time to renounce religion..

[Mickymoody]

I skipped most the thread; Stephen Hawkings described the universe as huge, but what if we are an atom, and the planets/stars are protons spinning around? Everything we know and understand so far, could be based on the fact that we are an unseen atom, floating around in some other world. We are some microbacterial worm in a world that is far greater, what we are, is normal to us, but at an atomic level, only visible by uninvented by microscopes yet unavailable, to 'others' that see us as atomic level viruses?

 

[uzziel49]

If scientist A had a long held theory that he based his work on, and scientist B set out to disprove that theory, you'd expect scientist A to care - yes? He has faith in his theory based on his own understanding and experience. Yet you expect a non-scientist not to care under the same circumstances? We instinctively defend what we hold dear, otherwise it wouldn't be important.

Personally, Dawkins can say whatever he likes, it's a free country. Others may respond differently, that's their call.

BigTone - interesting to see that you don't hold to evolutionary theory. The notion that all the animals which may or may not have been in the Ark would be exactly as they are today....? It's always dangerous to view the past through the lens of today.

 

[uzziel49]

Science does not deal in absolutes, only in the best explanation at any given time for a given experience. Which kind of implies that science can never categorically prove anything - we simply choose to believe that what any given scientist says on any given subject is the truth. That truth can be modified/adjusted/revised based on further experience.

Science told us that Thalidomide was safe after trials. Further experience revealed this not to be the case. People took the drug on faith, their subsequent experiences showed that this faith in some cases was tragicaly unfounded. Truth was adjusted in the light of ths experience.

Science asks us to take the truth on trust. Which is essentially what organised religion does.

 

[sooey]

Science told us that Thalidomide was safe after trials. Further experience revealed this not to be the case.

The trials were obviously flawed, and not rigorous enough.

Science asks us to take the truth on trust. Which is essentially what organised religion does.

Rubbish, the difference is scientific theories can be disproved, fairy stories can't. You stick to your faith if you like, but don't compare it to science. Science is basically man's eternal quest for the knowledge which will explain everything. You only compound your stupidity by attempting to compare that with mumbo jumbo dreamt up by primitives thousands of years ago, and which has nothing whatsoever to do with searching for truth.

 

[vsynth]

Which kind of implies that science can never categorically prove anything Science asks us to take the truth on trust. Which is essentially what organised religion does.

This is true, but science maybe isn't about proving things, it is about predicting how the universe and everything in it works.

Hawking says that a goldfish in a round bowl would have a distorted view of reality, but ( if it was a clever goldfish) could still come up with theories that could predict the behaviour of the world that it could see.

You can only ever have a theoretical model of how things work because it is all down to how humans perceive what they are seeing/experiencing from their viewpoint in the universe.

A more accurate theory comes along and most people will jump ship from the old out of date theory...e.g. the world is flat.

At least science keeps my beer cold in the fridge, what has religion ever done for us

And yes, sometimes a 'better' religion comes along and people convert to it so there is another similarity.

 

[Big Tone]

Btw, do you mean Hawking, or Dawkins? Guess it doesn't matter for your point.

I did mean Hawking and his latest revelation that God has no place in the creation of the Universe.

Science won over religion the day they started to fit lightning conductors on churches.

 

[uzziel49]

Soory, how can you defer to science with such a closed mind

 

[uzziel49]

The trials were obviously flawed, and not rigorous enough

Only obvious in the light of subsequent experience. At the time the trials were not flawed and were rigorous enough. You have said you'll only take evidence proven by science. Science changes its tune without impunity, the interpretation of fact it provided yesterday will have changed tomorrow based on the experience of today.

 

[uzziel49]

Science won over religion the day they started to fit lightning conductors on churches.

 

[sooey]

Soory, how can you defer to science with such a closed mind

Science is about searching for truth, which by it's definition has to be open minded. The ones with closed minds are the people who say "god done it" and want to leave it at that.

 

[uzziel49]

But you say that as if only science can provide truth - but to my mind that's a narrow view to have. Only a practitioner of science can tell me the truth? I don't think so, and I've never met a scientist of any discipline who would say so either. Perhaps I misunderstood?

BTW sooey, I hope this is all going down as banter, I've no interest in persuading anyone to any particular viewpoint, but I do enjoy a good discussion. As I've said before, all views are valid to those that hold them, and most can co-exist quite happily. It's extremism of any type that causes problems. I personally believe that Intelligent Design and Evolution can share the same philosophical space and that notion to some degree informs the way I approach life. Others see things in a different light. But the important thing to me is that if we were walking side by side down the street, you wouldn't know any difference....

 

[Big Tone]

Others see things in a different light. But the important thing to me is that if we were walking side by side down the street, you wouldn't know any difference....

Yes, quite.

As Antoine de Saint-Exupery might say, ‘loving is not just looking at each other, it's looking in the same direction’.

Speaking as someone who works with just about every faith under the sun, in the health service, I can honestly say it has been both a pleasure and an eye-opener to work with them all.

Some have what I can describe as very stereotypical Islamic names and pray several times a day but so what, it's not hurting anyone. They have a respect and reverence for life which is second to none and it’s these wonderful people who make me question the minority of fanatical terrorists and where exactly they get the idea that you can go around killing people for some cause?

 

[sooey]

Now we're getting to it, you're a creationist, fine by me though I don't share your views and find some of your posts rather patronising and frankly, incredulous. But hey it takes all sorts.

 

[uzziel49]

Sooey, you've probably gathered that I think the same to some of your posts But you know what? The sun still rose this morning....

If you wanted to know, you could have just asked

 

[Nige F]

Science does not deal in absolutes,

Science asks us to take the truth on trust. Which is essentially what organised religion does.

I`ll take it on trust that the P*pe visit will cost £14million - but the R*man Catholic church will foot the bill, then Also I wouldn`t pay £20 to see the self appointed "representative" pontificating @ a stadium - I`ll just wait and see his Boss for free ( every eye shall see Him ) OR not , as the case may be