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

psyche101
5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

You are an enemy of reason

Oh grow up. Is that the best you can do? No you are! Geez PG. Are you like 6 years old? Although that would explain a great deal you know.

And prove your accusation like I did when you welched on that bet welcher.

Quote

and you have shown you don't understand papageorge1!

Everybody understands you. You are an enemy of reason and proportionate your support by the ridiculous nature of a claim. The sillier it is, the more you support it. 

Quote

My chakra discussion was fine and my credibility is high.

Keep telling yourself that. You might even believe it. You quoted modern American sales pitches, not the traditional system, which you seem to know nothing about! 

Bet welcher 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
Posted (edited)

 

Oh this is gonna be a fun thread. :D

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


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

I am only responsible for Papa and his eponymous meter.

  

You did however say: 

Quote

True, but no one is claiming proven facts either.

Did you not? So are you or are you not speaking for others because it appears you misspoke. 
 

cormac

  • Like 7
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, Stiff said:

^ This ^

One is fact, one is fiction.

One is provable, one isn't.

(Cue the haters) blabla_sign.gif

No where near as clear cut as that  One is science the other is a philosophy or  theology or construction of faith and beleif 

Humans evolved both, use both, and need both to survive, but for different purposes You can have every physical/material need  met and still commit suicide because your psychological/spiritual needs are not met.

That's where faith /belief, and good religions, come in.  They meet that side of the  "human needs hierarchy"  

The positive effects of faith, belief, and religion, can be (and have been) proven by science and scientific method.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Posted (edited)
9 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.

true although modern science and medicine is improving in this regard. A big majority of scientists see no conflict between science and religion/faith 

There are more modern stats but this was the first tha t came up

 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-05-24/three-scientists-talk-about-how-their-faith-fits-with-their-work/9543772

Scientists these days may be less religious than the average person, but just over half of scientists surveyed in 2009 said they believed in some sort of deity or higher power.

more modern stats show that only about a third of scientist see any conflict. It is "a meme whose moment has passed"

quote

t's true that the popular perception of a historical conflict remains strong. That hasn't stopped all serious historians from queuing up to condemn it. John Hedley Brooke and Peter Harrison at Oxford; David Lindberg and Ron Numbers at Wisconsin-Madison; and Simon Shapin in California have all tried to put the record straight. But as Numbers ruefully admits, "Despite a developing consensus among scholars that science and Christianity have not been at war, the notion of conflict has refused to die." He has edited a new collection of essays, published by Harvard University Press, called Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion which tries to chip away some more from the edifice of popular opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/14/science-religion-coyne

quote

In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Many simply acknowledge that the two institutions deal with different realms of human experience. Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary.

Furthermore, contrary to stereotype, one certainly doesn't have to be an atheist in order to become a scientist. A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/science_religion

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences

https://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


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

Good religious/spiritual thinking does not in the end have contradictions. Again I am not arguing that everything ever said by religion is correct. I am just arguing that a sensible enlightened religion/spirituality can be adopted that is not in conflict with science.

If your religion or spirituality depends on some doctrine or dogma, at some point you may need to sacrifice in order to resolve conflict with science.  Religion itself has no obligation to science and vice versa.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Seems very unlikely.

Try this one.

 

 

As nobody will probably watch this

It's lengthy, I get that. But you can't say there's not every opportunity for both sides to present a very sound argument, and I feel it's a very good example of why science and religion cannot co exist.

For the majority that won't watch it, the main point of this debate to take away is

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2x6MSTpA7dKOnE29dgJ9

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

I was thinking...that religion is far older than science.   But, I was wrong.  They have both been around for, at least, as long as human thought.    Man wondered why am I here?  (Philosophy/Religion?).  And he wondered why is the sky blue?  (Science?)

it was the application of scientific observation and thinking that enabled man to make his first spear...and make his own fire.  So, science and some form of religion have coexisted for as long as we have been able to think.    I think.

 Cooperation,  on the other hand, between science and religion, or on much of anything else for that matter, seems to be extremely challenging for our species?     

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly
15 hours ago, XenoFish said:

:sleepy:

 

              Very useful.     ;).      What is your opinion X?   Science and religion do coexist,  as they both exist...but...what do you think bud?   Is cooperation possible?   On a large scale?   

some people, like me, can embrace spirituality and science both....but Religions are very compartmentalized and restricting...and therefore unable to cooperate with one another, let alone science or anything else?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 minutes ago, lightly said:

 

              Very useful.     ;).      What is your opinion X?   Science and religion do coexist,  as they both exist...but...what do you think bud?   Is cooperation possible?   On a large scale?   

some people, like me, can embrace spirituality and science both....but Religions are very compartmentalized and restricting...and therefore unable to cooperate with one another, let alone science or anything else?

Religious effects can be studied by neuroscience and psychological. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WanderingFool0
18 minutes ago, lightly said:

I was thinking...that religion is far older than science.   But, I was wrong.  They have both been around for, at least, as long as human thought.    Man wondered why am I here?  (Philosophy/Religion?).  And he wondered why is the sky blue?  (Science?)

it was the application of scientific observation and thinking that enabled man to make his first spear...and make his own fire.  So, science and some form of religion have coexisted for as long as we have been able to think.    I think.

 Cooperation,  on the other hand, between science and religion, or on much of anything else for that matter, seems to be extremely challenging for our species?     

 

I personally think proto-philosophy arose as soon as people realized we were thinking animals capable of logic, reason and the construction and interpretation of abstract thoughts and ideas, unlike the other animals. Then I think the Greek civilization formalized philosophy as the science and study of logic, reason and abstract thoughts and ideas. Then, as we began to apply those ideas to  the physical world, over time we developed the hard sciences as tools, to accomplish that task.

If you likened philosophy's relationship to the physical sciences, as a construction project; philosophy would be like the architect that worked on the planning, blueprints and in engineering the schematics and the hard science would be like the workers, the cranes and the physical systems bringing those ideas into concrete existence in the physical plane.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

It all began with the threshold event of human conscious, when the human brain achieved sufficient cognitive ability to formulate the concept and the question of "Why?"

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
9 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

If your religion or spirituality depends on some doctrine or dogma, at some point you may need to sacrifice in order to resolve conflict with science.  Religion itself has no obligation to science and vice versa.

Where I disagree is that religious/spiritual understanding like science does not need to have the details cemented in. The basic ideas of religion must stay the same but the details can be understood better as time goes on (and maybe with the aid of science).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
17 hours ago, Tuco's Gas said:

Science and Religion cannot and will not ever work together. I'll go so far as to say that I believe they are mutaually exclusive.

Science simply doesn't need religion. Much akin to how a physicist doesn't need to learn how to do the I Ching in order to excel at his job.

Religion eschews modern science routinely. Or even...wait for it....religiously. 

Well, except when it attempts to hijack a few cherry picked aspects from it in order to further their agenda. Look to the Intelligent Design crowd for a good example of this.

Religion in reality fears science. Always has, going back to when Copernicus and then Galileo were almost killed for their works. But religion now no longer has the juice it once did, thus cannot threaten a Hawking or Dawkins with death or imprisonment.  So they simply deny and discredit.

Sometimes to the point of hilarity. Sometimes just to the point of hypocrisy. 

My favorite example of the latter is when a Young Earther claims all those dozens of methods or radiometric dating are wrong.  (Never mind the fact that: If they were all wrong and inaccurate, how could they agree on the same ages for various things like rocks and fossils?)

But yeah, the hypocrisy: "science is wrong" they rant. "It's just another religion. Radiometric dating is egregiously unreliable."

Yet, the guy who wrote that hokum just did so on his computer. Sitting in his climate controlled home. Having just driven home from work, and cooked dinner in a microwave after taking his medication.

Blissfully unaware that all five of those actions were made possible by science. 

It would be funny if it weren't so maddening. 

Cheers.

Science doesn't need religion and religion doesn't need science, but  humans need both in order to meet our physical and psychological needs (yeah I appreciate a handful of atheists will claim the y individually don't need religion, but consistently all surveys show less than 10 % of people claim no belief in something bigger than themselves or beyond the physical world) Even creationism and evolution can exist comfortably together in the mind of a human being  (personally I am an evolutionist but i cant see a problem with someone who believes everything, including evolution, is a product of a god. Again  i dont believe that, but i can see no logical inconsistency )

I have less time for people  who want to use ancient cultural values in today's world, but that goes wider than religious into other cultural issues ) eg slavery is not a biblical issue, but a cultural/economic one.Likewise for the autonomy and equality of women.That is because religion is always a product of its wider social context 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It all began with the threshold event of human conscious, when the human brain achieved sufficient cognitive ability to formulate the concept and the question of "Why?"

Absolutely. The mind then constructed the answers it was comfortable with,  beginning with; Because ........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
14 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

If your religion or spirituality depends on some doctrine or dogma, at some point you may need to sacrifice in order to resolve conflict with science.  Religion itself has no obligation to science and vice versa.

I am not sure that is ever true. the human  mind is so flexible it will find a way to resolve competing  facts or data. It's main job is to ensure your survival and happiness/comfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It all began with the threshold event of human conscious, when the human brain achieved sufficient cognitive ability to formulate the concept and the question of "Why?"

Followed quickly by the realization that, 'arggh, yes this world can be understandable and predictable and I can exert some control over it, but it mostly won't do what I want!  Be a good time to have some gods that I can provide gifts and offerings to and maybe they'll make reality obey my wishes." 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
6 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Followed quickly by the realization that, 'arggh, yes this world can be understandable and predictable and I can exert some control over it, but it mostly won't do what I want!  Be a good time to have some gods that I can provide gifts and offerings to and maybe they'll make reality obey my wishes." 

Of course, there's a few who turned around and retreated from the threshold.:rolleyes:

Share this post


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

Science doesn't need religion and religion doesn't need science, but humans need both in order to meet our physical and psychological needs (yeah I appreciate a handful of atheists will claim the y individually don't need religion, but consistently all surveys show less than 10 % of people claim no belief in something bigger than themselves or beyond the physical world) Even creationism and evolution can exist comfortably together in the mind of a human being  (personally I am an evolutionist but i cant see a problem with someone who believes everything, including evolution, is a product of a god. Again  i dont believe that, but i can see no logical inconsistency )

I have less time for people  who want to use ancient cultural values in today's world, but that goes wider than religious into other cultural issues ) eg slavery is not a biblical issue, but a cultural/economic one.Likewise for the autonomy and equality of women.That is because religion is always a product of its wider social context 

Depends on how one is defining "religion". 

Less than 10% is STILL > than 0

cormac

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Of course, there's a few who turned around and retreated from the threshold.:rolleyes:

Eventually. Gods seem like a pretty natural conclusion for those early humans, wouldn't be surprised if nearly all believed in something similar at least.  How magical and confusing a lot of the world must have been for them, the intensity of everything, the wonder and the horror, must have been cranked up  That's probably inevitable when living to 30 qualified you as elderly.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
On 3/3/2020 at 8:21 AM, XenoFish said:

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

 

Yes of course they can. 

Except for this little problem:

 

Quote

How foolish it is for material-minded man to allow such vulnerable theories as those of a mechanistic universe to deprive him of the vast spiritual resources of the personal experience of true religion. Facts never quarrel with real spiritual faith; theories may. Better that science should be devoted to the destruction of superstition rather than attempting the overthrow of religious faith—human belief in spiritual realities and divine values.

Source

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WanderingFool0
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Eventually. Gods seem like a pretty natural conclusion for those early humans, wouldn't be surprised if nearly all believed in something similar at least.  How magical and confusing a lot of the world must have been for them, the intensity of everything, the wonder and the horror, must have been cranked up  That's probably inevitable when living to 30 qualified you as elderly.

Well i always hear that but some of those old vedic sages and the greek philosophers seemed pretty savvy and other than accumulated knowledge, I don't think there is much difference between ancient peoples ability to think and our own.

Edited by WanderingFool0
correction
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Eventually. Gods seem like a pretty natural conclusion for those early humans, wouldn't be surprised if nearly all believed in something similar at least.  How magical and confusing a lot of the world must have been for them, the intensity of everything, the wonder and the horror, must have been cranked up  That's probably inevitable when living to 30 qualified you as elderly.

 

You can say that again. Living on the edge forced the situation.

 

Quote

The primitive mind was logical but contained few ideas for intelligent association; the savage mind was uneducated, wholly unsophisticated. If one event followed another, the savage considered them to be cause and effect. What civilized man regards as superstition was just plain ignorance in the savage. Mankind has been slow to learn that there is not necessarily any relationship between purposes and results. Human beings are only just beginning to realize that the reactions of existence appear between acts and their consequences. The savage strives to personalize everything intangible and abstract, and thus both nature and chance become personalized as ghosts—spirits—and later on as gods.

Source

 

 

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.