Science vs Religion - Page 15

MadPenguin · 2011-10-22, 05:47 AM

For me, its all down to faith and what you believe

The problem is despite religious teachings, faith is not a virtue:

I believe that there is a country called Japan , I've never been there . I've bought items with 'Made in Japan' on them . I can see the world map and its stuck there just to the right of another imaginary country called China. I go on faith that all this information about Japan is true based upon what other sentient beings around me that I can see believe in it also.

There are huge differences between this and a belief in God, primarily evidence and probability. This is the line that seperates science from religion.
You cant be 100% sure the Earth orbits the Sun. That doesnt mean you have to take in on faith. We have extremely good reasons to believe the Earth goes round the sun. We have extremely good reasons to believe Japan exists, without ever going there. The same cannot be said of God/Relgion.

Time-warp back a few thousand years to the middle east . Some guy tries to explain that hes just seen a burning bush which was talking to him and said he should bring his son back up the hill and kill his son to honour the burning bush . In a modern context this guy would belong in the 'One flew over the cuckoos nest' academy and probably be in there before his feet touched the ground.

The problem with the claim of a burning bush talking to you is it defies the laws of the universe. A bush cannot speak. Fact. I already used the following paragraph so i apologize to those who have already read it but i cba coming up with a new one.
If you are meeting a friend and he tells you he walked to meet you, he could be lying, but you dont really question him on it, since not only is it a very plausible answer to the question of how he got there, but even if he lied and actually took the bus, who cares? If your friend instead claims he flew without the aid of technology, then walked across water, then teleported the rest of the way, you immediately become dubious about this claim, because it goes against the laws of the universe.

Religion does the same thing , it preys on the weak minded to do the behest of those 'In the Know'

In the case of science, if by weak minded you mean those who dont understand it, then whats science says to the ignorant is you should do x,y,z. And here are the reasons why. That last scentence is the difference here between science and religion, religion says something and just expects blind obedience. With science you can test it claims and show they are valid. In other words, science gets results.

I apologize by the way if i misinterpreted what you were saying, im probably just being a moron again but i had no idea what the main point you were trying to convey was

Quovatis · 2011-10-22, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Traak

It's the same old thing, always a new wrapper: "I don't want God, here are my reasons."

Or, "I love God, here are mine."

It's not that I don't "want" god, it's that there are no reasons to believe a god exists. You act like those who don't believe do so because they reject what god has to offer. That's not true. They simply don't believe god exists in the first place because there is no evidence. Do you not "want" Thor, Zeus, or leprechauns, or do you simply believe they don't exist?

Firefly · 2011-10-22, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Do you not "want" Thor, Zeus, or leprechauns, or do you simply believe they don't exist?

Thor exists. Just watch "Adventures in Babysitting".

Ohhhh, Elizabeth Shue... SOOOO HOT. WANT TO TOUCH THE HINEY. AROOOO!

TRex · 2011-10-22, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by MadPenguin

I apologize by the way if i misinterpreted what you were saying, im probably just being a moron again but i had no idea what the main point you were trying to convey was

The point i was making wasn't to question science or faith (ie belief in a god)but to explain that as soon as you mix a vested interest or control into the equation ,it's hard to take any of it with more than a pinch of salt.
Science explains more by having a realistic and quantifiable result or evidence to prove its theories. Japan does exist , theres maps showing its exact position in the world , I can buy products from there , I've met japanese people.

God, on the other hand , may possibly exist or existed. But this is writings from people a few thousand years ago that also thought the world was flat , the sun revolved around the earth and having the common cold meant you had been possessed by the devil and should be stoned to death. If you could write , and weren't part of the religious 'club' , you were guilty of witchcraft.

What if , 4-5000 BC , a group of aliens landed on the earth in their spaceships , talked to a few of the local tribe leaders , showed them how to make basic farming tools and weapons . The brighter ones showed them how to use the stars for navigation and basic arithmatic . And they were offered the leaders daughters as tribute. The progeny of those daughters become kings , the tribal leaders become holy servants to the 'gods' with divine authority . They make pyramids and burial grounds or chambers to mimic the way the visitors left after getting in their cryo chambers for their return interstellar space journey home.The rest is history , influenced over time by those wanting to maintain control.

The last paragraph to me is just as, if not more so , believable than the burning bush bregade we've been fed. At least it has some logic to it. Just like maybe when the first Europeans landed on American soil and shot the natives with their musket rifles, while wearing body armour and arriving upon giant 'spaceships' that floated on the great sea from 'heaven'.

I also have to think, that, just on the off-chance that maybe these religious nuts are correct , then if there is a god then by their own terms there must be a devil and hell. If thats the case , do I really want to wear white forever , be a mindless thoughtless zombie singing kumbyah for the rest of eternity eating nothing but Ambrosia creamed rice . Or hang out where its a bit warm all the time , and get drunk and have endless orgies , free speech and a chance to go topside and stir things up for a laugh every now and then. Difficult decision.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-19, 01:04 AM

Meh.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-19, 01:04 AM

Meh.

Vash02 · 2012-03-19, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Interesting, thread wasn't showing up, I bumped it and now it appears.

Hamma/Gryphon might want to look at this issue...

I think the forum has a setting that "dissapears" old threads from your view.

Its the thread cut off option in your control panel. The default setting is the forum default but you can change it show all threads.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-19, 02:55 AM

Meh.

Hamma · 2012-03-19, 09:16 AM

Yea it was prob just a sorting issue

Ait'al · 2012-03-31, 02:56 AM

Didn't read but posting from the title and first post a bit.

"I didn't know it was a contest."

Technically the colloquial, modern, term science and religion are both sciences. Modern science definition(or how it is taken) is focused on the part of a thought or argument proccess focused on deduction. The religious spends a lot more times on other parts. But they are both ulitmately moving to deductive processes. "Science" is trying to get to minor details. Religion is looking at larger thing. In the truest sense you can't forget philosophy is a part of deduction, for instance. The thoughts of philosophy(and in this case religion) are the thoughts that must be argued past to deduce something properly in an argument. The removal of all other possibilities. So it is all part of a proper argument and necessary by definition. Any possible thought that can be thought must be argued past and proven wrong to prove you have deduced something correctly and removed all other possibility. It is a requirement for proper thought. it is all part of the process.

Crap nvm... 8p. I thought this was still in discussion.

Figment · 2012-03-31, 04:42 AM

The difference between religion and science in throught process is inverse.

Deduction vs induction. Of course, induction can only take place once an initial set exists. (Typically based on primitive deduction due to lack of understanding and severe extrapolation on speculation). Did you for instance know that the bible classifies bats as birds, instead of mammals?

Deduction is continuously peering evidence and adjusting when needed to fit the evidence, while not concluding anything till there is a pretty solid argument and a verifiable and demonstratable case. That is where a scientific hypothesis moves to scientific theory, which is still open for revision and amendment when neccessary.

These theories are not open to subjective interpretation, but are very specifically defined. Subjectivity (difference in opinion) lies predominantly on the hypothesis side of things, but critique can still be uttered regarding laws if you can substantially back up your case and there's a good chance that if your model is objectively better (more accurate) in line with observations, that your model replaces the existing one.

Induction however, is going from an existing doctrine. Which is a set of believes and stances regarding the world. Observations do not alter these unless they are so overwhelming they cannot be ignored any longer. At which point the core of the set of believes is still attempted to be retained. More likely though, is that the observations are interpreted with the 100% validity of the doctrine in mind.

This makes religion not be very open to alternatives or critical on content: the content in the end has to remain 'intact', whether abstractly or literally (depends on subjective interpretation). Because it's been said by [arbitrary authority X] that it is such, therefore they are right. This authority is derived typically on character, rather than on argument or evidence. If spiritual leader Y says A, then A it is, because he is the representative of divinity on earth. Not because it has been verified or is in accordance with observations.

Another significant difference is that morality is imposed on people through religion, while science does not impose any morality. It just explains the process as best it can. Morality based on science is a social derivative.

What I find weird though, is that people think religion is a freedom, when a the outcome of their thought process is imposed on them by their doctrine. Rather than that they are encouraged to think for themselves, question existing theory (through verification) and come to new and innovative, insightful conclusions where possible.

The amount of trust someone puts in either thought process determines the amount of "faith" one requires to accept certain things. In science, trust is generated by peer evaluations and experimentation. Yes, frequently by others, but not always as you can do so yourself if you want to and have time for it. Thing is, acceptance by a majority of the scientific community in general means you have been able to convince people with completely different theories using evidence and catalogued it accordingly.

If I hear of a particular scientific theory, I'll check if observations are in accordance with it, at the very least on a global scale and if the rational seems sound. Geology is a pretty good example of this.

An example.

When you have induction theories on geology (for instance, young earth) and compare it to scientific theory, then the difference in level of argument and evidence to support the case, as well as experiments in favour of scientific theory, then it's completely overwhelming in favour of scientific theory on all three accounts. The induction is simply limited to amateuristic philosophy based on ancient texts, but completely lacking in evidence. It has to explain away massive observational incongrueties with shallow thought. It has to do without experiments to back it up.

In contrast, it is easy to do sedimentation experiments and the results of those never support things like World Flood theories. That makes these religiously induced theories very untrustworthy in comparison.

I also prefer to determine my own morality. Philosophers are great in helping setup that morality, but does that mean one should take their word on everything? Stoicism sounds great in theory with regards to politics on a national or global level (rationality above greed or not being able to do things that have to be done). In practice a stoic without emotions like love, empathy or even physical attraction would probably not make the world a better place to live in on an individual level.

However, that doesn't mean that other philosophies, including religions, have the correct interpretations when they do involve these emotions. Very often they can be very (too) judgmental based on raw emotions alone and lacking severely in rationality and backing up their claims.

Backing up your claims is the first thing you have to do in order to be trustworthy. Hence I will much sooner accept something argued scientifically. I will not have blind faith in it and once accepted never be able to rescind on it. However, you will need to built your own case first in order to convince either way.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-03-31, 08:18 AM

There's no debate between science and religion, any more than there is a 'debate' between science and astrologers. One is real. The other demonstrably isn't.

AnamNantom · 2012-04-04, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

That's not a conflict.

Some scientists see the marvels of the universe and the complexity and reason that it is highly improbable that it is purely due to chance. Thus what they observe from science reinforces their faith.

I would also state that a lot of the actual conflict arises because some religious folk view their holy texts as absolute fact and interpret it literally, which does not seem logically sound given that contexts change drastically over hundreds and thousands of years, as does human interaction. The context under which a text was written may be entirely different in the present day.

Essentially there are many other ways with which to reconcile the dissonance caused by apparent belief-disconfirming evidence. One is to simply not believe. Another is to re-think the view or the meaning of the belief. Still another is accepting that both observations may in fact be correct.

To provide an example - science observes that the world is around 4 billion years old. In Judeo-Christian religions the world was created in 7-days. There is an apparent conflict here. But is there really? Is the "7 days" in Man-time or God-time? Was the observer (who was a man) experiencing a vision of the creation in fast-forward? Clearly he could not observe the creation in real-time if it actually took place over 4 billion years! Education and knowledge was not the same at the time of the writing, so what was observed may have been interpreted differently. It is possible for the observation and the text to both be correct. It is also possible for that story to have been written by a schizophrenic.

Does that invalidate the entire religion? Some religious scholars might say so, but logically it does not make sense for me. Religion is a study, like anything else, and it changes over time and is subject to the flawed thinking of Man just as scientific understanding is sometimes incorrect and changes. If someone takes the texts at face-value then this type of thinking is flat out heresy. But I believe that one can be spiritual and have faith but also be critical of one's own religion and desire to modernize it, or refine it to its key principles. Some stories may be factually inaccurate (as histories can sometimes be) and scientific study may reveal these, but that does not render the purpose or meaning of the story useless or wrong. It merely highlights the fact that our understanding is incomplete and authored by men. If anything it would mean that religion shouldn't be stagnated in the far past but rather evolving with time and refining its message and meaning, distilling it down to the core parts and not letting followers get distracted by literal details caused by the weakness of Man.

Man is flawed and man's walk will be flawed and many times his interpretation. One great view in this is that the Bible is inerrant (most Christians fully agree with this), but man's interpretation must always be questioned.

There are some things in the Bible that are so simple and really non-questionable. The message of Jesus Christs's sacrifice so that man can be being born-again and renewed to God, is one of them. (John 3:16)

There are things that are complex, symbolic, and a mystery. Not everything was revealed to man in the Bible, even the Bible says this (Revelations speaks of this where John was told to seal up something he witnessed). For people who are trying to please God, and there are "grey" areas in their questioning of certain things in life that are pleasing, the Bible even addresses this.

Romans 14:13-23

13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Just my two cents, and I know this was an old post, but I had to comment. :-)

Figment · 2012-04-04, 03:53 AM

There are some things in the Bible that are so simple and really non-questionable. The message of Jesus Christs's sacrifice so that man can be being born-again and renewed to God, is one of them. (John 3:16)

...uhm. That's the central questionable thing, because it makes SO many weird assumptions.

Untestable Assertion 1: there is a god
Untestable Assertion 2: Jesus is a son of said god (not any god, THAT god)
Untestable Assertion 3: Human sacrifice helps on a divine level
Untestable Assertion 4: Human sacrifice of son of aforementioned god undo's humanity's sins somehow (like the ultimate Ctrl-Z button combi that even works for future sins - basically, committing the ultimate sin (murder) on a person leads to absolution of sins?)
Untestable Assertion 5: Humanity's sins were actually forgiven
Untestable Assertion 6: Humanity's ability to "rebirth".

You were saying it is unquestionable. Yet how can you miss the above extremely obvious questionable things?

I don't even see the logic.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-05, 01:55 AM

Meh.