Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Does science vindicate religion?

Heretic
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 5:15:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Science only discredits religion insofar as that religion postulates facts or scenarios which are not empirically verifiable.

A religion which is based upon scientific principle is not only possible, but has existed for centuries.

It may be more accurate to say in truth, since religion is older, that science is based upon religious principle.

Many key developments in science have their root in ancient philosophy - atomism was developed in Greece and India in the axial age. Matter-energy equivalence is a key teaching of alchemy. The fact that matter is composed primarily of the four elements is alluded to with the names "carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen" - the four atoms that make each amino-acid (and much of the other stuff).

During this period - the axial age - religion and science were one thing - united in the spirit of enquiry.

What is the cause of their divergence?

Good old Yesu.

It can be seen quite clearly that the adoption of certain (fallacious) doctrines by the church has caused religion as we know it today to diverge from the body of truth which is at once scientifically, philosophically, and religiously true.

So my answer to the question - "Does science vindicate religion?" is "Yes", because religion in its pure form is wholly scientific.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 5:20:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 5:15:51 PM, Heretic wrote:
Science only discredits religion insofar as that religion postulates facts or scenarios which are not empirically verifiable.

A religion which is based upon scientific principle is not only possible, but has existed for centuries.

It may be more accurate to say in truth, since religion is older, that science is based upon religious principle.

Many key developments in science have their root in ancient philosophy - atomism was developed in Greece and India in the axial age. Matter-energy equivalence is a key teaching of alchemy. The fact that matter is composed primarily of the four elements is alluded to with the names "carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen" - the four atoms that make each amino-acid (and much of the other stuff).

During this period - the axial age - religion and science were one thing - united in the spirit of enquiry.

What is the cause of their divergence?

Good old Yesu.

It can be seen quite clearly that the adoption of certain (fallacious) doctrines by the church has caused religion as we know it today to diverge from the body of truth which is at once scientifically, philosophically, and religiously true.

So my answer to the question - "Does science vindicate religion?" is "Yes", because religion in its pure form is wholly scientific.

Just to be clear here, are you talking about scientific information, the scientific method, or both?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 5:21:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 5:15:51 PM, Heretic wrote:
Science only discredits religion insofar as that religion postulates facts or scenarios which are not empirically verifiable.

A religion which is based upon scientific principle is not only possible, but has existed for centuries.

It may be more accurate to say in truth, since religion is older, that science is based upon religious principle.

Many key developments in science have their root in ancient philosophy - atomism was developed in Greece and India in the axial age. Matter-energy equivalence is a key teaching of alchemy. The fact that matter is composed primarily of the four elements is alluded to with the names "carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen" - the four atoms that make each amino-acid (and much of the other stuff).

During this period - the axial age - religion and science were one thing - united in the spirit of enquiry.

What is the cause of their divergence?

Good old Yesu.

It can be seen quite clearly that the adoption of certain (fallacious) doctrines by the church has caused religion as we know it today to diverge from the body of truth which is at once scientifically, philosophically, and religiously true.

So my answer to the question - "Does science vindicate religion?" is "Yes", because religion in its pure form is wholly scientific.

i beg to differ
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 6:44:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I really don't see how earth, fire, air, and water allude in any sort of deliberate way to carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Heretic
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:38:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 6:44:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I really don't see how earth, fire, air, and water allude in any sort of deliberate way to carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen.

Pardon me. I made the assumption that since the Greek for water is "Hydros", that the other elements were descriptively named.

However, in my favour, Oxygen is the greater part of air, Hydrogen of water, and Carbon of solid matter.

Nitrogen is another thing altogether - the Greek for saltpetre (pottasium nitrate) is "nitre", which is the alchemical element associated with fire.

As we know, this was used to make gunpowder, and later nitro-glycerine.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:49:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That isn't even the most sensible way of trying to make those connections, since there is far more N in the atmosphere than O and you need O for things to burn. But that's just the start, since C is still left standing there like a sad friendless guy who has accidentally turned up at a really good party.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 12:18:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 5:15:51 PM, Heretic wrote:
Science only discredits religion insofar as that religion postulates facts or scenarios which are not empirically verifiable.

A religion which is based upon scientific principle is not only possible, but has existed for centuries.

It may be more accurate to say in truth, since religion is older, that science is based upon religious principle.

Many key developments in science have their root in ancient philosophy - atomism was developed in Greece and India in the axial age. Matter-energy equivalence is a key teaching of alchemy. The fact that matter is composed primarily of the four elements is alluded to with the names "carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen" - the four atoms that make each amino-acid (and much of the other stuff).

During this period - the axial age - religion and science were one thing - united in the spirit of enquiry.

What is the cause of their divergence?

Good old Yesu.

It can be seen quite clearly that the adoption of certain (fallacious) doctrines by the church has caused religion as we know it today to diverge from the body of truth which is at once scientifically, philosophically, and religiously true.

So my answer to the question - "Does science vindicate religion?" is "Yes", because religion in its pure form is wholly scientific.

To what doctrines do you refer? I thought the modern conflict was with Genesis.
This space for rent.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 2:12:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Religion is different from science.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:09:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 5:15:51 PM, Heretic wrote:
Science only discredits religion insofar as that religion postulates facts or scenarios which are not empirically verifiable.

Stopped reading here. Logical positivism is dead. Accept it.

A religion which is based upon scientific principle is not only possible, but has existed for centuries.

It may be more accurate to say in truth, since religion is older, that science is based upon religious principle.

Many key developments in science have their root in ancient philosophy - atomism was developed in Greece and India in the axial age. Matter-energy equivalence is a key teaching of alchemy. The fact that matter is composed primarily of the four elements is alluded to with the names "carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen" - the four atoms that make each amino-acid (and much of the other stuff).

During this period - the axial age - religion and science were one thing - united in the spirit of enquiry.

What is the cause of their divergence?

Good old Yesu.

It can be seen quite clearly that the adoption of certain (fallacious) doctrines by the church has caused religion as we know it today to diverge from the body of truth which is at once scientifically, philosophically, and religiously true.

So my answer to the question - "Does science vindicate religion?" is "Yes", because religion in its pure form is wholly scientific.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:16:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 11:09:55 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/28/2013 5:15:51 PM, Heretic wrote:
Science only discredits religion insofar as that religion postulates facts or scenarios which are not empirically verifiable.

Stopped reading here. Logical positivism is dead. Accept it.

By "dead" do you mean "papers are not really published on it these days" or do you mean "my professor says that it was transgressed like 50 yrs ago, so I think that too"? Perhaps something else? "Dead" is such a vague term when speaking metaphorically.
Tsar of DDO
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2013 11:47:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Helium and neon (the 2nd and 5th most common elements on Earth) are strangely absent from your assertion.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 12:57:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2013 11:16:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/29/2013 11:09:55 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/28/2013 5:15:51 PM, Heretic wrote:
Science only discredits religion insofar as that religion postulates facts or scenarios which are not empirically verifiable.

Stopped reading here. Logical positivism is dead. Accept it.

By "dead" do you mean "papers are not really published on it these days"

Not really this but close. I just mean that it's been accepted to a large extent by the philosophical community that many main tenets of the schools have been shown to be erroneous. Verifiability as a "line of demarcation" being one such instance.

or do you mean "my professor says that it was transgressed like 50 yrs ago, so I think that too"?

Ugh. My Phil professor never got past Hegel.

Perhaps something else? "Dead" is such a vague term when speaking metaphorically.

My chance to be clever has surpassed me. Alas I'm no match for yer rigorous investigation into linguistic meaning here.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 1:02:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 12:57:26 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/29/2013 11:16:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/29/2013 11:09:55 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/28/2013 5:15:51 PM, Heretic wrote:
Science only discredits religion insofar as that religion postulates facts or scenarios which are not empirically verifiable.

Stopped reading here. Logical positivism is dead. Accept it.

By "dead" do you mean "papers are not really published on it these days"

Not really this but close. I just mean that it's been accepted to a large extent by the philosophical community that many main tenets of the schools have been shown to be erroneous. Verifiability as a "line of demarcation" being one such instance.

Ok. I that's what I thought you meant initially -but I wanted to be sure.
Tsar of DDO