# Science and Religions



## jenny12 (Oct 21, 2011)

hi,
    With days coming up every day science is bringing new theories and ideas, somewhere these ideas collapse with religious theories. If it happens to anyone what should he/she do?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 21, 2011)

Wut?


----------



## rover07 (Oct 21, 2011)

Lie down and have a nap.

Then drink some tea, preferably with Jaffa Cakes.


----------



## Gym Beam (Oct 21, 2011)

jenny12 said:


> hi,
> With days coming up every day science is bringing new theories and ideas, somewhere these ideas collapse with religious theories. If it happens to anyone what should he/she do?


Ke?


----------



## jenny12 (Oct 21, 2011)

Yes there are no of religions in this world and every religion has it theories and implementations. Preferably I should not be mentions any of them but it is truth. This is not a new current issue this issue  is as old as science.


----------



## Gym Beam (Oct 21, 2011)

jenny12 said:


> Yes there are no of religions in this world and every religion has it theories and implementations. Preferably I should not be mentions any of them but it is truth. This is not a new current issue this issue is as old as science.


Religion does not have theories, or even a valid epistemological traditions. I fthey did have any theories, they've all pretty much been invalidated by the progress of scientific knowledge - science (natural science that is) does have a valid epistemological tradition


----------



## jenny12 (Oct 21, 2011)

It means science is always on right ???


----------



## TruXta (Oct 21, 2011)

No, science isn't always right, but unlike religion it is a system of thought where beliefs are tested again and again against competing beliefs. One can hardly say the same for religion.


----------



## jenny12 (Oct 21, 2011)

hence there is absolutely possibility of collapse between science and religions.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 21, 2011)

jenny12 said:


> hence there is absolutely possibility of collapse between science and religions.



No. There is no chance of science and religion becoming the same.


----------



## Gym Beam (Oct 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> No, science isn't always right, but unlike religion it is a system of thought where beliefs are tested again and again against competing beliefs. One can hardly say the same for religion.


and, if evidence contrary to theoretical positions is produced, scientists will abandon those positions. scientists always try fit the theory to the facts, not the facts to the theory. A theory that has been validated by years of empirical evidence (like evolution) becomes a scientific fact.


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 21, 2011)

I take it the OP hails from somewhere that religion is compulsory ...


----------



## TruXta (Oct 21, 2011)

Gym Beam said:


> and, if evidence contrary to theoretical positions is produced, scientists will abandon those positions. scientists always try fit the theory to the facts, not the facts to the theory. A theory that has been validated by years of empirical evidence (like evolution) becomes a scientific fact.



Well, that's what we like to think anyway...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 21, 2011)

jenny12 said:


> hi,
> With days coming up every day science is bringing new theories and ideas, somewhere these ideas collapse with religious theories. If it happens to anyone what should he/she do?


two strepsils and a lie down. if symptoms persist consult a physician.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 21, 2011)

jenny12 said:


> Yes there are no of religions in this world and every religion has it theories and implementations. Preferably I should not be mentions any of them but it is truth. This is not a new current issue this issue is as old as science.


I think I'll mention some religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Rastafarianism, Zoroastrianism.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2011)

Does not compute


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2011)

jenny12 said:


> It means science is always on right ???



Religion - based on (generally self-reinforcing) beliefs.

Science - based on testable and dis/proveable theories.

They're not even in the same ballpark


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2011)

jenny12 said:


> It means science is always on right ???



No, because scientific theories aren't always right, usually because they are based on *incomplete* information/data or a poor understanding of same.

The certainties of religion, on the other hand, *cannot* be proven to be right (or certain) because they are not based on measurable and testable phenomena but on an uncritical acceptance of dogma and doctrine.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 21, 2011)

Got you worked up did it?


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 21, 2011)

.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 21, 2011)

I like religion. I like science. But which is better?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Got you worked up did it?



Nope, only Dottie's mum can do that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> I like religion. I like science. But which is better?



There's only one way to find out...


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 21, 2011)

If only there was a religion based on science.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 21, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> If only there was a religion based on science.



Or a science based on religion. Not paleontology, obviously.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

There is no point in comparing science and religion, or asking which is better. Each approaches things from a completely different angle, but one of them (science) is a bit more fashionable than the other.

It's no good arguing that science is better because it's objective, rational and testable whereas religion is not. If you think that, you are completely missing the whole point of religion. Religion is a way of thinking, a way of expressing things, often using metaphors like God to explain more clearly abstract things like ethics. To say God exists is not meant to be a statement of fact, it's just saying that you prefer to think about life and the world in a certain way, and that you think that way of thinking is the best. Some scientists are religious, so the two can't be incompatible.

Similarly, it doesn't matter whether what the Bible says is true or not - what matters is the meaning of the stories - what they tell us about human life. The same, of course, applies to other religious texts.

However, I have no religious beliefs of my own.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2011)

Would you like to buy some?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 28, 2011)

Dirty creeds come dirt cheap?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2011)

> To say God exists is not meant to be a statement of fact


Most religious people would disagree. Many would say that it is an irrefutable statement of fact, that if they know anything, they know this.

*awaits fildwaya*


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

I used to sometimes ask people exactly what they meant by God. None of them ever gave a proper answer. In other words, they don't know.


----------



## Corax (Oct 28, 2011)

I've never seen any conflict between science and religion, as long as you're not talking creationism or some such.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> I used to sometimes ask people exactly what they meant by God. None of them ever gave a proper answer. In other words, they don't know.


Ah, that's slightly different. I'd say that mostly the word 'god' means pretty much 'that which I don't understand'. But most religious people would not agree with me, I don't think. If they did, they wouldn't be religious!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 28, 2011)

Corax said:


> I've never seen any conflict between science and religion, as long as you're not talking creationism or some such.


Some perfectly good scientists are religious. I've never seen the compatibility personally, as religion fails the premise of Huxley's agnosticism: do not believe anything without good reason.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

Well, they say God is unknowable, and moves in mysterious ways.


----------



## Sweet Meiga (Oct 28, 2011)

I like it when people believe in science with the same ardency as religious people believe in God.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 28, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, that's slightly different. I'd say that mostly the word 'god' means pretty much 'that which I don't understand'. But most religious people would not agree with me, I don't think. If they did, they wouldn't be religious!


Well, they say God is unknowable, and moves in mysterious ways.


----------



## jesuscrept (Oct 28, 2011)

jenny12 said:


> hi,
> With days coming up every day science is bringing new theories and ideas, somewhere these ideas collapse with religious theories. If it happens to anyone what should he/she do?



No theories in religion. Only scripture.


----------



## Corax (Oct 28, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Some perfectly good scientists are religious. I've never seen the compatibility personally, as religion fails the premise of Huxley's agnosticism: do not believe anything without good reason.


IMO it's possible to have good reason for something, without necessarily being able to _prove it_ to other people.

I think this is often when the dialogue between the religious and atheists breaks down.  Seeing it from both sides, understandably so.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 28, 2011)

Sweet Meiga said:


> I like it when people believe in science with the same ardency as religious people believe in God.



Science can be wrong though.  It tricky.  It's tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time.  It's tricky.


----------



## MooChild (Oct 29, 2011)




----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2011)

Corax said:


> IMO it's possible to have good reason for something, without necessarily being able to _prove it_ to other people.
> 
> I think this is often when the dialogue between the religious and atheists breaks down. Seeing it from both sides, understandably so.


It's not a matter of _proving_ it, really. Simply a matter of providing a good reason for believing it. That doesn't have to be a proof at all.

I'm not sure how there can be dialogue about religion between the religious and atheists. There really is nothing to say from my end as an atheist until the religious person says something. Then I can examine that, perhaps.

That is where the idea that you can be both religious and scientific in outlook breaks down. Wherever it is a question of empirical evidence, it is a scientific matter. And what does that leave? Usually it leaves stuff that is really a matter of empirical evidence and science, but some people mistakenly think isn't, such as for instance the question of what is mind, what are the conditions in which it arises, and what does it mean to possess a mind. What is space? What is time? I can't think of a useful question that one can address meaningfully that is what you might call a 'religious question'. There are no religious questions.

Oh and where is there an example of a good reason that you cannot demonstrate to others? Shouldn't the fact that you cannot demonstrate it to others make you pause for thought? The response 'I'm religious but I cannot tell you why' is rather suspect, don't you think? 'I believe in god, but I cannot tell you what god is nor what makes me believe in it.' No wonder communication breaks down - those are conditions in which communication is impossible.


----------



## Sweet Meiga (Oct 29, 2011)

dilute micro said:


> Science can be wrong though. It tricky. It's tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time. It's tricky.


I was a little bit sarcastic there. People blindly believing in science just prove that science is nothing more than a branch of theology (to quote one philosopher of science).


----------



## jesuscrept (Oct 29, 2011)

MooChild said:


>



This pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Corax (Oct 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not a matter of _proving_ it, really. Simply a matter of providing a good reason for believing it. That doesn't have to be a proof at all.
> 
> Oh and where is there an example of a good reason that you cannot demonstrate to others? Shouldn't the fact that you cannot demonstrate it to others make you pause for thought? The response 'I'm religious but I cannot tell you why' is rather suspect, don't you think? 'I believe in god, but I cannot tell you what god is nor what makes me believe in it.' No wonder communication breaks down - those are conditions in which communication is impossible.


Because personal experience of God is a very powerful thing, but is also something that on the face of it can be readily explained away with any number of 'rational' theories, and isn't really transferable into the mind of someone else with words, pictures, or even venn diagrams. For me to deny God would make as much sense as denying my foot, but I know that it's impossible to make anyone else see that.



littlebabyjesus said:


> That is where the idea that you can be both religious and scientific in outlook breaks down. Wherever it is a question of empirical evidence, it is a scientific matter. And what does that leave? Usually it leaves stuff that is really a matter of empirical evidence and science, but some people mistakenly think isn't, such as for instance the question of what is mind, what are the conditions in which it arises, and what does it mean to possess a mind. What is space? What is time? I can't think of a useful question that one can address meaningfully that is what you might call a 'religious question'. There are no religious questions.


None of those. Quantum physics and the like are a source of delight to me, although admittedly only comprehended at a pop-science level. The biggest question of all, IMO, remains. Why *anything*?

I also think that a lot of people, Christians and atheists alike, make the mistake of imagining God as part of a temporal universe, and I think that causes them a whole host of problems.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 29, 2011)

jesuscrept said:


> This pretty much sums it up.



Not really. It's a rare xtian that never questions or evaluates their faith.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2011)

Corax said:


> None of those. Quantum physics and the like are a source of delight to me, although admittedly only comprehended at a pop-science level. The biggest question of all, IMO, remains. Why *anything*?


Why not?

I used to be kind of impressed by this question - why is there something rather than nothing. But it is no more valid than its opposite - why would there be nothing rather than something. So is it even a meaningful question? Perhaps we might, humbly, accept that it could well be true that everything that can happen happens, and that there is no conceivable way that it couldn't.

Either way, the existence of a question that you cannot answer is no excuse for religion.


----------



## Random (Oct 29, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> Not really. It's a rare xtian that never questions or evaluates their faith.


It's an even rarer one that never ignores contrasting evidence, which is what the cartoon describes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Some perfectly good scientists are religious. I've never seen the compatibility personally, as religion fails the premise of Huxley's agnosticism: do not believe anything without good reason.


 
I'm sure his reasons for being a jew hater would fail that premise


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm sure his reasons for being a jew hater would fail that premise


Wrong Huxley. Thomas, not Aldous.

He's worth quoting, and imo sums up the reason science and religion are incompatible.



> Agnosticism is not properly described as a “negative” creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.
> 
> ...
> 
> _The one thing in which most of these good people [believers] were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis” — had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.__So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic.” It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant._



My question to religious believers would be this:

Why do you adhere to that particular religion and not another? Do you have good reason to do so?


----------



## smmudge (Oct 29, 2011)

Sweet Meiga said:


> I was a little bit sarcastic there. People blindly believing in science just prove that science is nothing more than a branch of theology (to quote one philosopher of science).



True. Science doesn't tell us as much about ourselves or how we see the world as we like to think. Even in our secular society we hold many beliefs, values, ideologies, 'knowledge' and concepts that are not and by nature cannot be backed up by scientific empirical evidence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2011)

smmudge said:


> True. Science doesn't tell us as much about ourselves or how we see the world as we like to think. Even in our secular society we hold many beliefs, values, ideologies, 'knowledge' and concepts that are not and by nature cannot be backed up by scientific empirical evidence.


Such as?

Few scientists contend that science can tell you how to live. Some do, but most don't. What it can tell you is a great deal about why you live as you do - why you have a certain moral sense, for instance, how that moral sense forms, and the physical substrate upon which that moral sense depends (which is, in fact, (I would contend) identical to the moral sense!).

Human behaviour is more amenable to scientific study and explanation than a lot of us are comfortable with! There is _good reason_ to believe that human behaviour is just as amenable to scientific study as the behaviour of any other kind of life.


----------



## FaradayCaged (Oct 29, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I think I'll mention some religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Rastafarianism, Zoroastrianism.



Isnt Rastafarianism a branch of Christianity?

Christianity in the loose term mind, like Jevovahs and Messianic Judaism?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> Well, they say God is unknowable, and moves in mysterious ways.



She doesn't move in mysterious ways, she's just got a limp, that's all!


----------



## smmudge (Oct 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Such as?
> 
> Few scientists contend that science can tell you how to live. Some do, but most don't. What it can tell you is a great deal about why you live as you do - why you have a certain moral sense, for instance, how that moral sense forms, and the physical substrate upon which that moral sense depends (which is, in fact, (I would contend) identical to the moral sense!).
> 
> Human behaviour is more amenable to scientific study and explanation than a lot of us are comfortable with! There is _good reason_ to believe that human behaviour is just as amenable to scientific study as the behaviour of any other kind of life.



It's not just about human behaviour, it's about how we make and understand meaning. There are plenty of concepts we understand and use that have no inherent physical properties and so can't be subject to scientific study, yet we rely on them for what people commonly take to be 'knowledge'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2011)

MdmAmDma said:


> Isnt Rastafarianism a branch of Christianity?
> 
> Christianity in the loose term mind, like Jevovahs and Messianic Judaism?



If it's related to an extant Christian tradition, it's Ethiopian Coptic, enough so that some adherents of Rastafari have "crossed over".


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 29, 2011)

Sweet Meiga said:


> I was a little bit sarcastic there. People blindly believing in science just prove that science is nothing more than a branch of theology (to quote one philosopher of science).



True.  People have an idealistic view of what science is or at least what is called science being that it's understood to always be trying to improve and peer review is a fail proof in that effort.  My very first job working in academics involved an area of study where peer review was a sham.  That's because it matters who your peers are and what they're predisposed to believe.  What we were studying wasn't even the lofty 'origins of the universe' stuff - this was plain nitty gritty biochemistry.  Eventually the standing 'peer approved' model will be accepted as false.  That's not the point.  The point is the willingness of the peers to do whatever is necessary to keep a bad theory afloat.  Some of them have their life's work and reputations invested into it and that contributes to their inability to be objective.

as a side note..... right before I left that lab there was a conference out in Portland or Phoenix (cant remember)  where biochemists across the world get together and talk about boring-ass biochemistry and projections and goals of research.  Scientists there will put up table displays of their recent work...exactly like science projects for school kids....and the other researchers can walk around and see how you're progressing.  Well one guy there who had been trying to support the standing model walked over to our head researcher's display....then went straight back to his own display and took it down and hid it away.   Our boss couldn't wait to tell us that.

There's more to it than just looking stupid.  Scientists get funded according to their productivity.  If you're off pissing into the wind you're not going to get hundreds of thousands of dollars next time around.  On top of that - if you're productive but fail to report your work in a timely manner they'll still not fund you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> Not really. It's a rare xtian that never questions or evaluates their faith.



This claim always brings me to ask just how "Christian" some Christians are, especially as some evangelical traditions are more rooted in the old testament than in the Gospels.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm sure his reasons for being a jew hater would fail that premise



I'm not sure he ever quantified his anti-Semitism, so it could have just been an artefact of his class and his era, when and where reflexive anti-Semitism was quite prevalent.
No excuse for someone capable of critical thinking holding irrational prejudices, but social currents can sometimes have a strong grip on sentiment, regardless of the irrationality involved.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wrong Huxley. Thomas, not Aldous.



More commonly known as "T.H. Huxley".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2011)

smmudge said:


> It's not just about human behaviour, it's about how we make and understand meaning. There are plenty of concepts we understand and use that have no inherent physical properties and so can't be subject to scientific study, yet we rely on them for what people commonly take to be 'knowledge'.



Ooo, that's a huge question. How do we make and understand meaning? What is meaning? Is there a physical substrate to it, and if so, is the internal, seemingly non-physical representation of concepts that we directly experience merely another way of expressing something that is at root physical?

Whatever the answers, these are all _scientific_ questions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> More commonly known as "T.H. Huxley".


Whatever you want to call him, he was the grandfather of Aldous, and to my knowledge never expressed any antisemitic views at all.


----------



## smmudge (Oct 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ooo, that's a huge question. How do we make and understand meaning? What is meaning? Is there a physical substrate to it, and if so, is the internal, seemingly non-physical representation of concepts that we directly experience merely another way of expressing something that is at root physical?
> 
> Whatever the answers, these are all _scientific_ questions.



No, they are all _philosophical_ questions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2011)

I don't agree. If you want to examine how we make and understand meaning, you'd better get delving into our brains and seeing how they work. Sitting back in a chair and just thinking about it will lead you into error.

I'm not claiming these are not tough questions, nor that they are questions I have good answers to. But philosophy does not trump empirical evidence, and any philosophy of mind that doesn't pay attention to, and build from, the science of mind will be wrong. Indeed, I would personally go further and say that 'philosophy of mind' and 'science of mind' are, done properly, the same thing.


----------



## smmudge (Oct 29, 2011)

Of course philosophy does not trump empirical evidence, but it does take into account its limitations. And it's not just philosophy of the mind, it's all those philosphical branches we have because 'science' cannot give us any answers in their respective spheres of human understanding.

Anyone looking at the world from a scientific perspective is of course going to say there is good reason to think that we can understand everything there is to know using scientific, and only scientific, concepts. Not because 'science' has come so far and taught us so much*, but because it is predicated on that very idea. It assumes that we don't need any non-scientific concepts and has done from the very beginning. So it's not true that 'science' has taught us we only need 'science' to understand anything, 'science' itself assumes that, always has done and has to by its very nature to get anywhere.

*not denying that of course


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2011)

Ok, I'll take one comment from you that struck me - concepts that 'have no inherent physical properties'.

But what is a physical property? Is that concept itself not a meaning generated by and experienced by us? There are concepts within our conscious representations that appear without the meaning 'physical' attached to them. This can go 'wrong', however, and people can start to experience concepts as physical that are usually not thought of as physical. One of the most revealing ways to understand 'normal' psychology in fact is to examine the diverse ways in which it can go wrong.

Given that our conscious representations have evolved to fool us into thinking that they are 'reality', without studying the empirical evidence to the contrary, we're never going to escape our own self-deception.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Whatever you want to call him, he was the grandfather of Aldous, and to my knowledge never expressed any antisemitic views at all.


Not in his academic work (neither did his main contemporary, Francis Galton). His biographers have dug up examples of workaday anti-Semitism in his private correspondence, as happened with Galton. It was an attitude widely diffused among the ruling classes, and one that also fitered down into the middle classes, especially during the second half of the Victorian era, when immigration by east and central European Jews was at its' "heaviest".

E2A. At least part of Aldous's cavalier attitude to anti-Semitism has been attributed to familial and class influences.


----------



## smmudge (Oct 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, I'll take one comment from you that struck me - concepts that 'have no inherent physical properties'.
> 
> But what is a physical property? Is that concept itself not a meaning generated by and experienced by us? There are concepts within our conscious representations that appear without the meaning 'physical' attached to them. This can go 'wrong', however, and people can start to experience concepts as physical that are usually not thought of as physical. One of the most revealing ways to understand 'normal' psychology in fact is to examine the diverse ways in which it can go wrong.
> 
> Given that our conscious representations have evolved to fool us into thinking that they are 'reality', without studying the empirical evidence to the contrary, we're never going to escape our own self-deception.



Yeah I agree with that. Empirical study is very useful.


----------



## Corax (Oct 29, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I used to be kind of impressed by this question - why is there something rather than nothing. But it is no more valid than its opposite - why would there be nothing rather than something. So is it even a meaningful question? Perhaps we might, humbly, accept that it could well be true that everything that can happen happens, and that there is no conceivable way that it couldn't.


I think you misunderstand me.  I don't mean why the universe(s) - I mean the existence of existence itself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 29, 2011)

Corax said:


> I think you misunderstand me. I don't mean why the universe(s) - I mean the existence of existence itself.


No, that's what I thought you meant. Why not? Or, perhaps, how could it not?


----------



## Corax (Oct 29, 2011)

Because the whole shebang's just bloody ludicrous tbh!


----------

