Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Science Vs. Religion
Options
Comments
-
-
Hey, i said practically the same thing:
Then we're agreed
Hold on, so how does this demonstrate that Christianity has always opposed rational enquiry? How do you square the fact that Christianity fostered science with the claim that the two are fundamentally opposed?
I never said they were That's something you'll find about atheists, we only actually have one thing in common, there is no atheist doctrine. The idea of faith is fundamentally opposed to the scientific method because it makes a virtue of accepting something without proof which is a "sin" in science but organised religion has not always been actively suppressing science. It's more that science has rejected religion than religion has rejected science tbhScience can't prove things. It can't prove what Catholics already believe since the Bible doesn't tell us much about how the natural world works. It is concerned with other things.
I think the Templeton foundation and many christians would disagree with you there. I think it's more that the bible tells us a good bit about how the world works but science has already rejected those explanations long ago so the religious did a bit of mind bending and said that those bits were never actually meant literally and were supposed to be metaphorical or something0 -
-
-
Actually most of the atheists on this forum are quite homogenous in their opinions. Differences tend to be slight. Most of you are not simply atheists, but rather humanists, with a smaller naturalist contingent. I haven't found a poster here yet who does not "believe in science" (to make a long story short).I never said they were That's something you'll find about atheists, we only actually have one thing in common, there is no atheist doctrine.
The idea of faith is fundamentally opposed to the scientific method because it makes a virtue of accepting something without proof which is a "sin" in science but organised religion has not always been actively suppressing science. It's more that science has rejected religion than religion has rejected science tbh
If faith is fundamentally opposed to the scientific method then how did it foster that method? How can something originate in its antithesis?
I assume by proof you mean evidence, since science is not about proof either. Faith is not about accepting things without evidence. It often involves evidence not favoured by science, because it deals with things that are outside the interests of science.
In the 5th century St Augustine himself wrote that the Genesis creation account should not be taken literally. The idea that Christians before Darwin were all young earth creationists is another myth. If you're not talking about that let me know.the religious did a bit of mind bending and said that those bits were never actually meant literally and were supposed to be metaphorical or something0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »You cant seperate Science and the Scientific Method, they are one in the same thing. When you say science in its broadest sense is the pursuit of knowledge, how do you think science accumulates this knowledge?
The word "science" comes from the latin word for "knowledge" so in its broadest sense, as simply the accumulation of knowledge, it can't really stand in opposition to anything. But the more important and relevant aspect of science is the scientific method:
Yeah, that was my point...Its with the scientific method as thats what defines the accumulation of knowledge as being scientific.
Which is a little hipocritical. Science is good enough for their work, but not good enough for their beliefs? Why do science at all if you wont apply it to your beliefs? This still does not necessarily mean that all scientists should be atheists I'll admit, but only because not all science deals directly with subjects that are of interest to religion. Those that do, really should apply their scientific thinking towards their beliefs, at least so they can be honest with themselves.
Well my point was that a scientist who is religious could argue that the scientific method need not be applied to anything outside the "domain" of science. I'm not agreeing with that position, just pointing out that it is usually the position taken by those scientists who are religious...Science has always been advancing into areas that have been in the domain of religion, ever since the first man climbed up Mnt Olympus and noticed the distinct lack of gods.
...and that is why I think its less of a tenable position as science delves deeper into areas tradtionally left in the religious domain.
It seems that we're making the exact same point, no? 0 -
-
The word "science" comes from the latin word for "knowledge" so in its broadest sense, as simply the accumulation of knowledge, it can't really stand in opposition to anything. But the more important and relevant aspect of science is the scientific method:
The word salary comes from the latin word for salt so in its broadest sense is your salary a measure of salt?
The broadest sense of science is the accumulation of knowledge using the scientific method. The accumulation of knowledge, irrespective of how its accumulated, is just learning.Yeah, that was my point...
Well, the way you have written it just above sorta implies that you think something can be science even if it doesnt use the scientific method (as long as you are gaining knowledge from it). I'm probably just being pedantic in saying that if you arent using the scientific method then its not science (its learning by some other method) as almost everything ends up going through the scientific method for verification anyway.Well my point was that a scientist who is religious could argue that the scientific method need not be applied to anything outside the "domain" of science. I'm not agreeing with that position, just pointing out that it is usually the position taken by those scientists who are religious...
Ok, and I'm not saying that there arent scientists who say this, thing is, the domain of science is, by definition, everything that exists subject to the laws of this universe. Whats left has nothing to be said about it, so if a scientist is not going to apply the scientific method to it, then rationally, that scientist should not have any beliefs about it either (my point here is just a comment on those scientists who think in this way, not on you)...and that is why I think its less of a tenable position as science delves deeper into areas tradtionally left in the religious domain.
It seems that we're making the exact same point, no?
Yeah, I think I misread you here a little, guess I'm just cynical and like to jump on points that I think are being made incorrectly
0 -
Well, if your point is that some English words are originally derived from latin words that no longer hold the same semantics, then I can't argue. But science being derived from knowledge doesn't seem to be one of those words.Mark Hamill wrote: »The word salary comes from the latin word for salt so in its broadest sense is your salary a measure of salt?The broadest sense of science is the accumulation of knowledge using the scientific method. The accumulation of knowledge, irrespective of how its accumulated, is just learning...
Well, the way you have written it just above sorta implies that you think something can be science even if it doesnt use the scientific method (as long as you are gaining knowledge from it).
The "Scientific Method" in all its current glory is a relatively recent phenomenom (certainly its rigour), most notably with the contribution in the 17th century of Francis Bacon and Decartes. On this basis, would you contend that there was no "science" before then? That Gallileo, Copernicus and Kepler weren't scientists? The modern concept of the scientific method was further expanded by 19th and 20th century revelations, so would you rule out Isaac Newton for example also? Some more recent scientists seemed to have ignored the current practices of what we now conceive of as the scientic method, so would Edison and Tesla have to go too?I'm probably just being pedantic in saying that if you arent using the scientific method then its not science (its learning by some other method) as almost everything ends up going through the scientific method for verification anyway.
Yeah, I think maybe a little.Ok, and I'm not saying that there arent scientists who say this, thing is, the domain of science is, by definition, everything that exists subject to the laws of this universe.
I think you're on pretty shakey absolutist grounds here. I mean the very statement itself is inherently a contradiction: what are the laws of the universe? Something physicists (scientists) are currently exploring surely? A lot of the current forefront of "Science" deals with things whose existence we're not "certain" about: elements of quantum mechanics, a single unified theory of the various fundamental forces, dark matter, string theory, m-theory, etcWhats left has nothing to be said about it, so if a scientist is not going to apply the scientific method to it, then rationally, that scientist should not have any beliefs about it either (my point here is just a comment on those scientists who think in this way, not on you)
I think religious people would disagree with you on that one (their disagreement was my point)Yeah, I think I misread you here a little, guess I'm just cynical and like to jump on points that I think are being made incorrectly
I think this is the first debate I've had with someone where we essentially seem to be in agreement! Makes for a nice change! 0 -
Well, if your point is that some English words are originally derived from latin words that no longer hold the same semantics, then I can't argue. But science being derived from knowledge doesn't seem to be one of those words.
Science is not so extreme as others, but it is more than just learning, the word it is derived from, it is a particular method of learning.The "Scientific Method" in all its current glory is a relatively recent phenomenom (certainly its rigour), most notably with the contribution in the 17th century of Francis Bacon and Decartes. On this basis, would you contend that there was no "science" before then? That Gallileo, Copernicus and Kepler weren't scientists? The modern concept of the scientific method was further expanded by 19th and 20th century revelations, so would you rule out Isaac Newton for example also? Some more recent scientists seemed to have ignored the current practices of what we now conceive of as the scientic method, so would Edison and Tesla have to go too?
The rigour is certainly new, but the basic premise of make a hypothesis, build a model to test it and alter that model/hypothesis to fit with any results has been around since the first cave man broke a branch off a log to roll it down a hill. I dont know the specifics of how Edison and Tesla worked, but as long as their hypotheses were testable (and tested) then they did science.I think you're on pretty shakey absolutist grounds here. I mean the very statement itself is inherently a contradiction: what are the laws of the universe? Something physicists (scientists) are currently exploring surely? A lot of the current forefront of "Science" deals with things whose existence we're not "certain" about: elements of quantum mechanics, a single unified theory of the various fundamental forces, dark matter, string theory, m-theory, etc
The whole foundation of science is the assumption that the universe does function according to some set of definable rules, and so science deals with everything effected by those rules. I never said that science actually understood those rules completely though, and I dont think it is a contradiction to say those rules are also part of the universe and effect one another.I think religious people would disagree with you on that one (their disagreement was my point)
They probably would, but then I dont think religious people think about their beliefs rationally.I think this is the first debate I've had with someone where we essentially seem to be in agreement! Makes for a nice change!
Certainly does! 0 -
-
Mark Hamill wrote: »The rigour is certainly new, but the basic premise of make a hypothesis, build a model to test it and alter that model/hypothesis to fit with any results has been around since the first cave man broke a branch off a log to roll it down a hill. I dont know the specifics of how Edison and Tesla worked, but as long as their hypotheses were testable (and tested) then they did science.
There's a lot more to the scientific method than merely forming hypotheses and testing them. I think a lot of the last 2000 years of scientific progress has not been because of the rigours of the scientific method and much more to do with basic human curiosity, experimentation an ad hoc reasoning. I think the scientific method as a framework is now accelerating and improving the current progress in science, but in the past scientific discoveries were made without the necessity of its formalisation.
Also, not all advances in science are driven by adherence to the scientific method at the outset. Consider Einstein's thought experiments that began him on the journey that would ultimately lead to the special theory of relativity, or Archemedes' famous "eureka" moment.The whole foundation of science is the assumption that the universe does function according to some set of definable rules
Depends what you mean by "definable"... quantum mechanics is at its core non-deterministic for example. It is for that reason some things, such as the secure mechanism of key exchange in quantum crpytography, are possible....and so science deals with everything effected by those rules. I never said that science actually understood those rules completely though, and I dont think it is a contradiction to say those rules are also part of the universe and effect one another.
I agree that is not a contradiction, but your initial statement ("The domain of science is, by definition, everything that exists subject to the laws of this universe") failed to account that science also deals with establishing what those laws are (now who's being pedantic).
Also, what about the concept of the multiverse with different sets of physical laws for each universe? Is that in the realms of scientific research?
And, since you are so enamoured of the scientific method, surely you must narrow your own definition to only those things that can be falsified and are repeatable? Given the non-deterministic nature at the quantum level, and at the material level unless you are teleologically subscribed to pre-destination, this does not include everything by a long shot. Take human emotion, psychology or society for example - repeatable testing could be pretty tricky where human "mood" and interaction are factors.
And why do you love somebody? Or like a film or book or flavour or colour? Want to suggest the objective, repeatable, falsifiable test around proving that?!
They probably would, but then I dont think religious people think about their beliefs rationally.
"Rational" is such a subjective word, I would say instead that they don't think about their beliefs scientifically. I mean anyone can theoretically think rationally about any internally consistent set of rules that don't hold objective meaning. The trick then is to ensure that one of the rules involves a supernatural agent as a "get out of jail free" card when that set of rules is supposed to impinge on the real world... but then of course it's objectively and definitively not scientific anymore!0 -
Advertisement
-
There's a lot more to the scientific method than merely forming hypotheses and testing them.
Thanks for the link. It shows the history of the ways we use for forming hypotheses and testing them. Things like observation, deductive logic, and induction are ways of creating hypotheses, while controlled experimentation of various kinds are ways of testing those hypotheses. Things like falsifiability, reproducability and peer review are just the extra stringent methods we have invented to verify our experimental results. Ultimately, it still comes down to somehow coming up with an idea, and testing that idea in a reliable way.Also, not all advances in science are driven by adherence to the scientific method at the outset. Consider Einstein's thought experiments that began him on the journey that would ultimately lead to the special theory of relativity, or Archemedes' famous "eureka" moment.
True, but eventually, to be considered science, advances need to be subjected to the scientific method, otherwise those ideas stay in your head.Depends what you mean by "definable"... quantum mechanics is at its core non-deterministic for example. It is for that reason some things, such as the secure mechanism of key exchange in quantum crpytography, are possible.
Definable in the sense that those rules are measurably constant, or variable according to some other rule which itself is definable.I agree that is not a contradiction, but your initial statement ("The domain of science is, by definition, everything that exists subject to the laws of this universe") failed to account that science also deals with establishing what those laws are (now who's being pedantic).
True, sorry about thatAlso, what about the concept of the multiverse with different sets of physical laws for each universe? Is that in the realms of scientific research?
Depends on wether anything created in this universe could exist in another universe with different rules. If nothing from this universe can exist in another universe, then there is no way to make any measurements of the other universe (either directly or indirectly) and so it would seem it would be outside the realms of our science.And, since you are so enamoured of the scientific method, surely you must narrow your own definition to only those things that can be falsified and are repeatable? Given the non-deterministic nature at the quantum level, and at the material level unless you are teleologically subscribed to pre-destination, this does not include everything by a long shot.
I dont really know anything about quantum mechanics, so I cant say anything about this. Is there anything in quantum mechanics that is completely unfalsifiable? (and never expected to be falsiable?)Take human emotion, psychology or society for example - repeatable testing could be pretty tricky where human "mood" and interaction are factors.
Mood and interaction are merely unknown variables, much like atom size, electrical charge and radiation were 200 or more years ago. Just because they are unmeasurable now doesnt mean we will never figure them out.And why do you love somebody? Or like a film or book or flavour or colour? Want to suggest the objective, repeatable, falsifiable test around proving that?!
No, but I'm not a biologist though. I'd imagine it all boils down to very complex brain chemistry."Rational" is such a subjective word, I would say instead that they don't think about their beliefs scientifically. I mean anyone can theoretically think rationally about any internally consistent set of rules that don't hold objective meaning. The trick then is to ensure that one of the rules involves a supernatural agent as a "get out of jail free" card when that set of rules is supposed to impinge on the real world... but then of course it's objectively and definitively not scientific anymore!
Yeah, I see what you are saying, I guess I just see "rationality" and "scientifically" as the same thing. 0
Advertisement