Can you mix science with god?

[JohnCli]

For some, it doesn't.

 

http://i.imgur.com/mpQA0.jpg

Clearly the maker/editor of that image is biased. He/she only showed an exaggerated image of religion.

 

If I may ask...who believes in God here in this forum?

[pwagen]

He/she only showed an exaggerated image of religion.

Exaggerated how? You mean those news stories weren't really that bad?

[chris logan]

Clearly the maker/editor of that image is biased. He/she only showed an exaggerated image of religion.

 

If I may ask...who believes in God here in this forum?

i always get this sudden urge to be religiose before end of term exams...

[Moontanman]

I think it would depend on your definition of God as to how many believe in God here, it's a sure bet the fundamentalist Christian view is not as popular as it might be in a more representative sample of the population outside the forum...

i always get this sudden urge to be religiose before end of term exams...

Looking for divine intervention are we?

[chris logan]

I think it would depend on your definition of God as to how many believe in God here, it's a sure bet the fundamentalist Christian view is not as popular as it might be in a more representative sample of the population outside the forum...

 

Looking for divine intervention are we?

you would be surprise!

[Phi for All]

Oh no...... there are 'debates' (alot of bickering and annoying). If you ever look one up, have fun, don't remind me.

 

Is it really a debate if someone says, "The Earth is flat, and the sun and all the planets revolve around it", and I say, "That's completely untrue, you have no idea what you're talking about"?

 

Just because ideas expressed oppose each other, that doesn't really satisfy the definition of a debate. Formal understanding on both sides is required. Complete misunderstanding, obfuscation and intellectual dishonesty vs science doesn't qualify, imo.

[tar]

Phi for All,

 

Formal understanding, is important. It gives us a link to objective truth. Something we can be right about, and associate with, even if it was something understood by somebody other than us.

 

I never understood formal proofs. I never understood the principle. Much of education is memorizing what someone else has figured out is true. I always liked to figure things out for myself, and some things just did not make complete sense to me. Others made complete sense, and I did not understand why you would have to prove something that already seemed correct.

Then there were these "convention" things, that you just accepted as true, even though you did not understand why such a thing should be true. Specially things involving 1 and 0 that I just never "saw" the reason for, and just had to accept as true.

Then there were "limits" and how they were handled, and integrals. I never was quite convinced that all operations performed took everything into consideration. Sort of like measuring a shore line but not counting the inlets and outcroppings, and not measuring around each grain of sand the water seeped between.

 

So, formal understanding, to a certain extent, would depend on human agreement. What you are talking about, what assumptions you are making, and what is to be "understood" to begin with. So what is the use of a "proof", if you already know what you are trying to prove. Or worse yet, if you have to use things that look a lot like what you are trying to prove, to prove the thing. And only people smarter than you, can "do it" "properly".

 

Phi, I am with you 100% that creationism is bunk, and makes no sense, and counters formal understanding, of all the sciences.

I am with you 100% that a god that has a plan for us, is contrary to sense and logic AND formal understanding of our world, and what is possible to be true. But scientific objectivity, requires a certain submission to "other" minds than your own, that know what you do not, that you can not "check" for yourself, and have to just believe on general principle, on the general belief that there is a benevolent common understanding, bigger than any individual participant.

 

If an individual can be right, by association, simply because he believes in the formal understanding of science, why is it a completely different thing if a person claims to be right, by association, simply because he believes in the formal understanding of God?

 

Regards, TAR2