Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
You do misunderstand. Science does NOT deny any "source." To do so would be unscientific, as it's not a testable phenomenon. It's simply a matter outside of science. Some scientists are "believers," some not, because the matter lies outside of science. And yes, nor does science support any "source." In fact, to assume there's a "source" is not a given either--to the Hindus, the universe always existed. No origin.
As the semantic "belief" difficulty, perhaps this will help:
"I don't believe in greeting cards, although there is growing evidence they do indeed exist."
The joke is funny because the speaker is using one meaning of "belief" in a context where that particular meaning is inapplicable--just as using "light" in the sense of understanding is inapplicable when I need literal illumination from a lamp instead.
What I AM arguing is that placing religion and science in opposition is inappropriate. They are not opposites. Science is not a religion. And religion is not a demonstrable methodical process of observing and testing phenomena.
They are ONLY placed in such opposition by those among the faithful who feel threatened by any who don't also adopt their beliefs. Safety in numbers, I suppose. But no more "truth," and under no more attack from science than that their beliefs can never be firmly established in any demonstrable way.
Individuals will, as I do, free themselves from conditioning that mandates a Creator by way of explanation. A random universe is entirely possible, and it's nothing I find threatening. Life is. But if it comes to arguing the point, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim--in this case meaning the question of a Supreme Being must be established by its adherents. In the absence of such proof, non-belief is a valid, rational position.
But then believers maintain that Atheism or Science are themselves a religion, and the nonsense starts back at the beginning. They aren't, except in the minds of believers who feel threatened by alternatives to blind faith.
There are, too, those who are trying to get religion into the science classroom. To do this, they must first convince people that religion and science are on the same playing field. They aren't, just as the origins of life according to any number of philosophies and creation myths, all fine things to explore and study, don't belong in the science classroom either.
No one says, for example, "I believe in Existentialism" or "I believe in Kant" or Plato or Descartes or Bertrand Russell. We might agree with their arguments, but they aren't religions. No one asks "Are you a Christian or a Kantian?" because we readily recognize that a Christian could or could not agree with Kant and that a Kantian philosopher could or could not be a Christian.
This science/religion dichotomy is a conservative political manipulation to raise religion to a science. It isn't. It will never be.
< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 6/7/2009 8:03:29 AM >
|
RE: Is belief......? - 
Profile
) that the Bible doesn't really necesarily contradict science. It depends on what degree of literalism one wants to use in interpreting the Bible. However, one must apply a pretty loose and maleable interpretation to the Bible to make what it says (particularly the early parts of Genesis) compatible with what science has shown to be the case (i.e. the fossil record exists in the form it exists. The theory of evolution explains why this might be so. The stories in the Bible, as written, pretty much explain why the fossil record should not exist as it does, yet it exists as it does all the same). 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread