will science & religon ever be able to co-exist?

geeser said:
so you now claim that you were'nt saying that any man, who says that religion and science are mutually exclusive is ignorant and uneducated.
yes it the lowest form of wit but it can be funny.
Click to expand...

I refuse to argue with someone who cannot understand simple implications, so I'll let you do the work. Redefine your understanding of mutually exclusive, it does not necessarily mean they are a single entity. Seems I'm dealing with a daft builder who lacks his own material, shame.
 
Meathead said:
Redefine your understanding of mutually exclusive, it does not necessarily mean they are a single entity.[/ color]
Click to expand...
when did it ever mean that. they are separate entities that cant co-join.

A flipped coin coming up heads and at the same time coming up tails is a mutually exclusive event.
The logical operation A XOR B means A and B are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true at the same time. In order for A XOR B to be true, either A or B must be true but not both. (A=science and B=religion)

therefore they cannot co-exist: meaning to exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.

but they can coexist: meaning by living along side each other.

but the two are most definitely mutally exclusive.
 
Meathead said:
I refuse to argue with someone who cannot understand simple implications, so I'll let you do the work. Redefine your understanding of mutually exclusive, it does not necessarily mean they are a single entity. Seems I'm dealing with a daft builder who lacks his own material, shame.
Click to expand...
Ad Hominem attack belittles the attacker, not the victim.
but this also is an Ad Ignorantian attack, it 's you, that needs to redefine.
 
audible said:
Ad Hominem attack belittles the attacker, not the victim.
but this also is an Ad Ignorantian attack, it 's you, that needs to redefine.
Click to expand...

My argument was not indefensible at all, I merely don't have the time or need to argue with someone unable to understand what is being said. So, it is not Ad Hominem, and nor does it resemble an Ad Ignorantian completely. There is definite evidence that supports geeser is simply too daft to grasp what was proposed.

By saying religion and science are mutually exclusive are you saying that neither religion or science can both logically explain an event? EVER? If so, why is religion so widely accepted to this day?

I don't know why there was a need to throw words around like that, it had no relevance to the topic of the thread. If you want to feel intelligent by saying such irrelevant crap for the sake of it, take it to another forum, or atleast involve them in your own arguments, rather than ones which never concerned you.
 
True Science is about using the scientific method to assess mechanisms within the universe.

This is a good definition of the scientific method from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester (USA):

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Note that item (2) is that an hypothesis is required. This is a first assumption. It is by definition unprovable itself. In accordance with (3) and (4), this unprovable hypothesis is checked against observations and experiments.

Note that a new hypothesis completely different to a previous one may fit the data from (3) and (4) better. The new hypothesis will then be regarded as more likley to be true than the previous one. (This has of course happened many many times in different areas of science over the years).

It should be noted that the new hypothesis can not be proven to be absolutely true any more than the previous one could.

So science cannot absolutely prove anything natural let alone supernatural!

Of course many areas of what is called 'science' today cannot strictly follow the scientific method. You cannot for instance observe or do repeat experiments on the start of the universe or on the evolution of fish to amphibians to reptiles etc. etc.

These forms of 'science' might be more accurately termed 'philosophical science' rather than true science.

Many of these 'theories' (as you cannot really `do items (3) and (4) there is even less proof here) start from a naturalistic assumption in (2). In other words the hypothesis is that there is no supernatural and everything must come about by 'natural' means. Most theories of macro evolution and the 'Big Bang' etc. would fit into this category.

As the non existence of any supernatural is taken as the (unproven) hypothesis in (2), the end result must be that there is no supernatural or else the theory would be self contradicting. This is merely circular reasoning however and can prove nothing.

You can of course take as your unproven hypothesis (2) for instance that there is a supernatural, such as 'God'. You can ascribe attributes to this 'God' and then do your tests (3) and (4) to the degree that they are possible. This of course would not prove that 'God' existed anymore than the previous 'naturalistic version would prove there was no supernatural.

If you reviewed the evidence objectively and found however that the 'God' hypothesis fitted the evidence better than the 'naturalistic' hypothesis then 'scientifically' you should adopt the 'God' hypothesis in preference. This is of course a bit difficult if you are (philosophically) an atheist! So really the problem of reconciling 'science' and religion' in our modern era is not really that at all, it is reconciling Atheism with Theism. The former can be achieved, (and although a minority today, there are still many theistic scientists). The latter is of course logically impossible.

The comment that a machine will produce 'supernatural' results is of course a totally absurd one. Machines will only produce whatever they are told to produce by whatever (human) input into them. As I have explained in a previous contribution, all machines are essentially dumb. The hardware of a computer really has no more intrinsic knowledge than that of a vacuum cleaner or a cooking stove!


kind regards to all,



Gordon.
 
science is ment to expain the world modern religions are ment to involve you in a deeper process of the world.

all the polytheistic explains for natural events are gone. all that is left are the few that tie the human essence in some immortal way wheter by reincarnation or eteral life to or beyond the world after them

sceince is ment for explainations, natural mechanics if you will. relgion is ment for exporation of something deeper. they can co-exist because they deal with different matters and brush against each other slightly enough that (if inspected throughly) they fit
 
Religion is a mind-virus that afflicts humanity. Science should seek to cure humanity of the affliction if not innoculate it through exposure and critique that comes with the scientific study of a phenomenon that is so significant to so large a population of a single species.
 
Not at all. As I've explained elsewhere in this forum, religion is very much within the ability of science to examine. Just because a religious nutter says otherwise doesn't make it so. But perhaps I'm wrong, maybe you can use your limited skill in English to enlighten us as to why science cannot examine religion?

Religion is comprised of people and beliefs of people, the very things that psychology and sociology are concerned with. It includes written and oral doctrines, the type of thing that archaeology and anthropology specialize in. It includes wars and conflicts -which historians and anthropologist delight in. It includes neurochemical and brain activities that are observable by neuroscientists. And so on.
 
excuse my humble opinion but i feel as though these sciences seek to explain things of this physical world, relgion as i seem to understand it seeks to explore a world beyond that
science explains how, relgion expores why
 
Religion assumes a world beyond this one. Religion is part of the physical world an it *is* a natural phenomenon since it so obviously afflicts so many populations regardless of their contact with each other. And, while there are many similarities between religions, there are many more differences, suggesting that they cannot all be right.

Science does, indeed, seek to explain the "how," and it can explain the "how" behind religion.
 
Little_Birdie said:
...
...science explains how, relgion expores why
Click to expand...

Why is the sky blue? Looks like science also hits the why's as well. How does a soul get into a body (a: quickening)? Looks like religion hits the how's as well.
 
you seem to be nit pickiong semantics fair enough as i have done the same i should have been more careful in my wording mea culpa mea culpa mea maxia culpa
yes they do both answer whys and hows but religion is the philosophy of god while science is the philosophy of nature
 
Religions are social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.

That doesn't imply that the supernatural agents actually exist, of course. Religion, particularly those that include cults of Christianity, depend on faith -that blind trust in the absence of evidence- in order to continue to spread their "mind virus" of belief. Science works with the trust in that which can be demonstrated evidentially or inferrentially based on testable evidence or evidence that gives rise to fruitful predictions.

In the end science provensionally offers "hows" and "whys" based on the best available evidence; religion thrives on "hows" and "whys" that are offered often in spite of evidence to the contrary. The sincerity of both is what is at odds, not their intentions.
 
Little_Birdie said:
you seem to be nit pickiong semantics fair enough as i have done the same i should have been more careful in my wording mea culpa mea culpa mea maxia culpa
yes they do both answer whys and hows but religion is the philosophy of god while science is the philosophy of nature
Click to expand...


I see them both a little differently (perhaps more tuned to present-day knowledge). Science is a process of asking reality questions and getting answers. Religion is a method of human relationship.
 
Most religions have myths of creation that are not supported and are frequently contradicted by evidence. Not to mention wild claims of virgin birth, transubstantiation, global flood, planetary rotational cessation, zombies, etc. -each of which are demonstrably false according to science. The list, of course, is endless. But you already know this and probably seek only to create some strawman or red herring argument.
 
skinwalker, that's just cuz u don't undestand them the right way. virgin birth doesn t mean physical virgin birth. zombies don't mean physical zombies... just people who are dead spiritually... but their body is alive....
 
Yorda, the only reason I'm replying is because your post slipped in past the ignore via the email notification and in it you reminded me that I didn't clarify something: the "zombie" I was referring to was the Jesus zombie that "rose from the dead" after 3 days of decay.

These magical feats aren't about understanding or not understanding. They're no more possible or impossible than the magic of Harry Potter. Just because I don't understand the method by which Harry flys a broom doesn't mean that he really can or that Harry really exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top