• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Interesting comment on "science vs religion"."

Collapse

  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll View Post
    But how do you explain scientists having faith?
    Because , in principle, there is no belief or faith in science. So as far as science is concerned there is no overlap and therefore, no problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll View Post
    But how do you explain scientists having faith?
    He didn't say he agreed with what he wrote!

    Leave a comment:


  • MyUserName
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll View Post
    But how do you explain scientists having faith?
    The brain is very good at compartmentalising?

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    I studied Science and Relgion 101 at Uni...

    very interesting and I think the main beef seems to be that science when you get down to the bare bones of it does not recognise that the universe was created by some omnipotent being but was born of physical processes...

    oh and also that if god made man in his own image then evolution seems to imply god is a monkey - which also does not go down to well..

    the other main reason religons were supportive of the sciences was because it allowed them to build better weapons and keep people alive longer - which is important if all you do is wage war on your neighbours because they have a slightly different god to you.
    But how do you explain scientists having faith?

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by original PM View Post
    I studied Science and Relgion 101 at Uni...

    very interesting and I think the main beef seems to be that science when you get down to the bare bones of it does not recognise that the universe was created by some omnipotent being but was born of physical processes...
    I think it's more that science doesn't really care, but assumes the universe is fundamentally deterministic. It doesn't seek to disprove God, but accepts God isn't scientifically measurable and therefore ignores the issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    The main conflict between S&R comes from people who don't understand what at least one side, or often both sides, believe.

    Leave a comment:


  • original PM
    replied
    I studied Science and Relgion 101 at Uni...

    very interesting and I think the main beef seems to be that science when you get down to the bare bones of it does not recognise that the universe was created by some omnipotent being but was born of physical processes...

    oh and also that if god made man in his own image then evolution seems to imply god is a monkey - which also does not go down to well..

    the other main reason religons were supportive of the sciences was because it allowed them to build better weapons and keep people alive longer - which is important if all you do is wage war on your neighbours because they have a slightly different god to you.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorthWestPerm2Contr
    replied
    The bigger myth is the supposed clash between Religion and Science.

    I have watched several BBC programmes which point to the origins of our sciences coming from the Islamic empire (chemistry, medicine, physics). If religion was against science then all those developments would have never been allowed to occur.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    I thought everyone knew that the spat between Galileo and the Church over orbits was an urban myth.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    started a topic Interesting comment on "science vs religion".

    Interesting comment on "science vs religion".

    cupnoodlefreak comments on What if the prophet Mohammed was never born?

    ...Firstly, Copernicus never feared the church, he feared his contemporaries. The problem with the heliocentric model copernicus had was that he had circular orbits. The Ptolemaic system was full of stupid things like epicycles, but it worked. It accurately predicted the movement of the stars and planets better than Copernicus' model until Kepler realized they were elliptical orbits. Copernicus was scared not because the church would be annoyed, but because his contemporaries would be, as his model didn't accurately track the stars. In fact, Copernicus decided to publish it at the end because several bishops and theologians begged him to publish it.

    Secondly, Giodarno Bruno was a visionary because he went beyond the copernican model and even predicted that the sun itself was a star, but he wasn't killed because of that. He was killed because of his religious views, which were deemed as heresy. Keep in mind this was during the religious wars of the 16th century in Italy, when protestantism and catholicism were busy fighting each other (though there were political concerns too--protestant princes wanted to seize church lands and the like).

    Thirdly, as for Galileo, Galileo is an interesting case, because (I'm reposting from an old post I made in the past here) while the church under the Congregation of the Index condemned Galileo's ideas were false, he was in fact supported--and in fact encouraged--by Pope Urban VIII. The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems was sanctioned by both the papacy and the Inquisition. The reason Galileo was imprisoned was partly because of papal politics, and because Galileo represented the Pope's position under the name of "Simplicius" - that is, simpleton (the Pope had ordered Galileo to represent his--the geocentric--theory within his book as well, given it was called a "dialogue")...

Working...
X