Religion V Science

[renegadecow]

True, but what of the science we have proved and have no doubt about?

The natural sciences only prove things to us in ways that we perceive them to be. However solid our theories seem to us, there are places in the universe where they can be proven false or are actually part of a much larger equation unknown to us.

[aznriptide859]

The natural sciences only prove things to us in ways that we perceive them to be. However solid our theories seem to us, there are places in the universe where they can be proven false or are actually part of a much larger equation unknown to us.

 

But that's what science is for, no? To delve deeper into the unknown and use the scientific method to explain the unexplainable. I think the constant strive for discovering and explaining the unknown is what makes science so fascinating.

[WhiteHawksan]

True, but what of the science we have proved and have no doubt about?

 

Ah but therein lies the crux, we don't

 

Here's an example,

 

There is a piece of paper with a line on it. Someone asks how there is a line on it, a scientist explains it was made by a pencil. So the skeptic asks him to prove it, obviously the scientist gets a pencil and draws a line on the paper. Now this represents science we DO know, gravity exists because when I drop something it falls to the floor.

Now the skeptic asks him how the pencil draws the line and the scientist, suggests a theory but is forced to accept that he doesn't entirely know, it's just a guess.

This represents modern theoretical science. For example, we know that gravity exists, and that a gravitational pull in each atom is what causes gravity, but what causes that gravitational effect? What makes mass = gravity? We simply don't know, string theory suggests it is the attraction of vibrations. But when it comes down to it, we've no idea, we simply guess

[scorch]

The natural sciences only prove things to us in ways that we perceive them to be. However solid our theories seem to us, there are places in the universe where they can be proven false or are actually part of a much larger equation unknown to us.

 

Yet.

 

That's the point of science. Answer one question, raise 2 more. Rinse and repeat.

 

Religion ignores everything, because it is not open to change.

 

Sure, you get the odd modern religious types that will re-interpret religious teachings, but more often than not, they're re-interpreting science and trying to make it fit their religion.

[renegadecow]

Yet.

I specifically left that out because there will never be a true reckoning in the pursuit of science. We might uncover something new and serve as proof for us, but as you say there will always be deeper questions to delve into. Then there are answers that flip the whole table 'round. Take astronomy for example. Back when everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth, I could imagine the premiere scientists going ape *suitcase* when it was proven the other way around. For them an entire lifetimes worth of knowledge was "false". I put that in quotation for the argument of relativism.

[WhiteHawksan]

and of course, it could end up with science proving religion.

[Habakure]

Ah, hate to be a bit Jeremy here, new religions pop up all the time. They do adapt to new theories of life and the universe etc. Yes the core one's can't change and thats where it gets very odd. Look at the gay marriage arguement, people who arn't even religious, don't want it alla "not in my back yard syndrome".

 

Though religion is all about self discovery, with the bible as a guide, rather than an absolute guide that must be followed. As no-one kills someone for planting two types of plant/wheat in the same field.

[scorch]

and of course, it could end up with science proving religion.

 

Indeed it could, but until that happens I'll put my faith in the likes of DeGrasse Tyson, Tesla, Newton and Einstein.

[Leon Kennedy]

[renegadecow]

and of course, it could end up with science proving religion.

In many cases it has. The Catholic Church used to believe in spontaneous generation which it used to explain the origin of life. Enter Darwin explaining that maggots don't just pop up magically from rotting meat but are laid as eggs by flies. So the Church claims that God made the fly. You get the story in that there is no end to it. The Church can just as easily claim that God made science.

[aznriptide859]

 

I'm sorry I just fell off my chair laughing.

[WhiteHawksan]

I think I must at this point echo tinkerbells point, we've made 3 pages of discussion without resorting to childish insults and bickering, there really is no place like arnies

[Jibbity]

I think it all comes down to narrow mindedness on both sides. People need to work on acceptance and integration, rather than trying to force everyone to their particular interpretation. Is it so hard to entertain the idea that creation was implemented with the natural processes that we observe around us, or conversely that the big bang was deliberate?

[adadqgg]

 

As long as christians stop knocking on my door advertising for some stupid event in church that no one has time for; I can ignore them.

Unfortunately that does not always happen. So I show them my "bible" - Little Red Book of Quotation from Chairman Mao.

 

And then... they have no idea what the f**k it is...

 

Too soon.

[FireKnife]

I still find that the whole science v religion on the origin of man is a concluded one to much further point by science than by religion.

 

I shall explain, in the beginning many believed that we evolved from the Adam and Eve story. This was proved wrong as we discovered mans relation to the other apes, monkeys and the like. Next they try to defy the existence of creatures before us, science proved that dinosaurs and many birds, mammals and reptiles existed before our evolution, then religion decided to prove the theory of how the Earth was formed, which again science did come up with an answer to, now we have reached the end point, the finite point that religion has to stick with, the Big Bang and how it started. The day science proves that is the day that God's work is flaunted and while it isn't going to change anyones minds that has stuck with religion forever it is going to see other people convert to science or disbelieve. While religion has many other things going for it, the day you undo God's work with proven accuracy is the day you may take away a lot of people's faith, but truly i am not sure that is a good idea.

 

This is not the only thing the two disagree on, but it seems to be a constant struggle with science undoing the 2000 plus years before hand that religion has had, you will see what i mean in this country, as science proved more and more about our world less people believed in the church, seeing an alternative point to why we are here, one covered with fact. While science can't prove everything it can prove many things and as they are proven people will lose faith.

 

Though i do agree on one thing, if we did not have the Dark Ages of religious persecution i do think we would have been doing what we are doing now about 400 years earlier. In an alternative universe we would be better advanced, but that is not something i have against religion, it is something i have against those that use religion as a means to quash that which they don't believe and when you do that for too long people will start to ask why, thus we have the great science v religion. People are asking why, not accusing religion of being wrong but those that abuse its good name instead and how we can prove them wrong. It is a natural fight back.

 

'FireKnife'

[Habakure]

I do like the Bill Hicks sketch about fundamentalist christians, who counted up all the peoples age's in the bible and came up with 12,000 years old. Thats the age of the planet according to them. But, also what Bill Hicks pointed out, nowhere in the bible does it mention certains animals, but that doesn't mean the bible/religion doesn't believe in them (like say the do doe).

 

As has been proven time and again, the bible was written for morons, a long time ago. The tone and feel, of the bible, is what has stood the test of time. The detail within the bible, is what has helped duckheads to control and scare thier people, into believing, that thier glorious leader is doing gods will. ######.

 

Edit:- A certain d swear word isn't picked up by the filter.

[Nasty_TheYankWelshOne]

The Church can just as easily claim that God made science.

 

Stargate Ancients did it. We die, we become glowing balls of energy who no longer give a *suitcase* about the losers on the lower planes of existence.

[amateurstuntman]

so stunt is a scientologist!

 

Incidentally faith and science work on surprisingly similar principles, both rely on supposed truth.

 

The basis of most science is still theoretical, no-one understands why it all works yet. We've had string theory and such trying to explain it, but the science that underpins all science is guesswork. The same goes for faith, you suppose that god/aliens/mermaids are real without the underpinning factual proof.

 

Two entirely different types of truth.

 

One you feel and one you can prove, natural sciences may not have the luxury of absolute proof like mathematics does but it is very good indeed.

It doesn't matter that some things are beyond human understanding for now.

2000 years ago nobody understood stellar life cycles and nuclear fusion. by working on previously established truths and employing rigour we do now.

Progress will happen and one day all the secrets of the universe will be known to us, or we will invent a bomb that erases humans from history (I give us 50:50).

If that understanding shows us the face of god, I will be right there in line to punch it.

 

 

The natural sciences only prove things to us in ways that we perceive them to be. However solid our theories seem to us, there are places in the universe where they can be proven false or are actually part of a much larger equation unknown to us.

 

Yes but we will keep looking.

 

Ah but therein lies the crux, we don't

 

Here's an example,

 

There is a piece of paper with a line on it. Someone asks how there is a line on it, a scientist explains it was made by a pencil. So the skeptic asks him to prove it, obviously the scientist gets a pencil and draws a line on the paper. Now this represents science we DO know, gravity exists because when I drop something it falls to the floor.

Now the skeptic asks him how the pencil draws the line and the scientist, suggests a theory but is forced to accept that he doesn't entirely know, it's just a guess.

This represents modern theoretical science. For example, we know that gravity exists, and that a gravitational pull in each atom is what causes gravity, but what causes that gravitational effect? What makes mass = gravity? We simply don't know, string theory suggests it is the attraction of vibrations. But when it comes down to it, we've no idea, we simply guess

 

OK, but humans are creative people, making things up is what we do.

We lie constantly for self aggrandisement and gain, in fact the entire vocation of advertising exists solely to do just that.

Evil men invented god and made up the bible to control the weak then killed those who picked holes in their work.

 

Scientists make things up too, they are called conjectures, they invite other scientists to test their conjectures.

Experiments are invented, the efficacy of those experiments is tested.

The experiments produce results which are published and peer reviewed.

If the results do not support the conjecture a new conjecture is thought up.

If the results support the conjecture it becomes a theory.

The more results that support the theory, the more the theory becomes accepted as fact - however it never truly gets there.

 

The important thing is that if at any time a set of experimental results is produced that contraindicate a theory the scientist will test this new evidence and then modify the theory.

If the evidence totally destroys the theory then a new conjecture is devised and the process begins again.

 

This is scientific method.

 

It works.

 

One day we will discover the final piece, a keystone that locks all of science together, on that day all the theories get to ascend to fact. Not before

 

 

 

I think it all comes down to narrow mindedness on both sides. People need to work on acceptance and integration, rather than trying to force everyone to their particular interpretation. Is it so hard to entertain the idea that creation was implemented with the natural processes that we observe around us, or conversely that the big bang was deliberate?

 

No, science cannot prove what started the big bang (yet), religion cannot prove what started the big bang.

So I (as a follower of science) believe strongly that I don't know what happened.

 

Others who are followers of religion believe strongly that god did it.

 

The difference is that truth requires the burden of prof to prove the positive and assumes the negative while religion requires the burden of proof to prove the negative and assumes the positive.

 

That brings us back to the truth/faith - rationality/irrationality dichotomy.

 

To believe in god requires faith with no evidence, to be a scientist requires proof.

[Jibbity]

The point I was trying to make is that no one knows for certain . Stating that the universe was absolutely not created is as dogmatic as saying it was. I am happy living with the uncertainty, as are you. The trouble comes it when people start insisting that the beliefs of others are wrong. It bothers me that people in general are so concerned with the minutiae of others lives.

[WhiteHawksan]

stunt lowered the value of this thread badly with that post.

 

Science is NOT factual, science is paid for. Neutral research is very rare. Take cancer research, they're looking for a cure, there is an aim, and you provide evidence to support your claim.

 

Pure science is the domain, at least nowadays of academics, your perceive results, then present a theory on the results and try and prove it wrong.

 

The big bang theory, btw, is not scientifically proven, it's only a theory. The big bang theory is based upon a single piece of physical evidence (I.e. evidence you can see) This is a red spectrum shift on all known observable stellar objects. This indicates, that the theory that red shift inside a gravitational well, I.e. on earth, is the same across the universe. Secondly, that the fact that everything is moving away meant that everything started together at some point, but that's just guesswork.

 

Science is shakier than faith, the only difference is that scientists are more willing to hold their arguments up and say, we're just guessing. Whereas religion says, this is the evidence I have and I believe that that is enough.

[amateurstuntman]

The big bang theory, btw, is not scientifically proven, it's only a theory.

 

As I stated, all science is only a theory, that is the point of it.

If new evidence is provided science is able to change, there is no pressure.

Science does not have a billion people to explain embarrassing backtracks to.

 

As for the Big Bang Theory, the redshift evidence was used to formulate a conjecture. Scientists then tried to devise an experiment to support or refute the conjecture.

The calculated a predicted profile for the cosmic background radiation assuming the conjecture was valid.

 

They then built an experiment to measure the actual values of the background radiation.

 

The experiment was launched into space and when the results came in they matched perfectly with the predicted graph, so perfectly that when the error bars are drawn on at the correct scale they are not even visible.

 

The experiment was called COBE.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/missions/cobe/

 

And at the risk of sounding inflammatory.

 

http://xkcd.com/54/

[jal3]

Please please please don't lumb "science" and "scientology" together, it has nothing to do with each other. I advise everybody to go read up on scientology. Don't speak lightly of Scientology either.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Controversies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29

 

The only "scientific" thing about scientology is how they embrace and abuse mass psychology.

[amateurstuntman]

L Ron Hubbard, 1948:

"You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

L Ron Hubbard, 1952:

<Starts Scientology>

[WhiteHawksan]

Not that's what you call business acumen

 

I do know about the experiments, my older brother is literally a rocket scientist, I am a computer scientist.

 

But it's a single point of evidence. There have been plenty of cases of crime where apparent facts that fit perfectly have a very different explanation.

[amateurstuntman]

Yes there have, and this might be one of those cases.

If it is, other evidence will surface and this theory will be discounted. Other conjectures will be put forward and begin the journey to theory.

 

That's what makes it appeal to me.