Pages: 1 2

 

2005-12-19 18:25:07
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7267
"If there is no God, or if all of the religions currently existing on this Earth turn out to be false, then I suppose you could say that there is a real, fundamental, and irreconcilable conflict between religion and truth.  And since science is the process of discovering truth, it would be possible to say that there was a conflict between religion and science... but equally possible, and more valid, to say that there was a conflict between religion and honesty, or religion and knowledge, or religion and reality." - eliezer yudkowski


are science and religion fundamentally opposed to each other? one accepts as truth only those facts which are supported, the other accepts as truth the subjective revelations of mind and psyche. can one truly be a religious scientist without being irrevocably tainted by the ultimate bias?
2005-12-19 20:21:01
freebirdpat
Base Rapist
+5|7200

Krappyappy wrote:

"If there is no God, or if all of the religions currently existing on this Earth turn out to be false, then I suppose you could say that there is a real, fundamental, and irreconcilable conflict between religion and truth.  And since science is the process of discovering truth, it would be possible to say that there was a conflict between religion and science... but equally possible, and more valid, to say that there was a conflict between religion and honesty, or religion and knowledge, or religion and reality." - eliezer yudkowski


are science and religion fundamentally opposed to each other? one accepts as truth only those facts which are supported, the other accepts as truth the subjective revelations of mind and psyche. can one truly be a religious scientist without being irrevocably tainted by the ultimate bias?
No, They are not fundamentally opposed to each other, some religions make it so because over time science has eroded the basis of power and control they had over the populace through religion. These are the crazy fundamentalists. Science and religion(philosophy to be exact), are complementary to one another. Science dictates the facts and the observations and the logic, where philsophy and religion are more to the emotion, feelings, and compassion.
2005-12-20 00:47:21
Emetchar
Member
+0|7159
Religion isn't based on provable facts. To my knowledge, it never has been. Therefore, imo, people who believe will believe and people who don't, won't. The only time incompatibilities will arise is when one side or the other believes in their cause so much as to do something about it.

Last edited by Emetchar (2005-12-20 00:47:42)

2005-12-20 01:28:56
OUROBOROS
Member
+0|7206
they are besically the same thing. they endevor to explain the world around us so we can understand our place in this world. one is built on assumed knowledge and the other is built on assumed truth. in reality boths is wrong.

science is only correct as to the amount of knowledge we know of up until now. tomorrow all science can be proven wrong and rebuilt to adapted what new knowledge we have attained. but still out of all possible knowledge we know far too little.

with religion its all based on the strenth of belief. and enough belief anythign can becom true to their view. unfortunately there is no litmus test qualify someone to be a purveyor of belief. it all a house of cards. if it goes down it would destroy many people. and that the real danger of religon. theres just too much empty belief. as history shows empty belief can easily lead to vast corruption.

even to this a truth a strong belief is a great driving force for growth and change, but so is knowledge. this is the key. science is the nature of skepticism and religion is the nature of unrestrained belief. this make the two go hand in hand in the pursuit of the knowledge of our place in the world.

those who waste their time on the battle of science vs religion is just throwing the beliefs away into a pit of going no where. this in itself shows how much they dont know about the purpose of the side they are on.  there are a lot of people out there who have a foot planted firmly planted on each side. they use the good qualitys in both. Just like the battle between religions, those know know multiple religions understand the commonalities and differences and have a better view of what universal truth is. also those in the science community will take considerations from multiple studies to find the truths to have a better understanding of a problem. in the end, it doesnt matter. we wont be here long enough to know what all of truth is.

i personally side on science. there are many scientists that have religion that is their driving force for the understanding of their world. I have seen far less in religion that adopts science as a method to enrich their beliefs.
2005-12-20 03:16:49
kilroy0097
Kilroy Is Here!
+81|7291|Bryan/College Station, TX
Those religions that build their faith and base upon strict guidlines that tell their believers how the world and all things exist are the ones that have issue with science. Christianity would be one such religion.

Those religions that are based upon lifestyle, learning and spiritual awareness do not disavow science because they preach scripture and sayings that instruct and guide lifestyle and learning. Shinto and some forms of Buddism as well as some forms of Islam are examples.

One supports free thinking and allows for the ability to further science while another discredits it saying that faith is more powerful. All religions have some sort of strict guidelines on behavior and practice. Some allow for discovery and others do not.

So to answer the questions. Yes and no. As it depends on the Religion.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
2005-12-20 05:39:40
dangerman
Member
+0|7151

kilroy0097 wrote:

Those religions that build their faith and base upon strict guidlines that tell their believers how the world and all things exist are the ones that have issue with science. Christianity would be one such religion.

Those religions that are based upon lifestyle, learning and spiritual awareness do not disavow science because they preach scripture and sayings that instruct and guide lifestyle and learning. Shinto and some forms of Buddism as well as some forms of Islam are examples.

One supports free thinking and allows for the ability to further science while another discredits it saying that faith is more powerful. All religions have some sort of strict guidelines on behavior and practice. Some allow for discovery and others do not.

So to answer the questions. Yes and no. As it depends on the Religion.
Well, when you say "Christianity is one of those religions", that isn't strictly correct --> it depends on the person's interpretations of the Bible.

Christianity is mainly about the life of Jesus, and how we should live; the old testament, which tells of the creation, and Noah and stuff like that, is a Jewish and does not have much relevance in Christianity, especially as they are contradictiory. Old testament God was angry, so he send a flood to kill everyone, but New testament God is one of forgiveness.

It is my opinion that many Christians today give the old testament greater significance than it should have.



bye the way -- I think that science and religion are not fundamemntally opposed, but at times sciecne can try to undermine religion, by giving explanations to things that would have originally been explained as "God did that", but ultimately I feel that science will not be able to discover everything and that the complete "truth" is incomprehensible.
2005-12-20 05:51:05
section9
Member
+9|7295|USA
Science bases it's findings on what is "seen" ...religion is faith based on the "unseen".Just because you can't see it doesnt mean it isn't there. The physical world is bound by physic's and science where as the meta physical or after life is not bound by science or physic's as we know it at present.
2005-12-20 06:51:27
fdcp_elmo
Rules over Sesamestreet
+5|7203|The Netherlands
this is funny my economy teacher (and half a philosopher) asked this today. it has nothing to do with economy but who cares it made the hour full
2005-12-20 07:12:24
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7289|Cologne, Germany

I am not a very religious guy, although I was raised in a Roman Catholic home. I am mostly on the science side of life, but I realize that there are things that science cannot fully explain. not surprisingly, those are mainly the issues which have traditionallly been covered by various religions ( how the universe came about, do we have a soul, what is with life after death, and so on ).

No one really knows if a god ( whatever name you would want to give him/her ) exists. It is a matter of believing or not believing.

Science can only explain so much. During the last 2000 years, science has gained a lot of ground on religion, as far as explaining everyday issues is concerned. But lately ( in a historical sense ) science's progress has been somewhat slowed down, and we might reach a point when even scientists will have to admit that the core questions of mankind ( creation of the universe, do we have a soul, is there life after death, where are we going ) cannot be answered by scientists.

I am not implying that those can be conclusively answered by priests, either. Obviously, every religion has its own view on these things. But it can be a help and comfort for some people who find it hard to accept that there might be nothing after death.

So yeah, science and religion can co-exist.
2005-12-20 07:52:17
dangerman
Member
+0|7151

section9 wrote:

Science bases it's findings on what is "seen" ...religion is faith based on the "unseen".Just because you can't see it doesnt mean it isn't there. The physical world is bound by physic's and science where as the meta physical or after life is not bound by science or physic's as we know it at present.
Well, not really.

You ever seen an atom? How do you know it's a sphere?

Atom's are unseen.
2005-12-20 19:55:59
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7267
the difference between science and religion is that science has been steadily getting better at describing and predicting the world, while religion keeps being proven wrong over and over again.

that has resulted in less people interpreting scripture literally, but as a sort of guideline to teach moral lessons.

what i find funny is how people believe in their own religion but dismiss other people's belief as 'myth,' despite the obvious similarities between so many religions. for example, creation myths all over the world often have things in common with each other.
2005-12-20 22:41:30
OUROBOROS
Member
+0|7206

section9 wrote:

Science bases it's findings on what is "seen" ...religion is faith based on the "unseen".Just because you can't see it doesnt mean it isn't there. The physical world is bound by physic's and science where as the meta physical or after life is not bound by science or physic's as we know it at present.
but that the point. science strives to see the unseen. while religion will allow people to ignore what is seen.
2007-05-10 16:15:34
skeptic griggsy
Member
+1|6646
Krappypappy, yes! Theology is just one guess and mystery after another that gives a pseudo-explanation whereas science gives the why and the how. Soteriology tries to show how human sacrifice and ritual cannabalism and vampirism  and the divine protection rackett makes sense. Theodicy is merely one dodge after another to absolve God of his irresponsability of putting so many of us in Hell on earth. Christology makes a god-man out of a miracle worker like all the other miralcle workers of the times and his ethic reflects the times. Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong!
2007-05-10 16:17:10
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

Of course they are.

Science is, whether or not there is a god. There being a god does not change much.
2007-05-10 16:23:44
Havok
Nymphomaniac Treatment Specialist
+302|7122|Florida, United States

This thread is ancient.  But I agree with Bertster.  Science is pure logic and theory.  Although some parts of science may be wrong (like the Big Bang Theory) because we have no proof of it happening (or rather, how it happened), most parts of science are definite and can be proven.
2007-05-10 16:26:04
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7205|Argentina
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein)
2007-05-10 19:37:59
jonsimon
Member
+224|6943

Krappyappy wrote:

"If there is no God, or if all of the religions currently existing on this Earth turn out to be false, then I suppose you could say that there is a real, fundamental, and irreconcilable conflict between religion and truth.  And since science is the process of discovering truth, it would be possible to say that there was a conflict between religion and science... but equally possible, and more valid, to say that there was a conflict between religion and honesty, or religion and knowledge, or religion and reality." - eliezer yudkowski


are science and religion fundamentally opposed to each other? one accepts as truth only those facts which are supported, the other accepts as truth the subjective revelations of mind and psyche. can one truly be a religious scientist without being irrevocably tainted by the ultimate bias?
Yes. Should any religious person let that stop them from living in harmony with both? No.
2007-05-10 19:41:57
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7213|Cambridge (UK)
...those facts which are supported... ...subjective revelations of mind and psyche...
These are the same thing...

<*cue Topal telling me they're not...*>
2007-05-10 20:01:27
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,073|7219|PNW

freebirdpat wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

"If there is no God, or if all of the religions currently existing on this Earth turn out to be false, then I suppose you could say that there is a real, fundamental, and irreconcilable conflict between religion and truth.  And since science is the process of discovering truth, it would be possible to say that there was a conflict between religion and science... but equally possible, and more valid, to say that there was a conflict between religion and honesty, or religion and knowledge, or religion and reality." - eliezer yudkowski


are science and religion fundamentally opposed to each other? one accepts as truth only those facts which are supported, the other accepts as truth the subjective revelations of mind and psyche. can one truly be a religious scientist without being irrevocably tainted by the ultimate bias?
No, They are not fundamentally opposed to each other, some religions make it so because over time science has eroded the basis of power and control they had over the populace through religion. These are the crazy fundamentalists. Science and religion(philosophy to be exact), are complementary to one another. Science dictates the facts and the observations and the logic, where philsophy and religion are more to the emotion, feelings, and compassion.
Not necessarily. Their occasional clashes are a popular topic of discussion, but they are not fundamentally opposed to each other. Both are malleable and both have unproven theories. How many scientists do you suppose there are who are also religious? Do you think that many people are schizophrenic?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-05-10 20:02:10)

2007-05-11 10:32:42
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6975|Portland, OR USA

Bertster7 wrote:

Of course they are.

Science is, whether or not there is a god. There being a god does not change much.
as a follow up to this, I recommend the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know" as it deals precisely with this very thing.

It's ultimately all a matter of interpretation of data into what you want to believe is "fact".  Even a moderately intelligent person can manipulate something to support his/her side of things
2007-05-11 10:54:35
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania

Krappyappy wrote:

can one truly be a religious scientist without being irrevocably tainted by the ultimate bias? [/color]
Yes, and I provide proof of it. One of the most renowned contemporary scientists, head of The Human Genome Project, the largest genetic research project ever created, is a very well balanced scientist and religious man. The link below is to an interview he gave on his positions between religion and science. Its a worthy read to anyone who enjoys this kind of discussion:

The balance of science and religion
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-05-11 14:07:23
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6916

sergeriver wrote:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein)
2007-05-11 14:23:17
topal63
. . .
+533|7166
(1)

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein)
You quote him (again) and neither of you understand what this statement means. So prove me wrong and an asshole and explain to me what this statement means.

(2)
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." (Albert Einstein)

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." (Albert Einstein)

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." (Albert Einstein)

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein)

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." (Albert Einstein)

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. A religion which is based on experience, which refuses the dogmatic. If there's any religion that could cope with the scientific needs it could be Buddhism...."  (Albert Einstein)

(3) Thread concept:
Are science and religion reconciliable?
Reconcile (1) & (2) in terms of (3).

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-11 14:43:08)

2007-05-11 15:33:18
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania

topal63 wrote:

(3) Thread concept:
Are science and religion reconciliable?
Reconcile (1) & (2) in terms of (3).
In (1), Einstein is saying religion an science complement each other.

In (2), he reinforces this in several passages:

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility."

  A feeling that given the infinitely complexity of nature forever marks our insignificance in the universe, and therefor that there is much more that science has yet to explain. A truly religious thought, as he himself put it.

"If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

  Here Einstein shows that the admiration of the scientific explanations do not contradict religion, but make it much more palpable. That is like saying theory of evolution, given all the evidence we have of it, is one of the greatest inventions of nature, or god if you are a believer, and not that it goes against any religion.


"... the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

Here Einstein is saying that there is much more to religion than the final judgment and fanaticism, but that religiosity should be achieved through the discovery and understanding more of our world. Something that reconciles completely with first affirmation (1).


Therefore, based only on these Einstein quotes, I'd say Einstein reconciled religion and science very well. That does not mean he was a devout church goer or that he was devoted to any specific religion.

Great post topal, +1 to ya.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-05-11 15:36:03
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania

EVieira wrote:

topal63 wrote:

(3) Thread concept:
Are science and religion reconciliable?
Reconcile (1) & (2) in terms of (3).
In (1), Einstein is saying religion an science complement each other.

In (2), he reinforces this in several passages:

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility."

  A feeling that given the infinitely complexity of nature forever marks our insignificance in the universe, and therefore that there is much more that science has yet to explain. A truly religious thought, as he himself put it.

"If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

  Here Einstein shows that the admiration of the scientific explanations do not contradict religion, but instead make it much more palpable. That is like saying theory of evolution, given all the evidence we have of it, is one of the greatest inventions of nature, or god if you are a believer, and not that it goes against any religion.


"... the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

Here Einstein is saying that there is much more to religion than the final judgment and fanaticism, but that religiosity should be achieved through the discovery and understanding more of our world. Something that reconciles completely with first affirmation (1).


Therefore, based only on these Einstein quotes, I'd say Einstein reconciled religion and science very well. That does not mean he was a devout church goer or that he was devoted to any specific religion.

Great post topal, +1 to ya.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard