Science vs. Religion

[XenoFish]

Ah, science vs religion. Seemingly two bitter enemies. Simple question, can the two co-exist? Maybe even work together? 

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Ah, science vs religion. Seemingly two bitter enemies. Simple question, can the two co-exist? Maybe even work together? 

I consider 'science vs religion' and the 'bitter enemies' thing to be old-school rigid (bad) thinking. As we move into a newer age of human consciousness it becomes 'science and religion'. They are both methods of learning about reality so they can not contradict but may have different domains of specialization at this time. 

[lightly]

• Not in this forum !  .      I'm so glad I am loosing the need to KNOW , for certain, .  I am free to believe..disbelieve..think...wonder..  be wrong..     It's a wonderful freedom.

[XenoFish]

Thanks. Every useful.

[lightly]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Thanks. Every useful.

Stick it.   

[+Desertrat56]

I agree mostly with pappageorge1.  There are scientists that do not discount "anomolous" results, though main stream science does because the entity paying for the research usually has an agenda.  When you let scientists research without the encumbrance of an agenda they will have conclusions, like the placebo effect, and the idea that there may be more to us than just the physical, consciousness may not reside in the brain, etc. 

There are some religions that teach anti-science, and there are a lot of scientists who follow a religion of some sort.  Anytime I have seen a discussion become science vs religion, I see both sides as wrong, incomplete, biased and ignorant.

[XenoFish]

Good thing I have George on ignore then.

Edited March 3, 2020 by XenoFish

[Rlyeh]

No, nor should they.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

They are both methods of learning about reality so they can not contradict but may have different domains of specialization at this time. 

Of course they can contradict, and have historically. Young-earth creationism and evolution are not different domains of specialization, they make mutually exclusive claims about life on earth.  One matches reality and one does not, which puts some pretty relevant qualifiers and caveats around using religion as a 'method learning about reality'.  On this subject, the only lesson to take away from religion's contributions is, 'don't trust what religions say about reality'.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Of course they can contradict, and have historically. Young-earth creationism and evolution are not different domains of specialization, they make mutually exclusive claims about life on earth.  One matches reality and one does not, which puts some pretty relevant qualifiers and caveats around using religion as a 'method learning about reality'.  On this subject, the only lesson to take away from religion's contributions is, 'don't trust what religions say about reality'.

There is bad religious thinking (fundamentalism). There is bad science thinking (scientism).

i was saying that we can be now in a more enlightened age where we learn from both. At this stage science is pretty much restricted to the physical. Broad and religion/spiritual knowledge deals with what is beyond the physical senses.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

i was saying that we can be now in a more enlightened age where we learn from both. At this stage science is pretty much restricted to the physical.

Science is restricted to those things that can be studied and for which there is evidence, which yes restricts it right now to the physical.  Science has a methodology to resolve disputes between two exclusive claims, religion doesn't. Given that Christians believe you get one life here and then your soul dwells in a different realm after death, and Hindus teach instead that we are reincarnated in different forms repeatedly, what can we in our more enlightened age learn from both since they conflict?  They aren't both right, so is it that one of them is right or neither of them is right, and to your original point, which one is allowing us to 'learn about reality'?

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Science is restricted to those things that can be studied and for which there is evidence, which yes restricts it right now to the physical.  Science has a methodology to resolve disputes between two exclusive claims, religion doesn't. Given that Christians believe you get one life here and then your soul dwells in a different realm after death, and Hindus teach instead that we are reincarnated in different forms repeatedly, what can we in our more enlightened age learn from both since they conflict?  They aren't both right, so is it that one of them is right or neither of them is right, and to your original point, which one is allowing us to 'learn about reality'?

You are expressing what I call scientism (bad).

It is true that the spiritual planes can not be studied with the precise rigor of the physical planes but the evidence in my judgement is overwhelming  that something is there. And I believe there are those that are more psychically gifted that can tell us about the ‘more’. And I find modern spiritual sources bring things to a common understanding. Modern thinking bridges differences between religions. In fact the more modern spiritual people don’t have a historical religion name that fully fits.

You can follow ‘scientism’ but I feel it impoverishes what we can know about reality. I learn from religion/spirituality too. In fact that is where I learn the only things that really matter.

[Rlyeh]

28 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

You are expressing what I call scientism (bad).

You're expressing what is known as confirmation bias (bad).

You want scientific research to support your beliefs, when it doesn't you call it "scientism".  This "scientism" is actual science.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Rlyeh

[Stiff]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

No, nor should they.

^ This ^

One is fact, one is fiction.

One is provable, one isn't.

(Cue the haters) 

[Rlyeh]

44 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

There is bad religious thinking (fundamentalism). There is bad science thinking (scientism).

i was saying that we can be now in a more enlightened age where we learn from both. At this stage science is pretty much restricted to the physical. Broad and religion/spiritual knowledge deals with what is beyond the physical senses.

And then there is this counterfeit science that promotes new age pseudoscience.

There is nothing bad about "scientism" if it follows the scientific method.  You desire science to be biased in new spiritual woo.  Guess what?  That's not science.

[Rlyeh]

To elaborate on my first comment, science and religion are vastly different.  Science derives knowledge from the study of the universe through the scientific method of investigation.  Religion gets it's truth from self-proclaimed prophets.  Mixing Science and Religion gets you just another Religion, and for this reason it will never be Science. 

[+Desertrat56]

12 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

And then there is this counterfeit science that promotes new age pseudoscience.

There is nothing bad about "scientism" if it follows the scientific method.  You desire science to be biased in new spiritual woo.  Guess what?  That's not science.

I have seen bad science used to promote a lot of things, not just stuff sold by new agers.  Check out most vitamin and supplements websites, most spout bad science.  It is used for a lot of things that have nothing to do with religion, and always to do with money.

A good example is the war between Edison and Tesla.  Edison had GE backing him so it was all about money, but in the end Tesla was proven to be correct, that alternating current is safer.  What do we use?  Alternating current, not direct current.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Desertrat56

[HandsomeGorilla]

The science of religion or the religion of science? Although much science and scientists may have a religious zeal, albeit more political than religious, the two are, by definition, mutually exclusive. 

[lightly]

Science is the study of the physical workings of nature...  These laws ,for now, function the way they do...whether naturally occurring or divinely designed.  

Most religious believers acknowledge science simply as a study and recording of physical data. .and so, in many,  faith and science can peacefully coexist.  

Atheists cannot acknowledge religion,spirituality,or God and so, for them no coexistence or cooperation is possible.

i'm not "religious" .... and I'm not atheistic.    So I coexist and cooperate with myself splendidly.

 

 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

You're expressing what is known as confirmation bias (bad).

You want scientific research to support your beliefs, when it doesn't you call it "scientism".  This "scientism" is actual science.

No, most spiritual beliefs can neither be proved nor disproved by science of today.

No, by scientism I mean:

Per Dictionary: Scientism: excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Or per Wikipedia: Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, implying a cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

Edited March 3, 2020 by papageorge1

[bison]

Scientism isn't simply science with which one disagrees. It is a system of belief that considers science to be the basis for evaluating all of reality, including spiritual matters. When scientism say that science disproves the essence of a spiritual reality, it is presuming to speak of matters it is not competent to judge.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

And then there is this counterfeit science that promotes new age pseudoscience.

There is nothing bad about "scientism" if it follows the scientific method.  You desire science to be biased in new spiritual woo.  Guess what?  That's not science.

Well we science/religion types are also against counterfeit science. However the term becomes subjective and often used unfairly by anti-spiritual types to attack any findings or evidence that seem to smack of non-materialist things they don't like. 

I will call scientism 'bad' per the definitions I gave in my previous post.

Edited March 3, 2020 by papageorge1

[XenoFish]

Don't mind me. I'm just watching what I knew would happen. Carry on.

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

You are expressing what I call scientism (bad).

Where am I expressing that?  The point that you ignored:

"Given that Christians believe you get one life here and then your soul dwells in a different realm after death, and Hindus teach instead that we are reincarnated in different forms repeatedly, what can we in our more enlightened age learn from both since they conflict?  They aren't both right, so is it that one of them is right or neither of them is right, and to your original point, which one is allowing us to 'learn about reality'?"

...has nothing to do with science or scientism, it has to do with simple logic.  We hopefully already agree that fundamentalism is bad, so what's 'bad' about scientism?  Scientism ever result in terrorist attacks, systemic bigotry, etc?  Did excessive devotion to science obstruct or delay the realization of spiritual truths sometime in human history?  Because vice versa, there sure was obstruction.  I don't agree that science the "only" way to determine objective truths, but it is clearly the best; there's hardly a second place worth mentioning, it's no contest.  

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

It is true that the spiritual planes can not be studied with the precise rigor of the physical planes

It is actually true that they can't be studied at all.  Feel free to lay out how exactly you study the spiritual planes and most importantly, what decades if not centuries of this supposed 'study' has verified and shown to be true.  

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

And I believe there are those that are more psychically gifted that can tell us about the ‘more’. And I find modern spiritual sources bring things to a common understanding.

Beliefs are cheap, only thing that matters is what you can show, which is close to zero as we've settled with past conversations.  Funny how psychic gifts vanish as soon as you get someone who is competent and unbiased to evaluate them.  Besides, you were referring to science and religion, neither of which depends in any way on your or my personal assessment.

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Modern thinking bridges differences between religions.

No it doesn't, it just at best ignores the differences.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, bison said:

When scientism say that science disproves the essence of a spiritual reality, it is presuming to speak of matters it is not competent to judge.

What is 'the essence of a spiritual reality'?  Science doesn't try to disprove statements that are kept (purposely?) vague and are not well defined.  Science is competent to judge the idea of things such as an afterlife, since science has boatloads of evidence of what happens to our consciousness when the brain is deprived of oxygen.