Pope warns: West seems 'tired' of faith

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes they are. Science is the antithesis of religion in terms of understanding and knowledge.

Only to someone who bastardises science tbh. Funnily enough, its nothing but rhetoric espoused by anti-theists. there is absolutely NOTHING incompatible between science and Christianity.

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

Only to someone who bastardises science tbh. Funnily enough, its nothing but rhetoric espoused by anti-theists. there is absolutely NOTHING incompatible between science and Christianity.

What about Evolution? Or Jesus coming back life? Or Jesus turning water into wine? Raising Lazarus from the dead? Healing the sick? Virgin Birth?

Morgans

JimiTime wrote: »

There is absolutely NOTHING incompatible between science and Christianity.

Not rhetoric. I think for something to become established as scientific fact it needs to reproductible. Until evidence can be provided that bread and wine becomes the actual body and blood of christ during transubstantiation, I cant see it becoming scientific fact.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

Only to someone who bastardises science tbh. Funnily enough, its nothing but rhetoric espoused by anti-theists. there is absolutely NOTHING incompatible between science and Christianity.

Barrington wrote: »

What about Evolution? Or Jesus coming back life? Or Jesus turning water into wine? Raising Lazarus from the dead? Healing the sick? Virgin Birth?

Or the fact that they're methodologies are completely different. Science being the one that works of course.

JimiTime

Barrington wrote: »

What about Evolution? Or Jesus coming back life? Or Jesus turning water into wine? Raising Lazarus from the dead? Healing the sick? Virgin Birth?

Yeah, and where is the incompatibility? If you follow science in a religious way, and use it as a kind of ideology beyond the lab, then yes, its a clash of religion. If we are talking about ACTUAL science though, then there is absolutely no issue. Its just a make-believe divide set up by the intellectually insecure that feel they can somehow claim science as their own, and thus claim the higher ground or that feel that claiming science for themselves belittles the position of what they hate i.e. Theism. There is absolutely no basis for it though. As I said, if one uses science in a religious fashion, then of course, there is a clash. However, if one is talking of ACTUAL science, then there is no difference in a Christian using the scientific method and a materialist using it. That a Christian believes that there is something beyond the natural, is of no consequence to ACTUAL science (observing and modelling the natural). It IS of consequence to those who follow the materialist world-view, and consequently apply the scientific method as a life philosophy. So the clash is with Christianity and the religion of science, rather than with Christianity and ACTUAL science.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

...That a Christian believes that there is something beyond the natural, is of no consequence to ACTUAL science (observing and modelling the natural)...

You know that's not true.

Robert ninja

You can practice science and be religious. Science and religions are compatible within people themselves but not literally with each other. So I would agree that science and religion are incompatible.

And they're just very different things, too. Science is a tool used to discover truths about our reality and make useful predictions for all sorts of reasons. Religion is a statement about reality.

So, one is a tool to find the truth(science), the other says we know everything anyway and here is how you should live your life(religion).

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You know that's not true.

I wouldn't say it if I didn't think it was true CC.

JimiTime

Robert ninja wrote: »

You can practice science and be religious. Science and religions are compatible within people themselves but not literally with each other. So I would agree that science and religion are incompatible.

And they're just very different things, too.

The contradiction is there. They are different, not incompatible.

Science is a tool used to discover truths about our reality

I don't think you'll actually find many scientists espousing that definition tbh.

Religion is a statement about reality.

Christianity is a lot more than a statement, and you can bet your bottom dollar that any statement it does make does not concern itself with the methodologies of a discipline for measuring the natural world.

So, one is a tool to find the truth(science), the other says we know everything .anyway and here is how you should live your life(religion).

As CC thanked this, I will assume he agrees with it. It shows a great ignorance of Christianity to say this. It most certainly makes NO such claim.

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, and where is the incompatibility? If you follow science in a religious way, and use it as a kind of ideology beyond the lab, then yes, its a clash of religion. If we are talking about ACTUAL science though, then there is absolutely no issue. Its just a make-believe divide set up by the intellectually insecure that feel they can somehow claim science as their own, and thus claim the higher ground or that feel that claiming science for themselves belittles the position of what they hate i.e. Theism. There is absolutely no basis for it though. As I said, if one uses science in a religious fashion, then of course, there is a clash. However, if one is talking of ACTUAL science, then there is no difference in a Christian using the scientific method and a materialist using it. That a Christian believes that there is something beyond the natural, is of no consequence to ACTUAL science (observing and modelling the natural). It IS of consequence to those who follow the materialist world-view, and consequently apply the scientific method as a life philosophy. So the clash is with Christianity and the religion of science, rather than with Christianity and ACTUAL science.

I'm not sure what you mean.

The things I mentioned, go against what we know about science. Bringing people back to life, healing the blind, the sick, the lepers just by touching them. A virgin birth.

These things are incompatible with science. Forget about religion for the moment. Most of the miracles described in the Bible cannot happen going by what we know to be the laws of nature and science. That's why they are called miracles. But to believe that these miracles happened is to disregard science because everything we now know about science proves that most of these events could not have happened. It's not treating science as a religion, it's treating science as science. And anything which disobeys the laws of science is incompatible with science. Same reason Creationism isn't taught in a science class. It goes against what science is.

Robert ninja

JimiTime wrote: »

The contradiction is there. They are different, not incompatible.

It was just a description.

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think you'll actually find many scientists espousing that definition tbh.

There's many ways to say the same thing. THat's my way, and it's a very clear way imo. Any scientist will agree that science is a tool to be used to create theories predicting things in the known universe.

JimiTime wrote: »

As CC thanked this, I will assume he agrees with it. It shows a great ignorance of Christianity to say this. It most certainly makes NO such claim.

Really? Well, the religion and the followers claim to know the origin of the universe, the creator (in detail), a PERSONAL relationship with said creator. And other small things like... oh... the meaning of life? Ya know... big ballsy statements about the universe that leave me with no shame in saying that religion says it knows everything.


I'll say it again, science and religion are incompatible and examples have already been given. They are incompatible to each other directly but NOT to people. You can be religious and practice science by keeping them completely seperate. You cannot combine them and if one tries to, they fail or either lie to themselves and it's not science anymore. Most people who are in with both overcome this with RATIONALIZING.

Simple.

JimiTime

Barrington wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean.

The things I mentioned, go against what we know about science. Bringing people back to life, healing the blind, the sick, the lepers just by touching them. A virgin birth.

IF these things were said to have been natural occurances, then you might have a point. We don't proclaim that people naturally rise from the dead etc though. We don't say that it is possible that women can simply become pregnant having never been with a man etc. these are incidents that are OUTSIDE of science. So rather than them being incompatible, they are actually of no concern to it.

Forget about religion for the moment. Most of the miracles described in the Bible cannot happen going by what we know to be the laws of nature and science.

Absolutely.

But to believe that these miracles happened is to disregard science because everything we now know about science proves that most of these events could not have happened.

Not so. As I said, to say that these things happen naturally is to enter the scientific realm. No such claim was made though.

It's not treating science as a religion, it's treating science as science.

It most certainly is treating it as a religion. Its saying that the natural is all that exists. That is a philisophical position which elevates science to something more than it claims of itself.

And anything which disobeys the laws of science is incompatible with science.

Would you consider that statement a scientific statement?

JimiTime

Robert ninja wrote: »

I'll say it again, science and religion are incompatible

And many are of that opinion. Its still just rhetoric though even if you think your opinions in this thread somehow make it more than that.

Robert ninja

JimiTime wrote: »

And many are of that opinion. Its still just rhetoric though even if you think your opinions in this thread somehow make it more than that.

It's not just an opinion. Go ahead and combine them. Try and scientifically explain how supernatural things happen. When people really start to mix science with religion... it's no longer science. That's how they're incompatible. Not magic or that someone can't do a science lecture and then preach the bible.

Penn

JimiTime wrote: »

IF these things were said to have been natural occurances, then you might have a point. We don't proclaim that people naturally rise from the dead etc though. We don't say that it is possible that women can simply become pregnant having never been with a man etc. these are incidents that are OUTSIDE of science. So rather than them being incompatible, they are actually of no concern to it.


Absolutely.



Not so. As I said, to say that these things happen naturally is to enter the scientific realm. No such claim was made though.



It most certainly is treating it as a religion. Its saying that the natural is all that exists. That is a philisophical position which elevates science to something more than it claims of itself.



Would you consider that statement a scientific statement?

But you can't have something which happens OUTSIDE of science. It's like claiming that these things can happen outside the environment. You can't go outside the environment, you can only go into another environment.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. These miracles cannot occur in what we know about the physical and natural world. So if they happen outside science, they could not have happened in our physical and natural world. Science and religion are incompatible.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Only to someone who bastardises science tbh. Funnily enough, its nothing but rhetoric espoused by anti-theists. there is absolutely NOTHING incompatible between science and Christianity.

Scientific philosophy says you shouldn't be able to say, with any accuracy, anything about the supernatural because it cannot be studied to the standard of science.

If that wasn't the case then scientists could say lots of things in science without having to back it up with science, just like the natural philosophers before the dawn of the scientific age.

But you say tons of things about the supernatural all the time. All religious people do.

Can you genuinely not see the issue there?

The idea that it is ok because you are saying these things about things that are "outside" of science is ridiculously missing the point. Science says you shouldn't be able to say anything about something that is outside of science, that is the point of science.

If you could then what would be the necessity of science (seem to remember asking that question a while back).

Science and religion are incompatible because religion makes claims that science say cannot be made because they cannot be supported. This of course doesn't stop people making the claims, but when they do they are being incompatible with the principles of science.

How much you care about that is irrelevant to the underlying issue of the existence of the incompatibility.

And by Dawkins beard if you say it is ok because religion makes claims about things that are outside of science one more time I'll scream!

Donatello

Wicknight wrote: »

Scientific philosophy says you shouldn't be able to say, with any accuracy, anything about the supernatural because it cannot be studied to the standard of science.

If that wasn't the case then scientists could say lots of things in science without having to back it up with science, just like the natural philosophers before the dawn of the scientific age.

But you say tons of things about the supernatural all the time. All religious people do.

Can you genuinely not see the issue there?

The idea that it is ok because you are saying these things about things that are "outside" of science is ridiculously missing the point. Science says you shouldn't be able to say anything about something that is outside of science, that is the point of science.

If you could then what would be the necessity of science (seem to remember asking that question a while back).

Science and religion are incompatible because religion makes claims that science say cannot be made because they cannot be supported. This of course doesn't stop people making the claims, but when they do they are being incompatible with the principles of science.

How much you care about that is irrelevant to the underlying issue of the existence of the incompatibility.

And by Dawkins beard if you say it is ok because religion makes claims about things that are outside of science one more time I'll scream!

Scientism is its own religion - it's dogma is that only what can be scientifically verified is true and there is therefore required faith in this belief. But the supernatural is beyond the competence of science, for the most part. Science has its limits - it is not the be all and the end all of everything.

Science cannot explain love any more than it can explain the origins of the various Eucharistic miracles.

CMpunked

Question;
What is a "Eucharistic miracle"?

Donatello

CMpunked wrote: »

Question;
What is a "Eucharistic miracle"?

There are lots of them - read about them here:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

Now, with regard to science: in these times, science is understood in the contemporary Positivistic sense which only recognises the quantifiable as scientific. The modern understanding of science though is quite limited in that it only accepts the measurable as real.

Cardinal Ratzinger – amongst others – refuted this contemporary view of science by reminding us that even the presence of a scientist can affect the outcome of an experiment and that a certain amount of faith and humility before mystery needs to be employed if science is to be authentic!

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Scientific philosophy says you shouldn't be able to say, with any accuracy, anything about the supernatural because it cannot be studied to the standard of science.

If that wasn't the case then scientists could say lots of things in science without having to back it up with science, just like the natural philosophers before the dawn of the scientific age.

But you say tons of things about the supernatural all the time. All religious people do.

Can you genuinely not see the issue there?

The idea that it is ok because you are saying these things about things that are "outside" of science is ridiculously missing the point. Science says you shouldn't be able to say anything about something that is outside of science, that is the point of science.

If you could then what would be the necessity of science (seem to remember asking that question a while back).

Science and religion are incompatible because religion makes claims that science say cannot be made because they cannot be supported. This of course doesn't stop people making the claims, but when they do they are being incompatible with the principles of science.

How much you care about that is irrelevant to the underlying issue of the existence of the incompatibility.

And by Dawkins beard if you say it is ok because religion makes claims about things that are outside of science one more time I'll scream!

What you have presented above is not Science, but a philosophy built on science. As i previously said, its a religious view, and this naturalistic religious like view is indeed in conflict with Christianity. However, Christianity is not incompatible with ACTUAL Science. Saying the supernatural exists, is not science. Its not incompatible with science, its simply NOT science. It IS however incompatible with naturalism.

getz

if the pope wishes to know why,i would tell him,read the bible and start over again,i do not believe that any of the apostles,would recognize the church of to-day,as being christian,the reason most people are tired of the faith is because of the way it is being practiced

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Scientism is its own religion - it's dogma is that only what can be scientifically verified is true and there is therefore required faith in this belief

Actually science (or Scientism as you some what inaccurately put it) states that we can never know if a model about the physical world is actually true or not, only build up support for its accuracy.

You can call it dogma or religion if you like, but what it doesn't have in common with religion is that this was worked out in philosophy, not stated by those claiming authority from a god.

IE, you can if you like argue that it is wrong, and if you produce a convincing enough argument you may even get people to change their minds.

On the other hand it is some what difficult to argue that God is wrong, and thus by proxy those claiming to represent God are wrong.

Donatello wrote: »

But the supernatural is beyond the competence of science, for the most part. Science has its limits - it is not the be all and the end all of everything.

Science's limits are there because we have limits. Science is simply a methodology we use. If these limits did not exist for us they wouldn't bind science either. Science is a reflection of our issues with accurately assessing information about the world around us.

The idea that scientific philosophy says that we have limits when only doing science is a falsehood, most commonly presented by religious people unhappy with the limits scientific philosophy says we have.

Donatello wrote: »

Science cannot explain love any more than it can explain the origins of the various Eucharistic miracles.

You cannot explain these things either, not the the standard science says is necessary.

You confuse having an explanation and having an explanation you can confidently show is likely to be correct. You can put forward an explanation, or any explanation you like. You can choose to believe this explanation if you like.

But scientific philosophy says that because you cannot assess this explanation in any meaningful manner you cannot state anything about its accuracy.

Or to put it another way, you have zero way of showing if you are right or wrong. This is brilliantly demonstrated by the fact that after only a few decades scientists created a theory of electro-magnatism that is universally accepted throughout the world, where as religions have been arguing and fighting over which is the true religion for thousands of years and there are still thousands of competing religions.

You can choose to believe you are right, but that means nothing in scientific philosophy, because having an explanation, any explanation, is not as important as having an accurate one.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

What you have presented above is not Science, but a philosophy built on science.

Science is a methodology build upon the philosophy of science. Scientists didn't arbitrarily make up things like repeatability, fallibility. They exist because of the conclusions reached through the philosophical process. There is a long history of philosophy about human knowledge shaping modern scientific methodology.

You can disagree with it if you choose. But you are disagreeing with science, and thus are in conflict with it.

JimiTime wrote: »

However, Christianity is not incompatible with ACTUAL Science. Saying the supernatural exists, is not science. Its not incompatible with science, its simply NOT science.

If you genuinely believe that you don't understand why science says what it says.

There is nothing in science or the philosophy of science that says the limitations of human assessment disappear by simply not using science. Such an idea itself is ridiculous, if that were the case science itself would be unnecessary. Everyone would become a lot better at assessing the accuracy of statements about the world around us by not using science, rather than the reality which is the exact opposite.

Science says that you should not be able to say anything with any accuracy about a supernatural claim because you cannot assess that claim using scientific methodology.

If you disagree you disagree with science. Pure and simple.

It says that because if it didn't say that then science would be pointless. If you could say something about a claim that did not require assessment to the scientific method then what would be the point of the scientific method.

Scientific standards do not exist in a vacuum. They were not simply made up on whim. They are a reflection of the limitations humans, limitations that do not simply disappear because you turn your attention to studying God.

stephendevlin

Religion is based on belief of the unknown and rewards in a place after your death (if you are good).


If this wasnt preached what kind of people would we be? Religion seems to be the foundations of nearly all our laws/culture/morality

There are still tribes in parts of south america that have never seen a TV / Car . But if we told them that something exists like this (religion) they more or likely would believe us. And we continued to "groom" them for Religion they would do the same and preach to others.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Science is a methodology build upon the philosophy of science.

Science is a discipline for observing and modelling the natural.

Scientists didn't arbitrarily make up things like repeatability, fallibility. They exist because of the conclusions reached through the philosophical process.

And it makes no pronouncements about things that are outside of its realm. It takes another step to do that. That step being naturalism. Science is what it is, and some people use it in building a life philosophy. this life philosophy is where the conflict lies, not in anything Scientific.

You can disagree with it if you choose. But you are disagreeing with science, and thus are in conflict with it.

Again, I understand that this rhetoric is rife among anti-theists. I recognise that, all I'm saying, is that rhetoric is all it is.

If you genuinely believe that you don't understand why science says what it says.

Scientists 'say', People 'say', Science is a discipline of observation and modelling which anyone can follow. You go beyond science, and elevate it to a life philosophy.

There is nothing in science or the philosophy of science that says the limitations of human assessment disappear by simply not using science.

And? Whats that got to do with anything?

Science says that you should not be able to say anything with any accuracy about a supernatural claim because you cannot assess that claim using scientific methodology.

No, a person who believes that science is all there is to decipher truth says this. Again, this is beyond science. Its a pseudo-scientific claim based on a religious like world-view that says science is all we have.
Science is simply the method of observing and modelling.

If you disagree you disagree with science. Pure and simple.

And as i said, rhetoric abounds the topic. i don't doubt you believe what you are saying, but as i am a Christian, I have an issue with your particular religious claims:)

It says that because if it didn't say that then science would be pointless. If you could say something about a claim that did not require assessment to the scientific method then what would be the point of the scientific method.

Your objection above makes no sense. The point of the scientific method is not made pointless by supernatural claims. Firstly, the effects of the supernatural CAN be measured. For example, 4 women with cancer are healed by the holy spirit. This CAN be measured, but science will be limited to observing the natural. The model will probably only be able to conclude in this incidence either a) the women had cancer and still have cancer or b) the women had cancer and now don't have cancer. The effects of the supernatural (or not) can be measured by Science, but if the supernatural occurs, it as a cause will likely be beyond the realm of scientific measurement. Does that make the supernatural incompatible with science? Of course not, it makes it beyond the realm of science. This is incompatible with the religious-like view that anything outside of science is not real, but thats not surprising. thats simply a conflict of two religious views.

I think this explains the difference between ACTUAL science, and holding up science as a religious-like world view.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Science is a discipline for observing and modelling the natural.

..base on a philosophy underpinning how the decisions of the scientific methodology. IE what is the best way to go about modeling

JimiTime wrote: »

And it makes no pronouncements about things that are outside of its realm.

It says that you cannot make pronouncements about things outside of its realm. That is the point of science. If it didn't say that then there would be no scientific standards in the first place.

Or put it another way, why can't a scientist not simply insert "God did it" into any scientific theory he thinks would be better with such a statement?

"God did it" is obviously outside of the scientific realm, but science is not simply neutral to such a statement. It actively says you canot include it in a scientific model. That rule is not simply arbitrary. It says that because the philosophy underpinning science says you cannot have confidence in its accuracy.

JimiTime wrote: »

Science is what it is

And where the heck do you think this came from in the first place? You think people just made up arbitrary rules?

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, I understand that this rhetoric is rife among anti-theists. I recognise that, all I'm saying, is that rhetoric is all it is.

And I understand that this idea that science does say anything about these supernatural claims is rhetoric rife among theists. I recognize that, all I'm saying, is that rhetoric is all it is, based on either ignorance of the ideas behind science or simply willful misrepresentation.

JimiTime wrote: »

Scientists 'say', People 'say', Science is a discipline of observation and modelling which anyone can follow. You go beyond science, and elevate it to a life philosophy.

And it is not a discipline that people just arbitrarily made up. There is a philosophy of why certain things are in science and why they aren't, why you have to model things a particular way and not a different way.

You treat science as if it is something that just popped into existence and the rules of science were just arbitrarily chosen.

JimiTime wrote: »

And? Whats that got to do with anything?

That is your claim, that science says its rules only apply when doing science, but when looking at something outside of science these standards become irrelevant. Scientific philosophy, the reason these rules exist in the first place, does not say that, quite the opposite in fact.

JimiTime wrote: »

No, a person who believes that science is all there is to decipher truth says this. Again, this is beyond science.

Whether it is "beyond" science is irrelevant. Science itself says that you must follow its standards or you are not able to confidently state things about reality.

It says this precisely to stop the introduction of non-scientific statements into scientific theory.

If there was a way to "decipher truth" beyond science that still reached these standards then that wouldn't be beyond science, it would just be science. There is no reason for science to exclude methods that produce accurate descriptions of reality that maintain scientific standards.

The reason these methods are not included in the scientific process if because they fail scientific standards. And as such science says you shouldn't be able to have confidence in the output of these methods.

You can, of course, disagree. But you are in conflict with science when you do.

JimiTime wrote: »

Science is simply the method of observing and modelling.

That requires specific standards. If a system meets these standards it is include in science. If it doesn't it is excluded precisely because science says you cannot have confidence in information gain from it.

JimiTime wrote: »

Your objection above makes no sense. The point of the scientific method is not made pointless by supernatural claims. Firstly, the effects of the supernatural CAN be measured. For example, 4 women with cancer are healed by the holy spirit. This CAN be measured, but science will be limited to observing the natural.

It cannot be measured to scientific standards. As such scientific philosophy says you cannot have confidence in the explanation ("healed by the holy spirit").

It is not simply that science is neutral to such a claim. Science specifically says you cannot have confidence in the claims accuracy. You can believe if all you like, but if you assert confidence in the claim that cannot be supported to a scientific level, you are contradicting the philosophy of science.

Which is why no scientific theory in the world includes "healed by the holy spirit".

Imagine the alternative. Science said you can actually be confident in such a claim, or at the very least said it makes no judgement either way.

If that was the case why not simply include it in the scientific model of these patients. You are confident of it, you some how conclude that the Holy Spirit did something. So why not just pop it into the model? Why would scientific philosophy say you shouldn't do that?

JimiTime wrote: »

The model will probably only be able to conclude in this incidence either a) the women had cancer and still have cancer or b) the women had cancer and now don't have cancer. The effects of the supernatural (or not) can be measured by Science, but if the supernatural occurs, it as a cause will likely be beyond the realm of scientific measurement. Does that make the supernatural incompatible with science?

The issue is not the supernatural, it is claims by humans about the supernatural.

For all we know an invisible Jesus was walking around healing all these people. Science can't, by definition, ever assess if that is the case or not.

But that is not all that is happening with religion. What is also happening is someone is claiming "A supernatural Jesus is walking around healing all these people! I know this to be true!"

Scientific philosophy says you can't make that claim with any level of confidence. You cannot say that happened and you cannot say it didn't happen, any more than any other claim about the supernatural.

The problems comes when people don't say "Ah good point science, I should probably stop asserting that claim as accurate" and instead say "Well I used something other than science to work out that this is in fact what happened, so I'm sticking to the story"

That is in conflict with science. Asserting claims as having a high level of accuracy that cannot be supported by science is anti-science. It doesn't matter what the claim is, unless you have modelled it using science science says you should not be able to know if that model is accurate or not.

It is not something science is neutral on, it is something science actively says you should not be able to do. And it says this for very specific reasons.

prinz

Science versus religion. This is new ground.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

Science versus religion. This is new ground.

No it's not science won.

Fanny Cradock

If this thread is going the way of willy waving then it's getting locked.

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If this thread is going the way of willy waving then it's getting locked.

I make it a point in my life never to do that both figuratively and literally. As I always say it's only rational to put your money on the horse that always wins, the horse being science in the race for truth.