Science over Religion

[GODISFAKE]

I think we can all agree that if science had never been practiced, none of us would be living right now. The human race would have died out of some disease by now. So why do the theists beleive that god has saved us? We did it by ourselves! unless of course, all theists have the aditude that everything was caused by god and there for he caused us to discover science. With that aditude, there is no way of convincing you that we cause our own fates.

[Yaw]

I don't find this argument particularly convincing. For example, the bubonic plague hit Europe during a time when bleeding patients was considered good medicine, and it didn't wipe out everybody. One disease is very unlikely to annihilate humanity -- there are too many of us with enough genetic variation that somebody is likely to end up with increased resistance. Look at Africans with malaria resistance as another example; for those of us without any exposure, one strain could kill us within three days.

I also note that in your example, science and religion are not necessarily at odds with one another. Native Americans knew how to cure scurvy in European sailors, yet that didn't mean that they didn't believe in a Creator. Science itself is based on a method of observation created by Peter Abelard, a medieval Christian monk.

There are, of course, issues on which certain religions have conflicts with science. But to magnify this into an assertion that religion and science are always opposed is disingenuous. (As a hint, in debate threads you might want to step away from the blanket statements. People tend to do better in "arguments" of this nature when they give themselves a bit of room to maneuver, instead of backing themselves into a corner with their first statement.)

[Maverick]

I am inclined to agree with Yaw. This line of argumentation isn’t very convincing at all. Perhaps, if stated differently, I would agree with it more.

GODISFAKE

I think we can all agree that if science had never been practiced, none of us would be living right now. The human race would have died out of some disease by now.

If the practice of scientific study is necessary for human survival, then how did human life begin in the first place? Surely, human beings could not practice science before its own existence. How do we explain the start of human life if we cannot attribute it to advances in science?

I do agree that science has aided us in our survival. But I find no reason to believe science is the only thing that kept us alive.

GODISFAKE

So why do the theists beleive that god has saved us?

Many theists don’t believe we have been saved yet, but that human beings will be saved.

GODISFAKE, you say that theists believe that god has saved us. What do those theists believe we have been saved from?

[GODISFAKE]

a disease causeing the end of the human race was simply an example. Over the course of our existance we have done many stupid things, not even knowing that they can harm us. I beleive that life was created by the mixing of certain chemicals in the ocean, creating the first amino acids. This eventually led to the creation of unicellular organizms, which later evolved into multicellular organisms. I have no reason that we did not die out before the creation of science, however i would like to point a few things out:
1. At the time of the cave men, many races of humans DID die out.
2. Does god just decide to let an entire race die out? That sounds kind of evil to me.
3. Or does god not exist unless people beleive in him, in which case he could not have created earth.
4. Or does god do nothing to help unless peole beleive in him? However, if no body beleiving him was the cause of many races of cavemen dying out, then why did at least one survive?
If god only helps the people who beleive in him, does he not help animals other than humans?

please consider the above. i do not know the answers.

[droskey]

I happen to share the belief that we determine our own fate (at least to the extent that we are able) with Godisfake. However, I am a little confiused about what we're discussing here. First, there's an assumption about what science is that is not stated. Are we talking about modern science or primitive tool making? Usually, when I speak of science, I am not talking about what our early, non-human ancestors did by using sticks and stones and digging tools or weapons. However, we get closer to what I think science is about when we get to modern humans making primitive tools by fashioning material around them. My point is that defined in this liberal way, science is a fundamental part of what humans are and certainly contributed to our success as a species.

However, the results of science have very little to do with whether we survive as a species or not. It is all in the application. This is especially true of modern science. So while science has contributed to our survivability, I find no reason to think that we wouldn't have survived as a species without modern science.

GODISFAKE

1. At the time of the cave men, many races of humans DID die out.

I'd ask you to supply an example of what you mean here or a statement to clarify, because, as it is, this statement appears to be inaccurate. Though I do not regularly keep up on the subject, I am not aware that science is able to determine the race of acient humans, let alone whether a particular race died out. I am not aware how a race "dies out". Usually, races will become mixed in with the dominant population and will cease to be unique. However, they do not die out. However, species do die out when their environment changes and they cannot adapt. Of course this has not happened with humans (homo sapiens sapiens).

[Supremor]

I agree with Yaw and Maverick here. I think you have good ideas there GODISFAKE, but you need to state them more clearly. The way you are putting your argument at the moment is:

a) difficult to follow
b) filled with dodgy analogies, some of which have been looked at by the others here.
c) The conviction you reach is very difficult to determine.

What is it you're trying to persuade us to believe? And furthermore, what evidence is there to support your argument. I see no actual incidents, qoutes, historical facts that back up your argument except the rather abstract language you're using so far(i.e diseases, science(what exactly is science?))

Sorry I haven't been posting for a while guys, it's that whole ordeal of getting used to going to a new URL.

[dragonfly]

I think your question is defined by your preconceptions of what a God is.(I could be wrong...but that is how I read your post)
I believe(and billions disagree with me) that human beings have no way of really knowing/comprehending what a God/gods are.

What if there was a Creator but for reasons we don't know it has since ceased to exist....what if it sent the processes of the universe in motion and then expired,disintergrated and ceased to be billions of years before our tiny planet came to be.?

What if the said being still exists but does not intervene or act in any disernable way upon our environment or the life that exists upon it. I don't see how or why life...indeed human life could not continue down a multitude of possible paths and potentials.We can not assume A god has interest in the outcome of its creation....infact we can assume nothing.

We can exist with or without a known God. As I said in a prior post,If there is a deity/creator /God then it is the originator of all science.I personally do not find the existance of a God incompatible with "science".This does not mean I believe in one.I don't know. #nosmileys

[Anarchat]

GODISFAKE said:

a disease causeing the end of the human race was simply an example. Over the course of our existance we have done many stupid things, not even knowing that they can harm us.

Let us not forget that many of the "stupid things" humanity has done over the years has been done in the name of science and technology. It's just as sensible to speculate that we'll be destroyed by out own technological blundering than by some natural catastrophe due to lack of science. Now that's something to think about in contrast to what you've already said.