is religion real ?

[Sovieto]

I found the thing I read for school, here it is:

---

Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested Oparin's and Haldane's hypotheses in 1953. Miller re-created what was thought to be earth's earliest atmosphere by mixing methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen in a flask. Using electrodes, he then introduced sparks into the flask to simulate lightning and sunlight on primitive earth.

The results were phenomenal. In a few days, the flask contained an "organic soup" filled with urea, acetic acid, lactic acid, and several amino acids. From this experiment, Miller proved that it was possible for organic molecules to form spontaneously in the earth's ancient atmosphere.

What We Know Today...
With our new understanding of what earth's ancient atmosphere was like, scientists have mixed gases to produce organic molecules such as ATP and adenine. Scientists now know that many macromolecules such as amino acids, nucleotides, lipids, carbohydrates, and ATP could have been generated in the early atmosphere.

Further studies have shown that there was probably less methane and ammonia in the early atmosphere than Miller and Urey had used in their hypothetical atmosphere. Scientists also thought that the chemicals were not only concentrated in, but also protected from, the solar radiation by tiny bubbles at the ocean's surface. This would be very important because sunlight would destroy the formation of macromolecules. More recent investigations suggest that the early atmosphere was more likely rich in carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen (N2), and that life may have began in deep-sea hydrothermal vents.

----

The sad thing is, a religious person could get away with saying "No, God created us", and that is considered an actual "argument" to this. /rolleyes

sidenote: something that grinds my gears, even in this scientific article they don't capitalize "Earth".

 

[Deanis]

Well.....yer thats a Creationist viewpoint, its rather simple. Its just too far fetched for Science people, so they spend their life finding another answer....and the search continues.

 

[Squall7]

The sad thing is, a religious person could get away with saying "No, God created us", and that is considered an actual "argument" to this. /rolleyes

Yeah, it's kind of annoying when people give religion some form of special pass on this kind of thing, especially when it cannot provide a scientific backup for it's own perspective. People seem either frightened to challenge this double standard or end up in a debate about the nature of religion and why it shouldn't be considered equal to science (which it shouldn't, religion is not an alternative to science).

 

[Brawny]

Yeah, it's kind of annoying when people give religion some form of special pass on this kind of thing, especially when it cannot provide a scientific backup for it's own perspective. People seem either frightened to challenge this double standard or end up in a debate about the nature of religion and why it shouldn't be considered equal to science (which it shouldn't, religion is not an alternative to science).

In the same vein, science is not an alternative to religion.

I remember someone taught me about science and religion in a way that I liked. Science provides the what and the how. Religion is the who and the why.

I suspect that advances in research will eventually shake the beliefs of some of the more scientific religious people, at least to become more secular in their beliefs, if not break it altogether.

So religious scientists are ignorant? Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, stupid idiots.

 

[Deanis]

Yeah the two can somewhat co-exist.

"I believe we were created, science can be used to help explain what has been created, and the changes that are occuring in what has been created"...it just hasnt quite nailed HOW it has been created.

 

[Deanis]

RAWR, double post....site has been lagging on me all day.

 

[JonRyan]

so if it makes sense to the knower its knowledge ?
so does that mean people under fallacies are knowledgeable?

 

[Napalmbrain]

In the same vein, science is not an alternative to religion.

I remember someone taught me about science and religion in a way that I liked. Science provides the what and the how. Religion is the who and the why.

I guess you could say that, but I personally feel that I already know the "who" without religion, and I don't feel a "why" is necessary.

The sad thing is, a religious person could get away with saying "No, God created us", and that is considered an actual "argument" to this. /rolleyes

Thankfully most religious people I've met know better than that, but unfortunately I still see people on TV and on the internet who think that "Because it's in the Bible" is a valid scientific rebuttal.

sidenote: something that grinds my gears, even in this scientific article they don't capitalize "Earth".

That never ceases to annoy me.

 

[Brawny]

I guess you could say that, but I personally feel that I already know the "who" without religion, and I don't feel a "why" is necessary.

Well, I think that however you answer those is a religion. So that description already fits my view.

 

[Napalmbrain]

Well, I think that however you answer those is a religion. So that description already fits my view.

You're confusing "religion" with simple "belief".

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I don't fit that description, therefore I don't have a religion.

 

[Squall7]

Yeah the two can somewhat co-exist.

"I believe we were created, science can be used to help explain what has been created, and the changes that are occuring in what has been created"...it just hasnt quite nailed HOW it has been created.

So long as you negotiate it, they can exist. Means bending religious doctrine a bit though.

I guess you could say that, but I personally feel that I already know the "who" without religion, and I don't feel a "why" is necessary.

Completely agree. "Who" is only applicable so long as there is an entity which was involved in the origin of an event. There is no need for a "who" to the process (rather than the theory) of evolution.

Thankfully most religious people I've met know better than that, but unfortunately I still see people on TV and on the internet who think that "Because it's in the Bible" is a valid scientific rebuttal.

Agreed once again. Especially those who deny in some way that the Bible is written by man and therefore fallible. And if it were to be under the guidance of God, why is there an old testament and a new testament. Surely God is so perfect as to get the message right the first time....

In the same vein, science is not an alternative to religion.

Indeed. Of course, for atheists, the need for religion is not there.

I remember someone taught me about science and religion in a way that I liked. Science provides the what and the how. Religion is the who and the why.

As I discussed with Napalm's response, the "who" and "why" are not needed (why being a greater purpose, rather than an explanation of the circumstances that create the event) to an atheist. They're also part of the circular reasoning: the purpose (at least spiritual purpose) of our existence indicates a need for the creator, yet the creator must have made us for a purpose. Without the existence of God, the paradox doesn't exist.

So religious scientists are ignorant? Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, stupid idiots.

False arguement. A, science and religion are two different concepts. One can know facts while believing a story. B, Eistein, while not strictly an atheist, didn't believe in the Christian God, but rather a higher cause of some kind.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

Source: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
Also see Pantheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism


C, those three people helped to guide a more scientific viewpoint. Just because they were not at the point where they could say that there is no need for a God, doesn't mean to say that they wouldn't have come to that conclusion if they were given enough time.

Also, D, "stupid idiots"? Surely the decent way to argue is through logical thought, not reductio ad obsurdum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Learnt that from The Big Bang Theory!

One can be wrong without being an stupid idiot.

 

[Brawny]

As I discussed with Napalm's response, the "who" and "why" are not needed (why being a greater purpose, rather than an explanation of the circumstances that create the event) to an atheist. They're also part of the circular reasoning: the purpose (at least spiritual purpose) of our existence indicates a need for the creator, yet the creator must have made us for a purpose. Without the existence of God, the paradox doesn't exist.

Haha, you're much more highhorsed than most other atheists I meet. (I mean that in the nicest way possible, I assure you!) Just meaning to say that most will at least have a little give in the way of there being some higher power. Not simply calling every person who believes there is "wrong". xD

Anyway, the quote. I don't see how there's a paradox there at all. We are created to have a relationship with God?

 

[Squall7]

Haha, you're much more highhorsed than most other atheists I meet. (I mean that in the nicest way possible, I assure you!) Just meaning to say that most will at least have a little give in the way of there being some higher power. Not simply calling every person who believes there is "wrong". xD

I think you misinterpreted me, by "they" in my quote, was the questions about "who" and "why", rather than people.

Also, I wouldn't call it highhorsed. I'd call it confidence. Much greater social respect is given to confident people rather than people on their "highhorse".

Anyway, the quote. I don't see how there's a paradox there at all. We are created to have a relationship with God?

The paradox is that the "who" begs the question of "why" and vice versa.

To be created is to have an intended purpose, and to have an intended purpose must have had a creator. Without one, there cannot be the other.

 

[Napalmbrain]

Agreed once again. Especially those who deny in some way that the Bible is written by man and therefore fallible. And if it were to be under the guidance of God, why is there an old testament and a new testament. Surely God is so perfect as to get the message right the first time....

You know, I've never realised that one before, but that is a really good point.

As I discussed with Napalm's response, the "who" and "why" are not needed (why being a greater purpose, rather than an explanation of the circumstances that create the event) to an atheist. They're also part of the circular reasoning: the purpose (at least spiritual purpose) of our existence indicates a need for the creator, yet the creator must have made us for a purpose. Without the existence of God, the paradox doesn't exist.

How is that a paradox?

The existence of a car implies someone created it for a purpose, and obviously we all know cars are indeed created for a purpose.

 

[Squall7]

How is that a paradox?

The existence of a car implies someone created it for a purpose, and obviously we all know cars are indeed created for a purpose.

Yes, but we know the car had a creator: us, people.

The "who" is already answered.

The only indication (admittedly, arguably) that there is a "who" in the origin of man is the presumption of a "why".

We pressume there is a purpose to our lives, and so there must be a person to create us. Without a purpose, would there need to be a creator?