Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
XenoFish

Science vs. Religion

675 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Scudbuster
37 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

proved it

Guess I missed that one, better walk me through it again, this time nice and slow for us old guys. :D

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I am not arguing that everything religion has ever said is correct.

You were arguing that, in a horribly lopsided comparison, that religion/spirituality and science are 'methods to learn about reality'.  I'm bringing up a basic difference between major religions, who combined have billions of adherents, concerning one of their fundamental core beliefs, the afterlife.  Where does the 'learning about reality' part come in?  What spiritual truth has been discovered and proven with these non-material tools that you at least seem to suggest exist?  How was it verified and how was it defended against - forget about atheists and science - just opposing spiritual ideas?  

46 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

One thing a psychically non-gifted person like myself can say is that much of the numerous types of claimed paranormal experiences would be part and parcel of this expanded understanding of reality. That is evidence too (not proof).

Any experience can be made consistent with numerous possible models when we're free from the hassle of supporting evidence for those specific models.  If paranormal experiences are evidence of the reality you believe in, then it's also evidence of technologically advanced aliens mucking with our reality, of the idea that this is all a computer simulation, that you are actually dreaming, that magic exists, etc.  It's also evidence that people misperceive, misinterpret, and misremember, and engage in motivated reasoning resulting in them misunderstanding reality, and by the way all those deficiencies are 100% natural and evidenced to death.  You'd have to point out what evidence we have to distinguish between these possibilities and your preferred one; why is your expanded understanding of reality a better explanation of claimed paranormal experiences than these alternatives?

30 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I consider that statement false propaganda by the pseudo-skeptic camp.

What do those in the real, non-pseudo skeptic camp say?

31 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

We irreconcilably disagree on the quality of  the evidence and there is not much to gain in renewing that argument.

The quality of the evidence speaks for itself, and considering your claim there really is not much excuse for there not being quality evidence:  that a truly gifted psychic exists should be effortless to prove, if their powers exist and are measurable and can be discerned from the 'noise' of coincidence.  That's the difference between us, if I state there is evidence for something I can at least theoretically provide it to you and it would be clear.  On the other hand, the last time we attempted to discuss the best evidence, psychic gifts could only be discerned by only one, that I'm aware of, statistician who performed some meta-analysis on paranormal studies.  No indication of course that this statistician has any experience in proper experimental protocols and would recognize a properly controlled experiment from an uncontrolled one, and no explanation why you don't think that is not relevant.   

I think I've mentioned this before but I get whiplash because your tune changes so radically on this topic.  You start with references to 'truth', 'reality', 'psychically gifted', and the overwhelming evidence.  If I stated those things, you would never get the responses that I get from you that project the opposite of the certainty you started with:  the effect is 'weak but real', you need to read through tons/all of testimonials and at some point somehow you imply this reaches some kind of mass that makes the truth of 'it' overwhelming, the tools/science itself is insufficient (with no explanation of the reliability or even methodology of whatever the alternative is), etc.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
3 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

derailing of your thread

That was done on page one.:lol:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WanderingFool0
Just now, XenoFish said:

That was done on page one.:lol:

Ah, was just reading through now. :lol:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I am just arguing that a sensible enlightened religion/spirituality can be adopted that is not in conflict with science.

I can mostly agree with that, if someone wants to believe that evolution is merely the tool that God used to create species, that's not in conflict with science.  (although I haven't really ever heard a comprehensive one, except maybe Buddhism, that doesn't include things that are in conflict with science).

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

If they’re not amenable to the scientific method then there is no way to prove they’re real, which leaves them as a matter of personal interpretation/belief and not fact. 
 

cormac

True, but no one is claiming proven facts either. We each have to look at all the evidence and argumentation and judge for ourselves what is most reasonable to believe about these things not amenable to the scientific method at this time. To my judgment, the evidence for the paranormal is overwhelming and the Theosophical, Vedic, etc. wisdom traditions and masters provide the best explanatory model of how things beyond the physical work. And that is my religion/spiritualty that is not in conflict with science.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You were arguing that, in a horribly lopsided comparison, that religion/spirituality and science are 'methods to learn about reality'.  I'm bringing up a basic difference between major religions, who combined have billions of adherents, concerning one of their fundamental core beliefs, the afterlife.  Where does the 'learning about reality' part come in?  What spiritual truth has been discovered and proven with these non-material tools that you at least seem to suggest exist?  How was it verified and how was it defended against - forget about atheists and science - just opposing spiritual ideas?  

Why are you still asking for physical verification when I said these things are not amenable to the scientific method. On the afterlife, I have my beliefs that are not that far removed from the many religious beliefs out there. These are not easy things for people to see and grasp so differences in opinions can exist. If you require proof with precise certainty then religion/spirituality may not be for you.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Any experience can be made consistent with numerous possible models when we're free from the hassle of supporting evidence for those specific models.  If paranormal experiences are evidence of the reality you believe in, then it's also evidence of technologically advanced aliens mucking with our reality, of the idea that this is all a computer simulation, that you are actually dreaming, that magic exists, etc.  It's also evidence that people misperceive, misinterpret, and misremember, and engage in motivated reasoning resulting in them misunderstanding reality, and by the way all those deficiencies are 100% natural and evidenced to death.  You'd have to point out what evidence we have to distinguish between these possibilities and your preferred one; why is your expanded understanding of reality a better explanation of claimed paranormal experiences than these alternatives?

Well as I've mentioned I feel the Advaita, Vedic, Theosophical schools have plumbed the deepest into the universe beyond the physical level. Why? One reason is its explanatory power for the claimed paranormal and psychic experiences of mankind. Two, my judgment of the quantity, quality and consistency of the many masters that have contributed to these traditions.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What do those in the real, non-pseudo skeptic camp say?

I believe the respected tradition of skepticism has had the word 'skeptic' hijacked in these discussions by people with an emotional anti-paranormal bent. Go ahead and laugh, but I follow skeptical thinking when I come across new claims. I challenge the claims in every conceivable way and in the end step back and form a  judgement on the big picture.

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The quality of the evidence speaks for itself, and considering your claim there really is not much excuse for there not being quality evidence:  that a truly gifted psychic exists should be effortless to prove, if their powers exist and are measurable and can be discerned from the 'noise' of coincidence.  That's the difference between us, if I state there is evidence for something I can at least theoretically provide it to you and it would be clear.  On the other hand, the last time we attempted to discuss the best evidence, psychic gifts could only be discerned by only one, that I'm aware of, statistician who performed some meta-analysis on paranormal studies.  No indication of course that this statistician has any experience in proper experimental protocols and would recognize a properly controlled experiment from an uncontrolled one, and no explanation why you don't think that is not relevant.   

I think I've mentioned this before but I get whiplash because your tune changes so radically on this topic.  You start with references to 'truth', 'reality', 'psychically gifted', and the overwhelming evidence.  If I stated those things, you would never get the responses that I get from you that project the opposite of the certainty you started with:  the effect is 'weak but real', you need to read through tons/all of testimonials and at some point somehow you imply this reaches some kind of mass that makes the truth of 'it' overwhelming, the tools/science itself is insufficient (with no explanation of the reliability or even methodology of whatever the alternative is), etc.

I believe many psychics/mediums have passed thorough testing and you will claim not. And from some of your comments I don't think you have a good grasp of experimental methodology like people such as Dean Radin, Gary Schwartz, etc.. Sure you can go to pseudo-skeptical sources and hear them maligned. In the end I listen to everything, stand back, and form my overall judgment. 

The 'weak but real' means humans do have psychic abilities but they are not easily demonstrated nor controlled. I will argue that some gifted psychics have produced clear results and you will claim they were just mis-tested or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

:sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I can mostly agree with that, if someone wants to believe that evolution is merely the tool that God used to create species, that's not in conflict with science.  (although I haven't really ever heard a comprehensive one, except maybe Buddhism, that doesn't include things that are in conflict with science).

You could look at Vedic/Theosophical/Advaita etc. wisdom traditions if you want to see traditions that are also not in conflict with science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

No, they’re not and because you say so isn’t proof of anything. 
 

cormac

so many proofs I posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
docyabut2
1 minute ago, docyabut2 said:

so many proofs I posted, evolution is creation:)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

True, but no one is claiming proven facts either. We each have to look at all the evidence and argumentation and judge for ourselves what is most reasonable to believe about these things not amenable to the scientific method at this time. To my judgment, the evidence for the paranormal is overwhelming and the Theosophical, Vedic, etc. wisdom traditions and masters provide the best explanatory model of how things beyond the physical work. And that is my religion/spiritualty that is not in conflict with science.

Try telling that to Will Due and a few others who bounce between views in the hopes no one notices their hypocrisy. 
 

cormac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
19 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

so many proofs I posted

You’ve presented no proofs, just your opinion. 
 

cormac

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
12 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Try telling that to Will Due and a few others who bounce between views in the hopes no one notices their hypocrisy. 
 

cormac

I am only responsible for Papa and his eponymous meter.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
27 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I believe many psychics/mediums have passed thorough testing and you will claim not.

Briefly as it's Xeno's thread, you shouldn't have to 'believe'; if it's a proper and thorough experiment, there shouldn't be any question of whether someone 'passed' or not.  Since you 'believe' you're basically admitting something sketchy might be in play.  And geez, we could say you have psychic powers that are 'not easily demonstrated or controlled', can't get a much bigger 'out'/rationalization than that, so that says a whole bunch of nothing.  You might want to brush up on what skepticism actually entails before accusing others of being 'pseudo-skeptics'.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
9 hours ago, XenoFish said:

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

Short answer : No and no.

Longer answer :

Science is a method.

Religion is mostly wishful thinking.

Science is forever on an evolving journey. 

Religion is mostly static.

Science is adaptable in the face of new and better evidence. 

Religion is stuck with old and outdated ideas.

Science welcomes and encourages questions. 

Religion claims preternatural knowledge and doesn't do well in the face of difficult questions.

Science has grown in leaps and bounds in the last few centuries. It will only continue to do so.

Religion is still relying on books that are stuck saying what they say. No take backs.

Science is an obviously superior method to understanding reality. 

Religion props up unfalsifiable positions and uses them to assert fantasies. 

As for working together, I see no reason. Religion brings nothing to the table.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
8 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Briefly as it's Xeno's thread, you shouldn't have to 'believe'; if it's a proper and thorough experiment, there shouldn't be any question of whether someone 'passed' or not.  Since you 'believe' you're basically admitting something sketchy might be in play.  And geez, we could say you have psychic powers that are 'not easily demonstrated or controlled', can't get a much bigger 'out'/rationalization than that, so that says a whole bunch of nothing.  You might want to brush up on what skepticism actually entails before accusing others of being 'pseudo-skeptics'.

By ‘believe’ I am saying ‘believe beyond reasonable doubt’.

And I understand the concept of skepticism quite well.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

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. 

They are, always have been and always will be enemies.

They arrive at different conclusions. As such, they cannot coexist. What you have proposed is simply the new age spiritual outlook where fantasy tries to incorporate Science. It's about as convincing and accurate as creationism. 

And you have no integrity. You Welch on bets. You cannot be trusted at all with any subject. I know you will lie as you have done before.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
6 hours ago, bison said:

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.

You are completely wrong. Explain how it is not competent to judge. That's not a statement of fact, it's a wild opinion

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

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.

You are an enemy of reason and have shown you don't understand science,not even the woo you push. This was well demonstrated when you tried to show you know about the chakra system, but did not at all. Your credibility is zero. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

They are, always have been and always will be enemies.

 

There both my friends.

And I have never lied on this forum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Just now, papageorge1 said:

There both my friends.

No they are not. You assault and insult science constantly and have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not understand it. 

Just now, papageorge1 said:

And I have never lied on this forum.

Yes you have when you made the bet on chakras for one example. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, psyche101 said:

You are an enemy of reason and have shown you don't understand science,not even the woo you push. 

You are an enemy of reason and you have shown you don't understand papageorge1!

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

 This was well demonstrated when you tried to show you know about the chakra system, but did not at all. Your credibility is zero. 

My chakra discussion was fine and my credibility is high.

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

Remember watching a debate on, science vs religion years ago on c pam and religion won!  wish I could find that again  it was a good debate

Seems very unlikely.

Try this one.

 

 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

Sorry all but Science vs. Religion is all true, but  they are the same :)

That's just silly Doccy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.