Senate Is there a conflict between Religion and Science?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Ghost, Feb 12, 2013.

  1. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    I did try looking around for DeMarchi scans of the paper from around the date, if not transMarchicriptions. There do seem to be a couple of DeMarchisites with translations of some of the papers, but Google DeMarchi Translate isn't helping a lot with them. Ah well.
    Ramza likes this.
  2. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    It's more commonly known by another shorthand: Fatima, or Our Lady of Fatima. If you were brought up Catholic I'd be surprised if you hadn't heard of it.
    Last edited by Saintheart, Aug 8, 2013
  3. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    Well I'll try to refrain from mentioning DeMiracles in DeFuture. :p

    Oops, Senate thread.
    Last edited by Saintheart, Aug 8, 2013
  4. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    That's the problem with invoking a religious explanation for any phenomena, the religious explanation is basically premised on a miracle. I think this is why certain religious organisations are so keen to pronounce unusual events as 'miracles' because it keeps the idea of miracles alive, so believers never forget that their whole worldview is based upon some miraculous events which transpired in ancient history.
  5. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    I'll paraphrase what the Baha'i Writings have to say on the subject of miracles. Sure, miracles happen, but the further removed someone is from the miraculous event, the less likely they are to believe it happened. For that matter, even some eyewitnesses doubt what they just saw. So miracles are a poor tool with which to try to prove religion.
    LostOnHoth and Sarge like this.
  6. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Agreed. What constantly amazes me is that some religious people are so painfully skeptical in their approch to life with most things, but seem to accept religious scripture at face value without very much question. There are people who post regularly on this website who appear to be the same. How can a person invoke scientific methodology and logical discipline with respect to one subject matter but then throw that all out oif the window when it comes to scripture? Beats me.
  7. Sarge Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 1998
    star 4
    Science is a wonderful tool for examining the natural world. Most of scripture focuses on unnatural happenings. Miracles are unscientific by definition; they transcend science.
  8. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    I have to disagree with that. Miracles occur in the natural world and involve real people living in the natural world. When someone claims, for example, that Jesus spoke to them and told them not to eat the oysters which turned out to be poisonous that 'miracle' is a real world problem which should be approached scientifically in the same manner as you would approach any other phenomena which involves a person claiming they heard voices in their head. Miracles are improbable and extraordinary by definition not unscientific. But this goes to my earlier point. As a flight engineer you would approach phenomena relating to your aircraft in a particular manner, as an air force brat myself I would imagine it would be methodical and logical and you would rule things out based upon the probability presented by the evidence. Why would you then such accept, at face value, claims of miracles recorded in ancient documents? I'm not saying you necessarily do, I'm just using that as an example of the different thought processes I see utlilized by many religious people.
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Aug 12, 2013
  9. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    The definition of a miracle is not improbable or extraordinary. A miracle by definition does not conform to the laws of physics; hence it being termed in most cases as a supernatural event - that is, impossible by the laws of physics. If the event does not conform to the laws of physics, how should scientific technique judge it so - when cause and effect simply do not apply to it as we understand them at the macro- level?
    Last edited by Saintheart, Aug 12, 2013
    Sarge likes this.
  10. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Not necessarily. I think you will find that a miracle is mostly defined in terms of the event being extraordinary or improbable. The event may or may not conform to the laws of physics. I think your definition is too narrow.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miracle

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle

    It depends on the miracle I guess. That is the point. Just because some phenomena apparently 'does not conform' to the laws of physics, doesn't mean that said phenomena 'transcends' science. You would need to apply a scientific method to the phenomena to determine whether the phenomena does in fact defy laws of physics, that is, you would have to rule out other possibilities. Then you would have to revisit the assumptions which provide the foundation for those laws. My earlier point is that many religious people will do this when it comes to working out a problem with their computer but just seem to accept religious miracles on face value without further thought or inquiry.
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Aug 12, 2013
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  11. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    Scientific technique should never declare something beyond the scope of the laws of physics, regardless of its supposed origins, and that is, in fact, the whole of the matter. It would be the height of irresponsibility in the event of a truly unexpected and unprecedented phenomenon to simply declare "Non è possibile!" and chalk it up to the miraculous. Theological concerns aside that's just bad science. I don't care if the goddamn Buddha appears before me in the next five seconds singing a stirring rendition of Frank Zappa's "Eat Your Greens" before informing me that the ultimate truth of the universe can be discovered within the preserved rectum of Abraham Lincoln, if I'm claiming to be a scientist I can't just throw up my hands and officially settle on "WELP."
    Last edited by Ramza, Aug 12, 2013
    Jedi Merkurian and LostOnHoth like this.
  12. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Exactly.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  13. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    And once you're done running through every test known to man, none of which explains Buddha's performance preferences for Frank Zappa?

    Are you really going to resort to a non-answer of "It's not a miracle, science explains everything, just give me another forty years, fifty years, two hundred years to figure out how he got a copy of a Mothers album?"
    Last edited by Saintheart, Aug 12, 2013
    Sarge and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  14. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    You keep working at it. I might privately decide that the guiding force behind my personal philosophy having similar tastes in music to my own is awesome and it'd be fun if it were true, but that's my opinion, and not good science. Scientific evaluation does not stop just because you've exhausted every known possibility - there is nothing wrong with declaring a problem beyond the scope of current physical models. That happens all the time in real physics. I mean, I'm stumped by this hypothetical Buddha? Maybe ten years from now they're a common occurrence, and we develop the expanded Standard Zappa-fan Buddha model of quantum mechanics. Maybe in one hundred years somebody realizes that light refracting off gas on Venus coupled with some mold in my apartment made me hallucinate the whole thing. Maybe civilization comes to an end, humanity dies out, no one else ever witnesses the phenomenon again, and it's forever left in ancient archives as one of the great, unsolved problems of 2013. At no point, in any of those scenarios, is it okay to throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare the problem supernatural. Ever. It's not even a debatable notion.

    And if you consider that a non-answer then I'm forced to dredge up one of those superstar scientists that people like to dredge up, Richard Feynman, who once said about the highly unintuitive mechanisms behind QED: "You may not like that explanation. I don't like it. No one does. Tough."
    Last edited by Ramza, Aug 12, 2013
  15. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    I had an awesome twenty-paragraph post here proposing a thought exercise where you give a scientist infinite time and infinite resources in a black hole somewhere to sit and test the interventionist/literal God and see whether at the end said God actually complies with natural law in spite of continuing evidence in the face of every possible scientific test he should not, but I decided to skip it. I think I lost it somewhere in the Zappa-Feynman-mold from Venus matrix, I'm not sure. Anyway.
  16. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    The thing is that most so called 'miracles' have a number of possible explanations with different degrees of probability. The supernatural explanation is usually the least probable, so adopting the scientific method, you should probably go with one of the other possible explanations which is more probable than the supernatural one.

    For example, there is the 'miracle' of the resurrection of Jesus. According to the gospels, Jesus was crucified, died and his corpse was placed in a tomb. Three days later, when some of his followers (there is inconsistency between the gospels as to who precisely went to the tomb) his tomb was unsealed (there is inconsistency here with the gospels as well as to whether the tomb was unsealed when they got there or whether an angel appeared and unsealed it), Jesus was gone and his followers were told, either by a man, or two men an or by an angel (again there is inconsistency here with the gospels as to who actually spoke with the followers) that Jesus was gone and had arisen. Jesus was then seen by various people and he spoke to them.

    The supernatural explanation is that Jesus was the son of God who was killed by mortal men but was subsequently resurrected and brought back to life by God's power. His devoted followers had actually seen the real Jesus resurrected.

    Can anyone think of other possible explanations which may be more probable than the above supernatural explanation? I know I can, but I thought I'd just throw it out there anyway.
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Aug 13, 2013
  17. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    That would depend on being able to realistically assess probability amongst the various possible explanations when reading a document more than fifteen hundred years old, translated through roughly three versions, and which was not designed for the historical high kicks you appear determined to put it through.
  18. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Go on, have a go.
  19. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    What, and engage in wild, foundationless speculation, which science looks down its nose at? I think not.
    Last edited by Saintheart, Aug 13, 2013
  20. Jedi Merkurian Episode VII Thread-Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 25, 2000
    star 6
    Agreed. I would also clarify "The event may or may not conform to the laws of physics as we currently understand them."
  21. Sarge Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 1998
    star 4
    Science and logic are tools I use to troubleshoot scientific phenomena like that fluctuating rpm gauge on #4 engine. Faith and spiritualism cannot be analyzed scientifically. Trying to do so is like using the wrong tool for the job; if you try to pound a nail with pliers you'll just get frustrated and conclude that driving a nail is impossible.
    Why do I accept all the impossible miracles in the Bible? Because God worked a miracle in my heart and soul, proving to me that "with God all things are possible." Given what happened in my life, I don't doubt that He can do all of those crazy impossible things we read about, and I choose to believe them because I have no reason to disbelieve and my faith gives me very personal reasons to believe.
    Skywalker8921 likes this.
  22. timmoishere Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2007
    star 6
    If it is true that "all things are possible with god," I would like to see a demonstration of this. Please do something that would ordinarily be considered impossible, and document this event so that no one can doubt your god's powers. The Bible gives a pretty good example of an impossible thing you can do: please move a mountain with your prayer. If you can do this, I will gladly accept your god as real.
  23. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    The part you are missing is that it doesn't matter to us whether you "accept [our] god as real". We aren't insisting that our personal experiences prove anything to you. We aren't making any claims about you at all.

    On the other hand, you are the one insisting that we are delusional, or ignorant, or some other bit, because we disagree with your interpretation of things.

    Tell me, what functional effect does our belief in God have on your life? Why do our beliefs matter so much to you? It's clear that it is important to you, to the point that you've made your sig all about your opposition to religion. Why do you act so threatened that someone disagrees with your position?

    The thing about "burden of proof" (as you mention in your sig) is that there is no overriding authority who decides when the burden has been met. It is something that each individual person has to decide for himself. Each individual has to evaluate the evidence for himself, and decide what evidence he finds credible, and what he doesn't. Neither @Sarge nor I am bound by your criteria for burden of proof any more than you can be bound by mine. Just because you don't find my personal experience to be credible doesn't preclude me (or anyone else) from finding it credible.

    Just because we arrive at different conclusions doesn't mean that either of our positions is irrational. Rationality is based on the process someone uses to arrive at their conclusions, rather than how much you agree or disagree with the conclusion. For example, there are numerous recorded instances of "near death experiences" where people have reported seeing "angels". For someone who has had such an experience, it is completely rational to believe that angels exist, because of their experience. For someone else, it's not irrational to discount their experience.
    Jedi Merkurian and Sarge like this.
  24. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Just on that subject, this might be a personal question which you are not inclined to answer on this particular forum but if you are so inclined can you tell us exactly what was the miracle which god worked on your heart? I don't ask this so that I can suggest alternatives to you or to try and convince you that something else happened to you, i just ask because I find this kind stuff very interesting.

    I know you were responding to @timmoishere but I just read this article and thought about this thread:

    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sc...o-visions-from-other-side-20130813-2ruch.html

    Or it could be angels......who knows? I believe in ghosts so I don't think you are crazy KK.
    Last edited by LostOnHoth, Aug 14, 2013
  25. Sarge Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 4, 1998
    star 4
    Since you're asking respectfully, I'll do my best to answer.
    I was brought up in a church-going family, so I knew about God and the Bible, but for a long time I didn't really believe in an all-powerful God controlling everything, how crazy is that idea in this modern scientific world? Occasionally I'd offer up a skeptic "prayer" that amounted to, "Hey God, if you're real, prove it!" He doesn't answer those prayers, and rightfully so.
    Eventually I came to a low point in my life. I was angry, lonely, frustrated, bitter, and hopeless. I knew I couldn't go on the way I was; life just wasn't worth living like that. I finally just gave up and thought something like, "There's no way I can escape from myself. I am my own worst enemy. I've tried to change myself for the better but that doesn't get to the root of my problems. I give up. God, do with me what You will." A heartbeat later I was at peace.
    The change in me since the moment I decided "not my will but Thine be done" has amazed me. That ugly guy I used to be has been transformed. People have told me that I seem to glow; every church I've belonged to has been grateful for my presence, even one of my atheist friends told me, "I'd like Christians better if more of them were like you." That kind of change is beyond me. I know Who to thank for the person I am today.
    No doubt many readers here will shrug and say, "That's not God, that's just positive thinking." I can't offer any scientific proof that it was God, but I know what I know, and one of the things I know is that He worked a miracle in me.