science vs religion. is it really a fight?

[John Cuthber]

for me, Religion is the spiritual truth. It is ancient, deep, and poetic.

 

Nice words.

What do they actually mean in concrete terms.

i.e. what good are is "spiritual truth"?

[Wolfhnd]

The answer is dogma vs science not science vs religion.

[bioazer]

How do know that the laws of physics exist?

A scientist might say' through observation'.

But have you actually seen the process of evolution with your own eyes? Have you seen the force of gravity?

 

How do we know that God exists?

A theologist might say 'through observation'.

But did you see the creation of the Earth with your own eyes? Have you seen angels?

 

How do we know that anything exists?

There's no absolute way to know that the universe around you is real. Both science and religion are built on axioms that we assume to be true, such as (respectively):

• An object in motion will stay in motion, and an object at rest will stay at rest.
• God is infinite.
• Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
• The universe was created by divine power.

But you can't know that God is good or that if A=B, then B=A other than through speculation. At most, you can use your own flawed physical senses to make observations about the universe, but our senses are really just there to organize input information in a way that we can understand and give us something that is far from an objective observation.

You might argue that science is based more on direct observation than religion. This is not necessarily true.

Let's say that I know nothing of science or theology (which is fairly close to reality, anyways). I see a girl standing in a field, and she is struck by lightning. Seeing this, I might think, "Hmm. I was not struck by lightning. Why? Well, I think that I am a good person. People I know the me that I am a good man. Maybe she is a bad person, and that is why she was struck by lightning."

Or, I might think, "Hmm. I was not struck by lightning. Why? Well, that girl was standing in a field. I am standing under a tree. Maybe she was struck by lightning because she is out in the open."

Perhaps not the greatest example, but I think that it can be applied to most things upon which religious and scientific minds have disagreed. The point is: not only are observations flawed, but any two people could reach totally different conclusions from the same observations.

 

So, back to the question asked by the thread starter. Are science and religion in conflict? Another way to phrase it would be, Can the basic axioms of science be true if the axioms of religion are as well?

The question seems to assume that there is absolute, objective truth which humans can access; but truth appears to be entirely subjective-- or, if not, we have no way of being certain that we can access the absolute truth. Reality is an personal experience. Therefore, my answer to the thread starter would be that they are only in conflict if you think they are.

 

 

(Personally, I believe in science, because it seems to be a more detailed and accurate model of reality.)

Edited April 18, 2016 by bioazer

[Strange]

But have you actually seen the process of evolution with your own eyes? Have you seen the force of gravity?

 

Yes and yes.

 

While I agree with much of what you say, I think you slightly overstate the case.

[Phi for All]

Both science and religion are built on axioms that we assume to be true, such as:

 

• God is infinite.

 

Science assumes nothing about god(s). In fact, science assumes there is nothing supernatural, since we have no evidence to support the idea.

 

God(s) is not a subject science can address until some observational evidence comes to light. Which it never has.

[geordief]

Is this whole religious thing just one big red herring?

 

Is the more fundamental point to make that our human values can be seen as distinct from scientific knowledge?

 

I am not saying that they can fly in the face of scientific knowledge but we do ,in my opinion face a question of whether to give free rein to researchers who can change our lives for good or ill -but most definitely for uncertainty -in an alarmingly short period of time.

 

I appreciate the argument that we are now dependent upon scientific research simply to keep up with the growth of population ( and expectations) on this small planet

 

On the one hand science is a just a (hopefully truthful) tool but on the other it has us running to keep up.

[bioazer]

Phi for All and Strange:

Thanks for your comments. They are completely valid and I apologize if I sound at all presumptuous or like a crackpot, though I probably am both of those things. Please realize that I acknowledge completely that I may be wrong. I'm not attached to this argument except in theory, and I really want to know what you think.

 

Strange: So you say that you've seen the force of gravity with your own eyes? How do you know that particles with mass don't just exert a force on each other because divine forces command it to be so?

How have you seen evolution with your own eyes? How do you know that mystical cosmic forces didn't just put animals on Earth, more or less as they are? (Sorry, don't take that personally. I also believe in evolutionary theory and in physics. This is just for the sake of the argument.)

 

Phi for All: My bad. I should have been clearer. I should have said, "Both science and religion are built on axioms that we assume to be true, such as (respectively):..."

I didn't mean to say that science assumes god to exist.

Edited April 18, 2016 by bioazer

[Strange]

Strange: So you say that you've seen the force of gravity with your own eyes? How do you know that particles with mass don't just exert a force on each other because divine forces command it to be so?

How have you seen evolution with your own eyes? How do you know that mystical cosmic forces didn't just put animals on Earth, more or less as they are?

 

Ah, OK. I see what you mean. There are two different things here: the fact of gravity (and evolution) which we can readily observe. And then the theory (scientific or otherwise) that describes it.

 

Of course, I have seen [the fact of] gravity. It is what keeps me in my chair! So even if someone claims that particles are pushed on by divine forces, that is the the force of gravity.

 

I have also seen numerous experiments that are consistent with our theory of gravity as curved space-time.

 

(Ditto, mutatis mutandis, for evolution.)

 

But theories are just models, they are not about what really exists. But they work; they can produce practical technology, for example.

 

Other explanations (divine forces, invisible pink unicorns, whatever) are possible but they are not evidence-based and are not productive.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Strange

[Phi for All]

Strange: So you say that you've seen the force of gravity with your own eyes? How do you know that particles with mass don't just exert a force on each other because divine forces command it to be so?

 

Because the mechanism we understand is actually easier to support than "divine commanding forces". Can you explain gravity to the degree science does, with the preponderance of supportive evidence, using only divine forces? You can't, not without waving either your hands or a magic wand.

 

How have you seen evolution with your own eyes? How do you know that mystical cosmic forces didn't just put animals on Earth, more or less as they are? (Sorry, don't take that personally. I also believe in evolutionary theory and in physics. This is just for the sake of the argument.)

You can breed fruit flies and set up evolution experiments since they have such short generations, so it's very easy to see evolution with your own eyes. Or you can look at your dog or cat, and see how they've evolved from their own ancestors.

 

Also, if you "believe" in the ToE and physics, why are you arguing against them "for the sake of the argument"? IOW, why put forth these easily refutable arguments if you already accept (much better concept than "believe") them as our best current explanations?

[bioazer]

Of course it's not logical to think that God, an omnipotent, omniscient being (portrayed commonly as a flying dude with a beard) created the earth and plunked a bunch of animals down on it.

My point is, it's impossible to know for sure that one thing is true and another is false. That's all.

I am arguing against them for the sake of the argument because I am trying to have a philosophical discussion and look at things from a more objective point of view. If anyone had said, "Yes, I know that god exists" or "Yes, I know that when we die we get magically spirited away into the sky and live forever", I would ask them, "Really? How?"

[dimreepr]

My point is, it's impossible to know for sure that one thing is true and another is false. That's all.

 

 

Whilst it’s impossible to know that god/s exists, it’s certainly possible to know that atoms exist, that’s the difference; so it’s possible to disprove science, not god/s.

[Strange]

My point is, it's impossible to know for sure that one thing is true and another is false. That's all.

 

Not exactly news.

[dimreepr]

 

Not exactly news

 

 

But who knew?

[Phi for All]

I am arguing against them for the sake of the argument because I am trying to have a philosophical discussion and look at things from a more objective point of view.

 

Then accept the default position, which is that, until we see evidence in support of god(s), we assume they don't exist (like unicorns, and Santa). And we're always ready to change our minds when that evidence becomes available. You can't get more objective than that.

 

So far, we've been able to explain everything we know about without needing anything supernatural.

[Moontanman]

I say we stuff religion in a plastic bag and let it fight for it's breath...

[Phi for All]

I say we stuff religion in a plastic bag and let it fight for it's breath...

 

It was already forced to leave it's last home, and now it's working retail clothing part-time. God of the Gap, as it were.