Yeah..., I just finished my Finals, WHOOOOO

merged: 01-29-2008 ~ 10:23am
Oh hey, kingray100 is finally muted, >.>

No worries, Shinsen89. I myself often find myself too busy with schoolwork to spend time here. It's nice to see that you're so involved in politics; I'm glad some people actually care.

I must apologize to everyone again fpr being so sporatic. I'm stuck in home town politics, and may be going down to South Carolina to help the Much embattled John Edwards Camp.

He's the on;y canidate who has the experience and who has not taken one cent from a Corporation, unlike Obama and Clinton.

When I originally saw the posts, I laughed so hard. It was totally me, wether any of it was actually directed at me or not... it sure got my attention. ^^ Don't worry about offending me, you're just fine. ^^ I actually love discussions like this. Anything to make me think, especially when it comes to examining myself and my beliefs. I really like to reexamine my beliefs and reaffirm my faith in my religion and my scientific reasoning and knowledge. I love science and any kind of knowledge, especially when it comes to discussing evolution, God, man, laws, and life.

"I will never be too old to learn a new trick. I might be too lazy, but certainly not too old."

Quote by yothsothgothIn reference to me, eh? You might be, or not... though I will say I fall into the category...

Hehe, well, certainly, I did know that you are somewhat religious and that you are a (probably the only) trained scientist is this group. I mean no offense..>_> It wasn't really directed at you; I am also referencing the common response to religious people that it is okay to believe evolution even though they have their contradictory religious doctrine.

Quote by yothsothgothAlso, I believe everyone's hypocritical... not just me.

I don't deny that I am =P. For example, I do believe in wavefunction collapse, even though it isn't a fully understood phenomenon (granted, I'm somewhat forced to..).

Quote by yothsothgothYes, being a scientist and having religious beliefs can be incompatible at times. it makes you examine your beliefs constantly. I will say that I'm an over critical person and question my questions and reasonings all the time in general, not only my religious beliefs - so that might be why science and religion both work for me. ^^ Sometimes I look at science or evolution and just can't help but think, "How could any of this (life on earth) be a random fluke? How could the Big Bang have happened without something before that happening?" Pehaps its just unfathomable to me right now to think further than a higher power. I do believe that the stars were here long before myself, that dinosaurs existed, and animals have evolved. However, I still feel comfortable in the knowledge that I still believe in my religion even with my scientific training. I think it actually helps me explore my scientific background and knowledge when I think about my religious beliefs scientifically. I will say that faith is faith and leave that at that.

If you find it useful to have both perspectives, I don't blame you. However, I stand by my point that, at their deepest level, their premises are logically inconsistent. After all, you did say that keeping both perspectives "makes you examine your beliefs constantly".

Quote by yothsothgothI think science is compatible when one tries to prove religion with science.

Well, what you're talking about here is finding proof for certain events documented in religious texts. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that and it can be good, peer-reviewed science. But this isn't the compatibility issue I was referring to.

Quote by yothsothgothScientifically proving many things found in religious texts to be true reaffirms my faith. I have found scientific evidence to backup many religious (Christian) claims and I enjoy researching it (many find this ludicris, but to each his/her own). I know that the star of Bethlehem was true (Stellerium is a good program to see what they saw in 2-3BC in Babylon and it wasn't a star... it was a series of events - mainly that Jupiter/largest planet/king planet did a retrograde orbit in the constelation Leo/Lion/King that made it look like it was a septer on Leo... this and the Virgin being clothed in the sun - Venus/virgin planet rose with the sun not long after that... also, Venus and Jupiter both a few years later are together and look like one bright star that hung in the sky for a period of time.... that led the wise men to investigate the major happenings... since the Babylonians were big on astrology and what the stars and planets did I've done research and seen papers on it ), Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed by "fire and brimstone" (History Channel did one of their investigations and if you know anything about the rocks and mineral structures there you'd know that the sulfur content there is amazingly high and the rocks will combust), there was a flood of epic proprotions where science has proven there was a major genetic bottleneck where only a family or two survived the flood (learned it in my genetics class, have seen a few scientific articles with it and the conclusive evidence is interesting), and there are others too... but I don't want to ramble more than I already have.

This stuff is actually pretty interesting. Not too long ago, I didn't much care for religion-motivated archaeology, and to some extent I still don't. But I just took a class whose professor is a Biblical scholar. There I learned to appreciate stuff like this. It's no secret that I hated reading the Bible, but somehow studying it externally isn't that bad. Also, I don't think my prof was a Christian...which I think is a very valuable perspective to a field that could easily be quite biased.

Quote by yothsothgothI think science is compatible when one tries to prove religion with science. Scientifically proving many things found in religious texts to be true reaffirms my faith. I have found scientific evidence to backup many religious (Christian) claims and I enjoy researching it (many find this ludicris, but to each his/her own). I know that the star of Bethlehem was true (Stellerium is a good program to see what they saw in 2-3BC in Babylon and it wasn't a star... it was a series of events - mainly that Jupiter/largest planet/king planet did a retrograde orbit in the constelation Leo/Lion/King that made it look like it was a septer on Leo... this and the Virgin being clothed in the sun - Venus/virgin planet rose with the sun not long after that... also, Venus and Jupiter both a few years later are together and look like one bright star that hung in the sky for a period of time.... that led the wise men to investigate the major happenings... since the Babylonians were big on astrology and what the stars and planets did I've done research and seen papers on it ), Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed by "fire and brimstone" (History Channel did one of their investigations and if you know anything about the rocks and mineral structures there you'd know that the sulfur content there is amazingly high and the rocks will combust), there was a flood of epic proprotions where science has proven there was a major genetic bottleneck where only a family or two survived the flood (learned it in my genetics class, have seen a few scientific articles with it and the conclusive evidence is interesting), and there are others too... but I don't want to ramble more than I already have.

I would not doubt certain historical events in the bible. I'm plenty sure the bible has some truth to it but it's the more superstitious parts that I personally question. When I was Christian, when someone asked me of Jesus, I would think "son of God" but the concept of his virgin birth, his walking on water, bringing the dead back to life, etc. would not come to mind... I was a very secularized Christian. I was basically a Muslim without Mohammed... Such extreme biblical tales would require extreme evidence.

Quote: In reference to your afterlife example, I would say my scientific reasoning says there's nothing proven. Science does know that your brain does considerable activies after "death". When people have died, they've had experiences of light, rememberances of tunnels, loved ones, etc. To this, scientifically you could say that it was neurons firing impulses to the brain or vice versa - giving the sensation of light or memories of people or past dreams. My religious beliefs say that it is the actual thing, since I believe in the soul (which many scientists do believe in a "soul", "qi", or a "life force" of considerable energy, and many relate it to self awareness or conscienceness itself). There are also many books and articles written about this subject. Ex. In the The Astonishing Hypothesis by Francis Crick (DNA molecular structure discoverer), he explains about consciousness and how it leads people to believe in the soul. He hypothisizes that our "love, hate, beliefs, memories, and even "free will" " are all from their genes and from their nervous system chemicals and firings. Nothing more. Also, Dr. Duncan MacDougall's experiments on the reason for weight loss after immediate death (though his experiments haven't been redone so it is still speculation for many reasons. There are even scientists who take pictures of the soul. These are not the best examples, they are just examples.) Yes, science cannot yet prove the afterlife or the existance of a soul. Religion cannot prove it either if you rely on science to prove it in the first place. I will remind you that there are many scientific researchers trying to prove and disprove the afterlife and the soul too... its not just religious people pressing it down everyone's throats. I will also say that yes, religious people do take what they cannot prove on faith... and faith and facts are powerful things. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not. Its up to the individual to differenciate between what is and what isn't true. Truth is still one of those things that are "in the eye of the beholder."

There are people out there trying to prove/disprove the afterlife?... Good luck... That's all I have to say because I cannot begin to think of a way of doing either of these things...

Quote by BobaFett2ha

Quote by alexjohnc3BobaFe(...) I disagree. People often hold views that are conflicting, but just don't care. Science and religion are "compatible" in that religious people can be scientists or have some ideas that are scientific.

This is true. Sorry, my post was not worded correctly. I certainly believe there are religious scientists. However, many people think this is OK, because you can largely follow the Bible (for example) and still do science. My disagreement is here--since they are logically incomptible ways of thinking, any religious scientist or "science follower" is a hypocrite to some degree.

In reference to me, eh? You might be, or not... though I will say I fall into the category...

Well, in some sort of rebuttal... I suppose I'd have to say religion is what you make of it. Science is too. Fact and theories, reasoning and faith... all are in the person who believes or disbelieves either of it. I can believe in different interpretations of my religious doctrine as well as my scientific evidence. People falsify scientific evidence as well as religious doctrine, and everything is up for interpretation until proven otherwise. Also, I believe everyone's hypocritical... not just me.

Yes, being a scientist and having religious beliefs can be incompatible at times. it makes you examine your beliefs constantly. I will say that I'm an over critical person and question my questions and reasonings all the time in general, not only my religious beliefs - so that might be why science and religion both work for me. ^^ Sometimes I look at science or evolution and just can't help but think, "How could any of this (life on earth) be a random fluke? How could the Big Bang have happened without something before that happening?" Pehaps its just unfathomable to me right now to think further than a higher power. I do believe that the stars were here long before myself, that dinosaurs existed, and animals have evolved. However, I still feel comfortable in the knowledge that I still believe in my religion even with my scientific training. I think it actually helps me explore my scientific background and knowledge when I think about my religious beliefs scientifically. I will say that faith is faith and leave that at that.

Quote by ProgramZEROScience and religion are not compatible when one tries to 'prove' religion with science. I also believe that a scientist can be religious when answering questions science cannot.

I think science is compatible when one tries to prove religion with science. Scientifically proving many things found in religious texts to be true reaffirms my faith. I have found scientific evidence to backup many religious (Christian) claims and I enjoy researching it (many find this ludicris, but to each his/her own). I know that the star of Bethlehem was true (Stellerium is a good program to see what they saw in 2-3BC in Babylon and it wasn't a star... it was a series of events - mainly that Jupiter/largest planet/king planet did a retrograde orbit in the constelation Leo/Lion/King that made it look like it was a septer on Leo... this and the Virgin being clothed in the sun - Venus/virgin planet rose with the sun not long after that... also, Venus and Jupiter both a few years later are together and look like one bright star that hung in the sky for a period of time.... that led the wise men to investigate the major happenings... since the Babylonians were big on astrology and what the stars and planets did I've done research and seen papers on it ), Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed by "fire and brimstone" (History Channel did one of their investigations and if you know anything about the rocks and mineral structures there you'd know that the sulfur content there is amazingly high and the rocks will combust), there was a flood of epic proprotions where science has proven there was a major genetic bottleneck where only a family or two survived the flood (learned it in my genetics class, have seen a few scientific articles with it and the conclusive evidence is interesting), and there are others too... but I don't want to ramble more than I already have.

Quote: For example, science cannot answer the question of an 'afterlife' and therefore a scientist can subscribe to whatever idea of an 'afterlife' he/she feels he/she wants. Science cannot answer that which cannot be experimented with and therefore does not concern itself with such a question. Such a question is better suited for superstition which does not require proof or evidence. I assume the neutral position and say that there is no afterlife.

In reference to your afterlife example, I would say my scientific reasoning says there's nothing proven. Science does know that your brain does considerable activies after "death". When people have died, they've had experiences of light, rememberances of tunnels, loved ones, etc. To this, scientifically you could say that it was neurons firing impulses to the brain or vice versa - giving the sensation of light or memories of people or past dreams. My religious beliefs say that it is the actual thing, since I believe in the soul (which many scientists do believe in a "soul", "qi", or a "life force" of considerable energy, and many relate it to self awareness or conscienceness itself). There are also many books and articles written about this subject. Ex. In the The Astonishing Hypothesis by Francis Crick (DNA molecular structure discoverer), he explains about consciousness and how it leads people to believe in the soul. He hypothisizes that our "love, hate, beliefs, memories, and even "free will" " are all from their genes and from their nervous system chemicals and firings. Nothing more. Also, Dr. Duncan MacDougall's experiments on the reason for weight loss after immediate death (though his experiments haven't been redone so it is still speculation for many reasons. There are even scientists who take pictures of the soul. These are not the best examples, they are just examples.)

Yes, science cannot yet prove the afterlife or the existance of a soul. Religion cannot prove it either if you rely on science to prove it in the first place. I will remind you that there are many scientific researchers trying to prove and disprove the afterlife and the soul too... its not just religious people pressing it down everyone's throats. I will also say that yes, religious people do take what they cannot prove on faith... and faith and facts are powerful things. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not. Its up to the individual to differenciate between what is and what isn't true. Truth is still one of those things that are "in the eye of the beholder."

Quote by ProgramZEROI assume the neutral position and say that there is no afterlife.

Or rather there's little reason to believe there's an afterlife and much more reason to believe that the concept of an afterlife is something humans invented thousands of years ago to cope with death or at least explain what happens to "you" after you die.

I agree to some extent with BobaFett2ha. Science and religion are not compatible when one tries to 'prove' religion with science. I also believe that a scientist can be religious when answering questions science cannot. For example, science cannot answer the question of an 'afterlife' and therefore a scientist can subscribe to whatever idea of an 'afterlife' he/she feels he/she wants. Science cannot answer that which cannot be experimented with and therefore does not concern itself with such a question. Such a question is better suited for superstition which does not require proof or evidence. I assume the neutral position and say that there is no afterlife.

Quote: Well, many people like to say (I'm pretty sure some in this group included) that it is possible to be religious and still be a scientist (or follow science). However, I disagree because they are logically inconsistent ways of thinking.

Going the Sam Harris route? Hmm i struggle to decide whether they are fully incompatible, all I am quite sure of is that if Atheists become to dogmatic or ideological then were not much better then a religion.

If you mean by a scientist that are religious (it depends on what religion, cause Buddhism won't really work) then yes, there are some contradictions (assuming if they believe 'everything'). But seeing that a lot of people actually dismiss some things of their religion regardless and say its not there or something like that (other than that itself is sort of stupid) they sort of aren't that hypocritic. Then it depends on how you want to look at it. If you let your belief influence your studies, then that sort of destroys the point of even being a scientist.

Quote by alexjohnc3BobaFett2ha, I disagree. People often hold views that are conflicting, but just don't care. Science and religion are "compatible" in that religious people can be scientists or have some ideas that are scientific.

This is true. Sorry, my post was not worded correctly. I certainly believe there are religious scientists. However, many people think this is OK, because you can largely follow the Bible (for example) and still do science. My disagreement is here--since they are logically incomptible ways of thinking, any religious scientist or "science follower" is a hypocrite to some degree.

BobaFett2ha, I disagree. People often hold views that are conflicting, but just don't care. Science and religion are "compatible" in that religious people can be scientists or have some ideas that are scientific. Where religion and science conflict is that religions make assumptions and that everyone is just supposed to believe no matter how crazy or baseless they are. With scientific ideas, however, people propose an idea and then vigorously try to test its validity and disprove it. If you apply that to religious ideas, you completely destroy them because they're only substantiated by coincidence, wishful thinking, and subjective experience.

Sort of related: you all might want to check out The Enemies of Reason. I saw it a while ago, and it's excellent. You can find links to it on the Wikipedia page for it on Google Video. It's 2:00 A.M. (not when I originally wrote this) and I've been doing school-related work all day, so I don't feel like posting the links myself. Find them if you want. :P

Quote by ProgramZEROWell, for one, I'd like to know what people mean by 'science and religion being compatible/incompatible'. Their both completely different things that serve a similar purpose in different ways.

Well, many people like to say (I'm pretty sure some in this group included) that it is possible to be religious and still be a scientist (or follow science). However, I disagree because they are logically inconsistent ways of thinking.

In response to your other question, if you read the article, it is originally a response to an article by the popular pseudo-doctor Deepak Chopra. There was also a good critique of it on Pharyngula, so I'm sure Alex has seen it.

Quote by BobaFett2haHey guys, it's me again. Just read an interesting article today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/skyhooks-and-cranes-deep_b_6179.html

Didn't read it all but... It's the God of the Gaps scenario, right?

Quote: Food for thought for those of you who like to say science and religion are compatible. I never agreed with that, but I'm not very vocal about it because it's a common "defense" of evolution. Well, now I'm gonna come out and say it: science and religion are not compatible.

Well, for one, I'd like to know what people mean by 'science and religion being compatible/incompatible'. Their both completely different things that serve a similar purpose in different ways. Some people choose one and ditch the other and others try to fuse the two. I'm one of the former. I've chosen science and ditched religion. Give me evidence or give me liberty!

Quote: Also, nope, I'm not a Chopra fan. I don't think he deserves his MD, and I especially hate how he invokes ideas of quantum mechanics into his BS. He doesn't understand QM, and none of his readers do either.

...Who?

I am still thinking it is too young to say science and beliefs are incompatible.
after all...
the irony is... beliefs generated science.
(namely, the big bang theory etc)

LeMaitre etc.

Hey guys, it's me again. Just read an interesting article today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/skyhooks-and-cranes-deep_b_6179.html

Food for thought for those of you who like to say science and religion are compatible. I never agreed with that, but I'm not very vocal about it because it's a common "defense" of evolution. Well, now I'm gonna come out and say it: science and religion are not compatible.

Also, nope, I'm not a Chopra fan. I don't think he deserves his MD, and I especially hate how he invokes ideas of quantum mechanics into his BS. He doesn't understand QM, and none of his readers do either.

And kingray is getting more and more annoying -.-, and stupid... ....

Quote by Devildudewow.... the group has ACDC's Highway to Hell on the music list.
are we Satanic worshippers now?
LOve that song by the way, epic rock was old age, the good old days of proper rock music before the emotional angsty rise of new age emo rockers.
screw those.

No, we aren't Satan worshippers... Well, at least I'm not... Yes, that song is good... LOL! It's AC/DC's Stairway to Heaven.

wow.... the group has ACDC's Highway to Hell on the music list.
are we Satanic worshippers now?
LOve that song by the way, epic rock was old age, the good old days of proper rock music before the emotional angsty rise of new age emo rockers.
screw those.

Thats an odd way to talk about it, but... yeah.

Angry
Theists
Hate
Empirical
Intellectuals
Sustaining
Thought

Well, HIIIIIIIII,

No i didn't even see an original post, oceansoul must have applied today.