Kevin's Watch

Jove,

Christianity does seem to be the focus of the science vs. religion debate. Islam and Judaism worship the same God as Christianity. I think that a lot of this may have to do with the perception of Eastern mysticism and religion. Somehow, society has given Eastern religions more credence than Christianity as if they are more natural or believeable whereas Christianity appears to be the bastard child of religions. You can see this anytime you turn on the television.

Christianity is indeed the focus of this very debate. That is simply because this debate is being discussed largely in the West, where Christianity has reigned supreme for millennia and where institutionalized Christianity has been such an integral part of society. The thinkers, philosophers, laymen, whomever, who are discussing this issue choose Christianity as their representative of religion not because they villify it more than "Eastern" religions, but because Christianity has been psychologically ingrained in them as the supreme religion of their society.

You have a point about the perception of "Eastern" religions as mystical, but this does not, I don't think, apply to Islam and Judaism as much as it applies to such religions as Taoism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Jainism, etc. What I strongly disagree with you about is your assertion that Judaism and Islam are viewed as more credible than Christianity in the West. This is in my opinion simply preposterous.

Firstly, the more than 2 billion Christians of the world - making it the largest single religion on Earth - would challenge this notion, especially the ones that are the dominant demographic groups in every Western power. Secondly, if I turn on the TV, I see not a championing of Islam or Judaism, but constant reporting on Islamist terrorism and conflicts within Israel. The perception of most Americans of the Muslim is that of "oil suppliers or potential terrorists." And on top of that, anti-Semitism, which has a millennia-old tradition in the West, still pervades our society.

Christianity has taken some very minor hits in the United States lately thanks to secularism, which I applaud, "war on Christmas" or not, but I would absolutely challenge the idea that Christianity is somehow viewed as less credible than Eastern religions.

What do you think theologians and biblical scholars do? They rigorously debate, research, and investigate biblical claims to uncover the truth. I almost changed my degree from History to Religious Studies because the topic was so interesting

The philosophy of science is very different from the rigors of history. Historical studies are dependent upon primary scources that as you say are falliable. Which ones do you accept? It is also important to note that many bible scholars are not Christians.

But, I think that there are fundamentalists on both sides of the coin here and no matter how rigorous the reviews might be, science still sometimes falls short of the truth. It is the human element that causes the fallibility in science and in religion.

Or does science fall short of what you want the truth to be? This same human element created religion. It stands to reason this is why religion is such a falliable notion as well.

I, for one, would love for archeologists to actually find evidence that Jesus existed. The historian AND the Christian in me would
in me would be fascinated with that kind of discovery

.

Interestingly, virtually no evidence has been found for the Exodus in either Egypt or Israel and hardly any evidence for Jesus. Quite the contrary, Nazareth didn't exist until the third century a.d. and many of the biblical texts, such as the Nag Hammadi library, seem to suggest a very different version than the popular one.

I should mention that we may have some issues with defintion, as usual. For instance when I refer to "science", I mean both the scientific method and the hard sciences such as chemistry, geology etc.

Cybrweez wrote:So, for a theory on gravity, you can test/observe any ideas. For evolution and the creation of this universe, you can't.

Evolution can be observed just as well as gravity. It's all around us. You can watch microorganisms evolve over the matter of days. Just look at the evolution of bugs that have grown adaptive to flu vaccines and antibiotics.

I agree science does not have to assume there is no God, but today's definition of science does.

I still think this statement is incorrect. In no science is there the assumption that there is no God.

-jay

Modern evolution doesn't even assume their is no god. It does not in any way deal with the origin of life only the diversification of it.

The modern definition of evolution (used in physical anthropology and not necessarily Webster's) is a process wherein organisms have variability within a population and evolution (non-random natural selection, mutation, genetic drift) acts on this varibility producing diverisification of species.

Perhaps this is a better definition

"Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are reproductively isolated, e.g. by geographic barriers."

What I strongly disagree with you about is your assertion that Judaism and Islam are viewed as more credible than Christianity in the West. This is in my opinion simply preposterous.

'Credible' may not have been the best word. Let us use 'respected' then. Certainly you notice that in today's media, Islam and Judaism are given far more respect than Christianity. Political correctness applies to Islam and Judaism but it is Christianity that bears the brunt of scorn from athiests, true?

The perception of most Americans of the Muslim is that of "oil suppliers or potential terrorists." And on top of that, anti-Semitism, which has a millennia-old tradition in the West, still pervades our society.

What station do you watch? I see mostly the perception of Muslim's as freedom fighters against American/Christian oppression. (I guess that is the difference between liberals and conservatives - heh )

The philosophy of science is very different from the rigors of history. Historical studies are dependent upon primary scources that as you say are falliable. Which ones do you accept? It is also important to note that many bible scholars are not Christians.

The problem with history is that there are a set of events that occurred. It is the interpretation of those events that are fallible because everyone has a different opinion. It would seem to be the same with scientific results. The tests themselves reveal a set of events. It is the interpretation of them that is fallible because it is human.

Or does science fall short of what you want the truth to be? This same human element created religion. It stands to reason this is why religion is such a falliable notion as well.

Exactly. But you cannot stand science up as the end-all-be-all of truth just like you cannot say that religion is exact. Like religion, science is fallible. The process of peer review that you mentioned earlier is all very well and good but it does not keep fallibility at bay especially if it is reviewed by peers who share the same basic philosophy.

I am just trying to even the playing card. Some say that science is all there is and some say that God is all there is. The simple fact is that both are fallible. No one is worse or better, but we would all like to think that our view is better or smarter.

I should mention that we may have some issues with defintion, as usual. For instance when I refer to "science", I mean both the scientific method and the hard sciences such as chemistry, geology etc.

I do too.

Jove,

Certainly you notice that in today's media, Islam and Judaism are given far more respect than Christianity.

No, I certainly have not. Perhaps you could elaborate on how Islam and Judaism are "far more" respected than Christianity.

I see mostly the perception of Muslim's as freedom fighters against American/Christian oppression.

Oh, come on. The perception of an Islamic Palestinian terrorist blowing himself up on an Israeli street corner is far more prevalent than any positive depictions of Muslims in the media. Again, I'd love to see an example of a positive depiction of a Muslim in the media. All I see is the kind of needles fearmongering as comparing Barack Obama's style of dress to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the hype surrounding Obama's alleged education at a "fundamentalist Islamic school."

Cybrweez wrote:I don't believe a Christian can believe in evolution. Jesus said "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female". Not to mention I'd like to know how he reconciles the Bible teaching that Adam brought death into the world through sin, and Jesus brought life through His sacrifice. Death would've been around billions of years b4 Adam if evolution were true. Does it mean spiritual death? Then when did our spirit first arrive on the scene? The Bible ignores that part? No, it doesn't make sense.

A Christian can believe in evolution if Christian can be defined other than something like - One who believes in the literal interpretation of every word of the Bible. I know a woman who says you are not a Christian if you do not believe in the Trinity (among other things). Why do some people think they have the authority establish the one and only definition of Christian? Collins is a very strong believer. He thinks Jesus was the son of God, and the Savior. And he believes in evolution.

Cybrweez wrote:So, for a theory on gravity, you can test/observe any ideas. For evolution and the creation of this universe, you can't.

Yes, you can. Collins discusses some of them. (He discusses them in a way that even I can follow. Xar can tell you how difficult a task that is! ) Check the several pages of the What Does This Say About Human Evlution? section, beginning on page 133.


And, once again, I'm going to ask you this, Cyberweez. This is the third time I'm asking you. You didn't post again in the threads the first two times I asked ( kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=224402#224402 and kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=260933#260933).

Fist and Faith wrote:CYBERWEEZ

Just trying to get your attention. Nobody arguing against the existence of evolution has answered me yet, so I'm singling one of you - you - out.

Cybrweez wrote:Its been stated here that evolution, and I'm assuming macro-evolution is meant, is a fact. Man, even just saying that makes me laugh. Some are just curious where macro-evolution has been observed.

............

But I'm questioning evolution, b/c of the many problems. Whether there is a God or not doesn't deal w/the issue of problems in evolution.

As Foul has said, there are two issues:
1) There is the fact of evolution. Life has changed over time.

2) There are some theories that try to understand how these changes occurred. (The most popular of which is, I suppose, random mutation and natural selection.)

MY QUESTION, AGAIN, NOW TO YOU, IS:
Do you agree with #1? Do you think life on the planet is the same now as it has been since life began (regardless of how it began) on the planet? Do you think human beings have existed, looking and behaving exactly as we do now, as long as there has been life? Do you think every species of plant and animal has existed, in the exact forms they now have, since the beginning of life?

Exactly. But you cannot stand science up as the end-all-be-all of truth just like you cannot say that religion is exact. Like religion, science is fallible. The process of peer review that you mentioned earlier is all very well and good but it does not keep fallibility at bay especially if it is reviewed by peers who share the same basic philosophy.

I am just trying to even the playing card. Some say that science is all there is and some say that God is all there is. The simple fact is that both are fallible. No one is worse or better, but we would all like to think that our view is better or smarter.

To paraphase a famous quote..."Science is the search for fact not truth." Fact is not subjective. You can't make your own facts. Science supplies fact that is agreed on by others with the same rigorous standard. Does science answer all the questions? No, its not supposed too. If you choose religion you must accept that it can't provide facts. For instance, I can ignore Newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics and hit a moving vehicle head on because I choose not to believe it. What will happen?

Science is falliable but it is self correcting. As I've mentioned before the "theory" of Evolution is not truly a theory as defined by lay people. Theory in science represents a testable determination that despite efforts to disprove all or parts of it has continued. Evolution has changed since Darwin upon the discovery and better understanding of DNA. We now operate under the modern synthesis of evolution.

Oh, come on. The perception of an Islamic Palestinian terrorist blowing himself up on an Israeli street corner is far more prevalent than any positive depictions of Muslims in the media. Again, I'd love to see an example of a positive depiction of a Muslim in the media. All I see is the kind of needles fearmongering as comparing Barack Obama's style of dress to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the hype surrounding Obama's alleged education at a "fundamentalist Islamic school."

Apparently you have not heard Rosie O'Donnel, Cindy Sheehan, or Bill Maher (Maher at least condemns all religions, not just Christianity). How about a crucifix being put in a jar of urine and being hailed as 'art' for one? If they had done that to the Star of David or the Koran, what do you think would have happened? All hell would have broken loose. That is just one example.

But, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that I have not heard of negative things about Islam as well. Not so much about Judaism lately other than from Middle Eastern leaders.

It sounds to me like you are saying that since Christianity is the Western religion, it is what we are most familiar with and therefore, able to question. Is that right?

Science is falliable but it is self correcting. As I've mentioned before the "theory" of Evolution is not truly a theory as defined by lay people. Theory in science represents a testable determination that despite efforts to disprove all or parts of it has continued. Evolution has changed since Darwin upon the discovery and better understanding of DNA. We now operate under the modern synthesis of evolution.

Evolution (which I happen to agree is the correct hypothesis) is still a theory though, right? It is not proven fact because there are still holes in the fossil record.

I don't mean this as a challenge - I am just really curious: could you please explain the modern synthesis of evolution for me please?

Jove-
Evolution is a theory in the sense that it is a group of propositions that form an explanation for something; not, as in the common usage, merely conjecture.
An incomplete fossil record does little to confirm or deny the theory of evolution. It simply means we do not have the complete picture of past stages in the development of life on earth.

I am not versed enough in modern evolutionary theory to attempt to convey the ideas clearly, so I'll leave that to someone else here.

Theory in the scientific sense is not the same as the common usage. A theory in science has been rigorously tested over a long period of time and not proven false. Evolution will not become a law, ever. Modern science made Newtons theories laws out of respect essentially. However in this case Evolution is for all intents and purposes a law, the term theory remains because it will continue to be tested out of a sense of responsiblity on the part of evolutionary biology.

The fossil record is extremely extensive. I find it troubling that there seems to be a perception that it is woefully incomplete. For instance the human line is well documented and shows clear transitions for nearly 6 million years. The farther back one goes the more difficult obviously as there were far less people and the proper circumstances have to exist for fossils to be created.

As for an explanation...
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_f ... heory.html

Speaking as someone with no education whatsoever in fossil records, I'll say a couple things. Others may end up correcting me. (Mind you, the validity of evolution is based on many more things than fossil records. Others might know how many. I'm learning some great examples of genetic evidence. And we can observe various changes in various species taking place.)

We have fossils from millions of years ago. Even hundreds of millions of years ago. In some cases, like the T-Rex, there are no living representatives of the plant or animal in question. Some species no longer exist.

In other cases, I think the cockroach is an example?, there are living representatives of the plant or animal in question. Some species have survived for millions of years.

In some cases, like modern humans, there are no fossils that go back beyond a relatively short time. I don't know how old the oldest fossil of a person who looks just like us is, but fossils of some species of plants and animals may be less than 100,000 years old.

If people will not accept evolution because of a lack of fossils from certain time periods - that is, fossils that fill certain "gaps" in the record - I have a couple possible explanations.
1) It is not particularly easy for a fossil to be made. It happens only under specific conditions. It's possible that not every stage of evolution of a given species is represented by a fossil.

2) We have not yet found every fossil on earth.

If those explanations are not sufficient, I'd be interested in an explanation for why there are fossils from hundreds of millions of years ago of a species that no longer exists (T-Rex) and of a species that does still exist (cockroach), yet there are no fossils of us from that same period. Why only fossils of us that are a mere... however old they are?

And when Kins says "the human is well documented and shows clear transitions for nearly 6 million years," he is talking about the various stages that lead up to us - modern humans. I'm talking about modern humans. There are fossils of various things that look more and more like us the more recently they were formed. But there are none from 6 million years ago that look just like us alongside the ones that begin the steps that look more and more like us the closer they get to the present.

Whoops...I mean the human line. If you want something that looks very much like us try Homo erectus at say 1.8 million years ago. Their body and brain weren't as large but their variability would probably go unnoticed today.
Anatomically modern humans have existed for more than 100,000 years.

Just a rough guess but I'd say there are at least 200 or 300 complete or near complete examples of Homo erectus from Africa, Europe, and Asia.

I don't believe a Christian can believe in evolution. Jesus said "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female"

Actually the people who wrote the Bible said that Jesus said that, that whole process was one of trade offs, what should or should not be included and that the whole process of the various synods in the 4th century was based upon applying consistent liturgy to fortify control over the populace and continued stipends for its various minions. If it were the word of God or the word of Jesus it would not have needed the many synods up to the 16th century Council of Trent to agree that: it would have stood alone as empirical fact.

Likewise the Young Earth, bases its belief using the text of the Bible as its evidence, a text which has deliberately excluded masses of documentation from the Old Testament partly in an attempt to rationalise a story of creation understandable to people of the Dark Ages. Thus much of this, the ultimate in dogmatism is based upon the superstition of people who thought the Earth was Flat.

I can buy into people looking at the Bible as a text that sets principles out for living a better life, I can also buy into the worship of a deity based upon faith, but I find myself astounded that anyone with an IQ above that of a geranium can ascribe a literal truth to a book which even its own churches have agreed was a composite production: a 4th Century version of Religeon for Dummies?

Anyway Flat, sorry Young Earthers aside, the core question was about the ability to have God and Science co-exist (hey if Man and Fish can do it...... )

I've never seen this as a problem, because as soon as you chart your way to matter, the universe, the big bang and all, there comes a point where explanation dies dues to lack of any evidence, ie where does the original matter come from and what is this space we call the universe? At that point or somewhere near it the evidence goes from science to belief and believing in a deity is just as valid as any other theory. That does not disprove all the science that led someone to that point, the DNA example is along the same lines.

What I do challenge tho' is the idea that a scientist comes to God through late night sessions in the lab via a flash of light or insight that suddenly requires both a "Eureka" and a "Praise the Lord" at the same time. I'm sure there's one or two who might experience this, but I'm also sure that there are many scientists, who often for want of social skills are picked off by the predatory nature of amateur evangelists, who display the scalp as further evidence that the scientists are realising their error.

I wonder whether these Zealots actually see what damage they do their cause, how many souls go into the void unshriven because of them. I think Jove you hit a note with the respect afforded other religeons, its maybe not the respect the west gives them but an admiration of the respect their own adherants give them. Jews do not disavow themselves so easy nor do Budhhists or Hindus or Muslims; what is there that is not in Christianity. What does Christianity lack that pushes people to Wickka and a whole host of fringe or retro belief systems......maybe its zealotry and hypocracy of the evangelists.

Anyway great topic and first rate posts, Malik especially: we don't agree on much politically but your posts in this thread have been great reading well done mate.

Jove,

Apparently you have not heard Rosie O'Donnel, Cindy Sheehan, or Bill Maher (Maher at least condemns all religions, not just Christianity). How about a crucifix being put in a jar of urine and being hailed as 'art' for one? If they had done that to the Star of David or the Koran, what do you think would have happened? All hell would have broken loose. That is just one example.

Are Rosie O'Donnell and a crucifix in a jar off piss really the best examples of anti-Christian sentiments you can come up with? Looks like Christianity is sitting rather prettily in the West to me in that case. All of your examples are all fringe examples, and thus non-representative, or patently ridiculous like the crucifix in a jar of urine. In any event, how have any of these examples exemplified positive depictions of Islam in the media?

LM, I think I covered some of this above, my understanding of Jove's point (not wanting to put words in mouths here tho') is that things such as the putting of a crucifix in a jar of piss would not happen in those religeons because they are held in higher esteem within the broad religeous communities they serve.

People in the west see this and may see, or get an impression of a religion that is stronger and more steadfast...maybe that's just the other man's grass? For myself I think many embrace religeon because of its dogma, its lack of change, its continuity in an ever changing world; a relationship with something that will not let them down. But Christianity seems to fight with itself and within itself to accomodate disparate beliefs and sometimes comes across as a religeon which both reflects the current common view and the catholic (small 'c') at the same time. I think the level of religeous politics detracts from what is on offer for the person who wants an unchanging rock to base their beliefs upon.

I also believe that Christianity has allowed abuses within it, to go by the way unacknowleged and unrepentant. I'm sure other churches have their dirty linen but we see what is close by, not what is far away

finn,

That's all well and good, but that is a separate debate. That is also what I understannd his point to be from those examples. However, Jove also said that Islam is favorably depicted in the media and in the West generally, and I challenge that notion. A crucifix in a jar of piss does not in any way qualify that point.

Evolution is a theory in the sense that it is a group of propositions that form an explanation for something; not, as in the common usage, merely conjecture.

Murrin, I was completely aware of that. I know what theory is in the scientific method. I have had to use it a time or two myself.

Kins, thanks for the links.

LM, Finn explained it better than I.

Now my friends, I am going on vacation. Thank you for a wonderful debate.

LM, sorry edited whilst you posted.

Agree that Islam is not favourably reported, but as Jove has agreed I think its the viewpoint of those within the faith and how they have reflected it more than the media which has established the perception.

finn,

People in the west see this and may see, or get an impression of a religion that is stronger and more steadfast.

I don't really see this. They get more the impression of a "religion of violence" - a phrase that has been popularized in the United States. There's a reason people like Robert Spencer, author of such titles as The Myth of Islamic Tolerance and The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, and books like The Complete Idiot's Guide to Islam which posits that Islam as a vehicle for violence is a natural step and not a misuse of the religion, are at the top of the New York Times