Religion or Science - How do they compare?

Sheesh. Science and religion don't integrate. You'll never find the word 'god' in a scientific paper. You know, non-overlapping magisteria? Sigh.... Science doesn't give a diarrhetic shit what you believe. Science is not belief. Science only cares about what you can demonstrate through test and observation. You can believe that the moon was given birth to by a chicken last Tuesday but if you work in science you'd better put that belief to one side and present your evidence for whatever it is you want to say.As for science informing theology. It's true, it does. It informs theology that its beliefs are wrong. It's done it over and over starting roughly with pointing out that the earth is not the centre of the universe and so important that everything spins around it, that biblical stories like the flood and creation are not true, that the earth is not 6,000 years old and that species are not immutable. And so on. It's provided knowledge about reality, replacing superstition and belief and in continues to do so.And what has religion contributed to science? Antogonism, denial and nothing useful. Nothing that I'm aware of. There's no but. The brain *is* influenced by the environment. Period. It's a natural process. So point one, why do you use the word creation when we're talking about evolution? No scientist uses that word. Are you now going to stop using the word when you're talking about evolution?Point two. Evolution and creation are not synonyms. I'm not interested in talking about religious ideas about creation - you can believe what you like, here we're talking about evolution.You say you accept evolution. The evolutionary process is random and the course of evolution is changed by random events like meteors, ice ages, volcanic erruptions and just time and weather.You claim that god intervenes somehow in this process. If that is true then the process is not random and god is intervening all the time in every little beat of the butterfly's wing. But somehow this has been made to look like the process is indistiguihable from randomness. Any objective view is that it is what it looks like it is, no god necessary. You can't predict randomness - that's kind of the point. If you mean that god created a godzillion planets and a godzillion amount of time in the hope of at some point that some flawed beast like us would pop up for a pin-point in time - the infinite monkey syndrome - then i've got to ask 'for god's sake why?’. I'd prefer the bible stories as a more plausible answer. There is no design in evolution. No goal. No target. Just contingency. If you're going to continue speaking like this you're going to have to admit that you don't accept evolution. You're just another creationist in denial. No shit. Sigh. You have belief, science has conclusions based on evidence. I do not 'believe' anything of the sort. Can you at least try to remember that. I'm not like you, stop imposing your mindset on me. If you can start to do that we might make some progress.Believers like you can't believe that others don't think the same way as they do. Apparently is I don't believe this, then I must believe that. That's not the case. If you can't think like me, please at least accept my assertion that I don't have beliefs about things, I either have knowledge of them or accept my ignorance. I don't insert a belief where I don't have an answer. Science doesn't care what you believe. Particularly when it has actual evidence that says you're wrong. What you believe is not evolution - evolution is not a guided process; it can be shown to be not a guided process. If you say it is, then you need to stop saying that you accept it. Terrific.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Because I wake up. Also to pee, go to work, see the family, walk the dog, pay the bills etc etc. Your hostilty, insecurity and depression are showing. Not very Christian. Seek help.

That isn't Calvinism, that's your own preferred belief.Calvinism says that it doesn't matter what you do or believe you're saved or otherwise according to god's predisposition. ie what god decided before you were even born.Btw, I agree it's bonkers.

Well this is what you agreed to earlier. Unconditional seems pretty unambigious to me...

Yup and he's already made the decision. Hence predestination. Yes it is, it's explicit. Predestined. Unconditional. Not based on characteristics or action of individual. Clear as day, no matter who you are, what you've done or what you believe, you're chosen or not. Nothing you can do to change it. You're just adding clauses that are not in the Calvinist contract. That's your own personal spin on it. Well fine but that's not Calvinism as it is writ.

I have some sympathy for your position. You're left trying to explain the inexplicable.But it quite literally doesn't matter a damn to me, it's all Alice in Wonderland, so don't bother turning any more cartwheels on my behalf.

What I'm saying Faith is that it's clear what Calvinism is, it's utter horseshit, but it's clear. Calvin says that a person's salvation or otherwise was predetermined before creation, so that's it, game over.You don't like that so, like everything else that doesn't match your personal belief, you simply make something else up to suit.

Well one branch of your cult says it is. Well yeh, exactly, no-one knows and nothing anyone can do can change anything. Being 'solidly established in the faith' is irrelevant. You destiny was fixed before creation. There's nothing that you can do to change it; believe or not. Nope. No act or belief of man can change god's initial decision. You might as well be a Muslim Faith.

You can actually see the rationalisation at work in all that.You're talking yourself into believing that you're saved because you believe. That's the standard message of course and I suspect most varieties of Christian believe that. But that's not Calvinism.Calvinism is predestination without choice. The decision to save you or not was taken before the act of creation and can't be changed.
Best if you don't believe that one I'd say. Pick a nicer one.

I know absolutely nothing about Calvinism, I'm just playing back what seems to be he standard text. Here's the wiki on unconditional election. There really doesn't seem to be much wiggle room there. God's gonna choose - has already chosen - who the hell he likes regardless of anything else. Looks like I've got as big a chance of being saved as you.

You still haven't got it have you?God' choice was made before the creation. It can't be changed. Your converstaion from atheist to grovelling worshipper makes no difference and my conversion from grovelling worshipper to 'ridiculing resister' makes no difference. The choice was irrevocable and immutable.If you're a Calvinist that is. If I was you, I'd change my belief quick.

Science does influece theology; it regularly shows that it's wrong. Because of that it's been described as heresy for most of its early life and those practicing it were tortured and murdered. It has been influencial is softening most religious beliefs though and forcing them to drop their more rediculous claims.It's a one way street though, religion can teach science nothing. Science starts with a hypothesis, not a belief. Unlike a religous belief, the hypothesis must be falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. Period. No, it just makes it useless. (And theology has nothing in common with philosophy.) For fuck sake man, I can physically demonstrate that the brain can be changed by the environment, it's an observed fact. It's as natural as a wound healing. It's not belief, it's scientific knowledge. It's really frustrating discussing this stuff with you because you continually impose your beliefs on me and don't understand/refuse to understand what the processes are that we're talking about despite having them explained many times. I'll try shouting.I DO NOT THINK THAT EVOUTION EXPLAINS EVERYTHING.Science tells us that evolution explains that species we see on earth today came about from much simpler organisms and explains how the process happens. You can see evolution as being created, but you can't see it as being controlled and guided to a specific end. Well you can, but then it wouldn't be evolution, because evolution, as you say, is random and mindless. You can't have it both ways, it's either on rails or it's a trillion rolls of the dice.The Catholics are in a much more logical position, in that they beieve that evolution took its course and when it came up with Homo god stuck a soul in it. A nice simple miracle that doesn't interfere with science and can't be proved either way. If you can come up with some simple nonsense like that, it'll make life a bit easier.As for this: I despair. How many times?
Evolution has produced intelligence and morality just as it produced everything else about us. Both intelligence and morality are evolved traits. We can see the development of both in related creatures. If you think empathy and intelligence are so special that they couldn't have evolved you have to show why. Simply saying you believe this or that is utterly futile and silly given the evidence. That's all you can say about them because there is no evidence for them. Ditto above.What I don't say I do is say that I believe in evolution. Or the moon or that plants grow using photosynthesis.I accept the conclusions of science that evolution happened because there's a mountain of evidence supporting it. If more evidence comes along that changes that conclusion, my mind will change about it.Can you finally get the difference? And here we go yet again.Look, if I have evidence - very hard, repeatable evidence - that culture affects our morality, why do I still need an invisible unnevidenced, untestable supreme being to do the same job?Why do you only apply this requirement to morality? Why not other brain functions like smell or sight? Why not to other physical things like how lightening works? We know how static electricity builds up in clouds and discharges to earth, must I still cling to the possibility that god is sat invisibly in the clouds throwing thunderbolts?You claim to 'believe' in philosophy, Occam's razor tells you to cut out the unnecessary explanation.

Wow! Typing in tongues Theology IS people's interpretations.
Their theology has been shown to be wrong.

And how, exactly do you study god?Religious notions is about right. Theology has religious notions/conceptions/ideas/thoughts that have been shown to be wrong by science.

Yes, there've been thousands of gods. Most of them now abandoned as we learn more. The more we learn, the less people believe. That's why religious believe is declining in the West. Theology is actually the study of religious beliefs about god. Ie what people believe about god. God cannot be studied. If he could we wouldn't need belief. Is there a difference between what people claim about transcendence and people's ideas about transcendence?