Faith vs. Science

[ted]

Most scientist and atheists hates war, and will wish it away if they could, war occurs not because of science, but because the unevent distrubution of science and resources in the world instigated by people/political/religious leaders who are NOT rational, and who are NOT scientific in their assessment/jugement of situations.

Most Christians hate war, as well. I have no desire to go back, but unfortunately, it happens.

If we look at the modern threat from islamic terrorists, I can't say it's a cause of wrongful hoarding of rescources or anything like that. It's what some of them claim, because that's what the world wants to hear. If only the "evil" US would not trample on their resources, they would leave us alone, seems to be the flavor of the day. That message generates the needed sympathy for their cause. It's funny how we fall for such idiocy, but fall we do.

In fact, their cause is a religious one, founded in unrational leadership and flamed by rhetoric. Many other wars, of course, do stem from a threat, whether real or perceived, that someone is getting the shaft from someone else. Other times, it's a matter of insanity on the part of a maniacal leader. I agree with many of your assessments concerning the cause of many wars.

One thing you left out, however, is human nature. The sinful heart of mankind continues to march people to war. It seems that no matter how far we advance in both science and technology, we still find ways to advance in weaponry, as well. Weaponry is still wielded by the hand, though.

In my opinion, we will never get to the point where there is no more war until Jesus comes back and stakes His claim on earth. Even then, there will be trouble at the end of the following 1,000 years.

Human nature will not allow us to share, love, and live in peace. Even if we turned to a system of total communism with 100% shared wealth and complete loss of national identity, it will not be enough to settle man's heart. Always, there will be someone wanting just a little more, and have the heart to use violence to achieve his goals. The utopian society will never work if left to man's devices, no matter how rational we think we can be.

It just ain't going to happen.

I agree that the fight over energy resources will be the cause of the next world war, but I think it will be even more easily understood than that. Man will use the excuse of energy, but it will still be his fallen heart which will be at the center of it.

Although you may think only science will solve future energy problems, it is still the human heart which wields the science, along with it's findings.

Science is not the blame for anything. By itself, it is nothing more than a tool we use. It is also not the cure for anything, either.

Only the hand which holds the key can be the determining factor, whether it is holding a weapon or a scientific discovery. Mankind will hold up whichever it feels can do it the most good for itself. Without changing the heart, the weapon will most likely be the tool most often used.

We may find, tomorrow, they key to all energy problems through science. But this discovery will be useless unless people decide they want to use it.

Science and religion. Both of them hold the answers to how we can get along, but the human heart prevents us from using them both the way they should be. Until this problem is fixed, you can count on more war. You can forget about utopian societies where everyone holds hands and shares their wealth. It's simply not an option today. No amount of science or religion is going to change that.

Jesus is the answer!

[WillingToDie]

That't not true, as technology advances there should be less likelyhood of war. Many of you doesn't think so, but consider if you were living in the middle ages, how often do you think your homes will be ravaged by war?

Wars decrease as technology advance for two reasons:

1: Some wars are caused by lack of resources such as land, energy, or food - advancement in technology could solve all of this, removing reasons for war.

2: Some wars are caused by misunderstanding or indoctrination in forms of out group hostility, a more technical society would increase the education and awareness and reasonability of the individual that they would recognize War doesnt solve problems the way thats most productive.

3: Advanced technology allows for more likelihood of MAD, it would be very extremely counter productive for a country to fight a war it knows it wont come out unscathed.

4: even wars did break out, it would be very unlikely for countries to use weapons of mass destruction fearing number 3. Advanced technology allows for precision war with much less civilian casualties.

I agree: There should be a less likelihood of war with the advancement of technology, but is it the case today?

Are we fighting less today, as a whole, than we were 300 years ago? 500 years?

Your theory is yet to be observed, I'm afraid.

t.

I think that it's important to point out that the regions that are embroiled in violence are those that tend to be less technologically advanced. Causality could run in a number of directions here, but I think it's still important to point out.

[Apoptosis]

Most scientist and atheists hates war, and will wish it away if they could, war occurs not because of science, but because the unevent distrubution of science and resources in the world instigated by people/political/religious leaders who are NOT rational, and who are NOT scientific in their assessment/jugement of situations.

Most Christians hate war, as well. I have no desire to go back, but unfortunately, it happens.

If we look at the modern threat from islamic terrorists, I can't say it's a cause of wrongful hoarding of rescources or anything like that. It's what some of them claim, because that's what the world wants to hear. If only the "evil" US would not trample on their resources, they would leave us alone, seems to be the flavor of the day. That message generates the needed sympathy for their cause. It's funny how we fall for such idiocy, but fall we do.

In fact, their cause is a religious one, founded in unrational leadership and flamed by rhetoric. Many other wars, of course, do stem from a threat, whether real or perceived, that someone is getting the shaft from someone else. Other times, it's a matter of insanity on the part of a maniacal leader. I agree with many of your assessments concerning the cause of many wars.

One thing you left out, however, is human nature. The sinful heart of mankind continues to march people to war. It seems that no matter how far we advance in both science and technology, we still find ways to advance in weaponry, as well. Weaponry is still wielded by the hand, though.

In my opinion, we will never get to the point where there is no more war until Jesus comes back and stakes His claim on earth. Even then, there will be trouble at the end of the following 1,000 years.

Human nature will not allow us to share, love, and live in peace. Even if we turned to a system of total communism with 100% shared wealth and complete loss of national identity, it will not be enough to settle man's heart. Always, there will be someone wanting just a little more, and have the heart to use violence to achieve his goals. The utopian society will never work if left to man's devices, no matter how rational we think we can be.

It just ain't going to happen.

I agree that the fight over energy resources will be the cause of the next world war, but I think it will be even more easily understood than that. Man will use the excuse of energy, but it will still be his fallen heart which will be at the center of it.

Although you may think only science will solve future energy problems, it is still the human heart which wields the science, along with it's findings.

Science is not the blame for anything. By itself, it is nothing more than a tool we use. It is also not the cure for anything, either.

Only the hand which holds the key can be the determining factor, whether it is holding a weapon or a scientific discovery. Mankind will hold up whichever it feels can do it the most good for itself. Without changing the heart, the weapon will most likely be the tool most often used.

We may find, tomorrow, they key to all energy problems through science. But this discovery will be useless unless people decide they want to use it.

Science and religion. Both of them hold the answers to how we can get along, but the human heart prevents us from using them both the way they should be. Until this problem is fixed, you can count on more war. You can forget about utopian societies where everyone holds hands and shares their wealth. It's simply not an option today. No amount of science or religion is going to change that.

Jesus is the answer!

Actually I did say "Most conflicts occur because we will not let go of some deeply held belief (either political or religious) that we are right and the other side is wrong." which would include the current war in the middle east. I didnt want to point it out as a specific example because I didnt want to be seen like im laying blame on religion itself, and there are other causes, but religion is the motivating factor for the common people.

And you are right, we have a significant problem to overcome if we were to attempt to establish a better society.

But I don't agree with you that we are forever the slaves of human nature. I am an advocate of evolution, and human nature to me is just a vestage of our past evolution that helped our reptilian forerunners to better survive in a less hospitable enviroment. The sense of territoriality, the paranoia, and agression, theyre just the result of millions of years of evolution which we have not yet evolved past the point to get a hold of it, these are the reasons why we've evolved the Cerebrum, a center of logical rational thought to over come our ancient reptilian nature. We're given intelligence to be social, to have empathy, to build societies, and I think by developing more rational thinking and put the Cerebrum to better use, we can eventually overcome our "human nature", or at least channel it constructively instead of destructively. The greed which you spoke of, the need to be better than everybody else, we could channel it with our brain to further our science and art, afterall this is what drives us in the end. I would be foolish of me to say we should not be affected by emotions, but at least we should be able to apply it better.

Think of science like a form of free will, You can use it to destroy yourself, or you can use it to better yourself.

[ted]

But I don't agree with you that we are forever the slaves of human nature.

You don't agree with me on that because that's not what I believe.

We are not forever chained to human nature. We will change eventually, with the coming of God.

Then we will know the answers, and then we shall be changed.

I just happen to believe that we will continue this path of global destruction, in general, until Jesus returns. We may see pockets, however large or small, of sensibility and reason, but far too many will defy reason and continue to commit societal suicide.

Neither man-cast religion, nor science, will be able to pull us through. Both are inanimate tools to be used as best we can use them. Unfortunately, we haven't used them for the good in all cases.

Maybe we can figure it out before judgement comes our way? Perhaps, but I don't think we'll do much with the knowledge.

Have a great night!

t.

[Guest Natures Girl]

Why does it have to be Faith vs. Science? These are not two mutually exclusive things. There are people on both sides of the Evolution/Creationism debate who vehemently claim that science and faith are not at odds with each other.

Actually, they ARE mutually exclusive things. Science relies on the provable and faith relies on the unprovable.

My opinion is that a Christian cannot be a research scientist for the basic fact that some portion of their thinking is not critical. If you cannot think critically about a subject at all times then at some point you will disregard the scientific basis of research in favor of your faith. Take a Christian paleontologist for example, at some point you'd either have to deny the biblical account of the age of the earth and conclude that scientific processes are correct or deny scientific processes in favor of biblical dogma.

I agree!!! And FYI, evolution requires faith. Lots of faith. Hmmmmm

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Evolution does not require faith in the least, the scientific processes which lead us to evolutionary theory are what require faith. Faith in those processes which, BTW, are used everyday by everysingle person on the planet in one way or another.

To deny the validity of radio carbon dating, for instance, is to deny the scientific principles that heat up your food in the microwave, run your computer to read this or chemicals that clean your clothes.

Science is evil.

I'm sure it is, considering it only saved a few million if not billions of people from starvation and disease.

Only to later blow them up in high-tech wars.

t.

Instead of just hacking them with pre-science weapons...

Science is evil.

I'm sure it is, considering it only saved a few million if not billions of people from starvation and disease.

Science didn't save millions, God did.

I do both, thank you very much.

Where do you think the knowledge came from?

The knowledge came from God.

Where did the plants to make the medicine come from?

It came from God.

Where did the ore to make the machinery come from?

It came from God.

Where did the compassion to try and extend life and minimize suffering come from?

The need to help others comes from God.

So God created science then, right? God created the logic and reason science uses to save those billions and then Christianity denys that same logic and reason.

[ted]

Sho' is a stumper, isn't it?

t.

[Guest Natures Girl]

Sho' is a stumper, isn't it?

t.

Yes Ted, it is a stumper. It's one of the reasons I'm here, to try and understand the complete disregard for critical and logical thought when it comes to things of faith. I have "faith" in many things (most fall into the catagory of "reasonable expectation") but I don't continue to have faith in things that don't make sense or that are unreasonable or illogical.

So how about a little insight instead of sarcastic patronization?

[ted]

Why bother?

You'll simply ignore what is said and continue your war against God, as usual.

t.

[cjrose]

I love the irony of someone saying "science is evil" on a forum on the internet.

Welcome to the boards, apoptosis.

Did you also notice that member was banned? And why I ask it's not irony, it's ignorance and meant to start trouble but he underestimated the intelligence and common sense of most on this forum who basically ignored it. Do you wonder why he was banned? Duh...

[MeCajunboy]

Why does it have to be Faith vs. Science? These are not two mutually exclusive things. There are people on both sides of the Evolution/Creationism debate who vehemently claim that science and faith are not at odds with each other.

I'm thinking this all ties in with the same arguement that Christians vs secular world will always be in conflict with. Naturally, the secular would like to "believe" that they don't have to be responsible for their actions. How else can they continue to live a life of sin and justify it? Same is true if "scientist" can disprove the theory that the world was "created" by a "supernatural" being. Premise is , if you can disprove one then the other couldn't possibly exist as well~~~ Boy will they all be in for a "culture shock!"