The forum discussion centers on the relationship between belief in God and scientific reasoning, particularly critiquing Richard Dawkins' focus on debunking religious beliefs. Participants argue that while science cannot address metaphysical claims, it is essential to challenge unfalsifiable beliefs to promote critical thinking. The conversation highlights the political implications of faith versus science, emphasizing that personal beliefs should be respected but also scrutinized. Ultimately, the discussion advocates for a clear distinction between scientific inquiry and personal faith, asserting that the two should not be conflated.
PREREQUISITESThis discussion is beneficial for philosophers, scientists, theologians, and anyone interested in the intersection of faith and scientific reasoning, particularly those examining the societal impacts of belief systems.
Exactly. It has nothing to say about religion. If it proves that elves carrying buckets of gold to the end of the rainbow don't exist, the research was not done with the intent to disprove that myth.zomgwtf said:Ok Evo, the fact that science mistakenly corrects religious dogma every now and then doesn't meant that science has something to say about religion.
While I agree that scientists aren't out to discredit religion, it happens, as you pointed out, that certain religious notions get inadvertantly discredited. Therefore your statement: "The pursuit of science does have zero to do with religion" is not well stated and invites contradiction. Science has an effect on religious notions. Therefore, it has something to do with religion, albeit without intending to.Evo said:Exactly. The pursuit of science does have zero to do with religion
Yes, and I did make that clear, that although it disproves myths, it was not done with the intent to disprove them.zoobyshoe said:While I agree that scientists aren't out to discredit religion, it happens, as you pointed out, that certain religious notions get inadvertantly discredited. Therefore your statement: "The pursuit of science does have zero to do with religion" is not well stated and invites contradiction. Science has an effect on religious notions. Therefore, it has something to do with religion, albeit without intending to.
Ivan Seeking said:If atheism is not a choice, then are you suggesting - it would seem - that believers don't have the choice to change their ways, and not believe?
Evo said:Yes, and I did make that clear, that although it disproves myths, it was not done with the intent to disprove them.
That's what I said.zoobyshoe said:Which leads me to the observation that science and religion, whatever religion you name, end up clashing at some point, without science particularly intending it.
zomgwtf said:zooby would you agree with my statement that belief in God and belief in a religion are two different things? Yes being religious normally implies belief in God but that's only part of the story.
zoobyshoe said:I'm not sure what you mean. Are you simply saying someone might believe in God but want nothing to do with the actual organized religions that exist?
zomgwtf said:No no no. I'm saying that a belief in the concept of God whatever that may be to a person is different from that persons belief in a Religion.
God and religion are not the same things.
So for instance: Catholics.
Catholics have a monotheistic belief. So they have a single god and they assign to him special godly properties and what not.
Now that monotheistic belief is vastly different from believing in most of the Holy Bible and the interpretations of this Holy Bible. Believing in God in concept is vastly different from a persons belief in religion. This is most clearly noticable in christianity... look at how many different churches there are. They all believe in the exact same concept of God though, the religious beliefs are different.