Spirituality
10 Jun 10
10 Jun 10
Steven Hawking: "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.
Science will win because it works."
I don't know where this comes from so it could be a fake. However it's a very thought provoking quote.
10 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's from an interview with Diane Sawyer.
Steven Hawking: "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.
Science will win because it works."
I don't know where this comes from so it could be a fake. However it's a very thought provoking quote.
From http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Technology/stephen-hawking-religion-science-win/story?id=10830164:
"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."
When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
Here's another interesting snippet:
In the program, he said it is likely that alien life exists, but a visit from extraterrestrials might be similar to Christopher Columbus' arrival in the Americas.
"If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn't turn out well for the Native Americans," he said. "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet."
10 Jun 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneReligion and Science have [or ought to have] completely different aims. As such, I don't see how one can 'win' out over the other.
It's from an interview with Diane Sawyer.
From http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Technology/stephen-hawking-religion-science-win/story?id=10830164:
"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom o ...[text shortened]... intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet." [/b]
10 Jun 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitThey compete for peoples' belief in reality. Only by abandoning all material claims slowly, one at a time, can religion survive.
Religion and Science have [or ought to have] completely different aims. As such, I don't see how one can 'win' out over the other.
10 Jun 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, hence the 'ought'. The reality is that religion indeed backs off certain material claims when forced to change with the times. The Catholic Church has been forced to accept more and more of Evolution theory, for example.
They compete for peoples' belief in reality. Only by abandoning all material claims slowly, one at a time, can religion survive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Jun 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitAs you can see on the wikipedia article yourself, the Catholic Church never had an issue with evolution. The only controversy was whether evolution could strictly be described as accidental. The Catholic Church then, and still now, maintains that evolution is directed by God's providence.
Yes, hence the 'ought'. The reality is that religion indeed backs off certain material claims when forced to change with the times. The Catholic Church has been forced to accept more and more of Evolution theory, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
11 Jun 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe aim of science is mainly understanding how the physical world works.
What do you see as the "aim" of religion and science respectively?
The aim of religion is mainly answering questions of morality, or understanding the metaphysical realm [if you believe in such a thing], or searching for personal meaning.
11 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau K
As you can see on the wikipedia article yourself, the Catholic Church never had an issue with evolution. The only controversy was whether evolution could strictly be described as accidental. The Catholic Church then, and still now, maintains that evolution is directed by God's providence.
The Catholic Church delayed official pronouncements on Darwin's Origin of Species for many decades. While many hostile comments were made by local clergy, Origin of Species was never placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum;[5] in contrast, Henri Bergson's non-Darwinian Creative Evolution (1907), was on the Index from 1948 until it was abolished in 1966[6] However, a number of Catholic writers who published works specifying how evolutionary theory and Catholic theology might be reconciled ran into trouble of some sort with the Vatican authorities.[7]
I wouldn't call this "never ha[ving] an issue" with evolution. But maybe that's just me.
11 Jun 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat does size have to do with anything.....er....um....you know what I mean?
"They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."
If you ask me, what is created is a reflection of the creator. So it stands to reason that "relationship" is important to our creator simply because of the emphasis we place upon it. Assuming my theory of "free will" is correct, our free will is the ONLY think God has CHOSEN to relinquish control over. It would then stand to reason that this one of the reasons that it may attract the majority of his attention. As for the size of the mostly "dead" uinverse, who cares?
11 Jun 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitto SwissGambi
The aim of science is mainly understanding how the physical world works.
The aim of religion is mainly answering questions of morality, or understanding the metaphysical realm [if you believe in such a thing], or searching for personal meaning.
the aim of religion is to controll the masses.
the aim of spirituality is to understand our existance
cheers vishvahetu
11 Jun 10
Originally posted by whodeyto Whodey
What does size have to do with anything.....er....um....you know what I mean?
If you ask me, what is created is a reflection of the creator. So it stands to reason that "relationship" is important to our creator simply because of the emphasis we place upon it. Assuming my theory of "free will" is correct, our free will is the ONLY think God has CHOSEN to ...[text shortened]... the majority of his attention. As for the size of the mostly "dead" uinverse, who cares?
what is this dead universe you speak of, puzzled?
11 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuOf course, we cannot ever know if there is other life out there, but from our vantage point, it is indeed lifeless.
to Whodey
what is this dead universe you speak of, puzzled?
I would just like to add, if there is a God and he cares nothing for us, for all intensive purposes he is "dead" to us.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
11 Jun 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitSeriously, did you even read the quote? It clearly states that the Catholic Church never opposed evolution. The only supposed opposition came from a non-descript group of "local clergy" (who, mind you, do not strictly represent the Church.) Furthermore, the wikipedia article shows many high-profile clerics supported evolutionary theory (Henry Cardinal Newman, for example.) I don't see any problem.
I wouldn't call this "never ha[ving] an issue" with evolution. But maybe that's just me.