Will science and religion eventually collide?

[shadowhive]

Pointing out that not everything can be verified using the scientific process is not arrogant, it is a simple truth. Heck you can't even use science to verify that science can verify everything.

You mean in the same way the bible can't be used to verify god?

[IamsSon]

You mean in the same way the bible can't be used to verify god?

I've never claimed the Bible can be used to verify God. But whether the Bible can or cannot verify God has ZERO impact on the fact that science can't verify that science can verify everything.

[Beckys_Mom]

.

The scientific process includes observation, but observation itself cannot be submitted to the scientific process.

Are you for real? That is like saying - candy floss includes sugar -BUT you cannot use sugar to make candy floss.............!!!

[shadowhive]

I've never claimed the Bible can be used to verify God. But whether the Bible can or cannot verify God has ZERO impact on the fact that science can't verify that science can verify everything.

Everything can be verified. It's just that science isn't arrogant enough to say that we are capable of verifying everything now. Science doesn't say that because science isn't always set in stone (as opposed to religion which is). If there's some new discovery made that changes something we thought was true, science changes to accomodate that.

[IamsSon]

Everything can be verified. It's just that science isn't arrogant enough to say that we are capable of verifying everything now. Science doesn't say that because science isn't always set in stone (as opposed to religion which is). If there's some new discovery made that changes something we thought was true, science changes to accomodate that.

I did not say everything could not be verified. I stated that science can't verify everything, that in fact science can't verify that science can verify everything.

So, just to be clear, we don't know whether everything can be verified or not, but what we do know is that science can't verify everything.

Edited April 27, 2011 by IamsSon

[shadowhive]

I did not say everything could not be verified. I stated that science can't verify everything, that in fact science can't verify that science can verify everything.

And I said (because I don't think you understood) that everything could be verified. That statement included science.

The difference between science and religion is how it handles new information that proves something previously thought true is wrong.

Religion reacts by: calling the person that says it a sinner/evil/blasphemous. Tries to silence them (in the past this included imprisonment, chasing them away or even death). Saying that the proof is 'the work of satan', 'against god' or other such nonsense. Generally acting irrationally.

Science reacts by: analyzing the evidence. Finding out if it's accurate and if it is, admitting and accepting it as the truth.

Now which would you trust, something that's willing to take in new information (and indeed, admit it's wrong) or what will reject it out of hand?

Edited April 27, 2011 by shadowhive

[IamsSon]

And I said (because I don't think you understood) that everything could be verified. That statement included science.

So, you are going on record to state that everything can be verified?

[shadowhive]

So, you are going on record to state that everything can be verified?

Yes. Everything can be verified as either fact or not.

But not necessarily at the moment.

For example, thousands of years ago it was a common belief (in pretty much every single pre-Christian religion all over the world) that the sun was a god. Now, though, we have verified that it's not a god but it's actually a star. However, at the time of those religions, they did not have the abilities to verify it. The sun, however, was always a star, it's just they didn't know it.

Edited April 27, 2011 by shadowhive

[Tiggs]

The scientific process includes observation, but observation itself cannot be submitted to the scientific process.

If an observation is in doubt, then it is repeated.

[IamsSon]

Yes. Everything can be verified as either fact or not.

But not necessarily at the moment.

Prove it.

[shadowhive]

Prove it.

I can only assume you have some reading difficulties.

[IamsSon]

I can only assume you have some reading difficulties.

No, I mean prove that all things will eventually be verified. Edited April 27, 2011 by IamsSon

[shadowhive]

No, I mean prove that all things will eventually be verified.

Hence why I said you have reading difficulties.

I said all things will be proven, it's just we can't prove everything at the moment.

I do not know when or how. I have never claimed to know the details. It could take a hundred years or a thousand, or ten thousand, or a million. But I can't tell you when or how anymore then I can tell you the details of my death, although I am sure that will happen as well. Or do you require me to prove my own mortality with certainty as well?

[IamsSon]

Hence why I said you have reading difficulties.

I said all things will be proven, it's just we can't prove everything at the moment.

I do not know when or how. I have never claimed to know the details. It could take a hundred years or a thousand, or ten thousand, or a million. But I can't tell you when or how anymore then I can tell you the details of my death, although I am sure that will happen as well. Or do you require me to prove my own mortality with certainty as well?

I just wanted to give you an opportunity to realize that you have no way to prove that all things will be verified at some point. This is then a faith-based belief. You believe all things will be verified, you don't actually know or have any way of knowing this is true. Even if everything is verified at some point in the future, it will not be through science, since science does not do that.

What Science is NOT 1. Science is not a process that can solve all kinds of problems and questions.

The realm of science is limited strictly to solving problems about the natural world. Science is not properly equipped to handle the supernatural realm (as such), nor the realm of values and ethics.

2. It's not a process that can ignore rules.

Science must follow certain rules; otherwise, it's not science (just as soccer is not soccer if its rules are not followed).

3. It's not a process that seeks the truth or facts.

The goal of science is to come as close as we can to understanding the cause-effect realities of the natural world. It's never "truth" or "facts". "Truth" and "facts" can mean different things to different people.

4. It's not a process that attempts to prove things.

The process of science, when properly applied, actually attempts to disprove ideas (tentative explanations)... a process called "testing", or "challenging". If the idea survives testing, then it is stronger, and more likely an accurate explanation.

5. It's not a process that can produce any kind of explanation.

Scientific explanations must be potentially disprovable. Therefore, supernatural explanations cannot be used, since they can never be disproved (supernatural forces, by definition, do not predictably follow the laws of nature). Whatever results occur in any test can be attributed to those nebulous forces, effectively ending any further efforts to explain.

6. It's not a process that produces certainties, or absolute facts.

Science is a process which can only produce "possible" to "highly probable" explanations for natural phenomena; these are never certainties. With new information, tools, or approaches, earlier findings (theories, or even facts) can be replaced by new findings.

7. It's not a process that can always be relied upon due to its total objectivity and internal self-correction.

Science can be done poorly, just like any other human endeavor. We are all fallible, some of us make fewer mistakes than others, some observe better than others, but we are still subjective in the end. Internal self-correction mechanisms in science merely increase the reliability of its product.

8. It's not a process that is always properly used.

Unfortunately, science is all too frequently misused. Because it works so well, there are those who apply the name of science to their efforts to "prove" their favorite cause, even if the rules of science were not followed. Such causes are properly labeled "pseudosciences". Also, some scientists have been known to do fraudulent work, in order to support their pet ideas. Such work is usually exposed sooner or later, due to the peer review system, and the work of other scientists.

9. It's not a process that is free from values, opinions or bias.

Scientists are people, and although they follow certain rules and try to be as objective as possible, both in their observations and their interpretations, their biases are still there. Unconscious racial bias, gender bias, social status, source of funding, or political leanings can and do influence one's perceptions and interpretations.

10. It's not a process in which the product (understanding) is based on faith or belief.

The product of science (probable explanations for natural phenomena) are always based on observations carefully analyzed and tested. The high confidence we have in science comes from the many successful applications to real-life problems (e.g. in medicine, space exploration, chemistry and technology).

11. It's not a process in which one solution is as good as another, or is simply a matter of opinion.

In science, there is a rigorous analysis and fair-test comparison of alternative explanations, using discriminate criteria, e.g., confirmation by multiple independent lines of evidence, leading to one "best" solution.

12. Scientific Theories are not "tentative ideas" or "hunches".

The word "theory" is often used this way in everyday conversation, but a theory in science refers to a highly probable, well-tested comprehensive explanation, usually for a large collection of observations.

Source

[ambelamba]

Everything can be verified.

Eventually, yes. But people tend to limit their scope within their lifetime.

I don't think supernatural will be scientifically verified in our lifetime. Not at all. But...probably within a thousand years or two...

[shadowhive]

I just wanted to give you an opportunity to realize that you have no way to prove that all things will be verified at some point. This is then a faith-based belief. You believe all things will be verified, you don't actually know or have any way of knowing this is true. Even if everything is verified at some point in the future, it will not be through science, since science does not do that.

Source

Humanity is capable of finding the truth and reality of things, providing religion doesn't step in again and lock up anyone that doesn't agree.

You're basically trying to say that science will never find a way of proving god's existance. I disagree. Namely because I never actually said that it would be science that would find such prove. I said humans would find such proof, through ways unknown as of yet.

Now as of faith, do I think that it's a good idea to prove the existance of god? No, certainly not right now.

First if you prove god doesn't exist religion will either end outright, or dismiss the evidence as the work of the devil (which some Christians do when it comes to fossils).

Second, if you prove a god exists that doesn't necessarily mean anything either. Which god have you found? The Christian one? A Pagan one? A Muslim one? Or one that has no idea we exist at all or doesn't care? etc etc. There'd be a holy war between every major world religion and there'd be no evidence that they were right.

Which is why I said we won't be able to prove it for so long (at least I certainly hope it's that long) because such knowledge is simply too dangerous for us to have right now.

[IamsSon]

Eventually, yes. But people tend to limit their scope within their lifetime.

This is a faith-based belief. It is religious, not scientific.

I don't think supernatural will be scientifically verified in our lifetime. Not at all. But...probably within a thousand years or two...

Again, this is simply showing faith in science, which is then turning science into a religion, not a tool to study natural events.

Humanity is capable of finding the truth and reality of things, providing religion doesn't step in again and lock up anyone that doesn't agree.

This is a belief.

You're basically trying to say that science will never find a way of proving god's existance. I disagree. Namely because I never actually said that it would be science that would find such prove. I said humans would find such proof, through ways unknown as of yet.

No. I'm saying science is not capable of verifying everything. Heck you can't even use science to verify that science can verify everything.

[White Crane Feather]

You mean like the study of emergent systems and systems theory? Actually science does in deed study these things from a "non-reductionist" approach. What praytell, do you suppose the whole field of neuroscience is?

I think you are making some assumptions that are a little out dated.

I think, and don't worry this is pretty common, you are misunderstanding entropy. You do realize that giant ball of yellow light in the sky is violating your description of nature everyday, no?

I believe that most people slept through that part of physics class that described the type of systems those "laws of thermodynamics applied too" (oddly enough they seemed inclined enough to not sleep through vaguely remembering the laws )

Who are these scientists and people saying the universe is random, can you point me to one?

many people think it's random based on the uncertainty principle, while, still others think as I'm guessing you are pointing at yourself that think the universe can only be the way It it's.... Sort of a newtonian view. That would depend on what actually governs quantum fluctuations. I must admit i don't know if those differences have been satisfied in the last few years. I have moved onto other things and only check back in here and there.

Now since I know your so keen on details here , your actually wrong by a few billion years. It's not the big glowing globe in the sky that created more entropy it was big glowing globes from billion years ago after super nova wasn't it? Our sun has very little to do with the expanded entropy in to the systems the led to the creation if life ( other than it's direct influence of course, and lifes continual use of it's energy which yes I relize a tremendos amount of entropy was created to get that energy to life...... But were are still talking about lifes creation) the molecules in our body were created long before our sun existed.

I'm not convinced. Life is obviously is very highly ordered system. And it's becomeing more and more ordered. To say that it fits just because more entropy was created to get it here or to propel it is sort of dodging the obviouse question. There is a system creating less and less entropy.... Life, and although the sun is creating much more entropy to feed that life, this life has the ability of creation ( we can draw ordered happy faces) and the sun is obviously not feeding that life on purpose. Life has evolved to gather up order and to propel itself into the future. It seems that only life has the ability to create and retake lost entropy even if it took a lot more to get to that point. It does not seem plausable that a system of randomness would be capable of creating something that can conciously create against that randomness, unless the universe is purely mechanical..... Then what's the point we have no free will and even this conversation was predestined by original conditions.

Since your so educated on thermo dynamics copa, does it still stand that energy/information cannot be created or destroyed?

[Ozner]

Humanity is capable of finding the truth and reality of things, providing religion doesn't step in again and lock up anyone that doesn't agree.

Finding "truths" is the realm of mathematics, not science.

[Torgo]

Science and religion have collided every day since science was invented.

Science and philosophy, not so much.

[White Crane Feather]

many people think it's random based on the uncertainty principle, while, still others think as I'm guessing you are pointing at yourself that think the universe can only be the way It it's.... Sort of a newtonian view. That would depend on what actually governs quantum fluctuations. I must admit i don't know if those differences have been satisfied in the last few years. I have moved onto other things and only check back in here and there.

Now since I know your so keen on details here , your actually wrong by a few billion years. It's not the big glowing globe in the sky that created more entropy it was big glowing globes from billion years ago after super nova wasn't it? Our sun has very little to do with the expanded entropy in to the systems the led to the creation if life ( other than it's direct influence of course, and lifes continual use of it's energy which yes I relize a tremendos amount of entropy was created to get that energy to life...... But were are still talking about lifes creation) the molecules in our body were created long before our sun existed.

I'm not convinced. Life is obviously is very highly ordered system. And it's becomeing more and more ordered. To say that it fits just because more entropy was created to get it here or to propel it is sort of dodging the obviouse question. There is a system creating less and less entropy.... Life, and although the sun is creating much more entropy to feed that life, this life has the ability of creation ( we can draw ordered happy faces) and the sun is obviously not feeding that life on purpose. Life has evolved to gather up order and to propel itself into the future. It seems that only life has the ability to create and retake lost entropy even if it took a lot more to get to that point. It does not seem plausable that a system of randomness would be capable of creating something that can conciously create against that randomness, unless the universe is purely mechanical..... Then what's the point we have no free will and even this conversation was predestined by original conditions.

Since your so educated on thermo dynamics copa, does it still stand that energy/information cannot be created or destroyed?

Edit

Atoms made by ancient supernova..... Not molecules. Darn details.

[Ozner]

The atoms of materials aren't made inside stars, but the different elements are.

[White Crane Feather]

Yes. Everything can be verified as either fact or not.

But not necessarily at the moment.

For example, thousands of years ago it was a common belief (in pretty much every single pre-Christian religion all over the world) that the sun was a god. Now, though, we have verified that it's not a god but it's actually a star. However, at the time of those religions, they did not have the abilities to verify it. The sun, however, was always a star, it's just they didn't know it.

Not at all. I just walked to my fridge. No camaras my kids are outside playing,...... Now verify it. In fact a great deal of phenominon and ocurances cannot be varified. We also have scientific bounderies. Things and events exist beyond these bounderies, we will just never be able to explore them.

[White Crane Feather]

The thing is that's all science is supposed to do: help us understand nature. We can then use other tools/methods to apply what we learn from science.

I totally agree. Science is purely a tool. There are other tools aswell for understanding. I don't thnk that these tools hide the potential for a divine being though. I think they evenchually all point to it. Emergent systems mixed with a little thermodynamics has some very clear potentials. That at least should give open minded atheists a little pause.

[White Crane Feather]

The atoms of materials aren't made inside stars, but the different elements are.

Ok......