Though I don't believe in any gods, I wish this point of view In the same manner why do people insist on bringing religion into the realm of science?, was more widespread.

If religion was exclusive of science there wouldn't be much left for religion is, I feel, the reason why it's not widespread. Where "god(s)" has been an answer for unknowns historically (alcohol in wine, fertility, our creation, morals, etc, etc) it just isn't good enough, or the case anymore. Science has striven, in a way that religion cannot, to explain the things that gods were thought to be responsible for previously. Gods have been and are still being pushed out to the extremities. Because of that science is under attack from religion and pseudo-religion (perversely so with biological science) so much these days. If science had got it so wrong you'd think they'd leave well alone?

I am a scientist and someone who believes in God. Maybe not the way the Bible describes him, as it was written by man and therefore flawed, but I still believe that there is a higher being. We don't have the scientific methods to test for him (or her =)!

It's because science and religion contradict in many areas, such as how humans came to exist.

-

But it's true that science can't explain everything. For everything outside the domain of science we have philosophy. However philosophy is similar to science in that it is based on rational thought rather than faith.

Because the realm of science is slowly consuming the realm of religion. It wasn't so long ago that religion was used to explain how the Sun moved through the sky, and where sickness came from. And now we have physics, biology, and a host of other bodies of knowledge.

It's reasonable to assume that this trend will continue. Therefore, it's also reasonable to wonder what remaining areas of religion will be replaced by science.

Science and religion (particularly Christianity) intersect in positive ways. For instance, it was Christianity that gave us the modern university system, and helped to keep scholarship alive through the middle ages. The Church also gave us the scientific method, and has assisted in many other scientific advancements throughout the ages. The Vatican even has fully-funded scientific commissions. Moreover, the Church has relied upon science to help it form opinions of the world. For instance, the Church relies upon science to provide the facts which it then analyzes using philosophy and theology, and then arrives at a conclusion (for instance, that slavery is evil). The fact is, though, it's not really possible for Christianity/philosophy/theology and science (that is, the search for truth in the physical world) to conflict, since they address different questions.

For obvious reasons: religions claims to explain the foundation and structure of the universe without good enough evidence. It is therefore the duty of scientific thinking people to point that out - that the evidence is flawed

Religion and science must be compared because science is the basis for everything else, why wouldn't you apply science when determining if god is exists or not? This is an absurd argument!

While religion attacks science, science must defend itself. We saw life without learning in the middle ages. Bad, weren't they? Therefore, trying to hide fact because a book, supposedly written by a god that has not been proven, is an attack on learning and science. Why should we go simply with what the bible says? That is why people bring science and religion into comparison, because as one disproves parts of the other, the other sticks to its dogma and tries to ban science. That is wrong.

Totally agree. This happens WAY too much and I think that there is a way that someday will allow the two to go hand in hand. Plus, as a Catholic, I DO believe in God

Yes, but you are not the only person with faith on this planet. There are many people all over the world that have faith too, and they KNOW that they are right and that you are wrong. They KNOW it because they have faith. Many of the beliefs that you have are mutually exclusive to those of others, so no matter how much faith you have one of you MUST be wrong. Do you understand why proof is needed now?

So you believe even though you have no evidence for or against, you just have faith because you have faith because you have faith.... You are a classic drone because if you accept no evidence nothing can sway you, your mind is closed. In the real world nothing is for certain but everything can be backed with some kind of evidence. If it can't it doesn't exist.

In India, there was a young girl born with 8 limbs, part of a rare condition where a conjoined twin did not fully develop, and due to malnutrition, the twin began to reabsorb the body of the other twin. Now, to many in India, this is a miracle, and she is the reincarnation of Ganesh, however western science understands the root cause of this deformity and realizes that without help, the girl would die a horribly painful death. Indeed, her parasitic twin thing was removed eventually, however is this a miracle or a mutation? These 'amazing stories' do not account for alternate explanations and show how ignorant some people are.

"You hear amazing stories everyday."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

-

"How is it that each and every one of todays problems is told as a verse in the bible, with an amazing example of how to deal with it."

The bible was written by several people over a long period of time. It is a collection of a great deal of wisdom. It's mainly the supernatural parts that I object to.

The bible is not proof for god. That would be considered circular reasoning.

"Rather I believe because I find that it makes sense with me."

To be honest, you could really have stopped at that rather telling statement. It's rather funny that you then go on to argue that you find atheists arrogant because they state that religion is something people use to explain things they don't understand. Isn't that really exactly what you just admitted to doing?

"I find it comforting and many arrogant atheists have stated that religion is something that "common," "ignorant" people used to explain things they did not understand."

I assume you're aware that in nearly every study made on the subject, the religious have a lower average IQ than atheists?

The theory of evolution explains the development of complex organisms without the need for an interventionist creator. Indeed, it explains it more adequately than an omniscient, omnipotent creator, because it also explains all the mistakes that were made along the way; witness the "blind spot" human eyes have as a result of having the light-sensing cells behind the nerve cells.

Forget taking a look at a machine that is not maintained; take a look at Conway's Game of Life. There you can truly see complexity generated from simplicity; there are starting patterns that have been proven to continue indefinitely without repeating themselves.

Finally, if anything truly complex DOES require a designer, which I do not accept, then doesn't God himself require a designer? He can hardly be said to be "simple"; otherwise we mere humans wouldn't have all this trouble comprehending Him, would we?

I would consider an alternate explanation to the designer jeans scenario, but only considering their explanation is more reasonable and logical than mine. And what circular logic, "god is true because the bible says so. The bible is true because it was written by god", yeah, well, i could say "I am god because i wrote a book about me being god". That's fallacious! Furthermore, just because an option is unpalatable to the conscience doesn't make it any less true. If i thought that Bush didn't exist, because i don't like him, that doesn't unmake him. Also, i am curious how you reconcile your god's omnipotence and omni-sapience, if he knows the future, is he powerful enough to change it? Also, if he has a divine plan, then why give us choice? Surely a wrong choice would ruin his plan, making him neither omni-sapient, nor omnipotent. Furthermore, if he does have a plan, why pray? why should he change his plan for you? and if he does, then he's not omni-sapient, again. I really dont see how you can reconcile these paradoxes.

"Can you see that it takes more faith to believe that our amazing bodies just fell together..."

This is a common misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not random - things don't "just fall together." Evolution is design - just not intelligent design. It is design by natural selection.

Look kids! He started with the watchmaker argument! Please, please, please, stop using arguments that have been proven to be flawed over and over and over! This is the problem that theists have when convincing atheists that there is a god of some sort, you don't use good arguments.

Anyway, to disprove that argument, we recognize that things like jeans, laptop, and WATCHES have a creator because that's the culture that we've been brought up in. We know that they have a creator because there's no method through which they could've come together other than that. But for the complexities of our bodies, the spiders, and the sea shells, we have explained methods by which they reach their complexity (evolution).

The main problem that I have with the watchmaker argument is the inherent fundamentalist theistic blindness that it displays. On the surface, it simply shows the theist ignoring scientific evidence (which is a bit of a euphemism, I've realized. Let's make this clear: evidence means we've SEEN IT HAPPEN), but then you dive deeper and it shows how much the belief in a god (I didn't capitalize it because I wasn't referring to the Abrahamic God) can blind a person to the flaws in their argument. You're stating that a god (which most people say is perfect) created the universe (perfectly). You're arrogant enough to assume that this universe was created for humans, one of the stupidest assertions you can make. If a god exists, he's a damn shitty one for creating all this useless crap around us (the whole universe that we don't really need). Why wouldn't a god give us better, longer lasting, stronger bodies? Why wouldn't a god make the universe centered around us if we were what he created it for? Why wouldn't we be living in a metaphorical "Garden of Eden"? Here's the answer: because a god doesn't exist.

Also, why do you assert that the christian God created the universe?

This begs an epistemological question: how could you know that there is something necessarily so powerful that humans are incapable of understanding it? (isn't that a statement that relies on understanding the very entity that you say we might be incapable of understanding?)

It also begs a further question: how would you be able to recognize an entity or being that is outside of your capacity to understand; that is, without understanding what you are encountering, how would you be able to acknowledge it for what it is: a being more powerful than you are capable of understanding?

It seems to me that whatever science is it you're delving into, you obviously haven't understood it correctly.

[Citation Needed]

Counterexample: Chaotic systems. A small change in the initial conditions can have enormous results in the end. Therefore, causes need not be greater than effects.

Another example, though not a chaotic system, is a line of dominoes, each slightly bigger than the next. Tip the smallest one over, and as long as the sizes do not increase too fast, the last and largest will eventually fall.

Read "a New kind of science" by Stephen Wolfram. It is a book about complexity theory that goes to show (with mathematical computer simulations) that complex forms and structures are more likely to have a simple set of initial conditions than complex. In fact if the intial conditions are complex almost all of the time the forms/structures that follow are simple

If all material effects/movements are caused by something physical, then why assume a meta-physical being set in motion the ultimate first cause?

Lets not forget uncaused events like the vacuum fluctuations that occur all the time.

It would seem that our universes' existence does not require a cause

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html

Or, you could actually do some research and find out that there are processes by which complexity can be created from simplicity. (EX: Evolution, Conway's Game of Life, Chaotic systems, etc.)

Ok, so the Bible says the descendants of the Israelis will reunite. That one happened. But the other predictions are just absurd.

"Europe, revived roman empire, to be the final world government. EU gives rise to Antichrist, who will come out of Spain (10th nation of EU) and form a peace contract with Israel for 7 years."

How is Europe the revived Roman Empire? Even if we pretend that it is, there's no way Europe is going to take over the entire world.

"666: mark of the Antichrist - a biometric identification system that will facilitate commerce."

Seriously? I can't believe people up-voted this crap.

"Blessed more are those who have not seen and still believe."

[:

Love can be explained biologically, no God required.

Note that this does not make it any less beautiful.

When in sexual arousal the body releases phenylethylamines, these produce the feeling of love. Love can easily be explained by science through biology and chemistry, that might sound cold, but I don't believe it makes it any less beautiful.

That's not it at all. Emotions are completely natural, animals show compassion all the time, this is why you dog licks you and why you don't fk with a bear's cubs. What does the existence of a creator have to do with the possibility of love? That's such a random association.

Great story, unfortunately in this setting it is meaningless without evidence. Christians often use emotionally charged stories of miraculous recoveries because people are too afraid to ask for the evidence.

all humans existed becoz of the improved science and moder techniques.........

its true that it is very impossible without any creator, people would exist in this world but I say that it is SCIENCE the creator

blank blank blank

Seen a shrink lately?

There is a place god will send you if you are bad where you will burn in agony for all eternity. But he loves you, right?

"Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. "

Not necessarily. You're skipping over the much more likely reality that things cause each other to change, in an interrelated cycle.

"Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything."

That would be true if the state itself did physically exist, but it does not. "Mature size" is not a "thing" in the world. It's a quality of oak trees that some people perceive of certain trees. If all of the oaks on Earth died "mature size oak" would still exist because it only exists as a concept in the minds of humans. Conversely, if all humans died, "mature size oak" would disappear, because there would be no philosophers to declare, "this is a mature size oak".

Trees need no outside supernatural force to manifest some property that isn't intrinsic to them to begin with.

"To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved?"

The problem here is that "thing" is pretty poorly defined. An acorn does not magically transform into a tree. Instead, the molecules within it used their stored energy to build the first shoot. That shoot then takes in carbon dioxide from the air and uses that to build new plant cells, which in turn grow more and more. So, from the perspective of the carbon, nothing has changed. It used to be floating in the air with its two oxygen pals and nows it's in a plant cell, part of an oak tree. At no point did that molecule attain "treeness".

That is attempting to answer a the question of the chicken or the egg in disguise. You have a good point, but it does not prove a god exists.

Science is not a 'matter of faith' it's a matter of evidence. There is evidence to support both 'the big bang' theory and evolution. See link below:

'..regardless of which side you're on, you're there based on faith.'

No faith is the belief in something with inadequate evidence and in the case of God, lots of evidence to the contrary. Science is based on evidence.

'Science and a belief in God do not have to be mutually exclusive of each other.'

Indeed. There are scientific reasons why people believe in gods.

'I believe God intended us seek knowledge and question things...even Him.'

You can believe whatever you want but if it adversely affects the lives of others, you should be held accountable with reasoned inquiry.

E.g. I may believe that the sun sets in the Indian ocean every night because my parents and community say so but if I punch those who dissent from my belief I should be forced to face reason with evidence.

'For everything science brings to the table, it won't be able to prove "scientifically" that the universe and everything in it, is a result of random happenstance.'

That's your assumption. Perhaps it's akin to a 10th century peasant saying 'never' when conteplating the lunar landings.

'A time came when I realized that there would ALWAYS be something to be discovered..'

So?

'..I put my faith in God..'

But why?

...therefore God exists. The logic is inescapable!

Oh, wait, no, I forgot... the difficulty of holding a belief has nothing to do with it's validity. Silly me!

what absurdity is this then you want to say that a person will escape hell if he believes in god..............................

then i think so all the terrorists and wrongdoers will escape HELL

In my opinion our conscious is the HELL, if you do wrong it will hurt you..... it is not going to see if u believe in GOD or NOT

Simple, we've documented evolution in current years. We've seen it happen. Yes, the chances are very small that something will successfully evolve which is why it takes millions of years for new species to arise.

For example, the monkey family has an extra set of chromosomes. WELL GOD MUSTA DID IT! No, occasionally in evolution, a set of chromosomes will become fused. Chromosomes have end caps on them to tell RNA where to stop coding. Chromosome 3 in our genome is actually a smashed together 15 and 16 from the monkey family, proven by the matching DNA and the site on the chromosomes where there are two end caps are illogically joined. Then there's fossils and anthropological remains to show the progression. That's how. Do your research.

Oh really?...

I think its safe to say that i dont need to depend on a imaginary

man to persue my dreams and live a good life.

You seem to think that at the same time the b