• You must now select Courier Delivery if you wish to receive items before Christmas.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > Religion and Science......

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 12345
Grootvis
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

newbie
Location: Western Cape, South Africa

Total posts: 5
Posted:This is a topic i regularly get to debate about with fellow students. Why do Science rarely make any mention of a higher power ie. God, Allah, or any deity for that matter when looking at things like Evolution?

Here's my opinion:
'If we have to bring religion into science and make a statement, say from a christian point of view that 'Because there is a God, the evolution theory is totally wrong', then other religions will begin to interpret sicence according to their own views and beliefs.

The only reason why science doesn't make any mention about religion, is so that we can all have a unified view on say evolution, or laws of motion ect'

Now, what do you believe? What's your opinion?


we are all one...as we are part of space, space is also part of us.

Delete Topic

Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004

Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...

Total posts: 4693
Posted:science is a religion

science trys to explain everything by rational logic with evidence or examples that we can see or somehow demonstrate.

the judao/christian/islamic god is said to omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. Omnipotent is all powerful, could god create a rock that is so heavy that he could not lift it? yes, because if he is all powerful he can do what to us is logically impossible. science cannot prove or disprove the existance of god because it works within the confines of a logical world of cause and effect. therefore scientists can learn through science and still be unbias christians/jews/muslims, technically...........whether they do or not is another question, nobodies perfect!


"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:So God is not bound by logical restraint? Which safely removes religion from scrutiny of science... works out fine I spose.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that ultimate reality, if it is a true infinite, must encompass all dualities and basically be a walking contradiction definitively... more along the lines of Zen or Taoism...

Science and religion are not fundamentally different. They just take quite different first premises / assumptions into account. If science is purly empirical, you fall into scepticism, as all knowledge is based on certain basic assumptions (Like that our senses are really showing us the world as it is). There is however a level of accountability here... science seems to support itself better. Even though practicing a given religion is supposed to provide confirmation of religious truth.

But then its quite arguable that the truth of every religion lies in its esoteric meanings and not in its overt exoteric dogma. Everyones just lookin for a little truth... Or maybe a big Truth. Either way. smile

Cheers.


Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:Written by: Mr Majestik
science is a religion

No, science is a tool. I don't 'believe' in science and ultimately I couldn't care less whether I was using magic or technology. But science just happens to be what works. When you build a light bulb powered by Christian faith then I'll happily use that. rolleyes.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: Mr Majestik
science is a religion


No it's not, it's a methodology. Even for people that believe science is evil aeroplanes still fly and medicine still works.

Written by: Mr Majestik
science cannot prove or disprove the existance of god because it works within the confines of a logical world of cause and effect. therefore scientists can learn through science and still be unbias christians/jews/muslims, technically...........whether they do or not is another question, nobodies perfect!


If god is outside of the Universe then indeed science can say nothing about god. Of course that requires a god that never meddles with anything in the Universe!


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:damn straight

ture na sig

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:And religion is NOT a methodology? I disagree. Religion simply puts itself beyond the realm of logical discourse, rather it gives you "Do this and you will see" sort of thang. Those who claim religion is "blind faith" do not really understand religions confirmatory nature. Faith in something is only the vehicle that carries you to continue with it until you reach the forgone conclusion it purports to support.

Science is a methodology, but it has its elements of faith as well: Namely the faith in material realism as a basic assumption. It WORKS to do something, yes. But Science basically describes the way we perceive and interact with our world, NOT the way the world really is. It is a tool in this way.

Religion is a tool too. Its just that its methodology leads to internalized effects rather than external worldly effects. In this way, science and religion are not fundamentally different. Both have elements of faith, both have elements of method, both have elements of return.

The thing is most people get caught up in the exoteric doctrine and words and think that these things represent absolute Truth. All well and good for some I suppose, but the real level where religion shines is for those who actually practice and study their religion to reach the esoteric meanings and experiences only accessible in such a way. Of course, many religious detractors never step outside their own box and look at a religion from a practitioners viewpoint, so they completely miss the practice/esoteric experience aspect of all religions.

They do have differences, but they aren't as different as your trying to make them out to be. Of course Im not taking a strict literalist view (few people do, and those that do run into the inevitable contradictions and such, especially Christians trying to reconcile Old and New Testament scriptures), and rather am taking the stories as literature with meanings that aren't readily apparent from a strict literalist interpetation...


Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:No, religion is revealed truth. You need faith in it, but that's a separate matter that determines whether you're a believer or not.

What assumption about material realism in inherent in science? Science says nothing about how reality actually is - it merely is a methodology that provides useful models of reality. If the universe really is comprised of fairies and imps it doesn't matter as long as our observations match those described by a model of forces and particles.

Religion claims to have an answer to ultimate truth, science makes no such claims. If a model doesn't work then we discard or modify it in favour of something that doesn't.

You also seem to be claiming that religion is the only way that certain experiences can be explained and dealt with. Which may be true for some people, but it's obviously not true for everyone.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Eera
BRONZE Member since May 2003

old hand
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Austral...

Total posts: 1107
Posted:"To say something is the Work of God is merely to admit "we don't know". "

In my experience many scientists are religious; they fully understand that documents like the Bible are not to be literallly interpreted, and those who do just don't become scientists. It's kind of insulting to be told by someone in a nylon shirt clutching a sweaty copy of Watchtower that 6 years of research into Carboniferous processes are wrong because the earth's only 6000 years old.


There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.

Delete

Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004

Mr Majestik

coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear,...

Total posts: 4693
Posted:we need a religious scientist in this thread..............

"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"

jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:Religion is not just revealed truth. There is an element of PRACTICE to all religions that is inherently important. Profession does not make one religious, practice does. And every religion's methodological practices are different though similar, suggesting that there is an esoteric underlying Truth they are all leading towards, and the exoteric doctrines and such are axiomatic to the religious system. Faith is necessary in the system for it to have its designated effect of "enflaming thyself in prayer". Which is why I specifically point this out: you can't really judge a religious system (or its claims)from outside of it. You have to be a practitioner. Its the ivory tower syndrome.

Note here that I am not saying what I apparently appeared to be saying: that religious experiences are only explanable through religious interpetation. Here is a fact: religious experience happens. It is a phenomenon experienced by people all the time to varying degrees. If there is something objective about those experiences (indeed if they can be objective) then perhaps there are other answers to explain it. For now though, they are beyond science unless one wants to talk about psychological hallucinations, etc. If what people are experiencing is not measurable by science though, a different methodology for chasing after that Truth is needed: which may be religion. Eastern Religions ESPECIALLY are netorious for this. They are fundamentally practice based. So are Western religions, just in a more hidden manner (ritual, doctrine, dogma).

That being said, confirmation of faith is common to all religions, not just one. Some of these could be psychological, but many seem to be much more than that. Religions do make claims of ultimate truth, but those claims are NOT beyond falsifiablity as some religious detractors like to claim. It just requires practitioner dedication.

Science builds models, yes, that reflect our observations. As such, it really builds models of how we perceive and interact with the world. But science is still DONE in a material realist assumption (up until quantum mechanics, which is breaking down some of those barriers), that is that the world is represented to us relatively accurately by our senses (note that things not directly perceptable are still perceptable through indirect means). My point is, science does not say anything about how the world actually is, only about how it appears to us, and thus is not True (capital T). Essentially what you said. smile

If you really think science disproves religions, you should look into Richard Dawkins. Personally, after reading him I find him just as silly as the hard core theists... but for some reason he is the discipline standard on the issue... there's another book out by one of his collegues called "Dawkin's God" which nicely picks him apart. At best science can not speek of the purly religious domain... it doesnt prove atheism as Dawkins argues (purly psychological answers for why religions are not true).


Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas, USA

Total posts: 3899
Posted:I disagree about science being a religion. if it were, a roman catholic scientist would excommunicated.

I would say both science and regions are philosophies. I do not view buddism as a religion per se, but it is a philosophy.

science can neither prove or disprove religion. religion is essentially non provable by any means - especially the judeao-christian-muslim creed which pretty much states it explicitly. Science can show that certain events in the bible should not be taken as literal truth, but that doesn't matter one whit to the core religion.

Main Entry: religion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- religionless adjective

given that defintion, you could say that science is sort of a religion by definition 4, and perhaps #3 as well. But even then it is not faith that makes a scientist hold to scientific principles, but rather rigerous proof. In fact a scientist is trained to have no faith and question everything - to look for the holes in every theory and try to prove any and all scientific statements false. scientist are sceptics by nature and profession, which is almost the opposite from say a priest. scientist do not beleive by faith or ardor, but rather by evidence.


-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: i8beefy2
Religion is not just revealed truth.


I never said it was just revealed truth, but that's at the core of it. Yes that is then applied in various ways in practise...

Written by: i8beefy2
Note here that I am not saying what I apparently appeared to be saying: that religious experiences are only explanable through religious interpetation. Here is a fact: religious experience happens. It is a phenomenon experienced by people all the time to varying degrees. If there is something objective about those experiences (indeed if they can be objective) then perhaps there are other answers to explain it.


But this is a tautology - "a religious experience is an experience that someone can only describe religiously". What of the fact that feelings of religious awe and one-ness with the universe can be created by electrically stimulating the brain? If that happened to me I'd describe it as a "religious experience" but I wouldn't become a believer because I'd ascribe it to a cause I could explain.

Written by: i8beefy2
Science builds models, yes, that reflect our observations. As such, it really builds models of how we perceive and interact with the world. But science is still DONE in a material realist assumption (up until quantum mechanics, which is breaking down some of those barriers), that is that the world is represented to us relatively accurately by our senses (note that things not directly perceptable are still perceptable through indirect means). My point is, science does not say anything about how the world actually is, only about how it appears to us, and thus is not True (capital T). Essentially what you said. smile


Of course psychology tells us much more about how the world around us we perceive is nothing more than an elaborate lie wink Optical illusions for instance smile

Written by: i8beefy2
If you really think science disproves religions, you should look into Richard Dawkins. Personally, after reading him I find him just as silly as the hard core theists... but for some reason he is the discipline standard on the issue... there's another book out by one of his collegues called "Dawkin's God" which nicely picks him apart. At best science can not speek of the purly religious domain... it doesnt prove atheism as Dawkins argues (purly psychological answers for why religions are not true).


I don't think I said that. Science can disprove manifestations of religion, it cannot say anything on whether there is a God who created the Universe and sits outside somewhere watching it and never interfering.


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted:I don't think Dawkin argues anything of the sort. What he does say is that evolution is pretty much unassailable as fact. Of course you could argue that god has set everything up to look as if evolution has/is happening. But then you have to wonder, if god has gone through all this trouble to really make it look as is evolution is happening perhaps he wants us to believe in evolution ubblol Perhaps god exists, but he only lets athiests into heaven. angel2

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

AnotherPyro


AnotherPyro

newbie
Location: Sydney

Total posts: 18
Posted:Try to track down a book called "The Gods of Eden".
It explains how man created god and how religions have evolved into what they are today. And since science is all about using logic and factual data, how can something based on illogical ideas and blind faith have anything to do with science. I guess people believed the world was flat until it was proven otherwise, so I'll keep waiting for science to prove that god doesn't exist.


Ahhhh Life.......So many wonderful shades of grey.

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:I disagree with Vanize. If a higher power exists, then it should be detectable in some way, shape, or form because one would assume that a high power would be able to interact with the material world. If it were detectable, then it would surely be within the realm of science.

If a higher power exists, but cannot interact in any way, shape, or form with the material world, then its existence is a great philosophical debate to be had over pizza and beer, but other than that, it's completely irrelevant.

Science describes the workings of the physical world and strives to formulate predictions about the behavior of matter and energy. Science predicts that if I throw a ball at a certain angle and at a certain speed that it will come down at a certain point.

What science DOESN'T do is try to give a reason why it's there. It just tries to explain how it works.

Religion, on the other hand, tries to give a reason for why it's there and what we should do about it. And that's the main difference.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas, USA

Total posts: 3899
Posted:ah, but that is where the heisenburg uncertainty principle comes in!



below a certain scale, we cannot see what happens, yet to a degree, everything is determined by what happens in that little space that we are not allowed into



if you ask me, einstein was wrong by denouncing quantum mechanics as contrary to god.



if god exists and does meddle in the affairs of the universe, that is where you will find him, where he cannot be found, yet can do every thing from.


-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: LIGHTNING

I disagree with Vanize. If a higher power exists, then it should be detectable in some way, shape, or form because one would assume that a high power would be able to interact with the material world.



There's a book called (I believe) 'Flatland', which is a story about a hypothesised world which consists of a 2- dimensional plane.

All the beings in this world are 2-D, and all their movements and perceptions are confined to the 2-D plane.

The beings are various 2-D shapes- circles, squares, triangles etc- and their position in the social hierachy is largely determined by their shape.

A 3-D being (God?) can look down upon this 2-D world and see everything in it, in a way that the inhabitants cannot (eg the 3-D being can see inside the beings.

The 3-D being can also perform 'miracles'. For example he/she can enter a locked room/closed space, by approaching from 'above' ('above' is a direction that the flatlanders can neither see, nor imagine).

The reason I bring this up is that, in that scenario, the 3-D being can view everything in the 2-D world, yet be entirely undetectable by the inhabitants.

Even if they know where to look for 'God', they couldn't do so- their laws of physics would not allow it (being restricted to the 2-D plane).

'God' could interact with the world, but would not need to; and, if he/she choose to interact, it would be easy to do so in a way that could not be detected within that world.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:i8beefy, I've got to pick you up on this:



'My point is, science does not say anything about how the world actually is, only about how it appears to us, and thus is not True (capital T)'



Again, I think this is simply wrong. If science didn't say anything about how the world actually is, how is it that we've managed to put men on the moon, eradicated smallpox, constructed aircraft, etc? The success of science indicates that there must be some degree of correspondence to reality. In the limit, I grant you, it is an open question as to whether we'll ever be able to get a complete scientific description of the universe. But to say that science doesn't show us how the world actually is - that's obviously false.



Secondly, you confuse 'science' with 'physics'. The models used in psychology, whilst scientific, are arguably irreducible to physics; ditto the social sciences. Contemporary philosophers of science often speak of these sciences as 'special sciences', or 'autonomous'. Hence your characterisation of science is lacking.



Thirdly, 'materialist realism', whatever that is, is certainly *not* the thesis that 'the world is represented to us relatively accurately by our senses'. Rather, it is the ontological (rather than epistemological) thesis that all that exists is material, and real (as opposed to being a figment of our imagination). But regardless, it *must* be that our senses generally yield accurate information: how else do you account for our success?



Lastly, science does not rely on the assumption that everything our senses tell us is relatively accurate. One of the virtues of the scientific method is that it allows us to identify, and hence control for, defects in our perceptual systems.



Questions:



1. What is the difference between True and true?



2. If you think that truth is a vacuous notion (or redundant, etc) - like many contemporary philosophers do - what is the force of saying that science is not True?

EDITED_BY: quiet (1115432136)


ture na sig

Delete

drakematrix
SILVER Member since Oct 2004

drakematrix

Maker of the Cheesecake
Location: Akron, OH, USA

Total posts: 174
Posted:well, as a social scientist, I'll throw in my two dinars...

I think that there is a difference between religion and science, and it goes something like this... Science is a method, religion is an answer.

science does not "prove" anything. it can only describe the world as we currently percieve it. but what sets science apart from religion is it's methodology. I would grant that science has a religious aspect to it in that it makes one key assumption. that all of reality is empirically observable. Perhaps not directly observable, but at least indirectly. we must have a kind of faith in this assumption in order to proceed with the method. but what we must remember is that science can never honestly say "this is how it is" it can only say "this is how we understand it right now."

Religion however, is not concerned with questions so much as answers. science can never prove religion because religion operates outside of what is empirically observable. The two operate in fundamentally different arenas. Yes, there can be a process to religion as well. But the questions that religion and science try to answer are funadmentally different. Science asks how, religion asks why.

As far as science proving evolution exists, and thus disproving god, how does it prove that god did not create evolution? Perhaps that's simply the system it chose to use to create life on earth. If you read the bible creation myths, the sun wasn't created until like the third or fourth day. Yet we measure time by the sun. so how do we know that the day was a 24 hour day? it could have been a 25- hour day, or a year, or ten million years. Despite operating in different arenas, it is not necessary to belive in only one or the other. In fact, it is because they operate differently that they can be viewed together.

And yes, boiling everything down to physics only works for the physical sciences. For the social sciences, we have sociology, which functions pretty much the same way. some people look at sociology as the most fundamental of the social sciences, and others like psychology and anthropology as a kind of subgroup. But then there are others that don't think we sociologists are a legitimate breed at all, so...


What exactly do I have to light on fire to get you to notice me?

Delete

drakematrix
SILVER Member since Oct 2004

drakematrix

Maker of the Cheesecake
Location: Akron, OH, USA

Total posts: 174
Posted:wait, scratch that last part. I'm recalling a discussion I had about how physics can still be considered the most fundamental of all sciences, because the social world is still governed by the brains of people which is basically an electrical appliance, subject to the laws of physics.

It has been argued that if we knew the exact position and vector of every single particle in the universe, it would be possible to predict the future, because even the content of our thoughts are governed by the electrons firing in our brains. Of course, the mathematical calculations necessary to do so would be staggering. and it also destroys the concept of free will, and I just don't like that at all... Unfortunately, I haven't found a logical arguement against all that, so I slowly become more athiest every day as I find myself forced to accept that possibility


What exactly do I have to light on fire to get you to notice me?

Delete

i8beefy2
GOLD Member since Mar 2003

i8beefy2

addict
Location: Ohio, USA

Total posts: 674
Posted:Lol, excommunicated catholics, I like that vanize...

What are you defining as a "religious means" of explanation?

Here's what I mean. Science and religion are both SYSTEMS. Which means that they have basic assumed truths from which the rest of their system follows. In math, number theory is the basic assumption. (1+1=2, etc.) In science, it is the empirical method, and material realism. In religion it varies...

Here is what Im saying though. You look at science, our dominant paradigm, which has extremely BASIC assumptions and thus is very flexable. It builds a model of the universe on basic assumptions like material realism (which means a material world exists, and it is "real" in that it, at least relatively in a weak sense, though not in a strong sense, is accuratly represented to us by our senses). Science takes all of its knowledge from empirical methodology (strictly, of course theory development through inference, etc. comes in, but Im arguing evidence is empirical in nature for science).

Now you seem to claim that religion does not have any empiricism. I completely disagree. Now clearly in some claims religions probably aren't right (creation stories, etc.) and can be relegated to myth. Maybe. At least science has better evidencial support, and these are not necessarily the kinds of things religious practice can prove. The Truth claims (that is actual claims about the nature of the universe, etc.) however can be confirmed through practice. If you are only going to practice from the point of view of a scientist, without actually taking the religion on its own terms, its unlikely you'll find this confirmation.

Now on claims like evolution and creationism, etc. I wont get into because I dont take a literalist sense with religion. As I explained with the whole exoteric / esoteric thing. However on the esoteric level, the hidden Truth in all religions or that they all access and then attempt to describe (which isnt unlike science), religious claims ARE confirmable. Practice and you will see.

Science is a useful tool. It describes how the universe appears to us, and how we can interact with it. It does not describe how the universe really is. Social sciences aren't real sciences. Thats why we dont have to take Math. smile Of course Im being silly, but this is a perfect example. The social science resemble religion much more than hard science resembles it. We cant read thoughts, the mind is a proverbial black-box which we are forever locked out of. But by observing and practicing with lots of people we develop theories that are somewhat applicable to the truth, but not wholly accurate (like a religion). These soft sciences use other means of gaining knowledge than the strict empirical method (though they are tring so "science" will see them as "real sciences"... see psychology history and behaviorism), much like religion does. Empirical methodology is not the only way to knowledge in a lot of epistomological systems (though it may be the most reliable).

In essence, because science describes how we can interact with the world we perceive, of course it will build useful things. Science is the axiomatic assumption of mechanics: if we can interact with the world like this, then if we do this this should happen.

Religion taps an area where words can not do justice. Which is why practice is SO fundamental to all religion, and anyone who doesn't realize that is only professing belief... unfortunatly a misconception by many non-practicing Christians who just want to avoid hell but aren't interested in testing religious claims...

The difference between the Truth and truth is the same difference between a god and the God. Which may be the source of some of the confusion... doctrine (creationism, etc.) would be truth, while esoteric claims would be the Truth. One is a truth of a fact, the other is the absolute Truth. Absolute Truth is beyond the range of science for now, but not religion, while true things (at least in human terms of how we perceive the universe) are not. That explanation might be messy, but it is pretty much what we are talking about when we are talking about Truth and truth in philosophy...

Now following from that, Im not saying doctrine is true anymorethan I would say science is "true". Given the sources for information, and the methods available, they are relatively true though: within their own system. As soon as you step outside that system truth becomes a bit more fluid... However Truth is absolute in nature, and thus is beyond any kind of systemitization (as per Godels Incompleteness Theorems, as an system would have to explain itself and thus explain nothing in order to explain absolute truth). Dave and some others are probably rolling around in sheer pain at my mentioning Godel again... hehe sorry guys. smile I couldnt help it.

Of course by this use, it follows that religions and science are both true, though neither one is True. However religion makes claims about Truth the way science makes claims about truth. Which is why Biblical Literalism is as silly to me as scientific literlism (I just made up that term, but I hope you understand what I mean... taking science in its current form as the absolute right answer in its present form). But just as science says "Do this andyou will see", religion does the same thing. If you reach the point of religious confirmation, everything in the religion will be verified because you will see something that way someone else did.

Of course, how we interperet that is different though.. eastern religions seem to have done the best job at trying to remove all ego involvement from said interpetation... so I trust them more on describing Truth, but the practices of all religions are similar so any one of them is capable of getting you there (within reason in judgement here), and thus all are valid... Quantum mechanics has been describing a universe remarkably similar to eastern interpetations for a while too... Maybe eastern traditions are the "hard science" of religions.

Anyway, just afew of my musings... I've studied under the department head at my university for philosophy of science and religion, so I love this kinda thing. smile

Of and Dawkins does too argue for strict atheism. If my bag wasnt all the way down in my cr Id tell you what the article Im referring to is (which was a speech he made at receiving an award for something in advancing the publics understanding of science, something I find a bit troubling). He specifically argues that science disproves religion and that atheism is the exactly what the evidence points to. I on the other hand like most detractors, argue that all the evidence he cites is more supportive of an agnostic stance instead of a theist OR atheist stance. Of course Im giving several inches here... not taking the strict biblical literalist case, which Dawkins uses in every example trying to typify religious people as such which the vast majority ISNT. Dawkins is STRONGLY in the atheist camp.

Cheers!


Delete

Selenia


Selenia

member
Location: Finland, Lappeenranta

Total posts: 28
Posted:Of course religions are mostly myths, but if we strip the myths out of them, what does we get? We get the moral, that religions teach, about how to treat other people and so on, and then we get the things, that science doesn't prove for sure, like what _actually_ happens after death.

There has been some evidence, that there _might_ be some kind of electric happening after a death in our brains ((or even in living brains)) that is kind of floating 'away' ((watched a sciencedocument about brains and so on once, love sciencedocuments)) and they has been saying, that it might be _something_ about us, that survives death.

But nevetheless, science itself prove, that nothing really dissapeares from the universe, so where goes the electric activity, that is called 'life' and what is that activity after all. Science can't tell and it can't prove the life itself. These are the questions, that religion 'answers' allthough what religions says, it's only speculation. That's why religions are what we _believe_ not what we can prove.


Delete

vanize
SILVER Member since Aug 2001

vanize

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Austin, Texas, USA

Total posts: 3899
Posted:Written by: drakematrix


It has been argued that if we knew the exact position and vector of every single particle in the universe, it would be possible to predict the future, because even the content of our thoughts are governed by the electrons firing in our brains. Of course, the mathematical calculations necessary to do so would be staggering. and it also destroys the concept of free will, and I just don't like that at all... Unfortunately, I haven't found a logical arguement against all that, so I slowly become more athiest every day as I find myself forced to accept that possibility





Actually this is old 19th century science. with the advent of quantum mechanics and choas theory, physicists do not, on the whole, beleive in the so called clockwork universe anymore. Engineers still try to hold on to this notion though... wink



and i8beefy2: I owe you a reply, but I just can't handle getting too in depth on this on a monday morning... I'll try to get back to this. ubbloco


-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave
Even if they know where to look for 'God', they couldn't do so- their laws of physics would not allow it (being restricted to the 2-D plane).

'God' could interact with the world, but would not need to; and, if he/she choose to interact, it would be easy to do so in a way that could not be detected within that world.


As soon as "God" interacts then that interaction is visible to the world's inhabitants. Even if at first the interaction is mysterious, eventually some theorist is going to posit a strange "third dimension" - we only exist in 3+1 dimensions but mathematically engage in theories with 10 or more...


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:Written by: i8beefy2
However on the esoteric level, the hidden Truth in all religions or that they all access and then attempt to describe (which isnt unlike science), religious claims ARE confirmable. Practice and you will see.


Believe and practise religion and you'll see how it's true? That's a bit tautological isn't it?


"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:i8beefy, for someone who's studied under their department head for phil of science and religion, you display a worrying lack of awareness of basic terminology. quoting from your post in sequence:

'You look at science, our dominant paradigm, which has extremely BASIC assumptions and thus is very flexable. It builds a model of the universe on basic assumptions like material realism (which means a material world exists, and it is "real" in that it, at least relatively in a weak sense, though not in a strong sense, is accuratly represented to us by our senses). '

No. Realism (in science, or in ethics) refers to the position that holds that the statements of that discourse are 1) truth-apt, 2) true or false mind-independently, 3) knowable, and 4) some of them are true.


'The Truth claims (that is actual claims about the nature of the universe, etc.) however can be confirmed through practice'

What does this mean? In science, you have a good idea what confirmation is: if the theory predicts that a 2lb weight falls at the same rate as a 1lb weight, then IF the weights fall at the same rate, that indicates confirmation. What is the parallel in religion?

- 'But by observing and practicing with lots of people we develop theories that are somewhat applicable to the truth, but not wholly accurate (like a religion).'

Mmmm, you see I would argue that religions are not even 'slightly accurate'. They make strong claims, like 'there is a God, and he sent a messenger 2000 years ago, and He tell us What We Should Do'; and, furthermore, these claims are simply false. But anyway . . .

'One is a truth of a fact, the other is the absolute Truth. Absolute Truth is beyond the range of science for now, but not religion, while true things (at least in human terms of how we perceive the universe) are not. That explanation might be messy, but it is pretty much what we are talking about when we are talking about Truth and truth in philosophy...'


Hang on: isn't the class of 'True things' (by which you must mean propositions, or similar, for objects aren't truth-apt) a subset of the class of 'true things'?

How does religion get to Truth? Why can't science get to the same? What the hell does Truth look like?

This is not a distinction which is commonplace in the philosophical literature; indeed, most contemporary philosophers of language are minimalists, or quietists, about truth. That is, there is a class of true statements - but Truth isn't anything beyond that. Indeed, it's a redundant predicate . . .


ture na sig

Delete

ado-p
GOLD Member since May 2004

ado-p

Pirate Ninja
Location: Galway/Ireland

Total posts: 3882
Posted:"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

Scientist, Sorcerer....

I was thinking about this the other day

IMO

Religion proves things right and wrong.

Science proves things true and false.

Black and white, 1 and 0, Dead or alive, Finite or Infinite....

To a lay person, what is the difference? Both provide questions and and answers that explain things in ways people can understand and investigate.

I dont understand science or religion in a way that can provide me with my questions or my answers. Both have bits that havent been explained in a way that everyone can agree. So from my viewpoint they are both modes of thinking that provide humanity with an outlet for curisoity, exploration and a faith in how things work or at the very least, a faith that things do work.

So

A priest and and astronamer walk into a bar...

smile


Love is the law.

Delete

quiet


quiet

analytic
Location: bristol

Total posts: 503
Posted:religion doesn't prove anything right or wrong

for instance: catholics [orthodox ones, at least] think that homosexuality is an 'intrinsic evil'. why? because the pope says so. that, as far as i'm concerned, isn't good enough.


ture na sig

Delete

ado-p
GOLD Member since May 2004

ado-p

Pirate Ninja
Location: Galway/Ireland

Total posts: 3882
Posted:true,

and scientists think that god doesnt exist...

the proof is in that some people believe it. Its true for them. Thats what religion is. Belief.


Love is the law.

Delete

spiralx


spiralx

veteran
Location: London, UK

Total posts: 1376
Posted:No, some scientists think that god doesn't exist. Not all scientists are athiests - probably a majority, but I doubt by much if so.

"Moo," said the happy cow.

Delete

Page: 12345

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [religion science] we found the following similar topics.
1. Forums > When does religion become extremeism [61 replies]
2. Forums > dominance of religion [45 replies]
3. Forums > Religion and Science...... [128 replies]
4. Forums > JUDGEMENT DAY, for religion [60 replies]
5. Forums > religion and poi [77 replies]

     Show more..