Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2018 9:05 PM
256 online now:
DrJones*, JonF (2 members, 254 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,935 Year: 13,758/29,783 Month: 1,204/1,576 Week: 145/271 Day: 86/59 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
59NextFF
Author Topic:   Religion or Science - How do they compare?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 1 of 882 (831465)
04-18-2018 8:21 AM


RELIGION:
All your questions answered ...
... trust us ...

SCIENCE:
All your answers questioned ...
... trust nothing ...

Religion is about authority and depends on people (preachers etc), while science is about process independent of people, and you don’t need to be an accredited scientist to do science.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 04-18-2018 11:14 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 7 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2018 12:34 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 04-21-2018 9:21 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 164 by mike the wiz, posted 05-13-2018 6:38 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11160
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2 of 882 (831469)
04-18-2018 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-18-2018 8:21 AM


Its about the individual human and what they utilize
This reminds me of an interesting blog post that I read recently.
Is There Evidence for Easter? A Scientist’s List. written by Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass MD PhD

His blog ends with this question:

quote:
So, we are left with an invitation. Will we too believe? Will we be curious? Will we respond with trust?
If you say that science trusts nothing, you need to differentiate between science and some scientists, such as the one who wrote this blog.
Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass MD PhD is a physician, scientist, and Assistant Professor of Laboratory and Genomic Medicine at Washington University in Saint Louis.

Science and Faith exist in peace in my own mind. I utilize science in order to hone my diet and manage my addictions, but I also realize that I need Faith in order to overcome some of the cognitive dissonance found in daily living.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2018 8:21 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 04-18-2018 2:10 PM Phat has responded
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2018 4:37 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 8 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2018 12:47 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 04-20-2018 12:08 PM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14347
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 3 of 882 (831475)
04-18-2018 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
04-18-2018 11:14 AM


Re: Its about the individual human and what they utilize
He made a mistake when he decided to trust the apologists. A more scientific attitude would have helped him.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 04-18-2018 11:14 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 04-18-2018 3:33 PM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11160
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 4 of 882 (831478)
04-18-2018 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
04-18-2018 2:10 PM


Re: Its about the individual human and what they utilize
I was unaware that he needed help. Please explain.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 04-18-2018 2:10 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 04-18-2018 4:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14347
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 5 of 882 (831481)
04-18-2018 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
04-18-2018 3:33 PM


Re: Its about the individual human and what they utilize
He’s fallen for questionable or even outright false arguments.

For example, the number of Bible manuscripts is not good evidence that the Bible is reliable or not. It only helps to deal with corruption to the text - it can’t tell us that the original text was reliable at all. Even then we don’t have many really early manuscripts and the earliest are just tiny fragments.

So yes, if he is interested in the truth he does need help. Too baD that he placed his trust in people interested only in pushing their own beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 04-18-2018 3:33 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 6 of 882 (831516)
04-19-2018 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
04-18-2018 11:14 AM


Re: Its about the individual human and what they utilize
... Will we respond with trust?

Which means he’s asking about a religious response, not a scientific one.

Science and Faith exist in peace in my own mind. ...

Indeed, because we don’t know everything, there are beliefs we take on trust ... at least until they are shown to be erroneous.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : /


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 04-18-2018 11:14 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3170
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 7 of 882 (831524)
04-20-2018 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-18-2018 8:21 AM


Religion is about authority and depends on people (preachers etc), while science is about process independent of people, and you don’t need to be an accredited scientist to do science.

Back on CompuServe (hence about 30 years ago), I encountered the first chapter of a book that one Arthur J. D'Adamo was working on called, "Ways of Knowing" -- one copy is at http://icr.provocation.net/smallasc.htm (bummer of a URL, dude), though I'm not sure of the sequence of revisions nor from where in that sequence this version and the one I had read come.

Basically, he was trying to apply some kind of Hegelian dialectics (thesis + antithesis -> synthesis, also used by Karl Marx) in order to form some kind of synthesis out of two diametrically opposed ideas, science and religion (representing thesis and antithesis or vice versa depending on your individual biases). A noble goal and this first chapter (at least the version I had read) made some good points, but what I read from him over a decade later seemed to have taken some weird turns.

Basically as I recall, you had one group, R (my own nomenclature for discussion here), who had received all their knowledge through revelation, or at least from an authority figure who told them what that revelation was (as Thomas Paine nearly correctly pointed out, Revelation is Revelation only to that person receiving it, whereas whatever he tells another person about it becomes hear-say and from that person to another it becomes hear-say upon hear-say -- I differ by considering where the person who received the Revelation thinks about it himself as that first stage of It becoming hear-say). Then you have a second group, S, who are trying to figure everything out for themselves. Obviously, R is religion deriving its teachings from an authority while S is science building its teachings from the evidence.

Basically, it's a tortoise-and-hare story. Plus the story restricts itself to alchemy. At first group R "knows everything" and S knows almost nothing, so R just laughs at S's silly efforts. S makes steady progress, all along the way of which R just smugly laughs at how S is only learning what R had already known all along. But then S starts learning things that R had never known.

I'm not sure that D'Adamo got to this point, but with R if you start out with perfect knowledge, then the only direction from there is down-hill, corruption of that perfect knowledge, AKA "entropy". Once you have all that perfect knowledge revealed to you, then the only further development is degradation of that perfect knowledge, its corruption. How do you test that perfect knowledge in order to detect any corruption? Very simple: you have no mechanisms nor tests in place to detect any corruption. That "perfect knowledge" can rot away and fall from your fingers and you have no way to know that that had even happened.

OTOH, S's way of knowing is all about testing and correcting, since that is its fundamental approach. If S gets anything wrong, as it inevitably must, it can detect that fact and try to correct it. Thus, imperfect S can at least strive to get ever closer to the truth.

 
So in way of comparison, S's approach is to work with the evidence and try to get ever closer to the truth on that basis. That involves a lot of testing and a lot of mistakes, which are detected through that testing and corrected, so overall S's approach does tend to zero in on the truth, even though it takes a while.

In contrast, R's approach is to assume that it already has the truth. All that could ever happen to that absolute truth would be its degradation and corruption. R has no methodology in place to test "the truth", nor any way to correct any mistakes, except for religious purges of members. Additionally, R has no methodology in place to correct mistakes outside of purges and inquisitions -- I wanted to add pograms, but those are for outsiders like Jews.

Group S strives towards the truth and has mechanisms in place and actively deployed to accomplish that.

Group R can only slip inevitably away from the truth and has no mechanisms in place to prevent that outside of the unspeakable.

Edited by dwise1, : pograms, not programs


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2018 8:21 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2018 12:48 AM dwise1 has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3170
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 8 of 882 (831525)
04-20-2018 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
04-18-2018 11:14 AM


Re: Its about the individual human and what they utilize
Science and Faith exist in peace in my own mind.

As they rightfully should. The entirety of human existence and concerns far exceed the full range of human thought and concerns. Science, restricted to the physical universe and objective reality, can only ever be but a small part of that. It is only when religion decides that it wants to dictate reality in ways that directly contradicts reality that it ever comes in conflict with science.

IOW, you should never find any conflict between religion or creation and science, unless you deliberately choose to make religious statements about how the physical universe must be in direct contradiction with reality.

IOW, any conflict is solely the fault of creationism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 04-18-2018 11:14 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Paboss, posted 04-22-2018 12:01 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14347
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 9 of 882 (831526)
04-20-2018 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by dwise1
04-20-2018 12:34 AM


quote:

Group R can only slip inevitably away from the truth and has no mechanisms in place to prevent that outside of the unspeakable.

Assuming that they had the truth in the first place. And generally they have no way of telling that, either. Revelation really isn’t much good as a “way of knowing”.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2018 12:34 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2018 1:25 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3170
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 10 of 882 (831527)
04-20-2018 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
04-20-2018 12:48 AM


True, true, true, true, true.

So how could group R ever tell that anything is true? By measuring it against their Absolute Revealed Truth! But how can we ever know that that is true? Simply, we cannot. All we can ever do is assume that it is true. And then we discover where that Absolute Revealed Truth is not true.

I remember a Charles Bronson action movie where he was a Border Guard (la Migra keeps changing its name!). He advised a newbie to mark his own boot so that he could avoid following his own tracks up into his own ass. "True Christians'" circular reasoning.

And that is the fundamental problem of their "revealed truth" theology. Even ignoring all the practical problems of the inevitable degradation and decay of "revealed truth", the most basic and fundamental question is whether that "Revelation" was even ever true in the first place. R has absolutely not mechanism in place to determine that, yet S does.

IOW. we also need to look at the different approaches of R and S for our basic assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2018 12:48 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15164
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 11 of 882 (831538)
04-20-2018 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
04-18-2018 11:14 AM


Re: Its about the individual human and what they utilize
So, we are left with an invitation. Will we too believe? Will we be curious? Will we respond with trust?

Belief/trust is the opposite of curiosity, isn't it? That "invitation" sounds like, "Either come to our wedding or go bowling."

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 04-18-2018 11:14 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 04-21-2018 5:40 AM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11160
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 12 of 882 (831582)
04-21-2018 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
04-20-2018 12:08 PM


Communion 101
...That "invitation" sounds like, "Either come to our wedding or go bowling."
And it depends if you know who the Groom is and who the Bride is.
Bowling isn't really that fulfilling.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 04-20-2018 12:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by ringo, posted 04-21-2018 11:50 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15164
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 13 of 882 (831595)
04-21-2018 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
04-21-2018 5:40 AM


Re: Communion 101
Phat writes:

Bowling isn't really that fulfilling.


I don't like either bowling or weddings.

I had a good friend once. Both of us were really bad at bowling but we went a few times with groups of people. I would have gone anywhere with her, maybe even a wedding.


An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 04-21-2018 5:40 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4486
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 14 of 882 (831620)
04-21-2018 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-18-2018 8:21 AM


Compatibility of science and religion
RAZD writes:

RELIGION:
All your questions answered ...
... trust us ...


There are no doubt some that do believe that they have absolute answers for everything. However, that isn’t really the norm for most believers. At its core religion is simply mankind’s attempts to understand the nature of an external intelligence that is responsible for our existence and then, what that means to our lives. I would agree that too much of religious activity has been about gaining power or about trying to figure out how we can get that external intelligence working for us.
As a Christian I’ll simply deal with the question from that perspective. The Bible itself is obviously a group of books which depicts a progressive revelation, with that part of the revelation climaxing in Jesus of Nazareth. Since the time of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection there have been countless people trying to work out what that should mean to us, with Paul being the first that we have a record of. I contend that mankind is continuing to gain a more focused understanding of God all the time.
Again as a Christian, I do question what people including preachers, theologians etc tell me and like every other Christian have come to my own conclusions. From my perspective the only one I know who has it all correct is me, but even then I continue to question where I might be wrong and make corrections.
RAZD writes:

SCIENCE:
All your answers questioned ...
... trust nothing ...


That sounds good, but from my observation I'd say that some scientists can be just as dogmatic as some theists.
RAZD writes:

Religion is about authority and depends on people (preachers etc), while science is about process independent of people, and you don’t need to be an accredited scientist to do science.


The misuse of either can be about controlling people. Science is sometimes used to discredit all religious belief, while religion is sometimes used to discredit scientific belief.
My religious beliefs suggest, as per my signature, that I should humbly love kindness, and act justly. It does not give me absolutes about how that applies to specific cases and leaves me free to make my own decisions of how that looks both generally and specifically. It isn't about control, but about a way of living my life that I have freely chosen. (That is not to say that I am very good at it.)
My Christian religion answers different questions than does my interest in science. I understand science as a natural theology, and I personally find that it is not only compatible but complementary to my Christian beliefs. There is nothing in science that I reject because of my religious beliefs.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2018 8:21 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Tangle, posted 04-22-2018 2:32 AM GDR has responded
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2018 6:54 AM GDR has responded

    
Paboss
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 43
Joined: 10-01-2017


Message 15 of 882 (831623)
04-22-2018 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by dwise1
04-20-2018 12:47 AM


Re: Its about the individual human and what they utilize
dwise1 writes:

The entirety of human existence and concerns far exceed the full range of human thought and concerns. Science, restricted to the physical universe and objective reality, can only ever be but a small part of that. It is only when religion decides that it wants to dictate reality in ways that directly contradicts reality that it ever comes in conflict with science.

But the physical universe and objective reality seems to be all there is. And even if there is something beyond that it is not making any difference to our reality. If evidence emerges about something else and how that something affects us then it will become relevant and it will also become accessible to Science.

From this point of view I consider Religion to be completely irrelevant in our days. It played an important role for people to look for explanations for reality in the past but as Science progresses and explains more things the role of Religion becomes ever more negligible, at least as an explanatory approach.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2018 12:47 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
59NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018