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 Versus Religion! The Contest that isn't really there.

245678

Comments

  • #32
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    JimiTime wrote: »
    So you hold the view that religion and science are in conflict? I don't believe that the above is 'anti-science'. As i said before, its only when science and its methodology become the be all and end all, that there is a conflict.

    But the scientific method asserts that it is the be all and end all, whatever the specific beliefs of its various adherents.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    If faith etc interferes with science, like with creationism, then we have an issue. Someone can still remain faithful to the scientific method when dealing with science, but also not hold that the scientific method applies to every nuance of their life.

    You may well have a point there. I have said before that it is possible to do science and be a scientist whilst having faith, so long as the two are not mixed. But science so often treads on ground held sacred by various religions, that I think that relationship can only ever be uneasy and transient.


  • #33
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I'm not arguing that some religions can be in conflict. Its this blanket term 'Religion'.

    Ok ... there is no conflict between science and any religion that says "by the way, all these proclamations, they could all be wrong. We are not sure. This is our best stab at it"

    But I can think of very few religions that teach the religion may actually be wrong. Christianity certainly doesn't. There is no passage in the Bible that says Jesus rose on the Sunday, though possibly he didn't, we aren't sure. We think he was the son of God, but he might not have been, we're still trying to work that out

    So few religions in fact that I'm not sure I would consider them "religion" But then it all depends on how you define "religion" as a blanket term doesn't it.


  • #34
    darjeeling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    JimiTime wrote: »
    darjeeling wrote: »
    [...] don't all religions have a core set of beliefs to which no challenge will be allowed, whatever science says? In the case of Christianity, isn't there a central kernel of revealed 'truth' that cannot be overturned? If so, how could science - which questions everything - and Christianity be fully compatible?

    All beliefs are challengable. If a scientist sets out to show something is against a doctrine, and sucessfully achieves it, then whatever the doctrine is must be assessed. Like Galilleo.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    But a common theme in "religions", the blanket term, is a tendency to hold some piece of old writing as infallible, to hold faith as a virtue and to hold the authority of some people as unquestionable. This is the antithesis of science.
    I don't believe that the above is 'anti-science'. As i said before, its only when science and its methodology become the be all and end all, that there is a conflict.

    Are these not two quite different answers to what is basically the same question?

    In the first, you say that all beliefs can be challenged by science, and overturned (OK, 'assessed') if proved wrong. You're saying that religion is scientifically falsifiable - a definition of religion that I'm not sure is widely shared.

    In the second response, you don't deny that religions hold beliefs that cannot be questioned. Instead, you simply declare that this is not 'anti-science' (I disagree) and go on to imply that science must yield to religion where core beliefs are concerned. How is this not acknowledging that there is conflict?


  • #35
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    darjeeling wrote: »
    Are these not two quite different answers to what is basically the same question?

    In the first, you say that all beliefs can be challenged by science, and overturned (OK, 'assessed') if proved wrong. You're saying that religion is scientifically falsifiable - a definition of religion that I'm not sure is widely shared.

    In the second response, you don't deny that religions hold beliefs that cannot be questioned. Instead, you simply declare that this is not 'anti-science' (I disagree) and go on to imply that science must yield to religion where core beliefs are concerned. How is this not acknowledging that there is conflict?


    I honestly don't know how you read that in what I said:confused: I 'never' said religion is falsifiable. The simple jist of what I said was, that one can hold views in life that don't have to be scientific. This does not make the person 'anti-science'. It becomes 'anti-science', when their non-scientific life interferes with their scientific one. I gave the example of creationism. Faith is not scientific, but I can have faith, yet still be scientific when it comes to science. It is not an automatic conflict. Now if you hold science up as a philosophy to live by, then we have a conflict. However, this view is not science, it is a personal conviction about how you view science in your life. Like i keep repeating, its only when one holds science up as the be all and end all in ones life, that there is conflict.


  • #36
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ok ... there is no conflict between science and any religion that says "by the way, all these proclamations, they could all be wrong. We are not sure. This is our best stab at it"

    But I can think of very few religions that teach the religion may actually be wrong. Christianity certainly doesn't. There is no passage in the Bible that says Jesus rose on the Sunday, though possibly he didn't, we aren't sure. We think he was the son of God, but he might not have been, we're still trying to work that out

    So few religions in fact that I'm not sure I would consider them "religion" But then it all depends on how you define "religion" as a blanket term doesn't it.

    Even if a religion says, 'this is all true and infallible', it does not become anti-science until it tries to enter the science realm and stamp its pre-conceptions on it. I can have a preconception that Emperor Xenu put us all on earth to hide us from the evil galactic lord Bumblehead, and still be scientific. If however, i use the scientific method and discover something that shows that such an event did not happen, and then say, 'well that can't be right' because of my preconceptions, then we have an issue. Even at that point though, I could yet still do more testing etc to see make sure I've got things right etc. Now honesty kicks in. It would now be 'anti-science' to say all the findings are wrong because they disagree with my pre-conceptions.

    Religion may not be scientific in its ways and reasonings, but that does not mean that it is 'anti' science. That IMO, is what alot of the more atheistic scientists seem to try and promote, and that is what I call a fallacy.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    darjeeling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I honestly don't know how you read that in what I said:confused: I 'never' said religion is falsifiable. The simple jist of what I said was, that one can hold views in life that don't have to be scientific. This does not make the person 'anti-science'. It becomes 'anti-science', when their non-scientific life interferes with their scientific one. I gave the example of creationism. Faith is not scientific, but I can have faith, yet still be scientific when it comes to science. It is not an automatic conflict. Now if you hold science up as a philosophy to live by, then we have a conflict. However, this view is not science, it is a personal conviction about how you view science in your life. Like i keep repeating, its only when one holds science up as the be all and end all in ones life, that there is conflict.

    I'm afraid I'm still not clear what it is you are saying, so I think it best I bow out at this point before it all goes downhill. Thanks for the discussion though.


  • #38
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    But the scientific method asserts that it is the be all and end all, whatever the specific beliefs of its various adherents.

    And within the sciences, that is fine. I would agree. Its when it is pushed upon us, that the scientific method is a philosophy to live by that it becomes an issue.

    You may well have a point there. I have said before that it is possible to do science and be a scientist whilst having faith, so long as the two are not mixed. But science so often treads on ground held sacred by various religions, that I think that relationship can only ever be uneasy and transient.

    It may lead to uneasyness etc. I can't dispute that. However, an honest quest for the truth cannot be seen as a bad thing. Be it scientific or religious. A true faith has nothing to fear in an honest search for truth, I repeat, 'nothing'.


  • #39
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    darjeeling wrote: »
    I'm afraid I'm still not clear what it is you are saying, so I think it best I bow out at this point before it all goes downhill. Thanks for the discussion though.

    No problem. Sorry if it seems a bit unclear. Feel free to ask for clarity on certain points if you wish. I thought i was concise, bu that may be in my head:) Thanks for your input.


  • #40
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Even if a religion says, 'this is all true and infallible', it does not become anti-science until it tries to enter the science realm and stamp its pre-conceptions on it. I can have a preconception that Emperor Xenu put us all on earth to hide us from the evil galactic lord Bumblehead, and still be scientific. If however, i use the scientific method and discover something that shows that such an event did not happen, and then say, 'well that can't be right' because of my preconceptions, then we have an issue. Even at that point though, I could yet still do more testing etc to see make sure I've got things right etc. Now honesty kicks in. It would now be 'anti-science' to say all the findings are wrong because they disagree with my pre-conceptions.

    Yes but that is not the religion being scientific, that is you. And you are doing that by dropping the religion. The religion is always anti-science, you have just realised that the religion is wrong. The religion is still saying it is correct, it is still saying "God says I'm not wrong" or what ever, you just no longer accept what it says.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Religion may not be scientific in its ways and reasonings, but that does not mean that it is 'anti' science.

    It is anti-science by proclaiming that it isn't, and can't be, wrong. And it remains anti-science even if you personally realise that the religion is nonsense.


  • #41
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes but that is not the religion being scientific, that is you. And you are doing that by dropping the religion. The religion is always anti-science, you have just realised that the religion is wrong. The religion is still saying it is correct, you just no longer accept what it says.



    It is anti-science by proclaiming that it isn't wrong. And it remains anti-science even if you personally realise that the religion is nonsense.

    So what you posit, is that if anyone says that they are right, they are anti-science? That sounds like philosophy to me. I can say, 'God exists'. Now thats not a scientific statement, but its not antiscience. Unless of course we are talking science philosophy. it seems to me, like you are setting science up as more a life-philosophy and in turn it is you who is misrepresenting science.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    So what you posit, is that if anyone says that they are right, they are anti-science?

    No, if anything says what it claims cannot be wrong (which a lot of religions claim) they are anti-science.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    That sounds like philosophy to me.
    Science is a philosophy. It is a philosophy about learning and how best to learn, and (relevant to this discussion) the limitations of how we can learn.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I can say, 'God exists'. Now thats not a scientific statement, but its not antiscience.
    By itself it is not really anything. To determine if it is anti-science or not one would need to know why you assert it and how prepared are you that the statement could be wrong.


  • #43
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    As I said, not interested in the debate over whether it's rational or irrational, correct or otherwise. I haven't said it is either, just that the knowledge gained by science offers no foundation for that value. But you've torpedoed your own point. Mostly, the scientists who don't consider embryos to have less value than human life (which is not to say it has no value) are those try to combine science and faith. Their morality is being informed by both movements, and we both know which of the two will win in the case of any conflict.

    Firstly, if you aren't interested in debating rationality, why did you bring it up?

    Secondly, are you saying that scientists who are believers aren't as good as other scientists, because I don't think that's accurate either.

    Thirdly, I don't think it's safe to say that all pro-life doctors are religious.


  • #44
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Firstly, if you aren't interested in debating rationality, why did you bring it up?

    Because we're discussing whether a conflict exists, not which side is right. That would be entering into the conflict itself.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Secondly, are you saying that scientists who are believers aren't as good as other scientists, because I don't think that's accurate either.

    When did I say that?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Thirdly, I don't think it's safe to say that all pro-life doctors are religious.

    Sure, not all, but I'd speculate that the majority are.


  • #45
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Your last post basically tries to dismiss the works of those who have come to pro-life conclusions because of their scientific research, or that it is irrational given the science to come to a pro-life view and this is how religion has negatively impacted science. This isn't being entirely honest though is it?


  • #46
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Your last post basically tries to dismiss the works of those who have come to pro-life conclusions because of their scientific research, or that it is irrational given the science to come to a pro-life view and this is how religion has negatively impacted science. This isn't being entirely honest though is it?

    It's being very broad and vague because I'm not interested in having that debate. Certainly there are scientific arguments for considering some forms of abortion to be immoral, but it is still a source of conflict between scientists and religious groups. It really feels like you're trying to pick an argument with me here I have to say.


  • #47
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No, if anything says what it claims cannot be wrong (which a lot of religions claim) they are anti-science.

    God exists, and I'm 100% right! That is not anti-science. Its simply, 'not' science.
    Science is a philosophy. It is a philosophy about learning and how best to learn, and (relevant to this discussion) the limitations of how we can learn.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

    Hmmm. Are you playing silly buggers, or did you make an innocent mistake here? Philosophy of science is not science itself. Its a philosophy based on science. Science itself is the modelling and observations of the natural universe.


  • #48
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    JimiTime wrote: »
    God exists, and I'm 100% right! That is not anti-science. Its simply, 'not' science.

    Hmmm. Are you playing silly buggers, or did you make an innocent mistake here? Philosophy of science is not science itself. Its a philosophy based on science. Science itself is the modelling and observations of the natural universe.

    Bravo, a good post JimiTime.

    Questions of God are questions of metaphysics, questions which are abstract and cannot be observed through the lens of science. Some people don't want to consider this an option though.

    We can only observe what is in the natural world through science, nobody has ever proposed that God is a natural being in any shape or form but rather supernatural.


  • #49
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Bravo, a good post JimiTime.

    Aww Shucks:o
    Questions of God are questions of metaphysics, questions which are abstract and cannot be observed through the lens of science. Some people don't want to consider this an option though.

    Thats the the crux of it. Some who want to live by the philosophy of science, seem to want to hog science to themselves. They seem to want to make up a rule that unless you 'live' by the scientific method in all thinking, you are 'anti' science. That is such a fallacy. I have no issue with someone wishing to live by this philosophy, but to then say that everyone else is anti-science, just gets annoying really.
    We can only observe what is in the natural world through science, nobody has ever proposed that God is a natural being in any shape or form but rather supernatural.

    And if you live by the philosophy of science and have not witnessed the spiritual first hand, it will be easily dismissed. I thought for a while about, 'Why doesn't God just show himself to them?' Not in a stroppy way, but more of a thought. I thought to myself, well there are millions of people who see that he has been revealed, but then, we are not all the same. Thomas for example needed more than the others to be convinced. I asked over on the atheist forum a long time ago about if God was revealed would you worship him, and not one said yes IIRC. There was alot of 'He'd have alot to answer for', and 'well no, he's still a vindictive yadda yadda'. That thought me a valuable lesson. Its not just belief thats the issue. It reminds me of the rich man and lazarus. When the rich man says, 'send someone back to warn my family' and the answer is, 'they have moses and the prophets..' 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'


  • #50
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Are you playing silly buggers, or did you make an innocent mistake here? Philosophy of science is not science itself. Its a philosophy based on science.
    No, philosophy of science is not based upon the scientific cycle of observe-deduce-predict. Instead, it's a logical, philosophical framework which suggests that (a) unfalsifiable propositions (those which have no basis in uncontested observation and which make no testable predictions) are broadly useless, and which (b) states that conclusions based upon observable evidence can never be 100% accurate, since one's observations can never be 100% accurate.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    God exists, and I'm 100% right! That is not anti-science.
    In the space of ten words, that's unfortunately about as far away as one can get from a view which is compatible with the philosophy of science.

    As much as you might sincerely believe it otherwise, you cannot, in all fairness, assert that your senses (which lead you to this conclusion) are incapable of error.


  • #51
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    But the scientific method asserts that it is the be all and end all, whatever the specific beliefs of its various adherents.

    I'm not sure what you mean by this.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Questions of God are questions of metaphysics, questions which are abstract and cannot be observed through the lens of science.

    Well I don't think metaphysics can shed any light on the existence of God either.


  • #53
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    God exists, and I'm 100% right! That is not anti-science. Its simply, 'not' science.
    It is anti-science.

    With such a statement you are saying that no matter what science discovers, from now until the end of time, its is wrong. What ever they come up with, if in 2,000 years someone figures out a way to test does god exist and finds he doesn't, they are wrong. If in 100 years someone figures out a very highly accurate model that demonstrates that the Christian religion is a product of a little bit of the brain misfiring, they are wrong.

    I don't care what the science is, its is wrong. I don't need to know what the science is, it is wrong.

    In fact that sentence, or something like it, is found throughout religious websites on the web such as Answersingenesis.com

    This is how we end up with conflict between science and religion in the first place. Religious statements like that above say that no matter what science tells us now, or in the future, it is wrong and the religion is right because it has already decided it can't be wrong.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Its a philosophy based on science.
    Well no, it is the philsophy of science. Science is based on it.

    Science is a methodology, and there is a whole area of philosophy based round working out that methodology so it can be the best methodology it can be.

    Concepts like falsifiability, repeatability, not being able to prove something correct, are all part of the philosophy of science. There are philosophical arguments why they are included in the methodology.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Science itself is the modelling and observations of the natural universe.
    Yes, and you can't observe and model why falsifiability is a good idea. You don't apply the scientific method to the science of philosophy, it goes the other way around.


  • #54
    We
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 284 ✭✭We


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Secondly, are you saying that scientists who are believers aren't as good as other scientists, because I don't think that's accurate either.

    Why not?

    The scientific method, the rules lets say which all scientists have to obey (if they at all want their work to be acknowledged as scientific) totally contradicts the fundamentals of faith/believing in god.

    If you want to a good scientist, you have to acknowledge the fact that nothing can be considered true or even accurate unless it is proven, which involves rigorous testing,questioning and ultimately an indisputable conclusion.

    Thus, a scientist who believes in god can only be presumed to have some misconceptions about the scientific method, or simply has no sense of logical reasoning.


  • #55
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    We wrote: »
    If you want to a good scientist, you have to acknowledge the fact that nothing can be considered true or even accurate unless it is proven, which involves rigorous testing,questioning and ultimately an indisputable conclusion.
    I don't recall any respected scientists offering proof of the existence of a particular deity. There's a reason its called faith.


  • #56
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    We wrote: »
    Why not?

    The scientific method, the rules lets say which all scientists have to obey (if they at all want their work to be acknowledged as scientific) totally contradicts the fundamentals of faith/believing in god.

    If you want to a good scientist, you have to acknowledge the fact that nothing can be considered true or even accurate unless it is proven, which involves rigorous testing,questioning and ultimately an indisputable conclusion.

    Thus, a scientist who believes in god can only be presumed to have some misconceptions about the scientific method, or simply has no sense of logical reasoning.

    I'm glad you cleared that up! Though you might want to consider that nothing is proven in science bar mathematical disciplines. It would also be completely against the scientific method if any given theory was considered to have reached an indisputable conclusion.


  • #57
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    I agree OP. If there was a real conflict between religion and science, it would manifest itself outside of atheist polemics.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Sorry, I should have clarified I inserted the 'Some'. Maybe it is 'Most'. Point remains though.
    I wouldn't be so confident that most scientists are positivists. If they are I don't think that it carries much authority. Scientists are just as philosophically fallible as any of us, and no more immune to cultural determinants.
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I know of many who do, but the scientist should be prepared to question everything.

    Well, that is good, as long as the scientists is aware that the questioning of metaphysical claims cannot be met using the tools of natural philosophy. Thus the scientist becomes a philosopher, who is prepared to question everything.
    darjeeling wrote: »
    If so, how could science - which questions everything - and Christianity be fully compatible?
    Science questions nature, not 'everything' (though some assert that nature is everything). Remember, science is a branch of philosophy.
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    But a common theme in "religions", the blanket term, is a tendency to hold some piece of old writing as infallible, to hold faith as a virtue and to hold the authority of some people as unquestionable. This is the antithesis of science.

    Earlier in the thread you warned that the notion that "all opinions are equally valid" was eroding scientific authority. Is science really that different? Scientists do not routinely challenge the scientific method.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ok ... there is no conflict between science and any religion that says "by the way, all these proclamations, they could all be wrong. We are not sure. This is our best stab at it"

    But I can think of very few religions that teach the religion may actually be wrong. Christianity certainly doesn't.

    It certainly does, in that it insists that people must be free to choose to believe or not. Most positivists do not seem to have such a liberal approach to epistemology. I've never heard any of them say that people have the legitimate freedom to deny scientific facts, and even to teach these to others.

    As AtomicHorror said, he thinks that science is the be-all and end-all.


  • #58
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    We wrote: »
    Thus, a scientist who believes in god can only be presumed to have some misconceptions about the scientific method, or simply has no sense of logical reasoning.

    This isn't true at all.


  • #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 45,738 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Morbert wrote: »
    This isn't true at all.

    +1


  • #60
    espinolman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,205 ✭✭✭espinolman


    I don't see a contest between science and religion at all , well of course that is because i have looked into nuclear physics and quantum mechanics .


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    espinolman wrote: »
    I don't see a contest between science and religion at all , well of course that is because i have looked into nuclear physics and quantum mechanics .

    wut?


    I agree that science and religion are not in conflict. But I will also say that science is the only real reason that atheism is a valid and respectable belief. Without evolution, it would be very hard to be an atheist. Maybe that's why creationists hate it so much.


Advertisement