Humans aren't animals.

[KabeRinnaul]

I realize that you either misunderstood me or are taking what I had said out of context.

I may have misunderstood, but the overall thrust of your debate seems to be "religion can't accept science until science accepts religion".

Really?! I didn't know that was an established fact. Tell me the name(s) of the scientist(s) who had won the Nobel Prize for making that discovery.

...what? I never claimed it was fact, or proven, or evidence existed in any form whatsoever, or that I even believed it. I said that deism, a religious concept (in other words, a philosophical or religious belief system), more or less places God as the originator of the Big Bang (a simplification of the Deist idea that God set things into motion and allows natural forces to guide the world's development). Let me emphasize that. I simply said that there are people who believe that God exists, but that the universe can be explained fully through scientific reasoning.

Intelligent Design is neither; it doesn't hold up under scientific testing.

This isn't anything you can scientifically test for. I never disputed the validity of evolutionary theory, either. The theory proposed is simply that evolution took the course it did because something wanted it to. My point, along with my references to deism, was to illustrate that it is possible to accept God without in any way rejecting science.

Sure it does. Again, if science doesn't know something, they don't plug the hole with God. Since science doesn't do that, one cannot say that they are not mutually exclusive.

Science and religion are only mutually exclusive if one can't exist with the other. That's what mutually exclusive means. There are really two very simple arguments to be made here.

1. Can science be used in any way to prove religion false? If so, religion cannot exist within science.
2. Does the existence of God contradict any scientific laws? If so, science cannot exist within religion.

Since the answer to both of those questions is currently "no", we can say that both science and religion can coexist with one another, and therefore are not mutually exclusive.

However, if you are using the term "mutually exclusive" to mean "they share no common ground", are defining science as "understanding the world through observable, measurable, and testable evidence", and religion as "considering the existence of God a factual matter", then yes, they are, on those terms, mutually exclusive, as the existence of God cannot be proven to science's standard.

But, the argument that they do not contradict still stands.

[blas87]

Some people have too much time on their hands.

I believe God created everything living and walking on this earth. However, I also believe that animals and humans are more alike than a lot of people give credit for.

I have seen a gay cat before. I believe they can be gay. I may never see another gay cat again, but I've seen it once and that's enough to prove to me that it can happen.

But comparing animals to humans in essence that "See, gay is ok because animals do it", is a very poor argument. In fact, there shouldn't be an argument. There is nothing different or wrong with gay people, and it's about damn time people just left each other alone and let them be happy with who they love.

[muses_nightmare]

But comparing animals to humans in essence that "See, gay is ok because animals do it", is a very poor argument. In fact, there shouldn't be an argument. There is nothing different or wrong with gay people, and it's about damn time people just left each other alone and let them be happy with who they love.

Well I see the argument as being, it happens all over nature, and humans are not separate from nature therefore it is something occurring naturally within our species as it does in others. Not "because animals do it it's okay" that is a bit of an over simplification.

Then again if some people weren't such bigoted idiots we wouldn't have to have these arguments at all.

[Ipecac Drano]

If something is not explained by science, than it can be explained by religion without any contradiction.

Science is about empirical evidence. Religion is based on just belief. They are two different things.

Whether or not an individual chooses to do so is a moot point, it can be done. Therefore, coexistence is possible.

Once religion enters the laboratory, it's no longer science. Religion already has conclusions. Science doesn't put the cart before the horse.

You seem to imply that, since scientists don't make it their business to address faith, science is anathema to faith.

Not in spiritual matters.

Which is quite the non-seqitur because faith and science are separate fields. Those specializing in one tend not to dabble in the other, by and large, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty who do have an interest in both, to say nothing of the people outside of either who accept the teachings of both.

And they tend to keep religion and science separate.

It's like oil and water, they can't mix together, and will occupy different areas when placed in the same container, but they don't destroy each other.

They're better off in separate containers.

I may have misunderstood, but the overall thrust of your debate seems to be "religion can't accept science until science accepts religion".

Another misunderstanding.

...what? I never claimed it was fact, or proven, or evidence existed in any form whatsoever, or that I even believed it. I said that deism, a religious concept (in other words, a philosophical or religious belief system), more or less places God as the originator of the Big Bang (a simplification of the Deist idea that God set things into motion and allows natural forces to guide the world's development). Let me emphasize that. I simply said that there are people who believe that God exists, but that the universe can be explained fully through scientific reasoning.

Most scientists don't believe that.

This isn't anything you can scientifically test for. I never disputed the validity of evolutionary theory, either. The theory proposed is simply that evolution took the course it did because something wanted it to. My point, along with my references to deism, was to illustrate that it is possible to accept God without in any way rejecting science.

Again, you would have to believe in God a priori. Plus, "evolution took the course it did because something wanted it to" is a summary of ID.

Science and religion are only mutually exclusive if one can't exist with the other. That's what mutually exclusive means. There are really two very simple arguments to be made here.

1. Can science be used in any way to prove religion false? If so, religion cannot exist within science.

Many religious notions have failed scientific testing.

2. Does the existence of God contradict any scientific laws? If so, science cannot exist within religion.

Plain and simple: religion relies on belief. Science doesn't. Any gaps in science are left empty until the scientist finds out what the connection is. Religion just fills in the gaps with "God did it!", without actually observing His presence.

Since the answer to both of those questions is currently "no", we can say that both science and religion can coexist with one another, and therefore are not mutually exclusive.

That "no" is based on your bias and presumption. I already answered both of your questions.

However, if you are using the term "mutually exclusive" to mean "they share no common ground", are defining science as "understanding the world through observable, measurable, and testable evidence", and religion as "considering the existence of God a factual matter", then yes, they are, on those terms, mutually exclusive, as the existence of God cannot be proven to science's standard.

But, the argument that they do not contradict still stands.

That's because you fail to see that they do, in fact, contradict each other.

[KabeRinnaul]

Most scientists don't believe that.

I never said they did.

Again, you would have to believe in God a priori. Plus, "evolution took the course it did because something wanted it to" is a summary of ID.

It's also a belief that can't be disproved by science. My point is that whether or not one believes in a divine being really has no bearing on whether or not that person accepts evolution . While yes, there is a correlation between those who believe in God and those who reject evolution, we should remember that correlation does not equal causation. "God did it" is simply the best alternative theory they have available - which does not mean that everyone who believes in God rejects evolution.

Many religious notions have failed scientific testing.

Which in no way invalidates religion as a whole.

Plain and simple: religion relies on belief. Science doesn't. Any gaps in science are left empty until the scientist finds out what the connection is. Religion just fills in the gaps with "God did it!", without actually observing His presence.

This assumes that the religious person only allows for two possibilities: That which I understand, and that which can be ascribed to God. What about the religious person who accepts that there are gaps in human knowledge that don't need divine intervention to explain?

That "no" is based on your bias and presumption. I already answered both of your questions.

Your "yes" is based on your bias and presumption. You only answered the questions within your assumptions.

That's because you fail to see that they do, in fact, contradict each other.

I'm only failing to agree with your belief that they do.

[Ipecac Drano]

I never said they did.

You might as well have. If they don't believe it, there is no point in bringing it up.

It's also a belief that can't be disproved by science.

Negative Proof fallacy.

My point is that whether or not one believes in a divine being really has no bearing on whether or not that person accepts evolution.

If that is your point, it's the first time you brought it up.

While yes, there is a correlation between those who believe in God and those who reject evolution, we should remember that correlation does not equal causation. "God did it" is simply the best alternative theory they have available - which does not mean that everyone who believes in God rejects evolution.

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. People who believe in God but do not understand science use "God did it" for anything in science that is undiscovered or that they do not understand.

Which in no way invalidates religion as a whole.

I never said it does. It invalidates it as a scientific element.

This assumes that the religious person only allows for two possibilities: That which I understand, and that which can be ascribed to God. What about the religious person who accepts that there are gaps in human knowledge that don't need divine intervention to explain?

Then keeping religion out of science shouldn't be a problem for them.

Your "yes" is based on your bias and presumption. You only answered the questions within your assumptions.

Actually, what I had posted are proven facts.

I'm only failing to agree with your belief that they do.

Sorry that you can't accept the Scientific Method.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

You're stepping over the scientific method here, Ipecac. All the scientific method is, is one way to explain the phenomena we observe through experimentation. It does not mean that which is not observed doesn't exist, it does not mean that anything that cannot be tested does not exist, only that those things are not yet scientific.

[Ipecac Drano]

You're stepping over the scientific method here, Ipecac. All the scientific method is, is one way to explain the phenomena we observe through experimentation. It does not mean that which is not observed doesn't exist, it does not mean that anything that cannot be tested does not exist, only that those things are not yet scientific.

I know. That's why I don't come right out and say that there isn't a God. I say that I don't believe in a God or that there is no evidence thereof. But, for all of those who say that there is one, that God fails testing. That said, there is no point in saying that God has a role in science.

Oh, and, once again: can those who entertain even the slightest notion that there may be a God please get on the same page as the scientists and remember that it's not up to the detractors to disprove God, but that the onus is on the proponents to prove His existence? I know it's irresistible to try to shift the burden of proof, but that's not how it goes.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

No one here said that God plays a role in science, except possibly when someone put forward the example that a theist who accepts science may line up their ducks such that evolution was a system put in place by their god(s). That is not theism playing a role in science, to the contrary, that is religious faith and science playing their separate roles without overlap at the same time. Whether or not the god(s) exist isn't effecting the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution isn't effecting the god(s) or lack thereof. That is coexistence. Separate, but simultaneous.

[crashhelmet]

I'm jumping into this late and I don't have the patience to go back and start quoting from the all of the replies in this thread. Gawd, I hate vacations sometimes

Ipecac... You keep parroting that the onus is on the believers. Why is it that the onus is ALWAYS on the opposing side? Anytime someone argues something that nobody can prove on both sides, the one that spouts off onus always says it's on the other side? Why should I have to prove that God, or any god for that matter, exists if you can't prove that they don't?

"Science doesn't put the cart before the horse." Actually, it does.
Hypothesis:
1a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
1b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

That's pretty much in front of the horse. Yes, it may be up to the scientist to move the cart behind the horse, but he starts off with it in front.

There are a large number of "Scientific Discoveries" that are worked and reworked over and over again until they prove their own hypotheses or theories correct. How many times must Science flip flop on whether or not Milk is good or bad, or if Lycopene fights or causes cancer? Remember, it was science that was wrong about the Earth being flat or the center of the universe. It was Science that was wrong about Pluto being a planet.

Then you said something along the lines of "Science doesn't fill gaps with religious myths" or whatever. No, instead they fill it with guesses, assumptions, and false conclusions.

Scientific testing is not infallible. Even if we get past how willingly it is to be persuaded by those that fund their research, there is still the lack of logic that plays into account.

The Monty Python Witch Trial scene is a prime example of the failures in the Scientific Method.

What has the Scientific Method actually proven? Evolution? I'll agree that evolution exists simply by the fact that we evolve from embryos to full human form. To say that we evolved from primates? I'll concur that we have similarities, but there is no actual proof that we actually evolved from them. Only guesses, assumptions, and conclusions based off of similar findings.

Science never proves facts. It establishes theories that remain theories until disproven. Geocentric? Pluto? Milk? Lycopene? Science requires just as much Faith as religion does.

CH

[Ipecac Drano]

Ipecac... You keep parroting that the onus is on the believers. Why is it that the onus is ALWAYS on the opposing side?

It's not on the opposing side! That's what I just got done telling you people! It's on the proponent!

Anytime someone argues something that nobody can prove on both sides, the one that spouts off onus always says it's on the other side? Why should I have to prove that God, or any god for that matter, exists if you can't prove that they don't?

Because when one uses negative proof as legitimate means, they can prove practically anything, regardless how absurd.

"Science doesn't put the cart before the horse." Actually, it does.
Hypothesis:
1a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
1b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

That's pretty much in front of the horse. Yes, it may be up to the scientist to move the cart behind the horse, but he starts off with it in front.

And that's why science uses more than just hypotheses.

There are a large number of "Scientific Discoveries" that are worked and reworked over and over again until they prove their own hypotheses or theories correct. How many times must Science flip flop on whether or not Milk is good or bad, or if Lycopene fights or causes cancer? Remember, it was science that was wrong about the Earth being flat or the center of the universe.

Nice strawman argument.

It was Science that was wrong about Pluto being a planet.

Just because they made new classifications and reassigned Pluto...

Then you said something along the lines of "Science doesn't fill gaps with religious myths" or whatever. No, instead they fill it with guesses, assumptions, and false conclusions.

Scientific testing is not infallible. Even if we get past how willingly it is to be persuaded by those that fund their research, there is still the lack of logic that plays into account.

So, you're saying that you don't know what a scientific theory is? Let me help you:

In the sciences, a scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.

In the humanities, one finds theories whose subject matter does not (only) concern empirical data, but rather ideas. Such theories are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. A philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment.

The Monty Python Witch Trial scene is a prime example of the failures in the Scientific Method.

You get your education from a comedy troupe? Scientific theory came about centuries after the setting of that skit and replaces the "logic" used therein. If anything, not only is that actually a parody of the evils of religion in medieval times, it sounds alot like the bullshit today's fundies are trying to pass off as science.

What has the Scientific Method actually proven? Evolution? I'll agree that evolution exists simply by the fact that we evolve from embryos to full human form. To say that we evolved from primates? I'll concur that we have similarities, but there is no actual proof that we actually evolved from them. Only guesses, assumptions, and conclusions based off of similar findings.

Another strawman.

Science never proves facts. It establishes theories that remain theories until disproven. Geocentric? Pluto? Milk? Lycopene? Science requires just as much Faith as religion does.

I already responded to those claims. So, in closing, science tests things. Although electricity and gravity can not be actually proven, they do test for positive via science. Religion, on the other hand, relies only on belief. And, from what you had demonstrated, lies and logical fallacy.

[crashhelmet]

It's not on the opposing side! That's what I just got done telling you people! It's on the proponent!

You're laying the onus on the person/people that oppose your viewpoint instead of providing the proof of your position.

Because when one uses negative proof as legitimate means, they can prove practically anything, regardless how absurd.

And Science never does this? Need I bring up milk, lycopene, geocentricity, etc again?

And that's why science uses more than just hypotheses.

Yes, they use tests, research, and personal opinions after establishing the hypothesis.

Nice strawman argument.

Pointing out that science has been wrong repeatedly is a Straw Man argument?

Just because they made new classifications and reassigned Pluto...

Is that your answer for everything else they've been wrong about? Is that how the science apologized for Thalidomide? "We're sorry that your child was born without a foot Mrs. Smith, but we no longer classify the drug as being safe for expectant mothers. You're just going to have to put up with the morning sickness like your mother did."

So, you're saying that you don't know what a scientific theory is? Let me help you:

From the same wiki article you linked. My bolding.

Echoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.

That alone shows that Science is fallible.

You get your education from a comedy troupe? Scientific theory came about centuries after the setting of that skit and replaces the "logic" used therein. If anything, not only is that actually a parody of the evils of religion in medieval times, it sounds alot like the bullshit today's fundies are trying to pass off as science.

Not at all. However, the deductive reasoning displayed in that clip goes hand in hand with the Scientific Method. I assumed you were either intelligent or unbiased enough to figure that out. Forgive me.

Another strawman.

Is this your "I don't have a defense" defense? Prove. Me. Wrong.

I already responded to those claims. So, in closing, science tests things. Although electricity and gravity can not be actually proven, they do test for positive via science. Religion, on the other hand, relies only on belief. And, from what you had demonstrated, lies and logical fallacy.

Now this is a Straw Man argument.

CH

[Ipecac Drano]

You're laying the onus on the person/people that oppose your viewpoint instead of providing the proof of your position.

What part of having the onus on the proponent don't you understand?

And Science never does this?

No.

Need I bring up milk, lycopene, geocentricity, etc again?

Sure. It only hurts your argument.

Yes, they use tests, research, and personal opinions after establishing the hypothesis.

It's even more than that.

Pointing out that science has been wrong repeatedly is a Straw Man argument?

By attacking a couple of things and saying that the same goes for all of science, it is. And, you keep forgetting that science corrects itself.

Is that your answer for everything else they've been wrong about? Is that how the science apologized for Thalidomide? "We're sorry that your child was born without a foot Mrs. Smith, but we no longer classify the drug as being safe for expectant mothers. You're just going to have to put up with the morning sickness like your mother did."

There's that straw man, again.

From the same wiki article you linked. My bolding.


That alone shows that Science is fallible.

Congrats! You've demonstrated that you can cherry pick part of an article and ignore the rest of it!

Not at all. However, the deductive reasoning displayed in that clip goes hand in hand with the Scientific Method. I assumed you were either intelligent or unbiased enough to figure that out. Forgive me.

You're the one who's criticizing something that you don't understand. Go back to school.

Is this your "I don't have a defense" defense? Prove. Me. Wrong.

Just calling it as it is.

Now this is a Straw Man argument.

No. That's your "I don't have a defense" defense.

For someone who doesn't believe in science, it's ironic that you're using a computer, let alone on the Internet. I guess it had miraculously appeared before you and God is powering it?

[crashhelmet]

For someone who doesn't believe in science, it's ironic that you're using a computer, let alone on the Internet. I guess it had miraculously appeared before you and God is powering it?

Where have I said I don't believe in Science? Allow me to place the onus on you to prove this.

I enjoy science. Chemistry and Physics were some of my favorite classes when I was in school. What I don't believe in is the infallibility of Science that so many pro-science, anti-religion people like to spout off. They are just as bad as the fundies or the zealots that use religion for their own personal gains.

Scientific research has brought us many wonderful and advanced things. We have learned a lot in this world because of Science. Those that believe in both Science and Religion would say that Science has allowed us to discover what it was that whatever Deity they choose to worship had created.

Sadly, Science lost its open mind somewhere along the way. Could've been ego, greed, or who knows what else, but Science is not what it used to be.

So bash religion all you want. It doesn't bother me. I'll let you continue to bash religion for believing in imaginary beings and alleged zombies and I'll continue to bash science for the corruption, guess work, and personal egos that continue to cause it to fail. Otherwise, you'll continue to spout off that Science is never wrong, I'll bring up multiple ways to prove that statement wrong, but you'll call it a straw man argument and we'll be at a stalemate. Sound fair?

CH

[muses_nightmare]

Ipecac I just have a question for you. Do you believe that if someone is religious (any religion), they cannot also accept science to be true?

This seems to be the basis of your argument, I'm just curious as to whether I'm misinterpreting that.