Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Religion Vs Science

Scroll to see replies

Hi, there will be a debate going on in my sixth form discussing the ideas of religion vs science. Has anybody got any pros and cons for religion and science that could help me in the debate. Thanks a bunch 🤗🤗🤗🤗

Why is it religion vs science?

in what way is the debate to form; are you trying to say which is better?

Reply 101

username2763536

Original post by HS2030

"Science without religion is lame, And Religion without science is blind"-Albert Einstein or something. Google it.

I don't think he meant religion in the conventional sense he actually called it childish at one point.Einstein meant spirituality as in awe at the universe. Atheists use the word spiritual to describe a sense of awe at the universe rather than anything supernatural.

Reply 102

HS2030

Original post by Robby2312

Oh, ok.

i just remember using the quote in an RS essay :smile:

thanks though

Reply 103

Supermonkey92

Original post by Good bloke

He mentioned Craig in a worshipful way in another post.

There are plenty of strong objections to fine-tuning such as:

1. the grossly invalid assumption that carbon-based life is the only kind of life;
2. fine-tuning essentially ignores the anthropic principle;
3. life on Earth is most likely adapted to evolve within the constraints it finds for itself rather than the environment being tuned for life;
4. it is still too soon in our research to make conclusions about the so-called cosmological constant;
5. in any event, even if the numbers do match the fine-tuners' arguments, the universe is not fine-tuned for life, merely for the building blocks of life, which is very different;
6. we have no idea whether there are other universes, in many of which conditions do not favour life.

Which of these do you actually think are strong?

1. The fine tuning argument makes no assumptions about what type of life exists, but simply the neccessary conditions for any life to exist. One example would be chemistry, which has various fine tuning examples. It makes no assumption about carbon life.

2. Of course it doesnt. The anthropic principle is probably the weakest explanation put forward, precisely because it isnt an explanation. John Leslie's firing squad analogy has done some serious harm to this idea and some physicists have pointed out similar observation affects with stars, yet it would be laughed at as an explanation. There is a reason the multiverse is the go to explanation for naturalism, it couples the self observation effect *with* sufficient chance.

3. Life on earth isnt really the central scope of the argument. It's to do with constants and values that are needed for any type of life, anywhere. The conditions on earth were sufficient for life to arise, but these conditions rely on the neccessary conditions the fine tuning argument focuses on.

4. Could you link me any resources on how our understanding of the cosmological constant could change? At any rate, this only deals with one example. It is but one among many, and it has been pointed out that as time has gone on we have found more examples of fine tuning, rather than it being explained away

5. This doesn't actually seem to be an objection. Life could only exist given the neccessary conditions found. That's just simply the fine tuning argument.

6. Are you offering the multiverse as a naturalist explanation of fine tuning or bringing up the bare possibility that a specific type of multiverse could explain it? The latter can hardly be called a strong objection. It would first need to be argued that we have sufficient and plausible reasons for thinking such a multiverse exists.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 104

cheyenne_beth

why is this forum called "Religion VS Science"? There's no difference between the two. God created science and is what points to him as the creator. i believe the correct term should be "Evolution" because its evolution that uses science to disprove God's existence. not saying evolutionists are bad because they have done amazing things, but as for those who use evidence to disprove the Bible, then thats where we have a problem. and instead of "religion" the correct term should be "Creation." Because religion will do nothing for you. its creation, the belief in a creator, that will do you some good. :wink:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 105

Bang Outta Order

Religion and science are both a set of beliefs. It's just religion has a more fixed set of beliefs which is the purpose, but it gets on some people's nerves while science is ever-changing which somehow convinces people that it's the more reliable system. Neither is more factual than the other because there is no single universal answer to everyone's questions. But religious people definitely have a more solid foundation to live on because scientists are just naming what God created, whereas religious people are putting faith in who could be responsible for what's even been created. Scientists are not creating anything are they? Who created these atoms? God did, scientists just named them "atoms." But nonetheless, cheers scientists for telling us how God's energy works.