Tired of the religious right putting down science

[Ronulus]

Okay, but unfortunately, most predominant voices on the right are strict creationists. How many big right wing personalities believe in evolution?

Creationism and Evolution can go together. Just depends on their viewpoint of God. I'm usually not going to argue against someone else religious beliefs unless it somehow affects my life. However you will find that a majority of these "right wing nutjobs" (which I don't think we should refer to them as, but maybe religious extremists), don't really do a lot of self exploration into their faith or understanding of God. They take everything in the bible as being literal and then using paintings of da vinci and others to augment that. For instance hell and satan (who is never mentioned in the bible). These people have a need to grasp for something to believe in or their lives end up being kind of worthless, so they hold on to that and well.... you see how it goes.

I however don't see that a whole lot. What I do see however is the "Left wing science nuts" trying to disprove God and any sort of religious philosophy.

 

[erowe1]

For instance hell and satan (who is never mentioned in the bible)

Huh?
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=satan&qs_version=NIV

 

[Toxic]

And every major left wing leader has been a strict atheist who denounces creationists as imbeciles for not believing what atheists believe. What is your point? To me you're just illustrating mine, that the loudest voices are the ones perpetuating this fight in order to get power. But it isn't something that really carries over into the majority of either side, except those who believe the political lies anyway.

Which left wing leaders are you referring to?

I find atheists to be almost as closed minded as creationists. People on both sides refuse to open their minds to other possibilities.

 

[Toxic]

I'm not religious and I think that discovery is bullshit. A few years down the line they will discover smaller particles then claim those are the smallest particles in the world, and continue the bullshit.

You totally missed the point. Until this time in our history, this was the next big discovery. Years from now there will be even more and greater discoveries. You can't crap on one just because something else is on it's way to be found. One step at a time.

 

[Toxic]

Science is catching up with religion more and more all the time. People think they conflict, but it's more just that man's senses are flawed and our machines are not perfect, so we have more difficulty understanding things through science because we have to try to figure out the rules that God made for the universe by our own limited devices.

This method has brought some level of scientific understanding, but it is still catching up to religion. For example, there is the theory that there are multiple universes. We can know that there are multiple universes because the Vedic scriptures state there are. Our senses are imperfect, but the Lord is perfect, so information that comes from Him may be trusted. But for science, it is still an unconfirmed theory.

Science can be a good thing, but it would be folly to place it above religion as our science is imperfect and ever-changing, while the Vedas are absolute. Science can be used to "discover" such things that the Lord has already told us of, such as multiple universes. But our level of science is not able to determine that, yet. There may be another species out there somewhere who has more advanced scientific knowledge and has confirmed the existence of multiple universes, who knows. But we can know these things in advance from an authoritative source through the Word of the Lord, such as Bhagavad Gita or Srimad Bhagavatam.

See, this is why it will always come down to this one request: Prove the existence of God.

You can't prove God's existence or prove that all religions weren't created by early man. It's all comes down to your faith, which has been taught to you from previous generations. If you ask how the universe was formed, a scientist can provide you with tons of data to support the theory, whereas you only have a few old books to support yours. The other difference is that scientists use the word "theory" when describing the culmination of scientific findings, but strict religious folks will say God's existence is "fact." Anyone who uses that word should be able to back it up with their evidence. Just seems like logic and common sense to me.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

I am a Creationist, and have no issue at all with scientists doing science. I thought the discovery was kind of cool.

 

[Toxic]

Creationism and Evolution can go together. Just depends on their viewpoint of God. I'm usually not going to argue against someone else religious beliefs unless it somehow affects my life. However you will find that a majority of these "right wing nutjobs" (which I don't think we should refer to them as, but maybe religious extremists), don't really do a lot of self exploration into their faith or understanding of God. They take everything in the bible as being literal and then using paintings of da vinci and others to augment that. For instance hell and satan (who is never mentioned in the bible). These people have a need to grasp for something to believe in or their lives end up being kind of worthless, so they hold on to that and well.... you see how it goes.

I however don't see that a whole lot. What I do see however is the "Left wing science nuts" trying to disprove God and any sort of religious philosophy.

You make some good points. I agree that faith in God and science can coexist. What's wrong with saying that God set the spark that set the universe in motion, leaving nature to take its course? God does not have to be limited to ancient writings.

 

[Toxic]

When I debate with creationists who use the Bible as literal history, I feel like I'm debating Ron Paul's policies with liberals and neocons. It's like, "Dude, it's common sense."

 

[Toxic]

Who?

Mike Church for example. There was also another guy filling in for Alex Jones yesterday who was totally out of his mind. But it's been a pattern within the right wing for years.

 

[Toxic]

WHEN "science" tells me i am an animal, and because of that other MORE EQUAL ANIMALS can create laws to imprison me for living in their land, yeah i get a problem with "science"

Not sure what you're referring to. But yes, when we share 96% of our DNA with chimps we are animals.

 

[fisharmor]

You make some good points. I agree that faith in God and science can coexist. What's wrong with saying that God set the spark that set the universe in motion, leaving nature to take its course? God does not have to be limited to ancient writings.

If that's the god you believe in, then that's no god at all.
That god is not a creator who cares about his creation.
That god is not a god who sees individuals with broken lives and attempts to do something about it.
That is not a god of sinners.

Those ancient writings mention creation, yes. But that is not their point.
The ancient writings are not there primarily to explain how things were created. They are there to explain your present condition and to give you hope for escaping it.
They include creation because if we were not created, then there is no explanation for the concern shown for us.

There is much more in that book than "magic man in the sky makes the universe". There's rejection, attempted reconciliation, more rejection, more reconciliation, ad nauseum - until the God of that book finally decides to do something for his creation that is so horrible and beautiful that the greatest minds this world has ever produced can scarcely understand it.

I'm convinced "scientists" like Carl Pagan simply didn't understand any of this. They don't know why what they're saying has the effect on the faithful that it does. To them it's just a game: find a likely answer.
Their answer leads them to a place where they not only can't understand any of what the faithful believe, but in teaching their conflicting story, they interfere with others' ability to understand what the faithful understand (however slight the understanding).
And in so many cases, scientists aren't even playing by their own rules when they pontificate.

Not sure what you're referring to. But yes, when we share 96% of our DNA with chimps we are animals.

Then why are you here? What meaning does liberty have to you if it allows you to be corralled and treated like an animal?
I adhere to a faith which upholds the meaning and value of the individual (or at least is supposed to).
What does your faith in science say on the matter?

 

[Toxic]

If that's the god you believe in, then that's no god at all.
That god is not a creator who cares about his creation.
That god is not a god who sees individuals with broken lives and attempts to do something about it.
That is not a god of sinners.

Because that kind of god does not exist. Seems to me, the god that many believe in shouldn't have to attempt to make people's lives better, it should just do it. What kind of a god allows a holocaust to happen, or rape and murder to happen? What the hell happened to divine intervention? Seems this god took a major shit on mankind.

Those ancient writings mention creation, yes. But that is not their point.
The ancient writings are not there primarily to explain how things were created. They are there to explain your present condition and to give you hope for escaping it.
They include creation because if we were not created, then there is no explanation for the concern shown for us.

There is much more in that book than "magic man in the sky makes the universe". There's rejection, attempted reconciliation, more rejection, more reconciliation, ad nauseum - until the God of that book finally decides to do something for his creation that is so horrible and beautiful that the greatest minds this world has ever produced can scarcely understand it.

I'm convinced "scientists" like Carl Pagan simply didn't understand any of this. They don't know why what they're saying has the effect on the faithful that it does. To them it's just a game: find a likely answer.
Their answer leads them to a place where they not only can't understand any of what the faithful believe, but in teaching their conflicting story, they interfere with others' ability to understand what the faithful understand (however slight the understanding).
And in so many cases, scientists aren't even playing by their own rules when they pontificate.

But you're making assumptions. You have no idea what the authors of ancient scriptures had intended. Many others have interpreted and taught the Bible in many ways over the years.

Then why are you here? What meaning does liberty have to you if it allows you to be corralled and treated like an animal?
I adhere to a faith which upholds the meaning and value of the individual (or at least is supposed to).
What does your faith in science say on the matter?

Being a biological animal doesn't mean we can't be civilized and have a system of law. We're more advanced than other animals, but we're still animals. That's not up for debate. It's fact.

 

[jmdrake]

Okay, but unfortunately, most predominant voices on the right are strict creationists. How many big right wing personalities believe in evolution?

Ummmm....not sure what the Higgs boson has to do with evolution. Are you saying God couldn't have created the universe using the Higgs boson as a building block?

 

[jmdrake]

Almost every big right-wing personality believes in non-theistic evolution or theistic evolution. The conservative movement in this country for decades has been dominated by Roman Catholicism and Judaism, both of which hold to evolution.

Conservatism: An Autopsy
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=115

Ummm....that's a huge over-generalization with respect to Judaism.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewsevolution.html

Jewish views on evolution includes a continuum of views about evolution, creationism, and the origin of life. Some Jewish denominations accept evolutionary creationism (theistic evolution).
Classical Rabbinic Teachings

The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. It is considered to have been written by the Tanna Yose ben Halafta, and cover history from the creation of the universe to the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. This chronology is widely accepted among most of Orthodox Judaism today.

A small minority of classical rabbis believed that the world is older, and that life as we know it today did not always exist. Rabbis who had this view based their conclusions on verses in the Talmud the midrash. For example:

Talmud Chaggiga 13b-14a states that there were 974 generations before God created Adam.
Some midrashim state that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time. See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 9.

 

[jmdrake]

Mike Church for example. There was also another guy filling in for Alex Jones yesterday who was totally out of his mind. But it's been a pattern within the right wing for years.

So this was Mike's show on yesterday? Can you give a synopsis of what he was saying?

 

[Toxic]

Ummmm....not sure what the Higgs boson has to do with evolution. Are you saying God couldn't have created the universe using the Higgs boson as a building block?

How would I know? I don't claim to know what God's abilities are. But the Higgs boson is just another piece of the puzzle which helps us understand how the universe is constructed.

 

[Toxic]

So this was Mike's show on yesterday? Can you give a synopsis of what he was saying?

I only caught a few minutes on his way to work, but he was basically saying that this discovery isn't as big of a deal as it's made out to be and even questioned why we should even bother with going to Mars. I believe he also was making the point that scientists are purposely trying to destroy faith in God.

 

[jmdrake]

I only caught a few minutes on his way to work, but he was basically saying that this discovery isn't as big of a deal as it's made out to be and even questioned why we should even bother with going to Mars. I believe he also was making the point that scientists are purposely trying to destroy faith in God.

Maybe. Or he could have been complaining about taxpayers having to fund such projects. Sure it's European taxpayers on the hook for the LHC (and we bailed out Euro banks) but we don't not have a superconducting supercollider for lack of willingness to steal from American taxpayers to pay for it. (Lots of negatives in that one sentence I know). Our own supercollider project was started and abandoned. And going to Mars would cost taxpayers pretty penny. But I'd have to hear the whole thing to know for sure what he was talking about. That said, do you think we should try to go to Mars? And I mean we as in "U.S. taxpayer funded venture". Certainly Richard Branson should be able to go wherever his billions will take him.

 

[Toxic]

Maybe. Or he could have been complaining about taxpayers having to fund such projects. Sure it's European taxpayers on the hook for the LHC (and we bailed out Euro banks) but we don't not have a superconducting supercollider for lack of willingness to steal from American taxpayers to pay for it. (Lots of negatives in that one sentence I know). Our own supercollider project was started and abandoned. And going to Mars would cost taxpayers pretty penny. But I'd have to hear the whole thing to know for sure what he was talking about. That said, do you think we should try to go to Mars? And I mean we as in "U.S. taxpayer funded venture". Certainly Richard Branson should be able to go wherever his billions will take him.

I'm torn on the issue because as much as I would love for mankind to explore Mars and beyond, I don't know that space exploration is necessarily the responsibility of the taxpayer. I'd be open to almost any non-essential program being funded as an option, in which I would happily donate on my own. I do however feel space exploration will prove to be a necessity as we may discover new forms of fuel, minerals, and quite possibly and new home for mankind once the earth can no longer sustain life.

 

[georgiaboy]

Scientists made a major discovery with the Higgs boson last week and it was all over the news. Unfortunately, many on the right also made it the topic of their news by minimizing the value of its discovery and claiming the whole purpose of these scientific experiments is to destroy faith in God and religion. This is why many on the left like Bill Maher call right wingers idiots.

I respect people's religious practices and I like religion itself very much. But people need to lay off the bashing of science. Sure, they love their medicine, their computers, their sci-fi movies, and all the other awesome stuff that has been created through scientific experimentation and advancement, but they still shoot it down as some sort of abomination. It's fine to believe in God, but when countless amounts of scientific evidence and theories stacks up millions of pages higher than the few in the Bible, it's time to lay off and let scientists do their thing. Think of it as God having created this desire to advance, not frowning upon it.

It's because of the desire to explore and experiment that mankind no longer lives in caves. It's in our nature to do this. We've explored this planet extensively and space is the next logical move. Yet, some on the right again keep asking, "why is this necessary?" It's such an idiotic and annoying attitude.

Attacking religious faith is no worse than attacking scientific faith. It's time to EVOLVE away from this ancient attitude.

T, I agree that the debate on all sides should skip the hyperbole and stay rational. Bashing gets us nowhere.

I have to say, though, that scientists in this case brought some of this critique on themselves by coining the phrase "god particle" to describe the boson. Admittedly I'm biased, but even objectively, coining a phrase like that, regardless of what was intended by the coiner, had to be meant to be an attention grabber at a minimum.

From Here:

The phrase "God particle" was coined by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman but is used by laymen, not physicists, as an easier way of explaining how the subatomic universe works and got started.