Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Christianity vs/and Science: Which Leads to the Good Life?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 100 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 16, 2012 8:36:17 AM PST
Christianity and Science are belief systems claiming to help us lead a good life. I believe the same is true of the belief systems of all religions: Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Judaism, etc. etc. I chose Christianity and Science since both have had a major influence on my life. I was raised in a Lutheran community by Lutheran parents and spent many hours in Lutheran church services and Sunday school. I also have accumulated many credit hours studying courses labeled as scientific.

I hope for an active discussion of this topic. No one knows or believes everything in their religions. We all pick and choose. My version of Christianity, or of Science, is different than yours and different from that of every person in the world.

Let the discussion begin!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 8:37:57 AM PST
S. Kessler says:
Science is not a belief system or a religion.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 8:41:17 AM PST
Max Flash says:
I wouldn't classify science as a belief system nor does it claim to lead us to a good life.

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 9:01:10 AM PST
Two beliefs in science are: 1. Propositions should be stated clearly enough to be testable. 2. Observation, not logic, determines the truth or falsity of propositions. I won't go on to other beliefs in science, but there are many more. Do you still believe science is not a belief system, S. Kessler and Max. As to its not claiming to lead us to a good life, that was a major reason I put in all those hours accumulating credits in scientific courses. Are yo0 telling me all that effort was based on a false premise, Max?

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 9:02:32 AM PST
Two beliefs in science are: 1. Propositions should be stated clearly enough to be testable. 2. Observation, not logic, determines the truth or falsity of propositions. I won't go on to other beliefs in science, but there are many more. Do you still believe science is not a belief system, S. Kessler and Max. As to its not claiming to lead us to a good life, that was a major reason I put in all those hours accumulating credits in scientific courses. Are yo0 telling me all that effort was based on a false premise, Max?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:12:53 AM PST
why not both

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:17:53 AM PST
A Customer says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:20:18 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 16, 2012 9:29:26 AM PST
Science rests on certain principles or assumptions, which in and of themselves can't be "proven". One is that there is an objective natural world independent of the observer. A second is that all observers will derive the same scientific results if they follow the same procedures. You can call these "beliefs" if you want, but they differ somewhat from religious beliefs in that the resulting body of knowledge can be independently verified by any observer, whereas this is not possible a priori for religious beliefs.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:22:16 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:22:49 AM PST
Max Flash says:
ARR: Do you still believe science is not a belief system, S. Kessler and Max.

Max: Yep.

ARR: As to its not claiming to lead us to a good life, that was a major reason I put in all those hours accumulating credits in scientific courses.

Max: You may have assumed that science would lead us to the good life. This doesn't provide any evidence that science made that "claim". How could science even make a claim? That makes no sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:30:36 AM PST
Science has led to improvements in standard of living, life expectancy, etc. Of course there's more to the "good life" than these types of things, but they're a good start!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:37:33 AM PST
JagdTiger says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:39:03 AM PST
that would not be verification
barely even evidence

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 9:40:27 AM PST
It's obvious that some terms need clarification:

Belief: Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

Faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Belief system: Faith based on a series of beliefs, but not formalized into a religion.

And although my fellow secularists might cringe, I have no problem with calling science a "belief system," per these definitions. I have full faith and belief in science and its method.

That is not to say it's my ONLY belief system, or that it necessarily entails a complete "worldview."

And yes, it definitely leads to "a good life," which for me is one free from so much of the ignorance that has and still does plague this planet.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:42:11 AM PST
Max Flash says:
Science certainly has led to great improvements, but I can't see that science has in any way made a claim that it would do so.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:43:45 AM PST
It is being verified through comparative genomics. For example both the human and chimpanzee genome have been sequenced. It is possible to determine the average or "background" rate of mutational change between these two genomes, and then identify areas which have undergone more rapid mutation than the average. These so-called "human accelerated regions" or HARs are likely sites for many of the genetic changes which explain the differences between the human and chimpanzee. These include genes known to be important in neurodevelopment, and an enhancer sequence which may play a role in the development of the human opposable thumb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_accelerated_regions

It is likely that in the not-too-distant future we will have a detailed understanding of all the evolutionary pathways (mutational events) which explain the evolution of the human and chimpanzee from their last common ancestor.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:46:17 AM PST
Agree that when a scientific discovery is made, the potential beneficial applications are latent in it rather than fully developed. But for many such discoveries the likely beneficial applications are obvious, such as high-temperature superconductivity, antibiotics, the transistor, etc. For others there may be no obvious beneficial application, and beneficial applications may not be forthcoming for a long time. Examples would be quantum theory when first discovered, relativity when first discovered, and the discovery of the structure of DNA.

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 9:47:50 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Nov 18, 2012 4:30:24 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:47:51 AM PST
Strictly speaking it wasn't science either. In the case of gunpowder this was developed prior to the modern scientific era. The others were a product of technology (applied science if you will) rather than pure science.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:49:35 AM PST
Jagdtigger

Still praying to the god of the gaps?

Posted on Nov 16, 2012 9:51:41 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 16, 2012 9:52:34 AM PST
A Customer says:
Has *anyone* ever been able to find any consistency in horsie's beliefs? One day he'll tell us he's not a fundie or a biblical literalist ... and then the next day he's talking about how evolution is all a bunch of lies. I see this stuff all the time.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 9:58:59 AM PST
Joe W says:
Science is not a system of belief. It is a system of investigation. A "belief system" as you put it, refers to what what thinks ought to be and what the moral motivations are behind those 'oughts'. Science only addresses what is. Knowing how my kidney works (science) does nothing to inform me whether or not I ought (belief system) to pee on my neighbor's azaleas.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 10:01:49 AM PST
So you're the guy who'se been peeing on my azaleas! I knew it!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 10:07:35 AM PST
Joe W says:
Acidic soil make redder flowers!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 10:22:13 AM PST
JagdTiger says:
Lol....just want make sure it was pure evolution and not some out side catalyst which occurred that produced humans
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  100
Initial post:  Nov 16, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 22, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions