Theres no place for Religion in Science?

[elizsia]

Yet you have a religion forum?

[iNow]

Think of it like a lightning rod that prevents the strikes from hitting the rest of the house.

[elizsia]

Think of it like a lightning rod that prevents the strikes from hitting the rest of the house.

 

There are many churches,synagogs, mosques and religions, and God made none of them

[iNow]

I agree

Also to the thread title specifically, see: Psychology and/or Sociology and/or Anthropology.

Edit to add: Neuroscience and/or Evolution and/or Systems Theory and/or ad infinitum...

[Strange]

And there are, of course, a very large number of scientists who are religious. There is no inherent conflict. It is only people with an anti-science or anti-religion agenda who create the dichotomy.

[Ophiolite]

Yet you have a religion forum?

Here is a little bit of history for you. (Just as background what I am writing here are facts - not ideas, not opinions, so there will be no need for anyone to get offended or insulted by them.)

 

Two hundred years ago, in the West, science was practiced -as it had been for some time - by people who practiced, for the most part, Christianity. For many the search for a better understanding of God's cosmos was seen as a deeply religious motivation. Many important discoveries were made by practicing clerics. There was thus an intimate relationship between science and religion.

 

But gradually science adopted what is called Methodological Naturalism. This takes the position that science is not well suited to investigate the supernatural and therefore the existence and nature of God is considered irrelevant to the pursuit of science. So, to answer your question, there is no place - currently - for religion in science. However, if we consider religion to be a branch of philosophy (as is science) it is quite reasonable that a religion sub-forum should exist on the site.

[tantalus]

or as a natural phenomenon, an evolutionary, biological product.

[Phi for All]

or as a natural phenomenon, an evolutionary, biological product.

 

But one with great consequences. Our early ability to imagine predators in the shadows may have aided our survival and kept us able to evolve, but it also led to imagining many other things we couldn't see. Most are wishful thinking, a few help us plan for the future. Just like lying; mostly a bad thing, but it also demonstrates that we're focused on a better future.

 

But the cost is very high. When others can just make up stuff and label it "Omnipotence from God", and you believe it's True, you give up any power and critical thought you might have had. You're at the mercy of an untrustworthy explanation, one that the people who made it up want you to take on faith, because rationally it makes no sense.

 

Science is trustworthy. Scientists will stone you with evidence instead of rocks, and won't let anyone get away with guesswork when empirical observation and the scientific method produce measurably more productive results.

[tantalus]

 

But one with great consequences. Our early ability to imagine predators in the shadows may have aided our survival and kept us able to evolve, but it also led to imagining many other things we couldn't see.

A hardwired pascals wager. I remember reading bout the idea, a hypersensitive brain module for agent detection, easy to imagine its selection, and that it could be a major player in religious opinions popularity. Although it seems plausible there would be a series of other selective pressures that would favour religious behaviour that then adopted the underlying mental machinery, as opposed to religion being just an accidental outcome, misuse of this machinery.

Edited January 7, 2016 by tantalus

[DevilSolution]

Think of it like a lightning rod that prevents the strikes from hitting the rest of the house.

But yet (to our knowledge) we our the outcome of lighting hitting the house, given the right chemical and atmospheric conditions....

 

Inhibitors of our our being or....moving into a house and not letting any outsiders welcome.

 

Yet we dont know fully how the house was built or who made it (the 2 points intwine)....

Here is a little bit of history for you. (Just as background what I am writing here are facts - not ideas, not opinions, so there will be no need for anyone to get offended or insulted by them.)

 

Two hundred years ago, in the West, science was practiced -as it had been for some time - by people who practiced, for the most part, Christianity. For many the search for a better understanding of God's cosmos was seen as a deeply religious motivation. Many important discoveries were made by practicing clerics. There was thus an intimate relationship between science and religion.

 

But gradually science adopted what is called Methodological Naturalism. This takes the position that science is not well suited to investigate the supernatural and therefore the existence and nature of God is considered irrelevant to the pursuit of science. So, to answer your question, there is no place - currently - for religion in science. However, if we consider religion to be a branch of philosophy (as is science) it is quite reasonable that a religion sub-forum should exist on the site.

Thats a bit of a leap...science distinguishes the mathematical nature of the universe, by means of logic.

 

Yet it cant comprehend anything beyond its primary constraint of logic, therefore science only applies itself to its own constraints.....in which we choose to apply.

 

Which obviously leads to the mysticism of numerology...

[andrewcellini]

Thats a bit of a leap...science distinguishes the mathematical nature of the universe, by means of logic.

you could come up with a logically consistent, mathematical "theory" of the universe (or some aspect of it), and it could be far off from predicting the actual measurable value associated with whatever phenomenon it is describing. science progresses with more than just logic, there's testing and retesting of theories, finding out for what scales it's valid for etc

 

so what do you mean by "by means of logic?"

Edited January 22, 2016 by andrewcellini

[dimreepr]

so what do you mean by "by means of logic?"

 

 

 

That is a public houses version of ‘common sense’; in other words, by means of the magic nectare

[andrewcellini]

 

 

 

That is a public houses version of ‘common sense’; in other words, by means of the magic nectare

that's the impression that i'm getting

[overtone]

There is little role for the current major religions in science. Nevertheless, science - the body of people who are scientists and their embedding - needs a religion. That it has none, at the moment, is a source of problems.

[andrewcellini]

There is little role for the current major religions in science.

I would go one step further in saying that there is no role for the major or minor religions in science, except as the subject of study. It's not clear to me how religion is or could be related to the scientific method's efficacy.

 

Nevertheless, science - the body of people who are scientists and their embedding - needs a religion.

Why does science need religion? Why do scientists need religion? You do not provide any reasons.

 

Your definition of science is very odd. What do you mean by scientists "embedding?" The word science typically refers to the body of knowledge gathered by the scientific method or the method itself.

 

That it has none, at the moment, is a source of problems.

What problems does having no religion cause for science and scientists? How do these problems arise? You do not provide any reasons, again just empty claims.

Edited January 23, 2016 by andrewcellini

[DevilSolution]

you could come up with a logically consistent, mathematical "theory" of the universe (or some aspect of it), and it could be far off from predicting the actual measurable value associated with whatever phenomenon it is describing. science progresses with more than just logic, there's testing and retesting of theories, finding out for what scales it's valid for etc

 

so what do you mean by "by means of logic?"

By means of science's fundamental basis being logical. True or false, apply epirical data then use logic as proof. Without logic science as a whole is void.

 

And with logic comes constraints....

[John Cuthber]

There is little role for the current major religions in science. Nevertheless, science - the body of people who are scientists and their embedding - needs a religion. That it has none, at the moment, is a source of problems.

Nope.

I don't have a religion.

That's not a problem.

The bloke down the road has a religion.

That's not a problem.

The bloke down the road's religion says he should hate me for not sharing his religion.

That's a problem.

[Ophiolite]

Thats a bit of a leap...science distinguishes the mathematical nature of the universe, by means of logic.

 

Yet it cant comprehend anything beyond its primary constraint of logic, therefore science only applies itself to its own constraints.....in which we choose to apply.

 

Which obviously leads to the mysticism of numerology...

Where was the leap. Everything I posted was a factual account of the nature of science today and in the past. No supposition, no assumption, no inference, no deduction. Just statements of fact.

 

Your second sentence does not parse. Perhaps you could try restating it. As written it makes no sense, though several contradictory interpretations are possible.

 

And your third sentence follows with all the inevitability of badger hunting in the presence of an ocean liner.

[dimreepr]

By means of science's fundamental basis being logical. True or false, apply epirical data then use logic as proof. Without logic science as a whole is void.

 

And with logic comes constraints....

 

 

Surely you mean binary/digital rather than logic?

 

Empirical literally means:

 

“Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.”

 

 

Maybe philosophy, without logic is void but science is safe.

 

 

And with logic comes constraints....

 

 

 

Which are?

There is little role for the current major religions in science. Nevertheless, science - the body of people who are scientists and their embedding - needs a religion. That it has none, at the moment, is a source of problems.

 

 

That’s like saying “atheism is a religion” and is no more problematic than not playing golf.

Edited January 24, 2016 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

Think of it like a lightning rod that prevents the strikes from hitting the rest of the house.

On a related note, why do so many churches have lightning conductors?

[dimreepr]

Because churches believe prevention is better than the cure.

[John Cuthber]

Because churches believe prevention is better than the cure.

Preventing what?

Most insurance companies consider lightning to be an act of God...

[dimreepr]

Preventing what?

 

 

 

Understanding.

[andrewcellini]

By means of science's fundamental basis being logical.

As I pointed out logic is only one part of the scientific method - in predicting the consequences of the theory or hypothesis - but your theory could be only approximately valid for some small scales (if it's valid at all), and you wouldn't know unless you tested it, a lot.

 

True or false, apply epirical data then use logic as proof.

I'm not sure this statement accurately encapsulates the scientific method.

 

 

Without logic science as a whole is void.

Certainly the predictive capability of science would be diminished; we might be left with what could be described as "stamp collecting."

 

And with logic comes constraints....

What are the constraints on science?

[overtone]

On a related note, why do so many churches have lightning conductors?

As a result of considerable argument and passionate debate - the matter was more than a little controversial:

 

http://www.oddlyhistorical.com/2015/04/19/religious-objections-lightning-rods/

 

" In 1767, some 16 years after Franklin’s invention, priests at the Church of San Nazaro in Brecia ignored repeated requests to install what they believed to be a blasphemous device. That year, lightning struck the church tower has it likely had many times before, but this time the Republic of Venice had decided to store thousands of pounds of gunpowder in the church vaults. The strike ignited the stores, and the resulting explosion leveled 1/6 of the city and killed 3,000 people. "

Edited January 25, 2016 by overtone