Veritass' Religious Science Thread #2: Why Can't We Have Both God And Science?

[GoodSarmatian]

I was just thinking about this so please help me see if it is flawed.

Have you noticed that the physical world is made of 3 things, ie. protons, neutrons and electrons? And of course there is energy and waves and stuff but those are 3 key building blocks?

And Protons and Neutrons consist of quarks, and there are many, many more particles physicists have found (or think they have found) and are tryign to find. I guess in the end it all comes to Einstein : Matter is just a high-density form of energy.

And all living things are programmed the same way, ie. with DNA and RNA to form proteins.

Not all living things are programmed in exactly the same way, the genetic code itself is subject to evolution and is not identical in all species.
Sure, the basics are the same, but there details may vary.
For example the stop codons (the sequence which shows that the actual sequence is finished) in most organisms are UAA (uracil-adenine-adenine), UAG, and UGA. But In mitochondria the sequence UGA (uracil-guanine-adenine) is not a stop codon, it codes the amino-acid tryptophan.
Anyway, this only refers to life on earth. There might be other forms in other places.

The very fact that every living thing is programmed with DNA and RNA is quite a giveaway right? If there can be so many different types of organisms surely there could have been more than one way to program all these things.

For me the fact that every being is programmed in a similar way is a giveaway that they all have the same origin and evolved to their current state over time (and probably are still evolving).

 

[Veritass]

My fundamental question would be why do we need the co-existence at all? Why not get rid of religion and depend entirely on science because I do not see religion answering any question that science cannot.

I agree that for the physical sciences, we continue to answer deeper and deeper questions about the fundamental nature of physical reality. But unless you want to treat all of the human questions as merely predictable chemical brain interactions, then there are many questions science is not adequate to.

In the social sciences, the questions are more subtle and scientific study much more complicated. Why do people do the things they do? Can we eradicate war and crime or are they fundamental to human nature? Is there a social system that can be created with the benefits of capitalism or socialism but not the pitfalls? What is the age of reason, when children can be granted various rights and responsibilities of adults. Surely, the scientific method can and should be applied to these questions and social studies in general, but the results are much more blurry and subject to various interpretations. Also, for these questions, any complete understanding will be impossible, because the subject we seek to understand will always be advancing at least as fast as our ability to understand it. I will even grant you that religion, at least in its current state of advancement, doesn't do a very good job of answering any of these questions as well.

Down at the personal level, there are whole host of questions that cannot be addressed scientifically, but can be investigated and answered religiously. Is there a purpose to our lives, and if so, how is that purpose found? What is the transcendent state that I achieve in the practice of meditation? Why does prayer work and attract good into my life, at least for me? What is the truth in beauty? Do these questions have answers, or does the answer lie only in the seeking?

I am not at all arguing against the validity and necessity of science. I am only arguing against the view that the scientific way of looking at the universe might ever be the only way.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Even if religion is only a psychological framework, it is such a natural part of the human mind - more so than empiricism - that it is not going away any time soon whether we want it to or not. Humans are much better suited in my opinion to thinking in religious terms than scientific terms.

Anyways, I see different degrees of certainty in religion and science. I accept as probably true (with an X% chance of being true) scientific theories such as the theory of evolution or what have you. I base this nt on any observations I have made - I am no scientist - but on my trust in the scientific model and by extension my trust in scientists. I mean, I doubt they are intentionally fooling me but I cannot be sure. I believe in my religion in a different way - faith for me is not unquestionably accepting something as certain but realizing that it is possible that it isn't, and acting as though it is anyways. Ultimately the question of whether I will be able to one day be like God or not is far more important to me than where and when my first ancestors were bipedal. But there is a different kind of certainty we can get from the latter.

 

[Elrohir]

So if you aren't trying to "convert" anyone, why did you post this thread? Why do you care at all what anyone else believes anyway?

 

[SupremeC]

Not all living things are programmed in exactly the same way, the genetic code itself is subject to evolution and is not identical in all species.
Sure, the basics are the same, but there details may vary.
For example the stop codons (the sequence which shows that the actual sequence is finished) in most organisms are UAA (uracil-adenine-adenine), UAG, and UGA. But In mitochondria the sequence UGA (uracil-guanine-adenine) is not a stop codon, it codes the amino-acid tryptophan.
Anyway, this only refers to life on earth. There might be other forms in other places.

My point is that binary codes things with 0s and 1s like 11001 stand for something and 101010 stands for something else. I don't know what they are but that's a the rough schematic. While DNA codes for different sequences of amino acids to form different organisms, binary has different codes to code for different things in programs. Sure there are more types of amino acids than 0s and 1s and they do much more, but that may just be that our science is lagging here and we are unable to deal with more complicated programs or programming languages.

 

[Veritass]

So if you aren't trying to "convert" anyone, why did you post this thread? Why do you care at all what anyone else believes anyway?

I posted thread #1 (Ask a Religious Scientist) because I enjoyed reading the threads about Mormonism and Hinduism and learning how they believed, and I thought I would share about Religious Science as well.

I posted thread #2 (Why Can't We Have Both God and Science?) because there seems to be a high rate of sniping between the only-science and only-God crowds, and I was hoping to turn the discussion away from the thought that it had to be either/or.

I care because I believe in the long run, the evolution of each person's consciousness contributes to the evolution of global consciousness. The more we discuss these things and share our ideas, the more we can contribute to each other's growth.

 

[Elrohir]

I see. Well, to be honest, I think you're wasting your time. Most people fall to one of the extremes on either side. Talking to the ones who don't is like preaching to the choir; and people are equally stubborn in their beliefs in science and religion. And really, the ones who it would be best to convince, the radicals who kill people for their beliefs, aren't going to listen to you no matter what you say.

I applaud you for trying to create some common ground, but I'm afraid you're doomed to failure.

 

[Turner]

And really, the ones who it would be best to convince, the radicals who kill people for their beliefs, aren't going to listen to you no matter what you say.

One's entitled to try. You never know, someone may convert their way of thinking.

But I wouldn't count on it, here.

 

[Elrohir]

One's entitled to try. You never know, someone may convert their way of thinking.

But I wouldn't count on it, here.

I wouldn't count on it anywhere on the internet, or most places where humans gather, for that matter. Talking and exchanging information and viewpoints is interesting, but honestly, I've never seen anyone change their minds on anything truly important in this area. (Existence of God, Creationism v. Evolutionism, etc...) Humans are stubborn creatures, myself included.

 

[atreas]

I care because I believe in the long run, the evolution of each person's consciousness contributes to the evolution of global consciousness. The more we discuss these things and share our ideas, the more we can contribute to each other's growth.

That's a really noble cause, but my feeling is that you can only discuss such things after you have established a certain "framework" for the discussion (something like establishing the non-provable "axioms" on which you will base your subsequent "theorems" in a mathematical model).

Still, I am really happy I saw those two threads - it's always good to see another viewpoint.

 

[Veritass]

Don't worry. I have no illusion that I am going to transform the world through the Civ discussion board. It doesn't hurt to jiggle a few people's thoughts, however. It was partially an exercise for me. I was curious what kinds of questions people would have, and whether I had thought of them and had answers for them in my own framework.

 

[warpus]

I see. Well, to be honest, I think you're wasting your time. Most people fall to one of the extremes on either side. Talking to the ones who don't is like preaching to the choir; and people are equally stubborn in their beliefs in science and religion. And really, the ones who it would be best to convince, the radicals who kill people for their beliefs, aren't going to listen to you no matter what you say.

I applaud you for trying to create some common ground, but I'm afraid you're doomed to failure.

I disagree. While most atheists and agnostics discount the idea of a Christian God, a lot of us are open to the idea of a God in general. There are also plenty of religious folk who don't take the Bible/Koran/etc. literally and are open to the scientific method.

I would even say that on this board alone, we might have as many as .. 10 extremists.. and even so, that number may be high.

 

[Turner]

I wouldn't count on it anywhere on the internet, or most places where humans gather, for that matter. Talking and exchanging information and viewpoints is interesting, but honestly, I've never seen anyone change their minds on anything truly important in this area. (Existence of God, Creationism v. Evolutionism, etc...) Humans are stubborn creatures, myself included.

Those of us Searching For The Truth are willing to change our opinions. Those of us who haven't changed them, haven't been convinced yet.

 

[Kozmos]

Because God is against weapons of mass destruction and clone armies.

 

[Xshayathiya]

Why Can't We Have Both God And Science?

If Einstein said we can, we can!
*shakes fist*

PS

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Physics, as I am learning it, tends to say "That is how it is, don't ask us why". Chemistry, again as I am learning it, tends to say "Hm... carbon appeares to have more valance electron shelles than it should have according to the standard theory, we will have to make another theory."

Being a physicist myself, I'll, of course, claim that chemistry is merely a branch of physics.

That out of the way, I don't see your point. New physical theories - quantum mechanics is a good example - do get made because observations indicate that objects - including valence electrons - act different from what current theory says they should. Conversely, chemistry makes no special claims of undercovering the "whys"; we can see "why" elements have the numbers of valence electrons they have, but that's only because chemistry can be reduced to a more fundamental level of explanation (viz. atomic physics). This is no different from a "higher" branch of physics, like optics.

 

[Elrohir]

I disagree. While most atheists and agnostics discount the idea of a Christian God, a lot of us are open to the idea of a God in general. There are also plenty of religious folk who don't take the Bible/Koran/etc. literally and are open to the scientific method.

I would even say that on this board alone, we might have as many as .. 10 extremists.. and even so, that number may be high.

I make no judgement as to the openness of your mind. But I have known many athiests and agnostics who are just as adamantly believers in their position as any Christian or Muslim. Extremists are extremists, no matter what their religious affiliation.

That would depend upon how you define extremist. I would personally put the number about that, perhaps a little higher.

 

[Veritass]

But I have known many athiests and agnostics who are just as adamantly believers in their position as any Christian or Muslim.

Two flavors of atheists:
1) God does not exist. Very easy to counter, as God could very easily exist outside the knowledge of this atheist.
2) I believe God does not exist. In this case, you're right, many people hold onto this very tightly.

Two flavors of agnostics:
1) It is not knowable whether God exists. Same counter as before: this athiest does not know enough to say what is knowable.
2) I do not know whether God exists. Fine as a position, but it is difficult to be adamant about your own ignorance.

I have termed these "hard" and "soft" atheists and "hard" and "soft" agnostics. I have held each of these positions in my life, in approximately that order. That is why I am so clear in my mind that religion and faith are a choice that you make. I chose to seek a relationship with God, but not until I was about 34.

This is also what seems to happen with people who have their first crisis of faith after adolescence. They believe what they were told to believe growing up, and at some point, part of establishing their independence is to reject this prescribed way of thinking. Those that then choose their faith anew have a renewed relationship with God, because it is of their own choosing. Many, including myself, would argue that this choice is not completely free, because the symbols and rituals are planted too deeply in the mind, so these are the ones that the person "naturally" aligns to, but these are all just metaphors, anyway.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I can understand why Veritass wants to make this thread. I did not start my Mormonism thread to convert anyone. Sure, it owuld be a great outcome, but realistically it probably won't happen. I did get a chance to explain my beliefs, clear up some misconceptions, and learn what others think. For something as little known as Veritass' faith, that is even more important.

 

[onejayhawk]

I think the difference between science and most religions is the "surety" with which they make their claims. Science is very good about calling something a theory when it is a theory, and of specifying the conditions in which the theory is applicable. Einsteinian physics did not replace Newtonian physics; it supplemented it for different conditions, such as the very small or the very fast.

If religions were to advance their claims not as "The Truth" but as a framework for understanding, or a model that works for them, science and religion could coexist much more peacefully. In general, I think the eastern religions are better at this. The western religions seem to try to tell you what to think, whereas the eastern religions try to teach you how to think on these things.

To be a religon, you must have articles of faith. Matters of faith are not subject to dispute; they simply are. This is just as true if the religon is naturism, atheism, statusism, materialism, or any of the multitude of things to which a person might devote his central devotion.

Doesn't that render religion a mere way of coping with a psychological defect?

How do you make that a "mere"? Why is it a defect?

J