On the anti theistic nature of modern science.

On the anti theistic nature of modern science.

Joined: August 8th, 2009, 11:19 pm

May 6th, 2012, 3:15 am #1

I was watching a four corners program a few nights ago about the Qantas flight QF32 flying from Singapore to Sydney a year or two ago. 6 minutes into the flight an engine exploded in an uncontained fashion, blowing parts through the wing and fuselage. The loss of the engine was one thing, but the damage to the infrastructure such as wiring looms and fuel tanks from shrapnel was incredibly critical almost to the point of total destruction. The program details the aircrafts diagnostic systems for alerting the pilots about the actual extent of the damage and methods for plotting a safe landing which wasnt to be the last peril either.

http://www.theage.com.au/tv/show/four-c ... 1y3v9.html

This morning I was considering the philosopher Sir David Hoyles rhetorical scenario of how unlikely creation by a non intelligent being might be.

In part he hypothesized A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.

His point was that pure chance almost certainly could never assemble a complex structure like an airliner, completely operable and ready to fly so why should we consider something even more complex like life?

Well, the obvious answer is that chance is always there in life in every scenario, one way or an other. A pipe can crack, spewing burning oil into a turbine despite mans best efforts to design it out, a person can get cancer, just bad luck and the odds catching up with us.

The evolutionist realizes that there is nothing like chance controlling our design, it is the result of countless generations of successes passing along their genes to the next generation with the best outperforming the less well adapted. Its nothing more than that.

Creationists can see that there is no point denying the obvious with so called micro evolution, yet for an equally obvious reason refuse to see what many generations of micro evolutionary development brings. And that is changes so profound that we refer to the descendants as different species.

When you look at what a few hundred years of dog breeding from a wolf has done, then the difference of cat and dog over thousands of years is not so surprising. Or birds, or fish, all it needs is geographical separation and the result is almost inevitable.

From all this it has occurred to me that from the time of Darwin, when the church relied on scientists to reveal gods truths to man, science and religion have moved to opposite ends of material truths.

Religion relies on faith to the exclusion, if necessary of the observation of material facts such as biological DNA sequencing, geological formations, millions of years old, and the rest of the interlocking sciences. Relying on such abstractions such as metaphyisics mystic gods always existed notions when how did god get created, to do these amazing things?.

Faith that what you read must be right permeates all questions and answers when queries of gods claims are aired.

Chance plays apart in evolution, but only as a generator of change. Chance happenings permeate everything in life. Doubt is embraced by science, it is the bane of religion though where doubt is tantamount to lack of faith.

Science embraces proof without certainty, creationists prefer certainty, no need for proof (faith is better)

As evidence of how antithetical science and religion are, religion would have tried forever to have some shaman bless some feathers from their favourite god, climb a tree and jump off expecting for biblical miracles to fly. (thinking Icarus here as well)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus

The price of failure was merely to find a better shaman.

The Wright Bros might have been religious, I dont know, but they saved their research for the purely material scientific explanations to get their chance at flight, stuff looking to god to bless them (apart from the chance of a very hard landing)

The 380 wasnt protected by faith or chance though, it was protected by hard headed backup failure systems, the builders didnt and wouldnt rely on faith. They had sensors, theyd considered as many possibilities as they could, theyd work the mathematics, the landing speed, the flap angles for a damaged wing, all the provable stuff. If they could, nothing at all would be assumed or taken on faith, it would all be science, logic, calculation. No metaphysics, mystics, incense or chants. No magical readings from a book of faith, it would all be taken from a procedures book if this happens, do this, if that happens, do that. All tested, practiced and proven to work.

Everytime I talk to a creationist, they shy away from the tests, the evidence, the practice runs proving the point, they dont understand any of it, its just things are mystic not explainable, god dun it.

If someone was to look up the scientific method or the engineering method
Youd see none of that its out of my hands, its metaphysical I cant prove it tosh. Faith is abhorred by science, the unknown is to be explored, to be known. For religion the unknown, the mystical is to be revered, for science it must be explained, removed. There will always be unknown outcomes in science, we accept it, measure it, quantify it, reduce it. With religion, its just there, unknowable, worship able, to be accepted.

Just another example of god.

I know which version has led man out of the dark ages, given us knowledge (itself a guilt in religions eyes god forbade it at the start apparently)

Id like to see how Cardinal Pell, the Pope, and Jimmy Bakker would have handled bring down GF 32. There wouold have been a lot of praying, and then a lot of bodies for sure.

The technicians helped to bring their bodies safely down for sure, no one can say that the pope would have lifted their smashed bodies up to heaven of course.. oh unless you rely on faith again.

Science. Proven useful, works

Religion pick your faith, hope it works.


Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just band aids over bull sh!t.

Biblical Pitfalls http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/
____________________________________________

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzq0p ... o1_500.jpg






Zombie Jesus who sort of came back from the dead...

<i>Away in a graveyard, a stone overhead
The zombie lord Jesus is raised from the dead
The bones and the corpses are at his command
And rise like their master to swarm o'er the land!
The women are screaming, then running away
Poor Mary and Martha are gnawed where they lay
I fear thee, lord Jesus, your curséd undeath
With worms in your bowels and rot on your breath.
Have mercy, lord Jesus, don't eat me today
Next year I'll be bigger, I promise! I pray
Some shaman or rabbi or priestess or such
Will stake you and save us from your deadly touch.</i>

___________________________________

I know Bible literalists apologists have their explanations, but they are ultimately just <b><i>band aids over bull sh!t.</b></i>

Biblical Pitfalls .http://www.network54.com/Forum/660399/
Quote
Like
Share

Arthur Dent
Arthur Dent

May 7th, 2012, 10:17 am #2

Religion is based upon faith, science is evidence based upon the desire to destroy the need for faith.

science then is antithetical to faith. whatever awe there may be in mystery, the divine, the metaphysical, the unknowable is the enemy of science.

Science is devoted to knowledge (the cause of heavens enmity to man), uncovering the facts, the truth, no matter what that inconvenient truth it might be.

Science destroys the poison of religion, that is its purpose. They are antithetical like light and darkness. Woe be those that call evil (Christianity) good



Quote
Share

QUITTNER
QUITTNER

May 9th, 2012, 5:32 pm #3

Very many years ago primitive humans looked at what happened; some things were done by humans, animals and/or plants, and also others by what we now call nature, but was then PROOF that God or gods or some other spirits exist that did all those "other" things. Such as the growing of things, the weather, the movement around the Earth of the sun, the moon and all of the stars, perhaps they included also a belief that the puddles after a rainstorm were gradually getting smaller because the gods were drinking that water. They had PROOF and proceeded to try to influence those with important influence. Apparently early believers actually thought that God was very much involved in human matters, and lots of speculations by clergy and others were later assumed to be "Gospel truth" by many others, or even handed down items from their deity.
..... Summing up, religion now is based on faith, but long before Science existed religion was based on what was then thought to be PROVEN FACTS.
Quote
Share

Arthur Dent
Arthur Dent

May 13th, 2012, 9:17 pm #4

redit in the bible and believed.

or get burned at the stake.

Not really facts by any sensible measure.

Quote
Share