The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Science vs. Religion  (Read 28110 times)

Offline Sandwalker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #25 on: 04/04/2005 18:14:39 »
A rational faith perhaps!
If such a thing exists.[}:)]


 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #26 on: 05/04/2005 03:11:15 »
"rational faith"... an oxymoron. Either you people have never studied religion, or you just never paid attention. Articles of faith are taken without proof, not even enough proof for a scientist to construct a coherent hypothesis. In a religious sense, the word "faith" has no relationship to the use of the same word when we really mean "reasonable hope". A scientist has "reasonable hope" that after enough theory and experiment he can prove a hypothesis and raise it to a working theory. The word "faith" may be used in place of "hope", but its got nothing in common with religion.

In a religious context, articles of faith have been already proved by the word of God, and are not open to anymore meddling. What you are discussing here is heresy, and the church has not treated heretics kindly in the past.

Some scientists are deeply religious. Whatever religious beliefs they hold on faith are not the same things they seek to prove by scientific method.
 

Offline MayoFlyFarmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 863
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/wiguyinmn
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #27 on: 05/04/2005 04:26:35 »
as a "scientist of faith" (doesn't that sound screwed up.... but i gues sits the propper term) I have to say qsmollin is right on the money there.

Are YOUR mice nude? ;)
 

Offline Tronix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #28 on: 07/04/2005 15:46:18 »
quote:
Originally posted by gsmollin

"rational faith"... an oxymoron. Either you people have never studied religion, or you just never paid attention. Articles of faith are taken without proof, not even enough proof for a scientist to construct a coherent hypothesis. In a religious sense, the word "faith" has no relationship to the use of the same word when we really mean "reasonable hope". A scientist has "reasonable hope" that after enough theory and experiment he can prove a hypothesis and raise it to a working theory. The word "faith" may be used in place of "hope", but its got nothing in common with religion.

In a religious context, articles of faith have been already proved by the word of God, and are not open to anymore meddling. What you are discussing here is heresy, and the church has not treated heretics kindly in the past.

Some scientists are deeply religious. Whatever religious beliefs they hold on faith are not the same things they seek to prove by scientific method.



That does bring up a good point, and that intesity of faith is something that science doesnot naturally achieve. Still, you can see some overlap when faith isnt as focused or strong. Some relgions are loosley structured and not only allow but encourage their followers to "do it their way". Some religions dont have much in the way of mythology or big books where they get there doctrines from. Less structured religions like that cultivate all kinds of degrees of faith and kinds of faith, even some kind of "reasonable faith" based on "unscientific" things ("hey, if everything good in my life has had the number 3 in it somehow, and i was born on the 3rd day of the 3rd month and the 3rd hour, that must be my lucky number, and (insert deity)'s number is 3, so ill pray/invoke/call upon/do magic with him/her"). Even in highly dogamtic relgions, not all patrons nessarily "know" that everythign in their main book is pure as gold, although they generally either keep quiet about or start a revolution. Take good old catholics and protestants. The Catholics "know" the pope cant be wrong, but eventually some of them started to not like what the pope was doing. At first, they may have had only faith in him becuase he was supposed to be chosen by god, where as they "knew" that god went by "these" standards. When the two didnt mesh, they may have had a "revelation", and know their faith was turned against the pope, or at least disapeered. This is how demoninations are formed. Hell, at first the thing that seperated the jews and christians was Jesus.

In conclusion. There are all kinds of faiths to be found in relgion, including the faith that requires no proof at all. Still, Science and religion share common bonds in places. very very very streched bonds, bt they are still there.

--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...
« Last Edit: 07/04/2005 15:53:56 by Tronix »
 

Offline ADD HAHAHA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #29 on: 08/04/2005 05:44:11 »
has any1 noticed that most religion r agenst eachother but most ariginated from the same place ( sand scriped ) its all just different interperitations of it.

its dissction has gone on n on about cathlic n ect...
but wat about budisum, finding 1s inner self, thay beleve that in the body there is hmmm.... a coflict wit the good n the bad n they meditae to find the balance of the 2.

Then theres druidism vary scientific and respecting of nature. they ask y or how

humens r bouned 2 come up wit some kind of reilig... its in there nature. like 2 blame a drought on a rain god or a good harvest on the god of food.

P.S. hi all i'm new at this but mainly HI (:D)
 


Drew Rody
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #30 on: 08/04/2005 17:51:46 »
ur pst s nrly impsbl 2 rd
 

Offline ADD HAHAHA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #31 on: 08/04/2005 18:13:32 »
PST???

lol 2 ur spellin

Drew Rody
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #32 on: 08/04/2005 18:44:56 »
Post.

Did you know one guy wrote a little program 2 'Prince-nise' ur ritin'? Hilarious, but after two pages it's been quite enough. Had the same nearly with Train Spotting, which is a different 'slang' (Scottish), but has to be read out loud to be understandable, nearly... :)

OT: pick up The Religion of Technology by D. Noble

http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/lectures/comments/s_hall-nobl_rev001.htm

and you'll see that the two are much closer intertwined than you believed possible. Like two faces of one coin, in stead of opposite numbers...
« Last Edit: 08/04/2005 18:47:45 by chimera »
 

Offline pink_person

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #33 on: 17/04/2005 01:54:12 »
science is great it helps us understand the things God does, but every once in a while it gets out of place and Jesus has to nudge it along to the right place again

Pink
 

Offline kjahafa

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #34 on: 08/05/2005 17:30:43 »
This is kinda like asking would you like paper or plastic? Both have the same purpose but are different. My take on this subject is this: Science explains our tangible existence and religion fulfills the intangible/phenomenal/spiritual/unexplainable existence. Science is not a belief and religion is not the only way to communicate with the Creator. If a child asks questions about the sun, moon and earth, will scientists answer all the questions? If religious people were to see the full spectrum of human life, will they be able to answer the underlying question of why? I don't think our brains are nor ever will be capable of understanding existence.  The bottom line is believe what you want, firmly. It has taken me awhile to come to this conclusion on my existence; because I am alive,I must do something. It is in the how have I accomplished what I accomplished that is important.
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #35 on: 08/05/2005 19:02:28 »
It is pretty cool reading all these people's different opinions and they are all quite different. I personally think that science and 'religeon' are quite different in some ways. Science is very slowly proving that God is real. A lot of Scientists have a lot of different opinions and there are qutie a lot of Chrisitan Scientists. However Generally Scientists believe in evolution and they are very slowly being prooved wrong. I think that Science is just a way of trying to explain how God made this earth etc. but has now drifted from that.

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #36 on: 08/05/2005 19:57:32 »
I think that faith and the scientific method are incompatable, as the whole point of faith is that you should belive without evidence, and the point of the scientific method is to question everything, believe nothing, and keep testing your theories against how the world works. There might be a god, ten gods, or whatever, but even if this was prooved, a scientist would then ask how he worked.

PS I don't think there are many scientists who think that much of evolution is being slowly prooved wrong who don't have ulterior religious motives.
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #37 on: 09/05/2005 21:24:34 »
hmmm well I think we have disagreements then because I think that you can be a scientist and have faith. I think you can actually prove a lot of 'religeos' things but I do admit for some of them you do need faith.....
p.s I hate using that word 'religeous'

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #38 on: 09/05/2005 21:37:49 »
I didn't say you couldn't just that the two approaches are incompatible, so it requires you to partition the things that you are going to think about scientifically and those that you are going to think about religiously. As thinking about religion scientifically will lead immediately to the lack of hard evidence, and if you think about schience religiously you end up being hung up on dogma - hence the whole Catholic earth is the centre of the solar system issue...
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #39 on: 09/05/2005 22:13:58 »
The big bang theory was not Hubble's, but Lemaitre's (Belgian Catholic Priest), and immediately embraced by the Vatican, since it 'confirmed' a moment of creation.

Just one example of how close the two 'disciplines' can get, simply because they are looking for answers to the same questions, albeit in totally diverse manner.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
 

Offline Tronix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #40 on: 10/05/2005 04:29:10 »
so this is where this threads been hiding.

well im glad yall are still responding and think this thread is worthy of replying in.

on the subject of christian scientists, this seems to happen alot. Albert Einstein, the practical founder of an entire branch of science, which is also the science of everything, was relgious, and often said he was trying to know what god knew. Religion and scence can coexsist, clearly.

but what is also clear is that there is a point in which they conflict, and dave makes this point when he mentions that the scientific method pushes questioning even the most proven laws of nature, and faith should survive even the most damning scrutiny.

Their idealogies dont mix, that is certain. but if oen gives leeway to both, they can mix. paranormalists know what im talking about, becuase they lack concrete proof for what they believe, but know without proof that what they are looking for is at least worth looking for, if not true. And on the relgious end, there are very forumulaic magical arts (hermetics, alchemy, numerology) in which practioners do experiment and attempt to understand thier art and the world, but they come from the relgious end, their basic laws based on faith (like hermetics based on the faith that their magical and metaphysical laws are from the revelations of an egpytian god)



--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #41 on: 10/05/2005 14:36:04 »
Funny how both the church and academia are united in their frowning on numerology, parapsychology, and some other hermestrismegistus-like phenomena mentioned.

Seems they do share quite a bit, but it seems not any of the things you mention... ;)

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
« Last Edit: 10/05/2005 14:37:03 by chimera »
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #42 on: 10/05/2005 14:41:06 »
Yeah they go against both religious dogma and evidence which is quite good going ;)
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #43 on: 10/05/2005 14:55:57 »
To make up for that (don't want to be condescending in any way): anyone here know who the first true-blue alchemist in the real sense was? Not with turning lead into gold, of course...




[A: http://www.tfainc.com/library.asp]

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
 

Offline simeonie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
    • http://www.simeonie.co.uk
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #44 on: 10/05/2005 16:23:03 »
Erm don't mean to sound stupid.... but what does dogma mean? I think Science is just trying to find out how God did it. Some people though don't believe he did though. This is a really cool topic and I like seeing what people think. There are Christian Scientists ya know and it is good to understand the evolution theories and the Big Bang stuff but they are all not true.

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #45 on: 10/05/2005 16:41:50 »
Dogma is the truth-in-a-booklet type of thing. Basically just a list of what you're supposed to think.

With science that would translate to pop-sci stuff that from the lower end of the quality spectrum, where everything is simplified in a similar manner (see, scientists must accept what's true, not what they wish to believe, even if it's not pleasant -no discipline is without minor allowances).

Churches are pretty high on dogma. The difference with 'scientific rigour' is that the latter is more adaptable to change. Not fast, always, but judging from history this cannot be denied.

It'd be wrong in my view to think that because science isn't perfect, and neither is our understanding of evolution or cosmogeny or math, the alternatives given by the church are compatible. They are the condensation of memories that have become so condensed over time, that there has been a bit of degradation in clarity and function: it has become oversimplified, and is also not amenable to change. That's never good.

So, if I'm honest, evolution theory is 100% better than a story that confuses even kids, with ingredients that belie everything you know from real life. Almost fairy-tale like representations of very old, oral history. There's truth hiding in there, but it's covered by so much muck over time, you'd have to be a very dedicated person indeed to separate wheat from chaff...

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
 

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #46 on: 12/05/2005 15:22:57 »
What happened to my post?

Titanscape
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #47 on: 15/05/2005 10:09:44 »
Errm. Still missing, I take it. Maybe related to the 'login problems' people reported? Dunno.

Anyway: nice experiment to show how even scientists can fall for dogma: any scientist willing to conduct it with me by answering the following question:

A black hole has been reported sitting at the center of a galaxy close to 450 million lighyears away, and it has a size calculated to be around 3,5 to 5 lightyears in diameter.

Yet, there is something totally impossibly wrong with it. Something that defies our astronomic common sense.

Now, what question would a respectable scientist - being impervious to dogma - ask first, before investigating the matter any further?

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
« Last Edit: 15/05/2005 10:10:21 by chimera »
 

Offline Tronix

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #48 on: 19/05/2005 16:09:19 »
These questions in this order.

How was it found?
Where was it found?
What was used to find it?
Who found it?
When was it found?
Why was it looked for?
What is the theory on its irregualar size?



--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #49 on: 19/05/2005 19:14:48 »
Ah, an answer. Last one is actually the correct one. What makes it that big? Incredibly big, even - any black hole that size would have had several HUNDREDS of galaxies for breakfast, and we do not know of any that size, of course. It does not exist.

In previous discussions I've people DID think this was possible, only doing the math finally convinced them. But on faith, they accepted them gladly - nothing wrong with a lightyear in diameter more or less...

that's dogma for you. Read to much pulp science, and you are maybe aware of activity at the frontiers of science, but have no clue as to its exact borders, and accept anomalies several orders of magnitude outside the scope of reality.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
« Last Edit: 19/05/2005 19:15:40 by chimera »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Science vs. Religion
« Reply #49 on: 19/05/2005 19:14:48 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length