Science VS Religion

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Mephitus
Local Furry
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:44 am

Science VS Religion

Post by Mephitus »

Saw this and HAD to repost. Enjoy!
Image
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

I've always considered science to be the friend of religion, at least as far as the LDS Church is concerned. What many believers do unfortunately, is confuse nonscience presented as science with actual science.

User avatar
Mephitus
Local Furry
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:44 am

Post by Mephitus »

So.....anything that works in religions favor is true...and anything not is false, or otherwise non-science?
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

So.....anything that works in religions favor is true...and anything not is false, or otherwise non-science?


Religion in general? That may be true.

The LDS Church? Science and religious truth will meet and end up being the same thing as the LDS Church embraces all scientific truth.

Fortigurn
Holy Ghost
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am

Re: Science VS Religion

Post by Fortigurn »

Sono_hito wrote:Saw this and HAD to repost. Enjoy!


It's witty, but not representative of real life. Only certain religions fit in the category to the right. You can't throw all religions into that category. The Christian religion, for example, has enjoyed a longstanding positive relationship with science, despite a subculture of resistance to the implications of scientific discovery.

Fortigurn
Holy Ghost
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am

Post by Fortigurn »

There's also a process error in the diagram on the left. It makes no provision for a theory to be falsified by new evidence. It should branch at the point where it says 'Revolution!' (a vague term), and provide the opportunity for the theory to be falsified by the new evidence, or remain unaffected by the new evidence despite the fact that it cannot explain the new evidence.

Newtonian physics was not able to explain the new evidence provided at the quantum level, but it was not falsified. The three laws of motion remain true, and E still equals MC^2. I would replace 'Revolution!' with 'Is the theory falsified by the new evidence?', and indicate the result of a positive or negative answer.

User avatar
gramps
God
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:43 am

Post by gramps »

bcspace wrote:
So.....anything that works in religions favor is true...and anything not is false, or otherwise non-science?


Religion in general? That may be true.

The LDS Church? Science and religious truth will meet and end up being the same thing as the LDS Church embraces all scientific truth.


Do you really think so?

As the DNA evidence stands today, we have eve and adam living about 30,000 years apart and a long time before the biblical adam and eve show up on the scene.

How will that ever meet and end up being the same thing?
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland

Fortigurn
Holy Ghost
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am

Post by Fortigurn »

gramps wrote:
bcspace wrote:
So.....anything that works in religions favor is true...and anything not is false, or otherwise non-science?


Religion in general? That may be true.

The LDS Church? Science and religious truth will meet and end up being the same thing as the LDS Church embraces all scientific truth.


Do you really think so?

As the DNA evidence stands today, we have eve and adam living about 30,000 years apart and a long time before the biblical adam and eve show up on the scene.


A long time before one interpretation of the Biblical Adam and Eve show up on the scene.

User avatar
gramps
God
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:43 am

Post by gramps »

Fortigurn wrote:
gramps wrote:
bcspace wrote:
So.....anything that works in religions favor is true...and anything not is false, or otherwise non-science?


Religion in general? That may be true.

The LDS Church? Science and religious truth will meet and end up being the same thing as the LDS Church embraces all scientific truth.


Do you really think so?

As the DNA evidence stands today, we have eve and adam living about 30,000 years apart and a long time before the biblical adam and eve show up on the scene.


A long time before one interpretation of the Biblical Adam and Eve show up on the scene.


Yes, point well-taken. However, for Mormons, I think they have to first take Adam and Eve as the literal parents of all the humans on this planet at this time. They also believe that Adam and Eve existed in North America, even Missouri, for that matter.

What is your interpretation of Adam and Eve, Fortigurn? I know you are a Christian. I would be very interested. Were they real people, living together in a state of bliss before the Fall? Are they the (physical) parents of the whole human race, literally?

Being a christian, where does your faith conflict with today's science, if at all?
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland

User avatar
Mephitus
Local Furry
Posts: 820
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:44 am

Post by Mephitus »

i lol'ed when i first heard about where Joseph Smith prophecied where adam and eve where created. and likewise the location of the garden of eden.
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew

Fortigurn
Holy Ghost
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am

Post by Fortigurn »

gramps wrote:Yes, point well-taken. However, for Mormons, I think they have to first take Adam and Eve as the literal parents of all the humans on this planet at this time. They also believe that Adam and Eve existed in North America, even Missouri, for that matter.


Yes, point taken.

What is your interpretation of Adam and Eve, Fortigurn? I know you are a Christian. I would be very interested. Were they real people, living together in a state of bliss before the Fall?


Yes, for a given value of 'bliss'.

Are they the (physical) parents of the whole human race, literally?


No. In fact the text of Genesis 4 demonstrates that they could not have been. It's ironic that the marriage of Cain has been identified for centuries by non-believers as a clear Biblical statement that Adam and Eve and their immediate family were not the only human inhabitants of the planet (and therefore not the first humans), and that believers have historically attempted to explain this very clear statement away.

It wasn't until the late 19th century that science demonstrated that the Biblical text as it stands is accurate - if Adam and Eve existed during the timeframe indicated in the Bible, they most certainly were not the only human inhabitants of the planet, and were not the first humans.

Being a christian, where does your faith conflict with today's science, if at all?


I would say that it contradicts where it appeals to the supernatural. That, of course, is for a given value of 'contradicts', and 'supernatural'.

Fortigurn
Holy Ghost
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am

Post by Fortigurn »

Sono_hito wrote:i lol'ed when i first heard about where Joseph Smith prophecied where adam and eve where created. and likewise the location of the garden of eden.


I wonder how you prophesy something which happened over 5,000 years ago?

User avatar
gramps
God
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:43 am

Post by gramps »

Fortigurn wrote:
gramps wrote:Yes, point well-taken. However, for Mormons, I think they have to first take Adam and Eve as the literal parents of all the humans on this planet at this time. They also believe that Adam and Eve existed in North America, even Missouri, for that matter.


Yes, point taken.

What is your interpretation of Adam and Eve, Fortigurn? I know you are a Christian. I would be very interested. Were they real people, living together in a state of bliss before the Fall?


Yes, for a given value of 'bliss'.

Are they the (physical) parents of the whole human race, literally?


No. In fact the text of Genesis 4 demonstrates that they could not have been. It's ironic that the marriage of Cain has been identified for centuries by non-believers as a clear Biblical statement that Adam and Eve and their immediate family were not the only human inhabitants of the planet (and therefore not the first humans), and that believers have historically attempted to explain this very clear statement away.

It wasn't until the late 19th century that science demonstrated that the Biblical text as it stands is accurate - if Adam and Eve existed during the timeframe indicated in the Bible, they most certainly were not the only human inhabitants of the planet, and were not the first humans.

Being a christian, where does your faith conflict with today's science, if at all?


I would say that it contradicts where it appeals to the supernatural. That, of course, is for a given value of 'contradicts', and 'supernatural'.


Thank you. Were the other humans then living alongside Adam and Eve subject to death? Were Adam and Eve at one time of their existence in the Garden, not subject to death? Need one be the literal offspring of Adam and Eve to be called the children of God, in some literal sense? (that's probably not clear, but maybe you can figure out what I'm getting at, or I can try again).

Again, I am glad you are being patient with me. I am hampered a little bit by coming from a Mormon background with certain words, concepts and phrases already understood within a Mormon framework.

Maybe you could lay out your idea of the creation story, the fall, the need for a savior, etc. I hope you also can sense that I in no way want to fight with you. I am very interested however in how a Christian works through all this confusing stuff. I'm happy to be taught.

Cheers.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland

User avatar
gramps
God
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:43 am

Post by gramps »

Sono_hito wrote:i lol'ed when i first heard about where Joseph Smith prophecied where adam and eve where created. and likewise the location of the garden of eden.


You might like this. I found it in my files recently. Copies in my possession.

Letter to Eugene Thompson from Joseph Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency
Dated: August 24, 1971

“Referring to the quotation you submit relative to a discussion between President Joseph Fielding Smith and Dr. James E. Talmage, it would seem that this is hearsay. However, under direction of the brethren, I am pleased to send you herewith a statement by the First Presidency of the Church, at that time Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund, which appeared in the Improvement, volume 13, pages 75 to 81, on this very question of the origin of man. This will give you the position of the Church as of that time, and there has been no change.”

(the quotation submitted)
Oral History of BYU, #17
Harvey Fletcher, p. 11

You know they’re not always agreeing in the Twelve on some of these things, particularly when it deals with science. He (now referring to Brother Widtsoe) said brother Joseph Fielding Smith and brother Talmage used to have it pretty hot sometimes, and he said that brother Talmage, see he talked about fossils and that was part of his subject as a geologist, went down to Adam-ondi-aman where the alter of Adam is supposed to be and he had a pick and picked around through it and finally found a fossil right in the cement of this altar. He found two or three of them and brought them up and put them in a bag and brought them home. He said he came back at (sic) one of the meetings of the Twelve, and he said, “Now brother Joseph, I understand that you thoroughly believe and are very sure that the first man on earth was Adam, the first life was Adam.” He said, “I certainly do believe that.” He said, “Well, what about these?” Then he handed out the fossils, and said, I found these in the altar.”


Funny story, anyway, whether hearsay, or not.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland

Fortigurn
Holy Ghost
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am

Post by Fortigurn »

gramps wrote:Thank you. Were the other humans then living alongside Adam and Eve subject to death?


Sure.

Were Adam and Eve at one time of their existence in the Garden, not subject to death?


I believe so.

Need one be the literal offspring of Adam and Eve to be called the children of God, in some literal sense? (that's probably not clear, but maybe you can figure out what I'm getting at, or I can try again).


No.

Again, I am glad you are being patient with me. I am hampered a little bit by coming from a Mormon background with certain words, concepts and phrases already understood within a Mormon framework.


Any time.

Maybe you could lay out your idea of the creation story, the fall, the need for a savior, etc. I hope you also can sense that I in no way want to fight with you. I am very interested however in how a Christian works through all this confusing stuff. I'm happy to be taught.


Thanks, I appreciate that. Feel free to pick a fight if you want one though. I'll see what I can do about writing up my understanding of Genesis 1-4. I'll preface all this by saying that it's the Biblical pattern that God deals with representative communities (Adam and Eve and their family, the faith community called 'the sons of God' in Genesis 6, Noah and his family, Abraham and his family, the Israelite nation, etc), not with the entire population of the earth. That's an important part of the framework.

Roger Morrison
God
Posts: 1831
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:13 pm

Post by Roger Morrison »

bcspace wrote:I've always considered science to be the friend of religion, at least as far as the LDS Church is concerned. What many believers do unfortunately, is confuse nonscience presented as science with actual science.


Hi BC-S, i remember that idea expressed 50+ years ago by some LDS noteable as: "Mormonism is the ground upon which true religion & true science meet..." or some such prose. To a 20 something inexperienced, impressionable convert that was a "WOW!" revelation. Later i debated/discussed that idea with a Regional Rep who considered himself a 'scientist'. His concluding rejoinder was something to the affect, "...obviously you (I) don't have THE faith to understand....."

That LDSism claims to embrace "all truth" is another statement made to impress the ignorant--and it does so, impress that is. Only a fool would claim their church embraced "lies"... LDSism may not be all it claims, or pretends, but it does influence, and manipulate well with half-truths and innuendo. As do most other theologically based 'religions'.

BC, will you please list several "scientific truths" that are exclusively LDS? Or, that base their "Faith" differently than other sects? Seems they all, well most, subscribe to "The Fall", "Atonement", "Resurection", "Life-after-death in Heaven" as well as seeing humankind in need of redemption outside of their own ability to 'reform'. What "science" bases, or supports in the slightest any of those suppositions?

"The way, the truth and the light," is not found in Judeo-Christianism. It is gained line upon line, precept upon precept. Whenever and wherever humanoids use their "God" given faculties to seek, they will find.

Might inspiration, or revelation, play a role in discovery? Quite likely, but not as generally understood in religious circles of blind faith and misplaced belief... Warm regards, Roger

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 7 guests