Is religion merely failed science?

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118086388#Comment_118086388

Well if we knew the answer all those questions, we'd be God 🤣.

But in all honesty HD, discussing anything with you that you disagree with is a monumental waste of energy. You're against everything you don't believe in and are about as open to different opinions as a closed book.

For the record, why is evolution called a theory if its more than that. Its just a theory written by a man who wanted to refute any idea of a creator and believed by those who hold the same view. Its just a theory and unprovable.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118087419#Comment_118087419

I like that. You get a gold star.

Potential-Monke

Just my 2 cents, but Religion, imo, was created to control the masses and put natural occurences that couldn't be explained at the time as the work of a God, so people would worship (read: donate). It has no place in a modern society, and I would be all for removing it from protected status, as it's a personal decision that shouldn't interfere with anyone else in any way, shape or form, ie: no time off for religious purposes.

J.O. Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118082436#Comment_118082436

Good point and good post.

I should use the word evidence and to go further science mostly has theories which can of course be proven wrong should further evidence to the contrary be found.

Religion tends to have dogma which is taken to be correct. In science I am only familiar with the central dogma of molecular biology which I won't say is unique (I could be wrong) but it is certainly rare in it's use though I don't believe it was intended to be dogmatic.

J.O. Farmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118087561#Comment_118087561

So you want to cancel time off for Christmas and St. Patrick's day and Easter Monday, it's about the only time most people not in school get off for religious reasons.

Even then there is no requirement to actually believe in any religion nevermind Christianity or even the pagan gods which might have originally been worshipped around these times.

Pherekydes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118087464#Comment_118087464

He forgot 3 and 4. To control and keep women down, and to make money from the poor.

Pherekydes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118087463#Comment_118087463

Jeez, it's 2021. Evolution is a scientifically proven theory.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118087463#Comment_118087463

Oooh, the irony. I'm not the one using religious dogma as a thought-terminating cliche. That's not discussion.

I'm not seeing any openness whatsoever from you to anything which contradicts biblical literalism. You dismiss science using logically incorrect fallacies.

You need to educate yourself as to the scientific meaning, as opposed to the everyday meaning, of the word "theory". Gravity is a theory, but you still fall down.

The theory of evolution is a fact, and an observed fact. Incidentally it is accepted as factual by many churches, including the Roman Catholic Church and they believe in the same bible you do.

Its just a theory written by a man who wanted to refute any idea of a creator

You'd need to provide some evidence if you expect anyone to entertain such an assertion - oh and explain why the masses of evidence discovered since should be ignored. But this isn't supposed to be a creationism thread. Listening to creationists trot out their failed arguments and downright disingenuousness again and again is just so boring.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118087143#Comment_118087143

the scientific principle obviously, until we find absolute evidence that there is life out there we must assume that there is not.

But we know there are many planets with similar conditions to the early Earth - if life began here, why not there? We cannot dismiss that possibility (some would say, probability).

a light year is the distance that light travels in one year, radio waves like light waves are electromagnetic radiation and travel at the speed of light. Actually you are partly correct they have travelled nearly 150 light years at this stage

Yeah, it's partly correct that 100,000,000 does not equal 150 🤣

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118089537#Comment_118089537

Evolution by its very nature is said to occur over long periods of time. No one has lived long enough to observe it. So it's not observed fact. It's 2 points in time and a deduction made which tries to fill in the gaps.

It's no different to eohippus. They made assumptions that it was the progenitor of modern day horses but have never found an intact one to make such a claim.

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118088956#Comment_118088956

There we go again. Theory 🤣

randd1

Religion is not “failed science”. It’s not a science at all.

Science relies on fact, religion relies upon the stupidity of man.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118089740#Comment_118089740

Like I said - and you predictably ignored - you need to educate yourself instead of repeatedly spouting scientifically illiterate logical fallacies.

Gravity is a theory, but you still fall down.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118089728#Comment_118089728

Now you are misrepresenting what evolution is. But by all means feel free to disprove it with valid observations and deductions - that is what the scientific method is about, after all. Trying to squash reality to fit within the confines of your bible isn't going to work.

Somebody needs to fix the quote function

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118089728#Comment_118089728

Really?

That'll be news to biologists, so. You can observe evolution in action - the results of 'survival of the fittest' in some species - in as little as 15 generations. There was even a story on (I think) the RTÉ news app recently (as in literally the last week), about some herds of elephants being observed to no longer grow tusks. Survival of the fittest in effect - the ones with big, long tusks get poached. The ones with smaller/no tusks live longer, therefore breed more, therefore spread their genes more.

Try reading some Dawkins. No, really. His biology books give many more real-world, proven examples. I can't remember which book offhand I read, probably one of 'The Greatest Show on Earth', or 'The Selfish Gene', but he gives examples of observed rapid evolution. There's the famous silver fox experiment: The silver fox domestication experiment | Evolution: Education and Outreach | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Dawkins outlines another experiment where dark-coloured fish are taken from a river with a dark riverbed and introduced to a river with a light-coloured riverbed. Within a few generations, their offspring have evolved to also be light-bodied.

So yeah, evolution is real, and observable.

Judging by your other posts, you should also try to understand what the word "theory" means when you're talking about scientific theories. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118088939#Comment_118088939

There was a bit of a sideways reference there to the holocaust. Maybe it was a bit too subtle.

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118090469#Comment_118090469

I Have to say when you mentioned the elephants as proof of evolution I stopped reading. I read the article as well. They are still elephants. They haven't become anything other than elephants.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118090551#Comment_118090551

Ah. Ok. Not many people will admit to being willfully ignorant, but it seems you're the exception...

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118090589#Comment_118090589

So tell me what are the elephants now that they are elephants without tusks.

Have they changed species. Because that's what evolutionist will tell me evolution is.

A lump of slime becoming a man.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118090618#Comment_118090618

I'm confused. Are you actually of the opinion that one day a creature that's a member of one species - say, for the sake of argument, an elephant - gives birth to another animal that's a completely different species?! Let's call it a neo-elephant. No. That's not what happens, and I didn't say it did.

Speciation takes place over many generations. There is no point at which you can point to a one particular specimen between ancestor and latest animal and say "The parent was definitely a member of the elephant species, but this one is a different species from the ancestor, a neo-elephant."

What has been observed and reported on is the effects of natural selection, in just a small number of generations, that leads to speciation. AKA evolution. Silver foxes with curly tails, floppy ears and round snouts - and differently-coloured coats.. Dark-bodied fish becoming light-bodied (and vice versa). Tuskless elephants. The peppered moth population changing from 2% dark to being 95% dark.

Or, leaving aside natural selection, you can look at mutation. if you want to look at lots and lots of generations - how about Richard Lenski's experiments with E.Coli? 31,500 generations of E.Coli, in fact, where mutation led to a strain of E.Coli that can absorb citrate ("wild" E.Coli can't).

joe40

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118082436#Comment_118082436

Good post. Anyone who uses terms like "scientifically proven", are not scientists. Maybe in marketing or such like

Science is confined to the scientific method, as you explained, but that is its strength.

Religion like philosophy proposes ideas and thoughts, which can be very useful in it's own right in helping to understand the human condition. Science must follow empirical evidence. This does not allow for dogmatic truth.

We are ultimately limited by our intellect (when I say our intellect I mean really smart people) so the entire workings of the universe may be beyond us, but that is OK. However it is only through scientific investigation that we will understand as much as is humanly possible.

SouthWesterly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118090791#Comment_118090791

Mutation within a species is not evolution. A light moth mutating to reflect its surroundings is still the same species of moth.

This thread is like ADHD. Is creationism not exclusive to one particular branch of Christian fundamentalism? Most Christian faith believes in some form theistic evolution, ie a God which created the universe and all that's in it, and therefore compatible with the laws of nature and gravity as being divinely designed.

The references to days and weeks in the bible have numerical value in the original Hebraic scripture and are significant for what that represents. For example, the word Sabbath is derived from the number 7-Shabbat (God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th) but is a reflection of the word for rest, which was a commandment given by the Abrahamic God. (to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy: they are commanded to rest one day a week)

There's way too many religions to all be tarred with the same brush, and most of them would nare be considered a form of science. Philosophies, laws, historical transcripts maybe but I think the only religion which considers itself a science is scientology (do they? I dunno).

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118091399#Comment_118091399

...

Right, so. Give us your definition of evolution, then...

Black Swan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118086336#Comment_118086336

Theories are educated guesses that have both deductive and inductive empirical data that suggests support for, or against, the theories (see Wallace’s Wheel of Science). Unlike faith based theological perspectives that generally require unquestioning true believers to sustain them, theories subject to the scientific method are constantly questioned and subject to revision or falsification (see Karl Popper, et al).

The theory of evolution thus far has had a preponderance of empirical data that suggests support in general. Since proposed it has withstood continuous attempts at falsification to this day. Without going into a ponderously conceptual discussion of theory construction, including estimates of reliability and validity in terms of how the theory of evolution suggests useful explanations for our natural world, it can be said to facilitate praxis.

For example, the fields of biology, medicine, paleontology, etc, have greatly advanced by the empirical generalizations suggested by evolutionary theory. That is not to say that the original theory has not been subject to revisions in a way consistent with Wallace. It has. But in general it has not yet been falsified and still has utility to help today’s scientific explorations.

YFlyer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118081042#Comment_118081042

No it doesn't assume. Alway evolving. Had some so call scientist that think previous century scientist would not graduate in a current BSc.

vriesmays

Going to daily mass is better for your mental health than taking antidepressants.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118097724#Comment_118097724

Nope. It may be better for your mental health (I'll assume you have tried both), but anecdote != data, and what works for you is not for everyone. I would assume going to daily mass is pretty **** useless for a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim or an atheist.

Hotblack Desiato

The usual "but religious people live longer" crapola - comparing people who are able to regularly get out of the house and meet their peers with people who can't (or won't), and then coming to the conclusion they desperately wanted.

Just getting out of the house and meeting people on a regular / daily basis is good for you. Nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118103187#Comment_118103187

Yup. I'm a social creature - Parkrun of a Saturday morning and a regular weekly pub night works for me :-)

Hotblack Desiato

Carrying out the miracle of turning wine into water 😁

vriesmays

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118097885#Comment_118097885

I don't take tablets. Engaging with religion has been shown to improve one's mental health. Antidepressants reduce the symptoms and make you fat.

Pherekydes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118126946#Comment_118126946

Battling religion constantly is probably not going to do your mental health much good.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118126946#Comment_118126946

Ah, yes, the studies that conclude that it doesn't actually matter what religion you engage with - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Satanism, they all correlate to roughly the same result? Yeah. I've got to say I did miss the sense of community when I stopped going to a church. Long since replaced once I found my tribe, I'm glad to say. Others do the same with the local sports club or the like.

vriesmays

You think the local sports club with a bunch of gaa twats can form a deeper bond than embracing religion.

vriesmays

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118127930#Comment_118127930

You think engaging is the same as battling.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118131070#Comment_118131070

Ah, irony. A metal, like goldy and silvery.

Well, y'see - there's people who follow religion. Some of those would be the kind of judgemental, hypocritical **** who'd use terms like "bunch of gaa twats" about people they don't know.

(Personally, I'd rather not be like that.)

Then there's the communities formed around hobbies and shared interests, the arts, sports clubs - yes, including gaa - where people from all walks of life start off being there there for a common shared interest, that often develop into genuine, lifelong, friendships and real communities. Tends to be less hypocrites around, too.

That can absolutely happen in churches and organised religions, of course. Rare enough, though, where people turn up once a week for an hour, in my experience, but it can happen.

Black Swan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118131070#Comment_118131070

Depends on individual values, differences, and needs. Gives rise to the old cliche: Does one shoe size fit all?

Further, does it have to be an either/or decision? Can someone derive meaning and satisfaction from both at the same time?

Zebra3

Religion is about power, money and access to children.

Pherekydes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118131072#Comment_118131072

It's astonishing that the obvious must be pointed out to you, but if you are not of the majority religion, then yes, engaging can indeed be battling.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118134866#Comment_118134866

Some people are so far down the rabbit hole they see the catholic domination of state-funded health and education services here as entirely normal.

People looking for a neutral education for their kids i.e. without religious propaganda-as-fact are regarded as "weirdos" and constantly insulted and belittled on this site (ironically often by people who call themselves catholic but rarely bother to see the inside of a church)

96% of primary schools in this country are controlled by a church. That's insane in a supposedly developed country.

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118135241#Comment_118135241

Yeah, it’s amazing how submissive the Bouncy Castle Catholics are.

Why anyone would put their kids into an organisation steeped in paedophilia is beyond me.

vriesmays

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118134866#Comment_118134866

There's an Amish community in the South East. Ask them if their religion is battling.

Freddie Mcinerney

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058215091/is-religion-merely-failed-science

Just no. Jesus, Taoism, Buddhism, Vegas are not primitive. You show your primitive.

Freddie Mcinerney

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118131070#Comment_118131070

Yes I can.

vriesmays

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118162854#Comment_118162854

More people in Ireland have been ruined from up running round a field chasing a ball with the village idiots on the sidelines shouting abuse than from the Catholic Church.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118164275#Comment_118164275

Yeah? The parents, spectators, coaches and officials are busy raping kids, imprisoning them for forced labour in Magdalene Laundries, conducting illegal adoptions from Mother and Baby Homes and filling up septic tanks with the bodies of those they were supposed to be looking after? Get a grip, you f'n gowl.

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118082436#Comment_118082436

But don't folk say Popper is an idealised view of science, and not how it actually works? Isn't there another description of it (Kuhn?) where it looks at how science actually proceeds, which is more about there being an orthodoxy that guides research, which is frequently known to be wrong, and ultimately gets replaced by a new orthodoxy when the contradictions are too great.

Science is a human institution, but gets talked about as it we got it on tablets of stone.

Black Swan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118164539#Comment_118164539

I might agree in the short, and in some cases the mid-term. Rather, I would suggest that we look at the long term of scientific discovery and inventions. The Kuhn Paradigm Cycle was not inconsistent with Popper’s Falsification Principle in the long term. Theories, paradigms, principles, etc, were considered useful to guide research so long as the preponderance and continuous collection of inductive and deductive data suggests reliable and valid empirical generalizations.

When a substantial amount of data suggests otherwise, the prior positions may be revised or discarded (falsified). Also see Wallace’s Wheel of Science, which appears consistent with Kuhn and Popper in the long term.

Without the guidance of existing and evolving theories, as well as suggestions from ongoing empirical research, scientists would have to reinvent the wheel when first examining an unexplained phenomenon. Intersubjectivity between theories and researchers has generally exhibited utility towards the growth and advancement of science.

Furthermore, the analytic tools we have today, and super computer programming that continues to rapidly and geometrically advance has opened extremely complex and vast data sources for analysis, especially in the inductive big data domains. We now are living in a major Kuhn Paradigm Cycle shift.

Not that you have, but I would be cautious about making broad sweeping claims about all scientists, peer reviewed scholarly journals, scientific institutions, universities, and corporate R&D that may exist in almost 200 countries where the scientific method may be applied today. Especially since the emergence and rapid growth of the World Wide Web, and in particular platforms that encourage conceptual, research design, analysis, and findings discussions.

Although anecdotal from my personal experience, I find a lot of arguments today about theoretical positions and research designs proposed when responding to research grant RFPs (requests for proposals). The competition for research monies has been considerable in recent years.