Why do you think science and faith are in competition with each other or that they are two mutually exclusive things?
In the old saying about Science and Religion: Science is about 'how' while Religion is about 'why'.
So in that sense, Science and Religion
MUST be mutually exclusive. How you drive a car is about turning the key, turning the steering wheel, and using the accelerator and brake pedals. Why you drive a car is about getting grocery. When Science and Religion mixes, we get something silly like Intelligent Design theory and its proponents. Or how many Muslims continues to interpret how every scientific discovery was already predicted/explained in the Quran.
No, we don't just raise children on (moral values dictated mainly by) faith, we expect them to follow it all their lives, who tells their kids it's ok to lie or steal or cheat once they grow up? We also provide them education, encourage their inquisitive nature by providing answers to their queries as well as encourage them to think and reflect and teach them skills to earn a living yet be humane, moral and ethical. So how does one (religion or science) replaces the other?
My point is that Religion is acting like a parent who does not want His children to grow except in ways that only Religion approves, whereas Science allows doubts and questions, then provides the tools for resolving those doubts and questions. That is how responsible parents raises children, no?
I don't understand the term "The Science progresses"? Science is not a creation or invention of mankind. It's just observation/measurement/documentation of a naturally occurring phenomenon. Science today is the same as it was millions of years ago, Laws of nature do not change, the remains the same for ever.
Of course Science progresses or to be more accurate, Science continues to broaden the scope of any understanding of any subject. That
IS progress.
All the laws of science were created by GOD the ALMIGHTY in one go,...
That is faith talking.
...the irony is the more we humans discover the more arrogant and ignorant we become as though we invented that phenomenon instead of becoming more humble and faithful to the real Creator.
I do not know where you got that impression or if it really is a rather weak attempt to making scientists look foolish. Every scientist is always cognizant of his/her ignorance and continually stresses that we still have much to learn. No scientist I know and/or read of ever said we 'invented' a phenomenon. We discovered and attempts to explain phenomena, but never 'invented'. Maybe you have a different definition of 'invention' than the rest of us.
That's the thing with science that its a human observation and not two humans think alike, so there will always be three groups one strongly in favour of a theory, other in strong opposition and one in between. There is no unanimous 100% agreement between even the scientist on "vague" theories.
At least Science will continues to labor until there is %100 agreement. At least we do not kill over those disagreements. I understand that there is no such thing as absolute certainty, as in % figure, but I use %100 for convenience of discussion.
If there is an angel/demon for every scientific principle, then Science have been far more successful at explaining those scientific principles than Religion have for those angel/demon. So from that, Science have been far more successful at explaining the universe than Religion have. If complete understanding of the universe is one kilometer, then Science moved mankind one millimeter while Religion seeks to shackle us at zero.
No. I neither tread in his field nor challenged any of his work except casting my doubt on his intelligence (based on my interpretation of intelligence) for his statement on existence of GOD.
You are no more a theologian than I am in the sense that in order to believe in God, we both have only one tool -- faith. So in that sense, calling Hawking 'stupid' because he mentioned God is in itself -- stupid. If Hawking turned his intellect to Religion, he would be an accomplished theologian in the scale of great Christian apologetics like Chesterton and Lewis or even a revolutionary like Luther who upturned theological and institutional Christianity.
Regarding my expertise not measuring up, as I said my expertise is in a different field, I am not the best but even he won't stand a chance against me in my field. This is a useless point, don't know why you keep bringing it up.
As useless as you called Hawking 'stupid'.
If your reference was in relation to my comments on his statement on existence of GOD, then I think its him who tried to venture in to a field that he had no knowledge of.
But if you insists that Science and Religion are complementary, then you cannot exclude Hawking from commenting on Religion. And that mean you cannot call him 'stupid' just because he does not share the same level of faith in Religion as you do and say something you do not like.
Hawking, if not the best in physics and cosmology, then deservedly stands on the top level of the pantheon of physics 'gods'. That means what he thinks of Religion is probably more insightful and informed than you and I. That does not mean he is correct that there is no God. It just simply mean his statement did not came from only contempt for Religion. Hawking said there is no God while Walter Thirring (
Cosmic Impressions: Traces of God in the Laws of Nature) said there is. Are you going to say Hawking is 'stupid' but Thirring is not?
When he talked of GOD, then he is talking about religion and then I too have an opinion. While he was using science (which is not complete yet, will never be, and thus not the final word) to try to disprove GOD's existence, I am using my faith to prove it. It is also based on observable phenomenon and countless undeniable signs.
Religion have
NEVER proved the existence of God while Science is not trying to disprove the existence of God.
This is
THE problem -- and probably the only problem -- that religionists of all stripes have: That they believe Science is on a 'mission' to disprove the existence of God.
What Science does is explain the mechanics of the universe while Religion seeks to make them opaque. As scientists like Hawking continues to give us pieces of understanding of the universe, religionists gets increasingly nervous that their flocks will become less and less faithful of what the priesthood pronounces about God.
The priest said that the rainbow is a sign from God that He will never send another flood to destroy mankind. The 'why' of the rainbow.
The scientist said that the rainbow is nothing more than light passing thru moisture by A, B, and C mechanisms. The 'how' of the rainbow.
The priest is perfectly content that the people will accept what he said and will go no further. In fact, the priest
WANT the people to go no further. So how is that any 'proof' that God exist?
I don't disagree but the measurement itself is subjective. I had a friend, a total nutcase, as dumb as a flowerpot when it comes to maths, but in a certain industry people called him a genius,...
Yeah...He is an 'idiot savant'.
Stephen Hawking is not an 'idiot savant'. His personality simply directed his intellect towards Science and he excelled there.
...Please don't get me started on HR specialists, that is a totally different and debateable subject.
It is applicable. Intelligence maybe subjective and its measurement tools maybe flawed, but it is at least observable and agreeable as to what level is needed to function in society. The reason I brought in HR specialists is because no one has to deal with variety of intelligence out there and that they have to make decisions of people's intelligence without the benefits of hands-on measurement. If they make a positive decision about you, they are good, you are employed, no? But if they make a decision you do not like, they are terrible at their jobs?
I am not sure how you see religion infantilizing humanity?
I see religion as an operating system that provides ethical and moral guidelines for the creation and existence of a civilized society. Without civilized society there would be no science. Religion makes humans to think about big things, things beyond their grasp and imagination, religion is in my opinion actually the basis of all science.
The highlighted is debatable. But what is not debatable -- and my point about infantilizing humanity -- is that religionists consistently discourages explorations into subjects that challenges their notions of the universe and eventually -- God.
Good, that means its not perfect, and that is my point, an imperfect thing proven to be wrong time and again can not be used to prove or disprove a perfect GOD,...
Again, Science is not about disproving God but about explaining the mechanics of the universe.
The statement 'There is no God' is an opinion, not a declaration, about God.
Hawking said 'There is no God'. Joseph Murray (Catholic surgeon and transplant pioneer) said there is a God.
Who to believe depends on emotional biases, not objectivity.
Institutional science maybe imperfect but equally imperfect, if not worse, is institutional religion. So what make you think you actually 'proved' the existence of God?
What is the difference between a 'sin' and an 'error'?
A 'sin' is about falling short of a standard. An 'error' is more technical in scope and reflective of poor decision making. But both 'sin' and 'error' came from imperfection. So what you think any religionist is more capable of proving the existence of God than any scientist about disproving the existence of God, assuming that was the scientist's 'mission' in the first place?
...and I don't agree with the term "self-correcting" as I mentioned science remains the same it's our wrong understating that gets corrected, and who can say that what we know today as a scientific facts will someday be proven wrong? and that was my point.
Then you have a false understanding of science in general if you do not see how science is indeed self correcting.
Science is self correcting more in the sense that frauds
WILL be exposed, and less about being wrong. When was the last time a priest admitted that he/she was wrong about the nature of God? Religionists deal with challenges to their beliefs by getting violent. Scientists deal with being wrong by learning why and how they were wrong.
On the other point where in your conceited mind you equalled religion to Islam...
I used Islam only as a point of example, not equating religion to Islam in general.
...let me remind you that a few decades ago 6 million Jews were not massacred because they desecrated some Islamic holy scriptures. The Crusades were also not carried out by Muslims against the "Scientific community" and Western scientists were not punished by Islamic Scholars for discovering that the earth revolved around the sun and not the vice versa.
Now you are being overly sensitive.
The basis of all modern science originated in the Muslim world which firmly believed in one deity.
That is debatable.
Has GOD ever asked you to do anything for him? NO!
Have you ever asked GOD for help? depends on the person and the faith he follows.
But soon everyone will find out.
The last time I asked God for help I was a child. As an adult, I learned of the admonition: God will help those who helped themselves.
...what are rules? Don't say they are based on ethical and moral values, because they come from religion/faith, so when you deny the source itself than every thing that comes with it or originates from it is questionable.
No one denies that the bulk of our morality came from Religion, but that alone is not conclusive 'proof' that God exists. It is a
FAITH that God exists.
In a community, there must be rules so that everyone can peacefully co-exist. Most of those rules came from practical and utilitarian needs, such as respect for other's property for without that respect, there would be no trust and no trust means no community.
But an agent of/for God is a different matter. If I want my tribe to conquer another tribe, I can argue that the land over there have certain attributes and resources, or I can argue that God commanded so. The first argument came from practical and utilitarian needs, the second came from morality, as in God-given. Same for the commandments 'Do not murder' or 'Respect your elders' or Do not covet'. Each commandment can come from practical and utilitarian needs and the proponents of each commandment have to make their arguments effectively in order for the community to accept them. This means the human community can get along without God and the argument for this -- is the
FACT that religions have not decrease the amount of wars throughout history.
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” Blaise Pascal
Religious conviction = Morality.
You reminded us -- me and the readers out there -- that it was not Muslims who killed 6 million Jews. Fine. But it was your fellow religionists who did it.
Depends on who the designer is. If the designer is THE CREATOR, and HE is the most beautiful Creator and He creates the rules for it to follow too and that becomes a scientific fact for humans to observe/discover/measure and document.
If the designer is a human, then he has to design so that his creation follows those rules or it will be a failure. You know flying, it's not wright brothers invented the plane and made the rules for aerodynamics, no, they observed the nature, experimented and only succeeded when their invention followed those rules. I can safely say, your statement is "scientifically" incorrect.
No, you cannot.
Intelligent Design (ID) is nothing more than religionists trying to reconcile God and an increasing understanding of the universe by people. Companion to ID is 'Irreducible Complexity' (IC).
The accepted model of scientific examinations is without prejudice. The ID/IC model is that everything came from God and all evidences must be interpreted to that model, in other words, science
MUST be prejudicial.
It is a good thing that Science took the former path and it is pathetic that Religion even attempt to ride on Science's coattail of accomplishments.
"An accident can create consequences"
This is the most ludicrous statement ever.
Since the cars were invented, how many million collisions must have happened around the world so far?
Reference me a single case where two vehicles collided and became a brand new design of car, or cycle or even a tooth brush?
And it is hilarious that you did not understand what I meant.
An accident produced a broken bone. Is that from deliberateness or from the physical laws putting their effects on objects that eventually 'created' that broken bone?
So yes, something can be created without its source be divine or even of deliberation.
Thanks. I'll give it another try tonight, using those words.
What should I expect in way of a response (if one comes)? Is it supposed to be a voice?
A 'prayer' is nothing more than self psychoanalysis.
