that's not what a certain religion teacher told me.... The definition we were given was "A prayerful longing to encounter the Mystery of God." Utter BS...of course just about every religious definition given to my religion class is.
Much better definitions from you guys.
edit: so did you mean the typical sort of faith or religious faith?
<!--QuoteBegin-frostymoose+Nov 18 2004, 01:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (frostymoose @ Nov 18 2004, 01:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> that's not what a certain religion teacher told me.... The definition we were given was "A prayerful longing to encounter the Mystery of God." Utter BS...of course just about every religious definition given to my religion class is.
Much better definitions from you guys.
edit: so did you mean the typical sort of faith or religious faith? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Good god, stop paying attention in your theology classes right away. Religious termology is fine and dandy, but when it becomes jargon like that its just garbage.
<!--QuoteBegin-kida+Nov 18 2004, 12:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Nov 18 2004, 12:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> it cannot be understood. so it shall remain a mystery. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You dirty dog you did it again <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Its because you are a perfectionist, yet are not perfect - too slow <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Patience with others is Love, Patience with self is Hope, Patience with God is Faith."-- Adel Bestavros<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-frostymoose+Nov 18 2004, 01:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (frostymoose @ Nov 18 2004, 01:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->edit: so did you mean the typical sort of faith or religious faith?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Imo <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> can fit both mundane faith and the religious kind.
I'm a bit supprised by you Swiftspear. Don't you have faith in God and Jesus christ? And don't you know that they excist? But by your definition you don't have faith or at least not any use for it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Nov 19 2004, 08:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 19 2004, 08:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The real problem is how to convince a person with blind faith in something that he's wrong? Such people cannot be scientists. That's a contradiction.
A scientific fanaticist is an oxymoron. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hawkeye - stay away from any science based course, you'll only be disappointed. It ruins illusions of "noble scientists on a journey of purely fact finding, evidence based research", and I'm not talking about evolution here.
I know I've used it before, but:
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. --- Max Planck<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Nov 17 2004, 08:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Nov 17 2004, 08:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Hebrews 11:1 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I really don't know why you are still answering him, this says it all, end of discussion. Topic should never be brought up again. And if you wanted to know what faith was, why didn't you use the dictionary?
just to be weird here but do you notice that regardless of whether that quote you have has 'new scientific truth' or 'religion' in it, it seems remarkably true in either case marine01? =o
As for the meaning of faith I go more with Deus's one... it just 'feels' right to me ^^
Here's my fave quote by the way... <!--QuoteBegin-Plato+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Plato)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Only thing I know is that I know nothing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If someone believes in something for which proof is impossible, well of course you can't convince them they're wrong using scientific arguments.
There is a difference between having faith and refusing to acknowledge new evidence, ie: willful ignorance.
I also think you don't <i>know</i> something unless you can prove it. Thus you cannot 'know' whether or not god exists (for example), you can merely have faith or not. There is no value judgement here - just because you cannot know in the sense of being able to prove it, doesn't devalue your beliefs.
Uhh Ohh, I see another religion v. science thread brewing - which is strange because it is totally un-needed / off topic.
Faith, in its essence, is like that scene in Indiana Jones and the search for the holy grail. You take that first step onto the invisible ledge. There isn't a way to prove that it is there, that what you believe to be true actually is - but you base your whole life on that belief none the less.
OK - just so you know, I am NOT talking about science here...
Faith is why God is so amazing. He makes promise after promise after promise in the Bible. He promises never to forsake, never to drop, never to let me fall, never to leave me, to save my soul, to forgive me, etc., etc. I can't prove any of these, but I believe. Is my faith blind? No - there is evidence... is it 100% provable - No, cause then it wouldn't be faith.
Well precisely. It's a contradiction for a scientist to be religious.
It's folly to even start into this argument. The religious will try to convince the scientists that such things cannot be proven and to join them out of blind faith, and the scientists are equally guilty for trying to ask for proof of such a thing and trying to convince the religious to look for proof as well.
It's like putting an Eskimo and a tanned multi-millionaire in the same room together and telling them to be nice to each other. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Phoenix Six+Nov 18 2004, 09:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Phoenix Six @ Nov 18 2004, 09:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If someone believes in something for which proof is impossible, well of course you can't convince them they're wrong using scientific arguments.
There is a difference between having faith and refusing to acknowledge new evidence, ie: willful ignorance.
I also think you don't <i>know</i> something unless you can prove it. Thus you cannot 'know' whether or not god exists (for example), you can merely have faith or not. There is no value judgement here - just because you cannot know in the sense of being able to prove it, doesn't devalue your beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Absolutly mistaken. Everyone belive many things that are impossible to prove, yet people are convinced to change thier belifes all the time. People belive things because they belive that they have seen enough evidence to jusify those things as fact. If you can call enough of that evidence into signifigant question or show enough counter points, most people will change thier belifes (or at least the ones that they aren't holding onto with a death grip)
Faith shouldn't be the choice to refuse to acknowledge new evidence, faith is simply the choice to belive the way you are translating the current evidence is the correct way.
Sometimes people will place unbalanced values on certian preferanced peices of evidence over others, and from there call into question the conclusions others have made. But people generally don't willfully choose ignorance except in the most extream cases.
Your definition of knowing things is pretty much the same as mine. You need to realize however that nothing is truly provable, certian things are just more likely than others. For instance, the possibility that you acctually exist and are not a figment of my imagination is extreamly high, and the probablity that 2+2=4 in the universe we live in is equally extreamly high. Every 'proof' is based on certian assumptions that can be seen differently in thier individual contexts. Thus you aren't really shaping your belife system by proofs, you are shaping your belife system by assumtions, no matter how hard you try to do otherwize.
This is expecially true for Athiests who try to take the reasonable high ground on everything. The reasonable highground doesn't lie in Athiesm, any Athiest will back down from a challenge to prove that God does not exist. The reasonable highground lies in Agnostisism. Most people refuse to swallow Agnostisism because people are naturally inclined to belive that they have the universe, at least for the most part, figured out, and if you can't claim that you understand the methods and meanings of the universe, you can't claim you have it figured out.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Nov 18 2004, 04:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 18 2004, 04:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hawkeye - stay away from any science based course, you'll only be disappointed. It ruins illusions of "noble scientists on a journey of purely fact finding, evidence based research", and I'm not talking about evolution here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a pretty big claim there don't you think? You're saying scientists aren't attempting to find facts, they are attempting to derail religion? Some worldwide conspiracy? ONOEZ?
While your quote may apply for the general population (who are too lazy/apathetic to learn a new theory/idea/whatever), it certainly does not for people who are professional scientists or work in the field.
Don't try to tell me different. I know. Not only do I know, I am 100% certain beyond a shadow of a doubt. Everybody else is simply crazy. Why are you people crazy? The sky is green, it isn't blue.
What evidence do I have of this? I have absolutely none. Why do I believe it then? Because I believe it is so, so therefore it must be.
Dont' tell me this is different than any other faith-related concept, because it is. However, the only difference is that you see my idea as absurd, whereas, in your mind, the idea is perfectly clear and obvious.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Nov 19 2004, 10:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 19 2004, 10:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well precisely. It's a contradiction for a scientist to be religious. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is false. As a base assumption, this is false. Until you realize that people can both be scientific and be religious your ideas about both science and religion will be tainted.
There is no contradiction. In fact, as someone who is religious, it is my duty to try my hardest to understand the world God has made.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Nov 19 2004, 03:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 19 2004, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well precisely. It's a contradiction for a scientist to be religious.
It's folly to even start into this argument. The religious will try to convince the scientists that such things cannot be proven and to join them out of blind faith, and the scientists are equally guilty for trying to ask for proof of such a thing and trying to convince the religious to look for proof as well.
It's like putting an Eskimo and a tanned multi-millionaire in the same room together and telling them to be nice to each other. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at all, plenty of religious scientists out there. The two things are both incredibly important, they can't be considered in a vacuum, both must be considered in everything you do (whether you are a big believer like Marine01 or an athiest like me, PS while I very rarely agree with anything you say Marine01, I often like the way you say it, got a lot of respect for you even when I disagree with your underlying belief's <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
I love your quote wizard@psu, one of the best I've read in a long time.
I would say something more on-topic but Deus Ex Machina has already said it all for me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No GOOD scientists are religious, at least when it comes to matters of God or creationism. To believe in God without proof is precisely what scientists stand against, so at least in part, a religious scientist by definition is a flawed scientist.
Again, I disagree, it takes faith for most major belief's including the idea that world can be analysed through a microscope, that atoms are important etc, many people think completely differently.
Just because they believe something different from you (and me) doesn't make it any less possible (even if it does feel completely wrong to people like us).
Lots of <b>good</b> scientists are religious. I will continue to disagree with you until you find me the commandment saying "thou shalt not be a scientist, thou shalt gird thyself in superstition only and thou art forbidden to use they brin in anything but the worship of God".
You won't. Lets agree to disagree (unless I've persuaded you (yeah right) in which case woo!)
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Nov 19 2004, 06:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 19 2004, 06:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're right. Let me rephrase that.
No GOOD scientists are religious, at least when it comes to matters of God or creationism. To believe in God without proof is precisely what scientists stand against, so at least in part, a religious scientist by definition is a flawed scientist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Also false. No good phylosophers are Christian, and some scientist are highly phylosophical. But the basis of scientific sociaty was formed by scientists in the Christian churh.
Not to deny the fact that there was a massive rift created when the Theoligical church attemted to dispute new discoveries of science on a interpretive basis of ancient texts, but in thier essence the ancient texts are not books of design or blueprint for the workings of the universe. Good scientists and good theologins these days don't attempt to conflict with eachother any more, much of both feilds have given way to coexistance with the eachother. Theologins integrate science into a greater understanding of God, and scientists no longer strive to disprove the impossible to disprove.
There is no reason a religious scientist is by defintion a flawed scientist. Science is a feild of close examination of small and intricate models, religion presents models of explination for what holds these models together far beyond the level of scientific calculation. Science asks the question, what is this thing really and how does it work, religion asks the question, what does that mean in context to our eternal existance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ut the basis of scientific sociaty was formed by scientists in the Christian churh.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try the Greeks such as the early philosophers such as Aristotle, you can't get anywhere without the scientific method, and that's where it came from.
Otherwise I agree with you, being religious in no way compromises your ability to be a good scientist however, as all good scientists know the difference between what you prove using the experimental method, and what you can't such as God. Many very good scientists belonged to the Catholic church for example, such as Gallileo and Issac Newton (even if they threatened to burn him at the stake). There isn't a conflict between science and religion at all, because they rarely intersect and there is a considerable differences between what you take on faith and what you prove with experiments (facts).
Incidently, for the hell of it, I am an actual scientist, of the research variety, that works in a lab and does actual experimets which have results that are actually published. I also happen to believe in God.
How did you come to that conclusion Aegeri <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
Here's a question for you kida - why do you type stuff, then edit it before anyone can read it?
Hebrews 11:1
nailed it
Much better definitions from you guys.
edit: so did you mean the typical sort of faith or religious faith?
Much better definitions from you guys.
edit: so did you mean the typical sort of faith or religious faith? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good god, stop paying attention in your theology classes right away. Religious termology is fine and dandy, but when it becomes jargon like that its just garbage.
You dirty dog you did it again <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Its because you are a perfectionist, yet are not perfect - too slow <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Imo
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
can fit both mundane faith and the religious kind.
I'm a bit supprised by you Swiftspear. Don't you have faith in God and Jesus christ? And don't you know that they excist? But by your definition you don't have faith or at least not any use for it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
A scientific fanaticist is an oxymoron.
A scientific fanaticist is an oxymoron. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hawkeye - stay away from any science based course, you'll only be disappointed. It ruins illusions of "noble scientists on a journey of purely fact finding, evidence based research", and I'm not talking about evolution here.
I know I've used it before, but:
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
--- Max Planck<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Hebrews 11:1 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't know why you are still answering him, this says it all, end of discussion. Topic should never be brought up again. And if you wanted to know what faith was, why didn't you use the dictionary?
As for the meaning of faith I go more with Deus's one... it just 'feels' right to me ^^
Here's my fave quote by the way...
<!--QuoteBegin-Plato+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Plato)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Only thing I know is that I know nothing<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Me: the world was created in 7 days, etc
You: but what about dinosaurs?
Me: they were put there to test your Faith...
There is a difference between having faith and refusing to acknowledge new evidence, ie: willful ignorance.
I also think you don't <i>know</i> something unless you can prove it. Thus you cannot 'know' whether or not god exists (for example), you can merely have faith or not. There is no value judgement here - just because you cannot know in the sense of being able to prove it, doesn't devalue your beliefs.
Faith, in its essence, is like that scene in Indiana Jones and the search for the holy grail. You take that first step onto the invisible ledge. There isn't a way to prove that it is there, that what you believe to be true actually is - but you base your whole life on that belief none the less.
OK - just so you know, I am NOT talking about science here...
Faith is why God is so amazing. He makes promise after promise after promise in the Bible. He promises never to forsake, never to drop, never to let me fall, never to leave me, to save my soul, to forgive me, etc., etc. I can't prove any of these, but I believe. Is my faith blind? No - there is evidence... is it 100% provable - No, cause then it wouldn't be faith.
It's folly to even start into this argument. The religious will try to convince the scientists that such things cannot be proven and to join them out of blind faith, and the scientists are equally guilty for trying to ask for proof of such a thing and trying to convince the religious to look for proof as well.
It's like putting an Eskimo and a tanned multi-millionaire in the same room together and telling them to be nice to each other. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There is a difference between having faith and refusing to acknowledge new evidence, ie: willful ignorance.
I also think you don't <i>know</i> something unless you can prove it. Thus you cannot 'know' whether or not god exists (for example), you can merely have faith or not. There is no value judgement here - just because you cannot know in the sense of being able to prove it, doesn't devalue your beliefs. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutly mistaken. Everyone belive many things that are impossible to prove, yet people are convinced to change thier belifes all the time. People belive things because they belive that they have seen enough evidence to jusify those things as fact. If you can call enough of that evidence into signifigant question or show enough counter points, most people will change thier belifes (or at least the ones that they aren't holding onto with a death grip)
Faith shouldn't be the choice to refuse to acknowledge new evidence, faith is simply the choice to belive the way you are translating the current evidence is the correct way.
Sometimes people will place unbalanced values on certian preferanced peices of evidence over others, and from there call into question the conclusions others have made. But people generally don't willfully choose ignorance except in the most extream cases.
Your definition of knowing things is pretty much the same as mine. You need to realize however that nothing is truly provable, certian things are just more likely than others. For instance, the possibility that you acctually exist and are not a figment of my imagination is extreamly high, and the probablity that 2+2=4 in the universe we live in is equally extreamly high. Every 'proof' is based on certian assumptions that can be seen differently in thier individual contexts. Thus you aren't really shaping your belife system by proofs, you are shaping your belife system by assumtions, no matter how hard you try to do otherwize.
This is expecially true for Athiests who try to take the reasonable high ground on everything. The reasonable highground doesn't lie in Athiesm, any Athiest will back down from a challenge to prove that God does not exist. The reasonable highground lies in Agnostisism. Most people refuse to swallow Agnostisism because people are naturally inclined to belive that they have the universe, at least for the most part, figured out, and if you can't claim that you understand the methods and meanings of the universe, you can't claim you have it figured out.
That's a pretty big claim there don't you think? You're saying scientists aren't attempting to find facts, they are attempting to derail religion? Some worldwide conspiracy? ONOEZ?
While your quote may apply for the general population (who are too lazy/apathetic to learn a new theory/idea/whatever), it certainly does not for people who are professional scientists or work in the field.
Don't try to tell me different. I know. Not only do I know, I am 100% certain beyond a shadow of a doubt. Everybody else is simply crazy. Why are you people crazy? The sky is green, it isn't blue.
What evidence do I have of this? I have absolutely none. Why do I believe it then? Because I believe it is so, so therefore it must be.
Dont' tell me this is different than any other faith-related concept, because it is. However, the only difference is that you see my idea as absurd, whereas, in your mind, the idea is perfectly clear and obvious.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is false. As a base assumption, this is false. Until you realize that people can both be scientific and be religious your ideas about both science and religion will be tainted.
There is no contradiction. In fact, as someone who is religious, it is my duty to try my hardest to understand the world God has made.
False, False, False.
And I'll say it again for Emphasis:
FALSE
It's folly to even start into this argument. The religious will try to convince the scientists that such things cannot be proven and to join them out of blind faith, and the scientists are equally guilty for trying to ask for proof of such a thing and trying to convince the religious to look for proof as well.
It's like putting an Eskimo and a tanned multi-millionaire in the same room together and telling them to be nice to each other. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all, plenty of religious scientists out there. The two things are both incredibly important, they can't be considered in a vacuum, both must be considered in everything you do (whether you are a big believer like Marine01 or an athiest like me, PS while I very rarely agree with anything you say Marine01, I often like the way you say it, got a lot of respect for you even when I disagree with your underlying belief's <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->).
I love your quote wizard@psu, one of the best I've read in a long time.
I would say something more on-topic but Deus Ex Machina has already said it all for me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(my, what a lot of name dropping in that post)
No GOOD scientists are religious, at least when it comes to matters of God or creationism. To believe in God without proof is precisely what scientists stand against, so at least in part, a religious scientist by definition is a flawed scientist.
Just because they believe something different from you (and me) doesn't make it any less possible (even if it does feel completely wrong to people like us).
Lots of <b>good</b> scientists are religious. I will continue to disagree with you until you find me the commandment saying "thou shalt not be a scientist, thou shalt gird thyself in superstition only and thou art forbidden to use they brin in anything but the worship of God".
You won't. Lets agree to disagree (unless I've persuaded you (yeah right) in which case woo!)
No GOOD scientists are religious, at least when it comes to matters of God or creationism. To believe in God without proof is precisely what scientists stand against, so at least in part, a religious scientist by definition is a flawed scientist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also false. No good phylosophers are Christian, and some scientist are highly phylosophical. But the basis of scientific sociaty was formed by scientists in the Christian churh.
Not to deny the fact that there was a massive rift created when the Theoligical church attemted to dispute new discoveries of science on a interpretive basis of ancient texts, but in thier essence the ancient texts are not books of design or blueprint for the workings of the universe. Good scientists and good theologins these days don't attempt to conflict with eachother any more, much of both feilds have given way to coexistance with the eachother. Theologins integrate science into a greater understanding of God, and scientists no longer strive to disprove the impossible to disprove.
There is no reason a religious scientist is by defintion a flawed scientist. Science is a feild of close examination of small and intricate models, religion presents models of explination for what holds these models together far beyond the level of scientific calculation. Science asks the question, what is this thing really and how does it work, religion asks the question, what does that mean in context to our eternal existance.
Try the Greeks such as the early philosophers such as Aristotle, you can't get anywhere without the scientific method, and that's where it came from.
Otherwise I agree with you, being religious in no way compromises your ability to be a good scientist however, as all good scientists know the difference between what you prove using the experimental method, and what you can't such as God. Many very good scientists belonged to the Catholic church for example, such as Gallileo and Issac Newton (even if they threatened to burn him at the stake). There isn't a conflict between science and religion at all, because they rarely intersect and there is a considerable differences between what you take on faith and what you prove with experiments (facts).
Incidently, for the hell of it, I am an actual scientist, of the research variety, that works in a lab and does actual experimets which have results that are actually published. I also happen to believe in God.
Fancy that.
And what in the world does Aegeri stand for?