Science VS. Religion

[Dalriada]

I'd like to shred your opinion in tiny little pieces, but I'm not sure. What are you trying to say, and why are you introducing stuff like homosexuality or heel in the science/religion debate ?
And why are you only stating one-liners instead of answering the previous messages or providing some kinds of arguments. It's the thoughtful section, after all.

 

[ippikineko]

Well, with the last few pages kinda being a jumble, especially with the flame war before it, I'm probably a little confused on what the subject/question for discussion is, but here goes.

Lets start with the why angle of the whole Science VS. Religion. I'm going to focus on the Christian aspect of religion, since that is the only one I know enough about its relationship with Science.

The way I see it, Religion is a solid mythos with a specific moral code attached. Christianity being a monotheistic religion, by nature must say that there is only one absolute God, and that anyone who says differently must be wrong. If they accepted otherwise, that could be construed to say that they believe in at least the possibility of the existence of other gods, which is polytheism.

On the other hand, we have Science. The proponents of which are usually portrayed as being people who want to play "God" or are trying to use logic as a tool to destroy the "good family values" of the masses. The only sensible reason I can think for this perception existing, is that there was a period of history where people who were unsatisfied with the answers given by the "Church" decided to try and use logical analysis to determine what the "truth" was, instead of just reading the Bible and listening to their preacher or the Pope.

And so, because of those who decided to find their own truths through "logic" and "Science" even when it meant defying what the "Church" said was the "truth" in order to understand it themselves and reach their own "educated" decisions, Christianity of the time branded them "Unbelievers" to warn others of the "threat" that seeks to "tempt" people away from "God's plan".

That said, there have being people on the side of Science who may have actually been trying to do just that. While at the same time, "Believers" and their religions sometimes behave fanatically and just follow along like sheep. So both sides sometimes represent the stereotypes that they are portrayed as.

I hope that wasn't off-topic, and would appreciate it if this didn't start off another "flame war". The intent was just to try and have a calm discussion, not to insult or force someone to change their ways.

 

[pjcountach]

Well, I personally think Science and religion go together fine.
And by the way, nobody should ever believe a theory.
Here's why. 1. A theory is a scientists explanation for why something is the way it is. But that's the first of 3 steps. 2. He must develop a hypothesis to prove the theory. so, 30 hypotheses later it finally works, but not quite how he expected, so he repeats it, and it keeps doing the same thing. 3. Yeah baby, Scientific fact.--this is when you can start to believe

The problem with the evolutionary theory is that it takes millions of years, so macroevolution is largely unobservable. If it even works. Micro-evolution might take 5 weeks with fruit flies so it is observable. Micro-evolution has been proven and is a fact, but, Macro-evolution is still theory.

Now, moving on to the beginning of the world, the scientific method can't even begin to hypothesize, that is why I leave it to the philosophers and preachers, cause they can yammer about it all day and remain unsatisfied. A scientist is best utilized for the current problems, because in the end the only thing that'll come of finding out how the Singularity expanded is end of debate, and a philosophical discussion on the meaning of life. Other than that knowing what happened is useless.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE (pjcountach @ Mar 31 2009, 04:45 PM) A scientist is best utilized for the current problems, because in the end the only thing that'll come of finding out how the Singularity expanded is end of debate, and a philosophical discussion on the meaning of life. Other than that knowing what happened is useless.
The same has been said about non-Euclidian geometries, the theory of relativity or the quantum physic.
And without them, we wouldn't have this discussion right now.

 

[EggBeast]

QUOTE (pjcountach @ Mar 31 2009, 04:45 PM) nobody should ever believe a theory.
Here's why. 1. A theory is a scientists explanation for why something is the way it is. But that's the first of 3 steps. 2. He must develop a hypothesis to prove the theory. so, 30 hypotheses later it finally works, but not quite how he expected, so he repeats it, and it keeps doing the same thing. 3. Yeah baby, Scientific fact.--this is when you can start to believe

Whoa there, you have a few of your definitions mixed up there. You've put scientific theory on the bottom of the ladder, whereas it's actually the other way around. A hypothesis is a scientist's prediction of an outcome of an experiment. The actual outcome of the experiment, and any other observations made along the way, are scientific facts. A scientific theory is an explanation of a massive collection of these facts and observations. No stronger scientific explanation exists than a scientific theory. Some theories are lovingly called "laws", simply because they are popular, but strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a scientific law. Newton's Laws, for example, have all been proven incorrect, though they're still taught everywhere because of their simplicity and sheer brilliance.

I'm not saying you didn't know any of that or anything, but the way you worded it, it made scientific theory sound much less significant than it actually is.
QUOTE (pjcountach @ Mar 31 2009, 04:45 PM)The problem with the evolutionary theory is that it takes millions of years, so macroevolution is largely unobservable. If it even works. Micro-evolution might take 5 weeks with fruit flies so it is observable. Micro-evolution has been proven and is a fact, but, Macro-evolution is still theory.
This is only partially true. First of all, there is no "theory of micro-evolution" or "theory of macro-evolution". There is only the theory of evolution, which as I mentioned before, puts it very high on the scale of scientific certainty. Besides, macro-evolution is exactly the same thing as micro-evolution, it just occurs over a much larger timescale. Since you already agree with micro-evolution, look at it this way: When two groups of the same species gets geologically separated and each needs to survive in radically different environments, each group changes to adapt to their environment. After a very, very, very long time, then naturally the two species would differ genetically more and more, yes? Eventually, when the two now very different species get to meet up again, and two weirdos from each group decides to "get it on", their genetics are different enough that their seed+egg combo can't combine well enough to actually start producing a legitimate life-form. After all, the process of creating life is a very delicate process. Note that nothing in that (crude) explanation requires anything other than the basic tenant of natural selection. That's why there is no official distinction between macro and micro evolution, they're the same thing, just over different time spans. (VERY different time spans).

But! Getting back on-topic... whether or not science and religion can truly coexist largely depends upon your definition of "religion". I believe that spirituality and science go together perfectly, even complement each other. Religion, as I define it, requires someone to believe in some kind of deity that controls their lives and demands they follow a specific doctrine, without hesitation, to worship it. In this case, religion still isn't necessarily in conflict with science, even though the two come from widely different modes of thought. It depends upon what the specific religion's doctrines are. Now, if we were to look at a major brand of religion, say, Christianity, we'd notice that a substantial majority of Christians are told to believe many things that are in conflict with science. For example, most Christians either don't understand or mock the theory of evolution (which is why it comes up so often in this thread), they're taught to believe many Biblical stories that go against the laws of physics (Noah filling an ark with 2 of every species of earth, Jonah living inside a big fish for 3 days, mountains moving, seas parting, things like that). In addition, many religion factions actively work towards banning various branches of science, including stem-cell research, genomics, biological engineering, some religions even think that all of medical research is evil.

It just goes to show, religion, as an idea, doesn't necessarily have to conflict at all with science. The real world shows a very different story.

 

[Gustav1976]

Hmm that's a good wellthought out statement there at the end of your post Egg-Beast I would have to ammend it slightly by saying that: religion doesn't have to conflict with science BUT interpretations of religious belief CAN sometimes conflict with science. On the whole I've come to the conlucion that neither is a perfect interpretation of the universe because both are interpretations by the same species, us, and we are not omniscient (all knowing) or omnipotent (all powerful) so we can only make educated guesses based on what we observe or know or, in the case of religion, believe.
I have always thought that religion was always supposed to be about faith. Either way always remember guys that the superstition of today could become the fact of tomorrow, after all it wasn;t THAT long ago that you would have been declared insane or burned at the stake if you claimed to be able to talk people from a country several hundred miles away and get an instant reply

 

[Ensei]

IMMO:

I consider myself a man of science and I loathe religion. However, back when people were nothing more than an ignorant mass, religion and it's use of the idea of a superior power was the only thing able to offer comfort to people.

But now religion is like Pentium IV. In it's time it was good, a great friend indeed, but it's useless, dying and we need to let it go.

There's internet, newspapers, all sort of things that provide people with info and all they need to know about the real world.

Doubting is dumb, believing is moronic and just giving ourselves is down right brain-dead. I'm between dumb and moronic, and I think that the fact that I am able to analyse myself in such a manner gives me the right to speak.

Nowadays religion hangs by a thread called "God". But "God" served it's purpose and it's time to move on.

Science searches for the meaning of the real world, therefore it is right.

Religion, the meanings of a fantasy world and life. Religion stands in the way of Science and must be forced aside or put down.

Wallowing in the meaning of life means that you are miserable and therefore need a reason to live and you would off yourself without one, making you even more miserable. You are weak-willed.

Wallowing in a fantasy world is the same thing.

The focus should be on what's in front of you. The present and near future.
Religion stagnates. Science moves forward.

Darwin's right. Survival of the fittest.

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (Ensei @ Apr 05 2009, 11:21 PM)I consider myself a man of science and I loathe religion. However, back when people were nothing more than an ignorant mass, religion and it's use of the idea of a superior power was the only thing able to offer comfort to people.

But now religion is like Pentium IV. In it's time it was good, a great friend indeed, but it's useless, dying and we need to let it go.
One should remember that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science and religion do not attempt to answer the same questions. They have different objectives and goals. Science attempts to explain different phenomenon using scientific methods. Religions attempts to answer questions relating to life, morality as well as the supernatural.

Off course, there can be no doubt that religion and science overlap and this is where the most conflict lies. However it is very possible to believe everything in science but still be a deeply religious person. After all our knowledge of the science is not complete. Being a practitioner of religion doesn't necessarily mean you do not believe in science at all. Not many dismiss science entirely, and the ones that do are not always religious.

One thing I will say, when people say science vs religion they do not really mean that. There are many different religions out there with a wide range of views, that are often opposing with one another. When people say science vs religion, I believe they are really meaning science vs Christianity/Islam/Judaism. And even then, most of the talk is centred towards the issues of evolution. Using the phrase science vs religion implies science is against every aspect of religion. This is not true. Many religions teach issues of morality, something that science does not cover.


QUOTE (Ensei)Doubting is dumb, believing is moronic and just giving ourselves is down right brain-dead. I'm between dumb and moronic, and I think that the fact that I am able to analyse myself in such a manner gives me the right to speak.
And how is doubting dumb? To doubt is to question a particular fact or concept. Something that is often much harder than blindly accepting the facts. In one way, science is built on doubt i.e. to question all the facts given. This high level of doubt (scrutiny) means many scientific theories have to be very sound before it becomes widely accepted. It's not just science where doubt is not dumb but perhaps a very prudent to do. In the realm of politics it is often wise to doubt someone's word. To do otherwise can often lead to compromising situations. Indeed placing blind faith in political figures has often spelled disaster for many people and can often erode are basic liberties. So I don't know how doubt can be labelled a dumb thing. Perhaps when it is taken to the extreme it can be dumb. But then everything taken to the extreme is stupid.


QUOTE (Ensei)Nowadays religion hangs by a thread called "God". But "God" served it's purpose and it's time to move on.
Not all religions believe in a god. The main religions believe in god (or gods) but not all of them. It's a good example why I think using the title of religion vs science is misleading.


QUOTE Darwin's right. Survival of the fittest.
The Spartans and Nazi's strongly believed in survival of the fittest; they both practised mass genocide (in Sparta's case mass infanticide). It's another example that taking an idea to the extreme is pure stupidity.

 

[Ensei]

By Science vs Religion, in my understanding I take that as "Science vs. System that runs the belief that people have in higher powers." in a non-sarcastic way.

QUOTE And how is doubting dumb? To doubt is to question a particular fact or concept. Something that is often much harder than blindly accepting the facts. In one way, science is built on doubt i.e. to question all the facts given. This high level of doubt (scrutiny) means many scientific theories have to be very sound before it becomes widely accepted. It's not just science where doubt is not dumb but perhaps a very prudent to do. In the realm of politics it is often wise to doubt someone's word. To do otherwise can often lead to compromising situations. Indeed placing blind faith in political figures has often spelled disaster for many people and can often erode are basic liberties. So I don't know how doubt can be labelled a dumb thing. Perhaps when it is taken to the extreme it can be dumb. But then everything taken to the extreme is stupid.My bad. You're right. But I meant doubting about the existence of a higher power as said by religion. If doubt leads to intervention by science, then it's a different matter.


QUOTE The Spartans and Nazi's strongly believed in survival of the fittest; they both practised mass genocide (in Sparta's case mass infanticide). It's another example that taking an idea to the extreme is pure stupidity. I never called anything extreme. And they failed. I think that survival of the fittest is a natural thing that happens when it's got to happen and cannot be forced because it's natural.

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (Ensei @ Apr 06 2009, 11:09 AM)I never called anything extreme. And they failed. I think that survival of the fittest is a natural thing that happens when it's got to happen and cannot be forced because it's natural.
Sorry if I sounded harsh but I believe any talk of "survival of fitness" often leads to talk of eugenics, and eugenics is something people should not even consider. It has been attempted in the past and often involves either the death, or sterilisation of less fit members of society. It was often used on the pretext that it is for the good of humanity. In reality it just meant many people were denied their basic human rights. I am pretty sure this was NOT the meaning behind your post but I just wanted to highlight this fact - when some theories in science are taken too literally it can lead to dire consequences. Saying that, science is not inherently evil, it is how we interpret these theories that can lead to evil actions.