Does finding life on another planet disprove religion?
- Thread starter Valentino
- Start date
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/16/conversation-science-religious-faith
An interesting conversation between Sam Harris (whom I met the other day
) and Robert Winston, on whether science and religion are reconcilable.
For the record, I think that science and religion are absolutely irreconcilable.
EDIT: It isn't actually a full transcript.
An interesting conversation between Sam Harris (whom I met the other day
) and Robert Winston, on whether science and religion are reconcilable.For the record, I think that science and religion are absolutely irreconcilable.
EDIT: It isn't actually a full transcript.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/16/conversation-science-religious-faith
An interesting conversation between Sam Harris (whom I met the other day
For the record, I think that science and religion are absolutely irreconcilable.
EDIT: It isn't actually a full transcript.
Interesting discussion, if somewhat brief (as you said). Personally I disagree with you, and feel that there can be no conflict between spiritual thought and science. I also think that the two will grow towards each other naturally in the future, but that's pure conjecture, I acquiesce.
I know it's late now, hence the trailing off, but I'm always left disappointed in these threads. They either start going around in non sequitur circles, or everyone just throws their toys out of the pram just as things get interesting. Boo.
I think the point he was trying to make was that no matter what hard evidence may come about to refute (a) religion(s) claim's, that it will find a way to twist/deny that evidence as it is, and always has been, so good at doing it.
Partly due it's design, and partly due to how faith works in incorporating different ideas, no matter how ridiculous, as long as they make sense to the user.
It's fascinating how on one hand it sells absolute certainty, and then on the other hand will dispense of it's most sacred beliefs just for survival. Kinda sounds like humanity - moral, ethical and logical until a point and then we revert to our animal nature.
Also, saying "X religion believes in ..." is somewhat erroneous as due to the almost infinite amount of denominations, and truly, the way faith and belief changes with each person you can't generalise as such, except for perhaps some core beliefs, which to be honest can often change drastically. (e.g. Salvation by works vs Salvation by grace, to take a classical Christian example)
I think labelling it a load of crap is a rather casual and ineffectual way of saying that they disagree with religion in it's place in modern society.
Damned if they do, and damned if they don't in a way, then. If a religion/philosophy fails to take into account new evidence (a la young earth creationism) it's deluded. If it accepts fresh evidence and re-evaluates its position respectively, it's dodging a bullet in an attempt to survive and somehow debasing its entire validity in the process.
Looking at it more objectively, one could basically exchange 'religion' for 'science' in your post. Just because something is willing to rethink its position based on new information, it doesn't mean that something is meaningless.
The very existence of so many denominations demonstrates that, generally, religious thought is an interpretation of pre-existing expositions and is re-evaluated according to new information. I don't see an issue with that, and in fact would consider it ridiculous to do anything different. That doesn't make religion, philosophy or spiritual thought irrelevant, rather it's what keeps it relevant.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,314
- Location
- The Orion Spur
Of course it doesn't disprove religion, has nobody watched Babylon 5?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
My parents believe in the Christian god in the sense that he is responsible for the creation of the universe, but thing that genesis is just a story without a shred of fact. Does that compute with anyone?
If people want to take the "good" bits of religion and disregard the "bad" or inaccurate then I don't see a problem with it. Defining what is good/bad/useful/useless is somewhat more of an issue though of course as it depends on the person - I'd fall back on my usual "believe what you want to believe as long as it isn't hurting another and allow others the same right to believe".
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 think I do but there's relatively little stopping you reading the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah/whatever holy book you care to name and arriving at an understanding of the religion. Now some of those will have been modified over the years so you'll need someone to guide you through the newer interpretations, just as you probably would with a scientific principle - I'd think of it rather as a way of shortcutting a lot of hard work and experimentation. You could possibly discover all first principles for yourself in science as you could interpret religious texts for yourself but by devoting what will probably take you a lifetime to advance no further than has already been achieved you're "wasting" an awful lot of our (probably) finite time on this Earth when you could utilise others hard won knowledge - I think Sir Isaac Newton said it best with "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.".
I really must take issue with your above comment!
Since when was reasoned debate seen as opportunity to belittle someone?
Surely, debate of such a hotly contested subject is good for those who have strong faith beliefs?
I certainly don't go in for personal attacks unlike some posters - I try to ask questions or challenge views or claims that I think are questionable which is not unreasonable.
I do have strong views about religion as, like it or not, it affects me and a great many people, in many ways in many countries throughout the world due to, very often it's overbearing influence on our laws and cultures.
I think you will find that most people who think like myself, would be the first to defend a person's personal right to actually believe in a god - I know I certainly would!
However, from my perspective, there is a big difference between believing in a god and that of following a religion. One doesn't need a religion if one truly believes in a god.
As for belittling people, religions seems as far as I can see, inherently very good at belittling people who don't subscribe to their specific collections of unsubstantiated beliefs so, being dismissive of a persons views is not solely confined to those who don't believe!
The problem is that you are not using reasoned debate, but common derogatory fallacies such as fairies, use of negative language....etc. to demean another's belief and frankly I find it childish, ill-informed and boring.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, however I am equally entitled to mine.
This is my opinion and I no longer wish to debate at such a level, as we have had this discussion in another thread (http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=18864016#post18864016) recently where your true religious bigotry was more evident and this seems a very thinly veiled attempt to put a sheen of moderation on that.
If you wish to debate theology on a more reasoned and informed level then I will duly alter my opinion, however I do not wish to indulge in constant refutation of common fallacies and sweeping commentaries designed to demean whichever religion is being discussed. There have been too many threads over the past week already.
Last edited:
No more dillusional and foolish than those nutty professors and mad scientists who claim the molecules to man theory is an absolute fact.
"neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable".
Rich Deem
But I was using an analogy which highlighted the fact that I could claim that Fairies and not a god were responsible for world creation and no one could disprove my theory, just as the god theory can't be disproven! That is not in anyway being disrespectful or demeaning - it's simply a means of conveying that one has no more provenance than the other!
I hardly think that is childish but your dismissive post now also backs up my comment that some people will resort to personal attacks, especially those who are believers and who's faith is questioned.
It is a commonly used way of demeaning someone's belief as you know full well. I explained exactly why the provenance is not equal, and that you were simply substituting one interpretation of the God concept for another and thus in no way can be considered a valid refutation of God, which you duly dismissed out of hand, when we add that to your use of negative language and your posts in the previous thread it is a valid conclusion to make.
I have not attacked you personally, only your argument and the motivations and objectivity with which you form that argument which is what happens in a debate. Like I said, if you wish to debate on a more objective level then I will alter my opinion accordingly.
My opinion on your motivations in no way backs up your belief that believers whose faith is questioned would always resort to such things as personal attacks either, as I hold no faith whatsoever....I am ignostic, and I have not attacked you personally.
I repeat:
If you wish to debate theology on a more reasoned and informed level then I will duly alter my opinion, however I do not wish to indulge in constant refutation of common fallacies and sweeping commentaries designed to demean whichever religion is being discussed. There have been too many threads over the past week already.
Last edited:
Castiel, what do you think about the two different types of definition of atheism
I just came across this
Do you think this semantic argument holds any weight?You say that you are ignostic, but with that definition could you not be described as atheist?
I just came across this
Do you think this semantic argument holds any weight?You say that you are ignostic, but with that definition could you not be described as atheist?
Last edited:
Ignostic, not agnostic. They're different terms. Ignosticism takes the view that all theological standpoints assume too much about the nature of God, but beyond that I don't really know what it's all about.
Edited, but I don't see how that difference would make a difference to my argument.
The issue with that description is the the word Atheist is not Theist with a prefix, as Atheist was the original word and Theist is a derivation of Atheist and not the contrary.
Atheist is derived from Atheos, which simply meant Godless.
However there are various ways of defining philosophical positions and many overlap and are dependent on personal affectation and self-identification.
For myself, I am currently Ignostic which means I am of the opinion that the term God as a specific identification is meaningless, and that before we can really identify a definitive position on the validity of God either from a Theist or Atheist perspective we need to first define it. Effectively I am of the opinion that other philosophical positions assume too much about the God concept.
This is distinct from Agnosticism which depending on your specific position can span a myriad of positions from Agnostic Atheism to Agnostic Theism. Effectively you can be an atheist and agnostic at the same time, simply Agnostic with no leaning either way or a theist and agnostic at the same time.
I hope that answers your question.
Last edited: