/sci/ - Science & Math

whatever

>>8430331
Stupidity and intelligence are not mutually exclusive.

It depends on how you define "mutually exclusive" and "faith".

>>8430331
Science is the study of God's creation.

>>8430331
>religion
>>>/his/

>>8430331
>Appeal to authority

When it comes down to it, we really don't know what created the universe. The big bang is a damn good theory, but is is still not confirmed to be the start.

>>8430359

This guy gets it.

>>8430575
>The big bang is a damn good theory
No it's a horrible theory pulled from the Vatican archives by some greasy Jesuit with the obvious back door of what created the Big Bang, it must be muh man God in Rome...

These shitty theories propagated by the churches massive press machine are really the yoke on humanity today.

A more plausible theory would be the idea it has always existed and always will, perhaps expands and contract like a lung or whatever but fuck the creationists and their silly creators.

>>8430331
No.

>>8430331
>After all, many famous scientists believed in God.
Those scientists existed before we gained a better understanding of the Universe

>>8430610
>Hurr durr, people only believed in g*d cause they didn't know F=ma

kek

>>8430359

>>8430331
Faith-claims, dogma, doctrines, and revealed truths are opposed to science.

If you redefine religion into something that has none of that, then they would be compatible.

Otherwise, it's inconsistent compartmentalization.

>>8430671
Those things you list aren't opposed to science. You're approaching this as though a specific dogma must be specifically proven for it to merit anyones adherence. Religious beliefs are as much a part of your humanity as any other part. Of course you are also denying parts of your own humanity, but what's new?

>>8430331
>mutually exclusive?
yes

https://youtu.be/DuStSHFTcZs?t=1m10s

>>8430641
more like, evolution

>>8430967
the ven diagrams of science and faith do not intersect - and therefore cannot be mutually exclusive.

>>8430958
> Of course you are also denying parts of your own humanity, but what's new?
pot calling the kettle black

>>8430967
>unironically listening to Dawkins

>>8430977
mind, body, spirit - you have knifed off a third of your own existence cuz of liberalism. That's kind of sad.

from your rebuttal - i'm left wondering which part you assume i don't have. Unable to guess, i'll just tell you that i have all 3.

>>8431021
> mind, body, spirit
these parts only exist in your paradigm not most.

You're missing out on the glory of pure humanism.
That we do things because it is good to do them, not because a supernatural being will punish you if you don't.
If you blame god for your own shortcomings or thank god when things go well, you are missing out on a huge part of being a human.

>>8431028
>at this moment i was EUPHORIC
KEK. c'mon kid, how old are you? Out with you, out out, -18 b&

>>8430331
Why is this OK?

>>8431046
This isn't a science vs. religion thread.
>When will you brainlets finally learn to believe in god and leave your science behind?

It is most likely a bait question.

>>8431054
>most likely bait
all the more reason that this thread shouldn't exist

>>8431059
I think it's more of an ethics question than a religious question. Considering that the vast majority of scientists and engineers are religious, speaking plainly about how you seamlessly reconcile the two might help the younger misled atheists of /sci/.

>>8430958
>You're approaching this as though a specific dogma must be specifically proven for it to merit anyones adherence.
If there's no proof of it then there is no reason to adhere to it. Otherwise you should adhere to anything.

>>8431080
>Considering that the vast majority of scientists and engineers are religious
Of course they are, as an even greater majority of the general population is religious. There is a negative correlation between being a scientist and being religious, and the majority of scientists being religious does not change that.

>>8430970
Both Wise and Dawkins disagree.

>>8431098
>there is no reason to adhere to your spiritual humanity
there is no reason to adhere to your actual (body) humanity either, why haven't you killed yourself? we are spiritual beings and logical beings also. You seem offended by your own humanity, which is weird.

There is literally nothing wrong with being a Christian and a scientist. In fact, almost all of the scientific body of knowledge has come from this subset of humanity.

>>8431122
>there is no reason to adhere to your actual (body) humanity either, why haven't you killed yourself?
I don't see how I could "adhere" to my "actual humanity". I'm human. It's not a belief, just a fact.

"Spiritual" humanity, on the other hand, doesn't actually exist. It's just an incoherent belief.

The entire premise of your response, that the body is somehow analogous to a belief and that killing oneself is the removal of this "belief", is baffling. You also completely avoided the question. You seem to be just lashing out immaturely. I thought you were supposed to be enlightened by your own spirituality?

>There is literally nothing wrong with being a Christian and a scientist.
There is something wrong with being a Christian. It's irrational, arbitrary, and baseless.

>In fact, almost all of the scientific body of knowledge has come from this subset of humanity.
That's because the regions of the world in which science propagated eventually came to be dominated by Christians. This is a classic example of confusing correlation with causation. If Christians were scientific, you would have realized this.

>>8431176
>It's irrational, arbitrary, and baseless

Just because Protestantism is like that doesn't mean Christianity as a whole is.

>>8431189
But it is, as are all religions.

I mean let's just take a closer look at your argument. You are saying that spirituality is a part of being human. Well first of all it's not, since not all humans are spiritual. But even if it was, so what? Stupidity is also a part of being human. Should we embrace stupidity? Because that's in effect what you are doing, validating religion just because humans do it.

>>8431227
>>8431189
>>8431176
mind, body, and spirit are all self-evident.
>>8431176
>something wrong with being Christian
you just disavowed Newton, Heisenberg, and Copernicus

>>8431244
>spirit [is] self-evident.
It being nonsensical mumbo-jumbo is self-evident.

>>something wrong with being Christian
>you just disavowed Newton, Heisenberg, and Copernicus
So, let me just get this straight... If I say that Newton, Heisenberg, and Copernicus were wrong about certain things, then that means I "disavow" them? Because they were all quite clearly wrong on empirical matters, not simply on their religious beliefs. Does that shock you? Do you think they were perfect? Do you think that because they were great scientists, everything they said was correct and rational?

I really can't tell at this point whether you are retarded or trolling.

>>8431039
26. Prob older than you.
I expected this response.
I hate fedoras because they profess their beliefs, but I hate christians that do it as well.
I just want you to know, just because we hate fedoras doesn't mean we like your kind either

>>8431267
so you accept that you're an animal, take your mind for granted, and ignore entirely your spirt? Sounds like a recipe for a short lived and unhappy existence.

>trashing some of the greatest scientific minds ever
I mean, i knew atheists were full of themselves, but this is an entirely new level of hat tipping here. Lemme guess, 1st year uni brainlet?
>>8431282
-18 B&

>>8431227
>I mean let's just take a closer look at your argument. You are saying that spirituality is a part of being human.

And by "let's just take a closer look at your argument" you mean invent a strawman.

The Christian God exists whether you like it or not. Whether you worship God, Hitler, or w/e is up to you.

>>8431300
>so you accept that you're an animal, take your mind for granted, and ignore entirely your spirt?
How could I ignore something which doesn't exist? I have no sense of it and no evidence of it. Neither do you. It's purely a belief that you learned from someone else.

>Sounds like a recipe for a short lived and unhappy existence.
I can't help but notice that instead of providing evidence of this supposedly obvious spirit, you keep resorting to baseless ad hominem attacks.

>trashing some of the greatest scientific minds ever
So you think they were right about everything? Or is it possible for people to be great scientists but wrong about certain things? If the former then you are even more delusional than I thought. And you keep avoiding the question. Hilarious.

>>8431311
>And by "let's just take a closer look at your argument" you mean invent a strawman.

You:
>Religious beliefs are as much a part of your humanity as any other part. Of course you are also denying parts of your own humanity, but what's new?

Me:
>You are saying that spirituality is a part of being human

Your responses are getting dumber.

>The Christian God exists whether you like it or not.
So prove it or fuck off already.

>>8430359

Amen.

>>8431311
>>8431321
Oh and you're wrong on another level as well: I'm not denying that many humans are spiritual, I'm just saying it's stupid.

>>8431321
I'm not that anon, but here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

thinking scientifically and faith are most definitely incompatible.

faith is provides a foundation to believe in something without evidence.

science provides a method to find find evidence for what to believe in.

people can compartmentalize beliefs. scientists can easily apply the scientific method to their work, while using faith to believe in their god/gods/etc.

you cannot apply science to things that are by definition supernatural. so faith gives some people an excuse to believe. in my opinion its not a very good reason to believe, but that's how you can be a scientist, or doctor, and believe in something that has no real evidence.

>>8431176
>That's because the regions of the world in which science propagated eventually came to be dominated by Christians

Did you seriously just assert that Europe discovered science first and then became dominated by Christianity? Do you know any history whatsoever?

>This is a classic example of confusing correlation with causation

But science did grew out of Christianity. There are many books out there that outline this.

>If Christians were scientific
>were scientific

Saying "if Christians were scientific" make no more sense than saying "if Democrats were musical" or "if Russians were artistic". Scientism like that is fucking retarded.

>>8431343
Not evidence, try again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun#Critical_evaluation_of_the_event

>>8431343
a bunch of people reporting different accounts of something extraordinary with the sun. maybe its because they were staring at the sun?

some children report seeing visions of Jesus and other blessing the crowd. I am glad those children were educated enough in the early 1900s Portugal to recognize those figures, and not report things out of the expectation that some miracle must have occurred.

It's too bad miracles don't seem to occur now that every person has an HD camera in their pockets.

>>8431354
>faith is provides a foundation to believe in something without evidence.

You have a very misguided understanding of faith. Faith and belief are two completely different things. Faith is no more than trust. Belief is the clinging to an idea...

You can TRUST that your wife or girlfriend wont go out and get fucked by every man she sees behind your back but refusing to accept the possibility of that happening is a BELIEF on your part. In the same way so long as there is no scientific stance that disproves the idea of a god no belief is necessary and you can still adhere to faith within reason.

>>8431373
"Faith is no more than trust" - and what is "trust" in this definition? Who are you trusting? You are trusting based off of a presupposition. There is no evidence. Saying it this way is an attempt to subvert the obvious definition that faith provides the foundations to form a belief without evidence.

>>8431359
>Did you seriously just assert that Europe discovered science first and then became dominated by Christianity?
No, Europe did not "discover" science at all.

>But science did grew out of Christianity.
Science existed long before Christianity. Christians only reached the scientific level of the ancient Greeks after thousands of years of neglecting the records they left behind.

>Saying "if Christians were scientific" make no more sense than saying "if Democrats were musical" or "if Russians were artistic".
That's my point, retard. Christianity is not scientific any more than Democrats are musical.

I suggest you learn how to parse arguments before attempting to reply.

>>8431373
mirriam webster: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof "

>>8431368
Well, there was also the thing about the rain instantly drying up when the sun came out, which even sceptics who were there reported seeing (and photographed)

>>8431378
The evidence for any god is usually laid within the religious texts that push for their existence.

For one example the bible is enough to hold faith in the abrahamic god.

>>8431383
it makes a little more sense to search for natural explanations for an event like water drying up then jump to an all-powerful omniscient super-being who rules over all of creation demonstrating his awesome power by evaporating some water.

>>8431385
Hey I have a book with plenty of "evidence" that I'm God. So why don't you have faith in me?

>>8431385
"evidence for any god" - yeah, we have very different views on what constitutes evidence.

>>8431381
What i mean is that there is an apt difference between unsecured trust and 100% concrete belief.

>>8431365
All of those fail to explain how everything became bone dry after the miracle when it was raining heavily beforehand.

>>8431395
and I doubt they examined this "event" under any degree of scrutiny. it was the early 1900s. in portugal.

>>8431391
>>8431393
You both seem confused, you asked for "evidence" for something completely metaphysical. Nothing on earth could ever prove the existence of any god so even asking shows a blantant misunderstanding.

>>8431394
i think you are confused on what a belief is. "trust" in something requires a belief in something. they are not mutually exclusive. and a "100% concrete belief"? what does that even mean? you either hold a belief, or you don't. your degree of certainty is a different issue.

>>8431398
and? why believe in something that you can't actually prove?

>>8431400
>you either hold a belief, or you don't.

Not true, read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

>>8431398
It was also photographed, and well-documented at the time, and it was enough to convert many non-believers who witnessed it.

>>8431395
Simple, the few people who claimed that everything became dry were simply mistaken. They weren't wet to begin with.

>>8431398
>Nothing on earth could ever prove the existence of any god so even asking shows a blantant misunderstanding.
I misunderstood nothing. My point is that believing in god is irrational, arbitrary and baseless.

>>8431406
That doesn't counter my point. In fact, it reinforces it. That is holding a belief (theistic belief) without knowledge (agnosticism).

>>8431402
Thats a personal choice youd have to figure out on your own. Im not a jehovas witness.

>>8431408
Post the photos. I bet they're just halos, which people had been misinterpreting as miracles for thousands of years before we understood atmospheric optics.

>>8431417
no. its not a "choice" to believe in something. you have a reason to believe in something. a belief can be formed because of evidence, misunderstanding, indoctrination, or "faith". It is not a choice.

>>8430331
Like most skills and interests, they are compartmentalized. Someone can be an expert anatomist, and still reject evolution. It's rare, because often understanding evolution or at least have the proclivities to believe in evolution aids in understanding anatomy, but it is not a requirement.

I think you'll find many people who excel in a particular field have at least one area where they abscond reason.

Most people who are religious basically apply their religion when and how they feel like it, and then ignore it when and how they don't.

>>8431421
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBIs8cuIwTo
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=miracle+of+the+sun+photos&rlz=1C1GNAM_enNZ713NZ713&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEh-6hofDPAhVJxmMKHY2eA38Q_AUICCgB&biw=1366&bih=662

>>8430331
>>8431423
To build upon that, a person can be both scientific and religious, but when they are doing science they are not doing religion and when they are doing religion they are not doing science.

>>8431414
Not really, you could base your entire faith around a cosmological argument and the bible and it would have a firm base. Really just as much base as all of history before video and photographs.

>>8431424
Also,

>umbrellas
>wow we're instantly dry!
durrrrrrrrrr

>>8431429
Do you really think people were that stupid back then? Why?

>>8431424
I'm not sure what you think that proves. This is exactly similar to Charismatic Christians and speaking in tongues. There is a social pressure to believe an event is occurring. You don't want to be the only one who can't see the emperor's new clothes are else you'll be known as the fool.

>>8431415
What are you blithering about? Did you even read the link? It shows you can hold faith in a god but you just understand the truth that the position isnt knowable.

Thats what faith is you buffoon. Stop thinking that all religious people adhere to blind faith.

>>8431422
That still makes it a choice you bumbling retard.

>>8431427
>Not really, you could base your entire faith around a cosmological argument
The cosmological argument is crap. It can always be defeated by either an infinite causal chain or loop or by the universe itself being the first cause.

>and the bible
See >>8431391

What a joke.

>>8431430
People are still that stupid.

>Why?
Because they want it to be true.

>>8431440
>infinite causal chain or loop or by the universe itself being the first cause.

both of these have no evidence so theyre just as valid as god being the first cause.

>Hey I have a book with plenty of "evidence" that I'm God. So why don't you have faith in me?

Post it and if you can do everything that your books say you can i may consider.