Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Appreciative9809
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 1
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?Page 1 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
No, except in the minds of some pseudoscientists, and some Fundamentalists.

Explanation for why I posted this thread:

Often, in threads with other topics, we get science-enthusiasts seemingly in bitter, angry conflict with religion. Soon people on the thread begin complaining about the discussion being off-topic. So I think it's good to have a special thread, to which to move such discussions when they start here and there--as they always continue to do.

Because this thread's topic involves the limits of science's applicability, this thread isn't off topic in a science/philosophy forum. Likewise, religious philosophy is on topic too, because it's a philosophy forum.

Just to briefly comment, science and religion are separate topics, as are science and metaphysics. Separate subjects with entirely separate areas of applicability, and therefore no legitimate possibility of conflict.

On the "evolution" thread, someone went off-topic by asking what created God. I answered that Theism's position is that God is eternal, and therefore wasn't created.

That led to an avalanche of replies, taking the thread more and more off-topic.

So, I'm now moving that discussion out of "evolution", and into "Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?", by answering, here, the last part of a posting that I didn't have time to answer yesterday, a posting from someone who, for some reason, began replying to me after I answered that person's question.




Yes, you said that you're an Agnostic, but, if so, you're an Agnostic who feels a need to go on the warpath against anything that isn't Materialism.


Stargazer says:

On the contrary. You're reacting to your interpretation of what you think I believe.



Well, I'm referring to your self-designation (Agnostic), and to your criticism of whatever doesn't agree with Materialism.

Of course, when referring to God as "fantastical or imaginary" (your definiton of your usage of "creature"), that isn't the usage of an Agnostic. Not that I care what you believe. Nor is it the bahavior of someone who is able to disagree politely.

And there's nothing wrong with expressing your disagreement with others' beliefs. I do so all the time. But, to non-flamewarriors, my disgreement is always politely and respectfully expressed. But some people just can't seem to disagree politely.


As an apparent "defender" of the spiritualist, perhaps you might like to consider the possibility that the purpose of the thread is not actually about spiritualism. It's about religion and it's intrusion into the classroom.


As I've repeatedly said, the departure from the thread's topic happened when someone (Rocket Man Len?) changed the subject by asking what created God. I merely answered his question. Then the thread was inundated by people, including Stargazer, who wanted to say a lot in reply to me, about my answer to that off-topic question. I wasn't "defending the spiritualist". I was simply answering someone's question about the position of Theism.


Spiritualism is entirely different from religion although they appear to speak the same language. Religion is almost entirely institutional. Set rules of worshiping its central deity (or deities). 'Spiritualism' allows a little more free-form interpretations.


Define them as you like, of course.


I find it interesting, though, that you seem to regard science and "materialism" as such a threat.


Could you state the message number, or the date, of the posting in which I said that science and Materialism are a threat?

Science isn't a threat. Science is an interesting subject. Most people probably find interesting some science topic(s). Science of course has great practical value too. It certainly isn't a threat. I'm not quite sure where you get that.

Pseudoscience can be a nuisance.

Materialism isn't a threat either. I respect other people's beliefs. You can be a Materialist or a Religious Fundamentalist, and I won't criticize your beliefs unless you come to my door (or a thread discussion) with them in an ill-mannered fashion. Regrettably, people who are sure of their beliefs often express them in an arrogant and rude manner.


Are you worried that, if you examine your own beliefs a little too closely, you might find weakness in them?


Beliefs should be questioned. All assumptions are subject to question.

You asked about examination. As I've said, when the metaphysics of Materialism is compared with some alternatives, in regards to Occam-parsimony, simplicity, arbitrariness, aesthetics, then Materialism doesn't look so good in comparison to the others.




In any case, as I've said before, your own Materialism is just as unprovable as any other metaphysics.


"Materialism" is a label you use and has nothing to do with evidence or proof.


Very good. That's what I said. Metaphysics isn't about proof or physical evidence.

I've defined Materialism as the metaphysical belief that this physical universe (and any "multiverse of physically-related "universes") comprises all of reality.


Evolution is a science of origins which has evidence.


I hope that I didn't seem to deny that, if you're referring to origins of life species. :-)


You don't like science.


Could you state the message number or the date of the posting in which I said I didn't like science? I never said that. But I will admit that I don't like some of the behavior of certain pretentious pseudoscientists, wannabe scientists.


...you have to go on the attack of anyone who does.


No one has criticized you for liking science.



While we're at it...

...

...looks like Mr. Perfect missed one.


No. 50 million years ago they'd have found fairly advanced life here (dinosaurs, etc.). That, of itself, would be a rare find.


Ooops....



Your quote didn't include my subsequent explanation. Like everyone, I've heard that the dinosaurs became extinct roughly 60 million years ago. But I'd been on the computer for a long time that day, and when I saw "50 million years", I perceived the lower number as an earlier date.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 2
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 1:18:17 PM
Um.. Sorry, but when the bible teaches that the earth is flat and that the earth is the center of the universe, science is indeed in conflict with religion. It is in conflict because it is proving religion wrong.
 Appreciative9809
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 1:22:36 PM

Um.. Sorry, but when the bible teaches that the earth is flat and that the earth is the center of the universe, science is indeed in conflict with religion. It is in conflict because it is proving religion wrong.


I said "No, only in the minds of some pseudoscientists and some Fundamentalists".

Yes, Religious Fundamentalists are in conflict with science, as I myself said in the first line of my post.
 GeneralizingNow
Joined: 10/10/2007
Msg: 4
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 1:25:12 PM
The Bible isn't "religion", it's but the written word of ONE of the thousands of religions out there. Heck, the Bible isn't even *the* Bible--Catholics don't use King James, for example.

To me, they are different things. One seeks to appease people's minds by telling them they are not in charge, there is something out there that is good and will ultimately take care of them and their kin. That it has a plan.

Science isn't out to prove that God doesn't exist, even though some religious people think that's the case. Science is working on the theory that God doesn't exist, so what REALLY made things? But what if, in the end of it all (2012, lol), science proves God exists? THEN will the religious accept the other parts of Science that disprove the BIBLE?

In a way, science came about because people wanted to know where God (Nature, things He made) CAME FROM.
 quietjohn2
Joined: 12/6/2004
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 1:29:06 PM
Why isn't this recapitulation of other old, tired threads relegated to the religion and spiritualism forum?

If you don't feel it is in conflict, why raise the issue and invite the fringe on each side to a debate where your only motive can be to change minds of those who disagree with you?
 Appreciative9809
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 1:37:36 PM

Science isn't out to prove that God doesn't exist


Quite right. Science has nothing to do with God. As you yourself said, separate subjects.



Science is working on the theory that God doesn't exist


I doubt that. Science doesn't have a theory about God. Einstein, for instance, didn't have, or work from, any theory that God didn't exist.


, so what REALLY made things?


Science studies how things happen, how things have happened, and how things got made, in terms of the physical processes and laws of this physical world. Science says nothing about the origin of this physical world. That subject or question is entirely outside of science's purview. What happened right after the big bang, and subsequently? Science. Why did the universe come into being? Not science.


But what if, in the end of it all (2012, lol), science proves God exists?


Don't hold your breath. Science is about the physical world. Science isn't about God. Galileo emphasized that, centuries ago.


In a way, science came about because people wanted to know where God (Nature, things He made) CAME FROM.


In no way. Science came about because people wanted to learn about the physical world--whether or not they believed that God made it had no bearing on their goal--to learn about the physical world.

And science certainly does not address the question of where the universe came from.
 GeneralizingNow
Joined: 10/10/2007
Msg: 7
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 1:44:13 PM
Sorry, but you don't know your history of scientific thought if you think that Science has NOTHING to do with religious thought. Who were the most educated people in, say, the 1100s? Read up on it.

But I see you ARE trying to make a conflict where there should be none. Not very scientific of you.
 JP1111
Joined: 4/13/2008
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 2:02:52 PM
Some religious enthusiasts may get irritated by this, I simply choose not to believe in god. I do follow some of the teaching but I find that those teachings came from other men through the ages and were taught since the dawn of man’s existence.

This said, I choose not to believe in god simply because nothing can be PROVEN. Religion will always remain your own personal views, thoughts and opinions but science is proven, factual, real and can continue to be researched to discover new things.

So I do not think the two conflict each other because one is based on facts and the other is based only on what each person believes to be true. So you can’t compare two things that are not the same.

As far as “what created God”, do you honestly think there IS a real answer to that? Any answer will only be what people believe to be true based on what they have been taught. I’m sure the most common answer was “God has just always been!”. Really? Did you ask him or is that what you believe? Can you show me something factual? Sure god is eternal and wasn’t therefore created most likely because he just has always existed and again, is there any proof or is this solely what others believe?

So no I don’t see a conflict with religion at all since as far as I’m concerned, I put absolutely NO weight on religion.
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 6:49:53 PM
If you want to talk about religion, the last place you go is a church.
People in churches only want to talk about dogma, money, and politics, not religion. There are seldom any meaningful religious issues brought up in churches.

If you want to discuss religion, you have to talk to a scientist.
Go to an astronomy or theoretical physicists symposium sometime.
All they talk about is God.
 Paul K
Joined: 3/10/2006
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 7:30:14 PM
Hey Verzen

You wrote:

''Um.. Sorry, but when the bible teaches that the earth is flat and that the earth is the center of the universe, science is indeed in conflict with religion.''

I have to agree with you. I went to church for the first time in a long time about three weekends ago, and the preacher was going on and on and on about how the earth was not round, but flat, he even had the texts pulled from the bible that proved the earth was flat, just like you said that the bible teaches, and boy did they ever collect a big offering that day...................

Funny, but I haven't been able to find in the bible where it teaches that the earth is flat, and every other minister/preacher/priest that I pointed out this to were not very nice, so I guess you are right about the bible teaching the earth is flat...........

Paul K
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 11
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:26:33 PM
Well, since you mention me by nom de plume then it seems only appropriate that I have some input.

So the question is..."Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?"

Well, no. You see, science is a methodological approach to studying the natural world. Religion is an institution for organizing and creating specified ceremony around spiritual matters. It's the people who frequently come into conflict.

The source of the conflict is usually when one side attempts to impinge on the other by trying to impose their interpretation. Most frequently in modern times, that has been done by particular sects of religious literalists who demand a particular interpretation of their books be taught as somehow of equal merit to the findings of modern science.

Of course, they frequently use phrases like "but it's only a theory" and "you atheist scientists" or "materialists." Handy little catch-phrases that serve as a means to minimize or - worse - demonize what has actually done more to improve their way of life and, indeed, has given them the technology to spread their messages far and wide.

I think it was Neil deGrasse Tyson who said "We don't bang down the doors of Sunday school. Why should they be preaching in our classrooms." Or words to that effect.

Perhaps, if you want to find the source of conflict, you might want to look over your own approach App. Seems to me, the one using little catchphrases like "Scientific Materialist" and...um...oh yeah!..."Pretentious wannabe scientist"...well, that would be you. Kinda says it all right there, now, doesn't it.
 maximusminimus
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 12
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 9:38:59 PM
There is an inherent conflict because religion claims knowledge among its beliefs, and supposes knowledge to be a matter of belief and not of reason. Knowledge is loosely anything known, so you have to concede the point, but beyond religion is the scientific version of knowledge which defines truth much differently than does religion. That's the crux of the biscuit. That is its apostrophe.

One system defines knowledge as "Because it is a tradition", the other as "Ha, see, we proved it!" How could there not be conflict anytime the religious belief differs from the scientific fact?

People who want to be both religious and scientific learn to equivocate and segregate. They gerrymander knowledge conveniently to support their particular mix of priorities. That's a way to avoid living out the conflict within themselves. Unless that kind of merciful pretense is accomplished, you get your basic anguish of conscience and unrelenting confusion.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 11:21:16 PM
The only thing science finds conflict with is bullsh*t.
Unfortunately, religion often fits the bill.
And really, its religion that has conflict with science, not the other way around. If science was a person, he or she would seek the truth wherever that path leads and would not care about religion at all.

Honest people don't have conflicts with science, dishonest ones do.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 14
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/15/2010 11:47:27 PM


No, except in the minds of some pseudoscientists, and some Fundamentalists.


Science is in conflict with any and every religion that makes testable claims that are contradicted by evidence. Any religion that doesn't make testable predictions is mere spiritual masturbation.
 hyoid
Joined: 5/12/2009
Msg: 15
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/16/2010 5:29:01 AM
It is in conflict with any religion that asserts an active role for its deity in this universe.
If the god is not excluded, physical laws become (for example) V=I*R or whatever god chooses. If the basis for a god's choice is predictable, then it isn't a god.
 Bible Thumper
Joined: 1/11/2010
Msg: 16
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/16/2010 10:46:52 AM
I agree with the OP that true religion and true science are not in conflict. They are both created by God, and God does not contradict Himself. There are snake oil salesmen in both camps. I know a lot of religious people, and some of them are indeed kooks. I work with scientists and I can tell you that they disagree among themselves on a regular basis about some scientific matters. I would hope that we agree that we should all be striving for more of the truth in both areas.

I'm not sure where the idea came from, but no where does the Bible say the earth is flat. The only Bible verse referring to the shape of the earth is ISAIAH 40:22. The Hebrew word used there is translated in various versions of the Bible as ... sphere, round earth, arc, globe, or circle. None of them translate it as "flat".

And as far as the earth being the center of the universe, the Bible doesn't say that either. But then, can science tell us where the center truly is? We haven't found the edge of it yet, and if the universe is as infinite as God Himself, can there really be such a thing as a "center" of it?
 Appreciative9809
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/16/2010 12:00:44 PM

Science is in conflict with any and every religion that makes testable claims that are contradicted by evidence.


That would be the Fundamentalist religions. My first line mentioned that they are in conflict with science.

Any religion that doesn't make testable predictions is mere spiritual masturbation.

Oh no, another masturbator. Do you think you could masturbate somewhere else?

I presume that you're referring to physically-testable predictions. You're all confused about the difference between religion and physics. Religion isn't rightly a branch of physics, and there's no reason why it should make physical claims, testable or otherwise.

Einstein's religion wasn't one that made testable physical predictions.

Actually, I didn't ask for your valulation of religion. I only asked if Legitimate science is in conflict with religion.
 Appreciative9809
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/16/2010 12:36:19 PM

But I see you ARE trying to make a conflict where there should be none. Not very scientific of you.


For one thing, making a conflict is, per se, neither scientific nor unscientific.

I asked if there is a conflict, but I asked it because there are plenty here who seem to think there is one.

I would have no motive to "make a conflict", but there clearly already is one at this forum, and it motivated me to comment.

Since you bring up the matter of my motivation, I might as well tell it:

I'm not trying to educate the pseudoscientists here. From the start, I already knew that Materialists and aggressive Defenders of Science are exactly as educable as the Anti-Evolution Fundamentalists who sometimes come to my door on weekends.

So, what's my motivation? I noticed a lot of angrily-worded attack on the part of science-enthusiasts, when referring to anything that doesn't accord with Materialism. So I decided that I'd say a few words in order to offer some support to those non-Materialists at the forum.

So, if you're a Materialist, I'm not trying to educate you. My purpose with this has been merely to take away some of your authority at this forum, because of the abominable manners that I've noticed among those of your persuasion.

Most of what I hear from you and other Science-Defenders consists of angry noises: "Science good, anything else bad". It's important for people to know what it is that they want to say, and to say it clearly. Angry noises accomplish nothing productive.

As nearly as I can judge, there are at least two kinds of objections that we've been hearing from Science-Defenders:

1. Remarks addressed to those who deny evolution, using scripture as their authority.
But I've already said that I don't agree with them, and remarks to them aren't at all helpful here.

2. Remarks to the effect that religion &/or metaphysics isn't provable. Of course it isn't, and I've repeatedly said that myself. And, as I've also repeatedly said, the Atheist's metaphysics of Materialism is just as unprovable, and less supportable than the several better known of the non-Materialist metaphysicses.

So, if you prefer what's provable by physical evidence, then I encourage you to stick with science, because religion and metaphysics isn't for you. But before you go on the attack, remember that the metaphysics whose rivals you want to attack is likewise unprovable.

Those are the two objections, to what doesn't accord with Materialism, that I've been able to sift out of all the angry verbiage. If anyone has one or more additional one(s), they're welcome to state them. Try to do so concisely, objectively with neutral tone, and without anger.

Now, if there are no additional objections: Then, other than the ongoing argument between evolution and anti-evolution, no more time need be wasted in angry attacks on those who don't believe as you do, when they aren't making claims that conflict with science.

There, so this thread has served a purpose.
 Appreciative9809
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/16/2010 12:44:58 PM

The only thing science finds conflict with is bullsh*t.


Science conflicts with Fundamentalism, if that's what you mean.

You're right: Science, itself, doens't conflict with non-Fundamentalist religion, or other departures from Materialism that don't make physical predictions.
 Appreciative9809
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/16/2010 12:56:52 PM

Why isn't this recapitulation of other old, tired threads relegated to the religion and spiritualism forum?


For one thing, it's within the area of philosophy. I'm talking about Materialists' anger toward all that doesn't accord with Materialism. Materialism, as I've defined it is a belief about ultimate reality, and that is well within the coverage-area of philosophy.

Additionally, this thread is about the abuse of science, and confusion about what science applies to and doesn't apply to.

So this thread is on-topic in the Science/Philosophy forum.

Why post it here, instead of somewhere else? Simply because this is where I noticed the angry conflict.


If you don't feel it is in conflict, why raise the issue


The issue had already been raised, and I wanted, hopefully, to deal with it once and for all.



...your only motive can be to change minds of those who disagree with you?


Certainly not. As I said, pseudoscients and angry Defenders-of-Science are exactly as educable as the anti-evolution Fundamentalists who sometimes come to my door on weekends. I sure don't expect to convince anyone.

One thing that I intend is to get you aggressive science-enthusiasts to clearly state what's bothering you, so that it can be answered. Hopefully then there will be less perceived need to carry on the conflict. So, my purpose is largely to get the conflict overwith.

But, failing that, at least maybe, by answering the pseudoscientists for a (limited) time, I can show that they aren't being clear about what they mean, and that maybe they don't know what they mean, and that their objections don't hold up very well.
 happy-go-lucky_
Joined: 7/21/2009
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/16/2010 1:19:32 PM
As stated already, science has historically been in sustained and protracted conflict with testable and verifiable truth claims made by various religious and spiritual belief systems. One need only perform a very cursory reading of history and current events in the news to appraise oneself of this simple reality.

OP, you have a very bizarre definition of religion whereby any attempt to make a testable claim relegates it to "fundamentalist" status in your mind (probably for the sake of your excessively and habitually pedantic arguments, I imagine). There's no compelling reason for anyone in this forum to adhere to your definition of "religion" sans fundamentalism or literalism/extremism.

Nearly all major religions and their holy books do in fact make testable claims--they always have--along with certain claims that currently can't be tested. To the extent that people are unwilling to excise portions of the Bible or the Quran that fly in the face of physical evidence, such conflicts will persist, and I'm not entirely sure whether everyone who puts some stock in these books deserves to be labelled a "fundamentalist."

Also, who exactly are these materialists you speak of? Has anyone actually self-identified as such?
 Appreciative9809
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/16/2010 2:45:28 PM

As stated already, science has historically been in sustained and protracted conflict with testable and verifiable truth claims made by various religious and spiritual belief systems. One need only perform a very cursory reading of history and current events in the news to appraise oneself of this simple reality.


When I said "...in conflict with religion", I meant, "...in conflict with religion in general"
But it might have been better if I'd specified "...religions that don't make physically-testable predictions". No matter now.


OP, you have a very bizarre definition of religion whereby any attempt to make a testable claim relegates it to "fundamentalist" status


Such anger.

The literalist religions that have been discussed at this forum have been Christian denominations, and when I speak of Fundamentalist religions, I'm only referring to Christian ones . Those Fundamentalist religions are the religions that make physically-testable claims about the physical world (such as the claim that the universe is 6000 years old, or that species haven't evolved).

I'm not aware of a religion, among those that have been recently attacked at this forum, that makes physically tested claims, without being scripturally literalist, Fundamentalist.

Calm down, Happy. Don't get all hysterical.


Nearly all major religions and their holy books do in fact make testable claims--they always have


That's why a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation of those scriptures includes physically-testable statements. Among Christian denominations, the ones that aren't literalist don't make physically-testable claims, so far as I'm aware.

But it's a bit silly to try to make an issue about the definition of "fundamentalist", or an argument about which religions make physically-testable claims. Call them what you want--they're the ones that put themselves into conflict with science.

That conflict is unavoidable, and I never meant to criticize science-supporters for arguing the issue of evolution-teaching in schools.

But some people of your persuasion like to not-so-politely express disagreement with, in general, anything that isn't in accord with Materialism. I suggest that no purpose is served thereby, but of course there's nothing wrong with polite expression of disagreement. So then, my suggestion is just to try to keep it polite.


I'm not entirely sure whether everyone who puts some stock in these books deserves to be labelled a "fundamentalist."

Fundamentalism (noun): Religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

That's good enough, because Christian Fundamentalism is the only kind that has been the subject of discussions here.

I'd add that the main areas in which modern non-Fundamentalist, non-literalist denominations depart from literalism is where the literal interpretation contradicts modern accepted science or history. Of course any denomination might disregard any scriptural passage(s), but, for the most part it's as I said in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Anyway, it was never my intent to debate the definition of Fundamentalism.


Also, who exactly are these materialists you speak of?


Let me write my definition in a complete way:

Materialism is the belief that this physical universe (by which I also mean any "multiverse" that includes a set of physically-related "universes" of which our own "univerese" is one ) is all of reality, &/or is the ultimate reality.

As for who these Materialists are--To answer that, I'd have to ask lots of people their beliefs.


Has anyone actually self-identified as such?


Not quite sure if you mean "...identified with the label 'Materialist' ", or merely "...espoused the tenets of Materialism". I'd say that either of those would make someone a Materialist.

Ordinarily a Materialist would be someone who espouses Materialism. Our aggressive science-enthusiasts seem reticent about what they believe, as opposed to what they criticize, and that's perfectly ok. But that leads me to suggest a more useful definition of a Materialist. Let's say that a Materialist is someone who espouses Materialism or who is critical of whatever isn't in accord with Materialism.

Actually, maybe, for a definition easier to apply, how about this?:

A materialist is someone who espouses the tenets of Materialism, or crititicizes what isn't in accord with Materialism, or criticizes some particular metaphysics alternative to Materialism on the grounds that its statements or suggestions can't be proved via physical evidence.

That's my final definition of "Materialist".

My main point has just been that, if you prefer what can be proven via physical evidence, then religion and metaphysics aren't for you. Simple as that. No need for conflict or angry attack. And, as I said, Materialism is no more provable than any other metaphysics--So lack of provabilty by physical evidence isn't good grounds for criticizing the alternatives to Materialism.

Of course you could criticize the whole subject, or, better yet, just stay out of it.
 Tall2012
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 23
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/16/2010 2:56:46 PM
When I said "...in conflict with religion", I meant, "...in conflict with religion in general"


Doesn't science in order to put its method on something and draw conclusions have to have whatever the thing is its observing be a repeatable phenomenen ?

where as a lot of stuff that goes on in religions have only happened once , example the immaculate conception ...

so thats instanntly gonna cause some kind of general conflict .

between science and religion
 Appreciative9809
Joined: 9/8/2009
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/16/2010 3:07:10 PM

Of course, they frequently use phrases like "but it's only a theory"


You're referring to anti-evolutionists. I was more interested in whether people who like science need to have a conflict with religions that don't make predictions or claims in science's domain, and, in general, people who have a conflict with departures from Materialism.


...and "you atheist scientists" or "materialists."


Speaking for myself, I don't criticize Atheists for being Atheists. That's their business. As for "Materialists", you're trying to classify me with anti-evolutionists, by quoting the term that I use in the same sentence with "but it's only a theory" :-)

I don't care if someone believes in Materialism. That isn't any of my business either. It's just that I got tired of all the angry attacks (not usually at me), and decided to say something.


Handy little catch-phrases that serve as a means to minimize or - worse - demonize what has actually done more to improve their way of life and, indeed, has given them the technology to spread their messages far and wide.


Wrong. Materialism, as I've defined it, had nothing to do with bringing to us the gifts of technology.


Perhaps, if you want to find the source of conflict, you might want to look over your own approach App.


The conflict was already raging. I commented on it.


Seems to me, the one using little catchphrases like "Scientific Materialist"


It obviously wasn't a namecalling word. By the way, I don't use that term now: I have separately defined Materialism and Scientificism. I've additionally defined "Materialist" somewhat more broadly than only "An adherent of Materialism". See my reply to Happy-Go-Lucky.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 25
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/16/2010 3:21:25 PM
Mixing religion with science is like trying to dance to architecture,

...where the dancers insist that it can't be done because architecture is wrong.

...the absurdity is stunning.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?