NationStates Jolt Archive

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?

The only things I've heard are nonsensical

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?" - yeah, for that matter, why aren't cats dogs? And why is 1+1=2? And why isn't true false?

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?"
6 x 9, in Base 13

Nope, I think science can answer any rational question based on a set of axioms.

And why isn't true false?

And why is true true? Why?!

6 x 9, in Base 13

"I do not write jokes in base 13" -- Douglas Adams

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?
why does religion need justification?

6 x 9, in Base 13

"I may be a sad individual, but I don't write jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams

EDIT: Dang, beaten. But I got the full quote, so NYAH!:p

because it says things that are just...stupid

why does religion need justification?
Because it's laughable horseshit that bears no resemblance to reality.

why does religion need justification?

In what sense "need"? I never mentioned need. What I mean by "justify" is: "To demonstrate or prove to be valid" (dictionary.com)

Anyway, this thread is about the aforementioned questions, not about justification or necessity.

"What is the secret of Monkey Island™?"

My question What are these "questions that science can't answer" wasn't rhetorical by the way. I'm actually interested in what people have to say.

Because it's laughable horseshit that bears no resemblance to reality.
why should it resemble reality?

it makes sense that it wouldn't doesn't it?

why should it resemble reality?

it makes sense that it wouldn't doesn't it?
Not really, no.

Not really, no.
it doesn't make sense to you that something with no basis in reality would have no resemblance to reality:rolleyes:

it doesn't make sense to you that something with no basis in reality would have no resemblance to reality:rolleyes:

I'm confused... are you saying that religion isn't real, even though you believe in it? Either this is some kind of Orwellian doublethink, or reality means something different to you than it does to me.. :confused:

The only way to conduct science is to admit that there are questions that science cannot answer...yet.

The only way to conduct science is to admit that there are questions that science cannot answer...yet.

Science as a pratice can answer those questions, it just hasn't. The question wasn't if science knows everything or not -- it was if it can know everything.

The only way to conduct science is to admit that there are questions that science cannot answer...yet.

As a method, science can, but has yet to do so.

The only way to conduct science is to admit that there are questions that science cannot answer...yet.
There have been a ton of things science at one point or another couldn't answer. Thing is, not once has the explination turned out to be
'magic!'

I don't know why, in retrospect, I quoted you, but just roll with it...

"what is the meaning of life?"
42...

So far, no questions volunteered... weird. All the people who say "there are questions that science can't answer" must be offline.

I told you that I'm working on it. Give me three more hours and you'll have your answer. God! :rolleyes:

42...

That's the answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything, not the meaning of life. The meaning of life is to try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations. Duh.

I told you that I'm working on it. Give me three more hours and you'll have your answer. God! :rolleyes:

I'm assuming this is some kind of "joke", since I didn't see your post, and I refuse to believe anyone would do three hours research for NS post.

I only said yes because...
Yes...for now...
We've still got a lot to learn about the universe around us.

I'm confused... are you saying that religion isn't real, even though you believe in it? Either this is some kind of Orwellian doublethink, or reality means something different to you than it does to me.. :confused:
it might not be real. ;)

define real.

real- natural occurance having verified existance.

see? using that definition God isn't real. ;)

Science as a pratice can answer those questions, it just hasn't. The question wasn't if science knows everything or not -- it was if it can know everything.

Actually science just describes observations, and then codifies them into laws. It may be able to answer "Why does it fall?" and say "Gravity", or it can describe HOW gravity behaves, but it doesn't explain WHY gravity exist (you can say space-time bends but this merely can be asked w"why" to as well; infinite regression). Another way of looking at it is to realise that science is a method that branched off of a particular part of philosophy (empirical epistomology). It is the questions that empirical epistomology can't address which science can't address.
However, this is the only source of KNOWLEDGE we have going. Religion merely says certain things are ineffable, and then follows with rules contrived by nomads, carpenters or caravan drivers.

Here's a question that science cannot answer! Why am I too lazy to move the 26 beer ottles that are now preventing me from moving the mouse? (Do you have any idea how hard forums are to navigate on a keyboard?

Seriously, eventually every question that can be phrased scietifically, can be answered by science.

Here's a question that science cannot answer! Why am I too lazy to move the 26 beer ottles that are now preventing me from moving the mouse? (Do you have any idea how hard forums are to navigate on a keyboard?

Seriously, eventually every question that can be phrased scietifically, can be answered by science.
is it because they were only just emptied? it seems likely enough

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?

The only things I've heard are nonsensical

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?" - yeah, for that matter, why aren't cats dogs? And why is 1+1=2? And why isn't true false?

The first one I thought of was that if I wanted to know what you were like, you would probably be quite offended if I took the scientific approach. I would take some of your cells, and look at them under a microscope, extract DNA and proteins and RNA from some other of your cells. Then I would probably mutate the genes in some other of your cells, just to find out how you work. Then I could trigger some nerve cells, to see what would happen, and maybe repeat it a few times, just to make sure. After all that, I would have a scientific report on what you are like, what you are made of, and some important details about how you 'work'. But that wouldn't really tell me much about you, how you are unique, what makes you different from the next person. It wouldn't tell me if you are likely to cheat in an exam, whether you are loyal to your friends, or whether I could trust you with a million dollars.

Religion may not provide me these answers either, but my point is that we can only do so much with science. One day we may perhaps be able to do more, but then again, we may not either.

If you wanted to find out what God was like (kinda the point of religion), you would have to see that science can't really provide us much about that.

The first one I thought of was that if I wanted to know what you were like, you would probably be quite offended if I took the scientific approach. I would take some of your cells, and look at them under a microscope, extract DNA and proteins and RNA from some other of your cells. Then I would probably mutate the genes in some other of your cells, just to find out how you work. Then I could trigger some nerve cells, to see what would happen, and maybe repeat it a few times, just to make sure. After all that, I would have a scientific report on what you are like, what you are made of, and some important details about how you 'work'. But that wouldn't really tell me much about you, how you are unique, what makes you different from the next person. It wouldn't tell me if you are likely to cheat in an exam, whether you are loyal to your friends, or whether I could trust you with a million dollars.

Religion may not provide me these answers either, but my point is that we can only do so much with science. One day we may perhaps be able to do more, but then again, we may not either.

If you wanted to find out what God was like (kinda the point of religion), you would have to see that science can't really provide us much about that.

Yah, and if I wanted to know what the sun was like Id studya couple molecules... a little problem of scale here. Take your microscope and throw it out the window. There are sciences that address "what someone is like"; psychology and anthropology.

Anyone who gets offended when you describe their neurons is a pussy.

I should make that last line my sig.

What if this isn't a hypothetical question?

Then it's a non-hypothetical question.

Then it's a non-hypothetical question.
Yes, but if it were a non-hypothetical question it would be contradicting itself.

The only things I've heard are nonsensical

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?" Why is this nonsensical?

Well.. Depends, I'd say. There are relatively few sensory impressions that science can't adequately explain. I'd be astounded if there were any that science is incapable of explaining in the future.

So.. No sensible questions, no.

Why is this nonsensical?

First define "life". Then you will see the previous question is as sensible as "What is the meaning of coffee?". Now if you were to ask "What is the purpose of my life" that would be a different question.....

First define "life". Then you will see the previous question is as sensible as "What is the meaning of coffee?". Now if you were to ask "What is the purpose of my life" that would be a different question.....I was thinking of "life" as human life, but I can see how it would be too broad of a question to ask if it meant all life.

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?

The only things I've heard are nonsensical

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?" - yeah, for that matter, why aren't cats dogs? And why is 1+1=2? And why isn't true false?
There are many questions science can't answer, as I'm sure we're all well aware, but I agree with you...I have yet to encounter a single convincing reason why the existence of those questions is a justification for superstition.

I guess there are some people who can't cope with the idea that there are unknowns, but who also haven't the talent or courage to seek answers for themselves. Instead, they create a perfect and powerful being who will know everything for them, so that they can simultaneously enjoy a world of complete certainty while also never having to challenge their own ignorance.

Why is this nonsensical?
If I understand the topic correctly, I think the poster was saying that using those questions as justification for superstition is nonsensical, not that the questions themselves are nonsensical.

In other words, it makes sense that humans will wonder if there is a meaning to life, and what that meaning may be. It does not make sense to say, "Science can't tell us what the meaning of life is. Therefore, there must be God."

Here's a question that science has yet to answear or disprove. Is there a God?

What if this isn't a hypothetical question?

i was going to form a response to this post but then my brain fizzed out from trying to grasp the paradox.

*just realised i managed to write a response*

why does religion need justification?

because the various religions of the world hold an aweful lot of power over a huge proportion of the world's population and that amount of power cannot be allowed to be wielded unaccountably.

Here's a question that science has yet to answear or disprove. Is there a God?

It can tell you its an idea people have that hasn't been proven, and that along with everything else for which there is no evidence, can't be disproven.

It can tell you its an idea people have that hasn't been proven, and that along with everything else for which there is no evidence, can't be disproven.

So they'll basically give me a cop out answear. Ah well. I have faith that there is a God, and thats good enough for me.

Depends in what field. I said "no", because I limit myself in the domains covered by science, outside of those, the question becomes meaningless. Science will never answer to moral dilemma, give you an ethic code, say what should be your goal, or anything like that. That's outside the realm of science. But for what is inside the domain of science, I don't think there is any question on which science can't answer at all. Sure, many questions may not be solved during the next 100 years, and on some questions there may be doubt for a long, long period. But I don't think there is a question inherently impossible to science.

Well, maybe if you consider Goedel's incompleteness theorem... hum, I've to think more about that.

Are there (sensible) questions that science cannot answer?

Is this a question which science can or cannot answer?

Well, maybe if you consider Goedel's incompleteness theorem... hum, I've to think more about that.


Well, yes, but it only applies to axiomatic systems, and they are not the prime concern of science.

I don't think there is any question on which science can't answer at all.

Is the cat currently dead or alive?

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?


Why the universe came into being (And if you say "no reason, it just did" dont try and palm that off as a scientifc answer. It isnt. Thats a philospical position)

Is there any purpose in life

Is there a God/What is the nature of God?

Is it right/wrong to kill?

Is it wrong to steal?

Is there a moral absolute?

Is the cat currently dead or alive?
It's dead if I have anything to do with it...

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?

The only things I've heard are nonsensical

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?" - yeah, for that matter, why aren't cats dogs? And why is 1+1=2? And why isn't true false?

Why?

Why?
Why not?

Albert Einstein, being one of the most brilliant (and dryly hilarious) men in history, understood science as all who advocate it should:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

That quote is THE basis of science, indeed proving a hypothesis wrong is actually the goal of science, in order that we winnow away at the falsities and false ideas that we as human beings come up with. We, at least at this point in time, can never be sure of anything, and thus science proves nothing, it just reduces the improbability of a given hypothesis and the resulting theory.

P.S. Einsein neither advocated nor rejected God, but he did understand that there were forces at work in the Universe that he (an no one else for that matter) could explain. He logically reasoned that rejecting any idea for an unexplained event was truly irressponsible. No matter how near-impossible something seems, or how incredible probable something else seems, there is always a possibility that the impossible happens over the highly-probable.

Science cannot definitively answer <i>any</i> question. Nothing is certain. Example: It is not claimed that Molecular Orbital theory is <i>true</i>, but simply that it's the best model we have at the moment (and at this level - I suspect 'real' scientists have better ones). Everything in science is, at the base of it all, a model. Some of them are pretty accurate at getting the results we need -- gravity, say, or the way chlorophyll works -- but it's by no means certain that everything works exactly as is modelled. And yes, model and theory are often interchangeable -- MO theory is a model of how atoms bond, but it's also a theory of the same. It's also also emphatically not how real atoms work, but it allows us to run equations and get the right answers.

I'm sorry for all the Molecular Orbital theory references in the above, we're studying it at the moment.

Why not?
Why and why not then :D

Why the universe came into being (And if you say "no reason, it just did" dont try and palm that off as a scientifc answer. It isnt. Thats a philospical position)

Is there any purpose in life

Is there a God/What is the nature of God?

Is it right/wrong to kill?

Is it wrong to steal?

Is there a moral absolute?

1. 'Why' indicates purpose. It's more of a 'how'.
2. No, we're pretty much here by accident. The only purpose we have is what we make for ourselves.
3. No, there's no evidence that there is and we can explain everything without one.
4/5. There are so many variables that each case needs to be considered on its own merits.
6. Morals are opinions, not forces/laws of nature.

Why and why not then :D
Yes.

1. 'Why' indicates purpose. It's more of a 'how'.

That answer is an opinion outside the relam of sceince to objectively judge


2. No, we're pretty much here by accident. The only purpose we have is what we make for ourselves.

See above. The position you are taking is Nihisim. A philosophical position, not based upon science but upon one strand of reasoning.


3. No, there's no evidence that there is and we can explain everything without one.

It can be argued there is much evidence in the life and times of people such as Jesus, Mohammad, Moses etc. And while you may consider it not to be evidence, the matter is not a debate that functions within the relam of science.


4/5. There are so many variables that each case needs to be considered on its own merits.

Yes but it is not a question of science, but of ethics


6. Morals are opinions, not forces/laws of nature.

Indeed, and as such they are not up for debate under science

6. Morals are opinions, not forces/laws of nature.

This is a mere statement of opinion: not a result of scientific method.

Is the cat currently dead or alive?

Both. It has a probability waveform of being either of which, and the probability waveform will collapse when you look at it. ;) I consider that as a valid answer to the question.

Yes.

Yes, why not.
You have struck upon the question that science itself cannot answer.
**Presents bouquet of flowers to Zero Six Three** Granthans answer to science.

2. No, we're pretty much here by accident. The only purpose we have is what we make for ourselves.

Actually, the evidence of science strongly suggests that our purpose is to reproduce and pass our DNA on to the next generation, and then to look after them until they are sexually mature and independent of us.

Both. It has a probability waveform of being either of which, and the probability waveform will collapse when you look at it. ;) I consider that as a valid answer to the question.

You will acknowledge, however that this does open a can of worms?

Speaking of Einstein...
"Does God play dice?"
And now for something totaly different...
"If a tree falls on a mime in the middle of a forest, does anybody care?"
"How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood? Assuming an average sized woodchuck with averge intelligence for a woodchuck."
"Are pirates and rappers related? (yo ho)"
"If a pirate and a ninja were to fight, who would win?"
"If a pirate and a zombie were to fight, who would win?"
"If a ninja and a zombie were to fight, who would win?"
"What purpose does the spleen serve?"
"Why did B-scifi movies suddenly make a comeback?"

Meh, maybe Ill think of some more O_O

You will acknowledge, however that this does open a can of worms?

** Contemplates a waveform opening a can of worms **

Yes, why not.
You have struck upon the question that science itself cannot answer.
**Presents bouquet of flowers to Zero Six Three** Granthans answer to science.
It's grantham and it's already gave Isaac Newton to science (and Thatcher to politics but we don't like to talk about that..)

that wood chuck thing is the funniest thing ive ever read in my life

"Why can't I have another piece of cake?"

"Why can't I have another piece of cake?"
You can but the doctors will have to cut off your foot.

Seeing that for Millions of years all organisums that were successful did not have any need to have a visual organ. Why than did it happen to create one? Even Darwin was stumped on this idea. The Eye or visual organ of any kind is so complex that an organisum to just up and decide to have one is truly an answer that Science has yet to show a good answer for.

Second question: Darwin said that for life to create itself on its own the universe as a whole would have always needed to be here and would not have ever been created at any point of time. The odds of life to create itself was to great even for Darwin to believe. You have to remember that the big bang is a recent scientific theory and when Darwin brought up the idea of life creating itself everyone thought that the universe was and always has been.

Darwin only truly believed that evolution within a species was a strong theory. His idea of evolution from a one cell, even he thought was a stretch. Only twentieth century evolutionists believe in the evolution from a one cell creature.

Be that as it may, The faith in this THEORY is just as far fetched as the Faith that a creator started everything. The argument between creationism and Darwinism is just apples and oranges. Creationism is the belief that something created everything, not the HOW AND STEPS this being decided to created. Darwinism is the belief in how things developed over time, not the creation of it. They are two differant ideas on two differant subjects. For all we know a creator could have done exactly what darwin theorized, and created things and then slowly over time had them evolve, or this creator could have done it a differant way, Who knows maybe one day science will prove it one way or the other. To try to disprove a creator with the Theory of evolution is just plain stupid, he could have used evolution as a process. To argue one against the other is to truly show your lack of Wisdom.

A good analogy would be Arguing your faith in Multiplication against The idea of how man learned about math in general. Multiplication is a process to show a quantity just like addition does but it does not prove how we learned how to use Math.

SO PLEASE DO NOT TRY AN ARGUE THESE TWO DIFFERANT IDEAS THAT ARE ON TWO DIFFERANT SUBJECTS

It just shows your lack of Wisdom..:headbang:

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?
Why?

Why?
Why not?

There're some questions science can't answer... AT THE MOMENT, but in (insert number) years they will be albe to answer them

Seeing that for Millions of years all organisums that were successful did not have any need to have a visual organ. Why than did it happen to create one? Even Darwin was stumped on this idea. The Eye or visual organ of any kind is so complex that an organisum to just up and decide to have one is truly an answer that Science has yet to show a good answer for.

Second question: Darwin said that for life to create itself on its own the universe as a whole would have always needed to be here and would not have ever been created at any point of time. The odds of life to create itself was to great even for Darwin to believe. You have to remember that the big bang is a recent scientific theory and when Darwin brought up the idea of life creating itself everyone thought that the universe was and always has been.

Darwin only truly believed that evolution within a species was a strong theory. His idea of evolution from a one cell, even he thought was a stretch. Only twentieth century evolutionists believe in the evolution from a one cell creature.

Be that as it may, The faith in this THEORY is just as far fetched as the Faith that a creator started everything. The argument between creationism and Darwinism is just apples and oranges. Creationism is the belief that something created everything, not the HOW AND STEPS this being decided to created. Darwinism is the belief in how things developed over time, not the creation of it. They are two differant ideas on two differant subjects. For all we know a creator could have done exactly what darwin theorized, and created things and then slowly over time had them evolve, or this creator could have done it a differant way, Who knows maybe one day science will prove it one way or the other. To try to disprove a creator with the Theory of evolution is just plain stupid, he could have used evolution as a process. To argue one against the other is to truly show your lack of Wisdom.

A good analogy would be Arguing your faith in Multiplication against The idea of how man learned about math in general. Multiplication is a process to show a quantity just like addition does but it does not prove how we learned how to use Math.

SO PLEASE DO NOT TRY AN ARGUE THESE TWO DIFFERANT IDEAS THAT ARE ON TWO DIFFERANT SUBJECTS
Funny how science has progressed since Darwin, huh?

What your'e doing is basically like using flaws in Newton's version of gravity to poke holes in general relativity.

Because it's laughable horseshit that bears no resemblance to reality.

Well, at least you have a sensible reason. I was worried that the reasoning behind this attack on religion was going to be hyperbolous power-mongering. Thanks for assuaging my fears.

To the topic, perhaps you should learn about the self-professed limitations of science. That will answer your question adequately, methinks. Science by design cannot touch certain things and can't know others with 100% certainty. T

he universe or whatever you want to call everything that is, was and ever will be more than likely has an absolute nature and science is ill-equiped to explore it. That's because science relies on direct and indirect observation. Observation defies exploring absolutes because of the limits of observation. The only way one can hold that science can explore everything is to argue that everything is observable which is, in and of itself, a theory on the absolute nature of the universe and outside of the realm of science.

No matter how you slice it, you have to exit science simply to come to the answer that there is no need for answering questions outside of science.

Science as a pratice can answer those questions, it just hasn't. The question wasn't if science knows everything or not -- it was if it can know everything.

And the answer is NO. It can't. In fact, even if it happened to know everything else, the one thing it can NEVER know is if it knows everything. It's a basic limitation of science.

There are many questions science can't answer, as I'm sure we're all well aware, but I agree with you...I have yet to encounter a single convincing reason why the existence of those questions is a justification for superstition.

I guess there are some people who can't cope with the idea that there are unknowns, but who also haven't the talent or courage to seek answers for themselves. Instead, they create a perfect and powerful being who will know everything for them, so that they can simultaneously enjoy a world of complete certainty while also never having to challenge their own ignorance.

There you go. That's the answer. With science, with religion, with philosophy, with asshatishness, there will ALWAYS be unknowns. Some people deal with those unknown with speculation. Some deal with those unknowns by claiming someone told them the answer. Some look at the world around them and come to a conclusion they admit may not be accurate but have faith that it is. And some deal with those unknowns by comforting themselves in the false knownledge that it's possible for science to deal with all unknowns.

To the rest of your statement, many religious people do seek answers for themselves, they just come to different conclusions than you do.

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?

The only things I've heard are nonsensical

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?" - yeah, for that matter, why aren't cats dogs? And why is 1+1=2? And why isn't true false?
"Meaning" in religion is one question that science cannot answer, since meaning is assigned to things by the individual or group (culture). This is a subjective assignation, and not a part of of concrete reality; the symbols on the page have specific meaning, but the meaning portrayed by the individual in a sentence is not absolute but interpretitive. And the meaningful relationship with God even less objective.

And "meaning" justifies religion, in that meaning is what it is all about. Religion is the relationship the individual makes and holds with the image of God. That relationship must be meaningful to the individual in terms of something given and something got, or it is useless to the individual; same is true of any relationship. Science, in looking at the relationship can gather data and statistics about the various relationships, it can define characteristics about the relationship, common meanings between individuals, loads of lovely facts to point at about the relationships, but it cannot participate in that relationship; to do so would be to put the science of the scientist in jeopardy by attempting to explain things in terms of the supernatural.

The Eye or visual organ of any kind is so complex that an organisum to just up and decide to have one is truly an answer that Science has yet to show a good answer for.

No, actually, it's not.

Visible light is a form of electromagnetic radiation, correct? Another form -- very close to it, in fact -- is infra-red radiation, AKA heat. Do you have a surface on your body that can detect heat?

If you answered no to the above, I invite you to stick your head in an oven and switch it on. You won't feel a thing... provided your answer was correct. (No, don't try this, please).

So, there's an organ capable of detecting EM radiation. Then one creature develops the ability to detect a slightly different frequency of EM radiation - a bit shorter wavelength. What we call visible light. It's not that big a shift -- no more than someone being able to hear slightly higher notes than someone else.

Were there advantages to this? Not particularly. Not while it's so rudimentary. But were there disadvantages? No -- no more than there were to having IR sensors. It's the same thing, in fact, except most animals don't emit in the visible region (while we all emit in the IR range).

So it doesn't get lost, it's just a nice sideline. It develops apace with the IR version, becoming more sensitive, and then suddenly, it's reached a point where: Whoa! You can see shadows. That means that even if you're looking down (assuming you're some sort of water creature here) you'll 'see' that something's passing above you! Now that's useful.

(My order may be wrong here -- I'm just speculating, after all). With that, the sighted creatures quickly dominate. They can see further in shallow water than the IR-types, can spot you coming even if you're sneaking around out of the way of their IR sensors... if you can only see in IR, you're screwed.

After that innovation came around, the progression of 'light-sensitive cells' to 'human-esque eye' has actually been modelled by computer now (by allowing a certain level of random mutation, then retaining only those changes which improved sensitivity. No, I don't have a reference for this, you can disbelieve it if you want, but apparently they even got lenses and everything). However, your question was more about where it originally came from, which I've finished going over.

Basically, the eye is very complex, but like everything, it came from simple routes. It's not a 'Wolf-Wolf-Wolf-Dog' situation (or 'blind-blind-blind-human eye'), it's a gradual process. You'd be amazed how many people don't get that.

And if you, or anyone else, wishes to ask 'what good is half an eye'... just don't. It's a nonsense question.

** Contemplates a waveform opening a can of worms **

Just remember that under certain conditions the can of worms can be simultaneously both open and closed.

Second question: Darwin said that for life to create itself on its own the universe as a whole would have always needed to be here and would not have ever been created at any point of time. The odds of life to create itself was to great even for Darwin to believe. You have to remember that the big bang is a recent scientific theory and when Darwin brought up the idea of life creating itself everyone thought that the universe was and always has been.This is the theory of biogenesis, which is a separate theory than the theory of evolution.

As far as the universe creating itself, I heard a physicist state that the reason we ask that question is because our concept of time is flawed. The actual concept of time, according to this physicist, is that things move from order to disorder. So if things were at one time perfect order, then the big bang happened, then that would be how the universe was created.
Of course, this doesn't answer the question "where did the object/universe that was ordered perfectly come from?" but this question would only result as a result of our (flawed, according to this physicist) concept of time, and so the theory itself wouldn't need to answer it.

To the rest of your statement, many religious people do seek answers for themselves, they just come to different conclusions than you do.
They don't seek answers, they invent them. They decide to believe in something that makes them feel good. That's ok, it's their personal choice, but I really wish they would stop pretending that they are seeking "truth" or "answers." They are seeking a way to give themselves the answer they've already decided they want to hear. I don't have any problem with religious people who are honest about that.

Here's a question that science has yet to answear or disprove. Is there a God?
Here's another one:

Are there magical invisible pixies who are secretly controlling all physical phenomenon?

Can you see why science doesn't give a fuck?

There you go. That's the answer. With science, with religion, with philosophy, with asshatishness, there will ALWAYS be unknowns. Some people deal with those unknown with speculation. Some deal with those unknowns by claiming someone told them the answer. Some look at the world around them and come to a conclusion they admit may not be accurate but have faith that it is. And some deal with those unknowns by comforting themselves in the false knownledge that it's possible for science to deal with all unknowns.

To the rest of your statement, many religious people do seek answers for themselves, they just come to different conclusions than you do.

And, some people deal with those unknowns by saying "I don't know... and I may never know". Some will keep looking for an answer, some will take "don't know" AS the answer.

And, some people deal with those unknowns by saying "I don't know... and I may never know". Some will keep looking for an answer, some will take "don't know" AS the answer.

Some people are just accepting different evidence than others. I accept that I could be dreaming right now, but I don't think I am. All evidence makes me think otherwise. I accept that my keyboard could put out a p the next time I hit the k key, but all evidence makes me think otherwise. For me God is like this. It's not a guess. It's something I feel. Could I be wrong? Certainly and this is why I don't force my beliefs on others nor do I accuse people of being crazy or irrational for having different beliefs than I do.

I'd be quite happy if some individuals would extend the same courtesy. However, those individuals pretend like they're being rational yet being so sure they are right is just as ludicrous as me treating people as if I must be right.

Note: This isn't directed at you. I find you to be very rational. I'm just tired of the idiots who act as if they are simply doubting Thomases when in fact they have for one reason or another HATE religion and never miss a chance to be offensive to anyone that believes differently than them.

Some people are just accepting different evidence than others. I accept that I could be dreaming right now, but I don't think I am. All evidence makes me think otherwise. I accept that my keyboard could put out a p the next time I hit the k key, but all evidence makes me think otherwise. For me God is like this. It's not a guess. It's something I feel. Could I be wrong? Certainly and this is why I don't force my beliefs on others nor do I accuse people of being crazy or irrational for having different beliefs than I do.
That's not acceptance, though, that's allowance.

I'm confused... are you saying that religion isn't real, even though you believe in it? Either this is some kind of Orwellian doublethink, or reality means something different to you than it does to me.. :confused:

Facts are there whether we can prove them (yet) or not, exist whether we believe in them or not. Religion was designed (though not consciously) to help explain the world around us. Science does a better and more reliable job of that now.

Truth is going to have different meanings when applied to scientific or religious arguments. The term needs some clarification.

Science explains the what of the universe (albeit in bits as the data comes in and is confirmed), it's not science's job to explain the why. It also requires some patience and a willingness to look deeper than the pat answers offered by religion (which boil down to "God did it" or "It's God's will" more often than not.)

Religion tries to explain the what and the why, neither of which is really its job. Codes of ethics can be (and have been) developed which do not require a belief in a supernatural being.

In trying to find answers, religion is always going to work within the limitations imposed by the doctrines of the religion working on the questions at hand. With science, the willingness to throw it all out if a hypothosis or theory* which proves invalid is a strength which will lead to the answers.
(*which also has a very different definition within science than it does in general speaking terms)

Science realises its limitations, while religion imposes false limitations to the searches.

Facts are there whether we can prove them (yet) or not, exist whether we believe in them or not. Religion was designed (though not consciously) to help explain the world around us. Science does a better and more reliable job of that now.
I feel compelled to reply whenever someone uses this fallacious argument. Religion is not about explaining the world around us, but explaining the inner world. In order to do this, it necessarily uses words, ideas and stories of things in the outer world as trope. It is not intended as fact about the outer world, but about the inner world. Science does a better job of explaining the outer world because it has no competition.

Truth is going to have different meanings when applied to scientific or religious arguments. The term needs some clarification.

Science explains the what of the universe (albeit in bits as the data comes in and is confirmed), it's not science's job to explain the why. It also requires some patience and a willingness to look deeper than the pat answers offered by religion (which boil down to "God did it" or "It's God's will" more often than not.)

Religion tries to explain the what and the why, neither of which is really its job. Codes of ethics can be (and have been) developed which do not require a belief in a supernatural being.
Religion tries to explain the what and the why of us, the human being who is necessary to the equation. Code of ethics spring out of us, and are a part of some religions, so really are not a replacement for religion.

Well of course there are questions science can't answer. ALL questions about justice, ethics or beauty are such questions. That's because they're subjective.

That's not acceptance, though, that's allowance.

You're right I don't accept the beliefs of others. I also don't spend a good portion of my time calling them crazy and irrational unless they aren't trying to take away the rights of others.

I feel compelled to reply whenever someone uses this fallacious argument. Religion is not about explaining the world around us, but explaining the inner world. In order to do this, it necessarily uses words, ideas and stories of things in the outer world as trope. It is not intended as fact about the outer world, but about the inner world. Science does a better job of explaining the outer world because it has no competition.

Religion tries to explain the what and the why of us, the human being who is necessary to the equation. Code of ethics spring out of us, and are a part of some religions, so really are not a replacement for religion.

If it's not about explaining the world around us, why, then, the abundance of creation stories? Why then the edicts about planting, reaping and other mundane whatsits? (I was raised Jewishly, so this is my point of reference)

Yes, religion is about inner exploration- or can be- but a lot of religious traditions and laws are concerning the material world. These come from an attempt (which was a noble one, I'm not dismissing it) to explain the world- the physical world.

I will not, though, debate the necessity of humans and etc, not because I want to be dismissive, but because I view us as a part of the whole, not the focus.

Codes of ethics, as I stated before, can exist independent of religion.

Religion was the first attempt at explaining the things in the world. It's an important development in inquiry. As it stands now- often- it has become a barrier to further inquiry. It has set itself up as THE answer source. I need only to point to the supression and persecution of Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, and etc to prove that religion is not exactly open to exploration. Even now we have huge debates wherein research on such things as stem cell research and the development of embryos is stymied because *religious* leaders don't want it to continue. If it's all about the inner stuff, they need to knock it off with policy affecting the outer world.

And, though you say they are not *intended* as fact, these stories (particularly creation stories) are even now the center of huge debate over what should be taught as *fact*. These stories have been taken as fact by the faithfull for a long long time- so much so that any whisper contrary to the stories is seen as an attack on the faith itself. In the end, the outside world is very much affected by what you call "inner" ideas.

If it's not about explaining the world around us, why, then, the abundance of creation stories? Why then the edicts about planting, reaping and other mundane whatsits? (I was raised Jewishly, so this is my point of reference)
Creation stories establish a relationship between human spirit and the image of God. Edicts of behavior and morality maintain a specific relationship with that God. We cannot but express ourselves in word and action in the outer world, but it's not *about* the outer world, the behavior, the word ...it's about us.

Yes, religion is about inner exploration- or can be- but a lot of religious traditions and laws are concerning the material world. These come from an attempt (which was a noble one, I'm not dismissing it) to explain the world- the physical world.

I will not, though, debate the necessity of humans and etc, not because I want to be dismissive, but because I view us as a part of the whole, not the focus.

Codes of ethics, as I stated before, can exist independent of religion.

Religion was the first attempt at explaining the things in the world. It's an important development in inquiry. As it stands now- often- it has become a barrier to further inquiry. It has set itself up as THE answer source. I need only to point to the supression and persecution of Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, and etc to prove that religion is not exactly open to exploration.
And I have heard good arguments on this forum for the mis-depiction of those stories as antireligious. I no longer accept without question that religious and scientific aims are at odds.

Even now we have huge debates wherein research on such things as stem cell research and the development of embryos is stymied because *religious* leaders don't want it to continue. If it's all about the inner stuff, they need to knock it off with policy affecting the outer world.

And, though you say they are not *intended* as fact, these stories (particularly creation stories) are even now the center of huge debate over what should be taught as *fact*. These stories have been taken as fact by the faithfull for a long long time- so much so that any whisper contrary to the stories is seen as an attack on the faith itself. In the end, the outside world is very much affected by what you call "inner" ideas.
But this doesn't really help your argument, but mine. Taking something as fact for so long doesn't make it a fact. These stories, the myths concretized into reality, not intended as fact but used as such... if wishes were ponies. It's sad, but it's also not practicing religion.

Creation stories establish a relationship between human spirit and the image of God. Edicts of behavior and morality maintain a specific relationship with that God. We cannot but express ourselves in word and action in the outer world, but it's not *about* the outer world, the behavior, the word ...it's about us.

And I have heard good arguments on this forum for the mis-depiction of those stories as antireligious. I no longer accept without question that religious and scientific aims are at odds.

But this doesn't really help your argument, but mine. Taking something as fact for so long doesn't make it a fact. These stories, the myths concretized into reality, not intended as fact but used as such... if wishes were ponies. It's sad, but it's also not practicing religion.

I am pretty new to the forum (as my post count will attest), so have not been party to nor witness to the mis-depiction of the stories.

The myths are not concretized into reality, per se, but are taken as reality by the religious leaders in question. Then they are applied publicly as such.

I don't think we actually disagree here: My point is that the myths are not used just to establish a link between God and us *by religious leaders at large*, but as a substitute for fact. Also, sadly, as an excuse to not look for facts, and often to deny facts which are found.

Whether you believe (you in particular) that they are *meant* as fact is almost irrelevent, as the popular (among religious sorts in the US at least) interpretation is that the book of Genesis is what *happened in fact*.

Your personal belief/interpretation make more sense, definitely. I only wish (bring me my pony now!) more people viewed the stories as such.

We, the human race, can construct and develop anything we need... And that's all we really need!

Science ftw!

Everything we understand, believe or experience is built on assumption. This includes science. Can science address every question about the world we live in? Yes, i think it can. But i'm not sure it can answer any question. It's just a tool we as humans use to order our minds.

What created matter?

What made matter move?

What created space?

...questions like that.

Science is pretty good at explaining what we can see, of course.

We, the human race, can construct and develop anything we need... And that's all we really need!

Science ftw!

Really? Sweet.

Build me a 60-foot tall, armoured, bipedal robot death body with a clean, self-renewing power source that will provide free, unlimited energy and a dodecuple-redundant computer system to artificially house my mind while I set upon and demolish Montgomery city.

Please deliver it to my house by long-range teleporter.

Really? Sweet.

Build me a 60-foot tall, armoured, bipedal robot death body with a clean, self-renewing power source that will provide free, unlimited energy and a dodecuple-redundant computer system to artificially house my mind while I set upon and demolish Montgomery city.

Please deliver it to my house by long-range teleporter.

Hmm, check back in a few years, I didn't say we had it all now, did I? But not to worry, we're working on it!

Hmm, check back in a few years, I didn't say we had it all now, did I? But not to worry, we're working on it!

"A few years." I'm going to have to get my head frozen after I die, aren't I? Well, as long as I get to carve a bloody path through Alabama in my robot death body, I guess I can wait a few centuries.

The Bible is full of metaphors. For instance (among countless examples), humans weren't really created out of clay. This is what a stupidly high number of people fail to realize.

Metaphors, people, METAPHORS!

It's also the reason why Christianity is so divided, since there are many interpretations of the contents of the Bible, and therefore conflicts between opposing beliefs take place.

Get it into your head if you intend to debate on religion. :)

Metaphores, people, METAPHORES!

"Metaphors" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=metaphor)

Woops, changed. :p

So they'll basically give me a cop out answear. Ah well. I have faith that there is a God, and thats good enough for me.

basicly the only answer that can be given without resorting to faith.

"Metaphors" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=metaphor)

He meant to say "MEGAWHORES". The Bible is full of megawhores, people. Look at that Mary who slept with God while she was married to Joseph. That's messed up.

NOTE: Yes, that one was bad. It's a good thing I'm quite certain God has a sense of humor, otherwise how do you explain the platypus and that I'm dashingly handsome but I spend most of time on medium where no one can see me?

Why not?
No, that is the question that science cannot answer: "Why?" :p

No, that is the question that science cannot answer: "Why?" :p

Ah, but science CAN answer that question. Its called causality. Atoms move because forces act on them. Reactions occur because atoms move into contact with each other. More reactions occur because the products of the previous reactions come in contact with one another. Life, the universe and everything is one very, very long chain reaction of particles interacting with one another. And if you refute this by saying that causality precludes free will, I know that. I don't presume free will or souls.

Note: to actually predict that actions of the human brain would require knowledge beyond that which the brain is capable of processing, so we can essentially treat our actions as the source of free will.

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?

The only things I've heard are nonsensical

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?" - yeah, for that matter, why aren't cats dogs? And why is 1+1=2? And why isn't true false?

In terms of "sensical" questions; there are likely some questions science cannot not answer (it is only a method of observing material reality, which does it through a filter) but all of these would be questions that have no impact on anyones life.

In terms of "nonsensical" questions; there are plenty of them. Science is fundamentally unable to answer the question of "why" (as opposed to "how"). There are of course some people, such as myself, who are content with just knowing "how" but most people definitely aren't and I don't see that changing. So essentially no matter how far science progresses and how much we discover some form of religion or spirituality will remain; that doesn't bother me as long as we rid ourselves of the malign ones. And most people seem to turn to religion for reasons other than answers.

Ah, but science CAN answer that question. Its called causality. Atoms move because forces act on them. Reactions occur because atoms move into contact with each other. More reactions occur because the products of the previous reactions come in contact with one another. Life, the universe and everything is one very, very long chain reaction of particles interacting with one another. And if you refute this by saying that causality precludes free will, I know that. I don't presume free will or souls.

Note: to actually predict that actions of the human brain would require knowledge beyond that which the brain is capable of processing, so we can essentially treat our actions as the source of free will.
But why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Why is the universe here? Why does life exist? Why ... why ... why?

But why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Why is the universe here? Why does life exist? Why ... why ... why?

maybe there is no answer? maybe we just "are." no reason for being here, no purpose, we just "exist"

maybe there is no answer? maybe we just "are." no reason for being here, no purpose, we just "exist"
What a deeply distressing thought. Neo-nihilism! OMG! :eek:

What a deeply distressing thought. Neo-nihilism! OMG! :eek:

could be true. everyone is searching for an answer, but maybe there is no answer to find? :confused:

But why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Why is the universe here? Why does life exist? Why ... why ... why?

Why not? ;)

Ah, but science CAN answer that question. Its called causality. Atoms move because forces act on them. Reactions occur because atoms move into contact with each other. More reactions occur because the products of the previous reactions come in contact with one another. Life, the universe and everything is one very, very long chain reaction of particles interacting with one another. And if you refute this by saying that causality precludes free will, I know that. I don't presume free will or souls.

Note: to actually predict that actions of the human brain would require knowledge beyond that which the brain is capable of processing, so we can essentially treat our actions as the source of free will.
But why do atoms move? Why is there a chain of cause and effect? Why was there a big bang to start the ball rolling? Science looks at the question of "why" objectively, and always delivers a "how" answer to it, because it elminates the subjective possibility, which would be a "why" from the perspective of the universe. Such a response would imply the universe has intelligence and purpose.

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?

The only things I've heard are nonsensical

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?" - yeah, for that matter, why aren't cats dogs? And why is 1+1=2? And why isn't true false?

those questions amount to "what is the meaning of meaning." Science only describes things in terms of their effects as "phenomena" rather than "nomena". We can only percieve things in these terms, we cant grasp the essence of things

maybe there is no answer? maybe we just "are." no reason for being here, no purpose, we just "exist"

That may be the answer. But if it is, you cannot come to that conclusion through science.

could be true. everyone is searching for an answer, but maybe there is no answer to find? :confused:

But if that is true, then why are we searching (Read C.S.Lewis's mere Christianity. In the second chapter, he explains how, in his view, the search for an answer is evidence for the answers own existance)

But if that is true, then why are we searching (Read C.S.Lewis's mere Christianity. In the second chapter, he explains how, in his view, the search for an answer is evidence for the answers own existance)
Because most people can't stand the thought that there is no meaning. And because of humans being extremely egocentrical.

So far, no questions volunteered... weird. All the people who say "there are questions that science can't answer" must be offline.

Most arrogant of you. Why is it some people diagnosised with terminal cancer will one day wake up with not a spot of cancer in them ? Or how do otherwise terminal or life debilitating illness at times simply cease with no medical explaination? But these are just examples of questions that impact our little insignificant lives.

Lets get broader and larger, How is it a black hole really works ? Is there more then one universe ? How was our Universe really formed ? Why is there such a gap between our mental developments and every other living organism on earth ?

Even as science can speculate on some of these questions, the very best it can do is offer probable theories. Even what we know from science today is not nessearly truth. What are all the positive and negative impacts of vegtiables (for example). Things we once knew as universal truths (vegitables are good for you) may at times not be so true (could increase the chance of heart disease, cancer etc.) Science as it employs the scientific method can only at its very best offer highly probable solutions... not universal truths (as math could for example) becuase it relys on the logic of humans, which most of the time is inevtiably flawed.

those questions amount to "what is the meaning of meaning." Science only describes things in terms of their effects as "phenomena" rather than "nomena". We can only percieve things in these terms, we cant grasp the essence of things

Most excellent response.. that is precisely the key.

I would have to say no... while there may be things that science can't answer right now, that doesn't mean that science won't or can't answer it in the future. Just think of all that has been discovered in the last 100 years.

No folks, there are no miracles, only things that science has yet to answer.

Most arrogant of you. Why is it some people diagnosised with terminal cancer will one day wake up with not a spot of cancer in them ? Or how do otherwise terminal or life debilitating illness at times simply cease with no medical explaination? But these are just examples of questions that impact our little insignificant lives.

Do you have a source for this claim?

Lets get broader and larger, How is it a black hole really works ? Is there more then one universe ? How was our Universe really formed ? Why is there such a gap between our mental developments and every other living organism on earth ?

Science is working to answer all of these questions as I speak.

Even as science can speculate on some of these questions, the very best it can do is offer probable theories. Even what we know from science today is not nessearly truth. What are all the positive and negative impacts of vegtiables (for example). Things we once knew as universal truths (vegitables are good for you) may at times not be so true (could increase the chance of heart disease, cancer etc.) Science as it employs the scientific method can only at its very best offer highly probable solutions... not universal truths (as math could for example) becuase it relys on the logic of humans, which most of the time is inevtiably flawed.

Why is human logic inevitably flawed?

Is there free will?

1. 'Why' indicates purpose. It's more of a 'how'.
2. No, we're pretty much here by accident. The only purpose we have is what we make for ourselves.
3. No, there's no evidence that there is and we can explain everything without one.
4/5. There are so many variables that each case needs to be considered on its own merits.
6. Morals are opinions, not forces/laws of nature.


you can explain everything without God?

Okay, then, what created matter?

I scoff at the claims of some that science can answer every major question... science will never be able to answer such questions as "How did we get here?" or "Where do we go when we die?"

Science is fairly good at exaplaining most of what we can see.

But concerning the big questions...

For those, we'll have to wait until we die. Or we can get a head start and apply a bit of faith...


1 Corinthians 13:12
12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?

The only things I've heard are nonsensical

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?" - yeah, for that matter, why aren't cats dogs? And why is 1+1=2? And why isn't true false?


Yes, their are, many and many.

Why did the Dinosaurse all die out? Some say a meteroite, but others dont really agree, so where is the fact on how the dinosauses dies out.

How many Plantes are their in the Universe? What about stars?

If the Big Bang happend, then, what was thier before the Big Bang?

What would happen if an Un-Stoppable Object was to hit an Un-Moveable object?



Science can not solve everything, just as relgion cant solve everything. their needs to be a balnce. For too long it has been, that you have to choose sides between Religion and Science, I fellow both, becuase it is possable.

you can explain everything without God?

Okay, then, what created matter?

One could argue the tooth fairy, Santa.. perhaps the Easter bunny.. because there is about as much fact to back up their existence as there is for god.

At least we know science is real and tangible.

Is there free will?

Why do those who believe there is no free will seek to convince others of this fact, knowing that those who don't believe it have no choice in whether or not they believe it?

One could argue the tooth fairy, Santa.. perhaps the Easter bunny.. because there is about as much fact to back up their existence as there is for god.

At least we know science is real and tangible.

More. Santa was a real guy. He didn't live at the north pole or anything, but there isn't some biologist, who is now deified, who cooked two humans up in a test tube and then had those humans credit him with the existense of the universe.

I scoff at the claims of some that science can answer every major question... science will never be able to answer such questions as "How did we get here?" or "Where do we go when we die?"

When you die you either get set on fire or dumped in a hole in the ground, depending on your chosen funeral. Easy.

For those, we'll have to wait until we die. Or we can get a head start and apply a bit of faith...

1 Corinthians 13:12
12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Am I the only one who gets really pissed off at the way Christianity blatantly rips off Plato?

if science can not anser it, it is not a resonable question.

that being said, just because we can not anser it today does not mean it can not be ansered.

Yes, their are, many and many.

Yes, such as "what are you wearing?" "What's in my pocket?" and "Who Put the Bop in the Bop-She-Bop-She-Bop?" And for you older readers. "Who killed Laura Palmer?" Science's inability to address these questions is not a failing of science, but a function of the silliness of the question.


Why did the Dinosaurse all die out? Some say a meteroite, but others dont really agree, so where is the fact on how the dinosauses dies out.

That's hardly placing the question beyond science. The dinosaurs died out during a mass extinction. The mass extinction is evidenced by sharp declines in populations of things like snails and mollusks in the fossil record. Things that existed in large numbers and then suddenly didn't. The fact that "others don't" agree does not defeat the quality of the answer. The fossil record tells us the world is over 4 billion years old. Young-Earth Creationsists disagree and say it's about 6000 years old. Just because there is some disagreement, doesn't mean that there aren't answers.


How many Plantes are their in the Universe? What about stars?

While a specific count is beyond current technology, there is a known limit to the size of the universe, and a known average density of stellar bodies. It is a simple calculation. Number of planets... well, we're still waiting on the better telescopes.

If the Big Bang happend, then, what was thier before the Big Bang?

There was no before before the Big Bang. Time started with the big bang, so trying to rewind the universe to before that spot would be like trying to rewind Gone With the Wind until you see Lincoln's inauguration.

What would happen if an Un-Stoppable Object was to hit an Un-Moveable object?

Pretty much the same as what would happen if Superman got into a fight with Mickey Mouse. Pretty much nothing because they don't exist. If there was some force that was previously thought to be unstoppable by any known means, and an object previously thought to be unmovable by any known means, then all that would happen is that one of the two would get demoted. That's all.

Science can not solve everything, just as relgion cant solve everything. their needs to be a balnce. For too long it has been, that you have to choose sides between Religion and Science, I fellow both, becuase it is possable.

could be true. everyone is searching for an answer, but maybe there is no answer to find? :confused:
There are always answers. Perhaps we're not asking the right questions?

Because most people can't stand the thought that there is no meaning. And because of humans being extremely egocentrical.
HA! Prove that there is no meaning! :p

The first one I thought of was that if I wanted to know what you were like, you would probably be quite offended if I took the scientific approach. I would take some of your cells, and look at them under a microscope, extract DNA and proteins and RNA from some other of your cells. Then I would probably mutate the genes in some other of your cells, just to find out how you work. Then I could trigger some nerve cells, to see what would happen, and maybe repeat it a few times, just to make sure. After all that, I would have a scientific report on what you are like, what you are made of, and some important details about how you 'work'. But that wouldn't really tell me much about you, how you are unique, what makes you different from the next person. It wouldn't tell me if you are likely to cheat in an exam, whether you are loyal to your friends, or whether I could trust you with a million dollars.

Religion may not provide me these answers either, but my point is that we can only do so much with science. One day we may perhaps be able to do more, but then again, we may not either.

If you wanted to find out what God was like (kinda the point of religion), you would have to see that science can't really provide us much about that.

grr... science is not just genes and test tubes and people in lab coats... it is the use of the scientific method (question, hypothesis, experiment, analise data, conclusion) geting to know someone the "normal" way is still the scientific method (how is s/he, i think s/he is fun becouse of... hang out with s/he, sell s/he did this and this and that was fun, so Q.E.D s/he is fun)

One could argue the tooth fairy, Santa.. perhaps the Easter bunny.. because there is about as much fact to back up their existence as there is for god.

At least we know science is real and tangible.

...and yet there is no answer from Almighty Science.

HA! Prove that there is no meaning! :p

*threatens Eutrusca with Occam's Razor*

HA! Prove that there is no meaning! :p
Sorry let me replace is with might be.

...and yet there is no answer from Almighty Science.

Here's a nice analogy I heard a while ago on this forum:

Suppose there's a huge wall, two miles high and 100 miles long. On it is a huge and incredibly complex mathematical equation which covers the entire wall in writing this big.

Two people come across this wall.

The first says: "Wow, this equation is incredible, I wonder what the answer could be. I can do this tiny bit here right now and I'll dedicate my life to solving more of the problem. When I die my children and my children's children will continue my work across countless generation until we find the answer. Do you want to help?"

The second replies: "I don't need to, the answer is 2."

The first says: "Umm...you have no way of knowing that, it's pure speculation."

To which the second replies: "I say the answer is two. Unless you can present me with a different answer right now then it proves that you're wrong and I'm right."

I think you can see where this is going...

HA! Prove that there is no meaning! :p

The Bush administration said that in Iraq, "we will be welcomed as liberators."

When asked about all the violence that has gone on there since Saddam was removed from power he said "we were welcome, it just wasn't a peaceful welcome."

When Reagan finally had to admit that he arranged for the sale of weapons to Iran he said "my heart and my mind tell me that this isn't true, but the facts say otherwise."

The Republican party still exists. If there is such a thing as meaning, how can people believe this crap?

if science can not anser it, it is not a resonable question.

that being said, just because we can not anser it today does not mean it can not be ansered.
Exactly.

I wonder if the original question (of this thread) is not a bit misleading. If you ask- are there questions which science cannot answer right now?- The answer is yes, there are many. But that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and say "God did it", it means we try to answer the questions through scientific methods. It could take a while, but we'll keep trying.

If you ask: Are there questions which science will never find an answer for? The answer is probably. But that does not necessarily lead to belief in God for everyone. Again, if it's a question worth finding an answer to, scientists will likely keep trying.

As for the whole Where did we come from? thing- science has a way of unfolding and expanding our view (if we let it). Answers lead to more questions, not an end, but new beginings, if you will. What we cannot concieve of now because of our limited knowledge might become astoundingly apparent as our knowledge grows.

Even now there are studies being done on the neurological construction of faith itself- where in the brain does it lie, what (biological, mostly)function does it serve? That sort of thing.

Looking for a religious answer is very different than looking for a scientific answer, and so its methods are also going to be very different. When looking for a religious answer, you (general) are going to be limited by the doctrine under which you opperate. You are looking for an answer which fits into the pattern of your faith. Things which opperate outside the faith are discarded lest the faith be lost.

With science it's very different- if a major hypothosis is proven wrong, science itself is not threatened (though a *scientist* whose theory or hypothosis is proven wrong might feel threatened or upset or whatever). It moves on and finds a more accurate hypothosis or theory. It is self-refining.

Speaking of Einstein...
"Does God play dice?"

"Einstein would roll over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded."

-- Academician Prokhor Zakharov,
"For I Have Tasted The Fruit"

Here's a nice analogy I heard a while ago on this forum:

Suppose there's a huge wall, two miles high and 100 miles long. On it is a huge and incredibly complex mathematical equation which covers the entire wall in writing this big.

Two people come across this wall.

The first says: "Wow, this equation is incredible, I wonder what the answer could be. I can do this tiny bit here right now and I'll dedicate my life to solving more of the problem. When I die my children and my children's children will continue my work across countless generation until we find the answer. Do you want to help?"

The second replies: "I don't need to, the answer is 2."

The first says: "Umm...you have no way of knowing that, it's pure speculation."

To which the second replies: "I say the answer is two. Unless you can present me with a different answer right now then it proves that you're wrong and I'm right."

I think you can see where this is going...

I like that.

...and yet there is no answer from Almighty Science.

YET! being the key word. :)

...and yet there is no answer from Almighty Science.

I'm around scientists all day, and I've never heard one refer to science as "Almighty". Only religion has the pretense that it represents any kind of "Almighty".

Nice plank in your eye, there.

Here's a nice analogy I heard a while ago on this forum:

Suppose there's a huge wall, two miles high and 100 miles long. On it is a huge and incredibly complex mathematical equation which covers the entire wall in writing this big.

Two people come across this wall.

The first says: "Wow, this equation is incredible, I wonder what the answer could be. I can do this tiny bit here right now and I'll dedicate my life to solving more of the problem. When I die my children and my children's children will continue my work across countless generation until we find the answer. Do you want to help?"

The second replies: "I don't need to, the answer is 2."

The first says: "Umm...you have no way of knowing that, it's pure speculation."

To which the second replies: "I say the answer is two. Unless you can present me with a different answer right now then it proves that you're wrong and I'm right."

I think you can see where this is going...
Analogy for what?

Analogy for what?

This perhaps?

Originally Posted by Frangland
...and yet there is no answer from Almighty Science.

:rolleyes:

Analogy for what?

The analogy explains that science is not a lesser or failed method simply because it cannot provide immediate answers to difficult questions.

The "equation on the wall" represents the "big questions", and the two people represent

a) the one who is willing to follow the rigorous, lengthy, and endless path of experimental discovery, even though it doesn't offer instant or total answers

and

b) the one who just invents an instant and total answer, and derides the other for not having an answer.

The general theme of the analogy is that science provides slow but supportable answers, while religion provides immediate but dubious suppositions.

Either may ultimately be correct, but science better withstands diligent skepticism (at the sacrifice of immediate "answers").

I like that.

I can't remember who made it up, it was somebody on this forum but I'm not sure who.

The analogy explains that science is not a lesser or failed method simply because it cannot provide immediate answers to difficult questions.

The "equation on the wall" represents the "big questions", and the two people represent

a) the one who is willing to follow the rigorous, lengthy, and endless path of experimental discovery, even though it doesn't offer instant or total answers

and

b) the one who just invents an instant and total answer, and derides the other for not having an answer.

The general theme of the analogy is that science provides slow but supportable answers, while religion provides immediate but dubious suppositions.

Either may ultimately be correct, but science better withstands diligent skepticism (at the sacrifice of immediate "answers").

Nicely put.

The analogy explains that science is not a lesser or failed method simply because it cannot provide immediate answers to difficult questions.

The "equation on the wall" represents the "big questions", and the two people represent

a) the one who is willing to follow the rigorous, lengthy, and endless path of experimental discovery, even though it doesn't offer instant or total answers

and

b) the one who just invents an instant and total answer, and derides the other for not having an answer.

The general theme of the analogy is that science provides slow but supportable answers, while religion provides immediate but dubious suppositions.

Either may ultimately be correct, but science better withstands diligent skepticism (at the sacrifice of immediate "answers").
But we don't know that the second person's answer was invented. That's not a part of the story.

And the whole thing is not an analogy, but a parable.

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?

The only things I've heard are nonsensical
Same here. With a science that's sufficiently advanced, you can explain *any* phenomenons.
The *only* purpose of religion is to to control the masses and bend the meek sheep to the twisted minds of the religious leaders :rolleyes:

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?"
Oh come on, we all know that the answer is 42. :D

Oh come on, we all know that the answer is 42. :D

42 is not the meaning of life. It's the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. There's a subtle difference. ;)

But we don't know that the second person's answer was invented. That's not a part of the story.

And the whole thing is not an analogy, but a parable.

The point is that the second person maintains that position on blind faith, without anything to back them up, and then sneers at their companion for not being able to tell them the answer.

Science can answer any question you pose. Doesn't mean it will be correct.;)


When it comes to questions that actually have meaning, science is absolutely useless. Science is good for only two things: improving technology, and looking nice.

If you want to answer maningful questions you need to use philosophy. But even philosophy is a lost art. People these days say: "How do you you know you exist. What if the universe doesn't actually exist and we're all just imagined by something supernatural. Hey, that's philosophy. Look at what a good philosopher I am."

People are idiots. Best to ignore people.

The point is that the second person maintains that position on blind faith, without anything to back them up, and then sneers at their companion for not being able to tell them the answer.
Yes; and fallacious as it is, it is highly unbelieveable.

Science can answer any question you pose. Doesn't mean it will be correct.;)


When it comes to questions that actually have meaning, science is absolutely useless. Science is good for only two things: improving technology, and looking nice.

If you want to answer maningful questions you need to use philosophy. But even philosophy is a lost art. People these days say: "How do you you know you exist. What if the universe doesn't actually exist and we're all just imagined by something supernatural. Hey, that's philosophy. Look at what a good philosopher I am."

People are idiots. Best to ignore people.

Descartes has a lot to answer for.:rolleyes:

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?

The only things I've heard are nonsensical

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?" - yeah, for that matter, why aren't cats dogs? And why is 1+1=2? And why isn't true false?
There are plenty of important questions that science can't answer, eg all questions about purpose or opinions (what will you have for luch?, why do you want a car?, do you like me? etc).

Yes; and fallacious as it is, it is highly unbelieveable.

Frangland was playing the role very well earlier on:

you can explain everything without God?

Okay, then, what created matter?

I scoff at the claims of some that science can answer every major question... science will never be able to answer such questions as "How did we get here?" or "Where do we go when we die?"

Science is fairly good at exaplaining most of what we can see.

But concerning the big questions...

For those, we'll have to wait until we die. Or we can get a head start and apply a bit of faith...


1 Corinthians 13:12
12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

and

...and yet there is no answer from Almighty Science.

In other words he thinks he knows the answer and he dismisses science because it can't explain everything yet.

Descartes has a lot to answer for.:rolleyes:

I'll dig him up. You bring the thumbscrews,

Here's a nice analogy I heard a while ago on this forum:

Suppose there's a huge wall, two miles high and 100 miles long. On it is a huge and incredibly complex mathematical equation which covers the entire wall in writing this big.

Two people come across this wall.

The first says: "Wow, this equation is incredible, I wonder what the answer could be. I can do this tiny bit here right now and I'll dedicate my life to solving more of the problem. When I die my children and my children's children will continue my work across countless generation until we find the answer. Do you want to help?"

The second replies: "I don't need to, the answer is 2."

The first says: "Umm...you have no way of knowing that, it's pure speculation."

To which the second replies: "I say the answer is two. Unless you can present me with a different answer right now then it proves that you're wrong and I'm right."

I think you can see where this is going...
Good analogy! http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
Yes, what the second one does is exactly the crap that religion is doing. :rolleyes:

Good analogy! http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
Yes, what the second one does is exactly the crap that religion is doing. :rolleyes:

That really depends on the particular religion, now, doesn't it?

Good analogy! http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
Yes, what the second one does is exactly the crap that religion is doing. :rolleyes:

It's certainly what some people do.

I'll dig him up. You bring the thumbscrews,

He might be a bit mouldy by now, why don't we just hunt down and torture his descendants?

Frangland was playing the role very well earlier on:

and

In other words he thinks he knows the answer and he dismisses science because it can't explain everything yet.
Saying that science does not have an answer is a far cry from saying that religion does have the answer.

As in the Corinthian's quote, we don't know it all yet but all can be revealed. An answer of "have faith" is not the answer.

He might be a bit mouldy by now, why don't we just hunt down and torture his descendants?

Genetic descendants or philosophical descendants?

Genetic descendants or philosophical descendants?

Both.

Saying that science does not have an answer is a far cry from saying that religion does have the answer.

As in the Corinthian's quote, we don't know it all yet but all can be revealed. An answer of "have faith" is not the answer.

Frangland's explanation was clearly 'God did it', as is evidenced by the beginning of his post:

you can explain everything without God?

look the way i see it religion makes no sence and science is a quest for answers that makes infinate questions summed up by the single word why religion is a blind following mass of flesh that obeys the toungues of the few to contoll the dirction of the may much like the flock of sheep before the slaughter,
science has never killed the sheer number of people that religion has (and ok you are gonna say but what about the a bomb and such answer: it was belife in things such as one moral people being in controll of vast power that threw the switch einstien said the knowlege could be used peacefully!! )

ALL religion has stated not to kill for it is the 1 sin that is unforgiveable
this didnt stop people killing one another so they are seen as correct!

science simply finds the how in the quest for the answer to the why it doesnt say kill them so people fear you and force them to change to be more flexable

''there is no god who ever tryed to change the world this way and to the ones who abuse his name there will be no chance to escape on judgement day'' *enigma the cross of changes*

look the way i see it religion makes no sence and science is a quest for answers that makes infinate questions summed up by the single word why religion is a blind following mass of flesh that obeys the toungues of the few to contoll the dirction of the may much like the flock of sheep before the slaughter,
science has never killed the sheer number of people that religion has (and ok you are gonna say but what about the a bomb and such answer: it was belife in things such as one moral people being in controll of vast power that threw the switch einstien said the knowlege could be used peacefully!! )

ALL religion has stated not to kill for it is the 1 sin that is unforgiveable
this didnt stop people killing one another so they are seen as correct!

science simply finds the how in the quest for the answer to the why it doesnt say kill them so people fear you and force them to change to be more flexable

''there is no god who ever tryed to change the world this way and to the ones who abuse his name there will be no chance to escape on judgement day'' *enigma the cross of changes*

Yes...

look the way i see it religion makes no sence and science is a quest for answers that makes infinate questions summed up by the single word why religion is a blind following mass of flesh that obeys the toungues of the few to contoll the dirction of the may much like the flock of sheep before the slaughter,
science has never killed the sheer number of people that religion has (and ok you are gonna say but what about the a bomb and such answer: it was belife in things such as one moral people being in controll of vast power that threw the switch einstien said the knowlege could be used peacefully!! )

ALL religion has stated not to kill for it is the 1 sin that is unforgiveable
this didnt stop people killing one another so they are seen as correct!

science simply finds the how in the quest for the answer to the why it doesnt say kill them so people fear you and force them to change to be more flexable

''there is no god who ever tryed to change the world this way and to the ones who abuse his name there will be no chance to escape on judgement day'' *enigma the cross of changes*

1. "Religion" is not a physical entity that can kill people anymore than "science" is.
2. Some religions do, in fact, encourage free-thought and discourage taking what "leaders" say as absolute truth. Ever met a Luciferian?
3. Not "ALL" religion even has a concept of sin, let alone "unforgivable sin".

I could go on, but I doubt there's a great deal of point. Let me guess, your only experience of "religion" has been Christianity or Islam, right?

Why should science have to answer questions?

"what is the meaning of life?"


42

Haven't heard that one before.

Why should science have to answer questions?

Maybe because that's the point of science? If we knew everything, there would be no need for science.

But we don't know that the second person's answer was invented. That's not a part of the story.

And the whole thing is not an analogy, but a parable.

(EDIT: To be more concise, the second person's answer being invented is very much part of the story per the author's intent. I guess if we use the search function to locate the original poster, we could ask him.)

I would dare say that the author of the analogy (or parable if you prefer) is rendering the second persons answer as invented, a priori, as the second person has made no effort to address the equation itself, but has skipped ahead to an easy and simple answer.

In fact, a mathetmatical equation was chosen to symbolise "big questions" precisely because it conveys the premise that an exploration of the equation itself is prerequisite to a meaningful answer.

Undecidability is a well-known concept. "Is this sentence false?"

There are also plenty of human activities that are not science. Speculation, for example.

OK, there are too many pages for me to read since I last looked at this topic. I can give some general thoughts though:

1. Questions like "what is the purpose of...?" or "what is the reason for...?" or simply "why...?" is based on the assumption that all events have a reason. I.e. they were reasoned - planned by intelligent thought. Making such assumptions defeats the object of trying to find out the truth.

1a. obviously when "why?" means "what is the cause of...?", it is a different matter - that is simply a matter of causality.

2. Subjective issues can be answered by science - sciences like psychology and neurophysiology. Of course, it would be hard and time consuming to create an equation to describe all human thoughts, but it would be possible. Having a variable answer is not the same as having no answer.

3. As for science not proving theories, I know this. But creating a theory that is valid for all evidence collected so far is a lot different from just making up myths to answer questions.

OK, there are too many pages for me to read since I last looked at this topic. I can give some general thoughts though:

1. Questions like "what is the purpose of...?" or "what is the reason for...?" or simply "why...?" is based on the assumption that all events have a reason. I.e. they were reasoned - planned by intelligent thought. Making such assumptions defeats the object of trying to find out the truth.

1a. obviously when "why?" means "what is the cause of...?", it is a different matter - that is simply a matter of causality.

2. Subjective issues can be answered by science - sciences like psychology and neurophysiology. Of course, it would be hard and time consuming to create an equation to describe all human thoughts, but it would be possible. Having a variable answer is not the same as having no answer.

3. As for science not proving theories, I know this. But creating a theory that is valid for all evidence collected so far is a lot different from just making up myths to answer questions.

Well put.

3. As for science not proving theories, I know this. But creating a theory that is valid for all evidence collected so far is a lot different from just making up myths to answer questions.

I like this one.

*threatens Eutrusca with Occam's Razor*
*threatens Randomlittleisland with "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"* ... which has just as much relevance ... which is to say "none!" :p

1. "Religion" is not a physical entity that can kill people anymore than "science" is.
2. Some religions do, in fact, encourage free-thought and discourage taking what "leaders" say as absolute truth. Ever met a Luciferian?
3. Not "ALL" religion even has a concept of sin, let alone "unforgivable sin".

I could go on, but I doubt there's a great deal of point. Let me guess, your only experience of "religion" has been Christianity or Islam, right?

actualy no i have knowledge of wicca spiritualism scientology buddism shintoism
to name but a few...
and i hate it when people umbrella term christianity as a whole there are catholics and protastants and other sub divisions in there and as for islam... there are also many sub divisions the same as christianity! not all people who worshep allah say women should wear a jashmak
and in answer to your points..
1: religion is as real to the beliver as a gun to a sniper do you doubt your faith ? answer-no you follow it or you dont belive!
2:no i have never met a lucifarian but i would like to ok i have umbrella termed to my bad but even you have to admit that blind devotion takes place in most mainstream religion eg: evangelists to name one
3:all religion has a set of rules even witchcraft and followers of other systems basic terms are
1: dont hurt anyone unless they hurt you
2: dont kill unless certan rules are broken by that person
3: never harm an innocent eg: child (id love you to find a religion that says otherwise in operation now as would any government ill pass on the details to them )
4: follow the word of your leaders they follow a worthy path (hence the blind devotion part)
now i could go on but i choose not to i hope this had been enlightning to you

OK, there are too many pages for me to read since I last looked at this topic. I can give some general thoughts though:

1. Questions like "what is the purpose of...?" or "what is the reason for...?" or simply "why...?" is based on the assumption that all events have a reason. I.e. they were reasoned - planned by intelligent thought. Making such assumptions defeats the object of trying to find out the truth.

1a. obviously when "why?" means "what is the cause of...?", it is a different matter - that is simply a matter of causality.

2. Subjective issues can be answered by science - sciences like psychology and neurophysiology. Of course, it would be hard and time consuming to create an equation to describe all human thoughts, but it would be possible. Having a variable answer is not the same as having no answer.

3. As for science not proving theories, I know this. But creating a theory that is valid for all evidence collected so far is a lot different from just making up myths to answer questions.

Science requires a similar assumption that is only valid under it's own assumption. All human 'proofs' are circular if you step back far enough. Science assumes an ordered universe (it is willing to test that assumption, but it still relies on it being true). Science also can only hypothesize about that which is observed directly or indirectly. The only way one can say that science can answer all questions is by making that unfounded assumption that all things can be observed directly or indirectly.

The follow-up by many science worshippers (yes, I said it) is that things that can't be observed don't matter, because they can't be observed. It's just as circular as assuming we have a purpose.

Saying with certainity that all questions can be answered by science or they aren't important requires as much faith and as much assertion of opinion as the position that we MUST have purpose. The only logical position is the position that science is a tool for exploring that which has evidence and religion is a tool for exploring our beliefs and ideologies that do not require evidence.

Prove that time travels in a line. You can't. Prove that time isn't a tree where all possible outcomes occur. You can't. Prove that yesterday didn't happen three times until Loki got the outcome he liked. You can't. Prove there is no meaning to the universe. You can't. Prove that causality is a law of the universe. You can't (in fact, some science suggests otherwise).

Science avoids some questions because they are not useful within the tool of science. Their answers offer nothing to the exploration of the observable universe nor do they help us make advances in technology and in medicine. That doesn't make those questions unimportant, only unimportant to science. Now if you want to hold that limited view of the world to be your whole view of the world, feel free to do so, but to do so requires as much faith as any other position.

actualy no i have knowledge of wicca spiritualism scientology buddism shintoism
to name but a few...

Then perhaps you should not presume to speak for "religion" when your knowledge of "religion" is so limited?


and i hate it when people umbrella term christianity as a whole there are catholics and protastants and other sub divisions in there and as for islam... there are also many sub divisions the same as christianity! not all people who worshep allah say women should wear a jashmak
and in answer to your points..

Sure, there are certainly different sects, but they all self-identify as "Christian" or "Muslim" and can be defined at a reasonable level without too gross a generalisation. The various sects differ on comparitively minor points. A Catholic may differ from a Protestant or a Shi'a from a Sunni on a few bits and pieces, but they share the fundamental beliefs of Christianity and Islam respectively. Lumping every religion under "religion" and then treating them all as if they were, say, Christianity is going too far. Different religions are not just different sects, they are fundamentally different philosophies with starkly divergent ideas.


1: religion is as real to the beliver as a gun to a sniper do you doubt your faith ? answer-no you follow it or you dont belive!
2:no i have never met a lucifarian but i would like to ok i have umbrella termed to my bad but even you have to admit that blind devotion takes place in most mainstream religion eg: evangelists to name one
3:all religion has a set of rules even witchcraft and followers of other systems basic terms are


1. I find it odd that would ask a question of me and answer it yourself with no knowledge of my religion. Or was it rhetorical? Just FYI, I was an atheist for years and still doubt my "faith" on a daily basis. The difference is that personal gnosis is more important to me than faith.

2. In most mainstream religion? What counts as a "mainsteam religion"? Do only those faiths that follow the God of Abraham count as "mainstream?" What about Buddhism? Plenty of Buddhists in the world. Or Hindus? LOTS of Hindus. Confucianists? Massive amounts of Confucianists in China. Do these also rely on "blind devotion?" Further, how do you define "blind devotion?"

3. You would be surprised what you would learn about religion if you did a little research. Last I checked, Chaos Magicians don't have rules, that's sort of the point. You'd be hard pressed to find a Satanist (LaVeyan or theistic) who has any rules aside from their own ethics and the law of the land (and sometimes not even all of that!). Discordians and their ilk don't have a great many rigid rules either. Heck, even in my religion we are encouraged to develop our own set of ethics rather than rely on an unbending system of rigid morality.


1: dont hurt anyone unless they hurt you
2: dont kill unless certan rules are broken by that person
3: never harm an innocent eg: child (id love you to find a religion that says otherwise in operation now as would any government ill pass on the details to them )
4: follow the word of your leaders they follow a worthy path (hence the blind devotion part)
now i could go on but i choose not to i hope this had been enlightning to you

1. That's hardly exclusive to religion and not all religions even enshrine it. I'd point you to most Left-hand path religions again, though most LHPers tend to go along with it of their own accord.

2. Again, is this exclusive to religion? I had "don't kill people" in my personal set of ethics before I ever became religious.

3. I imagine this would fit into "don't kill people" rather than needing it's own entry.

4. Hah! You should see how most Satanists would react if you told them they had to blindly follow any human leader. The same goes for a lot of solitary eclectic pagans, many of whom are solitary because they refuse to follow anyone blindly. Most of the Asatruar I know aren't too fond of that sort of thing either, and that's a religion that encourages independence. There are even Christians who refuse to do so! This is hardly universal to all religion.

I can't say as you've said much I have not considered myself. Perhaps you should put some effort into enlightening your own self before seeking to do so for others?

Science requires a similar assumption that is only valid under it's own assumption. All human 'proofs' are circular if you step back far enough. Science assumes an ordered universe (it is willing to test that assumption, but it still relies on it being true). Science also can only hypothesize about that which is observed directly or indirectly. The only way one can say that science can answer all questions is by making that unfounded assumption that all things can be observed directly or indirectly.

The follow-up by many science worshippers (yes, I said it) is that things that can't be observed don't matter, because they can't be observed. It's just as circular as assuming we have a purpose.

Saying with certainity that all questions can be answered by science or they aren't important requires as much faith and as much assertion of opinion as the position that we MUST have purpose. The only logical position is the position that science is a tool for exploring that which has evidence and religion is a tool for exploring our beliefs and ideologies that do not require evidence.

Prove that time travels in a line. You can't. Prove that time isn't a tree where all possible outcomes occur. You can't. Prove that yesterday didn't happen three times until Loki got the outcome he liked. You can't. Prove there is no meaning to the universe. You can't. Prove that causality is a law of the universe. You can't (in fact, some science suggests otherwise).

Science avoids some questions because they are not useful within the tool of science. Their answers offer nothing to the exploration of the observable universe nor do they help us make advances in technology and in medicine. That doesn't make those questions unimportant, only unimportant to science. Now if you want to hold that limited view of the world to be your whole view of the world, feel free to do so, but to do so requires as much faith as any other position.

Science does not take up some questions because yes, science works with what can be observable. As our powers of observation improve, who knows what kinds of questions we'll be able to take up.

"Science", by the way, assumes nothing. If something counter to what the *scientists* assume is observed and repeated in observation, all bets are off. This is a part of science. The willingness- and recognition of the necessity to- revise understanding as new evidence is gathered. Show me a religion which does that. Major "tenets" of science have been abandoned when they proved false.

There seems in your post to be an assumption that science views itself as a religion, or that scientists do, anyway. This is largely not the case.

There's a lot of work being done in the exploration of what time does and how it works. Work in progress without a definitive answer does not equal "can't"- it equals "not yet."

Science does not take up some questions because yes, science works with what can be observable. As our powers of observation improve, who knows what kinds of questions we'll be able to take up.

"Science", by the way, assumes nothing. If something counter to what the *scientists* assume is observed and repeated in observation, all bets are off. This is a part of science. The willingness- and recognition of the necessity to- revise understanding as new evidence is gathered. Show me a religion which does that. Major "tenets" of science have been abandoned when they proved false.

I agree that major tenets of science have been abandoned when proven false, but the most basic tenet of science that the universe is ordered has held under the same type of testing that science is based on. Thus, while the premise is scientific, the argument is circular. It doesn't invalidate science. It's simply a limitation.

You've made an excellent point that I was also making. "Who knows what questions we will be able to answer in the future?" You don't. I don't. Science doesn't. Who knows =\= science WILL answer EVERY question.

There seems in your post to be an assumption that science views itself as a religion, or that scientists do, anyway. This is largely not the case.

No. I don't believe science views itself as a religion. I believe science is a well-formed tool that gives us an incredible amount of benefits. I believe that the people who claim science can have all the answeres are treating science with religiosity.

There's a lot of work being done in the exploration of what time does and how it works. Work in progress without a definitive answer does not equal "can't"- it equals "not yet."

You don't know if its "not yet" or "can't" actually. Their is very little evidence that if time backed up from time to time that we would ever be able to observe such a thing, since one could presume that if it did so, since our ability to view the world is in along a linear timeline, we would be incapable of observing it. I find it amusing that if I answer a question with my faith, then I am considered by many to be using a crutch. However, if one answers a question which you have NO EVIDENCE for their being a scientific answer with "We will be able to answer this question eventually", you act as if that's not similar faith. What evidence do you have that we will ever be able to view things from outside of time itself?

Trotskytania presents an interesting idea that truly is the fundamental question here, does science have underlying assumptions that cannot be proven? Trotskytania claims no, science is assumptionless, while Jacobia disagrees, stating there must be base assumptions.

I am in line to agree with Jacobia. The scientific method is based off of some simple principles, perhaps the most of important of which is:

1. A hypothesis is testable in a physically observable, external manner.

This is a simple statement of scientific theory. In order to answer a question one uses basic scientific methods to test hypotheses until finding what they believe the solution to be. This method, however, is somewhat cyclical, using external observation to determine the solution to an external question. If this base observation is inherently flawed, then the solution unquestionably will also be flawed. Furthermore, one uses a method of objectivity to determine answers. However, the sense are no less subjective than any other part of the human, so one is obtaining objectivity through subjective means. This seems contradictory.

Thus stated, is science useful is basic everyday use? Undeniably so, it helps us manage with our senses. However, is science the end all be all of understanding? I think it is clear that it cannot be so.
- Veritas

Trotskytania presents an interesting idea that truly is the fundamental question here, does science have underlying assumptions that cannot be proven? Trotskytania claims no, science is assumptionless, while Jacobia disagrees, stating there must be base assumptions.

I am in line to agree with Jacobia. The scientific method is based off of some simple principles, perhaps the most of important of which is:

1. A hypothesis is testable in a physically observable, external manner.

This is a simple statement of scientific theory. In order to answer a question one uses basic scientific methods to test hypotheses until finding what they believe the solution to be. This method, however, is somewhat cyclical, using external observation to determine the solution to an external question. If this base observation is inherently flawed, then the solution unquestionably will also be flawed. Furthermore, one uses a method of objectivity to determine answers. However, the sense are no less subjective than any other part of the human, so one is obtaining objectivity through subjective means. This seems contradictory.

Thus stated, is science useful is basic everyday use? Undeniably so, it helps us manage with our senses. However, is science the end all be all of understanding? I think it is clear that it cannot be so.
- Veritas

The last paragraph is exactly the point. Science by it's very definition limits itself to observation and to a structured and causal world. The limitation is necessary to make it useful to us and I, of course, appreciate how effective the limitation is. But it is still a limitation and we must acknowledge it.

The last paragraph is exactly the point. Science by it's very definition limits itself to observation and to a structured and causal world. The limitation is necessary to make it useful to us and I, of course, appreciate how effective the limitation is. But it is still a limitation and we must acknowledge it.

I freely admit science has limitations. But the limitations are not permanent and will expand as our powers and tools for observation expand. (This does not seem to be the case for most religious methods of truth finding.)

As for underlying assumptions about science (which seems to be gettiing confused with Science itself having underlying assumptions), there are some- but they, too, are subject to improvement/abandonment as newer or better understandings come upon which to base assumptions. This has happened a number of times.

Someone said that Science assumes that the universe is orderly- not so, as many thoeries are now bearing out. There are many many variables in the universe (or universes, depending on your definition).

A scientific explanation is not always the cleanest explanation, nor the one which makes the most "sense". Some things in science are just downright weird,but there you go.

I freely admit science has limitations. But the limitations are not permanent and will expand as our powers and tools for observation expand. (This does not seem to be the case for most religious methods of truth finding.)
The limitation does not change: regardless of how much our powers of observation improve, we are still limited to what we can observe.

I freely admit science has limitations. But the limitations are not permanent and will expand as our powers and tools for observation expand. (This does not seem to be the case for most religious methods of truth finding.)

They are permanent. The limitation of observation is permenant. Does the knowledge and abilities of science expand? Yes, but the realm of science will never change, the limitations will never change.

As for underlying assumptions about science (which seems to be gettiing confused with Science itself having underlying assumptions), there are some- but they, too, are subject to improvement/abandonment as newer or better understandings come upon which to base assumptions. This has happened a number of times.

Pardon? When has the fundamental expectation of science that there is an ordered universe that can be scienitifically explored and the belief in causality changed?

Someone said that Science assumes that the universe is orderly- not so, as many thoeries are now bearing out. There are many many variables in the universe (or universes, depending on your definition).

Excuse me? Ordered means that it can actually be tested. It's a fundamental assumption. Science works under the assumption that if two experiments are done identically they will yeild the same results. Any variance from this and we would seek a variable that was responsible for the difference. However, we do not believe that the answer will ever be randomness. Science holds nothing to be completely random, only that there are variables that we do not yet have the ability to observe. You are arguing this point, but unlike science you don't recognize the limitation of such a position. It relies on that level of order and if it turns out not to exist or not to be steady (i.e. if there is supernatural influence in the universe, miracles, etc.), if it turns out there are unobservable variables, variables that will NEVER be observable, science is not in a position to draw that conclusion. This is a fundamental limitation.

A scientific explanation is not always the cleanest explanation, nor the one which makes the most "sense". Some things in science are just downright weird,but there you go.

Ignored.

The limitation does not change: regardless of how much our powers of observation improve, we are still limited to what we can observe.

Exactly.

What are these "questions that science can't answer" that supposedly justify religion?

The only things I've heard are nonsensical

e.g. "what is the meaning of life?" - yeah, for that matter, why aren't cats dogs? And why is 1+1=2? And why isn't true false?

If you expect the unexpected dosn't that make the unexpected the expected?

What should I wear?

What am I?

and the greatest question of all time, surpassing the meaning of life even...

?

The limitation does not change: regardless of how much our powers of observation improve, we are still limited to what we can observe.

I think he means what is observable changes. As time goes on we are able to observe more and more.

There seems in your post to be an assumption that science views itself as a religion, or that scientists do, anyway. This is largely not the case.


There is a function of belief called "Scientisim" which basicly holds that everything in the universe can be explained through science, and there is nothing beyond the physical world. That in itself however is not science, its a philosophical position

I think he means what is observable changes. As time goes on we are able to observe more and more.

Yes, that is what I meant. I apologize if it wasn't clear.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trotskytania
Someone said that Science assumes that the universe is orderly- not so, as many thoeries are now bearing out. There are many many variables in the universe (or universes, depending on your definition).

Excuse me? Ordered means that it can actually be tested. It's a fundamental assumption. Science works under the assumption that if two experiments are done identically they will yeild the same results. Any variance from this and we would seek a variable that was responsible for the difference. However, we do not believe that the answer will ever be randomness. Science holds nothing to be completely random, only that there are variables that we do not yet have the ability to observe. You are arguing this point, but unlike science you don't recognize the limitation of such a position. It relies on that level of order and if it turns out not to exist or not to be steady (i.e. if there is supernatural influence in the universe, miracles, etc.), if it turns out there are unobservable variables, variables that will NEVER be observable, science is not in a position to draw that conclusion. This is a fundamental limitation.---JOCABIA


Chaos theory holds that many things are random. Mutation can be random. There's a lot of Random in science. I think I see what a basis of misunderstanding is here- there seems to be an assumption that Science assumes orderliness (Despite the definition you put forth above that Ordered means testable, Testable means Testable. You also seem to imply that Believe and Expect are interchangeable- it's not so in the lab, though it is often in just regular speaking.). In areas, this does not apply. There is a lot of order, but there is also a lot of random, a lot of chaos, a lot of odd. This is something (most)scientists can accept.

It's not something most religion accepts- there is a need in religion to order things. I'm not saying that's wrong or right, just that that's what there is.

I do not see the willingness to keep looking as a limitation. I do see the willingness to just say "god did it, and only s/he knows why and question no further" as a serious limitaion. Many religions and religious people are limiting themselves this way. They can, it's their right, but it's not their right to impose that limitation on others.

I think that there's an area of contention when it comes to applying religious standards to science. I also think major contention occurs when scientific methods are applied to religion. Really, they both have their uses, but people often think one should replace the other, which is just plain dippy.

Is one better than the other? It depends on what you need to accomplish. I'd trust a hammer to drive a nail better than I'd trust a sock. But I'd rather have a sock when my foot is cold.

There are tons of sensible questions science can't answer - how did the Universe originate? How exactly does your brain work? Why do some genetic abnormalities happen? What exactly is at the end of a black hole? What is the carrier particle for gravity? What will stick to Teflon?

There are so many unanswered questions in the scientific world, it's what makes science more interesting!

Like it or not, science and religion are entangled. Knowing all there is to know about science will mean that we know all there is to know about God.

I think he means what is observable changes. As time goes on we are able to observe more and more.
Okay, then, the limitation still does not change. Regardless of how much our scope of observation improves, we are still limited to what we can observe.

Shoot, sorry for the double post.

On Randomness- some randomness can be understood- how it is that gene one and gene two make result A, for example, that sort of thing. The understanding of the randomness and how it can work doesn't make it any less random, though.

Again the Scientific meanings of words are often different than just every day conversational meaning- which is another area which feeds misunderstanding.

(Other words of dual meanings- Theory, Hypothosis)

It's an unfortunate problem.

Science may not have all the answers yet, but religion has none.

Organized religion is a mutated form of philosophy that appeals to people who are too weak to stand on their own and devise their own opinions on god.

I believe that given enough time science can obtain all the "answers".

Yes, that is what I meant. I apologize if it wasn't clear.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trotskytania
Someone said that Science assumes that the universe is orderly- not so, as many thoeries are now bearing out. There are many many variables in the universe (or universes, depending on your definition).

Excuse me? Ordered means that it can actually be tested. It's a fundamental assumption. Science works under the assumption that if two experiments are done identically they will yeild the same results. Any variance from this and we would seek a variable that was responsible for the difference. However, we do not believe that the answer will ever be randomness. Science holds nothing to be completely random, only that there are variables that we do not yet have the ability to observe. You are arguing this point, but unlike science you don't recognize the limitation of such a position. It relies on that level of order and if it turns out not to exist or not to be steady (i.e. if there is supernatural influence in the universe, miracles, etc.), if it turns out there are unobservable variables, variables that will NEVER be observable, science is not in a position to draw that conclusion. This is a fundamental limitation.---JOCABIA


Chaos theory holds that many things are random. Mutation can be random. There's a lot of Random in science. I think I see what a basis of misunderstanding is here- there seems to be an assumption that Science assumes orderliness (Despite the definition you put forth above that Ordered means testable, Testable means Testable. You also seem to imply that Believe and Expect are interchangeable- it's not so in the lab, though it is often in just regular speaking.). In areas, this does not apply. There is a lot of order, but there is also a lot of random, a lot of chaos, a lot of odd. This is something (most)scientists can accept.

It's not something most religion accepts- there is a need in religion to order things. I'm not saying that's wrong or right, just that that's what there is.

I do not see the willingness to keep looking as a limitation. I do see the willingness to just say "god did it, and only s/he knows why and question no further" as a serious limitaion. Many religions and religious people are limiting themselves this way. They can, it's their right, but it's not their right to impose that limitation on others.

I think that there's an area of contention when it comes to applying religious standards to science. I also think major contention occurs when scientific methods are applied to religion. Really, they both have their uses, but people often think one should replace the other, which is just plain dippy.

Is one better than the other? It depends on what you need to accomplish. I'd trust a hammer to drive a nail better than I'd trust a sock. But I'd rather have a sock when my foot is cold.

Mutation is not random. Much of what we call 'random' we admit is simply because we don't understand all of the mechanisms. This is not the randomness I am referring to. Randomness would be that jumps in the face of current knowledge. We 'know' that a woman is going to give birth to a sock. It doesn't happen. However, we base this knowledge on an order to the universe and simply because it's not happened in the past we expect it not to happen in the future. However, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance no matter how much we want it to be.

Science relies on our limited observations. What would be different about a world that was created yesterday with all things that we can observe being exactly the same. Our memories are identical. Our fossils. Our books. Nothing would be different that we could see. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Doesn't mean it did. What it does mean is that some views of the universe are philosophical and outside of the realm of science and some are scientific and outside of the realm of philosophy/religion. That's the fact of it my friend.

There are tons of sensible questions science can't answer - how did the Universe originate? How exactly does your brain work? Why do some genetic abnormalities happen? What exactly is at the end of a black hole? What is the carrier particle for gravity? What will stick to Teflon?

There are so many unanswered questions in the scientific world, it's what makes science more interesting!

Like it or not, science and religion are entangled. Knowing all there is to know about science will mean that we know all there is to know about God.

You listed a whole bunch of questions science can likely answer at some point, just not yet. You are precisely what people think of when they think of religion and why this argument is being made.

To everyone, not all religion is religion of the gaps like the above.

One question that science can't answer: the last one.

There will never be a final answer, as all answers lead to more questions.

Can Science disprove that the universe was made by a large piece of nonsentient cheese?

One question that science can't answer: the last one.

There will never be a final answer, as all answers lead to more questions.

Is that like saying that one will never know just how much science will ever know? Wouldn't that be similar to the problem of not knowing the future? The fact that this question (is there any sensible question that science cannot answer?) is being asked suggests that there is limited knowledge. Perhaps it is a question that science cannot answer. One day it may, perhaps, but right now it cannot.

The whole point of this question is that it will divide the materialist's from everyone else. So long as one holds that there is more to life than the material world, he will always say that science, which is limited to the material world, will never be able to answer some questions. The materialist, on the other hand, freely acknowledges that science cannot answer everything now, but is probably quite convinced (depending on how strongly he holds that belief, I suppose) that it is only a matter of time before science finds a way to answer everything--at least anything worth knowing, i.e. sensible. (Sensible is an unfortunate word, since it not only means 'common sense', but also that which can be detected through the senses, or that which belongs to the material world. I wish the OP would clear that one up.)

But I have a question for you, Wilamena. Remember talking about how the supernatural cannot interact with the natural world, except for perhaps a person's belief in God may bring him some personal comfort. Now, it appears to me that the personal comfort that came from God may come from the belief itself, not the object of the belief (God). In that case, so long as one seriously believes in pink bunnies, he can claim all the comfort he likes from pink bunnies, but if pink bunnies do not exist, the comfort can only come from the belief, not the pink bunnies.

On the other hand, if God (gods, etc.) does exist, and the comfort that comes to us from him is real, then we have an example of the supernatural interacting with the natural. Or do we? The part of us that is receiving the comfort has to be either in the natural world or the supernatural. So either a part of us exists in the supernatural world, and receives comfort from God, which impacts the natural world (our bodies feel more relaxed, calm, etc.), in which case the human has transferred something from the supernatural to the natural (i.e., the human consists of a natural component and a supernatural component). Or, the human exists only in the natural world (no supernatural components) and the comfort that God gives us comes from the supernatural to the natural. In such a case, we would have God interacting with the natural world.

I suspect that you would tend to think that God isn't real, and thus avoid the problem. But suppose, for a moment, that there really did exist a God (before there were any humans). Which do you suppose is the more likely scenario?

Science relies on our limited observations. [snip] What it does mean is that some views of the universe are philosophical and outside of the realm of science and some are scientific and outside of the realm of philosophy/religion. That's the fact of it my friend.

[and:]
To everyone, not all religion is religion of the gaps (like the above).


I see your fact and agree with it.

Much of *what I have seen* of religion (many religions, but mostly the ones propounded by the Louder Elements) is a fill in the gaps kind of thing. At least that's what they seem to want to be. This is disturbing. The reason I find it disturbing is the shutting down of inquiry which this entails.

To clarify my stand on this whole thing: Yes, there are questions which science cannot at this time answer, there are questions which science has no business answering (the philosophical, though I would argue for a scientific socialism, but not in this thread because it's complicated enough), but there are questions which religion also has no business being involved in. Some things don't matter scientifically speaking. Some things don't matter philosophicaly speaking. BUT I do think that science should trump religion when setting policies which govern all concerned. (Why? Because science has the ability for objectivity, which religion does not.)

And that's it for me. I appreciate the cordial hashing out very much.:)

One question that science can't answer: the last one.

There will never be a final answer, as all answers lead to more questions.
Is that like saying that one will never know just how much science will ever know? Wouldn't that be similar to the problem of not knowing the future?
No, it's just like saying science will never know it all. It can't, because if science ever did know it all, there would be nothing left to explore; science would cease to exist and we would be as gods. But that's not real; I am limited by my physical, material existence. That ensures me that there will always be things to explore, until I die.

One doesn't know the future simply because the future hasn't yet happened. Its events have not yet taken place.

The fact that this question (is there any sensible question that science cannot answer?) is being asked suggests that there is limited knowledge. Perhaps it is a question that science cannot answer. One day it may, perhaps, but right now it cannot.

The whole point of this question is that it will divide the materialist's from everyone else. So long as one holds that there is more to life than the material world, he will always say that science, which is limited to the material world, will never be able to answer some questions. The materialist, on the other hand, freely acknowledges that science cannot answer everything now, but is probably quite convinced (depending on how strongly he holds that belief, I suppose) that it is only a matter of time before science finds a way to answer everything--at least anything worth knowing, i.e. sensible. (Sensible is an unfortunate word, since it not only means 'common sense', but also that which can be detected through the senses, or that which belongs to the material world. I wish the OP would clear that one up.)
Well, no argument there, except that philosophies are never so cut and dry. Most people hold to "a little of this, a little of that" in proportions that utilimately make some sense to them, satisfy them intellectually.

The way you are using the philosophies to categorize outcomes has turned them from philosophies into ideologies.

But I have a question for you, Wilamena. Remember talking about how the supernatural cannot interact with the natural world, except for perhaps a person's belief in God may bring him some personal comfort. Now, it appears to me that the personal comfort that came from God may come from the belief itself, not the object of the belief (God). In that case, so long as one seriously believes in pink bunnies, he can claim all the comfort he likes from pink bunnies, but if pink bunnies do not exist, the comfort can only come from the belief, not the pink bunnies.

On the other hand, if God (gods, etc.) does exist, and the comfort that comes to us from him is real, then we have an example of the supernatural interacting with the natural. Or do we? The part of us that is receiving the comfort has to be either in the natural world or the supernatural. So either a part of us exists in the supernatural world, and receives comfort from God, which impacts the natural world (our bodies feel more relaxed, calm, etc.), in which case the human has transferred something from the supernatural to the natural (i.e., the human consists of a natural component and a supernatural component). Or, the human exists only in the natural world (no supernatural components) and the comfort that God gives us comes from the supernatural to the natural. In such a case, we would have God interacting with the natural world.

I suspect that you would tend to think that God isn't real, and thus avoid the problem. But suppose, for a moment, that there really did exist a God (before there were any humans). Which do you suppose is the more likely scenario?
Well, in my opinion being unreal does not inhibit something from "interacting" with the real world. Certainly *my* labelling it such would not be avoiding the problem. :) However, "interaction" is not adequate to describe what goes on in the inner realm. "Interaction" is an attempt to use a "word of nature" (per MacDonald) to describe things that are of supernature. Physical things (material, energy, forces) interact; immaterial things do not.

The person who goes looking for comfort and finds it in either God or the pink bunny is doing that himself. No question about it, not in my mind anyway.

It is my belief that the supernatural does not interact at all with the natural though it can have an affect on us, and the reason for that is because we allow for objects (things apart for us) to do so. We allow for things to "make us happy" or "make us sad." We allow for effects to happen upon us, fate-wise, even though emotions come from us. It is a part of our language, and ingrained in our way of thinking about ourselves.

I am, particularly, of the first school you suggest: that a part of us is supernatural, that being in my view what we call our "sense of self". The supernatural god is every bit as possible as the self that we can never know: to some it is the "person" behind the eyes, to others the spirit that inhabits the body. If we cannot doubt ourselves, then we must allow for the possibility of the god we can never know.

I don't believe either of the supernatural bits (self or god) affect changes in the natural world. I think people attribute it to god, and that's okay with me. Whether or not god exists doesn't matter, because all we can know of God is the image of God that we hold in our imagination, in our mind. That image is a symbol for the unknowable thing, and it is what we interact with.

You listed a whole bunch of questions science can likely answer at some point, just not yet. You are precisely what people think of when they think of religion and why this argument is being made.

To everyone, not all religion is religion of the gaps like the above.

In actuality science gives very few answers, simply highly probable solutions. It maybe one day science will give us highly probable solutions, but based on its entire inability to address many of the most basic questions we have today in medicine and nature (and its incredible margin of error) it is difficult to speculate whether or not science can actually give us answers. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, there are always contradictory positions within the scientific community (who really determine what is "truth" and what is not) which can cloud an otherwise well founded determination (ie. global warming vs natural warming cycle)

In actuality science gives very few answers, simply highly probable solutions. It maybe one day science will give us highly probable solutions, but based on its entire inability to address many of the most basic questions we have today in medicine and nature (and its incredible margin of error) it is difficult to speculate whether or not science can actually give us answers. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, there are always contradictory positions within the scientific community (who really determine what is "truth" and what is not) which can cloud an otherwise well founded determination (ie. global warming vs natural warming cycle)

The issue is that as we gather more evidence the ambiguity shrinks. There is also the problem of politicization. In the absense of politics, many of these questions are much less ambiguous than you think. As our ability to observe increases so will our ability to shrink error and ambiguity. For examples of this, look at our increased understanding of motion, look at our increased understanding of the structure of our galaxy, the structure of the atom. I agree that there will always only be highly-probably solutions, but the more we are able to analyze those solutions the more highly-probable they will be. However, philosophy and religion give us solutions that cannot even be suggested in terms of probability because of their nature. Their realms are not intertwined. They are completely seperate.

The issue is that as we gather more evidence the ambiguity shrinks. There is also the problem of politicization. In the absense of politics, many of these questions are much less ambiguous than you think. As our ability to observe increases so will our ability to shrink error and ambiguity. For examples of this, look at our increased understanding of motion, look at our increased understanding of the structure of our galaxy, the structure of the atom. I agree that there will always only be highly-probably solutions, but the more we are able to analyze those solutions the more highly-probable they will be. However, philosophy and religion give us solutions that cannot even be suggested in terms of probability because of their nature. Their realms are not intertwined. They are completely seperate.

Yet despite how small we may shrink that ambiguity,there are many times it maybe blow wide open, and what we had previously belived to be "enshrined truth" is thrown to the flames of uncertainy. A most interesting case which truely astounded me is criminal science, a system which our legal system relys heavily on, is at many times hogwash at best. Even the most core systems inplace like fingerprinting can be questioned. The best example of this was the Madrid bombings, where finger prints were used to identify an American. Those finger prints subsiquently innacuratly implicated him..and saddly this is not an isolated incident. Of course fingerprinting largely is still acceptable, and physical science in general can be reguarded as "useful" I just use this example to show probability and truth are two very different terms with very different implications.

The flaw of science is that it relys on human observation which is innately flawed, as humans are flawed. Our logic being imperfect as it is often misinterprets observations which may take years, decades (or more) to find a resolution.

Yet despite how small we may shrink that ambiguity,there are many times it maybe blow wide open, and what we had previously belived to be "enshrined truth" is thrown to the flames of uncertainy. A most interesting case which truely astounded me is criminal science, a system which our legal system relys heavily on, is at many times hogwash at best. Even the most core systems inplace like fingerprinting can be questioned. The best example of this was the Madrid bombings, where finger prints were used to identify an American. Those finger prints subsiquently innacuratly implicated him..and saddly this is not an isolated incident. Of course fingerprinting largely is still acceptable, and physical science in general can be reguarded as "useful" I just use this example to show probability and truth are two very different terms with very different implications.

The flaw of science is that it relys on human observation which is innately flawed, as humans are flawed. Our logic being imperfect as it is often misinterprets observations which may take years, decades (or more) to find a resolution.

You're joking, right? That's a horrible example. The vast majority of people accept that it's quite flawed. That's why it's "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "really friggin' guilty". The justice system is born of necessity and we're all quite aware of the factor that politics. We rely on it because we have no choice, but would certainly not call it certain by any means.

we could do with a yet option, just about any question can be answered scientificaly given enough time

we could do with a yet option, just about any question can be answered scientificaly given enough time

False. We have shown this to be untrue. Here's a question science can NEVER answer... Do we know everything?

why aren't cats dogs?

How do you know they aren't?
Dogs in disguise...

aaaaah!

<smug stroking of imaginary goatee>

False. We have shown this to be untrue. Here's a question science can NEVER answer... Do we know everything?
Wouldn't science's answer to that be, "No"?

we could do with a yet option, just about any question can be answered scientificaly given enough time

Inevitably this is true, however, I would cast great doubt on the usefulness of any "scientific" answer, simply because it relys so heavily on humans power of observation.

Wouldn't science's answer to that be, "No"?

Ha. Yeah. That was dumb of me, huh? But it shows that science does not agree with what some people are arguing science can do. The scientific answer to that question is and always will be NO.

Inevitably this is true, however, I would cast great doubt on the usefulness of any "scientific" answer, simply because it relys so heavily on humans power of observation.
How do you figure that makes it less useful? ...and less useful than what? ...and to whom?

Inevitably this is true, however, I would cast great doubt on the usefulness of any "scientific" answer, simply because it relys so heavily on humans power of observation.

Not so. Some questions will never be answered 'scientifically'. Some may claim it has a scientific answer but the fact is that as long as science is limited by our ability observe some questions will ALWAYS be out of its reach.

"Einstein would roll over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded."

-- Academician Prokhor Zakharov,
"For I Have Tasted The Fruit"

Blasphemy!

It was Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, not Zakharov. :D

http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/smac.html

Then perhaps you should not presume to speak for "religion" when your knowledge of "religion" is so limited?


I can't say as you've said much I have not considered myself. Perhaps you should put some effort into enlightening your own self before seeking to do so for others?

1:i phrase the same question from your answer atleast i showed what i knew and what i didnt choose to show

2:i dont seek to elighten anyone that is a job for a religious person i can only express my point of veiw

ps: the enlightening bit at the bottom of my message was personal and ment in freindly terms to you

Not so. Some questions will never be answered 'scientifically'. Some may claim it has a scientific answer but the fact is that as long as science is limited by our ability observe some questions will ALWAYS be out of its reach.

The merit in science is not that it can answer all questions, but in the comparative veracity of its answers to those questions it addresses.

The merit in science is not that it can answer all questions, but in the comparative veracity of its answers to those questions it addresses.
That was beautifully put.

This whole god damn thread is giving me a migraine.

The merit in science is not that it can answer all questions, but in the comparative veracity of its answers to those questions it addresses.

No one is denying science has a use. The thread is about whether it fulfills all needs. It doesn't. It can't.

That was beautifully put.

And it still shows that your claims are wrong. That's the amusing part. You just agreed with a post that shows your claims to be absolutely false.

No one is denying science has a use. The thread is about whether it fulfills all needs. It doesn't. It can't.

No single thing fulfills all needs, so science is hardly deficient by comparison to anything else.

For instance, if a person had an overwhelming need to believe that there were some kind of all-powerful, pseudo-perfect daddy figure that gave them asbolute love and satisfied some kind of need to feel "forgiven", science couldn't help with that.

Ha. Yeah. That was dumb of me, huh? But it shows that science does not agree with what some people are arguing science can do. The scientific answer to that question is and always will be NO.

Seeing into the future now?

I thought soothsaying was forbidden in most religions.

Seriously, you're missing the point. The purview of science is unbounded, moreso than the collective coping mechanism of religion.

Science covers things observable and measureable with tools physically available to us.

Religion covers things we believe to be true without being able to physically observe it.

...As far as I'm concerned, there needs not be any interaction, and there exists no inherent contradiction between the two. I think religious people shouldn't deny things proven by science just because they don't want them to be true. But science can by definition, in no way prove or disprove any sort of religion.

'What is the meaning of life?' Why does there have to be any meaning? If there was, and we knew it, how could we even verify that we knew it? Science has nothing to do with this question.

'What started the universe?' Science is based on causality. There's no way science can possible prove how the universe started because...well, how can you prove cause --> effect for the first event, which nothing happened before? If nothing happened before it, how can you claim to know what caused it?

'Why do we consciously experience life?' Well, if you don't believe in the existance of a soul, science can explain this. If you do, it can not. But science certainly can't prove or disprove existance of a soul. If one existed it might eventually be able to prove it, but it certainly couldn't disprove it if there wasn't.

Science can't answer all questions. But that doesn't mean that there necessarily exists anything supernatural. Just like science explaining some things can't possibly mean there there doesn't.

People who believe in science need to leave religious people alone. Religious people need to butt out of science.

And you know what? Each fulfills the needs of the people who believe in them. That's why they believe in them!

No single thing fulfills all needs, so science is hardly deficient by comparison to anything else.

For instance, if a person had an overwhelming need to believe that there were some kind of all-powerful, pseudo-perfect daddy figure that gave them asbolute love and satisfied some kind of need to feel "forgiven", science couldn't help with that.
No one here said it's deficient.

I believe the problem here is the capitalization of Science. Put your faith in Science, and it will answer all your questions; mere science cannot do this. It's like an Ouija board! No one ever trusted the ouija board...

Science cannot answer any questions that can be ambiguously interpreted.

Thoughout most of everyday life, the questions we deal with are not strictly defined. "Who should I vote for in the next presidential election?" (The word "should" doesn't have a rigorous definition for science to latch on to). "What questions are sensible?" (For different people, different questions would qualify as sensible.)

There are too many questions that are impossible to phrase in a rigorous enough way for science to answer them, and yet have impact on our everyday lives. And science cannot answer questions that are ambiguous.

...that's one reason that science cannot answer all questions. But there's a deeper one - the way that science works creates several questions that cannot be answered.

As an example, lets look at the Newtonian Theory of Gravity. Newton observed the world, and came up with a theory to describe gravity.

However, that left the question of WHY does the Newtonian Theory of Gravity work?
That was answered by Einstein, in explaining gravitational attraction by the curvature of spacetime.
But that left the question of "WHY does matter curve spacetime the way it does, and not some other way?"

Currently, that question isn't answered. We have to make do with "well, it just does, the observations prove it."

Probably we will find eventually find some deeper theory that "explains" why General Relativity works the way it does.

But we will still have the question of "WHY does that theory work the way it does?" and that question won't go away no matter how deep we go. At some point, we will have to stop and say "it just does," with no explanation.

...that's a second reason science can't answer all questions.

There's still one more that I can think of, a related one - it has to do with Occam's Razor.

We use it all of the time in science - it lets us get rid of theories that are equivalent but more complicated. However, there is no scientifically provable reason for the world to work in a simple way - there may well be cases where occam's razor will be wrong.

Science has no way of answering the question of "Which theory is correct - this one or this other one, which is more complicated but gives the same results?'

No single thing fulfills all needs, so science is hardly deficient by comparison to anything else.

For instance, if a person had an overwhelming need to believe that there were some kind of all-powerful, pseudo-perfect daddy figure that gave them asbolute love and satisfied some kind of need to feel "forgiven", science couldn't help with that.

But that's the point. No one is claiming science is deficient. The claim was that science fulfills all needs and it doesn't. Neither does anything else. We all agree on that point.

Seeing into the future now?

I thought soothsaying was forbidden in most religions.

Seriously, you're missing the point. The purview of science is unbounded, moreso than the collective coping mechanism of religion.

It is not unbounded and anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the definition of the discipline. I don't have to see into the future to understand the basic premise of science. Science can't know how much it knows because it is an absolute judgement and science doesn't deal in absolutes. That's the facts. Your inability to accept the definition of the discipline is your shortcoming, not mine.

I would say no, its just a matter of time before science or more spefically the scientific method can correctly answer a question.

Well, science can't answer why existence came into being, or what was or wasn't before it did...

But religion can't answer why God came into being, or what was or wasn't before him/her...

And infinity is not an acceptable answer in either case.

No one here said it's deficient.

I was responding to this:

No one is denying science has a use. The thread is about whether it fulfills all needs. It doesn't. It can't.

which carries an implication of limitation, and I was suggesting that this limitation is universal to other methods of discovery.

It is not unbounded and anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the definition of the discipline. I don't have to see into the future to understand the basic premise of science. Science can't know how much it knows because it is an absolute judgement and science doesn't deal in absolutes. That's the facts. Your inability to accept the definition of the discipline is your shortcoming, not mine.

If your definition of science doesn't recognize that it constantly addresses new issues and opens new doors (and is thus unbounded), than we'll just have to disagree.

Your "facts" are interpretations, and the fact that I don't agree with your definition is not an "inability to accept" or a "shortcoming", its just a disagreement.

As for absolute judgements, we leave those to religion.

But that's the point. No one is claiming science is deficient. The claim was that science fulfills all needs and it doesn't. Neither does anything else. We all agree on that point.

No, science doesn't fill all needs, because some people have the need to believe a mythological answer for difficult questions.

For those who can accept that some questions will remain unanswered in their lifetimes, and who feel no need to cling to a fabricated answer, science does nicely.

But for needier people, there's another menu.

No, science doesn't fill all needs, because some people have the need to believe a mythological answer for difficult questions.

For those who can accept that some questions will remain unanswered in their lifetimes, and who feel no need to cling to a fabricated answer, science does nicely.

But for needier people, there's another menu.
Mythology is not about fabrication, but that's another story for another thread. That science does not "fill all needs" or answer all questions is the salient point. That does not mean science is deficient, it simply means science is sufficient within its bounds.

...which carries an implication of limitation, and I was suggesting that this limitation is universal to other methods of discovery.
Science does have a limitation, discussed earlier, which is what is empirically observable to man. That's what makes it practical.

No, science doesn't fill all needs, because some people have the need to believe a mythological answer for difficult questions.

For those who can accept that some questions will remain unanswered in their lifetimes, and who feel no need to cling to a fabricated answer, science does nicely.

But for needier people, there's another menu.

I dont think your understanding what people are saying. Science is incapable of expostulating upon the "why" behind the universes existance, and life's existance. Or indeed even if there is a "why" or not. Simply because that is not what science studies. Some scientists may say "there is no why, it just is" but that is not a scientific position

If your definition of science doesn't recognize that it constantly addresses new issues and opens new doors (and is thus unbounded), than we'll just have to disagree.

Your "facts" are interpretations, and the fact that I don't agree with your definition is not an "inability to accept" or a "shortcoming", its just a disagreement.

As for absolute judgements, we leave those to religion.
It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree. Science is a discipline that relies on the observable. Even if everything that is was observable by science there would be know way for science to have that position. By what means could science possibly know or prove that there is nothing unobservable. It can't.

That fact that you admit that it is open to interpretation shows that you recognize the shortcoming even while denying it.

No, science doesn't fill all needs, because some people have the need to believe a mythological answer for difficult questions.

For those who can accept that some questions will remain unanswered in their lifetimes, and who feel no need to cling to a fabricated answer, science does nicely.

But for needier people, there's another menu.

Your answers reveal your own philospies and your own delving into the other menu. Your position is unscientific while you bash peoiple who are unscientific. You have scaled to the height of hypocrisy. Be careful there is enough air up there.

Originally Posted by Saint Curie
The merit in science is not that it can answer all questions, but in the comparative veracity of its answers to those questions it addresses.

(Me: )That was beautifully put.

And it still shows that your claims are wrong. That's the amusing part. You just agreed with a post that shows your claims to be absolutely false.

Which are those? I have not claimed science can answer all questions, nor that it has to. I have claimed (and I'm not the only one here or elsewhere) that science has a better track record for explaining what is going on in many many cases than religion does- but have also said that there are areas where it doesn't (philosophical). To those areas, for the record, I generally say "So?" as it's a different kind of "truth" in question. There are Facts, and there are "deeper truths", if you like. Science is very good for finding facts. Generally scientists are not looking into "deeper truths".

In re: finding things out- Science is very very good for what it does, and it has a sort of self-correcting mechanism *when done right* in that it is open to further refining and exploring. Religion, not so much, as it is self-contained and so any observations not in keeping with its dogma are dismissed. They are very different tools.

In Re: Beautifully put. For the record, though it does not apply in this case, to say something was "beautifully put" does not allways equal agreement with what was said. That's kind of nitpicky, I know, but there you go. I do agree with what was said in this case, though. The Scientific Method is pretty good at getting close to, if not spot on, the correct answer.

Maybe the confusion comes in when we say Science can tell us the truth as far as *we can tell*- where religion will tell us the truth as far as we *are told*. Our ability to tell gains over time as we develop newer, better and more precise tools, whereas our ability to *be told* doesn't so much, as the same source material is used over millenia.

We do not now know what we will be able to figure out scientificly in the future, because we cannot predict exactly what tools will become available to us. With religion, and with all due respect, you can place a pretty safe bet that "god did it" is going to remain an acceptable option.

Will science find all the answers? No- as someone else pointed out, more answers lead to more questions. In MY opinion, this lends a certain depth to science which I have not found in religion. It's kind of funny- to ME, science offers more mystery than religion does- and more hope of finding things out. There's the encouragement to explore, to reach further. Often times I have expereinced within the confines of religion..... well, confines. Many do not feel this way.

As an answer to the OP, how about: It depends on the question.

Originally Posted by Saint Curie
The merit in science is not that it can answer all questions, but in the comparative veracity of its answers to those questions it addresses.

(Me: )That was beautifully put.



Which are those? I have not claimed science can answer all questions, nor that it has to. I have claimed (and I'm not the only one here or elsewhere) that science has a better track record for explaining what is going on in many many cases than religion does- but have also said that there are areas where it doesn't (philosophical). To those areas, for the record, I generally say "So?" as it's a different kind of "truth" in question. There are Facts, and there are "deeper truths", if you like. Science is very good for finding facts. Generally scientists are not looking into "deeper truths".

In re: finding things out- Science is very very good for what it does, and it has a sort of self-correcting mechanism *when done right* in that it is open to further refining and exploring. Religion, not so much, as it is self-contained and so any observations not in keeping with its dogma are dismissed. They are very different tools.

In Re: Beautifully put. For the record, though it does not apply in this case, to say something was "beautifully put" does not allways equal agreement with what was said. That's kind of nitpicky, I know, but there you go. I do agree with what was said in this case, though. The Scientific Method is pretty good at getting close to, if not spot on, the correct answer.

Maybe the confusion comes in when we say Science can tell us the truth as far as *we can tell*- where religion will tell us the truth as far as we *are told*. Our ability to tell gains over time as we develop newer, better and more precise tools, whereas our ability to *be told* doesn't so much, as the same source material is used over millenia.

We do not now know what we will be able to figure out scientificly in the future, because we cannot predict exactly what tools will become available to us. With religion, and with all due respect, you can place a pretty safe bet that "god did it" is going to remain an acceptable option.

Will science find all the answers? No- as someone else pointed out, more answers lead to more questions. In MY opinion, this lends a certain depth to science which I have not found in religion. It's kind of funny- to ME, science offers more mystery than religion does- and more hope of finding things out. There's the encouragement to explore, to reach further. Often times I have expereinced within the confines of religion..... well, confines. Many do not feel this way.

As an answer to the OP, how about: It depends on the question.

Actually, I mixed you up with another poster. I withdraw my statement and I agree with much of what you've said here.

Actually, I mixed you up with another poster. I withdraw my statement and I agree with much of what you've said here.
Thank you, I thought we did, so was confused by that. I don't see how you could get mixed up between only 4700000 different posters!

I dont think your understanding what people are saying. Science is incapable of expostulating upon the "why" behind the universes existance, and life's existance. Or indeed even if there is a "why" or not. Simply because that is not what science studies. Some scientists may say "there is no why, it just is" but that is not a scientific position

I have seen more reasonable discussion (at this point, certainly still speculation) about the origin of life on earth, and the conditions that brought about our universe as observed, from science than I have from religion.

Until we're in a position to start making test planets and universes, its still a better lead than Zeus, Body Thetans, and God with Zombie Son.

It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree. Science is a discipline that relies on the observable. Even if everything that is was observable by science there would be know way for science to have that position. By what means could science possibly know or prove that there is nothing unobservable. It can't.

That fact that you admit that it is open to interpretation shows that you recognize the shortcoming even while denying it.

You have a limited imagination as to how things can be observed, but regardless, science makes no pretense to say that everything can be observed with current methods.

Some of us just feel that, for those things that cannot be addressed presently, its neither necessary nor wise to cling to comforting fictions like religion. If there always remain things we can't examine, so be it, but that doesn't excuse committing yourself to baseless "answers".

You say science "relies" on the observable, but it is a sign of the honesty of science that it does so.

In the end, even if its discovered that there is no truly objective reality, it will likely be science that delivers this answer.

Your answers reveal your own philospies and your own delving into the other menu. Your position is unscientific while you bash peoiple who are unscientific. You have scaled to the height of hypocrisy. Be careful there is enough air up there.

Your answers don't reveal your philosophies? You've reached meta-hypocrisy.

My answer should instead reflect what, your philosophy?

My positions is, and has been, this:

Science does not now and may not ever answer all questions, but making up supernatural "answers" (or picking popular, pre-existing supernatural stories to call "answers") is an act of neediness, not reason. I don't present that as scientific law, only my observation.

At one point, we had little capacity to reason, and we thought the bears were gods. As we developed, we thought the lightning came from Zeus (or whatever religious top-guy was in charge for that culture). Over the years, religion has had to become more and more abstract, losing claim to things it said it explained.

As long as there are people who need to believe in the unmoved mover, and that He/She/It gives a crap about them, religion will always have a way to pay its bills.

Meanwhile, science will plod along, sometimes down the right path, sometime wrong, but hey...sometimes non-fiction just takes longer.

In the end, even if its discovered that there is no truly objective reality, it will likely be science that delivers this answer.
And as long as humans continue to have a consciousness, how could it ever do that?

It's the same issue again, of claiming "there is no more to discover" or that you've finally learned all there is to know. Science cannot make that claim. If it does, it is no longer science.