|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religion or Science - How do they compare? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I ought to know what Calvinism is since I've heard it discussed by theologians and preachers for decades now. But of course an unbeliever who just read about it for the first time knows more about it than I do.
For one thing Calvin wrote a huge study called "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" which I read years ago, and what is today known as "Calvinism" is just a tiny bit of his thinking that some people who object to the TULIP doctrines put together. They invented the TULIP themselves for their own purposes. Calvinism is a much bigger system of thought that covers the whole theology of Christianity. I should put up the video of the Twilight Zone theme here. Too much work.\\ Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: I ought to know what Calvinism is since I've heard it discussed by theologians and preachers for decades now. But of course an unbeliever who just read about it for the first time knows more about it than I do. 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.
In Calvinist (Reformed) theology, unconditional election is considered to be one aspect of predestination in which God chooses certain individuals to be saved. Those elected receive mercy, while those not elected, the reprobates, receive justice without condition. This unconditional election is essentially related to the rest of the TULIP doctrinal outline and hinges upon the supreme belief in the absolute sovereignty of God over the affairs of man. God unconditionally elects certain people even though they are sinful as an act of his saving grace apart from the shortcomings or will of man. Those chosen have done nothing to deserve this grace. 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. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
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 Yes you do have as big a chance of being saved as I do, and I hope you or some others here will be. To hear you all carry on, however, it's hard to think it would ever happen, but God IS sovereign and even all your ridicule and resistance could be overcome in a flash and I'll be saying Hi to you in heaven. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Tangle writes: Sure, but science should influence our theology. I see science as a natural theology.
Sheesh. Science and religion don't integrate. You'll never find the word 'god' in a scientific paper. You know, non-overlapping magisteria?Tangle writes: Science starts with belief and then you try and prove it empirically. Philosophy or theology start with belief but can't be examined or proven empirically but that does not on it's own make it wrong.
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. Tangle writes: ..and that is your belief.
There's no but. The brain *is* influenced by the environment. Period. It's a natural process. Tangle writes: I agree that they aren't at all synonyms, but you often treat it as such with your view that evolution explains everything about our existence. I see evolution as having been created.
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. Tangle writes: Of course evolution is changed by random events. So what. That tells us nothing about why we have intelligent life with an understanding of morality.
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. Tangle writes: 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. I can say I don’t believe in unicorns or I could say that I don’t believe that unicorns exist. You don’t believe that any deity exists or you could say that you believe that no deity exists. It’s belief. You have observational evidence that culture affects our morality. What evidence do you have that God doesn’t also impact our morality. It isn't testable scientifically so it is a matter of belief.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: I wonder if you heard the sermon by Bishop Curry at the Royal Wedding of Harry and Meghan last month. It was a very popular sermon and I'd guess one you would agree with. I only heard maybe a third of it though I did intend to hear more eventually. Basically he seemed to be saying something like "Love is nice, wouldn't it be nice if the world had more love in it."Then I started finding Christians who objected to it as not a truly Christian message, and wrote objections to it which I agree with. One Gavin Ashenden called it "Christianity Lite" and said this: It was a piece de resistance example of the vacuous variety of faith which Richard Niebuhr so forensically described as consisting ofA God without wrath who brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross. I think it fits your views. What do you think? Thank you so much for that reply. I hadn't heard the sermon by Bishop Curry and I am so glad that you caused me to go and listen to it. Yes, it was a brilliant sermon that nailed the message that Jesus had for us. It is all about the power of love to change the world. I know that you want a tough God that is going to really punish the wrong doers but Jesus brought a message of love of God, of neighbour and of our enemies. He brought this message to a people who were being brutally run by the Romans. He preached a message of the power of love and forgiveness as the way to defeat them The way they could be defeated was through the power of love. So yes I did very much approve of that sermon. I know it doesn't fit with an inerrant reading of the bible, but it does fit with the message that Jesus brought to the world. Of course, the message that Jesus brought doesn't agree with an inerrant reading of the Bible, so it makes sense.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: To hear you all carry on, however, it's hard to think it would ever happen, but God IS sovereign and even all your ridicule and resistance could be overcome in a flash and I'll be saying Hi to you in heaven. 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.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I thought you'd enjoy it. I meant to put up a link but I see you found it anyway.
Here's another talk you might enjoy, though it's longer and you may not have the time. This is Rosaria Butterfield giving a talk recently at R.C. Sproul's Ligonier Ministries, which is Calvinist, and so is she, but the talk is all about loving your neighbor and I think it's very moving. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
GDR writes: Sure, but science should influence our theology. I see science as a natural theology. 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 belief and then you try and prove it empirically. 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.
Philosophy or theology start with belief but can't be examined or proven empirically but that does not on it's own make it wrong. No, it just makes it useless. (And theology has nothing in common with philosophy.)
and that is your belief. 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.
I agree that they aren't at all synonyms, but you often treat it as such with your view that evolution explains everything about our existence. 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.
I see evolution as having been created.Of course evolution is changed by random events. So what. That tells us nothing about why we have intelligent life with an understanding of morality. 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:
That tells us nothing about why we have intelligent life with an understanding of morality. 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. I can say I don’t believe in unicorns or I could say that I don’t believe that unicorns exist. That's all you can say about them because there is no evidence for them.
You don’t believe that any deity exists or you could say that you believe that no deity exists. It’s belief. 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?
You have observational evidence that culture affects our morality. What evidence do you have that God doesn’t also impact our morality. It isn't testable scientifically so it is a matter of belief. 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.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Science does influece theology; it regularly shows that it's wrong. . Tangle
It showed people's interpretations were wrong, not tgeokify itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
foreveryoung writes: tgeokify Wow! Typing in tongues
It showed people's interpretations were wrong, not tgeokify itself. Theology IS people's interpretations.Their theology has been shown to be wrong. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Theology IS people's interpretations....tangle
Wrong. Biology is the study of life. Theology is the study of God and religious notions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
foreverwrong writes: Biology is the study of life. Theology is the study of God and religious notions. 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.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
God is an idea held by the vast majority of homosapiens since even before Civilization. The study of that idea is theology. Science has disproved claims of people who believe in transcendent ideas. It's impossible to disprove the idea of transcedence. All you have is the disprovance of specific claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
God writes: God is an idea held by the vast majority of homosapiens since even before Civilization. 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.
The study of that idea is theology. 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.
Science has disproved claims of people who believe in transcendent ideas. It's impossible to disprove the idea of transcendence. All you have is the disprovance of specific claims. Is there a difference between what people claim about transcendence and people's ideas about transcendence?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. You are right that there have been thousands of gods and that they are less and less acknowledged. The Bible reveals them to be devils or demons that have taken up the role of gods to various human groups. These days they are lying low so that people will forget they exist. They've done a good job of it with you and most people in the west. There is one creator God however, the real deal, who is revealed in the Bible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024