Religion vs. Science

AttroPheed

Anecdotes are not data. Philosophy is not science. Applying a cost/benefit analysis to your life in hopes of believing just enough to gain access to some insecure ghost's afterlife wrap party is childish. I'm no expert on belief systems but it seems to me that once a person, an adult especially, believes something that is later proven to be false or fallacious they're not going to want to stop believing in it because they're afraid that it will make them look foolish or gullible for ever having believed it. This seems especially valid amongst the religious because faith in general attaches a certain sort of shame in being open-minded about things and makes it an outright sin to question the existence of a god.

If we move away from religion altogether for a moment to something equally silly but actually testable like homeopathic medicine. We see time and again that homeopathic medicines are proven to be about as effective as a placebo in numerous double blind scientific studies. This does nothing to slow sales of a "medicine" that is essentially vials of water and sugar pills. The purveyors of this quackery simply ignore the evidence and keep selling to people willing to buy it.

I don't think there is any grand conspiracy at work here. Just the average human's inability to reason thru their belief. If our belief system works this well for sugar pills you can imagine what it does for a religious hierarchy claiming to have simple explanations for incredibly difficult questions, and the added bonus of eternal salvation. The fact that it works exceedingly well in countries whose educational programs aren't what they could be isn't exactly shocking either.

I don't think its on a conscious level but "Believers" are simply unwilling to be exposed to evidence that may sway a deeply held belief and even if they are exposed to it they're unwilling to acknowledge it.

br00ksintexas

It is possible to believe in both GOD and Science at the same time. I mean, what Christian, or person of any other faith that believes in a GOD, could (or does) discount Dinosaurs, or in many aspects, evolution to some degree? I belive in anything that can be proven scientifically. Who wouldn't. With that said, I still see no proof of GOD's non-existence. I think Jeff has it right. Both Religion and Science can live harmoniously within someone who's spiritual. I don't believe that it would make them unintelligent, either.
Faith-1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
Many believe that the universe is convex, because of Einstein's Theory.
Many believe the universe as up to 13 different dimensions, thanks to String Theory * aka M Theory, or The Theory of Everything*. Neither of those are proven either, but many GREAT scientific minds believe in them, too. I'd say believing in GOD isn't all that bad, or all that rediculous, as long as they both find a balance within.
*When I think back to my time in school, I think my first connection to the word THEORY came in science class. So much of science is based on theory, whether proven fact over time, or not. *

Sandok

You can't believe in both. God is the opposite of science. Simple. God has rules (the bilbe) and since is proof. I mean, god says we are unique, but it is sure that we are not in this universe. That's contradiction so in other words, you can't believe in both. God contradicts science and vice versa.

raid517

I don't think that God and science are in any way compatable at all. If you understood science then this is one of the first things you would genuinely and quickly come to understand. Where is God in any of the work of the scientific greats I have mentioned? Indeed where is God in an modern scientific theory, or any of the great discoveries of the last 500 years? Point him out in one single instance in any of these any I will be only too happy to discuss him with you. Unfortunately I think you will find that your search is likely to be fruitless.

Clearly the very process of science, from the post dark ages onwards has been essentially about proving religion wrong. How many people through history have been persecuted by the Church and condemed as heritics for comming up with an observation or a theory that was set hard against the religious theology of the day? And how many times has the Church been proved wrong? Indeed would it not be fair to say that they have been proved wrong in every possible instance?

There is no agreement at all between science and religion. Again take the simple example of themodynamics that I gave above. This says that either there was a creator or there wasn't a creator. Either themodynamics is right (and we have the modern world around us to prove that it is) and the universe and matter could not have been created - and therefore logically it does not require a creator - or it was created. Either science is right and religion is wrong, or religion is right and science is wrong.

There are a great many other examples of this throughout science - but as I said the difficulty is that very few people actually take the time to try and find out what these answers are. But the bottom line is that you cannot have the two - they are both fundamentally and comprehensively in complete disagreement with each other. So you really do need to make a choice between blind faith - and undertaking to find out if there really might be an alternative explanation for all of the various things that you claim to believe.

The choice however is as ever yours. But don't blame me, and also don't become too comfortable in your so called faith if you are too lazy, or if you somehow lack the capacity to understand what these other answers might be. Just because you can't understand them, or can't be botherd to read about them it does not make your so called 'faith' any more valid at all.

Best regards,

GJ

[hobo]eclipse

God isnt "in" there, that procedure IS god, its all way simpler than this, "THIS" is why the world is way to populated, humans tend to be kinda like a cancer, they just keep piling up and piling up and dont know wat to do with themselves, like i said before the world in my opinion is over the top, and in entering self destruct mode, does any body here consider astrology?? or have even looked into it, i recomend it, it will help u better understand yourself therefor opening new dimensions and possibilities and opinions and considerations for things,

Ferret_Style

Religion is the down fall of modern society with most major wars with it as it cause...

Science is pure if not corrupted by those that wish power for mostly religious reason.

[hobo]eclipse

but cant u also say the modern society is the downfall of religion??

AttroPheed

Certainly it's possible but you have to essentially ignore a lot of the evidence that science presents in order for religion to keep working.

What do you think of the lack of evidence for the non-existence of firebreathing unicorns?

Well sure, but again it takes a lot of ignoring simple facts in order for that to happen. This wouldn't really be called unintelligence but more a flaw (for lack of a better term) in the human belief system. Think of how easily a vast majority of humans succumb to notions of the paranormal to explain away things too complicated for them to understand and you can plainly see where religion fits in. I like to think that people aren't stupid or even delusional, (save for maybe creationists) they just get comfortable with the answers supplied to them by their parents and other experiences and eventually become blind to any other explanation.

This seems to defining scientific theory as "scientific guess." Its more accurately "a theory that explains scientific observations. -- dictionary.com" Scientific theories arent just random subjective guesses about how things came to be. If they didn't hold up to testing they wouldn't exist.

swimtech

Realize I'm chiming in late, but saw this as a poll and voted for both science and religion...

As I see it, the two are not mutually exclusive at all. The quest for me, and so many others, is the truth. The truth is factual, foundational, and doesn't change - it applies across opinions and theories - you can rely on it.

Science and religion should therefore converge on the truth.

AttroPheed

I hope this is sarcasm

raid517

Well again i would dipute whether much of that was science. Real science tends to concern itself with what can also be tested.

There is however such a thing as scientific speculation, which M theory and string theory and so on probably falls into.

However in many instances scientific speculation is a valid pursuit. For example, Einstein's theory of special relativity was a theory for many years, but it wasn't until the early 1970's when atomic clocks were invented that the theory could finally be tested and proved to be correct. (Or at least one aspect of it - given that the atomic bomb probably settled this question in most people's minds).

However you clearly mistake religious belief with scientific theory. Religious belief is based on blind faith, where scientific theory is based on scepticism. Where in religion you are expected to simply believe unquestioningly what you are told, in science the onus is always on you to try to disprove any given so called 'theory'. There is indeed a never ending effort to disprove our theories - and in so doing we try to gain new insights from our ever improving ability to disprove them (read about Karl Popper). Indeed it is this kind of scepticism that has been the driving force behind many (iif not all) of the discoveries that have been made in modern times. Conversely however, there is no requirement whatsoever for any followers of religion to try to disprove their faith.

And which i wonder if you consider the matter logically, has provided man with the most answers to his deepest and most fundamental questions about the nature of the world in which we live in this last 500 years? What new answers, if any has religion given us throughout this period?

From what I can see it seems as I have said that religion has simply stopped asking questions - and that it has not progressed at all. When faced with difficult questions, it's only answer is to pretend that these questions do not exist - and instead it has prescribed a new doctrine to it's followers of 'total faith' - whereas (as has been noted) the stipulation is that no matter how unlikely God may have become, one should continue to believe regardless of this - that indeed the more faith one has the greater the reward is likely to be. But clearly all this does is allow the church to continue to perpertate a lie.

If you want to buy into that then fine. That is completely up to you. But for me I would rather continue to ask questions - and continue to alter my views in light of each new piece of evidence that is presented to me.

I am no 'doubting Thomas', for at least I have all of the evidence that I could ever possibly need. I do not doubt at all. So where I wonder is your evidence? Or is blind and unquestion faith all that really is required?


GJ

raid517

Wrong. Science is by it's nature complely fractional - and is constantly evolving and changing/refining it's views and opinions. The best science there is is the kind that stomps on and tramples over previously established theories and beliefs and replaces them with new, more accurate and more testable ones.

Religion on the other hand simply tells you that 'that is the way it is' and then expects you to accept this completely unquestioningly.

They are therefore two fundamentally different approaches. So please do try not confuse them.

The only interest that religion has in science (and it is a trend I have noticed in recent years) is in order to try to give itself a little more legitimacy, in light of the mounting evidence against it. Science however is rarely as interested in religion as religion is in science. Put bluntly, science simply does not need or require religion in the same way that religion seems to need and require science. For the religious types, it is a shotgun wedding - a marriage of convienience - while most scientists view the way many religious types routinely abuse science, as fundamental grounds for a divorce.

I would not mind so much perhaps if religion did not so often try to deliberately pervert what science does try to teach us. (A prime example of this being the argument through intelligent design - which was shown to be complete hogwash as much as a century ago - and for which there is no existing evidence at all). They do this though, not because they are genuinely interested in science, but because they think (often unfortunately correctly) that if they can make something sound even vaguely scientific, that this will convince many of the poor, the ignorant , the unfortunate and the uniformed of this world. It is therefore in this light as incideous a philosophy as it is possible to devise, perperatrated by people who care only to maintain their positions of power, privlidge and influence within their communities - and even within the political areana. It is therefore as I have said in this sense, a genuine crime against humanity - and it should have no role at all in our modern world.

Best regards,

GJ

SFOSOK

I think science was created to better prove God's existance and not really the search for truth behind the worlds smallest and largest questions.

Sandok

Yes.....

Man made god, not vice versa mate.

SFOSOK

Depends on what standpoint your are looking at.


I'm not so stubborn to take a stand on this sort of issue and not look the other way. I believe there is a God, but not because someone told me to. God is something humans need as a whole whether you think God exists or not. Just sayin that most of the people who believe only in science that I know are the most closed minded, selfish, and self-righteous people I have ever met. I know quiet a few Christians fit that spec also (only sunday Christians). I myself don't feel I should need to go to church to have a pastor talk at me for 3 hours to clean away my soul. I have no regret so I just try to live my life through Christ, and thats the best I can do right now.

raid517

Sigh, honestly - I think some people just prefer ignorance! Have you even bothered to read anything that has been said here? The bottom line however as I have said, is that ignorance is no excuse for religion and religion is no answer at all for ignorance.

In truth science exact opposite of this. Science was not 'created', it was in fact snatched out of the jaws of the Church and of organised religion by a few brave people who had the courage to actually question what they were being told. That my friend is what science really is. It is also unsurprising (to me at least) that quite a few of these people have been persecuted and tortured and otherwise harshly punished by the Church for daring to even attempt to do so.

As for science not being 'not being about a search for the truth behind the world's smallest and largest question', this is exactly what science is. From what we are made of, to where we came from, to how the planets and stars - and even our Universe were formed formed - science asks these questions almost every single day. How much bigger questions I wonder could there possibly be? And science has made great progress (and will continue to do so) towards answering many of these questions. The answers are there - but it is entirely up to you to ask.

You may not want to ask the question - you may not indeed believe or understand the answers - but this still does not mean that religion provides the only possible alternative explanation.

As for man not having created God - well we can dig up plenty of examples in the archaeological record where man has created many Gods in the past - a great number of whom have long since been forgotten. No one would dispute that it was man who created them - and that he did so long before christianity became even remotely influential in the world - so why shouldn't he invent a Christian God, or indeed a Muslim, or a Sikh God - or however many different varieties of Gods there are in our modern world to choose from today? And what is to say that in time these too will not be forgotten, just like so many other have been in the past?

For me at least, it is a process that cannot happen too soon.

GJ

raid517

But this has no baring at all on science. Whether people are 'soft and squidgy' or 'hard nosed and arrogant' or whatever is irrelevant to the subject of scientific proof. Scientifc proof exists happily without any baring or any reference at all to human personalities. It doesn't care who, or what you are - it just lays out the facts so that people of all personality types can see them for themselves. Science doesn't even care that science itself is often seen to be quite cold and unemotional - after all what has human emotion got to do with the truth?

In any case I have met many people I would decribe as more than just 'Sunday Christians'. Some of the people I have known where in fact really quite fervent evagelical sorts. But I have found that even here there is as equal mix of of 'closed minded, selfish, and self-righteous' sorts as there is anywhere else - including in the world of science. So there is no justification I can see to give any one group any kind of status of perfection over any other group at all.

The fact that people are often closed minded, and self-righteous just makes them people - it doesn't by definition make them different from anyone else - nor does it say anything at all about which perspective they hold is likely to be the most accurate. Clearly this can have very little baring on the truth, or what is real.

GJ

br00ksintexas

I have a question here, more than a comment. IF I, or anyone else on this board, believes in GOD, under whichever name they call him, does it factually make them ignorant, or just in your own perception?

From the responses I've seen throughout this thread, most of those who say flatly that there is no GOD, as if they have some shred of scientific fact, I would think that the answer to my question would be a resounding yes.

I wonder, if anyone with ANY type of scientific credibility could or had proved, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that there was indeed no GOD, if it would be made public.

Everyone tends to say that the majority of the main-stream media is liberal. Wouldn't it be something they would relish in pointing out to the world; disproving the existence of GOD.

Personally, I'll keep my faith for now. Until someone with some type of genuine scientific credentials can prove the lack of a GOD or higher power. Like I said, faith is free, not to mention freedom of choice. And to whomever said you can't believe in both GOD and Science, I'm ASSuming that they were speaking about themselves only, and no one else. Many, if not most, Christians or people of any faith, believe in the undeniable proven aspects that science brings to our lives.

AttroPheed

I'm absolutely open-minded. I'll examine any evidence you can give me that might plead a case for the existence of god or any other unnatural thing for that matter. But the fact of the matter is, there is none. I'm willing to be proven wrong. I invite it.

It's been said that it's impossible to disprove the existence of anything. Take bigfoot for example. We've never found anything to prove that he exists but we haven't found anything that disproves it either. So by default must bigfoot exist or can we just write it off as crap that a group of people made up as a prank? What about when you decided to believe in your god. Were there many years of exhaustive research and examination of evidence before you decided all the gods you don't worship don't exist?

raid517

Well the honest answer to that is that it is largely my opinion - but it is also the opinion of every serious scientist I have ever met. Physics may not be my major field (I am an engineer by profession) but I did study it for several years while at University - and throughout that period and many times since then I have had the privilege of meeting several really very influential scientists and thinkers (a seminar is a bit like a rock concert for me I'm afraid - even now) and while many would probably be a little more reserved in public, almost all of them would express the same views in private. So in answer to that question, no I do not think it is just my own view, I think that it is the view of the vast majority of serious scientists I have ever met, or indeed have ever read about.

Does this mean you are ignorant? Maybe I wouldn't go that far - I know nothing about your background, or your level of educational qualifications - or what efforts (if any) you have made to understand and research a counter perspective. Perhaps you have tried, perhaps you regularly try? Perhaps you read many books on science and do so on a frequent basis - and maybe it is in the course of this personal research that somewhere in these texts you have found some kind of proof that for you enables you to strengthen your religious convictions - in which case I would genuinely commend your efforts. But if this is the case, I would also ask you to share with us all exactly what that evidence might be?

After all, just as science might benefit as you put it from proving the non existence of God - the world and science and everyone I think would be eternally grateful, if you or any other religious sort was able to actually prove the existence of God. As has been said, science genuinely relishes in the prospect of being proved wrong (unlike religion) so if you or anyone can provide such evidence you would undoubtedly have done the world of science the greatest service of all.

As for science 'disproving the existence of God' well I am not sure that this is really the role of science anyway. After all, science can only deal in what can be proved and in what is real. It can no more prove or disprove the existence of God than it can prove or disprove the existence of pixies. How can you prove (or disprove) the unprovable?

However what science can do is largely prove that there is no real need for a God in our Universe to begin with, in order for any of the things we see around us to exist. And if there is no real need for a God - then what exactly is the point of invoking one? Where exactly (if anywhere) does God fit into the equation?
As I have said, there is a great deal of scientific evidence that there is no NEED for a God. I think the fact that you appear to not be aware of what this evidence is or that it exists, speaks volumes about how your current perception was formed. As has been said, science at its core invites you to disprove the assertions it makes - but in order to do so, you must first be aware and understand exactly what these assertions are.
Well there we have a classic example of the recent tendency of certain members of the so called 'American evangelical right, to associate science with leftist politics and the so called 'Liberal press.' Perhaps they imagine that it is somehow a legitimate response, that because the liberal press (as they see it) is so universally despised, that it is possible to simply dismiss science in the same way?

Unfortunately history doesn't bare this out. A brief study of the field of science will show that scientists have tended to come from all aspects of the political spectrum, from the extreme left to the extreme right, from communists, to outright rabid Nazis, from liberals, to hard core conservatives - science has shown no preference for the political views and opinions of anyone who has ever made any kind of significant scientific breakthrough. Just like personality types, politics has nothing at all to do with science (except perhaps for the tendency of some politicians to try to limit the rate of scientific development). Science concerns itself with only one thing - and that is scientific proof - and this is something that stands above politics, above personality types and above all of the frailties of human emotion. Science does not care at all what you feel, or what your 'opinion' may be, because that is not what science is, or what it