NationStates Jolt Archive

My brother once told me that to say "Do you believe in science, or religion?" was like saying "Do you believe in Math, or English?" or "Do you believe in Art, or Social Studies?" or "Do you believe in recess, or home room?"

Would you agree with this? What are your thoughts on this matter?

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't agree since he is indicating that religion is something obviously true and that it doesn't clash with science in any way.

My brother once told me that to say "Do you believe in science, or religion?" was like saying "Do you believe in Math, or English?" or "Do you believe in Art, or Social Studies?" or "Do you believe in recess, or home room?"

Would you agree with this? What are your thoughts on this matter?

There need be no conflict between the two. If, however, the two do come into conflict then my money is firmly on science.

My brother once told me that to say "Do you believe in science, or religion?" was like saying "Do you believe in Math, or English?" or "Do you believe in Art, or Social Studies?" or "Do you believe in recess, or home room?"

Would you agree with this? What are your thoughts on this matter?

No, that's just a cop-out. Take the issue of human origins. You can't believe that humans both evolved over millions of years and that they were created ~6000 years ago.

Some people separate things into "believe religion" and "believe science", but that doesn't mean that religion and science are for separate things.

I don't agree since he is indicating that religion is something obviously true and that it doesn't clash with science in any way.

when did he say that? math isn't obviously true, nor is english, nor art, nor social studies, nor recess, nor homeroom, because words like "true" don't fit school subjects.

while its not an either or propostion, im willing to say that i take most of science as true without needing it to be proved to me. in some way i "believe in science" in a similar way to how people believe in god.

and my belief in any particular scientific "truth" is contingent on it not being disproven by someone in the future, so is my (lack of) belief in god contingent on no proof to the contrary coming forth.

No, that's just a cop-out. Take the issue of human origins. You can't believe that humans both evolved over millions of years and that they were created ~6000 years ago.

Some people separate things into "believe religion" and "believe science", but that doesn't mean that religion and science are for separate things.

you're taking "religion" to mean "christianity." By the way, it isn't part of doctrine to say the humans were created 6000 years ago. That's protestants having beliefs, and I would hardly say they have a catechism.

As long as there are YECs (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) there will be conflict. I personally find more truth in the Feynman Lectures than in the Bible (or Qu'ran, or Upanishads, or whatever).

I dont think a lot of people understand what "science" means. science is a human invention. without humans, things, nature, simply "is." Science doesn't exist without humans. Science is humans trying to understand why things "are." Science doesn't mean chemistry or biology or evolution. Chemistry and biology are kinds of science, but they're not the same thing as science, and evolution isn't science at all. Evolution is a study and theory, but it's a hypothesis.

Yes.

It is possible for the two to be in conflict - depending on the particular religious beliefs and the particular scientific findings or theories. However, it is not necessary for the two to be in conflict at all. Unless one feels the need for one's religion to explain the natural world, they need not even address the same subjects.

you're taking "religion" to mean "christianity."
I thought it was clear that I was using that as an example. I was not saying that the two were equivalent.

By the way, it isn't part of doctrine to say the humans were created 6000 years ago. That's protestants having beliefs, and I would hardly say they have a catechism.

As far as I know, it was calculated from the lifespans of biblical characters. So, it would be for those whose belief is that the words of the bible is true. There are, of course, many people who prefers science over parts of the bible such as genesis and then disregard scientific thinking when looking at other parts of religion.

I dont think a lot of people understand what "science" means. science is a human invention. without humans, things, nature, simply "is." Science doesn't exist without humans. Science is humans trying to understand why things "are." Science doesn't mean chemistry or biology or evolution. Chemistry and biology are kinds of science, but they're not the same thing as science, and evolution isn't science at all. Evolution is a study and theory, but it's a hypothesis.

1. 'Science' is both a methodology and a term for the knowledge gained through that methodology.

2. Evolution is both fact and theory: we know it occurs and the theory of evolution describes how it happened.

No, that's just a cop-out. Take the issue of human origins. You can't believe that humans both evolved over millions of years and that they were created ~6000 years ago.

Some people separate things into "believe religion" and "believe science", but that doesn't mean that religion and science are for separate things.
i am jewish and greek orthodox. on one hand i hold Jesus as God, and on the other know that Jesus cannot have been God. cognitive dissonance holds in most situations, but it is perfectly possible to hold mutually exclusive ideas. there are in fact a large number of creationist scientists (albeit generally physicists and chemists who don't know any biology anyways) but there was even one creationist palaeontologist in the news recently. wrote his dissertation on the KT event, and claimed that he had no problem accepting the date inconsistency. in short, these inconsistencies can be sequestered into different parts of the psyche where they don't conflict.

science sucks, i love jesus

i am jewish and greek orthodox. on one hand i hold Jesus as God, and on the other know that Jesus cannot have been God. cognitive dissonance holds in most situations, but it is perfectly possible to hold mutually exclusive ideas. there are in fact a large number of creationist scientists (albeit generally physicists and chemists who don't know any biology anyways) but there was even one creationist palaeontologist in the news recently. wrote his dissertation on the KT event, and claimed that he had no problem accepting the date inconsistency. in short, these inconsistencies can be sequestered into different parts of the psyche where they don't conflict.

Ah, yes, I suppose I wasn't very clear. I meant that such a belief is illogical, not that it is literally impossible.

Ah, yes, I suppose I wasn't very clear. I meant that such a belief is illogical, not that it is literally impossible.
logic + humans = *ERROR*ERROR* Does Not Compute

when did he say that? math isn't obviously true, nor is english, nor art, nor social studies, nor recess, nor homeroom, because words like "true" don't fit school subjects.

It wasn't my point. English and Math has nothing to do with eachother and they don't clash in any way which Religion and Science does. You can speak english and count but you can't believe that Adam and Eve where the first humans that walked the earth 6000 years ago and still believe that we origin from single celled organisms and that we are the result of an evolutionary process.

i am jewish and greek orthodox. on one hand i hold Jesus as God, and on the other know that Jesus cannot have been God. cognitive dissonance holds in most situations, but it is perfectly possible to hold mutually exclusive ideas. there are in fact a large number of creationist scientists (albeit generally physicists and chemists who don't know any biology anyways) but there was even one creationist palaeontologist in the news recently. wrote his dissertation on the KT event, and claimed that he had no problem accepting the date inconsistency. in short, these inconsistencies can be sequestered into different parts of the psyche where they don't conflict.

But isn't the ability to hold two contradictory ideas the exact definition of doublethink?

To answer the OP's question, in any areas where the two conflict, I would obviously choose science, because, as an atheist, I don't believe in religion in the first place.

I now have empirical evidence that there is some overlap between science and religion.

I was at Argonne National Laboratory doing some research on an anisoptropic property of some high-energetic materials, when I met God.

He applied for some beam time on the APS (Advanced Photon Source, basically a football stadium sized x-ray machine) and he needed some set-screws for the sample mounting stage.

I asked God why he would be conducting an experiment, given that He presumably knows everything already.

He explained that he was trying to get published in an international peer-reviewed journal (although I think His hopes for actual review by peers may be difficult, unless the old deities are killing time these days by keeping up on physics literature).

Anyway, evidently the editors told him that "because I just already know" makes for an uncompelling article; they wanted him to take data using actual equipment and analyze it with rigorous statistical technique.

So, anyway, last I heard, his experiment was going well (He was doing something on protein unfolding or something), and He even managed to hook up with this really hot Korean chick visiting from Berkeley.

So, for the record, God and science are no longer mutually exclusive.

God just has to apply for beam time with the rest of us.

I thought it was clear that I was using that as an example. I was not saying that the two were equivalent.



As far as I know, it was calculated from the lifespans of biblical characters. So, it would be for those whose belief is that the words of the bible is true. There are, of course, many people who prefers science over parts of the bible such as genesis and then disregard scientific thinking when looking at other parts of religion.

Since when is the bible everyone's go-to guy? You should be reading the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) if you want information on Christians. The bible wasn't compiled until what, like 300 years after the death of Christ? The Church, which follows its catechism, is what made the Bible. The Bible didn't drop out of the sky, contrary to popular belief. And for the last time, evolution isn't science! It is perhaps a science, but you gotta stop looking at science as anything related to white lab coats and test tubes!

logic + humans = *ERROR*ERROR* Does Not Compute

Of course it doesn't compute. Neither of those are appropriate inputs for the addition operator.

More seriously, I don't think that we humans should resign ourselves to irrationality. While we certainly can't be logical all the time, we're perfectly capable of logical thought, without which our advances in science and technology would not have been possible.

I dont think a lot of people understand what "science" means. science is a human invention. without humans, things, nature, simply "is." Science doesn't exist without humans. Science is humans trying to understand why things "are." Science doesn't mean chemistry or biology or evolution. Chemistry and biology are kinds of science, but they're not the same thing as science, and evolution isn't science at all. Evolution is a study and theory, but it's a hypothesis.

Where I'm from (which is a small corner of thing, I admit), hypothesis and theory are definitively central to science. Something being a hypothesis and being subjected to experiment to the point where it develops into a theory...well, where I work, that's a big part of exactly what science is.

EDIT: Okay, looking at your post directly above mind, are you more trying to say that "evolution isn't the totality of science"?
Because I agree more with that. But I would say that evolutionary biology is a subset of science.

Maybe its just a language problem. When I read the phrase "Blah blah is science", I take it in the same way if somebody were to say "Baking is cooking" to mean that baking is a proper subset of cooking, not that all cooking is baking.

Since when is the bible everyone's go-to guy? You should be reading the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) if you want information on Christians. The bible wasn't compiled until what, like 300 years after the death of Christ? The Church, which follows its catechism, is what made the Bible. The Bible didn't drop out of the sky, contrary to popular belief. And for the last time, evolution isn't science! It is perhaps a science, but you gotta stop looking at science as anything related to white lab coats and test tubes!

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of an example. I was using the bible as an example of religion and evolutionary biology as an example of science. I could have chosen other examples, but I picked those.

Since when is the bible everyone's go-to guy? You should be reading the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) if you want information on Christians. The bible wasn't compiled until what, like 300 years after the death of Christ?

The four Gospels were accepted as cannonical by about 180CE. This would be either 144 years or more than 154 years after the death of Jesus (depending on whether you prefer GofLuke or GofMatthew.

EDIT: Wait a minute, wasn't the CCC published in 1992?

The Church, which follows its catechism, is what made the Bible. The Bible didn't drop out of the sky, contrary to popular belief. And for the last time, evolution isn't science! It is perhaps a science, but you gotta stop looking at science as anything related to white lab coats and test tubes!

Why? Any knowledge gained through the scientific method is classed as science. Evolutionary theory includes elements of Anatomy, Biology, Chemistry, Cosmology, Genetics, Geology, Paleontology, and Physics to name just a few. If any field qualifies as 'science' then it's evolution.

And for the last time, evolution isn't science! It is perhaps a science, but you gotta stop looking at science as anything related to white lab coats and test tubes!

Why isn't evolution science? Go ahead, I'd really like to see your explanation. Afterwards, expect to be swarmed with the mounds of sound molecular, fossil, geological, and observed scientific evidence that currently supports the theory of evolution. Evolution isn't just something related to "white lab coats and test tubes" as you put it. That's a gross oversimplification common to most anti-evolutionites.

It wasn't my point. English and Math has nothing to do with eachother and they don't clash in any way which Religion and Science does. You can speak english and count but you can't believe that Adam and Eve where the first humans that walked the earth 6000 years ago and still believe that we origin from single celled organisms and that we are the result of an evolutionary process.

Show me the article in the CCC that says humans came to be 6000 years ago and I'll begin to believe that Christians think that. Why is evolution considered "science?" The way people talk about "science" and "religion" sounds like the professors got into a fight or something. "Who are you backing? Aquinas sets a good argument, but Darwin really got me with the Monkey thing." They aren't mutually exclusive in the least. To say you are Christian doesn't mean you don't believe in Chemistry. And Buddha believed in microbes.

Since when is the bible everyone's go-to guy? You should be reading the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) if you want information on Christians. The bible wasn't compiled until what, like 300 years after the death of Christ? The Church, which follows its catechism, is what made the Bible. The Bible didn't drop out of the sky, contrary to popular belief. And for the last time, evolution isn't science! It is perhaps a science, but you gotta stop looking at science as anything related to white lab coats and test tubes!

I really think UR was just using the Bible as one example where there can be quantative conflict between some group's scripture and the models developed by science.

There are several places in the world where people who self-identify as Christians would describe the Bible as more representative of their beliefs than anything else, including Catholic doctrine.

As to your last part, if we say A = "a science" and A != "science", we are left with "a science" != "science", or rendered conventionally, "A science is not science." The only way I think this can be reconciled is to interpret it as "This science is not all of science". Is that what you're saying?

My brother once told me that to say "Do you believe in science, or religion?" was like saying "Do you believe in Math, or English?" or "Do you believe in Art, or Social Studies?" or "Do you believe in recess, or home room?"

Would you agree with this? What are your thoughts on this matter?

I think your brother was oversimplifying the matter. Neither English or Math are belief systems, nor are they powerful social institutions like science and religion.

That said, I held a very similar position at one time. I put forth the argument that science and religion have such vastly different qualities and standards of proof that it is nonsensical to suggest that one is clearly better than the other.

Unfortunately, in trying to substantiate this position, I ran headlong into the demarcation problem. I kept looking for a clear and meaningful distinction between science and religion as a whole, and was not able to find one. Indeed, most of the evidence I found suggested that science is a religion, not that the two are irreconcilably different.

Why isn't evolution science? Go ahead, I'd really like to see your explanation. Afterwards, expect to be swarmed with the mounds of sound molecular, fossil, geological, and observed scientific evidence that currently supports the theory of evolution. Evolution isn't just something related to "white lab coats and test tubes" as you put it. That's a gross oversimplification common to most anti-evolutionites.

Are you trying to intimidate me? I'm not anti-evolution. In fact, I find it a very interesting subject. But, as someone put it, science is a methodology. Evolution is a theory which has not been proved through experiments. Science is, once again, trying to figure out why something happens, and understanding the world around you. So science would mean forming a hypothesis and proving it through an experiment. "Evolution" may fit into science, but science is divided into biology, chemistry, physics, et cetera, which are areas under which people try to understand nature, and why things happen, and why they happen in the way they do.

Indeed, most of the evidence I found suggested that science is a religion

I'd like to see you justify that.

Show me the article in the CCC that says humans came to be 6000 years ago and I'll begin to believe that Christians think that.

Do you consider only Catholics to be Christian? That is to say, do you hold all Christians to be Catholic, and anyone who is not Catholic is not Christian?

For instance, my girl is Mormon, and does not subscribe to the Catholic doctrine. Is she not Christian? (I'm not, personally). If somebody wanted to illustrate the schism between a particular religious belief and a given subset of science (say, evolution), would that somehow be an unreasonable example?


Why is evolution considered "science?"

Well, you said yourself it could be a hypothesis/theory. And it is tested via experiment. So, again, I think its been clearly established as a subset of the scope of things described as science.


The way people talk about "science" and "religion" sounds like the professors got into a fight or something. "Who are you backing? Aquinas sets a good argument, but Darwin really got me with the Monkey thing." They aren't mutually exclusive in the least. To say you are Christian doesn't mean you don't believe in Chemistry. And Buddha believed in microbes.

The rest of that looks fine to me, but I don't think anybody is really disputing any of that. They're simply pointing out various examples of areas where some religious systems are in conflict with some scientific models. I work with several religious people who are also working scientists; they can be both. But for some scripture and some models, there is inconsistency.

Evolution is a theory which has not been proved through experiments. Science is, once again, trying to figure out why something happens, and understanding the world around you. So science would mean forming a hypothesis and proving it through an experiment.

Actually since Karl Popper it's been generally accepted that scientific theories can never be proved, only disproved; if you want 'proof' try mathematics or alcohol. Evolution has lasted 150 years without being falsified, which is more than can be said for any other theory of origins.

I think your brother was oversimplifying the matter. Neither English or Math are belief systems, nor are they powerful social institutions like science and religion.

That said, I held a very similar position at one time. I put forth the argument that science and religion have such vastly different qualities and standards of proof that it is nonsensical to suggest that one is clearly better than the other.

Unfortunately, in trying to substantiate this position, I ran headlong into the demarcation problem. I kept looking for a clear and meaningful distinction between science and religion as a whole, and was not able to find one. Indeed, most of the evidence I found suggested that science is a religion, not that the two are irreconcilably different.

Science isn't a social institution. At least, it shouldn't be. I guess it's all political nowadays, but where I come from, science never mentioned beliefs except for conservation of mass, hydraulics, gravity, you know, stuff like that.

as someone put it, science is a methodology. Evolution is a theory which has not been proved through experiments. Science is, once again, trying to figure out why something happens, and understanding the world around you. So science would mean forming a hypothesis and proving it through an experiment.

Actually, trying to "prove" something with an experiment is pseudoscience. Real science requires one to accept that nothing is proven - instead, theories are created - models of the universe, or a part of it. Experiments are designed to put a claim into situations where flaws with it would be found. We use a model as long as it continues to correctly describe the way the universe works. If we find a situation where this is not the case, the model is refined.

English and Math has nothing to do with eachother and they don't clash in any way which Religion and Science does. You can speak english and count but you can't believe that Adam and Eve where the first humans that walked the earth 6000 years ago and still believe that we origin from single celled organisms and that we are the result of an evolutionary process.

Actually, it is possible to believe in the two. While I'm not sure that I believe that humans evolved from one-celled organisms, I find it hard to refute the evidence that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans.

So here is the logical connection, from a Christian's point of view:
Genesis, the first book of the Bible, says that God created the world in seven days. However, in the Bible's original language of Greek, the word which we (meaning whoever translated the Bible into English) translated to mean "day" actually means "a period of time" in Greek. Yes, a day is a period of time, but so is a millenium. So it is entirely possible that the length of time between the creation of the animals and the creation of humans was huge, and maybe there was an opportunity for some evolution during that time.

I believe (this is pure speculation, on my part) that the same word, or one very similar, was used to describe the time that God designated "day" (when there was daylight). I have a brilliant physics and chemistry teacher who has studied evolution, the big bang theory (which can be explained from a Christian standpoint also) yet he still maintains his faith in God.

Actually since Karl Popper it's been generally accepted that scientific theories can never be proved, only disproved; if you want 'proof' try mathematics or alcohol. Evolution has lasted 150 years without being falsified, which is more than can be said for any other theory of origins.

Hell, that's longer than most theories go. Infact, as far as theories go, Evolution has a much stronger ground than almost any other theory out there. In a sense, it is one of the most "proven" theories to date.

And oddly, it is one of the most controversial. Can't quite figure that out.

Are you trying to intimidate me? I'm not anti-evolution. In fact, I find it a very interesting subject. But, as someone put it, science is a methodology. Evolution is a theory which has not been proved through experiments. Science is, once again, trying to figure out why something happens, and understanding the world around you. So science would mean forming a hypothesis and proving it through an experiment. "Evolution" may fit into science, but science is divided into biology, chemistry, physics, et cetera, which are areas under which people try to understand nature, and why things happen, and why they happen in the way they do.

The divisions of science into "biology, chemistry, physics, et cetera" are becoming increasingly blurred (I frequently collaborate with biochemists, biophysicists, physical chemist, organic chemists, etc.).

As even complex living systems can be studied using fundamental principals (quantum effects observed in chemical reactions of biological systems, for example), we're beginning to see that the distinction between "biology" and "chemistry" is arbitrary, and over time, will represent administrative borders in the academic field more than real division between scientific principals.

That said, can we at least agree that evolutionary biology is a subset of biology, which in turn is a subset of science? Then, we only have to arrive at the linguistic understanding of common usage that when somebody says "Evolution is science", they mean "Evolution is part of science", not "Evolution is all of science".

Do you consider only Catholics to be Christian? That is to say, do you hold all Christians to be Catholic, and anyone who is not Catholic is not Christian?

For instance, my girl is Mormon, and does not subscribe to the Catholic doctrine. Is she not Christian? (I'm not, personally). If somebody wanted to illustrate the schism between a particular religious belief and a given subset of science (say, evolution), would that somehow be an unreasonable example?



Well, you said yourself it could be a hypothesis/theory. And it is tested via experiment. So, again, I think its been clearly established as a subset of the scope of things described as science.



The rest of that looks fine to me, but I don't think anybody is really disputing any of that. They're simply pointing out various examples of areas where some religious systems are in conflict with some scientific models. I work with several religious people who are also working scientists; they can be both. But for some scripture and some models, there is inconsistency.

Mormons are not really considered Christians. And the only Christians you can use as reference are Catholics, because no protestant denomenations have catechisms, which is why Episcopalians are splitting up. Don't try to battle me on my church history, duuuude, I've been there, done that. Pardon my gayness.

"Quant suff! Most scientific."

I'd like to see you justify that.

I'd like to see you be a good scientist and falsify the claim that science is a religion. Granted, Popperian falsification methodology has its limitations, but it's better by far than the Positivist verification methodology that you're suggesting I use.

Grave_n_idle already tried (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12496056&postcount=71) in a nice lengthy discussion between he and I. Perhaps you could pick up where he left off.

If you can find a clear and meaningful demarcation between science and religion, I'd be very pleased indeed. It would solve some serious problems for me.

Hell, that's longer than most theories go. Infact, as far as theories go, Evolution has a much stronger ground than almost any other theory out there. In a sense, it is one of the most "proven" theories to date.

Agreed, the modern theory of Evolution is probably better supported than the current theory of gravity what with relativity, dark matter, and quantum theory.

And oddly, it is one of the most controversial. Can't quite figure that out.

It's like the Holocaust: it's probably the most certain event in history and yet some people still deny it for idealogical reasons. I've just finished a book on pseudoscience which compares the methods of Holocaust deniers and Creationists and finds some remarkable parallels.

Actually, trying to "prove" something with an experiment is pseudoscience. Real science requires one to accept that nothing is proven - instead, theories are created - models of the universe, or a part of it. Experiments are designed to put a claim into situations where flaws with it would be found. We use a model as long as it continues to correctly describe the way the universe works. If we find a situation where this is not the case, the model is refined.


Well put. Better models, all the way.

Finding a better model and being willing to look for a better one after that is a fine thing for a life's work.

Do you consider only Catholics to be Christian? That is to say, do you hold all Christians to be Catholic, and anyone who is not Catholic is not Christian?Well, the orthodox churches, including catholicism, are the church that was founded by Yeshua and was continued by his disciples, the apostles, and those who joined the community. Protestants stepped out of this community in the 16th century CE, and although they still adhere to the NT writings, they have gone out of scope of the 'original blessing of Yeshua' that is transfered within the 'old' churches through the sacraments.

For instance, my girl is Mormon, and does not subscribe to the Catholic doctrine. Is she not Christian?Well, she's Mormon.

I don't think science and religion necessarily have to conflict. In the case of evolution, I don't necessarily see any conflict between my belief in it and being Catholic. I talked about this with Zilam, and with one of my best friends in real life who happens to be Methodist, as well as with my Catholic-turned atheist-turned-Greek-Orthodox acquaintance and they all seemed to agree with me, or at least think that it made sense. I think that Genesis may not have been completely literal, just put in terms that people can understand. If it had described evolution in detail or described the time periods as being millions or billions of years long rather than as days people probably wouldn't have been able to understand it. I have trouble articulating how I feel about this, so I hope that made at least a little sense.

I think someone else mentioned something similar while I was typing this, since it took me maybe twenty minutes to type this.

The divisions of science into "biology, chemistry, physics, et cetera" are becoming increasingly blurred (I frequently collaborate with biochemists, biophysicists, physical chemist, organic chemists, etc.).

As even complex living systems can be studied using fundamental principals (quantum effects observed in chemical reactions of biological systems, for example), we're beginning to see that the distinction between "biology" and "chemistry" is arbitrary, and over time, will represent administrative borders in the academic field more than real division between scientific principals.

That said, can we at least agree that evolutionary biology is a subset of biology, which in turn is a subset of science? Then, we only have to arrive at the linguistic understanding of common usage that when somebody says "Evolution is science", they mean "Evolution is part of science", not "Evolution is all of science".

I will excuse them for their inarticulateness. But why are we only discussing evolution as "part of science?" The original issue was "Do you believe in science, or religion?"

science sucks, i love jesus

While he might be lovable - his fan club leaves a little to be desired. Personally, I prefer to shower my affection on Prometheus, instead.

Science isn't a social institution. At least, it shouldn't be. I guess it's all political nowadays, but where I come from, science never mentioned beliefs except for conservation of mass, hydraulics, gravity, you know, stuff like that.

While it would be nice to remove the social and political aspects of science (if you've ever sat through a 2 hour meeting of PhDs where not a single scientific principal is brought up, you already know), its highly impractical.

The days of one fellow (or lady) cloistered in a lab, using equipment solely of their own design and construction, and without support and collaboration from other reserachers...well, don't see that too much anymore.

Between the equipment (the cost alone of which causes politics to intrude onto science), the need for peer review, the depth and breadth of the requisite education...do you honestly believe these needs can be accomodated without the things that society and politics can provide? They are imperfect (being human expressions, like science), but we tolerate them because they allow cooperation on a scale that is now simply vital to science.

While it would be nice to remove the social and political aspects of science (if you've ever sat through a 2 hour meeting of PhDs where not a single scientific principal is brought up, you already know), its highly impractical.

The days of one fellow (or lady) cloistered in a lab, using equipment solely of their own design and construction, and without support and collaboration from other reserachers...well, don't see that too much anymore.

Between the equipment (the cost alone of which causes politics to intrude onto science), the need for peer review, the depth and breadth of the requisite education...do you honestly believe these needs can be accomodated without the things that society and politics can provide? They are imperfect (being human expressions, like science), but we tolerate them because they allow cooperation on a scale that is now simply vital to science.

Evolution opened up a "scientific" way to be racist. Science can exist without politics, believe me. They actually are mutually exclusive.

I don't think science and religion necessarily have to conflict. In the case of evolution, I don't necessarily see any conflict between my belief in it and being Catholic. I talked about this with Zilam, and with one of my best friends in real life who happens to be Methodist, as well as with my Catholic-turned atheist-turned-Greek-Orthodox acquaintance and they all seemed to agree with me, or at least think that it made sense. I think that Genesis may not have been completely literal, just put in terms that people can understand. If it had described evolution in detail or described the time periods as being millions or billions of years long rather than as days people probably wouldn't have been able to understand it. I have trouble articulating how I feel about this, so I hope that made at least a little sense.

I agree with you. I think it would have been extremely complex for whoever wrote Genesis to describe how God formed the earth, the stars, animals, people, etc. With the technology available today, not even brilliant scientists OR religious teachers are able to describe it. Evolution may sound good simplified, but how many people would understand it if it was explained in terms of latin words describing the splitting of cells forming new organisms in a completely asexual manner, from ameoba, to bug, to fish, etc.? I'm not even sure I understand what I just wrote. And since it seems that evolution has come to a stand-still, it is difficult to prove the theory.

While he might be lovable - his fan club leaves a little to be desired. Personally, I prefer to shower my affection on Prometheus, instead.

Prometheus? Why not some party god like Dionysus or something? Prometheus never said anything about anything, whereas Dionysus said debauchery was okay in the name of god. Okay!

Well, the orthodox churches, including catholicism, are the church that was founded by Yeshua and was continued by his disciples, the apostles, and those who joined the community. Protestants stepped out of this community in the 16th century CE, and although they still adhere to the NT writings, they have gone out of scope of the 'original blessing of Yeshua' that is transfered within the 'old' churches through the sacraments.

Well, she's Mormon.

Then in future discourse with you, I will be sure to specify, and not use the term "Christian" to cover people outside your definition.

However, I brought it up because the original poster was implying that the beliefs of Christians are only validly represented by the Catholic dogma and not by biblical scripture, and I wanted to make sure this is what he was saying.

Its kind of unimportant, since the other person who brought up the bible was just using it as an example of when some religious belief bumps into some scientific models; I felt it was reasonable to use the Bible as an example of some people's religious beliefs for purposes of discussion, but the OP strenuously objected to it.

While he might be lovable - his fan club leaves a little to be desired. Personally, I prefer to shower my affection on Prometheus, instead.

Prometheus? Why not some party god like Dionysus or something? Prometheus never said anything about anything, whereas Dionysus said debauchery was okay in the name of god. Okay!

Jesus has a fan club?! Man! I didn't know that. I'd sure rather go there on Sunday than boring old Mass. Phhhhhh.

No, that's just a cop-out. Take the issue of human origins. You can't believe that humans both evolved over millions of years and that they were created ~6000 years ago.

Some people separate things into "believe religion" and "believe science", but that doesn't mean that religion and science are for separate things.But is science something one can believe in, really? Science is only the name for the methods of 'finding out and making sure'. It's only the tool to verify/falsify claims about the nature of things.

I'd like to see you be a good scientist and falsify the claim that science is a religion. Granted, Popperian falsification methodology has its limitations, but it's better by far than the Positivist verification methodology that you're suggesting I use.

Grave_n_idle already tried (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12496056&postcount=71) in a nice lengthy discussion between he and I. Perhaps you could pick up where he left off.

If you can find a clear and meaningful demarcation between science and religion, I'd be very pleased indeed. It would solve some serious problems for me.

I won't pretend to be as educated as Grave_n_Idle, nor do I have the time for an extended discussion right now as I have a French literature essay to write for tomorrow. I'd begin by saying that the onus is on you to provide some evidence that science is a religion, as this discussion is not being carried out with a scientific methodology, rather we're discussing the philosophy of science.

While you might be able to make a case for the claim that people are beginning to regard 'Science' with a reverence and awe formerly reserved for religion, and to see scientists as the infallible arbiters of truth, you simply can't describe science as a religion without liberalising the definition of religion to an absurd degree.

It is famously said "Science is proof without certainty; Religion is certainty without proof". Religion makes sweeping claims and actively endorses blind faith as opposed to empirical investigation. Religion also lacks science's ability to self-correct.

I'm sorry if this covers ground that you've already been over with Grave but I haven't had time to read the thread you linked to. I probably won't have time to reply to this thread for a few days.

But is science something one can believe in, really? Science is only the name for the methods of 'finding out and making sure'. It's only the tool to verify/falsify claims about the nature of things.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "believe in". I believe that it is the logical method for constructing increasingly accurate models of the universe.

[QUOTE=RLI Rides Again;12547711]It is famously said "Science is proof without certainty; Religion is certainty without proof". Religion makes sweeping claims and actively endorses blind faith as opposed to empirical investigation. QUOTE]

I am a Christian an I have received plenty of evidence to prove sufficiently, in my mind, that there is a loving God who answers prayers and loves his people.

Then in future discourse with you, I will be sure to specify, and not use the term "Christian" to cover people outside your definition.

However, I brought it up because the original poster was implying that the beliefs of Christians are only validly represented by the Catholic dogma and not by biblical scripture, and I wanted to make sure this is what he was saying.

Its kind of unimportant, since the other person who brought up the bible was just using it as an example of when some religious belief bumps into some scientific models; I felt it was reasonable to use the Bible as an example of some people's religious beliefs for purposes of discussion, but the OP strenuously objected to it."Christian" as such is a pretty imprecise term anyways, it's better to call certain denominations by their names if you want to talk about specific positions. I only refer to Christians as followers of very basic doctrines (such as Yeshia being the messiah), or to compare them to followers of other religions.

Evolution opened up a "scientific" way to be racist. Science can exist without politics, believe me. They actually are mutually exclusive.

Actually, there is some discussion and a body of research in evolution that actually rejects the entire notion of race. I'll admit that I spend more time with the narrower field of high-pressure crystallography (and am still hardly an expert), but in my time with evolutionary science, I've seen little that has any more propensity to be twisted to racism than anything else.

Let me ask you: We presently operate much of our research under the auspices of a substantial grant from a political entity. Fortunately, we have thus far managed to escape the terrible political influence that has polluted much of climate and environmental science. But since we use political money, (or, if you prefer, resources gathered via the social institution of government), is our science now excluded by your principal of mutal exclusion with politics?

Also, we never really settled the point of language. Do you at least see where the case has been made that evolutionary biology is a subset of science, and in common usage it can then be said "Evolution is science"?
(Again, this construct contains the idea "Evolution can be classified as science", not "Evolution is all of science").

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "believe in". I believe that it is the logical method for constructing increasingly accurate models of the universe.

It's also something people really do put a lot of faith in, some of it not so well founded. Take string theory for instance. People oooh and aaah whenever a new version comes out "Hey, did you hear about that new facet of M Theory they just announced? It, like, explains the universe in a totally new manner and stuff."

But very few people outside science fields probably realize that it's a neat little set of theories that can't be tested very well and aren't really going anywhere.
I mean there's a reason the NSF doesn't generally fund string theory research as much as it funds, say, atmospheric physics. Something that can actually be useful in the near future, as opposed to when we get the ability to build a moon-sized supercollider with 10^3 times the energy we can currently output for the experiments.

Actually, there is some discussion and a body of research in evolution that actually rejects the entire notion of race. I'll admit that I spend more time with the narrower field of high-pressure crystallography (and am still hardly an expert), but in my time with evolutionary science, I've seen little that has any more propensity to be twisted to racism than anything else.

Let me ask you: We presently operate much of our research under the auspices of a substantial grant from a political entity. Fortunately, we have thus far managed to escape the terrible political influence that has polluted much of climate and environmental science. But since we use political money, (or, if you prefer, resources gathered via the social institution of government), is our science now excluded by your principal of mutal exclusion with politics?

Let's not forget that there's also funding for research from the private sector. And in both cases, the funding agency has a clear agenda beyond the actual science, which is the applications it might have.

Science research doesn't occur in a vaccuum. Science, politics, and religion are inherently intertwined by the biases and beliefs of those conducting the research. It's unavoidable, and in many ways not all that much of a bad thing, potentially.

Also, we never really settled the point of language. Do you at least see where the case has been made that evolutionary biology is a subset of science, and in common usage it can then be said "Evolution is science"?
(Again, this construct contains the idea "Evolution can be classified as science", not "Evolution is all of science").

Of course you're right. I think we agree that algebra is math and chemistry is science. Otherwise, it's like saying "all science is chemistry" or "all math is algebra". But then where would gravity and Isaac Newton fit in? Social Studies?

@Hammurab: whose forum re-incarantion are you?

I don't think science and religion necessarily have to conflict. In the case of evolution, I don't necessarily see any conflict between my belief in it and being Catholic. I talked about this with Zilam, and with one of my best friends in real life who happens to be Methodist, as well as with my Catholic-turned atheist-turned-Greek-Orthodox acquaintance and they all seemed to agree with me, or at least think that it made sense. I think that Genesis may not have been completely literal, just put in terms that people can understand. If it had described evolution in detail or described the time periods as being millions or billions of years long rather than as days people probably wouldn't have been able to understand it. I have trouble articulating how I feel about this, so I hope that made at least a little sense.

I think someone else mentioned something similar while I was typing this, since it took me maybe twenty minutes to type this.

Eh, if you study the original texts of Genesis, you find that the term "day", although used, does not refer to a 24 hour period of time. Instead, in the way that it is used, it refers to indefinate periods of time. However, what likely happened, is that the text was literally translated instead of translated by meaning(A very common problem when trying to transcribe language into another language, especially when the two are not related such as Aramaic and Latin), it was translated literally.

Of course you're right. I think we agree that algebra is math and chemistry is science. Otherwise, it's like saying "all science is chemistry" or "all math is algebra". But then where would gravity and Isaac Newton fit in? Social Studies?

Physics.

Physics.

Duh. My point was if chemistry is all science than other things (like physics) would have to fit in another subject. Thank's for proving my point.

Physics.which in fact includes all other fields... ;)

which in fact includes all other fields... ;)

Damn right!

I always hate how people like to use the English version of the Bible. It's a translation of a translation of a translation. It's like playing "telephone", where you whisper something into someone's ear and they whisper it into someone elses ear, who whispers it into someone else's ear etc. It's like that, only once you hear the message, you have to retranslate it into a different language. Things get distorted. Those seven "days" could be any length of time. It could be fifty googel years for all we know. Who knows what originally went into the bible.

-evolution isn't a science. It's a natural process. Science isn't a natural process. It's a study. Science doesn't make things happen, it studies how things happen. That's like saying cats are science. It's a method of study. That's why all those sciency stuff end in ology. ology means study of. Science studies how things evolve, but science doesn't make the things evolve. Science is a study. Nothing else.

Science and religion can coexist together. It's only the power-hungry Churches and angry, militant atheists who try to make them contradict as much as possible.

I always hate how people like to use the English version of the Bible. It's a translation of a translation of a translation.

I agree, but unfortunately, I'm not fluent in Greek, so my options are limited.

I could spend hours with a "Greek to English" dictionary, but I'd probably do even worse than the translated version.

Eh, if you study the original texts of Genesis, you find that the term "day", although used, does not refer to a 24 hour period of time. Instead, in the way that it is used, it refers to indefinate periods of time. However, what likely happened, is that the text was literally translated instead of translated by meaning(A very common problem when trying to transcribe language into another language, especially when the two are not related such as Aramaic and Latin), it was translated literally.

Ok. That makes sense then. I have a little bit of experience with translating Latin to English and vice versa, so I can see why that would be a problem. I'd like to study it in Latin someday if I could.

I agree, but unfortunately, I'm not fluent in Greek, so my options are limited.

I could spend hours with a "Greek to English" dictionary, but I'd probably do even worse than the translated version.

The long version is in Ah-Rah-Mah-Ic.

Religious doctrines can go side by side with science, because they're so conveniently written in poetic form... which open for new interpretation.

The long version is in Ah-Rah-Mah-Ic..What long version of what is in Ah-Rah-Mah-Ic?

Religion :upyours: is the suppression of spirituality as means of control. Don't get me started on Missionarries LOL. Science is an attempt by us mortal humans to understand this vast universal conciousness we exist in by coming up with theories which more often than not are proven wrong later. To be or not to be? That is the question?


:confused:

What long version of what is in Ah-Rah-Mah-Ic?

The Bible.

The Bible.What long version of what bible is in Ah-Rah-Mah-Ic?

Religion :upyours: is the suppression of spirituality as means of control. Don't get me started on Missionarries LOL. Science is an attempt by us mortal humans to understand this vast universal conciousness we exist in by coming up with theories which more often than not are proven wrong later. To be or not to be? That is the question?blarb

What long version of what bible is in Ah-Rah-Mah-Ic?

This section :

It is the original language of large sections of the biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, and is the main language of the Talmud. Aramaic is believed to have been the native language of Jesus.

This section :

It is the original language of large sections of the biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, and is the main language of the Talmud. Aramaic is believed to have been the native language of Jesus.Daniel and Ezra are only small books of the Bible, the Talmud is no part of the Bible at all, and the native language of Jesus did not make it into the New Testament.

My brother once told me that to say "Do you believe in science, or religion?" was like saying "Do you believe in Math, or English?" or "Do you believe in Art, or Social Studies?" or "Do you believe in recess, or home room?"

Would you agree with this? What are your thoughts on this matter?

I believe your brother is right.

I believe in God, and I "believe" in science in that I believe that if we start with the basic assumpion that something will always be itself untill it is no longer itself, that everything that can be deduced and proven from that must be true.

Mormons are not really considered Christians. And the only Christians you can use as reference are Catholics, because no protestant denomenations have catechisms, which is why Episcopalians are splitting up. Don't try to battle me on my church history, duuuude, I've been there, done that. Pardon my gayness.

"Quant suff! Most scientific."

I'm not trying to "battle" you. If anybody is being combative here, I don't think its me. I asked some quesitons so that I understand your use of terms.

Now that I understand that you exclude non-catholics from "christian", may I ask if you exlclude non-catholics from "religion"?

As you yourself later point out, the discussion is about science overlapping, coexisting, or contending with religion. When Ultraviolet brought up the bible, it was in reference to ane xample religion, and you responded that only the Catholic dogma is valid as representative. But doesn't Ultraviolet's point still stand if we take the bible as representative only of some religion, but thus still cogent as being an example of religion in the broadest sense?

Basically, my premise here is that you sharply claim that the Bible was unsuitable as an example of religious beliefs because you feel only the Catholic Dogma counts, and I feel that, even with your definition of "only catholics are christian", the reference to the bible as an example of those instances when a particular idea in science might contrast a particular idea in religion still serves Ultraviolet's point.

Daniel and Ezra are only small books of the Bible, the Talmud is no part of the Bible at all, and the native language of Jesus did not make it into the New Testament.

Yes indeedy, I agree to that.

But what language did they use to tell the story of Isa bin Nazareth, REX IVDAEORVM before they transcribe it into written language with Koine Greek?

... uh, and by way, I was making a reference to Bewitched (2005), before taking this thing out of topic.

Eh, if you study the original texts of Genesis, you find that the term "day", although used, does not refer to a 24 hour period of time. Instead, in the way that it is used, it refers to indefinate periods of time. However, what likely happened, is that the text was literally translated instead of translated by meaning(A very common problem when trying to transcribe language into another language, especially when the two are not related such as Aramaic and Latin), it was translated literally.yom יוֹם does not refer to day as 24-h-day ?

Science isn't something you believe in. Science is a method used to understand how things work. Now, you can have beliefs regarding the role of science, or its relationship in regard to religion, but science itself isn't a belief. Facts and observations aren't a belief.

I mean, yes, in a highly abstract sense it is a "belief", but given that everything is a belief according to this definition it doesn't really mean anything.

I will excuse them for their inarticulateness. But why are we only discussing evolution as "part of science?" The original issue was "Do you believe in science, or religion?"

Because you made the statement "Evolution is not science", and I wanted to clarify what was being said.

I was using evolution as an example of one particular area of science, as it is frequently the fulcrum on which the greatest contention of this debate is turned.

If your complaint is that I'm being too specific, I would point out that when somebody made a salient observation about the Bible, you claimed that only the Catholic Catechism is allowed to be referenced as representative of Christian belief.

Yet if the original issue was "science or religion" per your emphasis, why is it fair to only discuss the Catholic belief as representative of religion, but not evolution as representative example of science?

Let's not forget that there's also funding for research from the private sector. And in both cases, the funding agency has a clear agenda beyond the actual science, which is the applications it might have.

Science research doesn't occur in a vaccuum. Science, politics, and religion are inherently intertwined by the biases and beliefs of those conducting the research. It's unavoidable, and in many ways not all that much of a bad thing, potentially.

But Arcos's premise is "Science can exist without politics, believe me. They actually are mutually exclusive."

If a scientist studies the behaviour of politics, using a diligent scientific methodology, is it then not science?

If a politician argues in favor of funding science, whether for practical reasons of economic benefit or for the same a priori reasons we might fund art, does the resultant body of research become unscientific, somehow impure, because of its political origins?

I don't feel Arcos has yet presented a thorough support for the idea that science and politics need be mutually exclusive.

I'm not going to rehash my opinion on the difference between religion and faith. Instead, I am going to re-interpret the word 'religion' into the word 'faith' and go from there.

My trust in the scientfic method and the understanding that open-minded exploration has offered has strengthened my faith that there is a God. I see no reason why, with the concealing curtain of religious dogma stripped away and true open-minded science, that faith and science must be mutually exclusive concepts.

Then again, I'm a nut. :)

Yes indeedy, I agree to that.

But what language did they use to tell the story of Isa bin Nazareth, REX IVDAEORVM before they transcribe it into written language with Koine Greek?All the languages that those people spoke who spoke to each other about it. Given the region that would have been quite a number of languages. Aramaic and Greek (likely in egyptianized dialect) would have dominated.

... uh, and by way, I was making a reference to Bewitched (2005), before taking this thing out of topic.wtf?

Now, now, Vetalia.

That kind of practical insight and pragmatic regard for the difficulty imposed by vague terms is not welcome on the internet.

Especially when rendered with a complete lack of needless antagonism.

If you're going to assail the issue on which the original question turns so surgically and address it reasonably, you should go somewhere else.

Asshole.

Hear hear! :)

Science isn't something you believe in. Science is a method used to understand how things work. Now, you can have beliefs regarding the role of science, or its relationship in regard to religion, but science itself isn't a belief. Facts and observations aren't a belief.

I mean, yes, in a highly abstract sense it is a "belief", but given that everything is a belief according to this definition it doesn't really mean anything.

Now, now, Vetalia.

That kind of practical insight and pragmatic regard for the difficulty imposed by vague terms is not welcome on the internet.

Especially when rendered with a complete lack of needless antagonism.

If you're going to assail the issue on which the original question turns so surgically and address it reasonably, you should go somewhere else.

Asshole.

I'm not going to rehash my opinion on the difference between religion and faith. Instead, I am going to re-interpret the word 'religion' into the word 'faith' and go from there.

My trust in the scientfic method and the understanding that open-minded exploration has offered has strengthened my faith that there is a God. I see no reason why, with the concealing curtain of religious dogma stripped away and true open-minded science, that faith and science must be mutually exclusive concepts.Science is a method to find out facts. Faith does without facts and without finding out. So faith should in fact not interfere with science, and yet the positions that people have faith in do collide with the facts scientific methods are revealing.

@Hammurab: whose forum re-incarantion are you?

Wait, why would it be assumed that I am?

Low post count? I'm taking medication for that.

Science is a method to find out facts. Faith does without facts and without finding out. So faith should in fact not interfere with science, and yet the positions that people have faith in do collide with the facts scientific methods are revealing.

First of all, you've made it clear, Dr. Venkman, that you regard science as some sort of dodge or hustle.

Seriously, though, this collision seems to be where the friction occurs.

When science began to arrive at findings and models that could dispute some interpretations of some beliefs, artificial lines of conflict seem to have been drawn.

Prior to science as a (somewhat) organized collection of ideas, religion was the main caretaker of abstract ideas (probably why academia as a whole is in many ways descended from monastic traditions). Religions were used to mainly arguing with other religions, and sometimes in very absolute terms.

But most scientists I work with (many of whom have various religious beliefs), would agree that you can have faith in something (typically something of such a nature that it can't really be examined scientifically), and still in other areas have a participatory relationship with rigorous science.

Prior to science as a (somewhat) organized collection of ideas, religion was the main caretaker of abstract ideas (probably why academia as a whole is in many ways descended from monastic traditions). Religions were used to mainly arguing with other religions, and sometimes in very absolute terms.

Scientific inquiry has its roots in what is called magical thinking, which was usually part of the overarching religious tradition. Most of the concepts that make up the scientific method have their roots in that thinking; in many ways, it is the root of rational inquiry.

So yes, religion in many ways gave birth to the modern scientific method.

Science is a method to find out facts. Faith does without facts and without finding out. So faith should in fact not interfere with science, and yet the positions that people have faith in do collide with the facts scientific methods are revealing.

There are remarkably few facts in science.

There are remarkably few facts in science.But remarkably many facts in the fields that use science as a method.

The atheist cop-out "I believe in science" has always hugely annoyed me, because macro-evolution, big-bang theory and all the related theories are NOT science. Science, by definintion, deals with the present, the here-and-now. Science is based upon observable, repeatable experiments and verifiable facts, and the main goal of science is to eliminate assumptions about how the here-and-now universe works physically (in other words, the real scientific method). For example, if a physicist claims to have discovered the cause of gravity, he will need to provide mountains of experimental data, enough for fellow scientists to repeat his experiment and confirm or reject his result later down the track.

Evolution theory has none of this. Macro-evolution, otherwise known as the goo-to-you-via-the-zoo theory, deals with past events, which no-one has ever observed, no-one can ever repeat, and that those studying it just have to 'assume' happened. Evolution theory is based entirely upon theories and assumptions about what might have happened a very long time ago. The 'fossil evidence' that evolutionists claim to be working from is in fact extremely scant, and what little they do have was not what caused them to make assumptions, it was just whatever fossils they could find that happened to fit in with their pre-existing set of assumptions. So in the end, evolution is not a 'science', it is only called that because people who happened to be scientists happened to come up with it. Plenty of scientists are christian, or muslim, etc etc (in fact, Issac Newton was a Christian, believe it or not). So what the theory of evolution is is a complicated web of assumptions, and to beleive it one requires 'faith' that these things happened. More than anything, evolution is a religion more than it is a science. People only think it is science because the basic assumptions of evolution have been assumed true so often that they have come to be considered completely true.

What's really annoying is when people compare 'atomic theory' and 'evolution theory' as if they were equally scientific. Atomic theory is, of course, based upon thousands of legitimate, repeatable experiments, the aim of which was to reduce the amount of assumptions needed, and is based firmly in the present. The number of assumptions in the theory of evolution just keeps getting bigger and bigger, with no single legitimate experiment supporting macro-evolution yet, and it is based in the un-observable past.

The "I believe in science" excuse when discussing the origins of the universe is an immense cop-out. Even the creationists believe in science, it's very hard to deny the theory of gravity when someone drops a brick on your head! "I believe in evolution" would be a much more acceptable answer to the question of the origin of life. The "science" excuse merely attempts to put evolution into the same class as physics and chemistry, to make that person's beliefs seem more logical and rational than they really are.

There are remarkably few facts in science.

It's probably fair to say that "fact" is a word that should not be used in formal writing on the subject of science. There are no facts, really, just theories that have yet to be disproven (which doesn't sound very impressive, but considering how many chances some of them have had to be disproven, their continuing status is quite remarkable).

It's probably fair to say that "fact" is a word that should not be used in formal writing on the subject of science. There are no facts, really, just theories that have yet to be disproven (which doesn't sound very impressive, but considering how many chances some of them have had to be disproven, their continuing status is quite remarkable).

Precisely. 'Fact' is a matter of degree. *nod*

The atheist cop-out "I believe in science" has always hugely annoyed me, because macro-evolution, big-bang theory and all the related theories are NOT science. Science, by definintion, deals with the present, the here-and-now.

:confused:

Science is a method used to make observations about the natural world. The timeframe of those observations has nothing to do with it. There's no belief involved unless you're using science as some kind of religious belief, which is of course ridiculous.

Without hijacking this thread:

And we have indirectly observed the Big Bang. It's called the cosmic background radiation that was predicted by that theory, along with several other markers that have been predicted by the theory. And macroevolution has more than enough evidence to support it, especially now that genetics enables us to track traits through multiple species. The fossil record, all predicted evidence, genetic analysis, and comparison between currently living organisms all support the theory. It's as well established as microevolution, and even without evidence it would still be entirely logical since it makes no sense that microevolution would magically stop before it became another species.

It's probably fair to say that "fact" is a word that should not be used in formal writing on the subject of science. There are no facts, really, just theories that have yet to be disproven (which doesn't sound very impressive, but considering how many chances some of them have had to be disproven, their continuing status is quite remarkable).So there are no facts in physics, chemistry, biology? Everything some of us learned in school is altogether useless? We don't know anything for sure? But the earth still has an atmosphere, doesn't it? Or is that just my faith?

Scientific inquiry has its roots in what is called magical thinking, which was usually part of the overarching religious tradition. Most of the concepts that make up the scientific method have their roots in that thinking; in many ways, it is the root of rational inquiry.

So yes, religion in many ways gave birth to the modern scientific method.

Well, if the magical (alchemical?) thinking was "Let's test the mystic rules of the god(s) and benefit from an understanding of those things."

then I can see how that progressed naturally to "Let's test the governing principals of nature, which may well or may not have divine origin, because regardless of their origin, we can benefit from understanding those causal relationships."

But I think we all know the real truth.

Wizards tend towards the highest Intelligence scores, and that multi-classes nicely into the Scientist role.

(Note the pained humility I give by not classing Scientist as a Prestige Class.)

So there are no facts in physics, chemistry, biology? Everything some of us learned in school is altogether useless? We don't know anything for sure? But the earth still has an atmosphere, doesn't it? Or is that just my faith?

What proof do I have that you even exist?

So there are no facts in physics, chemistry, biology? Everything some of us learned in school is altogether useless? We don't know anything for sure? But the earth still has an atmosphere, doesn't it? Or is that just my faith?

Some say that the word fact is subjective as to how satisfied you are with it's evidence, proof, likely hood or lack of conflicting "facts". So therefore the only thing that really decides what is and what isn't fact is you.

There is an exception however, as mathematics is pure logic, and is the only one certainty and truth that we can be sure of.

So there are no facts in physics, chemistry, biology? Everything some of us learned in school is altogether useless? We don't know anything for sure? But the earth still has an atmosphere, doesn't it? Or is that just my faith?

I think the wariness here is of the risk inherent to any kind of orthodoxy; at one point, Newtonian mechanics were "fact", but now there are scales and contexts in which it isn't.

I share your bummification that much of what is learned (even at the post-secondary level), is eventually "amplified" or "elaborated" on to the point where the original models given are essentially crap. But there is a tremendous strength in that, too. If there is no final model, then there is no model which is unsurpassable.

So there are no facts in physics, chemistry, biology? Everything some of us learned in school is altogether useless? We don't know anything for sure? But the earth still has an atmosphere, doesn't it? Or is that just my faith?

Did you read my post properly? There's a difference between scientific theory and faith! Do I really need to explain this to you? We do not have "faith" in the workings of gravity, we have theories - Newton had a theory; it was very useful, but Einstein was able to improve upon it. If we had regarded Newton's theories as "facts", we would have ignored Einsteins theories of relativity!

Some say that the word fact is subjective as to how satisfied you are with it's evidence, proof, likely hood or lack of conflicting "facts". So therefore the only thing that really decides what is and what isn't fact is you.

There is an exception however, as mathematics is pure logic, and is the only one certainty and truth that we can be sure of.

Okay, back to your little room. Just because you mathematicians have settled the Poincare conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem doesn't mean you should be wasting time on the internet.

Come back when you've settled Cantor's Continuum problem. By thursday, please. I told the department chair you already had a solution and you were just down at Kinko's making up some slides.

Some say that the word fact is subjective as to how satisfied you are with it's evidence, proof, likely hood or lack of conflicting "facts". So therefore the only thing that really decides what is and what isn't fact is you.So it is no fact that electricity exists? Or gravitation? Or that light has certain properties? Or sound? We don't know how life reproduces? Or how baking powder works? No facts all around?

Okay, back to your little room. Just because you mathematicians have settled the Poincare conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem doesn't mean you should be wasting time on the internet.

Come back when you've settled Cantor's Continuum problem. By thursday, please. I told the department chair you already had a solution and you were just down at Kinko's making up some slides.

I didn't say all of mathematics.

Did you read my post properly? There's a difference between scientific theory and faith! Do I really need to explain this to you? We do not have "faith" in the workings of gravity, we have theories - Newton had a theory; it was very useful, but Einstein was able to improve upon it. If we had regarded Newton's theories as "facts", we would have ignored Einsteins theories of relativity!

See, Vetalia? This is how you discuss things on the internet.

Okay, seriously, UR, I'm on board with you, but mixing frustration (even genuine frustration) with your position is like mixing chinese takeout soup with your solvent in a gas chromotography experiment.

...
...
(cricket)
...
...
...
(cricket)
...

Nothing? Okay, see, Chinese food has lots of contaminants, and-

What's that? You got it, it just wasn't funny?

...
...
Well screw you guys.

I don't have to impress you fucking people.

I didn't say all of mathematics.

No, I essentially agree with what you're saying, I was just taking your advocacy of mathematics as the only pervasively logical field of study as a sign that you were a mathematician, and then joking about you going back to your stereotypical workaholic ways.

You know, like they say how chemists always smell a little acrid, biologists are over specialized, and physicists like Mexican prostitutes.

Did you read my post properly? There's a difference between scientific theory and faith! Do I really need to explain this to you? We do not have "faith" in the workings of gravity, we have theories - Newton had a theory; it was very useful, but Einstein was able to improve upon it. If we had regarded Newton's theories as "facts", we would have ignored Einsteins theories of relativity!Aha. So now that we have Einstein, would we go back to Newton?
And are there 'facts' that are not likely to be shaken anytime soon? Is it a fact that gravity exists (regardless how you explain it) ? Or do I need faith and have to believe in gravity? Is it a fact that the earth orbits the sun or is faith?
And has faith ever made any improvements comparable to the step from Newton to Einstein?

So it is no fact that electricity exists? Or gravitation? Or that light has certain properties? Or sound? We don't know how life reproduces? Or how baking powder works? No facts all around?

You're always going to have that one guy (probably an Eastern European grad student who wear socks with sandals) who is half a meter away from showing that nothing exists at all and we're experiencing a pseudoperceptive intereference pattern from an otherdimensional alien's short story for his creative writing class.

And when we call that a fact, somebody (probably a chinese post-doc who is excessively polite and has an ugly girlfriend/boyfriend) will come along...

So it is no fact that electricity exists? Or gravitation? Or that light has certain properties? Or sound? We don't know how life reproduces? Or how baking powder works? No facts all around?

No, thats not what I am saying at all.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

Quote From Albert Einstine

Aha. So now that we have Einstein, would we go back to Newton?
No, because Newton's gravity has been disproven.

And are there 'facts' that are not likely to be shaken anytime soon?
No, there are no real facts.

Is it a fact that gravity exists (regardless how you explain it) ?
Well, explaining it is defining it and without definition of what gravity is, this question is meaningless.

Or do I need faith and have to believe in gravity?
No, you don't need to "believe in" gravity, just expect things to behave in accordance with currently accepted theories - although new situations may prove these theories wrong and then we'll make better theories that take the new observations into account.

And has faith ever made any improvements comparable to the step from Newton to Einstein?
Do you think that I am on the side of religious belief?

No, I essentially agree with what you're saying, I was just taking your advocacy of mathematics as the only pervasively logical field of study as a sign that you were a mathematician, and then joking about you going back to your stereotypical workaholic ways.

You know, like they say how chemists always smell a little acrid, biologists are over specialized, and physicists like Mexican prostitutes.

Me a mathematician. lol, I wish... :p

actually, no i don't. It would probably very dull

Lots of arguing lol - hmm... I tried explaining that nothing is proven to my friend studying physics at a university... got a bit worried at how fanatic he became lol - hmm... lol... sometimes life is like this...

"LOUD NOISES!!!" and/or "I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE YELLING!!!"
~quote from The Anchorman..........................

¬¬ lol

Lots of arguing lol - hmm... I tried explaining that nothing is proven to my friend studying physics at a university... got a bit worried at how fanatic he became lol - hmm... lol... sometimes life is like this...

"LOUD NOISES!!!" and/or "I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE YELLING!!!"
~quote from The Anchorman..........................

¬¬ lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-RX_YN7yA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-RX_YN7yA

*claps - grinning*
Cute video (: I use "lol" to emote many things though heh :) and it has many different meanings... hmm... the philosophy of lol?... hmm... still - point taken... but still... lol ;)

The opposite of sarcasm can have magical results ;) ...despite it's ease and comic value :p

Evolution = Logical?:confused:

Yes.

-snip-

Haeckel's drawings have been replaced when they were shown to be incorrect, and the similarities in the embryos themselves are valid signs of common evolutionary ancestry. The actual development of embryos shows identical steps in their growth that support common ancestry. His recapitulation theory was never part of the theory of evolution. However, there is useful knowledge of common ancestry to be gained from comparing the phylogeny of embryos and that is valid evidence of evolutionary change.

Haeckel's drawings were inaccurate and differences glossed over, but the self-correcting nature of science (something creationists don't do, seeing as how they parrot the same lies regardless of evidence that they have for decades) has rectified the error.

I could rebutt all of your (rather vague) examples of evidence, but then the post would be too long. So I'll just have to curtail my rant for today.

And I could not only rebut all of your claims but produce mountains of evidence to support evolution.

I believe that both are essential to each other, and the real trouble seem to start when people start wanting to take them apart. It may be weird, or it may be because I'm actually a wiccan and don't see it the same way about creation. But I think religion gived birth to science... and science proof how religion worked... well or something like that I suppose it depend of how your religiong teaching are... I would not dream to separate one from the other in the wiccan tradition I'm following ...

I also believe you have the right to deny that each other need the other but that your buisness I just don't think like it when 2 parties get in trouble and then say it the other , all that while destroying my courcart. and that mostly what this question usually do .... ''wait ... isn't that what ever country at war do about any problem they have XD *sigh ...

Feel free to ignore my weird opinion :fluffle: EVERYBODY love and peace ^^

Haeckel's diagrams, though slightly misleading, are still usefull for getting the basic concepts across. In my science classes we also studied Lamarckian evolutionary theory, another concept long ago proved false - because our teachers thought we should have a thorough grounding of how we got to where we are now.

My personal take on science and religion, is that science is about what actually exists, and religion is a bunch of lies about what doesn't.

Didn't I say I would get flamed by angry evolutionists? They get mighty touchy when someone dares to question their religion.

Of course they are always right, and anyone else is always wrong, and they have a perfect right to stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'la la la la la, I can't hear you!' whenever the creationists start talking, because those wackos are obviously ignorant heretic darwin-doubters and don't know anything, right? What do you mean, the evolutionists are guilty of their own accusations? How could you say such a thing, you filthy heretic? Didn't you watch Inherit the wind? What do you mean that movie was full of crap?

And anyway, Haeckel's drawings were not just 'slightly innacurate', they were completely imagined, and wildly off-the-mark. He did not even draw most of them from real specimens, but merely copied and slightly changed the human embryo for each one. And they have not 'corrected themselves', the diagrams in textbooks are still wildly inaccurate and still have diagrams pointing out the 'gills' on embryos. Not to mention a large collection of other long-disproven myths.

And I'm sure I could argue for ages about this 'mountain of evidence' that supposedly exists somewhere... but seems not to be suitable to replace a centuries-old fraud... but that is an entirely different debate.

My brother once told me that to say "Do you believe in science, or religion?" was like saying "Do you believe in Math, or English?" or "Do you believe in Art, or Social Studies?" or "Do you believe in recess, or home room?"

Would you agree with this? What are your thoughts on this matter?

I agree. There's nothing saying if you follow one you can't follow the other. I think they go hand-in-hand, myself. Science is just a logical observation of the way God made the universe.

My brother once told me that to say "Do you believe in science, or religion?" was like saying "Do you believe in Math, or English?" or "Do you believe in Art, or Social Studies?" or "Do you believe in recess, or home room?"

Would you agree with this? What are your thoughts on this matter?

I've seen this sort of question before, and I kind of agree with your brother. But really the problem is with the phrasing of the question. It ought to be something like this:

"Do you accept empiricism, or faith and intuition as the more authoritative source of knowledge?"

I don't believe either to be perfect, by the way.

What's with the 'A' people in this thread? I mean, all the people who's names start with A.

Didn't I say I would get flamed by angry evolutionists? They get mighty touchy when someone dares to question their religion.

Of course they are always right, and anyone else is always wrong, and they have a perfect right to stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'la la la la la, I can't hear you!' whenever the creationists start talking, because those wackos are obviously ignorant heretic darwin-doubters and don't know anything, right? What do you mean, the evolutionists are guilty of their own accusations? How could you say such a thing, you filthy heretic? Didn't you watch Inherit the wind? What do you mean that movie was full of crap?

And anyway, Haeckel's drawings were not just 'slightly innacurate', they were completely imagined, and wildly off-the-mark. He did not even draw most of them from real specimens, but merely copied and slightly changed the human embryo for each one. And they have not 'corrected themselves', the diagrams in textbooks are still wildly inaccurate and still have diagrams pointing out the 'gills' on embryos. Not to mention a large collection of other long-disproven myths.

And I'm sure I could argue for ages about this 'mountain of evidence' that supposedly exists somewhere... but seems not to be suitable to replace a centuries-old fraud... but that is an entirely different debate.

See? This is what I'm talking about. 'A' people.

See? This is what I'm talking about. 'A' people.

It's because 'A' comes first! Yield to the march of the 'A' s or suffer the consequences, for the world will soon be ours! That's right, the whole Aerth!

you're taking "religion" to mean "christianity." By the way, it isn't part of doctrine to say the humans were created 6000 years ago. That's protestants having beliefs, and I would hardly say they have a catechism.

I dont think a lot of people understand what "science" means. science is a human invention. without humans, things, nature, simply "is." Science doesn't exist without humans. Science is humans trying to understand why things "are." Science doesn't mean chemistry or biology or evolution. Chemistry and biology are kinds of science, but they're not the same thing as science, and evolution isn't science at all. Evolution is a study and theory, but it's a hypothesis.

Since when is the bible everyone's go-to guy? You should be reading the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) if you want information on Christians. The bible wasn't compiled until what, like 300 years after the death of Christ? The Church, which follows its catechism, is what made the Bible. The Bible didn't drop out of the sky, contrary to popular belief. And for the last time, evolution isn't science! It is perhaps a science, but you gotta stop looking at science as anything related to white lab coats and test tubes!

I think your brother was oversimplifying the matter. Neither English or Math are belief systems, nor are they powerful social institutions like science and religion.

That said, I held a very similar position at one time. I put forth the argument that science and religion have such vastly different qualities and standards of proof that it is nonsensical to suggest that one is clearly better than the other.

Unfortunately, in trying to substantiate this position, I ran headlong into the demarcation problem. I kept looking for a clear and meaningful distinction between science and religion as a whole, and was not able to find one. Indeed, most of the evidence I found suggested that science is a religion, not that the two are irreconcilably different.

Mormons are not really considered Christians. And the only Christians you can use as reference are Catholics, because no protestant denomenations have catechisms, which is why Episcopalians are splitting up. Don't try to battle me on my church history, duuuude, I've been there, done that. Pardon my gayness.

"Quant suff! Most scientific."

I'd like to see you be a good scientist and falsify the claim that science is a religion. Granted, Popperian falsification methodology has its limitations, but it's better by far than the Positivist verification methodology that you're suggesting I use.

Grave_n_idle already tried (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12496056&postcount=71) in a nice lengthy discussion between he and I. Perhaps you could pick up where he left off.

If you can find a clear and meaningful demarcation between science and religion, I'd be very pleased indeed. It would solve some serious problems for me.

I will excuse them for their inarticulateness. But why are we only discussing evolution as "part of science?" The original issue was "Do you believe in science, or religion?"

Evolution opened up a "scientific" way to be racist. Science can exist without politics, believe me. They actually are mutually exclusive.

I am a Christian an I have received plenty of evidence to prove sufficiently, in my mind, that there is a loving God who answers prayers and loves his people.

The atheist cop-out "I believe in science" has always hugely annoyed me, because macro-evolution, big-bang theory and all the related theories are NOT science. Science, by definintion, deals with the present, the here-and-now. Science is based upon observable, repeatable experiments and verifiable facts, and the main goal of science is to eliminate assumptions about how the here-and-now universe works physically (in other words, the real scientific method). For example, if a physicist claims to have discovered the cause of gravity, he will need to provide mountains of experimental data, enough for fellow scientists to repeat his experiment and confirm or reject his result later down the track.

Evolution theory has none of this. Macro-evolution, otherwise known as the goo-to-you-via-the-zoo theory, deals with past events, which no-one has ever observed, no-one can ever repeat, and that those studying it just have to 'assume' happened. Evolution theory is based entirely upon theories and assumptions about what might have happened a very long time ago. The 'fossil evidence' that evolutionists claim to be working from is in fact extremely scant, and what little they do have was not what caused them to make assumptions, it was just whatever fossils they could find that happened to fit in with their pre-existing set of assumptions. So in the end, evolution is not a 'science', it is only called that because people who happened to be scientists happened to come up with it. Plenty of scientists are christian, or muslim, etc etc (in fact, Issac Newton was a Christian, believe it or not). So what the theory of evolution is is a complicated web of assumptions, and to beleive it one requires 'faith' that these things happened. More than anything, evolution is a religion more than it is a science. People only think it is science because the basic assumptions of evolution have been assumed true so often that they have come to be considered completely true.

What's really annoying is when people compare 'atomic theory' and 'evolution theory' as if they were equally scientific. Atomic theory is, of course, based upon thousands of legitimate, repeatable experiments, the aim of which was to reduce the amount of assumptions needed, and is based firmly in the present. The number of assumptions in the theory of evolution just keeps getting bigger and bigger, with no single legitimate experiment supporting macro-evolution yet, and it is based in the un-observable past.

The "I believe in science" excuse when discussing the origins of the universe is an immense cop-out. Even the creationists believe in science, it's very hard to deny the theory of gravity when someone drops a brick on your head! "I believe in evolution" would be a much more acceptable answer to the question of the origin of life. The "science" excuse merely attempts to put evolution into the same class as physics and chemistry, to make that person's beliefs seem more logical and rational than they really are.


Aezakmi
This message has been deleted by Aezakmi. Reason: I think I'd rather avoid getting flamed by angry evolutionists

Didn't I say I would get flamed by angry evolutionists? They get mighty touchy when someone dares to question their religion.

Of course they are always right, and anyone else is always wrong, and they have a perfect right to stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'la la la la la, I can't hear you!' whenever the creationists start talking, because those wackos are obviously ignorant heretic darwin-doubters and don't know anything, right? What do you mean, the evolutionists are guilty of their own accusations? How could you say such a thing, you filthy heretic? Didn't you watch Inherit the wind? What do you mean that movie was full of crap?

And anyway, Haeckel's drawings were not just 'slightly innacurate', they were completely imagined, and wildly off-the-mark. He did not even draw most of them from real specimens, but merely copied and slightly changed the human embryo for each one. And they have not 'corrected themselves', the diagrams in textbooks are still wildly inaccurate and still have diagrams pointing out the 'gills' on embryos. Not to mention a large collection of other long-disproven myths.

And I'm sure I could argue for ages about this 'mountain of evidence' that supposedly exists somewhere... but seems not to be suitable to replace a centuries-old fraud... but that is an entirely different debate.

It's because 'A' comes first! Yield to the march of the 'A' s or suffer the consequences, for the world will soon be ours! That's right, the whole Aerth!



See? A people being weird.

Don't look now, but those darstardly 'D' people are at it again

Don't look now, but those darstardly 'D' people are at it again

Shit, there's more than one?

Come out, sir! I challenge you! There can be but one D person!

My brother once told me that to say "Do you believe in science, or religion?" was like saying "Do you believe in Math, or English?" or "Do you believe in Art, or Social Studies?" or "Do you believe in recess, or home room?"

Would you agree with this? What are your thoughts on this matter?

I don't think you can compare the two. Science does not necessarily exclude religion.

Didn't I say I would get flamed by angry evolutionists? They get mighty touchy when someone dares to question their religion.

Persecution complex much? Nobody has flamed you, they've simply pointed out the mistakes you made. It'd be nice if you showed us the same courtesy.

And anyway, Haeckel's drawings were not just 'slightly innacurate', they were completely imagined, and wildly off-the-mark. He did not even draw most of them from real specimens, but merely copied and slightly changed the human embryo for each one. And they have not 'corrected themselves', the diagrams in textbooks are still wildly inaccurate and still have diagrams pointing out the 'gills' on embryos. Not to mention a large collection of other long-disproven myths.

But Embryos do share many characteristics. For example, vertebrate embryos all develop notochords, body segments, gill-slits, and post-anal tails. If any modern textbooks do still use the Haeckel drawings then they are in a tiny minority, I myself never saw the drawings until I heard Creationists claiming that they were still in textbooks and looked them up on the internet; none of my biology textbooks have ever included them.

Incidentally, does this mean that if evidence for a position has ever been faked then this invalidates all the real evidence for that position? Using your logic, the James Ossuary would invalidate the existence of Jesus and the Hell Voices fake would disprove the existence of Hell.

And I'm sure I could argue for ages about this 'mountain of evidence' that supposedly exists somewhere... but seems not to be suitable to replace a centuries-old fraud... but that is an entirely different debate.

Have you noticed that your method of argument is disturbingly similar to that used by Holocaust deniers? Instead of engaging with the mountains of evidence, they pick on one bit of evidence or one claim which has later been shown to be false and then they act as if this invalidates all of the genuine evidence.

May I recomend this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) webpage on the evidence for evolution.

What kind of evidence? Can it be objectively tested? Can it be falsified?

Notice that he said: "IN MY MIND"

I am a Christian an I have received plenty of evidence to prove sufficiently, in my mind, that there is a loving God who answers prayers and loves his people.

What kind of evidence? Can it be objectively tested? Can it be falsified?

My brother once told me that to say "Do you believe in science, or religion?" was like saying "Do you believe in Math, or English?" or "Do you believe in Art, or Social Studies?" or "Do you believe in recess, or home room?"

Would you agree with this? What are your thoughts on this matter?
In a great many places, religion and science offer conflicting accounts of how the world works, how the world came to be, and what the future is likely to hold. In those places, an individual is going to have to reject at least one (though perhaps both) of the accounts.

There are other places where religion and science simply do not overlap. In those areas, an individual would not need to choose between religion and science. Those areas might be compared to different subjects (like Math versus English) as your brother suggested.

Notice that he said: [][][][COLR="Red"]"IN MY MIND"[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/U]

I believe the way the sentence read, it proved it in his mind, not that the evidence was entirely in his mind. Though it may very well be, y'never know with these sorts.

Also, it was black, and in a normal sized font.

if i had to choose ide go religion yes both have there gaps but i can easly patch religion with a lil faith and science well gonna need a lotta patchs to fill that hole.

My brother once told me that to say "Do you believe in science, or religion?" was like saying "Do you believe in Math, or English?" or "Do you believe in Art, or Social Studies?" or "Do you believe in recess, or home room?"

Would you agree with this? What are your thoughts on this matter?

i believe in both

i believe in both

"I believe in a thing called love
Just listen to the rhythm of my heart!"

....

Um...never mind. That just popped out....

=)

There is an exception however, as mathematics is pure logic, and is the only one certainty and truth that we can be sure of....except for some maths: Probabilites are also a big deal in physics too.

I won't pretend to be as educated as Grave_n_Idle, nor do I have the time for an extended discussion right now as I have a French literature essay to write for tomorrow. I'd begin by saying that the onus is on you to provide some evidence that science is a religion, as this discussion is not being carried out with a scientific methodology, rather we're discussing the philosophy of science.

It's also a common practice in philosophy to provide a counter-example as an opposition to a truth claim. The Gettier Problem is a fine example of that approach. And it's far more efficient than making a positive case. Shifting the field of inquiry does not make much of a difference in that.

While you might be able to make a case for the claim that people are beginning to regard 'Science' with a reverence and awe formerly reserved for religion, and to see scientists as the infallible arbiters of truth, you simply can't describe science as a religion without liberalising the definition of religion to an absurd degree.

The same could be said of traditional religions as well, when they were in an earlier stage of development. Oftentimes, new religions will distance themselves from established tradition by calling themselves a "Way of Life" or "New Path" or "Method for Living" or "The One Truth" and the like so as to avoid the negative connotation associated with terms used for more established religions. In fact, some sociologists have suggested that it is necessary for a new religion to do so if they want to be successful.

It is famously said "Science is proof without certainty; Religion is certainty without proof". Religion makes sweeping claims and actively endorses blind faith as opposed to empirical investigation. Religion also lacks science's ability to self-correct.

In terms of certainty without proof and actively endorsing blind faith, I have to note that those are not features common to all belief systems generally thought of as religions. For example, the Buddha taught that everything that is - is material and sensible, that is to say empirical. He also mentioned that anyone who thinks otherwise needs to submit his theory and evidence. In another place, he mentions that his words are be guiding statements, and that his students should only believe his statements provisionally until they can confirm or disconfirm the statements with their own experience.

But perhaps Buddhism isn't enough of a religion for you. In that case, I'll have to note that a great many Christians I've met claim that only God can know everything, and that they, not being God, can only operate on what their experience and the past experiences and decisions of their community tells them to be true. Which is hardly much different from science, which operates similarly, claiming no certainty, but does test claims with experience in the form of experiments and operates based on the past experiences and decisions of their scientific community.

As to your claim about religion not being able to self-correct, well that's simply bullshit. Are you really so willing to ignore that religions develop and grow? Are you seriously telling me that, for example, the Catholic Church has no ability to self-correct when it has recently openly approved of evolutionary theory? That it doesn't know how to admit its mistakes, despite apologizing for the Crusades and other horrific events?

I'm sorry if this covers ground that you've already been over with Grave but I haven't had time to read the thread you linked to. I probably won't have time to reply to this thread for a few days.

Very well.

See? A people being weird.

Thank you for the recognition, but I'd rather not be lumped in with such a virulent creationist.

...except for some maths: Probabilites are also a big deal in physics too.

That's a bloody understatement. Prob & Stats are the mathematical foundation of Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics.

if i had to choose ide go religion yes both have there gaps but i can easly patch religion with a lil faith and science well gonna need a lotta patchs to fill that hole.

Hopefully a hole that never gets filled, else it wouldn't be science. ;)

I think your brother was oversimplifying the matter. Neither English or Math are belief systems, nor are they powerful social institutions like science and religion.


And 'science' isn't a belief system, either.

There might be some people who blindly accept 'science', but they are not being scientific, are not applying a scientific methodology... so what they do, isn't 'science'.


Unfortunately, in trying to substantiate this position, I ran headlong into the demarcation problem. I kept looking for a clear and meaningful distinction between science and religion as a whole, and was not able to find one. Indeed, most of the evidence I found suggested that science is a religion, not that the two are irreconcilably different.

The clear and meaningful distinctions between science and religion are actually fairly easy to spot - only one of them calls for falsifications, only one of them conforms it's assumptions to it's observations (rather than vice versa), and only one of them doesn't claim to have any 'ultimate' Truth.

Edit: The clearest and most meaningful distiction between science and religion must be: Science is objective. Religion can never be truly objective, because it deals in the subjective.

Are you trying to intimidate me? I'm not anti-evolution. In fact, I find it a very interesting subject. But, as someone put it, science is a methodology. Evolution is a theory which has not been proved through experiments. Science is, once again, trying to figure out why something happens, and understanding the world around you. So science would mean forming a hypothesis and proving it through an experiment. "Evolution" may fit into science, but science is divided into biology, chemistry, physics, et cetera, which are areas under which people try to understand nature, and why things happen, and why they happen in the way they do.

You can't 'prove' anything through experiment. That isn't what science 'does'.

'Science' (I dislike this way of speaking of 'science' as a sentient entity... 'science' has no ambitions, it's not an active participant) observes, makes hypotheses about it's observed phenomena, and then tests those hypotheses.

The important distinction is: 'science' doesn't try to prove a hypothesis, it just tests it. If anything, it tries to disprove.

It's also a common practice in philosophy to provide a counter-example as an opposition to a truth claim. The Gettier Problem is a fine example of that approach. And it's far more efficient than making a positive case. Shifting the field of inquiry does not make much of a difference in that.



The same could be said of traditional religions as well, when they were in an earlier stage of development. Oftentimes, new religions will distance themselves from established tradition by calling themselves a "Way of Life" or "New Path" or "Method for Living" or "The One Truth" and the like so as to avoid the negative connotation associated with terms used for more established religions. In fact, some sociologists have suggested that it is necessary for a new religion to do so if they want to be successful.



In terms of certainty without proof and actively endorsing blind faith, I have to note that those are not features common to all belief systems generally thought of as religions. For example, the Buddha taught that everything that is - is material and sensible, that is to say empirical. He also mentioned that anyone who thinks otherwise needs to submit his theory and evidence. In another place, he mentions that his words are be guiding statements, and that his students should only believe his statements provisionally until they can confirm or disconfirm the statements with their own experience.

But perhaps Buddhism isn't enough of a religion for you. In that case, I'll have to note that a great many Christians I've met claim that only God can know everything, and that they, not being God, can only operate on what their experience and the past experiences and decisions of their community tells them to be true. Which is hardly much different from science, which operates similarly, claiming no certainty, but does test claims with experience in the form of experiments and operates based on the past experiences and decisions of their scientific community.

As to your claim about religion not being able to self-correct, well that's simply bullshit. Are you really so willing to ignore that religions develop and grow? Are you seriously telling me that, for example, the Catholic Church has no ability to self-correct when it has recently openly approved of evolutionary theory? That it doesn't know how to admit its mistakes, despite apologizing for the Crusades and other horrific events?



Very well.



Thank you for the recognition, but I'd rather not be lumped in with such a virulent creationist.

I'm terribly sorry if I gave the impression of some foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalist, I didn't mean to be quite so rabid in my arguments (still, it seems a bit sad that anyone who doubts evolution is referred to like a bacteria).

Perhaps this (http://www.creationontheweb.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1315&pop=1&page=0) gets the point across better than I can

I am a Christian an I have received plenty of evidence to prove sufficiently, in my mind, that there is a loving God who answers prayers and loves his people.

I'm no longer a Christian. I have received no evidence "prove sufficiently... that there is a loving God"... or, any god, in fact.

So - what use is your 'evidence', to objective observation?

"I believe in a thing called love
Just listen to the rhythm of my heart!"

....

Um...never mind. That just popped out....

=)

*pictures Dem in a spandex cat suit*
:eek:

I am a Christian an I have received plenty of evidence to prove sufficiently, in my mind, that there is a loving God who answers prayers and loves his people.If you share this evidence you received and are therefore now in possession of you would be pope or any religious leader tomorrow. But I guess the "in my mind" part could ruin such career hopes.

That's a bloody understatement. Prob & Stats are the mathematical foundation of Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics.Prob & Stats are the mathematical description of Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics.

It's also a common practice in philosophy to provide a counter-example as an opposition to a truth claim. The Gettier Problem is a fine example of that approach. And it's far more efficient than making a positive case. Shifting the field of inquiry does not make much of a difference in that.

Hardly comparable. The Tripartite definition of knowledge is clearly defined and it's fairly obvious what the three elements mean (only 'justified' is really open for major dispute, 'true' and 'belief' are less controversial). You've yet to tell me what you understand 'religion' and 'science' to mean, and how science is becoming a religion. Until you define your position properly it's hardly fair to expect a counter-example now is it?

The same could be said of traditional religions as well, when they were in an earlier stage of development. Oftentimes, new religions will distance themselves from established tradition by calling themselves a "Way of Life" or "New Path" or "Method for Living" or "The One Truth" and the like so as to avoid the negative connotation associated with terms used for more established religions. In fact, some sociologists have suggested that it is necessary for a new religion to do so if they want to be successful.

Nevertheless, science is distinct from these movements as it doesn't make value judgements and its studies are limited to the empirically testable.

In terms of certainty without proof and actively endorsing blind faith, I have to note that those are not features common to all belief systems generally thought of as religions. For example, the Buddha taught that everything that is - is material and sensible, that is to say empirical. He also mentioned that anyone who thinks otherwise needs to submit his theory and evidence. In another place, he mentions that his words are be guiding statements, and that his students should only believe his statements provisionally until they can confirm or disconfirm the statements with their own experience.

I'm not familiar with anything more than the most basic beliefs of Buddhism, but I'd be interested in knowing how Reincarnation and Nirvana could be supported by anything except blind faith. I'm not suggesting that the religious discard all empirical beliefs like gravity or magnetism, only that religions do contain elements which must be taken on faith. Science doesn't.

But perhaps Buddhism isn't enough of a religion for you. In that case, I'll have to note that a great many Christians I've met claim that only God can know everything, and that they, not being God, can only operate on what their experience and the past experiences and decisions of their community tells them to be true. Which is hardly much different from science, which operates similarly, claiming no certainty, but does test claims with experience in the form of experiments and operates based on the past experiences and decisions of their scientific community.

If they believe that then it's hard to see how they could be Christian as that empistemology wouldn't justify belief in God and the divinity of Jesus. If they're working on personal, private experience then this would confirm my distinction between science and religion: science likes public evidence.

As to your claim about religion not being able to self-correct, well that's simply bullshit. Are you really so willing to ignore that religions develop and grow?

Certainly not, but are development and growth synonymous with self-correction? The Protestant Reformation was a major development but that doesn't mean it was right.

When new developments arise in science, they can be compared to an objective reality. Is there any such objective reality available easily to check theological truth?

Are you seriously telling me that, for example, the Catholic Church has no ability to self-correct when it has recently openly approved of evolutionary theory?

John Paul II accepted evolution, the new pope is more fundamentalist. You might find this article interesting:

In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

"The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this," Benedict said. "But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."

IIRC the Vatican astronomer was fired shortly after he described Intelligent Design as 'a kind of Paganism'. Besides, this isn't an example of self-correction, it's an example of the Church making an empirical claim and of science correcting them. If it hadn't been for science, do you really think that the Church would have disgarded the literal Genesis account a priori?

That it doesn't know how to admit its mistakes, despite apologizing for the Crusades and other horrific events?

The theological doctrine "It pleases God when believers kill those of different religion" can only be wrong if there is an objective theological truth to compare it to. To my mind, saying "God approves of murder" is less true than saying "God doesn't approve of murder"; they're both literally meaningless.

And 'science' isn't a belief system, either.

There might be some people who blindly accept 'science', but they are not being scientific, are not applying a scientific methodology... so what they do, isn't 'science'.

The clear and meaningful distinctions between science and religion are actually fairly easy to spot - only one of them calls for falsifications, only one of them conforms it's assumptions to it's observations (rather than vice versa), and only one of them doesn't claim to have any 'ultimate' Truth.


It seems odd to me that you would not consider it a belief system, as it has some pretty obvious basic beliefs that aren't supported. Empiricism, for example, cannot be supported without making a circular argument. The rule of simplicity is just an old tie-breaking method that's been held onto through the years.

Of course, these more basic beliefs and others like them are the foundation upon which science tests and refines propositions about the nature of various aspects of our world. I wonder what propositions about the nature of various aspects of the world might be called. Hmm. Beliefs, perhaps. Even if it is your assertion that such propositions are held provisionally and are subject to testing, which somehow makes them not beliefs, then I have a couple of other objections.

The first is that religious beliefs are often held provisionally. If religious beliefs were always held to be true despite evidence to falsify them, we would expect there to be no religious people who have become non-religious anti-faith atheists. As it turns out...there certainly are such people. We would also expect no changes in religious beliefs within religious communities, and that also is falsified by the historical developments in various religions. It seems fairly obvious that religious beliefs face the tribunal of experience as well.

The second objection has to do with scientific realists. If you oppose their view and suggest that they are not doing science because they think they can have genuine knowledge of material reality through the scientific method rather than merely having provisional propositions, then it's apparent that in your view there are aspects of science that are just what science is and are not up for testing, and it is thus partially composed of beliefs that are not falsifiable. If you agree with the scienctific realist view, then science is obviously a belief system. Either way, science looks like a belief system.

Edit: The clearest and most meaningful distiction between science and religion must be: Science is objective. Religion can never be truly objective, because it deals in the subjective.

Science is performed by a person or a group of people. It is rooted in personal and social experience of and processing of experimental results. I'm not sure how you're getting the idea that a test of an object or several objects, done by a person (a subject) or a group of people (several subjects) leads to a genuine objectivity.

Prob & Stats are the mathematical description of Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics.

Prob & Stats are the mathematical foundation of our understanding of Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics.

Fixed.

Hardly comparable. The Tripartite definition of knowledge is clearly defined and it's fairly obvious what the three elements mean (only 'justified' is really open for major dispute, 'true' and 'belief' are less controversial). You've yet to tell me what you understand 'religion' and 'science' to mean, and how science is becoming a religion. Until you define your position properly it's hardly fair to expect a counter-example now is it?

If I define religion as you ask, then you'll just object because it includes science and we'll be back where we started. That's been my repeated experience with people who believe science isn't a religion.

Nevertheless, science is distinct from these movements as it doesn't make value judgements and its studies are limited to the empirically testable.

I'm not familiar with anything more than the most basic beliefs of Buddhism, but I'd be interested in knowing how Reincarnation and Nirvana could be supported by anything except blind faith. I'm not suggesting that the religious discard all empirical beliefs like gravity or magnetism, only that religions do contain elements which must be taken on faith. Science doesn't.

Empiricism and the rule of simplicity are beliefs taken on faith in science. The value of consistency is taken on faith.

If they believe that then it's hard to see how they could be Christian as that empistemology wouldn't justify belief in God and the divinity of Jesus.

Why assume that justification is attainable or desirable?

If they're working on personal, private experience then this would confirm my distinction between science and religion: science likes public evidence.

The Sutras and The Bible are rather public evidence. And science very much operates on personal private experience, but like most religions, gets as many respected people to verify it as possible and thus acheives greater social legitimacy.

Certainly not, but are development and growth synonymous with self-correction? The Protestant Reformation was a major development but that doesn't mean it was right.

The Protestant Reformation would be an example of a religion's self-correction because it was based on objections to some of the practices and beliefs of Christianity that were rooted in the norms of the religion itself. It sought to eliminate those elements within Christianity that were incompatible with Christianity (hypocrisy, corruption, etc).

Science does the same thing. If experiments are done poorly and the scientific norms are not adhered to, ideally someone will make note of it and re-do the experiment with the appropriate norms in mind so that it can be properly called science.

When new developments arise in science, they can be compared to an objective reality. Is there any such objective reality available easily to check theological truth?

I've already mentioned that science operates on personal experience and social ratification, so I think that the degree of subjectivity in science has to be addressed before making claims to objectivity, but until then I'll pose another question.

If science only admits to that which is understood to be objective, how does that avoid the charge that it is a religion? For one, who decides what is objective and what isn't? Is there an objective test for objectivity? For two, not all religious claims are subjective, and some have been objectively demonstrated to be false, so how can you define science as objective and religion as not-objective? Wouldn't it then simply be a matter of degree of subjectivity/objectivity?

John Paul II accepted evolution, the new pope is more fundamentalist. You might find this article interesting:

Thank you for directing me to that.

IIRC the Vatican astronomer was fired shortly after he described Intelligent Design as 'a kind of Paganism'. Besides, this isn't an example of self-correction, it's an example of the Church making an empirical claim and of science correcting them. If it hadn't been for science, do you really think that the Church would have disgarded the literal Genesis account a priori?

Is taking science seriously not a valid method of self-correction? How is the Church's decision to accept the validity of a scientific theory neither a correction or an act on the part of the Church itself? :confused:

The theological doctrine "It pleases God when believers kill those of different religion" can only be wrong if there is an objective theological truth to compare it to. To my mind, saying "God approves of murder" is less true than saying "God doesn't approve of murder"; they're both literally meaningless.

That's a lovely opinion.

Science is performed by a person or a group of people. It is rooted in personal and social experience of and processing of experimental results. I'm not sure how you're getting the idea that a test of an object or several objects, done by a person (a subject) or a group of people (several subjects) leads to a genuine objectivity.

Repetition suggests it is not a matter of one subjective interpretation. The fact that a result has to be capable of being duplicated by others, overcomes the risk that the result is entirely subjective. The fact that results are repeated, duplicated and 'measured' shows that the results can be agreed upon in an objective fashion. Thus - objectivity.

On the other hand, if your only way to 'meaure' god, is to encounter god in the subjective manner... there is no way it can be objective.

I realise you have an angle you desperately want to push here, and I respect that you've tried quite hard to find reasons to support your agenda, but the scientific method is a pure application of logic. It doesn't require belief, and the only asumptions it 'needs' are the basic assumption that what we 'see' is (basically) what is 'real'.

As such - though some might place faith in science - they are wrong to do so. While some might 'believe' science, that is a flawed understanding of what 'science' is 'for'. Though you might wish to claim science is like a religion - to do so just suggests you are talking about some artifact version of 'science' you have chosen (or constructed) for debate. It has no relation to, or impact on, the scientific method.

My brother once told me that to say "Do you believe in science, or religion?" was like saying "Do you believe in Math, or English?" or "Do you believe in Art, or Social Studies?" or "Do you believe in recess, or home room?"

Would you agree with this? What are your thoughts on this matter?

If a person "believes" in science, he hasn't understood ANYTHING about science.