, but if we're gonna be teaching what from their perspective is fairy tales as science, then that's something they don't want their children to be exposed to. The second is to lick their chops, because they realize that with their own children being educated in their own schools about genuine science, their children will be able to out-compete the miseducated Americans in the global job market. The third is a mixture of both, because even though our primary and secondary education system is suffering from the continuing onslaught of the ID proponents (thankfully slapped down by SCOTUS every time so far), our post-secondary education system is still top notch, so those foreign parents can still send their well-educated secondary school graduates to America for a college education, where they will compete against the products of American public miseducation, and compete quite well there-with. But, at the same time, if all this religion-as-science just will not die in American education, they wonder how long it will be before even the colleges are co-opted into teaching it.

 

[seedubs1]

You're making the mistake of lumping all atheists into one. It would be the same as if I lumped all Christians in with the Whalesboro Baptist Church.

Personally, I'm just sick of seeing the one sidedness. For example, in my city council meetings, they start out the meeting with a Christian prayer. There is something wrong with that. I live in a very diverse area, and not all constituents that are being represented (or should be represented...) in those meetings are Christian. In fact, the percentage that should be being represented that are not Christian here is quite large.

What really interests me is why Atheists get so upset about seeing Christian things and hearing Christian prayers. When hear someone talking about something that I consider to be a fairy tale, I roll my eyes and move on. I don't claim offense, I don't try to have their speech banned, I don't even care if they sing about it in public schools. What I believe is going on here is complex --but in many cases, I think these people (who claim to be offended by everything Christian) really do believe that there is a God (subconsciously, perhaps) and they know that they are acting against His will or they desire to act against His will, and thus they use these behaviours as a defense mechanism. Seriously, if you really didn't believe, how can it be that offensive to you? Hmmmm. Paging Dr. Freud....

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I can't speak for every Atheist, but as for myself, I don't. But I suspect that that was not the real question you were trying to ask. I suspect the question you were trying to ask was two fold: "Why does anyone, Atheist or otherwise, want to eject permanent installations of Christian iconography from public spaces?" and "Why does anyone, Atheist or otherwise, want to eject religious tenets, Christian or otherwise, from public science classrooms?"

The answer to the first one is likewise two-fold: Money and equity before the law. The government which holds jurisdiction over those public spaces is forbidden by the first amendment from establishing that any one religion is preferred in public spaces over any other religions. It's therefore a slap in the face to those citizens who have been taxed by that government to see that government take the money it's taken from those citizens and put it toward the promotion of a religion that those citizens do not believe in. Second, in the same vein, it makes those citizens that do not believe in the religion the government is promoting with permanent iconographic installations feel that that government will not treat them fairly when it comes to all other required interactions the government demands of those citizens, prosecution of crime, automobile licensing, zoning, building permits, etc., etc. To this first amendment prohibitions, religious people in government have been given a choice by the SCOTUS. 1) they can choose to create no installations which promote any religion. 2) if they must create installations which promote any religion, they must allow any other religion to be represented which anyone from the community wishes to include. Christians in the county government want a Christmas tree on the court house lawn in December? Fine, but the Jewish community will absolutely be accommodated if they choose to erect a menorah, the Atheists get to erect a billboard stating their beliefs, the Festivus folks get to erect a Festivus Pole, the Kwanzaa folks get to do whatever Kwanzaa does in December, etc., etc. If you want one, you have to take all. All or none, that is the choice.

The answer to the second one is that we don't want to graduate a generation of new citizens who are scientificly illiterate. That is what happens when Intelligent Design is offered as a plausible explanation for the world around us. If earthworms formed just 6,000 - 7,000 years ago because god spoke them into existence, or if cellular biology works the way it does just because its god's will, then there's no reason for students to study the chemistry of cellular metabolism in any detail because whatever the cells do is just part of god's grand plan. If gravity is just a theory and the ways in which mechanical objects can be assembled is able to be affected by prayer, then there's no reason for mechanical engineers to worry their pretty little heads about all those structural load calculations, just build the bridge and then pray that it stays up, and that's good enough. If we want our bridges and buildings to stay up when we build them, if we want our diseases to actually succumb to the next generation of medicines that we develope to fight them, then we want only solid science to be taught in our classrooms.

Other nations see these debates that take place in American government hearings over whether there should be a chapter describing Intelligent Design in our high school biology textbooks and they have basicly three reactions. One is horror, because so many in those countries want to move to our country to gain the benefit of what would otherwise be our top notch education system, but if we're gonna be teaching what from their perspective is fairy tales as science, then that's something they don't want their children to be exposed to. The second is to lick their chops, because they realize that with their own children being educated in their own schools about genuine science, their children will be able to out-compete the miseducated Americans in the global job market. The third is a mixture of both, because even though our primary and secondary education system is suffering from the continuing onslaught of the ID proponents (thankfully slapped down by SCOTUS every time so far), our post-secondary education system is still top notch, so those foreign parents can still send their well-educated secondary school graduates to America for a college education, where they will compete against the products of American public miseducation, and compete quite well there-with. But, at the same time, if all this religion-as-science just will not die in American education, they wonder how long it will be before even the colleges are co-opted into teaching it.

I lol'd through that whole spiel.

 

[CathyInBlue]

What makes it "alive"? 'Splain that one Lucy.

Electro-chemistry. Life is the self-perpetuating sequence of chemical reactions which allows an organism to perpetuate itself macroscopicly. The tree is alive because it takes in sunlight, water, and CO[SUB]2[/SUB], which allows it to emit O[SUB]2 [/SUB]and grow its tissues larger, grow and shed flowers and leaves, etc. The earthworm is alive if it can continue to operate its muscles through muscular contraction and relaxation due to the impulses of nerves, which allows it to seek out new food sources to digest for fuel. Electro-chemical reactions, one and all. And I believe I mentioned that piles of raw constituent chemicals would decay and oxidize and no longer be the original chemicals that composed the earthworm above, did I not. So, there is definitely a time/freshness constraint on this earthworm construction project.

So, if you managed to build a fresh earthworm, and the electro-chemistry did not immediately take over, it would be because you didn't include enough molecular energy in the cells when you built them instantaneously.

Note that I'm a physicist, not a chemist or a biologist, so if you asked a chemist or a biologist, you're likely to get a substantially more detailed answer than this.

Biology is just applied chemistry.
Chemistry is just applied atomic physics.
But physics is just applied math.

How can you tell the three principle sciences apart? If it wiggles, it's biology. If it stinks, it's chemistry. And if it doesn't work, it's physics.

 

[cobber]

But, at the same time, if all this religion-as-science just will not die in American education, they wonder how long it will be before even the colleges are co-opted into teaching it.

If only universities had opted out of the culture wars altogether...


Personally I find the assault on the 1st A (and 2d) far more worrisome that that some school districts would want to teach some variation on ID. I'm not sure ID typifies Christian scientific belief anyway. Seems like a nice straw man for an argument to consign Christians to the looney bin.


At what point does secularism become religion-like, when those in the Ivory towers still want to teach their own 'values' to the young. Just not 'religious' ones...

 

[CathyInBlue]

I lol'd through that whole spiel.

Thou retort doth wound me in my soul, sir.

 

[seedubs1]

I also laughed through that whole spiel. Not because I disagree with it, but because it was spot on.

Thou retort doth wound me in my soul, sir.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

...the Atheists get to erect a billboard stating their beliefs...

what would it say?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

what would it say?

This I gotta see

 

[hoosierdoc]

In a universe where entropy is a ruling factor, I find it curious that such beautiful organization, symmetry, and complicated systems exist, since entropy tells us the natural order is randomness and disorder.

To view the human eye as the result of random mutation is quite the stretch. An organ fails if the nerve is severed, and a nerve won't mantain if the organ is removed. So how did a massively complex system "evolve" where both key portions cannot exist without simultaneous function of each other? Answer... It can't.

 

[DanSwanky]

what would it say?

Something like "We are just as open minded as Christians."

 

[hoosierdoc]

Something like "We are just as open minded as Christians."

I despise the term "open-minded".

 

[jamil]

Along these lines, there was a kid I went to school with that, in 8th grade, claimed he was an atheist (of course the next week he might claim he was Jesus - he was kind of out there). One day in our health class, Mr. Hunt, the very southern gym teacher that was teaching the class, confronted him about his claim. He asked, "Do you ever take the Lord's name in vain? Do you ever say God d*** it?" The kid said, "Well yeah I do." Mr. Hunt's reply was, "Then you're no atheist. If you didn't believe in Him, then why would you even use His name?"

Because "Ra damn" it just doesn't work?

For people who don't believe in god, they're just words.