Bcuz it needs a new thread... Glenn Beck is a Mormon!?!Political/Religion Disclaimer

[analogjesus]

I'm not saying Evolution is an alternative to religion. I'm saying it takes faith simply based on that no one knows how this planet started. We can speculate, but to do so, you take things on faith. There's things you take on Faith. You say it's a fact. Prove it. I'm open to hear what you know on the subject of evolution and how we came to be from monkeys. Isn't science questions and ideas that you then attempt to prove? You say faith shouldn't be a part of any scientific theory, but what would drive you on with any given idea if you didn't have faith that it was true?

Gravity is a law and reality of the here and now. Can you empirically, or anyone else empirically prove how it started or that it took the process of evolution? I am neither here nor there on evolution. I just don't know. It is arrogant in the extreme for me to claim that evolution is false because the Bible says it happend in xyz days. In fact, it would be silly to rule out evolution as God's chosen way of bringing things into being. I just don't know. But to say no faith is present in the theory of evolution is, also arrogant.

Well first I would like to address the scientific definitions of both a theory and a law.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.



Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

Now if you don't feel like reading all of that (I can't blame you ;)) this is the most important thing:

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The main difference between a theory and a law are whether or not math can be used to explain the phenomenon. Evolution is a very complex process, that happens over millions of years. It would be unimaginably difficult to develop an equation that adequately explains evolution.



Compare evolution to plate tectonics. Now this only works if you think plate tectonics is a valid theory. Both are theories. Both are observed to be true. Both are unable to be described mathematically.



I think you might be misinterpreting the scientific method a little bit. If you form a hypothesis and are looking for a particular result is the wrong way to go about doing something. Scientist do not try and prove evolution. They are trying to explain existence. Currently, the accepted theory is evolution because a hypothesis to explain existence was developed (evolution) and this hypothesis has been tested and proven (so far).

Science is not concrete and can change over time. That is why faith is not required. You only form conclusions based on known facts. If new facts surface, your theory can change.

Now I am not qualified to debate the actual theory of evolution with you as I am much more of an engineer than a biologist, I apologize.

I found the excerpt you posted interesting, although I noticed one overlying flaw. You should not consider religions scientific hypotheses and therefore you should not attempt to apply the scientific method to them. I think it is a pointless endeavour to debate the existence of God with anyone. There is absolutely zero evidence for existence of God. If you choose to believe, that is your choice and I can respect that. But do not try and prove the existence of God. The author is trying to group religion in with science and that simply doesn't work. He says that sceptics should have evidence in order to disprove religion. The burden of proof lies with those who propose something, not with those who question whether or not a theory is valid.

[LBJefferies]

All religions are equally bullshit. It doesn't matter if it's Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Islam, whatever. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Some could say Athesim is a religon.

[analogjesus]

Some could say Athesim is a religon.

How so? Do not say atheism is belief in nothing because it is lack of belief. That simple distinction differentiates athesim from religions.

This article explains in depth why atheism is not a religion: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...l_religion.htm

[Farbin Kaiber]

Don't come in here and try to school me in a religon thread. Regardless of your post, is it not true that some could say it?

[analogjesus]

Yes, and they would be incorrect.

[mar1t1me]

Some could say Athesim is a religon.

Some say white is a color.

[Farbin Kaiber]

But regardless, they would look at you like you are crazy.

[ck_taft325is]

Well first I would like to address the scientific definitions of both a theory and a law.
Now if you don't feel like reading all of that (I can't blame you ;)) this is the most important thing:






The main difference between a theory and a law are whether or not math can be used to explain the phenomenon. Evolution is a very complex process, that happens over millions of years. It would be unimaginably difficult to develop an equation that adequately explains evolution.



Compare evolution to plate tectonics. Now this only works if you think plate tectonics is a valid theory. Both are theories. Both are observed to be true. Both are unable to be described mathematically.



I think you might be misinterpreting the scientific method a little bit. If you form a hypothesis and are looking for a particular result is the wrong way to go about doing something. Scientist do not try and prove evolution. They are trying to explain existence. Currently, the accepted theory is evolution because a hypothesis to explain existence was developed (evolution) and this hypothesis has been tested and proven (so far).

Science is not concrete and can change over time. That is why faith is not required. You only form conclusions based on known facts. If new facts surface, your theory can change.

Now I am not qualified to debate the actual theory of evolution with you as I am much more of an engineer than a biologist, I apologize.

I found the excerpt you posted interesting, although I noticed one overlying flaw. You should not consider religions scientific hypotheses and therefore you should not attempt to apply the scientific method to them. I think it is a pointless endeavour to debate the existence of God with anyone. There is absolutely zero evidence for existence of God. If you choose to believe, that is your choice and I can respect that. But do not try and prove the existence of God. The author is trying to group religion in with science and that simply doesn't work. He says that sceptics should have evidence in order to disprove religion. The burden of proof lies with those who propose something, not with those who question whether or not a theory is valid.

I'm not sure I was clear in my re-type of the original text if you're under the impression that Timothy Keller (Author and now that I think of it, I'm not sure I mentioned who the author was) is trying to mesh Scientific method with Religion. Nor do I consider religion a scientific hypothesis. My point was that in Evolution it takes faith to believe in it. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God ;)

I don't want this to come across wrong, so please have understanding as I'll try my best...

This, "I think you might be misinterpreting the scientific method a little bit. If you form a hypothesis and are looking for a particular result is the wrong way to go about doing something. Scientist do not try and prove evolution. They are trying to explain existence. Currently, the accepted theory is evolution because a hypothesis to explain existence was developed (evolution) and this hypothesis has been tested and proven (so far)." looks and sounds a whole lot like a leap of faith. Again, I've got nothing against evolution and I can admit, I genuinely just don't know. When presented by either an individual or the scientific community as a whole as empirical fact, without proof, that's faith. Not only faith, but religious, zealous faith that is often defended so strongly it hurts, divides and if allowed to, I believe could start wars. The basis of this is obviously in history and is a huge focal point for many people against religion.

And here specifically, "Scientist do not try and prove evolution. They are trying to explain existence." The "why" of humanity being around has to be approached delicately with an open mind. Something I've yet to encounter with the rare exception. There's areas you say faith is not needed in science yet to claim empirical knowledge on a subject, without trying to prove a theory, is faith. Not in God, a diety or anything other than the understanding of man, which let's be honest, has a terrible track record thus far.

I'm not sure Mr. Keller's message is that you are actively trying to disprove the other, but rather come to a fuller understanding of your own stand point by assuming doubt in a proposed view that you can hold. The easiest, if you feel another is upos to your worldview is to assume doubt on your end and look for the proof to support by evaluating the side you disagree with.

Either way, I want to make it clear that my personal beliefs are not one I'm trying to convince any of. More debate as we have been. I enjoy it thoroughly and genuinely enjoy your view points regardless if I agree. Over all my main point is that faith is involved in next to any worldview. The statement of disagreement is to say that your view is above, better, or more correct than the other persons faith in their view point. To claim one faith or belief is wrong you must have another alternate faith and belief in something else. Open dialogue is key. Understanding is ground hard earned and easily lost with rash words, so I'd say we're doing really good so far ;)

[ck_taft325is]

How so? Do not say atheism is belief in nothing because it is lack of belief. That simple distinction differentiates athesim from religions.

This article explains in depth why atheism is not a religion: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...l_religion.htm

But to be an Athiest, one must have faith that their worldview/stand point is correct above anothers. There's no way to prove it.

[alwaysclean]

Religion is the root of all evil..ESPCAILLY LDS !! lol.. God there freaks in the bed room lol

[ck_taft325is]

Religion is the root of all evil..ESPCAILLY LDS !! lol.. God there freaks in the bed room lol

:giggle:

[analogjesus]

This is a somewhat unrelated topic (well it is related to the original subject) but, I digress.

I think many of the political issues in America today lie in the two-party system that has developed. It forces people to choose between two parties with fairly firm sets of beliefs and only choose representatives who have these same beliefs. It puts someone like me between a rock and a hard place. I don't support Obama's healthcare plan, c4c, or any of the other money-wasting programs he is instituting. I personally find it outrageous that the government takes my hard-earned money and distributes it to people who contribute less to society. At the same time, I support Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East. I don't think the US as a country should waste it's time involving itself in foreign conflict based on war-cry of "Freedom." Now who do I vote for? There might be some third party candidate who shares my views but the chances of him (or her) winning are slim to none. I am left to decide which issue is more important to me.

Now that I think about it, since beliefs are so varied, there would be a number of political parties in America equal to the population. No one can agree about everything and this exposes the flaw in a representative form of government. One single person, or organization, cannot fully represent the beliefs of a certain population. If the government was controlled by a general-intelligence AI I think it would be perfect. The government would be able to be programmed to make decisions based on the betterment of society as a whole. Greed, corruption, and, passion would no longer be flaws of the government. There would be no politicians to make decisions based off of personal gain or their feelings. It would be a simple, cut-and-dry system without the need for checks and balances or the burden of human inadequacy. This is obviously a far-stretched idea of mine that I think would be interesting to think about. We are a little bit away from developing any form of AI that is as aware as a fly, let alone one that is able to govern us.

If anyone would like to discuss any particular issues relating to politics or morals I would definitely welcome it. I tend to avoid arguing over religion because it simply dissolves into "God exist" "Prove it" *Explanation of why God cannot be proven and that is why faith is such an essential part of religion* "Faith is not proof." I think the existence of God is not something to prove or disprove it a deeper personal matter.

[mar1t1me]

But to be an Athiest, one must have faith that their worldview/stand point is correct above anothers. There's no way to prove it.

That's precisely the point! Faith has nothing to do with it. Atheists don't need to lean on faith, and lately, really bad science, to justify a belief in the supernatural.

Ken Ham is case in point. He is the head of the Creation Museum.

[analogjesus]

I'm not sure I was clear in my re-type of the original text if you're under the impression that Timothy Keller (Author and now that I think of it, I'm not sure I mentioned who the author was) is trying to mesh Scientific method with Religion. Nor do I consider religion a scientific hypothesis. My point was that in Evolution it takes faith to believe in it. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God ;)

I don't want this to come across wrong, so please have understanding as I'll try my best...

This, "I think you might be misinterpreting the scientific method a little bit. If you form a hypothesis and are looking for a particular result is the wrong way to go about doing something. Scientist do not try and prove evolution. They are trying to explain existence. Currently, the accepted theory is evolution because a hypothesis to explain existence was developed (evolution) and this hypothesis has been tested and proven (so far)." looks and sounds a whole lot like a leap of faith. Again, I've got nothing against evolution and I can admit, I genuinely just don't know. When presented by either an individual or the scientific community as a whole as empirical fact, without proof, that's faith. Not only faith, but religious, zealous faith that is often defended so strongly it hurts, divides and if allowed to, I believe could start wars. The basis of this is obviously in history and is a huge focal point for many people against religion.

And here specifically, "Scientist do not try and prove evolution. They are trying to explain existence." The "why" of humanity being around has to be approached delicately with an open mind. Something I've yet to encounter with the rare exception. There's areas you say faith is not needed in science yet to claim empirical knowledge on a subject, without trying to prove a theory, is faith. Not in God, a diety or anything other than the understanding of man, which let's be honest, has a terrible track record thus far.

I'm not sure Mr. Keller's message is that you are actively trying to disprove the other, but rather come to a fuller understanding of your own stand point by assuming doubt in a proposed view that you can hold. The easiest, if you feel another is upos to your worldview is to assume doubt on your end and look for the proof to support by evaluating the side you disagree with.

Either way, I want to make it clear that my personal beliefs are not one I'm trying to convince any of. More debate as we have been. I enjoy it thoroughly and genuinely enjoy your view points regardless if I agree. Over all my main point is that faith is involved in next to any worldview. The statement of disagreement is to say that your view is above, better, or more correct than the other persons faith in their view point. To claim one faith or belief is wrong you must have another alternate faith and belief in something else. Open dialogue is key. Understanding is ground hard earned and easily lost with rash words, so I'd say we're doing really good so far ;)

Well I hate to double post but this is a good post and warrants a reply.

I think something we need to understand is that Science is not absolute, and does not claim to be absolute. To be a good scientist you have to accept the fact that you are wrong sometimes. If you are a scientist, and you find overwhelming evidence that you're hypothesis is incorrect, to not change you're world view afterwords would be the wrong thing to do. This is why science does not require faith, because it is not absolute belief in something. Science simply offers possible explanations that have shown to be accurate in past observations. If someone was to make predictions based on scientific theories, those predictions would not be theories, they would instead be hypotheses. Because science only considers what has happened and not what will happen, there is no need to have faith to agree with scientific theories.

Now I think there might also be a disconnection between you and I and our definitions of faith. I am using the word faith in a religious context where it implies a lack of evidence for whatever you choose to have faith in. When using this definition, it clearly cannot be used with science as all (good) science is supported by evidence. Faith is also correctly used almost as a synonym of confidence. I can say I am confident in science because in the past it has not let me down and I expect it to continue to explain society accurately . This is not the same as a religious faith in God because faith in God is recognizing that there is no evidence for his existence, but you still choose to believe anyway. I think that is an elemental part of religion. I also feel this is a very mature, intelligent debate. Most internet "discussions" are reduced to ad-hominem attacks and capital letters (yelling) but I am glad that the denizens of R3v are better than that.

Oh and I wanted to say I don't disagree with your statement "When presented by either an individual or the scientific community as a whole as empirical fact, without proof, that's faith." If you feel, after reviewing the evidence, that evolution is a complete crock of shit, that's ok. I have much more respect for a person like you who claims ignorance until proven otherwise. Since the proofs of evolution have not been presented to you, it would take (religious) faith for you to believe in it. The reason science is good is because it promotes open-mindedness. If you conduct an experiment and achieve a result, and everyone simply agrees with you it would not be science. For it to be science, other people have to disagree, test you're hypothesis and form their own conclusions. This is why it takes such a long time for theories to be developed, because they only arrive when consistent, independent conclusions are reached by many individuals that all agree with each other.