Battle : Science vs. Religion

[Genius13]

Ok lets see who wins

[timo]

Is religion allowed to play with an infallible almighty god?

[tomgwyther]

There exists no battle between science and religion. They are mutually devoid of each other.

[Appolinaria]

or do they mutually explain each other?

[Phi for All]

Science and religion are tools, used for different purposes. One attempts to explain the natural world, the other the supernatural.

[peterk301]

I have to agree with Phi for All, and it becomes very pointless to suggest there should be some kind of battle between science and religion to see which side "wins." That attitude is often held by people who are encouraging scientism, not just science, and within this group are people I suspect who want to use science in whatever way possible, though not explicitly to prove God doesn't exist, to weaken the argument in favor of the existence of God as much as scientific methods will allow. They are putting out the kind of research you see in a review I wrote of a study called "Divine intuition: Cognitive Style Influences Belief in God." This research tried to suggest that the intuition associated with sloppy, first impression type of thinking, i.e., the type that isn't likely to get you the correct answer to a tricky math problem, is the same thinking pattern that people use when they report they believe in God. But these researchers don't even say it like this. They say they have the evidence to show that intuitive thinking is a cause for belief in God itself. It's really outrageous, and I certainly hope it's not some new trend in psychology. You can read why I find this an abuse of scientific methods at the critique I wrote on the study here: http://scientismtime...tive-style.html or here: http://scientismtime...in-god/#respond

 

And I'll say this too, there is nothing "close-minded" about thinking critically about what the psychology of faith and science may have to say about God, religions, or spirituality. It isn't a "war" of science vs. religion. It's about understanding the limitations that a scientific approach has when it comes to understanding faith despite the cultural values that often try to replace God with science.

Edited October 18, 2011 by peterk301

[Appolinaria]

science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

not everything is explained by a system... like our universe in it's entirety. it just came into existence... there is no force acting upon it entirely, because that would imply something outside of it.... so is that where the supernatural comes in? if so, then the supernatural created, harbors, and allows all science. that means it even surpasses it in importance.

if we cannot scientifically prove something, it is supernatural. mass attracts to mass because of gravity. it is a constant effect that is explained by the force of gravity. so if science is constant, what is the force behind it? you must use science to explain science for the supernatural to not exist.

there must be a system behind something that is measurable. if our universe is measurable, what is the system behind it? if there is no system behind the constants of our universe, it breaks the definition of science. therefore the force behind it is supernatural.

if science claims it exists, but there are no other universes, it contradicts itself.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Appolinaria

[questionposter]

Science is a religion so this argument makes no sense. In science we must put faith that scientists are writing equations correctly and correctly describing the patterns they see and that they are writing the correct equations for them and interpreting those equations and using those equations correctly. This is why science can change so much. Our previous thinking was just a belief, and new evidence suggests another belief.

Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter

[iNow]

Is religion allowed to play with an infallible almighty god?

This is sort of an irrelevant question. I don't suspect that imaginary friends have much influence whatsoever on "the game," only on how participants play it.

[questionposter]

This is sort of an irrelevant question. I don't suspect that imaginary friends have much influence whatsoever on "the game," only on how participants play it.

 

Imaginary number's don't exist as real numbers yet I can still say x^2+25 = 0 at plus or minus the quantity of five times the imaginary number "i"

 

x^2+25 factors to be

 

(x+5i)(x-5i)

 

In fact, even your name is imaginary. It's "Imaginary Now"

Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter

[iNow]

I'd offer you a response, but I recognize through experience that there's no point.

Edited October 19, 2011 by iNow

[Genius13]

i think religion keeps us down

for instance a lot of religiouse people still dont belive in evolution, some dont want to be scientist but want to fight with them, and then we spen ALOT of money on churches and other religiouse stuff..

noow picture a world without religion.. we would already have a base on mars

[kla2]

I would suggest that one difference between science and religion is how one perceives the potential of natural reason. Early medieval thinkers considered philosophy or theology as a 'spiritual' undertaking and that reason could arrive at knowledge in it's own right. That set up the early conflicts with the church as empirical process began to offer proofs that offered evidence contrary to the assumptions of reason. What I hope should be obvious from history is that reason by itself has limitations, what ever claims of logic are made for it and secure knowledge requires the additional confirmation that empirical scrutiny provides.

[Ophiolite]

Science is a religion so this argument makes no sense.

You must be using a very special definition of religion in order to make that statement. Would you give us your definition of religion and explain in what sense, based on that definition, science is a religion.

 

In science we must put faith that scientists are writing equations correctly and correctly describing the patterns they see and that they are writing the correct equations for them and interpreting those equations and using those equations correctly.

This is not just badly phrased, or slightly incorrect. This is fundamentally, completely, irrevocably, absolutely wrong. The whole point about science is that all the results, all the equations can be subject to verification by others. Not only can they be, but they must be. The scientific process requires that. There is not a single scientific finding that I must accept on faith. I can investigate everyone of them if I choose to. Faith, in the sense you use it, is not a part of science.

 

This is why science can change so much. Our previous thinking was just a belief, and new evidence suggests another belief.

So, according to you science changes because we must place faith in scientists, when in fact it changes because we do not place faith in scientists. You have it bass ackwards.

[CaptainPanic]

Science and religion have, and their very cores, a completely different set of assumptions. Therefore, the two are never going to be able to defeat the other.

 

When they fight, the fight will continue forever, and at the end both will still be standing.

[questionposter]

You must be using a very special definition of religion in order to make that statement. Would you give us your definition of religion and explain in what sense, based on that definition, science is a religion.

 

 

This is not just badly phrased, or slightly incorrect. This is fundamentally, completely, irrevocably, absolutely wrong. The whole point about science is that all the results, all the equations can be subject to verification by others. Not only can they be, but they must be. The scientific process requires that. There is not a single scientific finding that I must accept on faith. I can investigate everyone of them if I choose to. Faith, in the sense you use it, is not a part of science.

 

So, according to you science changes because we must place faith in scientists, when in fact it changes because we do not place faith in scientists. You have it bass ackwards.

 

Many people who like science would like to think that science is not a religion because they view being superior to others simply because of that assumption. However, it is wrong to assume beliefs are not heavily involved in science. How do I know that you fall to Earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second? I don't see the number 9.8 floating around anywhere, the numbers don't even exist. We base some science on observation but we base the explanation merely on our own thought processes and continue to base things off of those. I'm not saying science isn't unique, but if I get a result, I don't know how everything works, so the only thing I can do is come up with what I believe to be correct. Dalton believed there was a smallest unit of an atom and that it can't be broken down, and since he didn't know anything other than what he thought, to him the model was correct. You have to believe that things are 100%, true, though I suppose if you accept the fact that we can't be 100% sure of any of it, then you could get around this. I don't think I'm wasting my time studying physics, because I'm pretty confident that the scientists who came up with all the info were correctly assuming the explanations and writing the correct patterns and interpreting those patterns correctly, but there's still a chance they were wrong, and that's because it is a belief that they are 100% correct, not a fact.

Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter

[imatfaal]

Science and religion have, and their very cores, a completely different set of assumptions. Therefore, the two are never going to be able to defeat the other.

 

When they fight, the fight will continue forever, and at the end both will still be standing.

 

And both will be claiming that they won on points

[mississippichem]

Questionposter: what value for g have all the other religions predicted? Science is not a religion, you do in fact have it bass ackwards. You can go out and measure gravitational acceleration yourself. Believing something that is supported by such a mountain of data, experience, and logic hardly requires faith. Now can you go out and test any claim made by any religion? I think you will see the difference quickly once you try to falsify a true "faith based" claim.

[Phi for All]

Science is a religion so this argument makes no sense. In science we must put faith that scientists are writing equations correctly and correctly describing the patterns they see and that they are writing the correct equations for them and interpreting those equations and using those equations correctly. This is why science can change so much. Our previous thinking was just a belief, and new evidence suggests another belief.

From this reply, I can't decide whether you don't belong here or whether you need this forum more than anything.

 

 

When they fight, the fight will continue forever, and at the end both will still be standing.

Because they will be on different battlefields, facing in different directions, armed with weapons that are useless on each other.

[questionposter]

Questionposter: what value for g have all the other religions predicted? Science is not a religion, you do in fact have it bass ackwards. You can go out and measure gravitational acceleration yourself. Believing something that is supported by such a mountain of data, experience, and logic hardly requires faith. Now can you go out and test any claim made by any religion? I think you will see the difference quickly once you try to falsify a true "faith based" claim.

 

Here's the thing though: Even if someone provides evidence of a new understanding, you can still chose to believe an old theory. You have to believe that an explanation is correct, and you have to believe that the right equations are being developed to describe reality and the unseeable. That's it. There's only 99.999% probability it's correct if there's a lot of evidence but you have to believe that it's 100% accurate in order to base other understanding off of it. It's like an assumption, which is a belief.

Edited October 19, 2011 by questionposter

[John Cuthber]

Science and religion are tools, used for different purposes. One attempts to explain the natural world, the other the supernatural.

It's important to realise that the natural world includes everything around us; the earth, life, love, the human mind, everything.

That's what science seeks to explain, and religion is trying to explain what's left over i.e things that don't exist.

[the asinine cretin]

It's important to realise that the natural world includes everything around us; the earth, life, love, the human mind, everything.

That's what science seeks to explain, and religion is trying to explain what's left over i.e things that don't exist.

 

This strikes me as a bit hasty. There may be assumptions here - about the nature of reality and the scope scientific methodology - that are not true. I think there are facets of human experience in which questions are not adequately addressed scientifically. Does this automatically validate existing religions or the concept of religion in general? Of course not. But I would not say that existence is wholly reducible to the scientific. Are you sure about this? To my way of thinking, the grounding of scientific truth is a negative pragmatism and this actually justifies a deep openness to the unknown. To absolutize our concept of science and its methods is unwarranted.

 

For example, there may exist an infinite multiverse, the nature of which is completely beyond our powers of comprehension or even the range of our mathematical toolkit (or just in some way outside the scope of science - forever inaccessible perhaps). Okay, but then it doesn't exist, right? It's unknowable. In some subjective sense, I suppose; but it may be knowable to descendants of ours millions of years from now, and either way, if it exists, it is "reality." The problem I have is simply this: the assertion that scientific epistemology defines the actual bounds of reality.

 

And no, I'm not trying to validate religion per se; I only suggest - if I may invoke the Hitchhiker's Guide - that we may be like tea leaves trying to understand the history of the East India Company.

 

On a more personal note, I am fairly open to the possibility of something that might be called the supernatural. Perhaps that is not the ideal word. I find philosophical problems of mind, the ontology of mathematics, the experience of personhood, and many other things, to be quite suggestive of largely unknown vistas of reality. I must be clear that I reject illogic, bad epistemology, pseudo-science, superstition, and the like. That is not where I'm trying to go with this.

[Phi for All]

This strikes me as a bit hasty. There may be assumptions here - about the nature of reality and the scope scientific methodology - that are not true. I think there are facets of human experience in which questions are not adequately addressed scientifically. Does this automatically validate existing religions or the concept of religion in general? Of course not. But I would not say that existence is wholly reducible to the scientific. Are you sure about this? To my way of thinking, the grounding of scientific truth is a negative pragmatism and this actually justifies a deep openness to the unknown. To absolutize our concept of science and its methods is unwarranted.

 

For example, there may exist an infinite multiverse, the nature of which is completely beyond our powers of comprehension or even the range of our mathematical toolkit (or just in some way outside the scope of science - forever inaccessible perhaps). Okay, but then it doesn't exist, right? It's unknowable. In some subjective sense, I suppose; but it may be knowable to descendants of ours millions of years from now, and either way, if it exists, it is "reality." The problem I have is simply this: the assertion that scientific epistemology defines the actual bounds of reality.

 

And no, I'm not trying to validate religion per se; I only suggest - if I may invoke the Hitchhiker's Guide - that we may be like tea leaves trying to understand the history of the East India Company.

 

On a more personal note, I am fairly open to the possibility of something that might be called the supernatural. Perhaps that is not the ideal word. I find philosophical problems of mind, the ontology of mathematics, the experience of personhood, and many other things, to be quite suggestive of largely unknown vistas of reality. I must be clear that I reject illogic, bad epistemology, pseudo-science, superstition, and the like. That is not where I'm trying to go with this.

John Cuthber is right, though. We call it supernatural because it's not observable in the scientific sense. If it exists at all, it will at some point be observable, testable and therefore predictable, which means it's natural.

 

The supernatural are all things that defy observation. Ghosts, gods, telekinesis, these things fail in every experiment ever devised. They don't want to manifest themselves in a predictable manner. Until they change that, science has to simply shrug.

 

Saying something doesn't exist is not saying it's impossible. If someone suddenly stepped forward and was able to prove they could move objects with their minds, and passed every test people put them to, when every other possibility was ruled out science would have to conclude that telekinesis is a natural phenomenon.

[timo]

It's a bit sad that some people seem to take this thread seriously.

[Appolinaria]

seems like the supernatural explains the possibility, science explains reality

 

 

of course it should be taken seriously.. science makes anything supernatural obsolete. they involve each other

Edited October 19, 2011 by Appolinaria