Is Science a Religion?

That's pretty much exactly the sort of woowoo that I don't really have any interest in, or time for. Good luck with it, though.

no its not, its a fable to me depemds on which god you are talking about, the sonoptic god or the pauline god, paul's god was pretty transcendant why do you suddenly think god is amazing to me? i don't see it as true, anymore than say zeus smiting people or loki telling lies, what is amazing is you think this is a real argument, when its all just evangelical preaching the truth is you can't accept the possiblity that people don't care to hear you preach about a god that is a complete contridiction oh well, thats god for you, i guess its easier to put people in hell than show himself Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

too bad you can't support this claim with anything, you believe this, this doesn't make it true this is all just your opinion, and i find it full of useless inane garbage that furthers nothing sorry, but no it isn't, if it was there wouldn't be anyone who believed other things, oh wait i just remembers, you don't think its possible, so they must be lying, though theres no proof they are lying aall i see is paul believes that the world shows it, and people who don't see it are blind. a most unsupported argument, if the world relfects god it would be easy to see, which as far as i can tell it doesn't Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Ringo:And you don't think it is absolutely true that I am confused? It is just your belief? I see, but any silly notion of "Absolute truth" is absolutely unverifiable? Or, it is only "unverifiable" by limiting the admissable arguments to what can be emperically 'not fully' (non-absolutely) verified?Your saying that only universally verified truths like morality are accepted? Oh excuse me... No! Morality is not emperical. It doesn't exist. It's only a belief... Actually my own religion is the only one that does say that... There was an Old testament promise which claimed a messiah was coming physically so that the Temple, Ark of the covenant, and all those things that pointed to Him, would be fullfilled in the flesh.And He did come and fulfill all of those things. And He came physically, died physically, was ressurected physically, and ascended into heaven physically. Yet still you do not get it?Christianity is the only emperically verifiable religion! So empericism must not really be that important to you. You only use empericism to defend your own claim to autonomous moral grounds. You use science to defend your beliefs! All I meant, was that I can't choose for you... how deep to look at the world. Science makes a nice, neat, limited, and little box with which to view the world. You have your own confirmation bias on morality so your statement is a half truth twisted backwards and projected onto me. A little admission and honesty for a change? So by choosing to limit reality to a very narrow philosophical worldview, and excluding what is not emerically verifiable (even though such a thing is verifiable because of the reality of morality, which is not an emperical entity) you think that you are being objective?Morality and immorality manifest themselves into physical actions. Are you unaware of this?Or do you believe that Hitler only did what he did because of chemical reactions in a mind machine? Did he not have a choice? Are we not justified in believing that he should have known better? Did he not intentionally ignore other realities to arrive at such a narrow view of reality?If you use science to ignore other realities, then it is a religion Ringo. And the physical consequences become a reality that is studied emperically and called history. And even that is subject to bias as the revisionists are very busy today.Ringo:Is that why you exalt science as the narrow lens by which we must interpret all things?It's funny you know? Jesus said just the opposite! That He is the lens by which we must interpret reality. We must go through Him to find the way.And He actually existed (exists... even), whereas science is only a methodology in your mind that you bow down to and worship as "the way, the truth, and the life".So which is more emperical? When science is just a religion itself, then how can your statement be true?Your miracles are just word games. His are more than words. He emerged and embodied. This universe itself is miraculous, and the more we understand about it, the more awesome and miraculous it becomes. The same goes for the sub-atomic world. Things only get more complex as we go up, down, in, and out. Our questions are so baffling in the theoretical sciences now, that very few even bother to think about them. it's not a miracle to God, but it is to us! And the best news and the biggest miracle of all, is that He can show himself to those who seek Him.Why anyone would choose to hide behind a curtian and play 'Oz' the way you do is a marvelous mystery.Not even my little dog would be afraid of your show...You poor little man, why are you hiding when I love you?

---

Matthew 10:26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.

Rob, your statement provides emperical evidence of your misunderstanding of what actually is emperically verifiable. If what you say is true then why does Christianity need any faith at all? The miracles go away when you verify them empirically, don't they?”Hoot

No, just evident. No, just unverifiable for any practical purpose. I said nothing about universality or morality. There is nothing about Christianity that can be verified empirically, but that's a different topic. We don't "use science to ignore other realities". We limit science to this reality - the one that can be verified empirically. I never said anything about "exalting" science or about "interpreting all things" through science.One more time: This is not a competition between science and religion. Every time you claim that science is inferior or that religion is superior, you are affirming that science and religion are completely different.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I think you ask a fair question pertaining not just to religions, but science as well.Take the ToE for example. There is tremendous evidence for natural selection. But to equate natural selection with evolution is a leap of faith! We can verify changes within species, but cannot verify evolution from speies to species.Science already admits that it is subject to revision as more data comes in. So any worldview based upon the 'conclusions' of science (which don't exist) is faith based.Do you have faith that the sun will burn out? You might say "no, it is a fact"... but is it?The laws of physics only tell us that it will assuming that nothing changes in the laws of nature. So does that mean the laws of physics are an example of absolute truth?The Bible says that there will be a new heaven and new earth. Now, does that mean that the old will pass away entirely, or will God rework the dough into a permanent feature that is in balance entropicly?We all have faith. Faith is seeing what does not appear based on the evidence that does appear.Where does your faith reside?

Nonsense. We can and have, because we've directly observed it. I mean, where are all the new species coming from, otherwise?

And just what is your purpose Ringo?Please do tell... what the agenda is...

Have any names? I do... Jesus! He is from heaven...

I know what it means to verify emperically. I just think that we too often use that to to ignore other means of verification. Morality is the consumate example. It is a reality, as I illustrated to Ringo with the Hitler questions.To limit our understanding of reality to only what is visible, would mean we throw away much of science... No more theorizing! Just look at the evidence and see where it leads. But that is not done, because that is precisely the thing that speaks of God.Science is being used to promote social agendas and political ambitions. They will search for any other explaination than God. Not because the evidence is not there, but because the moral consequences are not acceptable to them.

My "purpose" is to discuss the topic. I've been pointing out how your boring rants verify that science is not a religion.Hint: if you want to claim that science is a religion, show us how they are similar not how they are different.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

..wha?

That's what I have been doing Ringo. You have an adept ability to not see what you don't want to. You getting desperate!As I said to Hoot mon, "Faith is seeing what is not verified, by extrapolating the things that are verified."In science it is called theorizing. In Christianity, it is simply looking at the evidence and letting it tell the story...That's what Paul said in Romans 1, verse 19 & 20. And we miss it, because we don't want it to be true. I have stood in your shoes Ringo. But I have evolved... because the power of God defeated me. Not because I am superior to you. I am your brother.Consider:Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith." 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.That is real science Ringo... What you call science turns out to only be religion.