Does finding life on another planet disprove religion?

[Castiel]

Define literal, even if you ignore the "day" aspect the ORDER of things being created is wrong.
It goes beyond not covering everything, beyond exaggerating, it quite simply is WRONG order.


If Genesis is just a story, which is factually wrong, then why should we not assume that the rest of the Bible is not also just a story, that is factually wrong?

Like I said of Augustine, a 4th century Christian Theologian, states that the six-day structure of creation as told in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. It is a spiritual, rather than a physical meaning.

Using a science based argument to fulfil a philosophical question is a flawed premise in itself, besides the fact that if we logically follow your argument that because one part of the bible is flawed then the entire edifice of Christian belief and the belief in God entirely is flawed, then we must also assume that as Lamarkism the precursor to Darwinism was flawed then Evolution and the entire edifice of science must be flawed.....

Well that clearly is not the case and neither is your argument.

 

[Rainmaker]

Then it serves as further proof that god does not really exist since everyone believes in a different one

Or five blind men left in a room with an elephant for five minutes would ultimately give five very different accounts of their encounter, depending on which part they felt up?

What I'm saying is, who's to say that some kind of race-memory, or distant experience didn't lead to fractured culturally influenced telling of the same stories across the world? In other words, what makes you say that the religions are talking about a different deity? The cultural dressing and the allegorical relation of the truth may differ, but perhaps they all address the same subject?

 

[rypt]

This is where your understanding of science falls apart, there is no evidence for random, science is unable to prove such things, it is simply the simplest explanation to explain the results we see, science can very really proof or show the how.

We have an understanding of how mutation occurs, and while it is impossible to prove that it is truly random ... we can pretty much say that it is random (well, certain areas of DNA may be more susceptible to mutation that others, etc, etc)

 

[Biohazard]

hahaha

 

[V4NT0M]

Rypt I think you're going off on some kind of anti religion bender but you seem to be preaching to the choir as it were, Christians know that not everything in the bible and everything about their faith can be explained by modern science.

It's faith!

 

[Castiel]

If we had a Philosophy/Psychology/Spirituality sub-forum where prior reading / background knowledge was a requirement of posting, the discussions would be a lot more interesting. Oh well, I can dream.

I have mentioned this on occasion also, however it seems to fall on deaf ears.

 

[Nitefly]

This is where your understanding of science falls apart, there is no evidence for random, science is unable to prove such things, it is simply the simplest explanation to explain the results we see, science can very really proof or show the how.

We have been here before, so I won't retread old ground, bit the problem with this line of thinking is that it means that you cannot show anything. Ever.

Perhaps you cannot. But then you could never draw a conclusion over anything, which seems practically useless.

 

[Glaucus]

We have an understanding of how mutation occurs, and while it is impossible to prove that it is truly random ... we can pretty much say that it is random (well, certain areas of DNA may be more susceptible to mutation that others, etc, etc)

hahaha

This, no it can't be proved and if you could make the scientific framework to incorporate the proof of the how, then you be the brightest person in the history of the world. This Is why I get so annoyed with people trying to use science to dismiss religion. It always comes out they don't under stand science or religion.

 

[Castiel]

Philosophy has nothing to do with religion really, quite why it is always brought up into these topics is beyond me

Tell that to Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Marx, James and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Go to bed rypt.

 

[rypt]

This, no it can't be proved and if you could make the scientific framework to incorporate the proof of the how, then you be the brightest person in the history of the world.

Are you trying to tell me that we have no understanding of the mechanisms that cause mutation in genes? Because we most certainly do

 

[Rainmaker]

This Is why I get so annoyed with people trying to use science to dismiss religion. It always comes out they don't under stand science or religion.

This seems an opportune moment to re-publish a quote I rather like.

"It's funny. The people who think there's a contradiction between science and religion generally don't really know what science is, or they don't know what religion is, or both... My religion tells me that God made the universe, but my science can tell me the way it's done."

Brother Guy J. Consolmagno
Astronomer, Vatican Observatory (formerly of NASA, Harvard, MIT)"

 

[Glaucus]

We have been here before, so I won't retread old ground, bit the problem with this line of thinking is that it means that you cannot show anything. Ever.

Perhaps you cannot. But then you could never draw a conclusion over anything, which seems practically useless.

Why is it pointless, to go we don't know and to strive for more senders. It doesn't make science any less helpful. You just need to understand the boundaries of science when taking the scientific framework and using it for something it was never designed for.

 

[Castiel]

We have been here before, so I won't retread old ground, bit the problem with this line of thinking is that it means that you cannot show anything. Ever.

Perhaps you cannot. But then you could never draw a conclusion over anything, which seems practically useless.

One of my favourite Scientists Eugenie Scott explains agnosticism in science and why it doesn't address philosophical questions such as God....

 

[Pighardia]

This seems an opportune moment to re-publish a quote I rather like.

"It's funny. The people who think there's a contradiction between science and religion generally don't really know what science is, or they don't know what religion is, or both... My religion tells me that God made the universe, but my science can tell me the way it's done."

Brother Guy J. Consolmagno
Astronomer, Vatican Observatory (formerly of NASA, Harvard, MIT)"

That quote highlights one of the main problems that i have with understanding religion. (i'm not trying to knock anyones belief or anything)
You can discover scientific facts and principals for yourself, but you have to be told religious ones by people who already believe them. Not really phrased well(i'm tired), but do you understand what i'm trying to say?

A mention of race-memory does raise possibilities though, and is an area which i have always found interesting and rather plausible tbh.

 

[Glaucus]

You don't have to be taught religion, you are able to pick up scripture and read it yourself and come to your own conclusions. People within the same denominations Often have massively different views. But like science it is useful to discusse it with other people, see it from a different point of view or something you missed.

 

[Rainmaker]

That quote highlights one of the main problems that i have with understanding religion. (i'm not trying to knock anyones belief or anything)
You can discover scientific facts and principals for yourself, but you have to be told religious ones by people who already believe them. Not really phrased well(i'm tired), but do you understand what i'm trying to say?

A mention of race-memory does raise possibilities though, and is an area which i have always found interesting and rather plausible tbh.

I do understand what you're getting at, yes (I think!). For me, it's not so much being told what to believe by people who already believe. It's more about looking to those more experienced who came before you for ideas on how to more easily experience spirituality in your own life. Much easier than starting from scratch...

 

[Rainmaker]

Before I forget... OP you've sparked a (thus-far) 3 man-size page thread, and posted all of three sentences yourself, none of which held opinion. What's YOUR take on this?

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

No new discoveries will disprove religion, because religion is so well thought out to cover all the angles. I just hope that as we discover more and more people realise what a load of crap religion really is.

 

[Rainmaker]

No new discoveries will disprove religion, because religion is so well thought out to cover all the angles. I just hope that as we discover more and more people realise what a load of crap religion really is.

If it's so well thought out, and covers all the angles so well as to be impossible to disprove, what makes you think it's a "load of crap"? Just wondered.

 

[Castiel]

That quote highlights one of the main problems that i have with understanding religion. (i'm not trying to knock anyones belief or anything)
You can discover scientific facts and principals for yourself, but you have to be told religious ones by people who already believe them. Not really phrased well(i'm tired), but do you understand what i'm trying to say?

A mention of race-memory does raise possibilities though, and is an area which i have always found interesting and rather plausible tbh.

"Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it.

Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held.

Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books.

Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin.

Believe nothing just because someone else believes it.

Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true."