PhiPI
stranger
Reged: 11/02/05
Posts: 32
|
|
Quote:
Arras said:
One of the biggest misconceptions out there (as exemplified recently by SoDrk) is that scientists must be atheists. The idea that someone could be a fervently religious person and at the same time possess scientific curiosity just boggles the minds of many people.
That is absolutely true. As someone who has participated in research it is abundantly clear that each new scientific discovery almost always elicits more questions than it answers. The big bang might explain a lot but leaves even more puzzling questions about the zero point and nature of time, as mentioned previously. I believe a lot of those debating the merits of evolution (on both sides) actually know very little about DNA or the actual biological process of genetic replication. From a distance it might seem this coordinated process is completely sterile, as if 'life' is just the God-less automatic replication and division of a coded chain of nucleic acids. However, once you REALLY start to study it biochemically, then some extremely unusal features become apparent. For example, that DNA has the ability to repair itself and correct coding errors. How does something like that evolve? Random errors in DNA rarely prove beneficial and generally lead to the 'death' of the cell, but a few mutations are helpful and promote the strength of the species (ie bacterial resistance to antibiotics). This might involve a very minor change in the chemical structure of the cell wall which doesn't allow the antibiotic to bind to it, etc, incidentally making that cell immune to the antibiotic.
However there is not one but actually a multitude of DNA repair ligases, polymerases etc which crawl along the DNA strand and repair very specific errors, such as sunlight exposure/UV light errors or coding errors or large errors. The large error correction is particularly interesting because DNA is composed of sequences of matched proteins (so if one protein is mismatched, the other one tells you what should be there instead) But how would a brainless, tiny chemical be able to repair a huge DNA error with completely jumbled, unmatchable sequence? Even as a scientist, it is almost impossible to imagine DNA somehow randomly collecting errors that suddenly give it the ability to recognize errors and repair itself. It is one of those things that, quite honestly, strikes me as a absolutely brilliant and improbable. Unlike bacterial resistance, which generally involves minor variations in structure and the sexual sharing of this variation with other bacteria, the random development of genes on DNA to create spider-like DNA crawlers who fix DNA mistakes in a coordinated several-step process is just so unbelievable that I would not rule out the hand of God in that. (not completely perfect, ie when it fails then you get cancer, but still, stunning to contemplate) 
|
Gally
stranger
Reged: 03/14/06
Posts: 3
|
|
Religion and Science Does go hand in hand.
Siddhartha Gautama (the first Buddha) once said, 3000 yrs before our time and before the invention of microscope, that there are as many living creatures in a single drop of water we drink than there are as many grains of sand on a beach(microorganisms!). Buddha was simply a man who sought to understand the meaning of life and of human suffering through meditation. In that sense, he shared the same purpose as scientists today: attempting to elucidate what is unknown.
The Quran (Islam's sacred text) talks about the notion of science: scientific knowledge is seen as a road towards God, and thus, anything that will advance science will bring us closer to God, since science and knowledge are immortal as God is. As my Anthropology teacher said, Bagdad was the ancient Havard! Even to this day, in scientific articles, arab scientists systematically thank God before communicating their findings.
Anlexandria, 300 yrs BC, was the "intellectual and scientific headlight of the world" and it was an egyptian society guided by gods and godesses.
I really can't see why science and religion have to "bump heads". In fact, the only instance where I've heard of such is in some US's schools who refuse to teach the theory of evolution because it opposes that of God as the creator of the world. Even then, I don't think that to consider ourself "member of a religion" we need to accept everything written in its sacred texts and litteral facts.
I think religion is important as a philosophy of life, to guide us through our decisions and give us meaning to our life. True, you can live without it. You can forge your own philosophy and ideologies (if you're educated and have enough courage to think for yourself...) However, there are always questions to which we cannot answer for ourself. In science or in religion, there can only be "hypotheses" for those crucial questions (Where do we come from, Where are we going, etc.) At my young age, I prefer to be sceptic about everything, I do not feel the need to go into depth about any spiritual or existential questions I may have. But faced to life-threatening or incomprehensible situations, I like the fact that I have some basis to count on and to believe even if it is not with absolute certainty. I know that for dying patients in hospital, spirituallity is so very important. And nursing studies have demonstrated that it is a human need to assign meaning to illness, to health, life and death. Without such beliefs, ppl tend to be angry, deny, and protest strongly even until their last breath, which isn't healthy!^^
I think someone has already mentionned this, but neither religion (or if you prefer spirituality) or science can disappear from humanity since they are both basic human needs.
|
kyrus
stranger
Reged: 03/16/06
Posts: 23
Loc: France
|
|
isn't the truth in the real meaning of the worde? religion, or to be religious towards something means that we are avid subscribers of whatever it is we believe in. Religion has only crept up on us because so many people have fear, and need to commune in groups. It is a need, therefore we cannot imagine a world without it. To say that we do not need religion is a fair argument, but what of those who do need it, we cannot be ignorant to those, because science dictates that we should be empathic towards or fellow human being, no?
I am neither a scientist, nor religious. I understand what Faith is, and why religions need to get together to practise Faith, it is because Faith* is such a difficult challenge.
* the law of faith dictates that faith is nothing without works, but I do not believe that a mere belief constitutes Faith.
thanks,
kyrus
--------------------
my website
|
kyrus
stranger
Reged: 03/16/06
Posts: 23
Loc: France
|
|
Quote:
Gawhd said:
Thats how most of the world does it  What do you guys think about uniting north america under one flag. UNA (United North America). I think it would have some potental
personally, I think that the USA should be bombed. I think that they should change their currency to the $tupid (in honour of their intelligence and they should all be made to wear orange jumpsuits (so that we don't shoot them by accident) 
--------------------
my website
|
AAnnAArchy
Gifted Procrastinator
Reged: 10/20/03
Posts: 643
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
Quote:
kyrus said:
personally, I think that the USA should be bombed. I think that they should change their currency to the $tupid (in honour of their intelligence and they should all be made to wear orange jumpsuits (so that we don't shoot them by accident)
Oh, except an American owns this site and it's on a server in Houston, so you'd have trouble gloating here...because here would no longer exist.
How about no one bombs anyone else? Seems like an infinitely more peaceful plan.
|
Sephia
Supreme Goddess
Reged: 11/28/03
Posts: 876
Loc: MA, USA
|
|
i'll agree with Aann. While bombing the US has enormous potential, it's just not fair to those of us who are not Bush, Pat Robertson, and a few others.
--------------------
"Your life is yours alone, rise up and live it" ~Terry Goodkind
|
Remarkable
enthusiast
Reged: 09/30/05
Posts: 326
|
|
Quote:
Sephia said:
While bombing the US has enormous potential, it's just not fair to those of us who are not Bush, Pat Robertson, and a few others.
And it wouldn't be fair to deprive the world of the pulchritudinous deity that is Sephia ;-)
|
PhiPI
stranger
Reged: 11/02/05
Posts: 32
|
|
Quote:
kyrus said:
personally, I think that the USA should be bombed. I think that they should change their currency to the $tupid (in honour of their intelligence and they should all be made to wear orange jumpsuits (so that we don't shoot them by accident)
Wow.  Up until that point I thought what you said was interesting. I would like to point out however that Bush's approval rating is at about 36% meaning a lot more than half of the US population thinks he is taking us in the wrong direction. I for one think he should be impeached. But you are as sadly mistaken as Bush if you try to imply an entire population believes the same as their President, if you think all Americans are Bush-lovers just like 'all Muslims' favor terrorists or "all French students" are protesting. 
|
Sephia
Supreme Goddess
Reged: 11/28/03
Posts: 876
Loc: MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
PhiPI said:
"all French students" are protesting.
Aren't they? Protesting seems to be a national past-time in France.
Remarkable: thanks!
--------------------
"Your life is yours alone, rise up and live it" ~Terry Goodkind
|
PhiPI
stranger
Reged: 11/02/05
Posts: 32
|
|
It seems like the French version of the sixties here in the US. A lot of kids were hippies/ Vietnam war protesters but many from conservative families were not. I don't appreciate the generalization/ stereotyping of a complete national population based on their country's news coverage or government.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
