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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Science Vs. Religion

  • 16-05-2009 4:10am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭


    "E pur si muove!!!"

    Is there a dichotomy between science and religion?

    Since the dawn of rational enquiry, "The Church" has stood against it. Only relatively recently has the Vatican decided to concede and accept that it has been wrong innumerable times in it's attitude towards science.

    With the recent news of the in-house synthesis of RNA, the church must accept a sideline position in the world and watch as science chips away at the mysteries of the universe, searching for the ultimate answer to the ultimate question.

    All the while, religion clings to a few tethers of it's comfort blanket.

    Religion has arrogantly and ignorantly described many phenomena as god's unalterable doing, but when science discovers how the "phenomenon" really works and reveals it as a simple, elegant, god-less, natural explanation, the church, after much trepidation, steals it as it's own; an example of how great their god really is. He's able to wrangle the laws of the universe to guide evolution! Wow!

    We are eventually left with a god of the gaps, or with the recent RNA discovery, the god of the gap: the beginning of the universe.

    god is nowhere to be found.

    If we ever discover how the universe was formed, religion will pounce on it from it's ready position and claim it as the workings of their god, whatever it may be. If we discover that the universe was created by a giant unicorn/turtle hybrid with four arses, that is proven to have always been there, the religious will come to a consensus that god must have put it there. But does anyone care?

    Science Vs. Religion gives about 50 million results in a Google search, but is there such a thing? We can even explain religion in terms of social darwinism. The purpose of religion can be winnowed down to a paragraph in a biology textbook. Religion is just a thing.
    There is nothing divine about it.

    Is there even a need to worry about religion in the voyage of science? Is religion an enemy of science? Is there an opposition?



«1

Comments

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


    Overblood wrote: »
    Is there even a need to worry about religion in the voyage of science? Is religion an enemy of science? Is there an opposition?
    I think most people can happily separate the two. By their very definitions they are separate one deals with the provable, the other with the unprovable.

    Religion and science only come into conflict on two fronts that I can see, firstly where religious people attempt suppress scientific fact to the advancement of their own beliefs. I would like to believe this comes more from a lack of education than outright malice. I think we can all agree this is wrong.

    The second front where there is conflict is with philosophy (ethics) which does have a valid opinion and can and should in certain circumstances impose limits to the application of science.


    That's my view on the matter.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    John Updike, who died in January was a regular contributor to the New Yorker which published the following from a longer piece he did in 1985 about the relationship between non-scientists and the discoveries of the modern age:
    The non-scientist's relation to modern science is basically craven: we look to its discoveries and technology to save us from disease, to give us a faster ride and a softer life, and at the same time we shrink from what it has to tell us of our perilous and insignificant place in the cosmos. Not that threats to our safety and significance were absent from the pre-scientific world, or that arguments against a God-bestowed human grandeur were lacking before Darwin. But our century's revelations of unthinkable largeness and unimaginable smallness, of abysmal stretches of geological time when we were nothing, of supernumerary galaxies and indeterminate subatomic behavior, of a kind of mad mathematical violence at the heart of matter have scorched us deeper than we know.
    I think he's right up to a point in implying that (creationists and other fantasists aside) it's no longer intellectually acceptable to believe most of what the world's various churches delivered as "Truth" about the physical world. With the recent disciplines of neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, I suspect in a century or two, it will be similarly unacceptable to believe the "Truths" delivered by the world's churches concerning the mental world.

    It's certainly the job of outfits like the Templeton Foundation to make it seem like there is a dialog taking place, and that religion is still sitting at the top table. But it isn't and the people who run religions know this. The religions will continue to evolve to provide new false answers to difficult questions to people who can't discriminate, but as I said, it seems likely that ultimately, it will become as unacceptable to believe something like the duality of the spirit as it is currently to think that the earth is flat.


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Overblood wrote: »


    With the recent news of the in-house synthesis of RNA, the church must accept a sideline position in the world and watch as science chips away at the mysteries of the universe, searching for the ultimate answer to the ultimate question.


    THe answer is 42, but what the hell is the question!?!?!?!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Overblood wrote: »

    Is there a dichotomy between science and religion?

    Since the dawn of rational enquiry, "The Church" has stood against it.

    Not so far as I can see. Most of the greatest scientists have been religious. Maybe you're confusing the organised state religions with religion itself.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,571 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Religion is an unscientific ideal. It's untestable and unprovable and as such is outside the purview of science.

    The problems arise when scientific progress is suppressed as it contradicts religious teachings (which is not the same as contradicting religion itself). Thankfully I don't think this happens to any great extent anymore.


  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Religion is an unscientific ideal. It's untestable and unprovable and as such is outside the purview of science.

    An unscientific ideal...outside the purview of science.....this is true of any fantasy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 760 ✭✭✭ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI


    Religion is definitely the enemy of science, it has nothing to offer and can only oppose scientific progress.

    The dichotomy can probably be shown most explicitly when we look at the concept of 'faith'. For a religious person, faith is the ultimate virtue, when you ask them why they believe, it always boils down to them having faith. If you ever get into an argument with a religious person and you ask them how they can logically hold a certain position, when it is clearly, from a rational perspective, a much less likely position to hold than one derived from rational scientific enquiry, they will smugly retort that they have their faith and that is all they need.

    Yet, what is faith? it's merely believing something is true because they believe it is true. It's merely packaging peoples hopes and illogical superstitions into a word that they can then exalt. To a scientist, faith is the greatest sin of all, to believe in a conclusion that does not follow from an experiment for no reason other than that you hope it to be true, it is anathema to the scientific method.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Podge_irl wrote: »

    The problems arise when scientific progress is suppressed as it contradicts religious teachings (which is not the same as contradicting religion itself). Thankfully I don't think this happens to any great extent anymore.

    What about the Embryonic Stem Cell issue? The Vatican doesn't agree with it, but are they supressing the progress of stem cell research in any way?

    It personally wouldn't bother me if cloned embryos were to farmed for stem cells, sci-fi style.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,497 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Overblood wrote: »
    Is there a dichotomy between science and religion?
    There is a problem with dichotomies, in that they are an oversimplification and distortion of reality when viewing the natural world (see Jacques Derrida, et al)?
    Overblood wrote: »
    Is religion an enemy of science? Is there an opposition?
    Historically it appears that the Catholic Church (along with many other western belief systems) have tended to challenge the advance of science, especially if it was in conflict with their dogma? Ironically, there were some exceptions, especially in the early discoveries that pertained to genetics?

    "Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822 – January 6, 1884) was an Augustinian priest and scientist, and is often called the father of genetics for his study of the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of these traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him."

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

    I sometimes wonder why Mendel was able to conduct these studies for many years on Church property, then again, perhaps his research was so esoteric that the Church leaders of the time had no concept of what he was doing? After all, Mendel's Laws did not reach fruition until the 20th Century with the founding of the field of genetics?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,571 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Overblood wrote: »
    What about the Embryonic Stem Cell issue? The Vatican doesn't agree with it, but are they supressing the progress of stem cell research in any way?

    It personally wouldn't bother me if cloned embryos were to farmed for stem cells, sci-fi style.

    Well it still happens of course, just not to anywhere near the same extent (I'm also approaching this from a physicist's point of view where the church's influence is now pretty much non-existent). I wouldn't frame the stem cell issue as a purely religion versus science debate though, so while the I'm sure the vatican have influence on the lack of research in the area they wouldn't be the only reason.

    Ultimately I think the church as a whole has a lot less influence to impede scientific progress than it clearly used to. The problem now is more individuals and lawmakers who impede progress due to their religious beliefs. It would be quite the assumption that they would be in favour of certain things if they weren't religous though. People, and politicians in particular, have a rather unique way of reasoning that I generally don't understand.


  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo



    Historically it appears that the Catholic Church (along with many other western belief systems) have tended to challenge the advance of science, especially if it was in conflict with their dogma? Ironically, there were some exceptions, especially in the early discoveries that pertained to genetics?

    "Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822 – January 6, 1884) was an Augustinian priest and scientist, and is often called the father of genetics for his study of the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of these traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him."

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

    I sometimes wonder why Mendel was able to conduct these studies for many years on Church property, then again, perhaps his research was so esoteric that the Church leaders of the time had no concept of what he was doing? After all, Mendel's Laws did not reach fruition until the 20th Century with the founding of the field of genetics?

    I was reading about mendel quite recently,he pretty much discovered the gene and nobody took any notice, I think somebody may have tried to steal the credit a few decades later, which is pretty much par the course in scientific discoveries. Someone makes a break through, gets ignored, somebody then tries to steal the credit and then the original discoverer gets recognised. It's quite ridiculous how often this happens! :)

    I reckon the church didnt care what he was doing because they probably dont pay that much attention to what the monks get up to in the monasteries. I believe he was a monk not a priest?


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


    In these debates, the religious typically say that religion is in harmony with science. The non-religious say that religion is simply not science. The anti-religious say that religion is the enemy of science. See a pattern here?
    Historically it appears that the Catholic Church (along with many other western belief systems) have tended to challenge the advance of science, especially if it was in conflict with their dogma?
    No, historically the Catholic church and many other western institutions have encouraged science because science is a western belief system.
    "Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822 – January 6, 1884) was an Augustinian priest and scientist, and is often called the father of genetics for his study of the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of these traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him."

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

    I sometimes wonder why Mendel was able to conduct these studies for many years on Church property, then again, perhaps his research was so esoteric that the Church leaders of the time had no concept of what he was doing? After all, Mendel's Laws did not reach fruition until the 20th Century with the founding of the field of genetics?
    The head of the human genome project is a Christian. Why should genetics be against Christianity?

    Could it not be more likely that Europe's Christian background paved the way for science? That it why it developed here and not elsewhere. That is not religious revisionism, but the opinion of many secular historians.

    The reason why Galileo is brought up with metronomic regularity as an "example" of "Christianity suppressing science" is because he is one of the few examples available of this. He is the exception not the rule. In reality, "Christianity" was a lot more complicated and scientists were usually either tolerated, supported, and religious themselves.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Húrin wrote: »

    The reason why Galileo is brought up with metronomic regularity as an "example" of "Christianity suppressing science" is because he is one of the few examples available of this. He is the exception not the rule. In reality, "Christianity" was a lot more complicated and scientists were usually either tolerated, supported, and religious themselves.

    until they discovered something that contradicted long held and cherished beliefs.


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


    Galvasean wrote: »
    until they discovered something that contradicted long held and cherished beliefs.

    So you agree that Christianity broadly fostered science, rather than, as the OP asserted, stood unwaveringly against it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Húrin wrote: »
    So you agree that Christianity broadly fostered science, rather than, as the OP asserted, stood unwaveringly against it?

    Oh I certainly would agree that Christianity aided science to a point. Sure Gregor Mendel was both one of the forefathers of modern science and also a priest.
    However, it has been observed that Christianity is just as likely to try and suppress scientific advancement should it contradict its teachings. At various points in time we have had Christianity actively going against scientific discoveries (Earth rotating around the sun, the Earth being round, evolution, stem cell research to name a few).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    Science is merely a way of observing reality. Observable reality and religion are what are at loggerheads, not science and religion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Húrin wrote: »
    So you agree that Christianity broadly fostered science, rather than, as the OP asserted, stood unwaveringly against it?

    Christianity did indeed broadly foster science. Why wouldn't it? They think they have the absolute truth so what can science possibly do except confirm that truth?

    The problem comes in when science makes a discovery that goes against religion and suggests that they not in fact have the absolute truth or when they want to do something that religion doesn't want them to do


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


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Christianity did indeed broadly foster science. Why wouldn't it? They think they have the absolute truth so what can science possibly do except confirm that truth?

    The problem comes in when science makes a discovery that goes against religion and suggests that they not in fact have the absolute truth or when they want to do something that religion doesn't want them to do

    Nail on the head

    There is great over lap between the desire to understand that leads people to religion and that leads people to science. It is not really surprising that religious people have discovered great things in the realm of science.

    But then that was never the point, as I'm sure Hurin knows quite well since this has been discussed at length before.

    When someone says religion restricts science it is not a defence to say that religion can inspire science because the restriction of science is far worse than any benefits of religious wonder bring. Humans are naturally curious anyway, it is one of the reasons we are religious in the first place. Given that we would be curious about the world anyway there is no excuse for the religious meddling in science.

    It is like saying that homoeopathy is a good thing, and shouldn't be criticised, because it encourages people who believe in it with a desire to be healthy. Which is true, the point of it is how they go about that and the problems they face when homoeopathy clashes with serious illness and modern medicine. Homoeopathy may have inspired thousands of people with the desire to teach it and help people, but that ignores what they are teaching.

    I was reading a few weeks ago that the former head of the Human Genome Project Francis Collins is started to promote bad science in the realm of physics (something he is not that versed in) in an effort to demonstrate that God can be in the mysteries of quantum physics. This would some what demonstrate the point.

    Religion may have inspired Collins to get into biology, it may have inspired him during his time with the HGP. But, unfortunately, it also seems to be also inspiring this nonsense.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Christianity did indeed broadly foster science.
    Not looking to start an argument here, but when and how did the Vatican or any other religious institution encourage unprejudiced research in the general sense?


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    robindch wrote: »
    Not looking to start an argument here, but when and how did the Vatican or any other religious institution encourage unprejudiced research in the general sense?

    I know genes and the big bang were all discovered(for want of a better word) by clergymen, maybe thats what they're referring to? There's probably other examples too, as to whether their research was encouraged or not i dont know.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    robindch wrote: »
    Not looking to start an argument here, but when and how did the Vatican or any other religious institution encourage unprejudiced research in the general sense?

    I don't know if you could use the word unprejudiced but they have funded and encouraged people in history to practice science, like the Templeton foundation. So they have supported it with a bias towards wanting to prove what they already believe

    Just making the point that it's not as simple as science vs. religion. They're only opposed when science uncovers an inconvenient truth


  • Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Science in its broadest sense, that being simply the pursuit of knowledge, is not at loggerheads with Religion. But Science when used in its more normal sense incorporates the concept of the Scientific Method, a fundamental axiom for scientific progress and critical thinking. I think there is a dichotomy here since the very concepts of the scientific method (e.g. observability, measurability, falsifiability, testability, predictive quality, theory improvement and replacement, confirmability, peer review) are fundamentally antithetical to the basic concept of Theistic Religion (e.g. conformity, absolute truth, infallibility, faith). There's just no getting around it.

    That doesn't mean that all scientists should be atheists, they simply need not apply their scientific thinking to their religious beliefs. The degree to which that requires mental gymnastics is based on what religious beliefs they have: evidently Deism requires a lot less mental contortion than Creationism! Up until quite recently this approach could be more easily justified since it was implicitly arguable that the two domains deal with essentially different things. For example, you could say that science deals with the workings and constitution of the observable and physical universe, and Religion with spiritual meaning and ethical coherence. The evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould put this type of thinking quite succinctly when he described the two concepts of science and religion as "non-overlapping magisteria" in that they fundamentally deal with different things.

    However, the problem with that thinking these days is that science is advancing into areas that have been historically left in the domain of Religion: the psychology of religion, the evolutionary need for religion, "spiritual" experiences and the biochemistry of the human brain, abiogenesis, the moment of creation, the evolution of morals, etc. With Scientific knowledge marching ever on, with the core concepts of the scientific method as its battering ram, it seems that the scientific "magisteria" is slowly consuming the religious one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I don't know if you could use the word unprejudiced but they have funded and encouraged people in history to practice science, like the Templeton foundation.

    Er, anything I've read about the Templeton Foundation has given me the impression that they're interested in making religion look good by wooing the support of science/scientists in their favour. If someone came out tomorrow and published a paper on why evolution makes no sense without God they'd probably be a prime Templeton candidate, not because it's good science but because it suits their pro-religion agenda.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Zillah wrote: »
    Er, anything I've read about the Templeton Foundation has given me the impression that they're interested in making religion look good by wooing the support of science/scientists in their favour. If someone came out tomorrow and published a paper on why evolution makes no sense without God they'd probably be a prime Templeton candidate, not because it's good science but because it suits their pro-religion agenda.

    That's what I've read about them too. My point was that they support science but with a bias towards "scientists" who make claims supporting religion. I'm just saying that religion is not against science in all its forms, they're very much for science that supports the conclusions that they've already drawn


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That's what I've read about them too. My point was that they support science but with a bias towards "scientists" who make claims supporting religion. I'm just saying that religion is not against science in all its forms, they're very much for science that supports the conclusions that they've already drawn

    The bit I've highlighted is the very definition of what is not science.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭marko91


    of course god exists, he is a ancient times david blaine;)...god walks on water pfftt david blaine levitates:p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Galvasean wrote: »
    The bit I've highlighted is the very definition of what is not science.

    Okay, people are reading far too much into what I'm saying here. I am not saying that there is no conflict between religion and science or that religious institutions support the scientific method, I'm just saying that the church does not completely reject science before giving it a chance. I'm trying to counter Hurin's argument that religion broadly fosters science with the response "they do until science comes up with something religion doesn't like"

    Which is why in my first post I said:
    The problem comes in when science makes a discovery that goes against religion and suggests that they not in fact have the absolute truth or when they want to do something that religion doesn't want them to do

    If they were actually supporting science in an unbiased way then the results of a scientific study would be accepted whether they agreed with religious teachings or not. They try to use science to strength an already held position, not to find out if the currently held position is actually true because they already "know" it's true

    The thinking can be summed up in this cartoon:
    attachment.php?attachmentid=80217&stc=1&d=1242661918


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Okay, people are reading far too much into what I'm saying here. I am not saying that there is no conflict between religion and science or that religious institutions support the scientific method, I'm just saying that the church does not completely reject science before giving it a chance. I'm trying to counter Hurin's argument that religion broadly fosters science with the response "they do until science comes up with something religion doesn't like"

    Which is why in my first post I said:

    The problem comes in when science makes a discovery that goes against religion and suggests that they not in fact have the absolute truth or when they want to do something that religion doesn't want them to do

    Hey, i said practically the same thing:
    Galvasean wrote: »
    Oh I certainly would agree that Christianity aided science to a point. Sure Gregor Mendel was both one of the forefathers of modern science and also a priest.
    However, it has been observed that Christianity is just as likely to try and suppress scientific advancement should it contradict its teachings. At various points in time we have had Christianity actively going against scientific discoveries (Earth rotating around the sun, the Earth being round, evolution, stem cell research to name a few).


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


    Húrin wrote: »
    So you agree that Christianity broadly fostered science, rather than, as the OP asserted, stood unwaveringly against it?

    As I understand it, Christianity received a hefty dose of Greek neoplatonism at its inception, and this influenced the thinking of people such as Augustine.

    Later, Aristotle's philosophy and science, maintained and developed in the Islamic world by scholars such as Averroes, was returned to Christendom around the 13th century and incorporated into Christianity by Aquinas et al (not without oppostion from some clergy), helping spark the Renaissance. This gave a platform on which science could be developed, latterly by people reacting against Aristotle's teachings - Francis Bacon, for example, who pointed the way to the modern scientific method.

    In the light of this - albeit crude - narrative, does it make sense to say that Christianity supported or opposed science? If the ancient Greek tradition had been able to continue uninterrupted within Europe, would science have progressed faster here? Food for idle thought.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Galvasean wrote: »
    However, it has been observed that Christianity is just as likely to try and suppress scientific advancement should it contradict its teachings. At various points in time we have had Christianity actively going against scientific discoveries (Earth rotating around the sun, the Earth being round, evolution, stem cell research to name a few).

    Christianity is not "just as likely" to suppress science. There are insufficient examples for you to credibly argue this. Copernicus also wrote that the sun was the centre of the local system but was not bothered by the church.

    Christianity has never opposed the observation that the earth is a sphere because this observation predates Christianity. The idea that medieval Europeans believed the earth to be flat is a Victorian myth.

    In 1859 western Christianity had become diverse like it is today. Some churches accepted Darwin's theory and some did not. 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.

    No church refutes the fact of stem cell research, but some dispute its ethics. Different thing entirely.

    ----

    Without Christianity modern science would not exist. Just as many atheists think the universe popped into existence without a cause, many of you seem to think the same thing happened with modern science.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Christianity did indeed broadly foster science. Why wouldn't it? They think they have the absolute truth so what can science possibly do except confirm that truth?

    The problem comes in when science makes a discovery that goes against religion and suggests that they not in fact have the absolute truth or when they want to do something that religion doesn't want them to do

    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?
    2Scoops wrote: »
    Science is merely a way of observing reality. Observable reality and religion are what are at loggerheads, not science and religion.
    The majority of people who have ever lived have not found religion to be at loggerheads with observable reality.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Nail on the head

    There is great over lap between the desire to understand that leads people to religion and that leads people to science. It is not really surprising that religious people have discovered great things in the realm of science.

    But then that was never the point, as I'm sure Hurin knows quite well since this has been discussed at length before.

    If you read some of Overblood's opening lines, that is the point:
    Overblood wrote: »
    "E pur si muove!!!"

    Is there a dichotomy between science and religion?

    Since the dawn of rational enquiry, "The Church" has stood against it. Only relatively recently has the Vatican decided to concede and accept that it has been wrong innumerable times in it's attitude towards science. .....
    Is there even a need to worry about religion in the voyage of science? Is religion an enemy of science? Is there an opposition?


    Whether belief in Christianity is a restriction on scientific inquiry is a different discussion altogether. I doubt that many, if any humans have no beliefs that could conceivably restrict honest inquiry.


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


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I don't know if you could use the word unprejudiced but they have funded and encouraged people in history to practice science, like the Templeton foundation. So they have supported it with a bias towards wanting to prove what they already believe.

    Science 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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Hey, i said practically the same thing:

    Then we're agreed :)
    Húrin wrote: »
    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 tbh

    Húrin wrote: »
    Science 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 something


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    Húrin wrote: »
    The majority of people who have ever lived have not found religion to be at loggerheads with observable reality.

    I have two points to make on this:
    1. Mea culpla: I have been poisoned by the creationism thread and no longer instantly distinguish between 'religion' and creationism.

    2. The majority of people have lived, and continue to live, in ignorance of scientific discoveries. If you can reconcile creationism with observable and observed reality, I'd be very, very interested to hear it. However, if you're more into the vaguer, less specific 'religion,' then I'm sure most people who have lived are happy and able to hide their God in the various nooks and crannies of the as yet unknown.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Húrin wrote: »
    Christianity is not "just as likely" to suppress science. There are insufficient examples for you to credibly argue this.
    Two words:

    "George" and "Bush".


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


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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
    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).

    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.
    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 something
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    2Scoops wrote: »
    I have two points to make on this:
    1. Mea culpla: I have been poisoned by the creationism thread and no longer instantly distinguish between 'religion' and creationism.

    That's your problem not mine.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    Húrin wrote: »
    That's your problem not mine.

    How magnanimous of you to accept my apology with such grace! And point number 2?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    robindch wrote: »
    Two words:

    "George" and "Bush".

    And I shudder to think what a McCain/Palin administration would have done to the NIH budget. :eek:


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


    2Scoops wrote: »
    And I shudder to think what a McCain/Palin administration would have done to the NIH budget. :eek:

    I would find the business interests of such people much more worrying than whatever their "religious" whims are.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Húrin wrote: »
    Christianity is not "just as likely" to suppress science. There are insufficient examples for you to credibly argue this.

    Sure it is (well to try at least).

    The most prominent example would be evolution. You have Christians (yes not all of them, but a very vocal minority) who actively try to have it removed from schools and constantly try to misrepresent it to put people off the idea. For every person lost to Creationism there goes someone who may have had the potential to further scientific advancement.

    Probably the second most obvious example that is relevent to modern times is that of stem cell research. As you said they do not deny it's existence, but oppononents of it are holding back the probable scientific advancements to be found in this research (For the record I'm not commenting on whether or not it is ethical as science by definition does not necessarily have to be ethical, but thats a different debate altogether). Similar to what happens re: evolution, some opponents of stem cell research distort and misrepresent the facts in order to make it seem less useful than it most likely is.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Probably the second most obvious example that is relevent to modern times is that of stem cell research. As you said they do not deny it's existence, but oppononents of it are holding back the probable scientific advancements to be found in this research (For the record I'm not commenting on whether or not it is ethical as science by definition does not necessarily have to be ethical, but thats a different debate altogether).
    From my understanding most Christians oppose stem research for ethical reasons, I'm not sure how you can separate the two. Their issue is the source of these cells, rather than the research itself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Húrin wrote: »
    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).
    Well I'm glad you're here to tell us our beliefs. I think we'll go on using the term atheists thanks

    When you say you've yet to find a poster who doesn't "believe" in science I'd call that "bleedin obvious". All that means is atheists tend to think rationally. For example believing in evolution doesn't make you "a typical atheist" any more than believing 1+1=2 does. It makes you a rational person who accepts facts which are presented to you. My point is that atheists don't have to have the same opinion although it may appear that we often do to a christian. That doesn't mean we're homogeneous, it means we accept reality over fantasy. It's not similar opinions, it's acceptance of facts
    Húrin wrote: »
    If faith is fundamentally opposed to the scientific method then how did it foster that method? How can something originate in its antithesis?
    Because sometimes christians forgot about faith and instead actually studied things. Dawkins thinks they do it by compartmentalising of the mind where they shut off the illogical faith part and instead use the rational part. When people operate without faith we get penicillin and surgery, when they operate with it we get trepanning and praying for a miracle instead of taking medicine. Or in one very sad case, a catholic maid in the 19th century baptised a sick jewish child to "save his life" and the child was then taken from the parents because they didn't want a "catholic child" being raised by jewish parents. So just because someone might be a devout christian doesn't mean they use faith in their scientific endeavours
    Húrin wrote: »
    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.
    I assume you mean evidence such as evidence from personal experience. Untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable evidence, ie not evidence but actually wishful thinking. Or what kind of evidence do you mean?
    Húrin wrote: »
    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.

    I'm now hesitant to quote a passage because if I say it means A, you'll be able to find 25 sources telling me it means everything from B to Z but that it most definitely does not mean A, that's just what it appears to mean if you read the text

    There are people who run the entire range from believing none of the miracles to believing the literal word of the bible who all call themselves christians and none of them can tell the rest that they're wrong because none of them has anything to back up their opinion. It's just what they think

    Augustine said it shouldn't be taken literally but that doesn't mean everyone of the time thought that. There are many people even today who don't think that. And how did Augustine decide which particular parts should be taken literally and which are metaphorical? There's nothing in the bible to indicate which parts are literal and which metaphorical so to get back to my original point, it seems to me the parts that we know for a fact can't be true are "metaphorical" and the parts that there's some doubt about are literal. And in all likelihood someday we'll prove all the miracles didn't happen so some more mental gymnastics will be done and they'll all be metaphorical

    If I'm wrong, by what criteria do you decide that, say, Adam and Eve and the destruction of Sodom are metaphors but the resurrection and water into wine are historical facts? Personally I see nothing to suggest that one physically impossible event is any more likely to be literal than any other

    And if Adam and Eve are metaphors, how do you reconcile that with the fact that Jesus died to save us from an original sin that was never actually committed because Eve never existed?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Naz_st wrote: »
    Science in its broadest sense, that being simply the pursuit of knowledge, is not at loggerheads with Religion. But Science when used in its more normal sense incorporates the concept of the Scientific Method, a fundamental axiom for scientific progress and critical thinking. I think there is a dichotomy here since the very concepts of the scientific method (e.g. observability, measurability, falsifiability, testability, predictive quality, theory improvement and replacement, confirmability, peer review) are fundamentally antithetical to the basic concept of Theistic Religion (e.g. conformity, absolute truth, infallibility, faith). There's just no getting around it.

    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? Its with the scientific method as thats what defines the accumulation of knowledge as being scientific.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    That doesn't mean that all scientists should be atheists, they simply need not apply their scientific thinking to their religious beliefs.

    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    However, the problem with that thinking these days is that science is advancing into areas that have been historically left in the domain of Religion: the psychology of religion, the evolutionary need for religion, "spiritual" experiences and the biochemistry of the human brain, abiogenesis, the moment of creation, the evolution of morals, etc. With Scientific knowledge marching ever on, with the core concepts of the scientific method as its battering ram, it seems that the scientific "magisteria" is slowly consuming the religious one.

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    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:
    Its with the scientific method as thats what defines the accumulation of knowledge as being scientific.
    Yeah, that was my point... :confused:
    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? :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    From my understanding most Christians oppose stem research for ethical reasons, I'm not sure how you can separate the two. Their issue is the source of these cells, rather than the research itself.

    I'm not saying it is wrong to object to certain scientific practices on ethical grounds. I'm saying how science can be furthered through totally unethical acts. Extreme example: A (deranged) scientist wants to know if his new chemical is harmful to people so he throws it in someone's face. Not a bit ethical but it proved a point.
    I personally am very much in favour of ethics in science. However I'm pointing out taht science would probably move along faster if it didn't stop to think about ethics.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    Yeah, that was my point... :confused:

    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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)
    Naz_st wrote: »
    ...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? :confused:

    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 :o


  • Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    The word salary comes from the latin word for salt so in its broadest sense is your salary a measure of salt?
    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.
    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, etc
    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)

    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 :o

    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! :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    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! :)


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,497 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Húrin wrote: »
    In these debates, the religious typically say that religion is in harmony with science. The non-religious say that religion is simply not science. The anti-religious say that religion is the enemy of science. See a pattern here?
    No, I see an gross oversimplification of posters into nominal either/or categories that ignores individual differences in knowledge, ideas, experience, skills, and expression.
    Húrin wrote: »
    No, historically the Catholic church and many other western institutions have encouraged science
    I did acknowledge that Mendel, a Catholic priest, was allowed to conduct his experiments on Church grounds in my first post to this thread, although I might find the use of the notion that the Church uniformly "encouraged science" problematic in some cases, and not in others. For example...

    PATERNALISM. Roughly half the brains found in a population are female, yet the paternalistic culture of the Catholic church with its male God the Father, God the Son, pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, and male-only administered sacraments, and largely subservient female nuns sends a clear and enculturating message over 2,000 years to its followers that serious leadership, be it behind the alter, podium, boardroom, or research lab is to be male, thereby establishing social and cultural barriers that women must overcome to fully realise their creative scientific potential, especially as pertains to leadership in the discovery process, be it a team or solo endeavor. Furthermore, the male-only administration of the sacraments, sends a subtle symbolic message that the profound is a male domain, be it on the alter or the lab bench.

    Certainly, the Church historically was not the only social institution to limit female participation, but was a major influence. And yes, there were exceptions, but they were exceptions by definition (i.e., the glass ceiling is more than a metaphor).

    As the OP was not limited to western religion, more dramatic examples of artificial religious barriers that tend to exclude or limit millions of women from the pursuit of science are found in many (not all) Islamic theocracies in the Middle East. In many cases women are excluded by religious laws from a scientific education, or forbidden to work with men in teams, be they scientific or otherwise, or to lead such teams.
    Húrin wrote: »
    because science is a western belief system.
    There are major fundamental differences between religious belief systems and science. For one, science is a method of inquiry, not a belief. Whereas religion proclaims "truths" that must be accepted and not challenged by its followers, or suffer the consequences attributed to sin, negative karma, shunning, etc., the scientific method advances by attempting to reject many of the different theories that claim to describe, explain, and predict phenomena.

    Bite sized pieces of theory are first stated as research hypotheses, but these are not tested. Rather, by convention, they are restated in the null form: that there will be no significant differences found (i.e., no significance would mean that the theory failed to be supported by the analysis of the data). If the data analysis shows a significant difference, the null hypothesis is rejected and the research hypothesis is indirectly supported, "suggesting" (not proving) that the theory may have merit. Results and conclusions drawn from scientific experiments are always held with caution, until a better theory comes along, not proclaimed as "truths" as found in "belief systems."

    A case in point... Would the Bible be thrown out by Christians should inconsistencies be found? Well, theories are often challenged and thrown out after the application of scientific inquiry has found inconsistencies (e.g., Ptolemaic theory was tossed out and replaced by Copernican, Lamarckian theory was tossed out and replaced by Darwinian)?

    Of course there are people that run about proclaiming a belief in evolutionary theory, but to believe is not consistent with the scientific method. Theories are tentatively held until a better one comes along.


  • Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    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?! :D
    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!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement