Why can't religon and science be friends?

[scifes]

i agree, god has to be accounted for, and he does change the equation when he is introduced. what i'm saying, is that when we remove him his effects are easily filled by nature.

please, show me an example how science comes to a halt when god is introduced.

i'll try to give a model to work on;
evolution is...well, "science". does god existing "halt" learning about it? aren't there people out there saying that god's way of creating the different species is by evolution? if there was no god then what? well then evolution is nature's way of introducing the different species.

both ways, people continue to learn. because even if evolution DID come to a halt because of science, other fields will definitely appear.

plus, even when god DOES exist, there will always be those who don't believe in him who will persue the kind of science that might HALT because of god believed to exist.


i mean, look at it this way, if god did exist, and all humans believed he didn't, will we find out because our science is acting weird?
iff not, then it has been decided

 

[Neverfly]

i agree, god has to be accounted for, and he does change the equation when he is introduced. what i'm saying, is that when we remove him his effects are easily filled by nature.

please, show me an example how science comes to a halt when god is introduced.

Let's use yours.

i'll try to give a model to work on;
evolution is...well, "science". does god existing "halt" learning about it? aren't there people out there saying that god's way of creating the different species is by evolution? if there was no god then what? well then evolution is nature's way of introducing the different species.

both ways, people continue to learn. because even if evolution DID come to a halt because of science, other fields will definitely appear.

plus, even when god DOES exist, there will always be those who don't believe in him who will persue the kind of science that might HALT because of god believed to exist.


i mean, look at it this way, if god did exist, and all humans believed he didn't, will we find out because our science is acting weird?
iff not, then it has been decided

The basic problem is that when you introduce redundant or extraneous elements, you can always fall back on blaming the divine or supernatural when you lack a basic understanding for something.

That being the case, it's easy to simply accept that "Godditit" rather than investigate the actual factors at work.
Clearly, there can be great harm in this- as I listed in a rant in the homosexuality thread.
Complacency is not the ally of progress. Ignorance never yields answers.

 

[786]

The basic problem is that when you introduce redundant or extraneous elements, you can always fall back on blaming the divine or supernatural when you lack a basic understanding for something.

Doesn't make science halt... Historically even the religious societies have their interest in 'science'- Gregor Mendel was a ...... (fill in the blank), astronomers were highly regarded in almost all societies, architects... Iran is a theocracy and they have cloned animals- So I don't think science halts... yes people will say 'god did it' but that doesn't mean that they know 'what god did', they don't tell if if what 'god did' has any patterns or mechanism through which it works.... Anyone interested in that would be conducting science. Its all about perspective

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

i agree, god has to be accounted for, and he does change the equation when he is introduced. what i'm saying, is that when we remove him his effects are easily filled by nature.

In other words you're going back on your original assertion?

please, show me an example how science comes to a halt when god is introduced.

I have already given it: the underlying reason for things comes down to "because god wants it that way" and god isn't subject to scientific investigation.

i'll try to give a model to work on;
evolution is...well, "science". does god existing "halt" learning about it? aren't there people out there saying that god's way of creating the different species is by evolution? if there was no god then what? well then evolution is nature's way of introducing the different species.
both ways, people continue to learn. because even if evolution DID come to a halt because of science, other fields will definitely appear.
plus, even when god DOES exist, there will always be those who don't believe in him who will persue the kind of science that might HALT because of god believed to exist.
i mean, look at it this way, if god did exist, and all humans believed he didn't, will we find out because our science is acting weird?
iff not, then it has been decided

And all of the above avoids the actual point that if "god" is the reason then the ultimate answers are unavailable to science.

Doesn't make science halt...

Yes it does, see above.
Science can only get so far in its investigations and then the final answer comes down to "goddidit" - and that's where science runs up against a brick wall.

 

[spidergoat]

so what's the problem if he has a physical effect on the world...say like, putting it into existence, then what?

Then a world where His involvement changes things would look different than a world where He was not involved. Such physical interference could be observed, and is thus subject to science.

 

[786]

Yes it does, see above.
Science can only get so far in its investigations and then the final answer comes down to "goddidit" - and that's where science runs up against a brick wall.

If 'science can only go so far'- than it is the limitation of science itself... Even if someone did not say 'goddidit'- it wouldn't matter because if 'science can only get so far'- then science itself has halted- its halting is not a consequence of 'goddidit' but of science itself.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

If 'science can only go so far'- than it is the limitation of science itself... Even if someone did not say 'goddidit'- it wouldn't matter because if 'science can only get so far'- then science itself has halted- its halting is not a consequence of 'goddidit' but of science itself.
Peace be unto you

Since the claim of theists is that god isn't amenable to scientific investigation then how is it science's fault?
Science at least has the decency and honesty to state what it is and is not capable of doing.

 

[786]

Since the claim of theists is that god isn't amenable to scientific investigation then how is it science's fault?

This has nothing to do with science coming to a halt.

Science at least has the decency and honesty to state what it is and is not capable of doing.

So you admit

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

This has nothing to do with science coming to a halt.

Of course it does - if god is the answer then as soon as science gets to goddidit further investigation is impossible.
Take a look at ID - the argument in favour of a creator is that "some things cannot be investigated further, therefore god must exist and he did it".

So you admit

Oh please, "admit"? It's understood that science limits itself to observable phenomena. Science has always been aware (and made no secret of the fact) that it has has a "limited" purview.

 

[786]

Of course it does - if god is the answer then as soon as science gets to goddidit further investigation is impossible.
Take a look at ID - the argument in favour of a creator is that "some things cannot be investigated further, therefore god must exist and he did it".

But you are answering it yourself. Once science 'gets there'- if it gets to its own end, then how can you blame 'goddidit'.

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

But you are answering it yourself. Once science 'gets there'- if it gets to its own end, then how can you blame 'goddidit'.

Error of comprehension on your part it seems.
If goddidit then the ultimate answer isn't available to science.
As I have previously stated.
It would mean that science becomes useless (ineffective) at that point.

 

[scifes]

Let's use yours.



The basic problem is that when you introduce redundant or extraneous elements, you can always fall back on blaming the divine or supernatural when you lack a basic understanding for something.

That being the case, it's easy to simply accept that "Godditit" rather than investigate the actual factors at work.
Clearly, there can be great harm in this- as I listed in a rant in the homosexuality thread.
Complacency is not the ally of progress. Ignorance never yields answers.

way to go with stating your point clearly.
goddidit is an answer to "who" or "why", "how" is still there.
science is about the "how", the "who" doesn't exist and the "why" is up to philosophy.
but the "how" is still there.

I have already given it: the underlying reason for things comes down to "because god wants it that way" and god isn't subject to scientific investigation.

yes ok, god is not subject to scientific investigation, but the effects of his actions are.
note that science doesn't dictate what should and what souldn't happen, if god sent flying goats from heavan then science will adapt, it may change, maybe new animal species will be added to the animal tree, but it will not halt.

now if god didn't exist, flying goats may still be found.
get it? it makes no difference whether in reality god is behind it or not. if it's there science analyzes it.

And all of the above avoids the actual point that if "god" is the reason then the ultimate answers are unavailable to science.

they never were available to science, and they never will, that is more philosophy than science.

Science can only get so far in its investigations and then the final answer comes down to "goddidit" - and that's where science runs up against a brick wall.

science does NOT go beyond investigation, ok wait a sec, if god didn't exist then what will science hit when it is done with it's investigations?(like that'll ever happen)

Then a world where His involvement changes things would look different than a world where He was not involved.

you don't know that.
give an example.

IOW, if that was true we would never know.

 

[786]

Error of comprehension on your part it seems.
If goddidit then the ultimate answer isn't available to science.

While the 'same' is happening in countries like Iran yet they are still advancing in science backed by their theocratic government.... I think you guys are all paranoid and devoid of reality of the issue of 'goddidit'

It would mean that science becomes useless (ineffective) at that point.

'at that point'- but at some point science will be useless

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

you don't know that.
give an example.

IOW, if that was true we would never know.

We would know, because it would theoretically be an observable event. Anything that can be observed is something science can study.

 

[Dywyddyr]

While the 'same' is happening in countries like Iran yet they are still advancing in science backed by their theocratic government....

You're conflating advances in science (as an ongoing project) with reaching a brick wall in that project at a later date.
Science can advance, but if god exists then it cannot, ever, know the ultimate answers: that doesn't prevent the progress up to the point of the brick wall.
It simply means that (if god exists) that brick wall also indicates that whatever we have learned is arbitrary - subject to god's will.

'at that point'- but at some point science will be useless

Really? Even if there's no god?

 

[Neverfly]

Doesn't make science halt...

True, I'm sorry. I worded that badly.

Belief in the supernatural does not Halt scientific progress.
It does, however, burden it or hinder it.
"Belief puts limits on science."

If 'science can only go so far'- than it is the limitation of science itself... Even if someone did not say 'goddidit'- it wouldn't matter because if 'science can only get so far'- then science itself has halted- its halting is not a consequence of 'goddidit' but of science itself.

Peace be unto you

Science is not really limited...
To use your expression: Let's put this into perspective.

Science is Limited in explaining ghostly giraffes haunting the sky and making steel rain.
Well, since you cannot prove that ghostly giraffes AREN'T making steel rain in some place unobserved and that the wily giraffes move location before scientists arrive to observe them- Science is limited.
Even so, entertaining such notions is paranoia and irrationality.
In effect, the only limit placed on science is placed by imaginative people that invent leprechauns that don't exist and then claim science cannot see leprechauns.

way to go with stating your point clearly.
goddidit is an answer to "who" or "why", "how" is still there.
science is about the "how", the "who" doesn't exist and the "why" is up to philosophy.
but the "how" is still there.

These assume there IS a 'who' or a 'why.'
There is no evidence there are either.

yes ok, god is not subject to scientific investigation, but the effects of his actions are.

This statement assumes that a Deitys actions are involved in the first place.
There is no evidence whatsoever of divine intervention.

note that science doesn't dictate what should and what souldn't happen, if god sent flying goats from heavan then science will adapt, it may change, maybe new animal species will be added to the animal tree, but it will not halt.

Actually, if flying goats developed, it would be through the evolution that is observed to have been the ONLY factor in the development of life since the earliest fossils.
That one can claim a deity is responsible for something that is observationally ruled by trial and error is irrational.

now if god didn't exist, flying goats may still be found.
get it? it makes no difference whether in reality god is behind it or not. if it's there science analyzes it.

The BELIEF that a deity did it allows one to NOT speculate scientifically.
Understand this: Even if there are scientists, there will also be those people that try to claim scientists are;
1.) Liars spreading false claims just to "prove there is no God." - Hyper defensive much?
2.) Evil Atheists
3.) Deceived by Satan to spread his lies
4.) Undermining Gods will and must be stopped.
5.) Incorrect about the nature of the world and that Education in our schools should teach holy writings and not science.

This hinders progress, understanding and beneficial discovery. It inhibits social growth.

Look at all the damage done through history because of ignorance.
Something that promotes that we SHOULD be ignorant cannot, by logic, be beneficial.

 

[Dywyddyr]

yes ok, god is not subject to scientific investigation, but the effects of his actions are.
note that science doesn't dictate what should and what souldn't happen, if god sent flying goats from heavan then science will adapt, it may change, maybe new animal species will be added to the animal tree, but it will not halt.

Correct, as far as it goes. Yes the effects are investigable but the underlying causes aren't: that is the problem.

now if god didn't exist, flying goats may still be found.

And if they are found science will be able to find out how they fly.

get it? it makes no difference whether in reality god is behind it or not. if it's there science analyzes it.

Wrong again: if the answer is "goddidit" then the investigation comes to a full stop.

they never were available to science, and they never will, that is more philosophy than science.

Wrong again, again. Science is a search for the underlying causes of everything.

science does NOT go beyond investigation, ok wait a sec, if god didn't exist then what will science hit when it is done with it's investigations?(like that'll ever happen)

Science will be done when, and only when (if), we know the causes for everything, and how they work.

 

[786]

True, I'm sorry. I worded that badly.

Belief in the supernatural does not Halt scientific progress.
It does, however, burden it or hinder it.
"Belief puts limits on science."

I agree to this... Thanks for you understanding, I don't care if Dywyddyr can't wrap his head around what I said- He is exactly what his name suggests- a 'divider'..

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

I agree to this... Thanks for you understanding, I don't care if Dywyddyr can't wrap his head around what I said- He is exactly what his name suggests- a 'divider'..

Wow! So many mistakes in one post.
I didn't say, or imply, that "belief" in the supernatural halts scientific progress*: for what I did say please read my posts. I was talking about the existence of god, not the belief in god.
And "Dywyddyr" is nothing whatsoever to do with "divider".


* Although, of course, a belief in the supernatural will have deleterious effects on carrying out science since a believer in the supernatural will not require the same standards of evidence.

 

[786]

Wow! So many mistakes in one post.
I didn't say, or imply, that "belief" in the supernatural halts scientific progress*: for what I did say please read my posts. I was talking about the existence of god, not the belief in god.
And "Dywyddyr" is nothing whatsoever to do with "divider".

'goddidit' is said by BELIEVERS- they profess their BELIEF- I'm getting amazed at your inability to think because you're so closed to your ideas.

The fact god exists or not doesn't matter. Science comes to a halt whenever their is nothing more to research... For example you have the Uncertainty principle- you won't be able to find everything.. period.

I'm amazed at this BS you're pulling off with now changing it to 'existence' when you are continuously using the phrase 'goddidit'- which certainly is stated by BELIEVERS.

Whatever man, I don't think you can understand anything because you've pretty much closed your view.. And you simply can't 'lose' so you never cease to continue the bs.

And as for the parallel to divider- I think anyone can see it, if you didn't intend it then so be it but it certainly sounds like 'divider'-

Peace be unto you