Why can't religon and science be friends?

[Dywyddyr]

Well if the rules don't apply then why should they be applied?

Huh?
The rules don't apply because that's the claim.
If the rules were applied then the "supernatural" would be seen to not exist. The only way that claims of the supernatural and god can be sustained is by claiming "the rules don't apply".

It may give excuse but the point is that people still continue- that is why I was giving Iran's theocracy as an example.

And as I have shown people don't continue when they have a fixed belief in god. How far will science be pursued in Iran? I can tell you exactly: until science comes into conflict with belief. If science is applied then all that will be left will be a god of the gaps and claims of (as above) "Well the rules don't apply to god, so what science says here doesn't count".

Sure some people will stop- but I think it depends on the person really.

E.g. the theists will stop.
Or give up being theists.

 

[786]

One would consider 'cloning' to be that position where someone with belief would stop- Iran has cloned as well... I think you're asserting your opinion about what the theists would do in the future when it comes to science...

Peace be unto you

 

[Neverfly]

One would consider 'cloning' to be that position where someone with belief would stop- Iran has cloned as well... I think you're asserting your opinion about what the theists would do in the future when it comes to science...

I think many will justify and rationalize a way to merge their beliefs with that which they cannot deny.

A few will deny that which they cannot deny.

A few will reach the conclusion that the fairy tales they heard growing up were just myths, after-all.

 

[786]

Great....

Peace be unto you

 

[Dywyddyr]

One would consider 'cloning' to be that position where someone with belief would stop- Iran has cloned as well...

Nope: cloning is a physical (scientific process).

I think you're asserting your opinion about what the theists would do in the future when it comes to science...

Hardly, since an acceptance of the supernatural is contrary to the scientific view. So holding both is more than slightly contrary. One would either have to be a hypocrite* or surrender one or the other viewpoints.

* And I'm keeping my fingers crossed that there are limits to hypocrisy... (Probably unjustified).

 

[786]

Hardly, since an acceptance of the supernatural is contrary to the scientific view. So holding both is more than slightly contrary. One would either have to be a hypocrite* or surrender one or the other viewpoints.

I don't agree... Science has absolutely no business in saying anything about the supernatural- one doesn't need to accept one and not the other. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

I know you do but that is your opinion, in my opinion

Peace be unto you ;0

 

[Neverfly]

I don't agree... Science has absolutely no business in saying anything about the supernatural- one doesn't need to accept one and not the other. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

I know you do but that is your opinion, in my opinion

Peace be unto you ;0

Opinions are irrelevant when compared to very accurate models of reality.

It is not that science has no business in saying anything about the supernatural, since believers place the supernatural in a place that science cannot test it or observe it-- It's that science doesn't need to bother with fairies and gnomes etc since the believer will always shift the goalposts in order to keep it untestable by science.

But for a person to use scientific methods for modeling reality and applying critical thinking, entertaining notions of super-naturalism CAN be a possible hinderance.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't agree... Science has absolutely no business in saying anything about the supernatural

Since there is no evidence at all for the supernatural the only way that a belief in it can be justified is by statements such as yours. (And you've just given me an idea for a thread - I'll take some time to formulate the OP though).

- one doesn't need to accept one and not the other. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

They are mutually exclusive since one of them relies on evidence and repeatability and the other relies on subjective experience and hearsay. The "supernatural" is delusion and survives only because it removes itself from having to provide evidence.

 

[ejderha]

It's unbelievable that a title as "Why can't religion and science be friends?" has gone 13 pages!

 

[Dywyddyr]

It's unbelievable that a title as "Why can't religion and science be friends?" has gone 13 pages!

Ha!
Wait for the next one: we'll always find something to argue about. At length.

 

[Sarkus]

Must be supernatural

 

[ejderha]

Ha!
Wait for the next one: we'll always find something to argue about. At length.

OK, I am suggesting a new simplification to the friendly looking equation then:

Because, science doesn't get along well with bullshit.

I know, it's still too long. But this is the best I have. Trying to be practical.

 

[Neverfly]

OK, I am suggesting a new simplification to the friendly looking equation then:

Because, science doesn't get along well with bullshit.

I know, it's still too long. But this is the best I have. Trying to be practical.

I nominate this equation as accurate and reasonable.

 

[scifes]

I nominate this equation as accurate and reasonable.

seconded.

 

[Neverfly]

seconded.

You really have me confused.
Weren't we arguing other day from where you seemed to have a fundamentalist viewpoint?
I'm just asking for clarity and to reduce confusion...

 

[John99]

It's unbelievable that a title as "Why can't religion and science be friends?" has gone 13 pages!

I love the title, not tht i am religious but its got 'friends' in the title. The word 'science' is so overused though. Seems like everything we do is 'science'. 'Science this', 'science that', 'thats not science'...it a liitle absurd. imho.

 

[John99]

meh, i cut my hand...'it's science? i pick up clumps of dirt and look at it 'it's science' i till the soil 'it's science. So what isnt science?

 

[Vic the Trader]

You never see such fervor for neutrality like you do with the old theistic v.s. atheistic argument.

The practitioners of 'reason' have been getting sucked into the vacuum ever since they admitted to their selves that never ending uncertainty is a viable substitute for blind faith on either side of the argument.

 

[Neverfly]

The practitioners of 'reason' have been getting sucked into the vacuum ever since they admitted to their selves that never ending uncertainty is a viable substitute for blind faith on either side of the argument.

I'd rather be a half wit than witless.

meh, i cut my hand...'it's science? i pick up clumps of dirt and look at it 'it's science' i till the soil 'it's science. So what isnt science?

God.