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  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 423
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?Page 10 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)
Allow me to re-phrase: App is once again very carefully selecting a small subset of a current, modern definition, and using it to leverage an argument against a statement made with regards to the larger, complete definition... AND has not been paying attention, even to the subset of posters he chooses to define as "anti-religionists."

(¬_¬)
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 424
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/6/2010 4:20:12 PM
Starting to think the poster in question might be a bad egg...

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/7223580datingPostpage78.aspx post 1926...

Words mean exactly what he says they mean...


 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 425
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/6/2010 4:23:49 PM

Someone familiar with the German c o c kroach, and encountering a different Blattidae-member, might recognize that it is related to his more familiar c o c kroach, and quite reasonably call it, too, a c o c kroach.


Okay...and...?


A Blattidae member that doesn't infest houses isn't what the definers of "cucaracha" and "c o c kroach"were referring to.



The point is that (contrary to what you said), as "cucaracha" and "c o c kroach" were defined by those who first coined the terms, there are _not_ thousands of species of c o c kroaches that don't infest houses.


And yet, for all intents and purposes...it's still of the family blattidae. Sharing qualities that make them of the same family...so, essentially just as easily referred to "c0ckroaches" as the other. Again...so?

Also, are we saying that all said insects that are identified as these house pests live exclusively in houses and can't be found in the wild? Wow! So I guess skunks and racoons face the same fate as said those poor c0ckroaches, should we disappear.


You said that there are thousands of non-house-infesting c o c kroaches, and I told why that's a questionable claim.


Actually, all I saw was you playing with words, again.

So, other than trying to appear clever, what was the point of your posting? Other than more posturing, that is.


I'm replying to this because it isn't part of your science flamewar.


Who's flamewar?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 426
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/6/2010 6:08:55 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.
I've done a lot of dancing over the years. Certain halls have a very specific design, which makes it very easy to dance in. The placement of the supporting pillars, and the measurements of the room, exactly match the movements and volumes of space taken by dancing couples, so that they can dance either in the centre, or around the outside of the room, or to switch between, in ways that exactly match the rhythm of the dancers. The pillars themselves are also exactly designed so that an average person can just get their hands around the pillar, with just enough room, so that a couple can dance around the pillar, without bumping into the pillar, or each other. Those designs are so specifically tailored to fit the behaviour of dancers, and are found almost identically in so many halls that are likely to be used for dancing, that it is very unlikely that such designs happened by accident.

I've also danced in rooms that were living rooms, or study rooms, or other types of rooms. In those rooms, people would frequently bump into the supporting pillars or the walls, and you really had to work hard to navigate around them. Such rooms are so designed against the natural rhythms of dancers, that it is seriously unlikely that architects even thought that such rooms might be used for dancing.

You can still dance in the second type of rooms. But it probably would not a much better idea to use the first types of rooms for professional dancing, the same way as it would not be a great idea to use a dirt road to drive home on, with a car that is designed for urban use, and not designed for off-road use.

Sometimes, people say stuff, without actually thinking out what it's really like, to try things in reality. It's always better to actually conduct several experiments, before reaching a conclusion.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 427
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/6/2010 6:27:55 PM
Um, scorp....where we going with that?

Actually, if one were to have synesthesia, I guess dancing to architecture might be possible, but I'd hate to try eating colours. Purple must smell like rock music in a hot winter.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 428
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/6/2010 6:28:12 PM
...aaaaaand, here comes scorpiomover, with yet another:

Point====>
e-(´·`) ??

Edit: Unless, of course, you were just trying to imply that science CAN be applied to religion, in a rigorous sense, but really, really missed on the symbolism.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 429
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/6/2010 7:49:20 PM
RE Msg: 519 by stargazer1000:
Um, scorp....where we going with that?
I had refreshed my page, and I got the first page, where I was responding to the last message on that page.

I realised after. But then I thought, "It's a response to a message on the thread, and thus, it is relevant, and it does make a point." So I left it.

My deeper point, is that a lot of the time, people are putting pot-shots at religion, but not because they've actually thought things out logically, or even rationally.

A lot of the time, people have a certain gripe against religion, because of personal experiences, and are trying to dump their emotional problems on religion, and their criticisms are just a smoke-screen for that. In that case, they are doing themselves a serious disservice, because what they need, is to deal with their problems directly, and by ignoring them, they are keeping themselves in pain, rather than facing up to the true cause of their anguish.

But a lot of the time, people are taking pot-shots at religion, to justify their views on science and on life in general, by making the alternatives seem worse than their view. This too is seriously harming themselves, because the only way you can rationally justify anything, is to evaluate it on its own merits. If the theory is great, then it's that good, that you don't gain anything by comparing it to religion, and if it's that bad that you can gain something by comparison, then it's really not that great in the first place, and you're probably better off without it. Unlike sex, bad theories really are worse than no theories, because at least when you have no theories, you aren't going to do anything based on them that might get you or others killed.

If you need to compare science to religion, you probably have a view of science that is not healthy in the first place, and in that case, you ought to pick up some basic books on science, and start from scratch. Or, go one better and follow Galois' advice, which is to get the best teacher, and so not learn from your teachers, but to learn from your teachers' teachers, because they taught your teachers, and so they know it better. Go to the source of the spring, not the stream downriver full of impurities. Much cleaner, and much better to drink from.

There are some criticisms of certain religions that I have heard, that did stand up to scrutiny, and are worth taking into account, and I've heard some over the years that I've totally agreed with. But lately, it certainly seems to me, that they have been far in the minority, and that means it's like digging for a needle in a haystack.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 431
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/7/2010 9:41:53 AM

Unless, of course, you were just trying to imply that science CAN be applied to religion, in a rigorous sense, but really, really missed on the symbolism.

Well, I'd say that sceince can be applied to religion in a rigorous sense but doing that requires stating the assumptions that define the religion. For example, if a person claims his/her religion involves a personal relationship with god and what that relationship involves, it's straight forward to determine if that personal relationship is in fact real or if it's just wishful thinking supported by random coincidence. On the other hand, religion can always be defined in such a way that the god(s) have no influence on anything in which case,the religion cannot is not scientifically testable, even in principle. However, such a religion is also rather empty and is not what most people mean when they talk about religion.

There is a very good book on exactly this subject written by Victor Stenger, a particle physicist and philosophy professor: God: The Failed Hypothesis. In the book he makes a very good case with respect to the extent that much of what religion requires one to believe HAS demonstrated the god(s) described by those religions cannot be as described.
 CrossOTzodiac
Joined: 12/5/2009
Msg: 432
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/7/2010 7:04:13 PM
posted by: Bible thumper

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.


How wonderful of you to pre-suppose for all of us that the existence of god is an already proven fact. Try using the words "I believe" in front of any statement about god that your about to post.


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"


The Bible doesn't always reflect that we live on a spinning, revolving, sphere... which I would think that God would have known and would have inspired the authors to tell, but he didn't. That is why the Bible reflects that we live on a flat earth.

The term "ends of the earth" is used quite a bit in the Bible. Some say "the term 'ends of the earth' is a saying, it's not literal", but they forget that it is a figurative saying today. When the Bible was written it wasn't a figure of speech... it was a fact. Even as late as 1492, people were convinced that silly old Columbus was going to fall off of the earth. But as we know today, the earth is a sphere, and there are no ends on a sphere. Just pick up a ball and find its ends.

Even if one was to accept that God was foreseeing enough to put futuristic lingo which matched the beliefs of the day in. But Job 38:13 speaks of the earth being taken by the physical ends with "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?" Other mentions of the ends of the earth can be found in the following places. Deuteronomy 13:7, 28:49, 28:64, 33:17. Job 2:8, 19:4, 22:27, 33:13, 48:10, 59:13, 61:2, 65:5, 72:8.

The ends of the earth isn't the only signs of the flat earth in the Bible. In Job 11:9 it says that heaven and hell's measurements are "Their measure is longer than the earth And broader than the sea". How long is a sphere? There is no length in a sphere. Now a flat two dimensional object would have a length. No, the bible doesn't specifically use the word "Flat Earth" but it is clearly implied. So if god created the universe and inspired man to write the bible, how could he NOT know he created a round planet?


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?


This may not be a quote that talks about the earth being the center of the universe, but it clearly shows that man inspired the Bible and was not influenced by any god.

The Bible doesn't always reflect the truth about the sun and moon.
In Genesis 1:16 it says "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." According to this, the moon is a light source just like the sun, only not as bright. If this was the case, we couldn't land on the moon, it would be too hot. It is also strange that it took God the day to make the sun and the moon, but the stars are portrayed as an afterthought of sorts. "He made the stars also", this is a definite sign that the Bible is inspired by man. It is clear that man could not have perceived that the stars were the same as the sun, but in most cases much larger. Naturally they thought that these specks were just thrown about. The verse should read "God created the stars and planetary objects, he also made the earth, sun, and moon". But man, in those days, would have never seen it that way.

Isaiah 13:10 also says that the moon is a source of light. "moon shall not cause her light to shine." Again this is another example of the Bible seeming to be inspired by man and limited to his own perception. For how would god not know that the moon he created is NOT a light source?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 433
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/8/2010 10:07:56 AM
RE Msg: 522 by exogenist:

I've given a lot of thought to what you wrote. I decided to address just one point of your, because I believe that it will give you an answer that allows you to address those other points quite easily:

Richard Dawkings gets away with his eloquent but sharp words because in most cases science can render religion redundant (I'm talking about religious organizations here with their governance and stuff, not spirituality moral or ethics.)
Science is knowledge about the physical world, and how we can change it to suit ourselves. Such knowledge is extremely useful, as it gives us the information with which we can make our lives much safer, and accomplish much that we wish to achieve.

However, if we rely upon science to provide answers, then our children are likely to develop certain traits that are detrimental to their survival.

1) If we look to science to provide answers to our problems, then when science already has those answers, or develops them very quickly, we can deal easily with our problems. But you cannot put scientists to a timetable. They simply cannot guarantee when they will have that flash of insight that will give them the answers that we need. So if we rely on science for the solutions to our problems, then we wait until such solutions are found by scientists. In the meantime, we do nothing, and when we do nothing to deal with our problems, they get a lot worse, and our lives are made much more difficult as a result.

2) Even though right now, science doesn't have the solutions to all of our major problems, we often do have solutions that can solve them. Even if we don't, we often have knowledge ourselves, that can make the situation much easier on us, or at least bearable. However, when we rely on science for our solutions, then we again wait for answers from scientists, and we don't do those things that we know ourselves to make things better, because they don't come from scientists, but from us.

3) Often, we have major traumatic events in our life, like the death of a loved one, or a divorce, or we lose our jobs and are unable to find more work. When we look to science to solve our problems, science doesn't have all the solutions to our problems right now. So when we experience those traumatic events, we feel like we are facing a catastrophe, that science cannot help us with, and that we cannot help ourselves with. We react to dangerous situations either with anger, or with fear, or with shock.

3.1) When we react with anger to these traumatic events, we feel that scientists should have helped us, and didn't. So we ask ourselves, if science cannot solve our biggest problems, what's the point of it? At that point, many people, particularly poor people, who tend to have such problems, give up on science and learning altogether. But then, if they aren't gaining knowledge, they cannot really make their situations that much better. So their problems get a lot worse, and they suffer a lot.

3.2) When we react with fear to these traumatic events, we avoid thinking about those situations altogether. So many people who feel fearful over traumas, and cannot get their problems solved by scientists, retreat into taking drugs, to avoid having to deal with their fears. But that means they aren't dealing with their problems, and so their problems stay just as strong, or even get worse. So they are still faced by the same problems every time they sober up, and they take drugs again. It becomes a cycle, see big problems, run away from them into the euphoria of drugs, then sober up, see that your problems are just as big as before, and take more drugs. Many of those people develop drug dependencies, and become drug addicts.

3.3) When we react with shock to these traumatic events, we accept that those traumas have happened, and have seriously damaged our lives, but that we cannot do anything about them. So many people see that they can experience similar types of traumas again, and they will just not be able to do anything about them, because they rely on science, and science hasn't yet found answers to these problems. They are relying on science, and science hasn't found an answer, and no-one knows when they will. So everything looks hopeless. It's just not worth trying. They often have a mental breakdown, and go into a deep depression, not trying to do anything that might improve their lives.

All those problems are very, very common in our society, particularly mental illness, which is ravaging Western countries. Psychologists don't really have a good answer on how to cure mental illness, only that therapy and drugs can both help, and that time is a great healer, but that at the end of the day, many will never get well, and the rest who do, will do so at some point, but no doctor or other type of scientist can tell you when or even why. It's estimated that as much as 1 in 4 people in Western countries will either experience depression themselves, or will have a close friend or family member who will, and whose illness will seriously affect their lives in a very damaging way. All of these issues seem to be growing and growing in Western countries, with no way to reduce them in a significant way. So it's a very serious issue in Western countries.

Science is not the problem. Science is knowledge of the physical world, and more knowledge, gives you greater ability to improve your life.

But science cannot be a panacea, unless it has all the solutions to all the problems that we are facing, and that requires perfect knowledge of everything. We might have that knowledge some day, maybe in a million years. But we are very far from it yet. So expecting that science will provide the answers to our problems, when scientists cannot tell you when that solution will come, is building unbelievably unrealistic expectations on people, on your children, on your grandchildren, and on the rest of society, that is seriously damaging their lives.

Religious organisations cannot offer to give you the knowledge that scientists strive for, because if religious organisations would, they'd be scientific organisations, not religious organisations.

Religious organisations give you something to believe in, that what is happening to you, is meted out by a just and fair G-d. So it becomes logical to suggest that G-d would probably not give you something you could not handle, and that therefore, it's still worth giving things a shot, even when they look very bleak. Even if things seem unfair, a just and fair G-d would be fair to you, and so you accept that there is a good reason why this is happening to you. So instead of feeling like you have been dealt a bum hand, and doing nothing about, because it isn't your fault, you accept that it's probably well deserved, and so you suck it up, and get on with life. Even when it seems like there is no way out, you still believe that G-d would only do things to you for good reason, and so you persevere in your efforts. However, you know that your situation may get better in G-d's timeline, and not your own. So you are patient, and you do not rush things or give up. You keep trying to do many things that you know will improve your lot, until they do.

Even when it seems to you like things are totally unfair, and that you could not do anything to solve your problems, and that you cannot even do anything to make things better, a just and fair G-d would at the least pay you back in the afterlife for what is happening to you, and so you feel much better about the situation, that you will eventually get your just rewards for your efforts. That makes you rest easy, and it takes away the majority of pain, which is psychological, not physical. That alone makes the situation bearable.

All of that, motivates you to act, with patience and perseverance, and reason, to survive the most difficult challenges that life can throw at you. Most people suffer greatly traumatic events in their life. So religion has a tremendous effect on your psychology, to make you survive, and even thrive, in almost every situation.

However, all those ideas can only work if you think of them, and when you are in those difficult times, the pain makes it incredibly hard to think rationally or positively about your situation. However, if you attend a religious group, such as regular religious services held by religious organisations, then those others see you in pain, and remind you of these lessons. They do so, because they too have been in pain, and religions admonish their members to act with compassion and caring towards their fellow religious members. So by being a regular member of a religious organisation, you gain from a group of other people, who are regularly sympathetic to your plight, but who are regularly giving you information that enhances your cognitive processes, and thus make you a very effective human being, who survives the most difficult of problems with ease.

This has been confirmed by science, as studies have shown that people who regularly attend religious services, have far better rates of recovery from mental illness due to major traumatic events, such as deaths of loved ones, which everyone experiences.

I can see that it's really annoying to many people, that science is looking for the answers, and yet, science itself has shown that it simply cannot give all the answers. But expecting any one human pursuit to give you every answer to every question and problem that you have, is just expecting more than us limited humans can achieve. However, if we abandon this self-damaging trait of looking for all our answers in only one source, and realise that science AND religion AND other things are all useful, each in their respective ways, then we have the strength of memetic diversity, the intellectual equivalent of genetic diversity, and then we can solve many more of our problems, far quicker and far easier than we ever thought possible.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 434
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/8/2010 10:26:04 AM
just get audited with an E-meter at your local Church of Scientology and you can become "clear"

see, they combined religion & '" science" YAY !
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 436
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/8/2010 2:54:43 PM
I don't get the point of the dahmer video. I don't want to listen tot his creep reflect on things his victims no longer can, because he took that right away from them for his own selfish purposes, because he got off or 'came' better , a hotter orgasm, when he killed, dismembered & ate their body parts.

should we also listen to & view Charlie Manson's views on the world? mm maybe Adolf Hitlers or Pol Pot's if they had been recorded for youtube.

I'm so glad he is dead & rotting. maybe there is a god, who worked trough the inmate who killed this waste of skin. - that would help me almost to believe.

how convenient that so many, AFTER They are convicted and in prison "find god", hoping tit will help them get parole.

-remember that the 19 hijackers of 9-11 also had 'found god'

-so had the suicide bombers that struck Israeli citizens over the years and still strike US & Allied troops overseas, etc.

-so had the crusaders who chopped off the heads of men, women and children til the streets ran red with blood

-so had most members of the SS, nazi party, & German army whose uniform belt buckles said "Gott mit uns" (god is with us)

-so had the pilots who dropped atomic bombs on Japan and killed close to a million people with one strike -in fact the bombs were blessed before takeoff by a catholic priest, a Protestant minister, and a Jewish rabbi

trying to 'cover all the bases" I guess -wonder they didn't get an imam and a Hindu priest as well..I suppose at that time in the US Muslims and Hindus weer a very small proportion of the population.

I've seen the photos of that and often wondered what the words were of their 'blessing"?

"may you go forth and kill as many as possible, in the name of god" ? or?

there are so many examples of people killing in the name of god it's impossible to list them all

for those who make the argument that numbers prove something, "all these people believe and they can't all be wrong or deluded", that must prove the Jews are wrong because there are only about 14 million of them as opposed to more than a billion each, Christians & Muslims . also close to a billion Hindus and quite a few Buddhists & Taoists as well.

Maybe Mormons have the 'truth' or Scientology does?
 CrossOTzodiac
Joined: 12/5/2009
Msg: 437
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/9/2010 2:52:54 PM

Posted By: scorpiomover
if you attend a religious group, such as regular religious services held by religious organisations, then those others see you in pain, and remind you of these lessons. They do so, because they too have been in pain, and religions admonish their members to act with compassion and caring towards their fellow religious members. So by being a regular member of a religious organisation, you gain from a group of other people, who are regularly sympathetic to your plight, but who are regularly giving you information that enhances your cognitive processes, and thus make you a very effective human being, who survives the most difficult of problems with ease.

Or I could just get a hug from my mom and blow god off altogether...


This has been confirmed by science, as studies have shown that people who regularly attend religious services, have far better rates of recovery from mental illness due to major traumatic events, such as deaths of loved ones, which everyone experiences.


Have you ever heard of the "Power of Positive Thinking"? This has been confirmed by science...The human brain is capable of curing a lot of disease and injury all on its own. This is how people come out of coma's..the brain is doing the curing NOT god. Sometimes the injuries or illness is beyond even the human brain to fix. Thats when Dr's come in. And if they cant cure, then death results. Which begs the question,...why does god cure some people and not others? Why doesnt god cure people with illnesses or injuries which can actually be seen with the human eye...like for instance a re-grown arm or leg? Answer: There is no god!

Keeping god in society just because some people recover faster from illnesses makes about as much sence as keeping a plastic jesus on your dashboard to protect you from accidents. But you want to keep god in society for all the sick and injured believers? ...fine. Stay out of my goverment, stay away from my constitution, stop interfering with scientific medical research, dont tell me what to read, what to watch, who to have sex with or when, stop dehumanizing women by insisting that they remain babymaking machines, stop interfering with birth control organizations, and STOP BEATING YOUR KIDS!
 CrossOTzodiac
Joined: 12/5/2009
Msg: 438
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/9/2010 2:55:11 PM
I posted this twice because I screwed up the quote bracketing


Posted By: scorpiomover
if you attend a religious group, such as regular religious services held by religious organisations, then those others see you in pain, and remind you of these lessons. They do so, because they too have been in pain, and religions admonish their members to act with compassion and caring towards their fellow religious members. So by being a regular member of a religious organisation, you gain from a group of other people, who are regularly sympathetic to your plight, but who are regularly giving you information that enhances your cognitive processes, and thus make you a very effective human being, who survives the most difficult of problems with ease.


Or I could just get a hug from my mom and blow god off altogether...


This has been confirmed by science, as studies have shown that people who regularly attend religious services, have far better rates of recovery from mental illness due to major traumatic events, such as deaths of loved ones, which everyone experiences.


Have you ever heard of the "Power of Positive Thinking"? This has been confirmed by science...The human brain is capable of curing a lot of disease and injury all on its own. This is how people come out of coma's..the brain is doing the curing NOT god. Sometimes the injuries or illness is beyond even the human brain to fix. Thats when Dr's come in. And if they cant cure, then death results. Which begs the question,...why does god cure some people and not others? Why doesnt god cure people with illnesses or injuries which can actually be seen with the human eye...like for instance a re-grown arm or leg? Answer: There is no god!

Keeping god in society just because some people recover faster from illnesses makes about as much sence as keeping a plastic jesus on your dashboard to protect you from accidents. But you want to keep god in society for all the sick and injured believers? ...fine. Stay out of my goverment, stay away from my constitution, stop interfering with scientific medical research, dont tell me what to read, what to watch, who to have sex with or when, stop dehumanizing women by insisting that they remain babymaking machines, stop interfering with birth control organizations, and STOP BEATING YOUR KIDS!
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 439
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/9/2010 4:44:59 PM


This has been confirmed by science, as studies have shown that people who regularly attend religious services, have far better rates of recovery from mental illness due to major traumatic events, such as deaths of loved ones, which everyone experiences.


I don't suppose you could look that one up eh? Not to be****sh in any way...I would like to see that one though. I know studies involving prayer have been pretty much shown to be ineffective.

And what conclusion can we reasonably draw from the above?

Social groups of like minded people can assist in providing coping strategies and support? In which case the religious element may not be necessary if they share a similar ethical foundation...good friends may have the same effect...just saying.

So what does the study or studies specifically say?
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 440
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/10/2010 11:28:50 AM

Keeping god in society just because some people recover faster from illnesses makes about as much sence as keeping a plastic jesus on your dashboard to protect you from accidents. But you want to keep god in society for all the sick and injured believers? .


funny you mention that - I used to live in a very 'roman catholic' city where many people had "St. Christopher" statues/statuettes mounted on their car's dashboards -

supposed to be the 'patron saint' for travelers -for those who are superstitious and also unheeding of their own bible's warnings against icons & graven images.

Ironically enough, these things probably CAUSED more collisions by blocking the sight lines of the driver - and I heard several stories of cars occupants being impaled on the statue in a collision..
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 441
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/11/2010 10:59:08 AM


It's a well know fact that religious people lead happier lives.


Happier than who? The non-religious? Not a fact, just an old adage. But if it makes you feel happier to believe it, go right ahead... it's causing me no particular harm at the moment for you to believe it.

Now perhaps if you start swinging around dead cats trying to label certain religions or scientists as "illegitimate" we might have problems...

Your last statement however I am essentially in agreement with.



At their core, they provide answers to completely different questions.


Unless religion is making testable claims about the nature of reality or history, or encouraging health practices that may be dangerous, or encouraging its followers to act in violation of sensible and safe civil laws that protect life and safety, then, it's best left alone to the conscience of the practitioner in a free society. Dancing with architecture indeed
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 442
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/11/2010 12:07:47 PM

It's a well know fact that religious people lead happier lives. Does that make their religion "true"?


no that is not a 'well-known' fact'.

If it is soo well-known could you please provide any references, proof?

how does one define 'happiness' anyway in any meaningful, subjective, comparative way?

what I had always read/heard was that CERTAINTY provided more happiness. both people who are fervent believers, AND avowed atheists who are certain of their beliefs, are happier than those in the 'middle ground' -agnostics, or weak believers, who struggle back & forth with beliefs.

makes sense to me. And improved 'happiness' on the part of believers does not 'prove' they are 'right' -just that believing itself can make you happy. does improved happiness of avowed atheists prove they are 'right'?
 hyoid
Joined: 5/12/2009
Msg: 443
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/11/2010 1:17:48 PM
I don't think so.
Religion attempts to explain the nature/will of god.
Science, the nature of the universe.
Most religions place the universe completely under the purview of god and easily incorporate scientific explanations as god's chosen mechanism.

Where conflict arises is the application of science-technology. The openness of science means technological innovation is constant and widespread. That results in cultural change. And that is difficult for most religions to deal with.

The germ theory of disease was easy to incorporate as a mechanism of god. But when hygiene and antibiotics proved more effective than prayer or penitence, difficulties arose.

This is the stuff of schisms. While science experiences the same divisions, the conflict often dies with the holders of the supplanted theory. With religions, the schism usually persists until the schismatics are split in their turn.

So I guess the biggest difference I see is science trend (against institutional inertia) toward a universally accepted perception of the universe and religion's trend (against institutional inertia) toward a wholly individual perception of god.
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 444
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/11/2010 2:24:38 PM
I have to question the validity of such a statistic when leading the pack ahead of religion would likely be job satisfaction and relationships...we are not told this outright but if one does a bit of looking around these would come out well ahead of religion in the happiness generating department.

Similarly, one could draw a conclusion that theism leads to a life of crime by looking at this:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

I'm not going to suggest or imply such a thing...however, I will recall the old axiom about lies, damn lies, and statistics to suggest that they do not necessarily make a good argument especially if we are talking about "belief"... especially because of the mighty power of that most ancient of deities PLA-CEE-BOH! Long may he rein.
 hyoid
Joined: 5/12/2009
Msg: 445
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/11/2010 2:26:53 PM

And no manner of physics can determine right from wrong, which is something that religion and metaphysics tries to do.


Absolutely true.
But I have difficulty with the word "metaphysics", as it implies something akin to but beyond "physics". It's like describing a thing by saying what it is not.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 446
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/11/2010 5:24:15 PM
One thing I don't think I've seen anyone answer here...


legitimate religion is not in conflict with legitimate science.


Under what criteria are you defining something as 'legitimate'? What makes one branch of scientific inquiry legitimate while excluding another? Same question for a 'legitimate' religion... what's the basis for the division?
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 447
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/12/2010 8:53:09 AM
That is probably related to a third independent variable. Atheists tend to be smarter than the average (though not near as smart as they give themselves credit for) and intelligence invesely related to criminal behaviour.

Statistics don't lie; some of the people interpreting them do.


I think that same explanation can easily be applied to your quoted "reference"

church goers tend to more gullible and ignorant, ignorance is bliss..

tossing around phrases like 'can't speak for the illiterate and ignorant"

nice, as an alleged lawyer would you ever make such an 'argument' in court?


http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?ChartID=12

It's well known amongst the well read. I can't speak for the illiterate or ignorant.

And no manner of physics can determine right from wrong, which is something that religion and metaphysics tries to do.


thus, by your argument, Muslims must be much, much happier than Christians because on average they go to t a mosque every day and bow down to Mecca & pray 5 X per day, much, much more than almost any Christian.

this includes suicide bombers and the 19 suicide hijackers of 9-11, amongst many others.

I believe most members of the nazi SS, concentration camp guards, Waffen SS, Wehrmacht , Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe were also conscientious church-goers.. what exactly does that prove?
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 448
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/12/2010 9:50:47 AM
[quote ] http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?ChartID=12 [/quote ]

LMAO, toss out your own (possibly lying statistic) then dismiss anybody else's.

the very same website you quote also shows that happiness varies by gender, by age, by combinations of gender & age, by income, employment status, geographic location., by race .etc., etc.

by marital status (married happier than single)

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?ChartID=21

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?ChartID=25

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?ChartID=19

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?ChartID=5

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?ChartID=27

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?ChartID=3

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?ChartID=35

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?ChartID=23

couldn't any of these, or other factors, easily be third variables affecting the stats re :Church attendance and happiness?

e.g. older people, especially older females who tend to be happier than younger males, might proportionally attend church quite a bit more? wealthier people tend to attend church more? (maybe where they get business contacts that lead to more wealth?) employed people attend more than the unemployed? the same Pew stats say that Sunbelt residents are happier than non-Sunbelt -this somewhat coincides with the 'bible belt' of more religious southerners ion the USA.. the stats say blacks are not as happy as whites in general, could it be that whites also tend to attend church more often? so many variables...

and proportionally more married people attend church than singles? or BECAUSE They attend church they get married since the church tens to frown on unmarried cohabitation, etc.?

anyone can 'lie with statistics'. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't have the temerity to try to pull this type of BS on a judge or jury, assuming you are in courtrooms and not simply a paper-pusher.

also, even the chart you quote hardly shows an overwhelming difference, and since we don't have machines that objectively measure "happiness levels", these have to be 'self-reported' levels of happiness.

perhaps the causation is in the opposite direction. Quite possible that church -goers feel an obligation to report that they are 'happy' since 'communing with god' is SUPPOSED to 'make them happier than godless heathen atheists?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 449
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 7/12/2010 2:16:00 PM
RE Msg: 527 by exogenist:
To put more impact on what you are saying consider the following youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjW7bezdddE

I highly recommend all readers watch the vid.

But my point isn't necessarily with religion. Its simply with a system of belief. I'm lazy to explain so consider the following TED video about cheating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUdsTizSxSI

Notice how he said the ones who new the 10 commandments cheated less and the ones who didn't know the 10 commandments cheated more. Yet the same thing is true with the MIT honor code (MIT doesn't have an honor code). Please pay attention to that part of the vid.
I am so amazed by these videos. But particularly the last one.

I want to point out here, that the second video seems to me, to say some amazing things:
1) Cheating is not really affected by how much you gain
2) Cheating is not really affected by how likely you might get caught
3) Cheating is in the main, affected by how much you remember some kind of moral code
4) If that moral code was completely fictitious, but you thought it was true, it would have the same effect as if it was true
5) The effect of that moral code was dependent on how close or removed you were from the actions (tokens vs money)
6) If others of your group cheat, then you're more likely to cheat
7) If others of an opposing group cheat, then you're less likely to cheat

This is totally mind-blowing to me. I always understood the scientific position to be that people cheat because they have a self-interest, in that they will gain by cheating, but which is mitigated by how likely they are to get caught, which could remove the gain.

Dan Ariely seems to suggest that both factors do not increase the likelihood of cheating, and that really, it is down to how aware you are at the time of cheating, of moral rules that encourage you to not cheat.

That's a complete change of theory of morality, from the theory that morality is based on self-interest, to that morality is based on awareness of previously accepted moral codes of behaviour.

It explains much of human behaviour that has previously flummoxed me.

For instance, many men who cheat on their wives, have gone out to dinner with their wife, but then chatted up the waitress right in front of their wife. This goes totally against self-interest, as their wife can see they are intending to cheat on them. However, if the issue is self-awareness, then we can say that since they are known to cheat, generally, they are not aware of the impact of their actions. They simply don't think about the long-term consequences of cheating. Thus, even when they are having dinner with their wife, they still don't think about the consequences of their actions, and don't realise the effect of chatting up a waitress in front of their wife either. They just don't think about it.

Another thing that I've noticed, is that some men cheat again and again, even when their wife is very attractive and pleasant. Other men seem to never cheat, not even when they don't get on with their wife at all, not even when a stunning woman is making it obvious that the offer is there, not even when there is no way that their wife will ever find out. Both have the same levels of self-interest. However, if the issue is self-awareness, then it can easily be that the men who serially cheat, do not think about the long-term consequences of cheating, and the men who do not, think about those consequences so much, and are so much aware of them, that they won't cheat, even when it is clearly to their advantage.

I've considered that this becomes an incredibly powerful tool to solving issues of serious crimes, such as paedophilia and rape. Changing someone's desires is very difficult, and seems to have very limited effect. Limiting their options is also very difficult, particularly because every time we shut off one way to commit a crime, someone thinks up a new way of accomplishing their criminal goals. However, if it's just a matter of self-awareness, then simply getting everyone to join a weekly Bible class, or any weekly class on morality, that fits in with your own personal views could encourage self-awareness of the moral values that society feels is extremely important, on a regular basis. The neural pathways which hold these values would then be strengthened again and again, and over years, could become strong enough, that it's something that everyone is always aware of, because they are strengthened and reinforced every week. Then, when situations and desires for paedophilia and rape present themselves, the awareness of the damage caused by those crimes, and the moral value in not acting on those desires, could shut down the impetus to act on them, almost entirely.

This approach to moderating human behaviour to the benefit of everyone, could apply to all types of morality, and not just to cheating, paedophilia, and rape. It could moderate the negative effects of greed, and the negative effects of criticism. It could encourage us to become more helpful to each other. The sky's the limit.

I've also considered that if whole countries could be all enrolled in weekly morality classes, in which they could be engaged to really consider the impact of their decisions and actions, that it could make such a massive impact, that it could eliminate wars.

I've also considered that morality seems to me, to be generally seen as a subset of human decision processes. So it could teach us a powerful way to understand all human decisions, and how to control them for the better.

What's also incredibly useful to consider, is that the 10 commandments and the non-existent MIT honour code had the same effect. So even if the Bible was made up, a weekly Bible class can still be just as powerful a tool as any other moral code. Also, non-Bible believers have the advantage of being similarly benefitted, because any moral code seems to work. Passages in the Koran could work. So could parts of the Hindu spiritual texts. So could any atheistic philosophical work on moral values, such as existentialist works. We don't even need these works to be 100% correct, as they can even be mythical. We only need that the people who sit in on that class, believe in the moral values and the source of the moral values that they are being taught.

However, I've considered also, that such a complete change of theory, quite monumental. It's an extraordinary claim. We cannot just turn over 500 years of scientific view, without considerable proof. So I'm really a bit nervous here. So I'm very, very keen to hear of studies that have tested this theory thoroughly.

There is a study here, the suggests that the key factors in women's healthcare behaviour with regards to osteoporis and bone fractures, were directly related to their self-awareness of the long-term consequences of their behavior, and their awareness of how to live a full social life, while taking care of their healthcare needs.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a782848827

But that's only one study, and it's not really conclusive to support this claim.

Nevertheless, I am incredibly interested. Evolution and quantum theory have had massive impacts on the world. But we humans are dependent on the results of our actions, which have shown themselves to be incredibly resistant to change. If we can learn to moderate our actions by such a simple thing as simply reading a moral code on a regular basis, and making ourselves more in touch with those codes, then we could improve the lives of humankind, to an extent that Darwin and Einstein could have only dreamt of.

It's not often that I've read or seen a mind-blowing idea as much as this. I've only come across one or two such ideas on the forums, and they totally changed my life and my views. But this one has the capacity to make our lives millions of times more improved than those ideas.

All I do hope now, is that I can find conclusive evidence, or that you or others could provide conclusive evidence, to prove or disprove this hypothesis.

I cannot thank you enough for showing me this.


Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >