Reasons for the conflict between religion and science.

[knyazik]

It's so peculiar that there has always been a lot of conflict between religion and science. Why do you guys think that is?

[Phi for All]

It's so peculiar that there has always been a lot of conflict between religion and science. Why do you guys think that is?

 

In science, the best explanations have the most evidence to support them. The methodology trains people who use it to think in terms of ways to verify observations, set up experiments that test an idea and allow accurate predictions to be made. The explanations can then be trusted to be the best available to us.

 

Religion doesn't use evidence. In fact, many people think faith is worthless if you're asking for evidence. So religious beliefs are emotionally based, not tied to reason of any kind.

 

The conflict happens, imo, because you can't reason with someone who came to a conclusion without using reason. The less we actually know about something, the more susceptible we are to misinformation about it. We're easily fooled when we accept something as true (or worse, True) without knowing very much about it.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

The above answer is simplistic at best, science is proven through verification, while religion is basically hocus pocus. Those of faith will tell you their history and current dogma is ripe with verification "To Them" both personally and by second hand account (Their stories). But this in and off itself does not make science and religion at odds with each other. The real problem here is that science chalks it's unknowns up to a as yet undiscovered (verifiable) scientific reality, whereas the religions reality is conceptual, or hypothesized or theoretical without means to .... worth while to note that some science apparently is on that same course, but while they can look as it were for their reality, religion has a time, expiration issue. In doing vast research in both fields, at this point, seem to me they are both even if you equate science theory to creation dogma. Different words to explain, but both leave you at the same point. ie. God say's let there be light, science say Big bang, God separate the firmament, science says plate tectonics, God makes life after it's own kind, science says evolution, Can you see the correlation, the roots of religion say's there are other dimensions (meta-physical) Quantum mechanics say's the same thing, and on and on it's goes. If they are at odds its by bias of science. And this is not an endorsement of religion, since religion wholeheartedly is man made.

 

To some degree on religion I cant see where these stories come from completely devoid of facts, very little in the way of stories can live without some basis in some reality, like writing a story about something, how can you make such a story without it having no relation to any thing not already know, even if the story is highly convoluted. it has to relate to something factual at least in premise.

[iNow]

Religion often pretends to know things it does not know and ends the conversation with the nonanswer of "goddidit." Science asks, "hmm, I wonder how that works. I want to go find out."

 

One is about telling a story and the other is about testing it. One is about accepting a narrative based on faith and the other is about rejecting things shown by evidence to be untrue.

 

Science is deemed true because of the facts wherein religion is deemed true in spite of them.

 

The magisteria DO overlap, and when you realize this a potentially worldview altering choice must be made. Would you rather accept a profound uncertainty or a comforting fiction, because it's logically incoherent to try to entertain both in parallel as if they're equally true and valid.

[swansont]

Science is about describing how the world works, involving observation and confirmation that the word actually works that way. Models must conform to observation.

 

An ideology tells the world how to work. Observation must conform to ideology.

 

I don't see how they can not be in conflict.

[Strange]

There doesn't have to be a conflict. If you insist that your religion tells you that raindrops fall upwards, then this conflicts with observation.

 

But if your religion says that you should find out how the world works and discover more about your God's creation by examining and testing reality then there will be no conflict. This is how many scientists worked in the past (and some still do).

[ydoaPs]

There doesn't have to be a conflict. If you insist that your religion tells you that raindrops fall upwards, then this conflicts with observation.

 

But if your religion says that you should find out how the world works and discover more about your God's creation by examining and testing reality then there will be no conflict. This is how many scientists worked in the past (and some still do).

 

If your religion says there's an immaterial God that has intervened even once in the universe or if your religion says that there are immaterial souls that interact with bodies, then it conflicts with science. Well, there goes most religion. As others were saying, not only does the content (that darn conservation of energy!) of science conflict with the content of religion (gods and souls), but also the very epistemology of science and religion are incompatible. Using a belief in a deity as inspiration doesn't change that.

 

Then there's the historical fact that until very recently, organized religion has been opposed to advances in science. Or, if you're in America, organized religion is against advances in science that happened hundreds of years ago. Though, to be fair, on their timeline, those advances happened microseconds ago.

[Strange]

 

If your religion says there's an immaterial God that has intervened even once in the universe

 

The idea that a god created the universe at the big bang is (currently) just as plausible as any of the other hypotheses. You might say that is a "god of the gaps" argument, but it could be that a god created the "laws of physics" etc that allowed the universe (and life) to evolve to its current state.

 

Of course, "miracles" are a problem. But if they remain one-off events that only have anecdotal evidence and so are untestable, then they are probably out of the scope of scientific investigation.

 

or if your religion says that there are immaterial souls that interact with bodies, then it conflicts with science

 

I don't think it is (again, currently) possible to prove that the mind (soul?) is not an external entity that "drives" the brain.

 

But I'm not the right person to be defending these ideas ... as I don't believe them!

[swansont]

 

Of course, "miracles" are a problem. But if they remain one-off events that only have anecdotal evidence and so are untestable, then they are probably out of the scope of scientific investigation.

 

But only one group will insist that they are indeed miracles, defying the laws of nature. Science is much more open to saying "we don't have enough evidence to draw a conclusion". An ideology leans more toward absolute certainty regardless of the existence of evidence.

[ydoaPs]

The idea that a god created the universe at the big bang is (currently) just as plausible as any of the other hypotheses.

Actually, it's not, since the universe already existed at the Big Bang and there's no sense in which the universe ever not existed.

 

 

I don't think it is (again, currently) possible to prove that the mind (soul?) is not an external entity that "drives" the brain.

Well, you're wrong. It is actually quite easy to prove. We have a thing called 'conservation of energy'. Brains have moving parts and they have energy moving all around. If this is due to an immaterial soul, then energy is being produced from nothing. That is, conservation of energy is false. So, yeah, it's your belief in souls or your belief in physics.

[Phi for All]

I think humans in general feel the need to be as certain as possible about something. There is much that's uncertain, so those things we feel we can believe in seem like safe haven in a storm of doubt.

 

I think this is why so many join religions, because they seem so certain of their beliefs. And you don't have to study as hard, since the textbooks are open to a multitude of interpretations.

 

For those who study science, religion seems sloppy and baseless. It lacks the rigor that scientists need to feel something can be trusted.

The above answer is simplistic at best, science is proven through verification, while religion is basically hocus pocus.

And the winner of this week's Irate Irony Award goes to....

[cladking]

"The above answer is simplistic at best, science is proven through verification, while religion is basically hocus pocus."

 

 

And the winner of this week's Irate Irony Award goes to....

 

It's even more ironic from my perspective since I see religion as the confusion of ancient science. It's the fact that its ultimate origin contained science that makes it ring true to people today even though its presentation is usually "hocus pocus".

 

Dr Funkenstein certainly has a point though which is that science is little more able to explain reality than religion. I'd go further and say that in a very real way many people who practice science do it much like religious people practice religion.

 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,
but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with
it." -Max Planck

...Or as I often say, scientific change is demographic in nature.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Actually, it's not, since the universe already existed at the Big Bang and there's no sense in which the universe ever not existed.

 

 

 

Well, you're wrong. It is actually quite easy to prove. We have a thing called 'conservation of energy'. Brains have moving parts and they have energy moving all around. If this is due to an immaterial soul, then energy is being produced from nothing. That is, conservation of energy is false. So, yeah, it's your belief in souls or your belief in physics.

So for discussion sake, the universe always existed, as the God crew will state, so did God.

 

Conservation of energy, Immaterial soul thereby being the energy produced by the material of the brains. Clone the body complete, reproduce the immaterial soul in God like fashion, which by the way is the roots of the mysteries which gave religion life. No real difference there. Snakes maintain life within hours after obvious death an example perhaps of the conservation of energy after the body whole is exstinguished. The Sun is a conservatory of energy, no know external resources contribute to this source of energy, out side of what's contained witin it, which is the same thing of it's material, energy.So apperently energy is capable of conserving itself. Indeed forms of energy on our playing field does not conserve, on the cosmological playing field, the possibilities are endless, lol ripe for a explantion of a God head figure or in science terms an unknown variable.

[Strange]

"Dr Funkenstein certainly has a point though which is that science is little more able to explain reality than religion. I'd go further and say that in a very real way many people who practice science do it much like religious people practice religion.

 

Then you would be wrong.

 

 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,

but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with

it." -Max Planck

 

If Planck actually said that, it is also rather ironic. The paradigm-changing theory he helped develop was well accepted in his lifetime.

 

Just goes to show that even good scientists can have erroneous beliefs.

[swansont]

 

If Planck actually said that, it is also rather ironic. The paradigm-changing theory he helped develop was well accepted in his lifetime.

 

Just goes to show that even good scientists can have erroneous beliefs.

 

I don't think he was wrong, per se, but one must note that he did not claim that all scientists who thought "A" was true become opponents of the new idea "B". The opponents could be very few in number.

 

IOW, in any circumstance, a few scientists are especially prone to the foibles that are part and parcel of the human condition. Which should surprise absolutely nobody.

I'd go further and say that in a very real way many people who practice science do it much like religious people practice religion.

 

 

Asserted with no supporting evidence. Other than "proof by quotation", which is not an actual thing. By all means, introduce this in a new thread (as it's OT here). I'm sure many would be happy to dismantle it. Again.

[Strange]

 

I don't think he was wrong, per se, but one must note that he did not claim that all scientists who thought "A" was true become opponents of the new idea "B". The opponents could be very few in number.

 

Indeed. Famously, Einstein was among those who were never entirely happy with the full implications of quantum mechanics.

[cladking]

 

 

 

Just goes to show that even good scientists can have erroneous beliefs.

 

 

And they can be real wordy, too, eh?

 

 

 

IOW, in any circumstance, a few scientists are especially prone to the foibles that are part and parcel of the human condition. Which should surprise absolutely nobody.

 

 

 

This kindda sums up every post I've made here.

 

I use different words but scientists are first and foremost people and what defines people has always been language. It is not consciousness, intelligence, or compassion. It is the ability to pass knowledge across generations through use of a language which becomes the basis of thought as soon as we learn it.

[ydoaPs]

So for discussion sake, the universe always existed, as the God crew will state, so did God.

 

Conservation of energy, Immaterial soul thereby being the energy produced by the material of the brains. Clone the body complete, reproduce the immaterial soul in God like fashion, which by the way is the roots of the mysteries which gave religion life. No real difference there. Snakes maintain life within hours after obvious death an example perhaps of the conservation of energy after the body whole is exstinguished. The Sun is a conservatory of energy, no know external resources contribute to this source of energy, out side of what's contained witin it, which is the same thing of it's material, energy.So apperently energy is capable of conserving itself. Indeed forms of energy on our playing field does not conserve, on the cosmological playing field, the possibilities are endless, lol ripe for a explantion of a God head figure or in science terms an unknown variable.

I'd respond, but I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Phi for All]

Dr Funkenstein certainly has a point though which is that science is little more able to explain reality than religion.

 

If you really feel this way (and I assume it's a feeling, since it has no basis in fact), why would you waste 467 posts worth of your time here?

[cladking]

 

If you really feel this way (and I assume it's a feeling, since it has no basis in fact), why would you waste 467 posts worth of your time here?

 

It is my considered opinion that logic and facts are a very poor means to learn about nature but they are the only tools we have. As such it's only natural to try to learn about nature in terms of the logic of modern science and the facts that it has discovered. In this pursuit of learning about nature I stumbled on another means and for the main part my interest is in convincing people not only that this other means is viable but that it also once existed as a species wide means to learn about nature.

 

Of course in the process my long held beliefs about the need to focus more on metaphysics and observation in education come to the fore. The natue of knowledge and the nature of what it is to be human are related to this as well. This is why many of my posts are on the philosophy forum and often concern the philosophy of science and the implications of scientific knowledge (especially as it relates to metaphysics). Unfortunately many of my newer ideas are thought to be speculative because of the way they were acquired so many posts are in speculations as well.

 

There is great similarity between scientific and religious precepts which might be caused by the process which I've stated many times; they both originated in observation. Dr Funkenstein is simply acknowledging these similarities. Humans once anthropomorphized nature and the antropomorphization still exists in the perspective caused by language and many people percieve it as "God". In a sense we're hard wired to "believe" but more accurately people need something solid to believe in and many can't find it outside religion. It's extremely difficult to exist at all without beliefs today so most people come to believe in science or religion. The two are by no means mutually exclusive. The biggest difference is to get started in religion you must have a belief but to get started in science you must not have beliefs. But the end points are much less different than people percieve. We percieve a huge difference but only because science casts off technology and religion doesn't. This is a fluke though caused by the nature of modern scientific knowledge and the means to acquire it.

[John Cuthber]

 

It is my considered opinion that logic and facts are a very poor means to learn about nature but they are the only tools we have. As such it's only natural to try to learn about nature in terms of the logic of modern science and the facts that it has discovered. In this pursuit of learning about nature I stumbled on another means and for the main part my interest is in convincing people not only that this other means is viable but that it also once existed as a species wide means to learn about nature.

 

That should be easy.

Show us an example of something that you have discovered using this "other means".

If it s any use, you should be able to do that.

Of course if you show us something which turns out to be wrong, you will have shown that this "other means" simply doesn't work and you can stop spending more time on it.

(It's probably better to start a new thread about that)

Edited October 2, 2014 by John Cuthber

[cladking]

Logical science is not only not as effective (technology) as experimental science but it's not as productive (progress). But more importantly I've done little more in redeveloping it than finding its defining characteristics and getting a peek at what the practitioners knew at a specific point in time and how they deduced it. That this science just happened to be similar to the way I already thought really confers little advantage in making progress in modern science or even my limited understanding of it. I have little doubt that logical science can be developed based on new definitions or old and that it will be more effective in some limited areas of research mostly in the soft sciences and in any area that can someday have its terms defined in a digital form.

 

The primary advantage of logical science is that it's the only tool nature gives to its creations to help survive individually and collectively. As this science advanced people simply obeyed its rules until it was no longer possible to do so as language became too complex. Man didn't thrive and arrive from the caves because he had thumbs, intelligence, or superstitions but because language allowed him to pass knowledge down through the generations. In those days language also fascilitated the ability to work cooperatively but this didn't reappear until the invention of modern scientific language and people could see the technology it spawned.

 

Even if this ancient science were superior I couldn't simply begin explaning things in it that I don't understand in terms of modern science because it is first an foremost just a distinct perspective for viewing reality rather than a look at reality itself. Amun is still hidden no matter what vantage is taken. It is only through observation and experiment, and if I'm right, a specific logic, that reality can be seen. Every once in a while I do get a glimpse of a new way to see a scientific concept but I can't be certain that this is the way the ancients saw it or if it's the way they would have seen it if they were advanced enough. My guess is it's the former since they were apparently rather well advanced (and I'm less so compared to total knowledge).

 

To some extent there is a natural hybridization of ancient and modern science. People use logic at every step of the scientific process and even in observation Itself. But what isn't understood is that this logic is language dependent where ancient language was logic dependent. It's very difficult to even understand the nature of language from our perspective which is why there is the utter nonsense on which a great deal of thought is founded, "I think therefore I am". One thinks in language which he must learn and all animals have consciousness.

 

Our perspective is the best way to view very very few things and language is poor for communication. Simply recognizing these facts will go a very long way toward correcting them.

Let me provide an example of this different perspective.

 

Everyone who's ever had a eureka moment knows that an object floating in water displaces its own weight of the water (or only its volume if it sinks). But the ancients wouldn't have seen it this way. They looked at everything from the inside so would have thought of bouyancy as the vector sum total of the increased force of the vessel's pushing back. If you place a weight in a flask of water on a scale the increased weight matches the weight of the object. This object raises the water level but it also pushes down on the bottom of the container which must push back up to contain the water and object. The vector sum total is in balance.

 

They probably couldn't do all the math but this wasn't important because they threw out every thing after the second digit anyway. We understand this as the eye of horus casting off 1/ 64th but this is just a confusion of their beliefs. They couldn't measure most things extremely accurately anyway and in the real world getting things to within 1/ 64th was sufficient. Their math was different than ours and no one has figured it out yet but I suspect it was ordinally based.

 

I believe, as time goes on there will be more ties seen between religious beliefs and modern science because religion is a confusion of ancient science and it studied the exact same thing modern science does: Amun. We mistakingly believe "amun" is "the hidden god" but in actuality "god" meant "natural phenomenon" and "hidden is merely a description of "amun" who was in a sense reality itself. And, yes, there is some reason to believe "amen" is derived from (a confusion of) "amun".

 

 

 

 

edited for minor clarification and typos.

Edited October 2, 2014 by cladking

[John Cuthber]

That should be easy.

Show us an example of something that you have discovered using this "other means".

If it s any use, you should be able to do that.

Of course if you show us something which turns out to be wrong, you will have shown that this "other means" simply doesn't work and you can stop spending more time on it.

(It's probably better to start a new thread about that)

[Eise]

In the first place it is of course that religion states its 'truths' without (enough) empirical support. When science discovers that it is not so as was stated in religion, then there is a conflict.

 

Then the conflict continues, because there is much more attached to the religious 'truths': religious people think that the meaning of life and the morality of people depends on their 'truths'. Also their social cohesion is based on these 'truths', so they stick to them, and science becomes a threat.

[/backslash/]

Depending on your view, religion could either be a different theory to describe the univers or could be contained within the Standard Theory. Maybe God is not really what we think. In the Bible, I believe, it says something vaguely like, 'God is in all things, and in all things is intelligence'. Einstein's experiment showed that two certain particles 'know' each other's spin when produced, no matter where they are, right? This is a kind of intelligence. Could God be a description of quantum information/the laws of physics?