[JBroll]

Actually, I spend quite a bit of time on quantum stuff because quantum cryptography and quantum computing are very important subjects in the work I'll be doing, and while there's a TON of disagreement it's not anything along the lines of "You don't think the Higgs boson proves the existence of Vishnu, no funding for you!", and even when Einstein was opposed to developments of quantum mechanics he still got refuted strongly and the physics world moved on all the same.

Jeff

[Chris]

Originally Posted by noodles

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.

Again you're taking one version of it, by one culture, and using it as a baseline to represent the tens of thousands of religions in the world. I'm not disagreeing with you, but science vs. religion has typically been science vs. Christianity, not religion as a whole.

[CaptainD00M]

+1 Chris, you got that in as i was writing this.
Typicaly that is the story with the Science/"Rational" Vs Religion, its Christianity, and only some parts vs Science.
---
Science is just as much a form of faith as a religion or spiritual path. Methods differ, guiding idea is the same they both want to understand how things 'are'.

Its probably the fact that science has a culture of needing to debunk older forms of 'wisdom' (i use this as about as subjectively as i can) that this Science Vs Faith/Religion debate keeps coming up. Science still feel's like it has something to prove so insists on trying to differ itself... all of which is arguably ego driven.

They aren’t mutually exclusive as many people want them to be (that’s on both sides) because that would case to many strongly held attitudes to be revaluated and ego's really don’t like that.

Also many people seem to equate certain parts of Christianity’s and Islam’s disposition toward rejection as a case for many other religions, or faith’s doing the same thing… its not that black and white… as a really bad example look at scientology, its arguably melded some of the elements into a faith/religion (just an example…) and other faiths have no opinion, Tibetan Buddhism holds no such aversions to science.

Many paths, one goal... and that’s about all I’m going to put of my belief’s into this. Once again interesting thread...

[Drew]

Originally Posted by CaptainD00M

Many paths, one goal... and that’s about all I’m going to put of my belief’s into this. Once again interesting thread...

Someone else has read his share of philosophical Taoism, I'll wager...

[Stealthtastic]

Yup im sikh

[CaptainD00M]

Drew: Someone else has read his share of philosophical Taoism, I'll wager...
----

Your not wrong...

I was hoping to get away with it being chocked up to tonken New Ageness
Chur

[Naren]

Originally Posted by CaptainD00M

Science is just as much a form of faith as a religion or spiritual path. Methods differ, guiding idea is the same they both want to understand how things 'are'.

Bullshit. I have always heard that argument that "science is just as much a form of faith as a religion or spiritual path," but that's nonsense. I heard that all the time at my Christian high school and church and I always thought, "Uh, no, it isn't."

Definitions of faith from various dictionaries (found on dictionary.com):
Faith: Belief that is not based on proof (from Dictionary.com Unabridged)
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (from American Heritage Dictionary)
Faith: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny (from WordNet)

That is just the thing. Science IS based on logical proof and material evidence. Religion is not based on anything observable.

People who make the argument you're making are only bitter that your ideals do not stand up to observation. Many Christians (and members of other religions) deny Science when it contradicts what they believe. "Science has to be wrong." But you cannot change reality to match your beliefs.

Faith does not come from anything real. Science does.

Originally Posted by CaptainD00M

Its probably the fact that science has a culture of needing to debunk older forms of 'wisdom' (i use this as about as subjectively as i can) that this Science Vs Faith/Religion debate keeps coming up. Science still feel's like it has something to prove so insists on trying to differ itself... all of which is arguably ego driven.

Of course, science has something to prove.

And it has stuff to disprove too.

Science will always have stuff to prove because it is impossible to know everything.

"Ego driven"? I find religion much more ego driven than science. Science is driven by a desire to learn. Religion is driven by a desire to feel comfortable in what one believes.

Believe what you will, but your attacking of science is really quite strange...

[Se7enMeister]

Originally Posted by jim777

I was born and raised Cathiolic, studied for the priesthood and even went to a prep seminary for high school, but now I'm an atheist. I have been dead for 90+ seconds as well, having bled to death in a robbery, and there's nothing on the other side of life from my personal experience. I am not a fervent athiest, pushing Atheism as a religion itself as some are, I just don't believe in divine anything.

I will admit that I used to believe in the divinity of Kathy Ireland, but I'm mostly over that now. Mostly

But you didn't really die, you are alive now. you bled to a near death state, but you came back. You weren't supposed to die in that robbery and you didn't. Did the doctors call it a miracle? because that is what it was

Just a question, what did you experiance when you were "dead"

[Naren]

Originally Posted by Se7enMeister

But you didn't really die, you are alive now. you bled to a near death state, but you came back. You weren't supposed to die in that robbery and you didn't. Did the doctors call it a miracle? because that is what it was

Just a question, what did you experiance when you were "dead"

And was it a miracle when Hitler survived when he "should have" died as a soldier in World War I but was only hospitalized instead?

If God was responsible for saving everyone in near death states, he'd be responsible for saving a lot of mass murderers and vile people as well.

To be honest, after I survived my near-death experience, I had a feeling that God might have saved me, but logically speaking, I think it was instinct and the human body's desire to survive.

I want to believe in God and heaven because the image of death I got there was just pure emptiness. However, I don't believe in things just because I want to.

[s7eve]

Originally Posted by Naren

Bullshit.

I'd agree that science by definition is not religious however some scientists act religiously and what they do is incorrectly referred to as science. Good science is not religious, "bad science" or the type of science that some scientists perform where they control experiments to achieve the results they want either deliberately or unconsciously because of a preconceived belief or ulterior motive is not science IMO.