Theres no place for Religion in Science?

[MigL]

I'm sorry, I know it was a tragic event: But I can't help laughing out loud.

[DevilSolution]

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.

The leap is in the fact science has no place is attempting to unfold what could be deemed as supernatural (such as the big bang etc)

 

My statement regarding science and logic is by means of constraint. Whether we agree or disagree mathematics is founded on logic its undebatable that whatever mathematical truths of nature are defined as are by there own definition logical. Either the equation is true or false, proved using empirical evidence. As for its constraint and application this is simply seen with contradicting yet verifiable theories in science such as quantum physics and classical. We choose to apply either or as required yet neither can hold as logically right. This then is our own human constraint on mental capacity to understand and apply such logic.

 

What are the constraints on science?

Human capability to comprehend or abstract logic.

[Strange]

The leap is in the fact science has no place is attempting to unfold what could be deemed as supernatural (such as the big bang etc)

 

There is no reason to think that the big bang is supernatural.

[John Cuthber]

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. "

More "act of clod" than "act of God".

The leap is in the fact science has no place is attempting to unfold what could be deemed as supernatural (such as the big bang etc)

 

 

And who are you to tell science what it can and can't do?

Why do you think that you get to decide what's supernatural?

Edited January 25, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

The leap is in the fact science has no place is attempting to unfold what could be deemed as supernatural (such as the big bang etc)

 

Others have pointed this out, but your definition of supernatural isn't helping you discuss this subject effectively. It's just causing everyone else confusion, so it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you. It ain't working.

[andrewcellini]

Human capability to comprehend or abstract logic.

This is a bit of a confusing sentence to respond to. Are you saying that these are two possible constraints or did you mean to say "comprehension of?"

 

If it's the latter, then what are the limits to human comprehension? I agree that it's a possible constraint, though I'm not sure how it's a fault of logic rather than a fault of the "hardware" and its evolution.

[DevilSolution]

 

There is no reason to think that the big bang is supernatural.

Theres no reason not to, infact the scientific limitation almost defines that the cause is unattainable, thus if we cant explain it using any natural method it most likely ìs not natural. Call it supernatural, un-natural or possibly a paradox of logic if you want.

 

I say almost because science has the discretion of probability. I cant say for certain science is unable to explain the cause of the big bang, but given certain physical laws and time, its fairly safe to say whatever caused the big bang is beyond the realms of any imaginable science. Unless you can imagine what the "natural" cause could be?

 

And if you wish to debate what is or isnt scientifically possible, we need only look at the constraint of human comprehension to realize if it were scientifically attainable (cause of the big bang), we wouldnt be able to attain it because even the best of us are limited to the capabilities of the brain, it has finite ability. If you devolve further into AI then science or even nature to that extent becomes an extension of logic or atleast percieved nature would be an extension of logic (as computers are based in pure boolean logic).

 

Essentially humans are not capable of explaining the cause of the big bang because its beyond our logical comprehension, regardless of whether science can obtain the answer.

 

As a side note, regarding any unknown phenomena, such as the inside of a black hole or dark energy. When would a scientist concede that its supernatural? (for clarification i define it in terms of not abiding by the laws of nature / physics)

 

 

 

Others have pointed this out, but your definition of supernatural isn't helping you discuss this subject effectively. It's just causing everyone else confusion, so it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you. It ain't working.

Forget using a perfect circle, thats more of a philosophy, like the belief numbers are somehow mystic and hold the true answers to the universe.

 

My use of big bang, black holes, dark energy etc fall well within the definition of supernatural

 

1.adjective (of a manifistation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

 

The events being the big bang etc..

 

So because the creation / cause of the big bang is beyond scientific knowledge (and as the laws of nature are defined by scientific knowledge (although it need only fit one criteria)) the big bang is by definition supernatural, or of supernatural orogin.

 

This is true for any unexplainable phenomena such as dark energy or quantum entanglement etc...

 

Causing confusion could be a gòod thing if its expanding someones comprehension, and as for it not working its upto you guys to counter me or accept that there are supernatural forces that currently exist.

 

Im simply holding my position.

 

Also to clarify a religious scientist would "probably" be as intent in figuring out "the mind of god" as it would be revealing gòds genius or such.

 

More "act of clod" than "act of God".

 

And who are you to tell science what it can and can't do?

Why do you think that you get to decide what's supernatural?

In what reference are you refering to in regards to my dictatorship of science?

 

First, humankind dictates science, therefore science is and can only ever advance as far as humans take it. As your aware humans are intellectually and logically constrained. We are limited by our comprehension, abstract understanding and logical confinements. There will be an absolute limit to this, a point beyond which we cant comprehend. Even a polymath savant (if such a thing could exist) would be limited....so i am the one telling you that science cant be any more advanced than its creator.....it also has technical limits, like the speed of EM beyond which nothing travels faster than. And due to apparatus we can only measure so small, i think planck units are the smallest.

 

Secondly again in reference to what? Pi not existing in nature yet being used in formula's? So

Supernatural formula = natural force

And as a = b hence b = a

Natural formula = supernatural force.

 

Please correct me if im wrong,

 

 

However if your refering to unexplainable phenomena such as the big bang, dark energy, quantum entanglement etc then the very definition of supernatural is an event that science cant explain or that defy the laws of nature (like pi).

Edited January 30, 2016 by DevilSolution

[Strange]

Theres no reason not to, infact the scientific limitation almost defines that the cause is unattainable

 

Does it? Citation needed.

 

thus if we cant explain it using any natural method it most likely ìs not natural.

 

Not being able to explain things does not make them supernatural. It just means we can't (currently) explain them.

 

 

 

This is true for any unexplainable phenomena such as dark energy or quantum entanglement etc...

 

These are not unexplainable.

 

However if your refering to unexplainable phenomena such as the big bang, dark energy, quantum entanglement etc then the very definition of supernatural is an event that science cant explain or that defy the laws of nature (like pi).

 

All of those things are explainable by (or even already explained by) science. None defy the laws of nature.

 

You appear to have a very idiosyncratic definition of "supernatural". You seem to be using it to mean "not fully understood".

 

A great many disagreements on this forum come about because people insist on using their own made up definitions for words.

 

Doing that is very brave. And, of course, when I say "brave" I mean foolish.

 

 

Please correct me if im wrong,

 

You are wrong.

[DevilSolution]

 

Does it? Citation needed.

 

 

Not being able to explain things does not make them supernatural. It just means we can't (currently) explain them.

 

 

 

These are not unexplainable.

 

 

All of those things are explainable by (or even already explained by) science. None defy the laws of nature.

 

You appear to have a very idiosyncratic definition of "supernatural". You seem to be using it to mean "not fully understood".

 

A great many disagreements on this forum come about because people insist on using their own made up definitions for words.

 

Doing that is very brave. And, of course, when I say "brave" I mean foolish.

 

 

 

You are wrong.

How does science explain the cause of the big bang? The cause of dark energy? and what does it say for the inside of black holes? I must need a refresher.

 

I dont think you comprehend the dictionary definition.

 

Google "define supernatural", its not open for interpretation.

[Strange]

Again, just because we can't currently explain something does not mean it is not explicable. By your definition, pretty much all of science is supernatural.

 

 

its not open for interpretation.

 

But apparently it is.

[DevilSolution]

Again, just because we can't currently explain something does not mean it is not explicable. By your definition, pretty much all of science is supernatural.

 

 

But apparently it is.

So now your telling me the dictionary definition is wrong?

 

Not my definition, the dictionary....

Edited January 30, 2016 by DevilSolution

[Strange]

So now your telling me the dictionary definition is wrong?

 

Not my definition, the dictionary....

 

No. I am saying that your interpretation and use of the word is ... well, it just makes the word kinda meaningless and useless.

 

If you use supernatural to mean "things that are not currently understood completely" (which is almost everything there is) then we will need a new word for the things that are currently described as supernatural.

Do you have any suggestions?

[John Cuthber]

Theres no reason not to,

By that "logic" there's no reason not believe that the big bang was caused by unicorn farts.

But, it's not a credo that will get you very far.

 

 

In what reference are you refering to in regards to my dictatorship of science?

 

Where you said "The leap is in the fact science has no place is attempting to unfold what could be deemed as supernatural (such as the big bang etc)"

Well, you are wrong on two counts;

the big bang is natural; not supernatural.

Science is entitled to try to understand it, even if it never succeeds.

 

Since I quoted your text when I replied to it, how come you didn't realise that's what I was referring to?

[Itoero]

I do think the big bang is supernatural...it goes beyond our understanding and can't be explained with the known physical laws.

Yet it has nothing to do with God or pink unicorns.

Supernatural doesn't point to God. Supernatural is just supernatural.

It's basically unexplained science.

 

Before Darwin, the creating of life had no explanation so it was supernatural. That's why people invented all those gods.

Now we know about evolution so it's no longer supernatural.

 

This something that Einstein said about the subject:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

I do think that's nonsense.

A scientific mind does not need religion.

[Robittybob1]

I do think the big bang is supernatural...it goes beyond our understanding and can't be explained with the known physical laws.

Yet it has nothing to do with God or pink unicorns.....

 

This something that Einstein said about the subject:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

I do think that's nonsense.

A scientific mind does not need religion.

Einstein has been proven right about so many things it is uncanny.

What happens when God and Nature are equated.

[This is the Religion subforum so using that word is not taboo.]

 

The argument around the laws of physics is an interesting one. Did they originate at the big bang? When did they originate?

Edited February 14, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Ophiolite]

I do think the big bang is supernatural...it goes beyond our understanding and can't be explained with the known physical laws.

Yet it has nothing to do with God or pink unicorns.

Supernatural doesn't point to God. Supernatural is just supernatural.

It's basically unexplained science.

You are, of course, free to define terms as you see fit. However, I am with Lewis Carrol who mocked this approach when he had Humpty Dumpty say 'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

 

Before Darwin, the creating of life had no explanation so it was supernatural.

Darwin had nothing to say in his published work about the creation of life.

 

That's why people invented all those gods.

 

I think you'll find that most students of religion have several other factors that were responsible for its emergence.

 

This something that Einstein said about the subject:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

I do think that's nonsense.

A scientific mind does not need religion

I recommend you investigate a little more deeply what Einstein meant by that remark and of how he conceived the role of religion. You may then revise your opinion.

[Robittybob1]

....

 

I recommend you investigate a little more deeply what Einstein meant by that remark and of how he conceived the role of religion. You may then revise your opinion.

Have you ever expounded your ideas about this on the forum? Like has this been discussed before elsewhere already? The thread may have been called ....? And then we might search for it via google site:scienceforums.net einstein "Science without religion is lame"

 

PS:

Unfortunately a member Pleiades seems to have had that phrase in his signature so it is coming up too frequent to be useful.

Different search terms site:scienceforums.net ophiolite "Science without religion is lame" gave a good result:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85626-evolution-and-creation-as-one/page-2#entry892357

 

Pymander also uses the phrase in response to HenryB http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67876-truth-and-knowledge/page-2#entry693499

So it doesn't appear that you have discussed it fully as yet.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Ophiolite]

Have you ever expounded your ideas about this on the forum?

I don't have any ideas about this other than, what may appear to you as a bizarre notion, that if one is going to use quotations from "famous people" one might at least look beyond the sound bite to the underlying intent. Such an approach has the advantage of being honest, respectful and typically broadens ones own knowledge.

[Robittybob1]

I don't have any ideas about this other than, what may appear to you as a bizarre notion, that if one is going to use quotations from "famous people" one might at least look beyond the sound bite to the underlying intent. Such an approach has the advantage of being honest, respectful and typically broadens ones own knowledge.

Unless Albert explained it himself I guess we will be guessing too to some degree. I have seen this before one camp takes it to mean this and the others something else and we can never tell for sure, but nevertheless since you brought it up hazard a guess please?

"Science without religion is lame" seems very much on topic "There is no place for religion in science".

 

Well there is definitely a place for truth and truth and religion go hand in hand, well they should do even if they don't always.

My vow to the Lord was to always tell the truth. Now there is a challenge for all scientists - to always tell the truth. I wonder if they do? No such thing as an inconvenient truth. Science would be lame if it hid the inconvenient truths.

[Strange]

I recommend you investigate a little more deeply what Einstein meant by that remark and of how he conceived the role of religion.

 

Arguably, he used the word "religion" in a rather idiosyncratic way ....

Einstein has been proven right about so many things it is uncanny.

 

He was wrong about a lot of things as well. (His design for a fridge never really took off.)

[Robittybob1]

 

...

He was wrong about a lot of things as well. (His design for a fridge never really took off.)

I'll have to look into that. News to me.

[you are right it didn't catch on but 100 years later it is making a comeback

"No moving parts is a real benefit because it can carry on going without maintenance." one site said.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/sep/21/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange ]

 

idiosyncratic

 

adjective

relating to idiosyncrasy; peculiar or individual.

"she emerged as one of the great, idiosyncratic talents of the nineties"

synonyms: distinctive, individual, characteristic, distinct, distinguishing, peculiar, individualistic, different, typical, special, specific, representative, unique, personal, private, essential;

 

Einstein may have been idiosyncratic regarding religion.

What were his idiosyncrasies? [That word was monkeyed, I have never used that word before (thanks Strange for educating this monkey)]

 

Einstein's religious idiosyncrasies may have a possible place in science.

"Arguably, he used the word "religion" in a rather idiosyncratic way"

Why did you say that Strange?

Edited February 14, 2016 by Robittybob1

[iNow]

Robbittybob - Perhaps this will help you wrap your mind around what others are saying: https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/einstein-quote-about-religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted

[Robittybob1]

Robbittybob - Perhaps this will help you wrap your mind around what others are saying: https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/einstein-quote-about-religion-and-science-was-wrong-misinterpreted

I have no issue with that except the conclusion for that is the opinion of the author:

 

But both men were misguided in suggesting that this tactic can harmonize science and religion.

That sentence feels like a stab in the back. An attack with no reason given.

[iNow]

I have no issue with that except the conclusion for that is the opinion of the author:

 

That sentence feels like a stab in the back. An attack with no reason given.

The author has articulated their reasons elsewhere. Consider reviewing them on your own if this is important to you.

[Robittybob1]

The author has articulated their reasons elsewhere. Consider reviewing them on your own if this is important to you.

When I first read that page it can't have loaded properly. I now see there is a continuation from what I previously thought was the last sentence. How strange!

When the page opens an ad appears just below that sentence maybe that was the reason I got confused.

The author does give his reasons, and even though I call myself religious I might be rather idiosyncratic too.

Either way I read the argument and nothing really upset me.

I was just happy that Einstein appears to be somewhat of a believer and no one yet is claiming he was an atheist.

But being a Jew and presumably Jewish faith he may not have recognized Jesus as his messiah.

 

I personally have no complex theology, I just admire Jesus and treat him as a spiritual master, My Lord, as I say sometimes. So it is a personal relationship with the Lord but God seems like something vaster than the whole Universe with Nature as the designer (so maybe I have a type of Pantheism as well). So that allows for evolution to create and nature to mold the Universe.

They say this of Einstein, a Pantheist and with no personal God, I can relate to that.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Robittybob1