[Codyyy]

I don't really have any faith in anything, and sometimes I definitely wish that I was able to. But there are just so many questions, and it's all unknown. So I can't lean enough either way - to deny a god or believe in one. Sure would be nice not to have all of these questions. But then again, being religious sure wouldn't solve that. I would have to be some sort of ignorant sheep. I feel like many in this thread make no distinction between the two.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm religious, and I don't do this.

How do you know that the reverse isn't true? It's all speculative until you die.

I'm religious, and I don't do any of that, either.

You are very political minded, but this is a discussion on religion. Whether or someone believes in god has absolutely zero to do with politics.

Again, while noble, you're blurring the lines between religion and politics.

Politics again man. Religious politicians (ab)using faith to skew voters one way or another do not represent religion, in my opinion they represent typical dirty scumbag politicians. They're just dickbags.

Come on, Chris, I'm not attacking everyone who believes in something just because I don't. The guys I'm targeting are the assholes who think everyone should believe what they believe, and think it ought to carry the force of law. The people who want to use politics to further their religious goals. Including the dirty scumbag politicians who use religion simply as a tool to gain power. The only reason I make religion political is because religion keeps poking its nose in where it doesn't belong.

I agree that someone believing in god has nothing to do with politics. However, someone believing that god told them stem cell research murders potential babies, and then they go vote for someone that specifically says they will put a halt to that. That individual voter may not be overtly political, but if he and a whole lot of other people just like him were more like you--believe what you want to believe, don't try to convince others otherwise--then politicians wouldn't care about those issues. Religion makes itself political.

That's why I always say I find nothing wrong with faith and belief, but I hate religion. Lot's of horrible things happen at the hands of organized religion.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by noodles

The only reason I make religion political is because religion keeps poking its nose in where it doesn't belong.

I'm pretty sure it's a mutual exchange.

I agree that someone believing in god has nothing to do with politics. However, someone believing that god told them stem cell research murders potential babies, and then they go vote for someone that specifically says they will put a halt to that. That individual voter may not be overtly political, but if he and a whole lot of other people just like him were more like you--believe what you want to believe, don't try to convince others otherwise--then politicians wouldn't care about those issues. Religion makes itself political.

Religious zealots make themselves political. Nutjobs make it political. Believing in god in general, however, has nothing to do with politics. It's the dickbags (tm) that try to use one to force the hand of the other that leave such a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

That's why I always say I find nothing wrong with faith and belief, but I hate religion. Lot's of horrible things happen at the hands of organized religion.

Agreed, but lots of horrible things happen regardless as well.

[noodles]

Originally Posted by Chris

Religious zealots make themselves political. Nutjobs make it political. Believing in god in general, however, has nothing to do with politics. It's the dickbags (tm) that try to use one to force the hand of the other that leave such a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

The differentiation I make is simply different than yours. I think of belief in god as faith, not religion. I would agree that belief in god has only an indirect role in politics, insomuch that it influences how one thinks, and therefore vote. In this case, lack of belief in god has the same indirect influence. Ergo, I don't think you being "religious" effects politics, since the issues that most effect your vote are not grounded in religion or morality, unless you started protesting outside of abortion clinics

Like you said, it's just the dickbags that stand in front of their congregations and influence the political views of them that really piss me off. I know my fiance's mother voted for Bush in the last election, because her pastor told them all that he was a godly man of character and strength, and Kerry supported baby killers and vile homosexuals.

Atheism is pretty much in the minority, and unfortunately, all you hear about are the assholes who go all high and mighty on everyone. I may be vocal here, but that is about the extent of it, and I find it equally repugnant when some some jerkoff feels the need to shove everyone's face in it for no good reason.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by noodles

I am also extremely tired of this science versus religion thing. They are mutually exclusive.

You ALMOST lost me here.

I'd argue that they are NOT mutually exclusive, that there's no reason that you can't believe in God but at the same time also believe in Darwinism and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Einstein's famous crack about God not dicing with the universe aside).

But we're taking two different ways of saying the same thing - I think (and I suspect you agree) that what's at issue here is the fact that science and religion serve two different purposes. Science attempts to explain the world as it is - how it functions, the mechanics of where it came from, what happens if you mix 50ml of sodium perchloride with equal parts potassium oxide, etc. Religion, meanwhile, is an attempt to explain the why - how we are supposed to interact with other people, why we are who we are, and possibly most importantly, it's an attempt to give a purpose to our existance. Science explains how we exists, and religion sort of asks the correllary question famously posed by Emerson - "How, then, shall I live?"

You get into problems when you try to exchange the two - using religion to explain the mechanics of the world (creationism, intelligent design), or using science to make moral decisions (see, oh, the entire third reich's justification of the Holocaust, based on "scientific" analysis of things like Jewish cranial capacity).

I just feel that, without taking a stance on the relative merits of either, and given a proper understanding of their purpose, science and religion are complimentary.

[noodles]

I agree the science should never be used to make moral decisions. I simply think of it as value neutral, based upon observations of physical world. It comes back to the just because you can, doesn't mean you should argument.

The reason I say they are mutually exclusive is for all the reasons you stated. They are two different things, and they really accomplish different goals. I also point to history, and simply state that every single time that religion has squared off with science, religion in the end has been wrong. The earth is not flat, it is not the center of the universe, the celestial bodies are not fixed, no god in a chariot is hauling the sun across the sky, and you cannot sail off the edge of the world. Everything that religion squares off with science about now will one day be proven wrong in much the same fashion. Creationism is slowly slipping away, as fewer and fewer of the next generation hold to the teachings of the previous.

Take anything taught in the book of genesis, and none of it takes a stand against evolution. The bible may tell you that god created everything, but it doesn't explain the mechanics of it. When Adam and Eve are cast out of Eden, they come to the land of Nod, and people are there. Even the bible refutes the whole two people propagated the whole species argument. So, yes, they are complimentary, as long as you're not talking about the fundamentalists who don't bother to read the book they espouse so much.

If anything, I think this is less of a reflection of religion, and more a reflection of the human condition. People just have a hard time letting go of the old ways of doing things. This can be seen in science, where advancing a new theory can be tantamount to career suicide. If you want, I could explain to you the history of Clovis point technology, and how daring to refute that the first Americans came across the land bridge from Asia has spelled the end of credibility for many an archeologist.

[JBroll]

The conflict I see between religion and science is in the approach.

Science aims to be as hostile to everything as possible out of hopes for weeding out everything but the best. Religion is believed because... it just is, at least in Abrahamic religions. No, science does not aim to be moral, just as religion doesn't try to tell people how to brush their teeth, but the way one holds a scientific belief and the way one holds a religious belief seem to be pretty strongly opposing.

As for Clovis point technology... I'm interested. Working with math, physics, chemistry, and computer science people I've never run into the 'career suicide' aspect of bringing something up - usually, just the opposite.

Jeff

[noodles]

Originally Posted by JBroll

As for Clovis point technology... I'm interested. Working with math, physics, chemistry, and computer science people I've never run into the 'career suicide' aspect of bringing something up - usually, just the opposite.

Let me dig you something up. The argument was it (a flint spear point) was the first piece of American-specific technology, until a few archeologists discovered a link between it and a french spear point. For the longest time, it was all but verboten to dig below the 10,000 BC layer, since no human evidence was supposed to exist. Now it is being found much further back, but suffice to say those first scientists were getting shellacked for their views. Denied funding, which gets you kicked out of universities, and professional ostracization.

Clovis point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm trying to hunt down the title of the two hour PBS special I saw on it. It was extremely enlightening, although a bit dry.

[JBroll]

That's really unusual compared to what I see around my school's research. Sucks to see that happening, but that does seem to be much more of an exception than a rule as far as the scientific community being openminded.

Jeff

[noodles]

Originally Posted by JBroll

That's really unusual compared to what I see around my school's research. Sucks to see that happening, but that does seem to be much more of an exception than a rule as far as the scientific community being openminded.

Oh, you don't know the half of it then. Read up on the warm-blooded dinosaurs debate some time. Or, if you can understand it, the arguments about dark matter, quantum mechanics, and black hole theory. There are plenty of stuck in the mud establishment types who discourage the disproving of old, accepted theories. It is really quite sad.

Anthropologists tend to be the worst, but then again, they're not real scientists.