Science without religion is lame,

[McCulloch]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

[RonE]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

In a word NO. And, religion's only use for science is to try to bend it to prove their own favorite god. Science has no use for god, as stated by Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace "I had no need of that hypothesis".

[KenRU]

But belief in evolution necessitates not only unbelief in, but placement of God in the category of unreal idols apart from His uniqueness and sovereignty.

Well this is categorically false. There are many Christian denominations that accept evolution as true, including the Catholics.

You wouldn’t do that to your parents would you?

Believing that one is the offspring (biologically) from their parents is pretty much required for a belief and understanding of evolution. It has nothing to do with whether or not that parent has or deserves sovereignty over their offspring.

In fact, there are many parents who demonstrably should not have kids, nor be responsible for them.

May I ask if you would please not be deceived?

Skepticism and seeking out evidence PREVENTS one from believing false claims of truth.

[Erexsaur]

Evolution has been deemed a fact because it has been observed. The theory that describes the fact of evolution is virtually unanimous by scientist that study biology.
However, even if that fact of evolution wasn't unanimous, that does not justify you to then invent another scenario.

How can anyone supposedly unaninously deem anything as fact while unconditionally ignoring and verbally demoting all scientists that oppose? What’s so bad about my scenarios? I like sharing them.

What you like or don't like is irrelevant.
That populations of species change over time is an observed fact. This is evolution.
Feel free to present a mechanism that would stop these changes from occurring at some point. If you cannot, then it is logical that small changes will equal large changes over time. Otherwise you might as well claim to believe in minutes, but not hours.

There is not a single person on this planet that I'm aware of that has any knowledge of the gods existing. Why are you bringing up this what if scenario?

You know you are aware! I and others know that God exists. You have the power to believe or disbelieve what you were informed of.

It seems that you are delusional, since I in fact am not aware that any of the proposed gods exist. I also don't have the capability to disbelieve in things that I know to be true. Therefore you are also wrong on that point.

However, since you cannot evidence a creation, Adam or Eve nor a global flood, you should be willing to examine why you hold such beliefs. Being scared of going to hell should not be enough.

Aren’t you able to take my or anyone’s word that a forest of evidence as well as witnesses are all around us?

I am unable to just believe the un-evidenced, random words from some random person on the internet.
If this is truly good enough for you, then I have some ocean front property in Arizona that I'll sell to you for super cheap.

Please don’t let all of those trees block your view of it.

Of what? Please be specific.

You were at least told.

Yes, you told me (made an empty claim) about some forest of evidence. I cannot just believe your claim until you show that you speak the truth. I think there is a reason that you claim 'forest' yet cannot even show me as much as a 'tree'.

I thought that a word to the wise is sufficient.

You thought wrong and who is the wise person you are now referring to?

The transformed life of the believer delivers him from bondage from the fear of hell.

Demonstrably false by the fact that only believers in hell fear this hell.
Transform your life from a believer to a non-believer and you will also be freed from this fear of hell.

Is genocide not something that should be despised?
Is slavery not something that should be despised?
Please present a context that you would like to argue for where committing genocide is contextually the best course of action. I would like to examine if your justification for genocide is despicable or not.

Is there not a difference between ones heeding what he is told and calling himself trying to debate it off?

Perhaps, but now you are just dodging the question:
"Please present a context that you would like to argue for where committing genocide is contextually the best course of action. I would like to examine if your justification for genocide is despicable or not."

Continue to ignore advice against and think that God is guilty of the atrocities of man of which prompted Him to judge societies and thus keep yourself from His delivering you from the cause for Him to judge you. OK?

Ok? No, this is not OK. Preaching is against the rules.

From your speech, it doesn’t appear to me that you learned very much of God and the gospel at the place you left.

And ironically, you haven't taught me anything about this god concept that you have. You have mentioned trees and forests though.

Who or what did you leave?

I was a born again, spirit filled, tongue talking, drunk in the Holy Ghost, street evangelizing (foreign and abroad) Christian for 2 decades. It took me a while to figure out that I only 'claimed' to have a relationship with a god.
Being set free from my beliefs was the hardest thing I have ever done.

I dare say because one is causing harm to a fellow human where the other is likely being done to feed a fellow human (assuming this is not a case of self defense of course). Are you seriously not sure why hitting someone on the head is poor form? If so, thank goodness there are threats of hell to keep people like you in line.

Beyond fear of punishment, things like love of neighbor and respect for the sanctity of human life keep me in line. What’s keeping you in line? Is love for neighbor a commandment of a mythical character to you?

It's the commandment of many mythical characters and also of some real ones. What is your point? I get the impression that for some reason you think this is a Christian concept. You are mistaken.

Hello Clownboat,

You said,

What you like or don't like is irrelevant.
That populations of species change over time is an observed fact. This is evolution.
Feel free to present a mechanism that would stop these changes from occurring at some point. If you cannot, then it is logical that small changes will equal large changes over time. Otherwise you might as well claim to believe in minutes, but not hours.

Changes do occur due to natural selection. Is that what you are speaking of?


In response to my statement, "I thought that a word to the wise is sufficient." You said,

You thought wrong and who is the wise person you are now referring to?

Aren’t you a wise person? Or do you want me to see you otherwise?

In response to my talk not to think of God as guilty of atrocities of man, you said,

Ok? No, this is not OK. Preaching is against the rules.

If my speaking in an effort to illustrate underlying causes of discussed issues is against the rules maybe we should go to another place or exchange emails. Should we? I only know there were times when I wished someone had talked to me as I am now talking to you.

And ironically, you haven't taught me anything about this god concept that you have. You have mentioned trees and forests though.

Maybe the reason I couldn’t inform you is because I reiterated things you already know that’s hidden in a closet.

In response to my statement, "Who or what did you leave?" you said,

I was a born again, spirit filled, tongue talking, drunk in the Holy Ghost, street evangelizing (foreign and abroad) Christian for 2 decades. It took me a while to figure out that I only 'claimed' to have a relationship with a god.
Being set free from my beliefs was the hardest thing I have ever done.

Thanks for sharing your religious past. I’m too am Pentecostal and have seen false religion that caused disillusionment and have at times been disillusioned myself. I thank God that I overcame with His help. Scripture has clearly illustrated the acute danger of a person being so caught up in religious form and fashion that he never gets to knew his Savior personally. Failure to learn and to know Him and His gracious ways defeats the gospel purpose and drives individuals into multitudes of needless costly mistakes.

You said it took you a while to realize that you only claimed to have a relationship with God and found it to be unreal? Thank you. This was a very important honest move and it is the thing that freed you from the bondage. I have done similar myself. But please remember that the problem is not a fault with the gospel, but of error in application.

It’s unfortunate that too many gave up at this critical moment of realization of insufficiency never to find the needed help that’s so near because they never really knew Him that they supposedly worshipped! I have been surprised how God quickly manifested Himself as my helper and lifted me from a very low state at such moments. I’m serious!

By now I trust that you read my last post to Kenisaw about honest confession. But wait! You are familiar with this reminder:

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6)�

In response to my statement, "Beyond fear of punishment, things like love of neighbor and respect for the sanctity of human life keep me in line. What’s keeping you in line? Is love for neighbor a commandment of a mythical character to you?" you said,

It's the commandment of many mythical characters and also of some real ones. What is your point? I get the impression that for some reason you think this is a Christian concept. You are mistaken.

Not only is this commandment a Christian concept, but a Judeo-Christian concept. If not, what concept is it? Where did it originate and where’s the documentation? I can name two individuals that supposedly “freed science from Moses.� Such effort supposedly meant “freeing� scientist from conformance to this commandment.

Please be aware that quitting is one thing but quitting to the point of denying and playing dumb toward all knowledge gained and discrediting the Source of that knowledge is more like desertion. Deserting knowledge is one thing but twenty plus years precious knowledge of Biblical wisdom? That’s extremely dangerous, my friend!! Please!!! (Oops! I’ve “preached� again.) But my intended purpose is only to share needed knowledge.

I decided to create another leg for further comments on the title of this leg.

Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

In a word NO. And, religion's only use for science is to try to bend it to prove their own favorite god. Science has no use for god, as stated by Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace "I had no need of that hypothesis".

Hello RonE,

In a word NO. And, religion's only use for science is to try to bend it to prove their own favorite god. Science has no use for god, as stated by Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace "I had no need of that hypothesis".

Thanks for your view that you shared. But have you considered the following statements made by Isaac Newton?


�All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer.�
Isaac Newton

“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.�
Isaac Newton

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.�
Isaac Newton


I have decided to create another leg for additional comments for the topic, “Science with religion is lame.�

Earl

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 133 by Erexsaur]

Argument from authority fallacy. Newton being religious isn't an argument in favor of Christianity being correct. The Golden Age of Islam brought with it many scientific advancements, and many of those advancements came from Muslims. They probably attributed their success to their god as well.

See how that argument is actually completely full of holes and useless?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 124 by Kenisaw]

Hello Kenisaw,

Have you considered the Vedas, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Norse poetry, and so forth that informs us? If any of those happen to be true, the ball is in our park for responsibility to act on them with determination not to stray. Choice whether or not to act has consequences. Have you acted on any of those? The answer is of course no, you haven't. Why haven't you? Because you don't believe in them. You believe in the Bible god and none of the others, and the reason you give is, basically, that you better just in case it is the right one. That's called Pascal's Wager, look it up.

Whoa!
I trust and believe in God of the Bible because I know that He is the one God, not just in case. I only ask have you considered what you know of because you were informed. So was I informed of God beginning with my mother, then preachers and witnesses.

I was informed just as you were when I was young. I was raised religious, and was religious. Then I could no longer accept the massive amounts of irrational nonsense that infects all of the world's religious claims, and became an atheist. Being raised religious isn't an excuse for staying religious I'm afraid.

God lives to send His witnesses to inform. As I acted on what I received, I personally witnessed His presence for myself. As for convincing me otherwise, too late!! You and I agree that we act on what we know and most of what we know is based on what we were told.

Well apparently god's witnesses showed me how the claims in the Bible cannot possibly be true. Kind of a funny thing for a god to do, especially one that does not lie or deceive and is all loving...

But belief in evolution necessitates not only unbelief in, but placement of God in the category of unreal idols apart from His uniqueness and sovereignty. You wouldn’t do that to your parents would you? May I ask if you would please not be deceived?

I don't believe evolution. I accept it as sound and rational science based on verifying it myself. I don't believe in anything for that matter. I only accept what is rational and logical after careful inspection of the information available to me. It makes zero sense that your god created everything that exists, including fossils and DNA and so forth, and yet every single piece of evidence from those things denies the existence of the god. That same god also claims it is all loving and does not lie and deceive, while creating evidence that makes people think it doesn't exist. The only rational conclusion to reach when faced with all that is that there isn't really a god. I'd ask you to not be deceived instead...

The illogical part of Pascal's Wager, however, is that there is nothing about any particular god creature or corresponding religion that has more factual support than any of the other ones. So in order to properly take Pascal's Wager, you'd need to believe in ALL of them. Otherwise you haven't really covered all your bases, have you.

Pascal’s wager only describes why it would be much better to trust God and His word before exiting this life with no option to return than not to trust. I think it’s a very sensible risk assessment. Don’t you? Why should it discourage? But the real reason one should trust and turn to God extends far beyond this simple logic! Been there done that? If that’s the case, you never knew Him while you were "there."

It might be a sensible risk assessment if the god creature of the Bible made sense. It clearly does not. It might be a sensible risk assessment if the god creature of the Bible had evidence supporting its existence. It clearly does not.

Everything you do in life has costs associated with it. Financial, emotional, intellectual, and other costs. The cost of believing in such a contradictory nonsensical being is too high for me.

Pascal spoke only of God of the Bible. Please tell me. If you found a precious diamond in a pile of cheap rhinestones, would you refuse to believe it of any better worth than the rhinestones and thus reject it? Please? Did a believer in Zeus obligate himself to believe in the many other gods also? Weren’t we told the impossibility of serving more than one master?

I will assume that the diamond is supposed to be the Bible god. I can't figure out how a god that kills 1 day old newborns in a worldwide flood, and orders his chosen people to own slaves, and claims that every government that exists is because he wills it (and Hitler's Third Reich was a government after all), is much of a diamond. A religious gemologist you are not...

Which was the whole point of that original statement of mine that you have quoted above. None of the multitudes of god beings and belief systems that man has followed over the years has any proof for it. None. That you've picked the Bible as your choice has nothing to do with evidence or data, but is purely a speculative stab at one of the thousands of choices that was probably influenced by where you were born, who your parents are, and who you've associated with in your life.

The Bible is preached and the hearer is commanded to trust and believe. He that refuses simply misses out on Him that’s true. God makes wise the individual that becomes a fool for Him. Can material science prove anything beyond the natural? May I please again caution you that the Bible reveals that people reject God face to face, not because of doubt? They prefer to continue in the wrong they are warned against.

May I caution you that the god that cannot lie and deceive claimed that birds came before land animals even though all the evidence it put in the ground shows exactly the opposite? It claims plants were created before the Sun. It says it's OK to own slaves, and beat them. Anyone who trusts and believes that is ignoring their rational faculties.

Is God real? The Bible promised that only the pure in heart sees God. Is your heart pure? What does it mean to be pure in heart? It does not mean that one has forced himself to be nicey-nicey because someone threatened him with hell. It means ones simple, honest confession without reservation that he falls short. We are all weighed down by something we know within ourselves that displeases God.

Not me brother. I know religious people cannot possibly believe this, but I have zero fear of displeasing any divine creature. I'm a lot more like Jesus when it comes to serving my fellow man than any person I know who has religious convictions on top of it. My mind's pure, and my heart follows that.

Do you remember the thief on the cross beside Jesus? Although starting out mocking Jesus, he suddenly realized himself worthy to be condemned compared with the innocence of Jesus he mocked and consequently saw the man Jesus as God that’s forgiving and boldly asked for forgiveness. Who was he, a condemned criminal to ask Jesus to remember him in His kingdom? As he supernaturally saw Jesus as God, so did he supernaturally realize his last minute opportunity to be forgiven.

I do remember that. It's a nice story with a moral message that doesn't resonate with me, because I am not shackled by ancient belief systems.

You can follow it all you want, that's your right and your business. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that your belief is something more than an irrational application of Pascal's Wager, because it isn't.

My application of Pascal's Wager is rational.

Religious blinders always make it appear so.

Design is not science. Design is applying what we've learned in science into practical applications that we can use in daily life. I happen to know this because I am an engineer, and that's what we do. Engineers are not scientists. We use scientific knowledge to design useful stuff.

To answer your second question, yes. Vaccines are one. There are also programs called evolutionary algorithms used to solve complex technical problems that contain many criteria. On a broader scope, nearly every new product goes through an evolutionary process - it's called product testing. (You could have googled all this by the way, instead of having someone else answer it for you).

But isn’t product testing done by intelligent individuals instead of chance? How did the algorithms originate? Is chance smart enough to create?

Based on your questions you are no longer talking about the pseudo difference between "operational" and "historical" science. But that's fine, I think I know where you are trying to go now. To answer your first question, product testing is done by intelligence individuals. It's done to verify that the design meets the intended results and abilities desired in the product. To answer your second question, the algorithm was created by someone (or some group of people). To answer your third question, chance is not a thing that does something. It's a numerical representation of the statistical possibility of an event happening in any one given iteration. Chance is not intelligent, nor does it design. It's just the odds of something.

Naturally you are mentioning things that we know have human intelligence involved in their existence. You were probably going to make an illogical leap of logic to state that things don't exist unless they are designed. Let me cut you off right there. Is a water molecule designed? The Sun? No, there's no evidence or reason to think they are. Is there anything about life that violates the laws of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, or other universal law? Nope. Things that can exist within the rules of the universe, can exist. It's that simple.

I’m happy to know I’m talking to an engineer. I spent my career as a technician testing for engineers. But don’t engineers use what scientists have learned for us?

Yes. We take scientific knowledge and design things. We do not generate new scientific knowledge.

In response to my statement, "I appreciate Ken Ham very much. Genesis is the theme of his website that’s full to the brim of supporting knowledge from - DUH – scientists based on scientific data. Do we care to hear?", you said,

I've already heard it all big boy. You are not the first person at this website (or any other website) to champion the pseudo science garbage at AIG. But I do not want you to think we can't discuss something from that useless website. Please, by all means, pick your favorite AIG claim and post it, and let's hold a discussion between you and me.

You are not willing to hear me or creationist scientists out before explaining away what's said!

I'm totally willing to hear it. Did I not just say (which you even quoted above): "Please, by all means, pick your favorite AIG claim and post it, and let's hold a discussion between you and me."???

I'm just letting you know that I've already heard all of it before. I promise to be honest with you and tell you if you've brought up something that I have never, ever heard of before you wrote it, but I'm not too worried about that happening. Sites like AIG don't change their material, and most creationist sites just copy and paste material from other creationist sites. Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself. It's word for word from site to site. And they also do not reference or credit who wrote it either, which is rather unprofessional and smacks of plagiarism.

But if there is something you want to discuss, I'll be happy to do so.

As long as you are sure that knowledge according to your worldview is undeniably factual and that truth always trumps mistruth, why do you find it so necessary to unconditionally hold grudges against all that oppose you including the fine people at AIG?

I am always willing to rethink my conclusions and make new determination about the data and evidence that man has collected. I am always willing to look at new empirical evidence. The real question is, are you? Because I've seen the nonsense from the "fine people" at AIG, and I already know what's wrong with it. And when you can't defend what they say after we discuss it, and you can't support creationist claims anymore, are you going to change your beliefs? I bet you won't...

What’s the need to always verbally demote creationist scientists? Is that practice scientifically kosher? Why aren’t you confident that what you count as the real truth won’t eventually reveal itself to them?

In my experience creationist scientists is a contradiction in terms. They aren't interested in the truth, and the junk at their websites is ample enough proof of that.

But that will all come out when we start discussing whatever claim you want to debate.

I thought that science unities instead of wedging people apart.

You will have to get a better understanding of what science is if we are going to be able to have a scientific discussion. Science doesn't unite. Science explores questions regarding phenomena and facts in order to explain why these things exist. That's all it does. It does not have a Coke and sing with the world. It is an investigative process that determines the true nature of things based on all the available data at that time. If those determinations brings people together or tears them apart is not part of the scientific process.

Truth appears as a lie to a lie and a lie appears as a lie to truth. Matter appears as antimatter to antimatter and antimatter appears as antimatter to matter. The same is true with us with our worldviews.

Not really. Truth doesn't change depending on the worldview - it is still true no matter what particular human being thinks.

There's a vast difference between the fate of each of those that hold these opposing worldviews.

Earl

We only have different fates if you are right. If I'm right, we both have the same fate. All the belief in the world isn't going to change you ceasing to exist for all eternity when the carbon unit supporting your brain finally stops working...

[Clownboat]

What you like or don't like is irrelevant.
That populations of species change over time is an observed fact. This is evolution.
Feel free to present a mechanism that would stop these changes from occurring at some point. If you cannot, then it is logical that small changes will equal large changes over time. Otherwise you might as well claim to believe in minutes, but not hours.

Changes do occur due to natural selection. Is that what you are speaking of?

No. Please read and respond to what I did say.

Aren’t you a wise person? Or do you want me to see you otherwise?

Again, please respond to what I did ask.
"who is the wise person you are now referring to?"

Ok? No, this is not OK. Preaching is against the rules.

If my speaking in an effort to illustrate underlying causes of discussed issues is against the rules maybe we should go to another place or exchange emails. Should we? I only know there were times when I wished someone had talked to me as I am now talking to you.

No thank you. I joined a debate site to debate believe it or not. I have done the Christian thing for 20 years, but I thanks for the laugh by suggesting that YOU might just be who I need to talk to. What comes after 'pride'?

Maybe the reason I couldn’t inform you is because I reiterated things you already know that’s hidden in a closet.

That is one possibility. Have you considered that your beliefs might be false though, and that you, like so many others in history have been deceived by one of the many available god concepts?

the problem is not a fault with the gospel, but of error in application.

As if you are able to say anything different. You, unlike myself have not been freed from the beliefs we were indoctrinated to hold. When and if that happens, your view of the Bible will change.

It’s unfortunate that too many gave up at this critical moment of realization of insufficiency never to find the needed help that’s so near because they never really knew Him that they supposedly worshipped!

I find it more sad that people will invent gods, choose one and then call it 'Him" in order to provide them with meaning and purpose in their lives.

I have been surprised how God quickly manifested Himself as my helper and lifted me from a very low state at such moments. I’m serious!

You must first be convinced that you are sick before you will buy the medicine. I hope that someday you will be freed from your make believe sickness and come to realize how much you can accomplish with enough effort.

By now I trust that you read my last post to Kenisaw about honest confession. But wait! You are familiar with this reminder:

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6)�

Faith is a requirement in order to believe in false things, not true things. For example, take your faith and apply it to Allah and you can then believe like a Muslim. Don't like that? Well, just apply faith to another god concept.
That you don't realize this is no wonder that you are still giving your money to the church.

(The Golden Rule)

Not only is this commandment a Christian concept, but a Judeo-Christian concept. If not, what concept is it? Where did it originate and where’s the documentation? I can name two individuals that supposedly “freed science from Moses.� Such effort supposedly meant “freeing� scientist from conformance to this commandment.

You could have searched this on your own and found the answer in less time then it took you to type these words. However, when a person assume they have the answer already, that stops all future learning.
Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Please be aware that quitting is one thing but quitting to the point of denying and playing dumb toward all knowledge gained and discrediting the Source of that knowledge is more like desertion. Deserting knowledge is one thing but twenty plus years precious knowledge of Biblical wisdom? That’s extremely dangerous, my friend!! Please!!! (Oops! I’ve “preached� again.) But my intended purpose is only to share needed knowledge.

Please stop preaching. I lived my life, so I know that you are just currently still be fooled. Therefore to listen to you would be idiotic of me.
I would also leave the scare tactics ('more like desertion' - 'That’s extremely dangerous') to the terrorists. If a god were real, I would imagine that it could do better than the terrorists.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 133 by Erexsaur]
Newton is an interesting figure, his religious views would have been dangerous in the England of his time. Perhaps most telling of his true beliefs was his refusal of sacraments at this death.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to McCulloch in post #1]
'Science without religion is lame' is like saying 'Truth without fiction is worthless.'

[Diogenes]

To those who insist religion is necessary to discover truth, or whatever, one must ask 'which religion?'

The one that insists Jews came to North America in a submarine 600 BCE?

The one that believes 'Whites' were created as a race of killers to serve blacks as a slave army?

How about the one that believes in Thetans from trillions of years ago who have no mass or energy?

Or that Bald Eagle made man out of clay? Are any of these goofier than the idea God made man from dust or from a clot of blood, or woman from a man's rib?