Jill:

Of course, religion and science can coexist.

The other day, I had an appointment with my family doctor , a very intelligent individual who makes his living every day practicing the science of modern medicine. He's also a devout Christian.

To say that science and religion can't coexist is absolute nonsense. Just take a look at the world today - there are scientific advancements occuring all the time in every imaginable field.

And despite this, statistical evidence continues to highlight the fact that the majority of people continue to believe in a "higher power".

The fact is that most people are very comfortable and can function very well in a "scirentific" world and still maintain their faith and beliefs.

In my opinion, it's only those people at the extreme ends - theists and atheists alike - who spout nonsense that the two can't exist.

• Universal genesis (if the universe did, indeed, have one)
• Stem cell research
• evolution
• abiogenisis
• etc.

Interesting to note, however, is there has been a significant increase in irreligious people in the world. Have a peek at recent Pew poll results.

And that is my opinion, based on readily observable facts.

Jill:

I have no idea what Pew Polls you're referring to.

I went to their site and looked at 3 polls at these three links - http://people-press.org/questions/?qid=1690065&pid=51&ccid=51#top / http://people-press.org/questions/?qid=1690065&pid=51&ccid=51#top / http://people-press.org/questions/?qid=321460&pid=51&ccid=51#top.

Each of these three polls essentially asks the question "do you believe in God / how certain are you about the existence of God." In each poll, approximately 90% + of the respondents stated that they believe in God / were absolutely or failry certain about the existence of God

Now I understand that just because the vast majority of people believe in something, it doesn't make it true. But what it does tell me is that the vast majority of people have no trouble living in a "scientific world" (and enjoy all of the benefits that science provides us in our day-to-day lives) while maintaining their faith and spiritual beliefs.

As for your comment about "social responsibility", I couldn't care less about a few "looney" voices who oppose science. Just as I couldn't care less about a few looney voices, who procliam that a belief in God is somehow symptomatic of some "mind disorder".

Both groups are cut from the EXACT same cloth - opposite sides of the EXACT same coin.

But please feel free to provide me with a Pew Poll link that highlights the fact that a belief in God / higher power is seriously on the decline.

It's really a little more than that on the science side. See, it's easier to read the Bible than it is to do the differential equations required to map the dynamics of a beginning universe. That's because scientists have to be more specific: they're looking for specific information. The Bible provides us with no help as to when the beginning was, for example. Science doesn't just tell us the universe began with a big bang. Science describes the dynamics of a universe just forming as a hypothesis, and tries to solidify that knowledge with data. The Bible stays the same, always saying the same, vague thing.

That's ... great. How does that help anyone?

I'm sure you can find examples of such people. I have no doubt. We, here, are more concerned with whether or not they have faith in something that is, to reasonable standards, true. I'm not purporting to have Absolute Truth on anything, because it's not something that really exists. To be concerned with the truth of beliefs means caring less about subjective benefit, and more about the facts.

Don't you want your beliefs to be true?

 Christ... if Francis Collins recommends the book, I can only imagine the level of doublethink it must contain.  I've read Collins' stuff, and wow.   Just wow.  It amazes me that a scientist of his caliber is so easily taken in by emotional claptrap.

I admit I've never read Miller.  Maybe if I get through the fifteen books on my list now, I'll give it a crack one day, but damn it's going to disappoint me if it's the same silly fallacies we've been dismantling here.

Evolutionists are not opposite of Christians.  The last church I frequently attended backed science 100%.  One of the Home-Church' leaders is a big science freak even.  Question answered!  Christians are Anti-Evolutionist, Evolutionists are atheists.  Is this like a strawman argument?  I'm asking because I think it is but I'm no expert.

You can't prove evolution to be a fact to young earth Creationists.

If you could prove evolution to be a fact to YEC's, they'd believe that evolution were true!  If this affects their religious faith, then it would change!  Would it mean atheism?  We can speculate, but there are PLENTY of Christians that believe in evolution.  I ask you just as much as I'd love to ask the founder of Answers in Genesis: Since when does evolutionism = atheism?  If it did then the whole catholic church would be atheist, including Christian Orthodox, to name just two denominations!!!

Keep on debating evolution, because it is a real science, a foundation for modern medicine, and has so much to offer the human race!!  But don't think for a second that it ends religion.  That's the same logic of YEC's thinking evolution causes apostasy which is untrue.  

I have a joke for you:

Q:What do Atheists and Young Earth Creationists have in common?

A: They both take a very literal approach to Biblical interpretation

Christians that believe in evolution think they're the true christians, because they say that Genesis was never meant to be taken literally, and claim that the idea of a literal Genesis didn't appear until at least the 10th century even.  This of course is hearsay from what I've been told.  Indeed they woudl claim that they're not moderate Christians as the YEC's claim.  I read somewhere on the net that there are 80,000 denominations of Christianity, and many think they're the "True Christians" - ultimately it's a lot harder than just reading the Bible to be a True Christian(tm) - you've got to be going to the right church and reading the Bible the right way, etc, etc, etc.  Actually the main reason why I left Christianity was because I couldn't figure out what a True Christian was because everyone told me that everyone else was wrong except them. I decided I'd take a scientific approach to the Bible so I could find out which version of Christianity was right.... Oooops!  I honestly didn't expect atheism to happen, but hey, I am what I am.

Is it possible we can un-KEWK this thread so I can mount a proper response?

This is the first time I've ever heard anything like this... If you cited some sources and evidence of this claim, I'd much appreciate it.  After all, "40 or more Sources" (that are non-biblical - which I assume to mean, they aren't mentioned in the Bible?) is quite a significant number.  Of course, I'd like to see if these were 40 individual, eyewitness accounts, or if they were just copied from older biblical documents.

WHAT are you talking about?  Jesus is coming to people in dreams, and there are millions of people around the world having this same dream?  O...K...

Tomathy notes that most definitions of "god" are self-contradictory. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is demonstrates that contradictory problem.

It is impossible to be pink and invisible at the same time. To see pink, light must be relfected from or emitted by the surface of the unicorn, and that would make it visible. Also vice-versa.

The IPU, being impossible, does not exist. God, for most definitions of the word, is impossible and thus does not exist.

Those statements above are just dangerous - you are suggesting that people can't say anything competent about morality, sexuality and culture without invoking some specific science.

I am all for that. I'll work with a placid Christian over a zealous atheist any day.

I have no business answering someone elses stuff, but I thought this would be fun

AwEsOmE. We learn new things every day

Well, entire civilisations were built with religion playing a key cultural role, claiming same old silly stuff that could not be repudiated by a king or a prime minister to this day. Exactly the vague untouchable quality of the religious claim makes it invaluable to a cultural organization. But there is very specific substance to it - a set of moral laws acceptable to anyone alive.

You can basically follow the history of the power of Church and papacy through time, they build popular support through adhearing to their proclaimed values and they loose it by abandoning the same. This should tell something to the scientist of the day as well. Especially since we don't have to go more than a couple of generations back to end up in a time when the vast majority of the big names in science were pious people, save a few.

I, on the other hand, am interested in whether their faith gives them some quality that I might use. You will find many people like me. Some of them are in the White House and they somehow manage to get 80% of the world to hate them. I want to see if we can do something about people like that by allying up with pieous people we can relate to directly. 'Cause then I think we might be spending some of that awesome defense budget on missions to Mars that don't crash.

No. If my beliefs were true, there would be nothing more for me to do around here. Luckily, there is more for me to know, try and explore. Just like there was for Newton, who at his old age said that his greatest achievement was life-long celibacy. Apparently, his faith did not bother his science and vice versa.

I actually would love it if you could find some way to tell me that I am completely wrong about religion and that I should consider a different point of view. If you try, and please do, consider that I regard all 'religious' people who can justify breaking any of the divine rules in any circumstance as closet-atheists. So, yea, most of the people you call dangerous fundamentalists I call closet-atheists.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/religion_endangers_humanity_and_its_future

Ok, so that's my point exactly, except that I would add that there is a particular reason why the laws were turned into supernatural stuff you can't dispute. In our secular world everything is conditional, since the rules are conditional. Killing is ok in some cases. Indeed everything is ok in some cases. Never mind what case it was, you can always excuse yourself by saying that it was just that right case. We don't torture prisoners, those are 14 years old enemy combatants. We don't kill kids, they happened to be in a house full of terrorists. How do we know? Our troops carry spare weapons to plant on corpses - we know that there were terrorists, no matter what house thay go into.

You can't do that if you are a proper, say Christian. Thou shall not kill. Why? How? In all cases? Not even in self defense? Inconsequential debate. Thou shall not kill. Period. Ya. We need people like that. Form this definition you must realise instantly, that any 'Christian' who can excuse a killing is not Christian at all, but an atheist.

Dude, I am an atheist, so you don't have to convince me that God is imaginary. I don't think you read what I wrote.

What I am saying though, is that we would be fucked without the the good work of many religious people in hard core science, literature, philosophy, altruistic pursuits and the like, both historically and today. I am also saying that there are theists out there who deserve respect and our full support with what they are doing right now.

I know, your brain just says click every time I say 'theist', but remember we defined theists as Newton, Kierkegaard and Desmond Tutu, not Pat Robertson. Pat is an atheist. So is our whole family. I don't care what they call themselves, if they break divine rules and think they have a right to do so, they are atheists just like me.

Glad you wrote.

I agree fully, religious ideas are used as excuses for whole-sale massacres. So are ideas of democracy, free trade, fight against terrorism, liberty, communism, etc. The argument for nuking two populated cities was - it was cheaper - end of discussion.

I like to see tings in their full spectrum, so that I can decide what the dominating commonalities are in all or most cases. So far the only striking commonality is that very pragmatic issues arise in the choice of battlefield, concrete goals of aggression, amount of business created by the aggression, things like that. No doubt, there are zealots cheering ideals and being very loud, but the more subtle voices scream acquisition of land, property, resources, strategic positions.

Even fairly trivial things that you mention exhibit these properties - stem-cell, gay marriage, abortion - all of them are used as a political cue cards by people I can only see as thorough secular pragmatists, even though they proclaim their religious observance at evey turn. Indeed, even because they do.

Collective picture becomes much clearer this way. I ask myself whether I would use ideology to further my goals? Answer is right here - I am an atheists advocating support of the kind of theists we want to validate and ecourage, for the purpose of divide-and-conquer of certain segments of population and allying with powerful spokesmen and community organisers, which religious professionals by their very calling are. We are in a war-by-proxy, some atheists use ideology to smash their way through to what they think they deserve, others try to stop them.

Even the goal of elimination of religiosity is probably best done by allying with the best of theists, simlpy because propagating their way of being religious is really closer allignment with our way of life and understanding. Some moral imperatives unbendable by discussion are added, that's ok with me. No danger there, if you remember we defined theists to fit us like a glove.

I will answer this, but it's gonna take a while.

Wow... I totally did not get that impression from your posts above...  I've re-read them 3 times now, and still can't see it...

I think you're missing the point here though.  Indeed, there have been many people, of all different belief structures, that have contributed to the advancement of human society, in some way or another.  But, don't make the mistake of directly crediting their contributions to the world, due to the fact that they say they believe in a god.  Sure, there are many examples of people that do "good things", solely because of their faith  - such as missionaries, philanthropists, etc.  However, there are also plenty of atheistic people that do the same type of thing.  They're just motivated differently.  Of course theistic people deserve respect and support when they do good deeds - but we should recognize their acts, and not their faith.

So wait... Are you saying, that if a "religious person" willingly breaks one of the ten commandments, they're automatically an atheist?  If so, I'd have to disagree completely.  A theist could break a biblical law (and most do daily), and immediately feel the remorse, regret and guilt caused by their actions, as they believe they have just sinned against god.  Their reasons for commiting the "sin" could be any number of things - but it doesn't immediatly sever their belief.  After all, the great thing about Christianity, is that you can sin, and ask for forgiveness.  However, those that commit "sins" regularly, knowing this loophole, are likely just playing the game, and probably don't hold much stock in the idea of a god.  They play the game because they feel like they've covered all their bases.  These types of people may not automatically be atheists, but they may not subscribe to all the details of Christianity.  By most definitions, they would be theists or deists...

You mean meme pseudoscience. I find it comical that people such as you like to present cockamamie theories as real science.