"If you believe in Science you believe in Religion"

[Chris Cunningham]

Because if the world is so amazing, it MUST be God's will, right?

I've been hearing this phrase waaay too much lately. gonk  

[Asterisk07]

People that give reasons for a god existing that only they themselves could believe piss me off.  

[Alucard2021]

Wouldn't it be ironic if someone who was religious to believe in science? Or what's better is when I drive past the "Religious Science" building when i'm down town... oxymoron anyone?  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

Alucard2021

Wouldn't it be ironic if someone who was religious to believe in science? Or what's better is when I drive past the "Religious Science" building when i'm down town... oxymoron anyone?

What? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but the idea I'm getting is that you think science and religion are incompatible. This is strictly untrue, as should be evidenced by the wide range of theistic scientists, including Ken Miller (author of the most widely used biology book in the country).

Science tends to reinforce theistic belief for some and reinforce the absence of it for others. It's all a difference in perception; as long as the theistic scientists don't try to force that stance on the non-theistic ones, it doesn't have to be a problem, and acceptance of both science and theism is certainly not an oxymoron in and of itself.  

[Levis Pennae]

I concur with Daffodil, science and religion are not incompatible. However, you cannot even hope to try to make science replace religion. Science is obviously man made, it's explanations only partial. Religion has a claim to the supernatural, and supposedly is the answer to everything {see signature}. But I digress. I happen to know a few religious scientists. They don't mix religion and scientific theory, it is just not compatible to them.  

[Edi Gammon]

The Amazing Diet Coke

Because if the world is so amazing, it MUST be God's will, right?

I've been hearing this phrase waaay too much lately. gonk

That's what you'd call the "Argument from ignorance" logical fallacy.
(1) I can't explain X
Therefore:
(2) God did it.  

[Edi Gammon]

Levis Pennae

I concur with Daffodil, science and religion are not incompatible. However, you cannot even hope to try to make science replace religion. Science is obviously man made, it's explanations only partial. Religion has a claim to the supernatural, and supposedly is the answer to everything {see signature}. But I digress. I happen to know a few religious scientists. They don't mix religion and scientific theory, it is just not compatible to them.

I have to disagree with you both. Science and Religion are incompatible, in the fact that they make contradictory truth claims about reality.

Levis, Science is a process of discovering and understanding reality. I don't think it's obvious that "Science is man made". In fact I'd argue that Science is natural, and is present in any creature that explores its environment. I know that the science you are referring to is the high science that's represented by people in white lab coats and goggles playing with beakers and Bunson burners. I want to expand your awareness of Science to include what a baby does when it learns that whenever it cries, mommy comes and gives it milk... When a kitten learns that when it bites it's tail it hurts... When the young woodpecker finch discovers that if it sticks a cactus spine in a hole where it hears something munching inside, it can pry out a fat tasty grub for lunch. These are all precursors to the science that has taken us beyond our solar system, and the same principles guide both the discoveries and reactions in animals as they do in mans best endeavors. Science is the method by which reality is discovered.

With that in mind, I'd say it's more obvious that religion is man made wink . No religion is discovered. Most profess to have some kind of revelation or divine inspiration at their core. Revelations are the central dogma of religions.

The problem with revelations are that they are revealed to only the person they are revealed to. Once that person communicates their revelation to another it becomes hearsay, and the one who hears hearsay is in no obligation to believe it. Buuuuut..... If enough people just believe that someones revelation was real, you get a religion. Successful religions employ many tricks to get people to just believe... The oldest and probably most successful is fear of punishment for not believing.

On the other hand, if someone makes a claim that you don't believe, you can go see for yourself, or try it, or try to figure out why this person makes that claim. That's science.

Where there are unanswerable questions about reality, like "Is there a God?", science says 'we don't know yet, but from other things we are pretty sure about, here's our best guess, and here's what we might do to find out more.' While religion says 'We have the answer! And it is glabeldygooberflunkidizibmaggitobloronekitkatsnickerdoodlecheezewhiz! And you better say you believe it or else!' rofl

Yes there are religious scientists. No doubt about it. Just like there are religious people all over the world who have discovered independently that the world is not flat like it implies in the Bible (they don't fall of the edge of the world when on that cruise to Jamaica) and the sky is not made of shiny metal (the airplane didn't bump into it on the flight to Mecca) like it implies in the Koran. Just because someone is labeled a Scientist doesn't mean that they've applied the same kind of logic and reasoning that they do to their work as they do to their belief structures. Even if they did, religion has many psychological tricks to discourage it from being extinguished so easily. There is social pressure to remain in a religion that not even scientists are immune to. Scientists are human too, after all. 3nodding  

[SkeletonPhoenix]

Edi Gammon

Levis Pennae

I concur with Daffodil, science and religion are not incompatible. However, you cannot even hope to try to make science replace religion. Science is obviously man made, it's explanations only partial. Religion has a claim to the supernatural, and supposedly is the answer to everything {see signature}. But I digress. I happen to know a few religious scientists. They don't mix religion and scientific theory, it is just not compatible to them.

I have to disagree with you both. Science and Religion are incompatible, in the fact that they make contradictory truth claims about reality.

Levis, Science is a process of discovering and understanding reality. I don't think it's obvious that "Science is man made". In fact I'd argue that Science is natural, and is present in any creature that explores its environment. I know that the science you are referring to is the high science that's represented by people in white lab coats and goggles playing with beakers and Bunson burners. I want to expand your awareness of Science to include what a baby does when it learns that whenever it cries, mommy comes and gives it milk... When a kitten learns that when it bites it's tail it hurts... When the young woodpecker finch discovers that if it sticks a cactus spine in a hole where it hears something munching inside, it can pry out a fat tasty grub for lunch. These are all precursors to the science that has taken us beyond our solar system, and the same principles guide both the discoveries and reactions in animals as they do in mans best endeavors. Science is the method by which reality is discovered.

With that in mind, I'd say it's more obvious that religion is man made wink . No religion is discovered. Most profess to have some kind of revelation or divine inspiration at their core. Revelations are the central dogma of religions.

The problem with revelations are that they are revealed to only the person they are revealed to. Once that person communicates their revelation to another it becomes hearsay, and the one who hears hearsay is in no obligation to believe it. Buuuuut..... If enough people just believe that someones revelation was real, you get a religion. Successful religions employ many tricks to get people to just believe... The oldest and probably most successful is fear of punishment for not believing.

On the other hand, if someone makes a claim that you don't believe, you can go see for yourself, or try it, or try to figure out why this person makes that claim. That's science.

Where there are unanswerable questions about reality, like "Is there a God?", science says 'we don't know yet, but from other things we are pretty sure about, here's our best guess, and here's what we might do to find out more.' While religion says 'We have the answer! And it is glabeldygooberflunkidizibmaggitobloronekitkatsnickerdoodlecheezewhiz! And you better say you believe it or else!' rofl

Yes there are religious scientists. No doubt about it. Just like there are religious people all over the world who have discovered independently that the world is not flat like it implies in the Bible (they don't fall of the edge of the world when on that cruise to Jamaica) and the sky is not made of shiny metal (the airplane didn't bump into it on the flight to Mecca) like it implies in the Koran. Just because someone is labeled a Scientist doesn't mean that they've applied the same kind of logic and reasoning that they do to their work as they do to their belief structures. Even if they did, religion has many psychological tricks to discourage it from being extinguished so easily. There is social pressure to remain in a religion that not even scientists are immune to. Scientists are human too, after all. 3nodding

AMEN.  

[Levis Pennae]

Edi Gammon

Levis Pennae

I concur with Daffodil, science and religion are not incompatible. However, you cannot even hope to try to make science replace religion. Science is obviously man made, it's explanations only partial. Religion has a claim to the supernatural, and supposedly is the answer to everything {see signature}. But I digress. I happen to know a few religious scientists. They don't mix religion and scientific theory, it is just not compatible to them.

I have to disagree with you both. Science and Religion are incompatible, in the fact that they make contradictory truth claims about reality.

Levis, Science is a process of discovering and understanding reality. I don't think it's obvious that "Science is man made". In fact I'd argue that Science is natural, and is present in any creature that explores its environment. I know that the science you are referring to is the high science that's represented by people in white lab coats and goggles playing with beakers and Bunson burners. I want to expand your awareness of Science to include what a baby does when it learns that whenever it cries, mommy comes and gives it milk... When a kitten learns that when it bites it's tail it hurts... When the young woodpecker finch discovers that if it sticks a cactus spine in a hole where it hears something munching inside, it can pry out a fat tasty grub for lunch. These are all precursors to the science that has taken us beyond our solar system, and the same principles guide both the discoveries and reactions in animals as they do in mans best endeavors. Science is the method by which reality is discovered.

With that in mind, I'd say it's more obvious that religion is man made wink . No religion is discovered. Most profess to have some kind of revelation or divine inspiration at their core. Revelations are the central dogma of religions.

The problem with revelations are that they are revealed to only the person they are revealed to. Once that person communicates their revelation to another it becomes hearsay, and the one who hears hearsay is in no obligation to believe it. Buuuuut..... If enough people just believe that someones revelation was real, you get a religion. Successful religions employ many tricks to get people to just believe... The oldest and probably most successful is fear of punishment for not believing.

On the other hand, if someone makes a claim that you don't believe, you can go see for yourself, or try it, or try to figure out why this person makes that claim. That's science.

Where there are unanswerable questions about reality, like "Is there a God?", science says 'we don't know yet, but from other things we are pretty sure about, here's our best guess, and here's what we might do to find out more.' While religion says 'We have the answer! And it is glabeldygooberflunkidizibmaggitobloronekitkatsnickerdoodlecheezewhiz! And you better say you believe it or else!' rofl

Yes there are religious scientists. No doubt about it. Just like there are religious people all over the world who have discovered independently that the world is not flat like it implies in the Bible (they don't fall of the edge of the world when on that cruise to Jamaica) and the sky is not made of shiny metal (the airplane didn't bump into it on the flight to Mecca) like it implies in the Koran. Just because someone is labeled a Scientist doesn't mean that they've applied the same kind of logic and reasoning that they do to their work as they do to their belief structures. Even if they did, religion has many psychological tricks to discourage it from being extinguished so easily. There is social pressure to remain in a religion that not even scientists are immune to. Scientists are human too, after all. 3nodding

I am exactly aware of what science is Edi, please don't assume I'm ignorant. When I spoke of science I do not mean 'high science', I mean SCIENCE. Getting down in the grime and muck of the real world testing theories, and reinventing these theories when they are proven wrong. The breaking down of cause and effect to all of the intermediate stages. This is the scientific theory as it stands today. What you speak of is just cause and effect. The examples you give are not true scientific theory, they are just being noticing that when they do one thing something else happens. They are not trying to actually understand what is happening. For all the baby knows [i[every time it cries it gets fed, for all the woodpecker knows every time it sticks a spine into a munching hole it will pull out a tasty grub. What if a tribe of primitive men thought lost one of there own when he was struck by lightning (he was knocked unconscious), but when they kill an intruder in their camp the one they thought died came 'back to life'. Using basic cause and effect it could be assumed that when you kill someone someone else comes back to life. This would become the basis of a religion based on human sacrifice. But using scientific theory you would use the observation:1) that one person died, and another came back;2) you would question how that is possible;3) you would create a hypothesis on how it was possible;4) you would devise a series of experiments to test your hypothesis;5) if your hypothesis was dis-proven then you go back to step 3, if it was right you have a theory. Because scientific theory requires an idea to be able to be subject to experimentation, ideas concerning religion cannot be subject to experimentation. Therefore religion cannot be proven or dis-proven by science, and so scientific theory is neutral to religion.

{Note: this post is a bit rambling, I will edit later to make it understandable}  

[Alucard2021]

Edi Gammon

Levis Pennae

I concur with Daffodil, science and religion are not incompatible. However, you cannot even hope to try to make science replace religion. Science is obviously man made, it's explanations only partial. Religion has a claim to the supernatural, and supposedly is the answer to everything {see signature}. But I digress. I happen to know a few religious scientists. They don't mix religion and scientific theory, it is just not compatible to them.

I have to disagree with you both. Science and Religion are incompatible, in the fact that they make contradictory truth claims about reality.

Levis, Science is a process of discovering and understanding reality. I don't think it's obvious that "Science is man made". In fact I'd argue that Science is natural, and is present in any creature that explores its environment. I know that the science you are referring to is the high science that's represented by people in white lab coats and goggles playing with beakers and Bunson burners. I want to expand your awareness of Science to include what a baby does when it learns that whenever it cries, mommy comes and gives it milk... When a kitten learns that when it bites it's tail it hurts... When the young woodpecker finch discovers that if it sticks a cactus spine in a hole where it hears something munching inside, it can pry out a fat tasty grub for lunch. These are all precursors to the science that has taken us beyond our solar system, and the same principles guide both the discoveries and reactions in animals as they do in mans best endeavors. Science is the method by which reality is discovered.

With that in mind, I'd say it's more obvious that religion is man made wink . No religion is discovered. Most profess to have some kind of revelation or divine inspiration at their core. Revelations are the central dogma of religions.

The problem with revelations are that they are revealed to only the person they are revealed to. Once that person communicates their revelation to another it becomes hearsay, and the one who hears hearsay is in no obligation to believe it. Buuuuut..... If enough people just believe that someones revelation was real, you get a religion. Successful religions employ many tricks to get people to just believe... The oldest and probably most successful is fear of punishment for not believing.

On the other hand, if someone makes a claim that you don't believe, you can go see for yourself, or try it, or try to figure out why this person makes that claim. That's science.

Where there are unanswerable questions about reality, like "Is there a God?", science says 'we don't know yet, but from other things we are pretty sure about, here's our best guess, and here's what we might do to find out more.' While religion says 'We have the answer! And it is glabeldygooberflunkidizibmaggitobloronekitkatsnickerdoodlecheezewhiz! And you better say you believe it or else!' rofl

Yes there are religious scientists. No doubt about it. Just like there are religious people all over the world who have discovered independently that the world is not flat like it implies in the Bible (they don't fall of the edge of the world when on that cruise to Jamaica) and the sky is not made of shiny metal (the airplane didn't bump into it on the flight to Mecca) like it implies in the Koran. Just because someone is labeled a Scientist doesn't mean that they've applied the same kind of logic and reasoning that they do to their work as they do to their belief structures. Even if they did, religion has many psychological tricks to discourage it from being extinguished so easily. There is social pressure to remain in a religion that not even scientists are immune to. Scientists are human too, after all. 3nodding

Thank you  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

Levis Pennae

Because scientific theory requires an idea to be able to be subject to experimentation, ideas concerning religion cannot be subject to experimentation. Therefore religion cannot be proven or dis-proven by science, and so scientific theory is neutral to religion.

I agree with Levis on this quoted bit.

Edi Gammon

I have to disagree with you both. Science and Religion are incompatible, in the fact that they make contradictory truth claims about reality.

*sorry, clipping the wall of text so that I don't make the thread extra-long*

Wow. What a wordy post. I'll attempt to address it as best I can. I'm not sure exactly how this is supposed to prove that religious beliefs and science are incompatible with each other; you make a few valid points, but they don't prove what you seem to be purporting - which, as far as I can tell, is that "it's contradictory to believe in the validity of both religion and science." I assume that this is your intended point, as it's the opposite of my point, which, as stated in my last post was, "acceptance of both science and theism is certainly not an oxymoron in and of itself."

Science is a man made process by which we discover things about the world around us. Science operates by use of the scientific method, as Levis has pointed out. If we aren't using the scientific method of experimentation to find and verify new information, we aren't doing science. Science operates on observation up to a certain point, but when we wish to use these observations to create accurate generalisations about cause and effect, we must create a testable hypothesis and put it through the proper model of experimentation.

True, religion is incompatible with the scientific method as it does not produce a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Religion, at least at this point, cannot be tested scientifically. If this is what you were trying to convey in your post, then I must say that our opinions here don't differ. There is no contradiction, however, in accepting the validity of scientific discoveries and facts and simultaneously holding religious beliefs (which was the original point I was making). In this respect, religion and science are not incompatible.  

[Edi Gammon]

Hang on a second Levis.... I wasn't assuming you were ignorant. No need to get defensive. I'm simply disagreeing with you and trying to make a point as to why. If I spell things out too much it's for my own benefit to keep my train of thought as I write, and maybe it is for the benefit of other readers. I was definitely not trying to insult you.

The examples I gave of the baby crying to get milk and so forth, I said are examples of precursors to the science we do today. Curiosity, like what we see when a kitten finds it's tail... Fortunate accidents that lead to discovering an effect that can be exploited, like the baby crying to get attention and food.... And ingenuity, like when a woodpecker finch tries out different lengths and shapes of cactus needles to find the right one to get lunch out of a hole in a log. Those are three examples of elements we constantly see in "Science" proper. In fact, curiosity, I'd say is a primary part of all science.

So... I know you can't use the modern definition of science to apply to the cause and effect, and trial and error behaviors that we see in other intelligent species. But my point was just to say that since these behaviors are found in other creatures, and these behaviors are so fundamental to the science that man does, it can't really be said that science is obviously man made. At best, we have refined the process and built upon it... spurred on by behaviors inherited by us from our ancestors from long before they walked upright.

I know what you are talking about when you say SCIENCE, and maybe I didn't get that across when I said "high science", but I meant the exact same thing. So sorry for the mixup, but I really do agree with you on what science is.


When you say that ideas concerning religion cannot be subject to experimentation, I'm sure you don't mean religious ideas like the earth being only 6000 years old (there are religions that actually believe this, and I doubt they have many geologists)... Because we can do experiments to test that idea, and we have. But that particular claim, that the earth is 6000 years old is testable. I'm guessing that you're meaning religious ideas like "There is a God."
Actually you can use the scientific method to at least approach this question. From that we can get a good idea of how probable it is that a god exists, depending on which god you are talking about, what traits it has, and what it has supposedly done.

Of course if someone claims that their God is outside of time and space, what can any good scientist do but shrug their shoulders since nothing has ever been found to be outside of time and space and there has never been any evidence of anything ever being outside of time and space. It really is a meaningless concept. One might as well say that god is a four sided triangle that tastes blue and actively hates left socks. Science can't test for meaningless concepts like four sided triangles, and outside of space and time because these ideas fail from the very beginning. They are non-ideas that do not correspond to any bit of reality or logic. So what does science conclude of four sided triangles and things that are outside of time and space? When something does not connect to any bit of reality, it's unreal. In other words, it doesn't exist. I'd hardly say that this is being neutral to religion. It's downright hostile if you have a congregation that you need to keep filling the cash basket every week, and they'll only do that if they believe in God.

Edit:
One last thing... I'm sure you know that in Science there are no proofs. Proof only applies to logic, mathematics, and alcohol. blaugh That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term.  

[imported_atheist]

science completely contradicts religion in every aspect...

if you believe in science you probably know in your heart the truth that religion is bogus, cheap, mind control...