Submitted by jackdaniels (not verified) on Fri, 06/27/2008 - 9:21pm.
"..won't stop the scientist from coming as close as she can." -i like how you use she defying the stereotype of a male scientist.
you start of brilliantly by showing the differences (although your definition of 'religion' seems to entail only Christianity/Judaism. There are other religions in this world that wouldn't fit any of your arguments. Hinduism, Buddhism for instance). the problem with the literal and allegoric interpretation of religious texts was a brilliant point to make. but i feel that the arguments that you make about the similarities is pretty weak. but maybe you didn't want to make a strong point and keep it open for discussion.
Some of my views:
at the end, science and religion boils down to one question: where did the first thing to ever exist (dust/ sun /star for the scientists...god for the religious people) come from.
the most convincing argument i ve ever heard an atheist give is that since every matter has an antimatter.. they can combine to form nothing..hence if the reverse is true..nothing can give matter and antimatter. thus, you didn't need anything to form the world..except for a random chain of events ( whose probability equals nil.)
well all hope is not lost for the believer (in god) yet..they've counter argued by saying that the thing that the atheists label as 'nothing' is what they call God. So, at the end it boils down to one simple difference..how do you want to name the thing that started the 'creation'.
»
Reply
Search Serendip
Narrative is determined not by a desire to narrate
but by a desire to exchange. (Roland Barthes, S/Z)
one prime difference
"..won't stop the scientist from coming as close as she can." -i like how you use she defying the stereotype of a male scientist.
you start of brilliantly by showing the differences (although your definition of 'religion' seems to entail only Christianity/Judaism. There are other religions in this world that wouldn't fit any of your arguments. Hinduism, Buddhism for instance). the problem with the literal and allegoric interpretation of religious texts was a brilliant point to make. but i feel that the arguments that you make about the similarities is pretty weak. but maybe you didn't want to make a strong point and keep it open for discussion.
Some of my views:
at the end, science and religion boils down to one question: where did the first thing to ever exist (dust/ sun /star for the scientists...god for the religious people) come from.
the most convincing argument i ve ever heard an atheist give is that since every matter has an antimatter.. they can combine to form nothing..hence if the reverse is true..nothing can give matter and antimatter. thus, you didn't need anything to form the world..except for a random chain of events ( whose probability equals nil.)
well all hope is not lost for the believer (in god) yet..they've counter argued by saying that the thing that the atheists label as 'nothing' is what they call God. So, at the end it boils down to one simple difference..how do you want to name the thing that started the 'creation'.