Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

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
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 221
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?Page 5 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)
Krebster, ...dude!

how the heck do you get text to appear in BOLD?


--->

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts469064.aspx
 carharttman2
Joined: 3/8/2010
Msg: 222
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/30/2010 11:30:14 AM
Science is in "conflict" w/ religion only the minds of the devoutly religious.
Science is a series of methods to evaluate data.
Religion is a belief system that is not shared by all believers.

To say that science is in conflict w/ religion gives religion an importance it cannot earn on its own.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 225
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/2/2010 12:17:13 PM

Religion claims things that cannot demonstrate themselves to be real.


Cannot be demonstrated to be "real" to those people who have already made up their minds that there is no more to reality than the physical universe.


It really is a simple concept. If it is real, it can be proven to exist. Experiments can be conducted that either provide evidence for or against. Otherwise, it's merely hypothesis, conjecture, 'faith' or even wishful (or 'magical') thinking.

Truly "open" minds understand this. It's what keeps one from self-deception or even delusion.


Actually, end of thinking


Lots of that in these threads.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 227
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/2/2010 8:59:58 PM
What you don't get is the idea of standards of proof, methods of proof, and - surprise - circumstantial evidence.


And while you were so busy being a troll and score "gotcha" points, you failed to recognize the fact that, when it comes to "standards of proof, methods of proof, and - surprise - circumstantial evidence," that is a standard appropriate for a criminal court of law, not a scientific investigation.

You see - and I'll describe it in small words for you - the standard is evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." Oh, sorry... "very sure bad man do bad thing."

In science, it's "first scientist say thing is true and does experiment to show it's true. Then second and third scientist does same thing to repeat result or show first scientist experiment faulty."

I could send you a book with pop-ups, if you need further clarification.

Edit:

To get this back on topic, as scorpy so adequately demonstrates, the conflict comes when someone insists that their idiotic ideas about "reality" should be held in the same regard as established scientific principles.

It usually results in said idiot stomping their little foot and being obnoxiously abusive to anyone who disagrees with them.
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 228
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/2/2010 9:42:08 PM




STARGAZER: Religion claims things that cannot demonstrate themselves to be real.

SCORPIO: Cannot be demonstrated to be "real" to those people who have already made up their minds that there is no more to reality than the physical universe.

STARGAZER: It really is a simple concept. If it is real, it can be proven to exist. Experiments can be conducted that either provide evidence for or against. Otherwise, it's merely hypothesis, conjecture, 'faith' or even wishful (or 'magical') thinking.
Truly "open" minds understand this. It's what keeps one from self-deception or even delusion.
SCORPIO: I understand that you like to keep things simple, because that's you. What you don't get is the idea of standards of proof, methods of proof, and - surprise - circumstantial evidence.


Scorpio, in message 286 you manipulated the words of stargazer by quoting only a small section of what he said, and taking it out of context. In a discussion forum, this is my pet hate!

What he said is that if something IS real, you can prove it is real. If you can’t prove it is real, it's a hypothesis at best (and a fairy-tale at worst). A hypothesis, by definition, might be real, but you can’t say that it is IS.

The other important point he made is that you can’t just come up with a theory and then expect it to have some legitimacy just because you came up with it. It must have SOME supporting evidence, or it must explain SOME observations, or it must make sense for some other reason, and of course, it must not yet be proven wrong. Accepting a theory ONLY because it can’t be proven wrong is not only non-scientific, it’s nearly the definition of stupidity (or what stargazer describes as “wishful thinking” and what other people like to call “faith”). I can make up a theory that you can’t prove wrong, but the odds of it being right will be pretty damn small seeing I will have just made it up using my imagination. Choosing to accept theory’s such as this is what I call "foolishness" and what stargazer called "self-deception".

No one indicated a lack of understanding of, circumstantial evidence or any of the other crap you mentioned. It was mealy pointed out that as long as the evidence of the proposition is circumstantial, the proposition can be no more than a hypothesis.

In this particular debate, the evidence for the existence of a god is effectively zero. The proposition continues to exist for the sole reason that it’s an impossible thing to prove wrong, and because the bible says it. Pretty much everything in the bible which is possible to prove wrong, has been proven wrong, so I’m not sure why this bible still has any legitimacy left, even in the minds of the must gullible human beings.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 230
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/2/2010 10:02:16 PM
Actually, Ahron, I can't claim authorship of this line...


<div class="quote">Religion claims things that cannot demonstrate themselves to be real.

...that was verity but I certainly endorse its validity.


^^^^^^^

Scientific principles usually include some notion that alternatives may exist, and some degree of respect for those who come up with the alternatives. The problem arises with those who fail to recognise the possibility of alternatives and insist that their version of reality is the "truth". I would venture to include in the latter even those whose version of the "truth" provides no flexibility in the relationship between science and faith.


Science acknowledges the potential for alternatives only in so much as they can serve to falsify a theory. A fine example is the relationship between QT and Relativity. Both mutually exclusive and yet both work at their respective scales which means a overarching "theory of everything" that unites the two, which is actively being sought.

Most people here are more than happy to accept the possibility of alternatives. However, come to us with a bit more than "because I think it's possible. Challenge me on that? Well then, you're a 'pinhead.'"

If we're talking faith in the religious context, then no. There is no relationship. It plays no role whatsoever in science, no matter how many circles you try to spin your logic in.
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 231
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/2/2010 10:02:21 PM


the conflict comes when someone insists that their idiotic ideas about "reality" should be held in the same regard as established scientific principles.


Not quite...
Scientific principles usually include some notion that alternatives may exist, and some degree of respect for those who come up with the alternatives. The problem arises with those who fail to recognise the possibility of alternatives and insist that their version of reality is the "truth". I would venture to include in the latter even those whose version of the "truth" provides no flexibility in the relationship between science and faith.


That problem cannot possibly come before such time as someone suggests a viable alternative, which is viable for good reasons (faith alone = not good reason).
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 233
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/2/2010 10:05:50 PM


the conflict comes when someone insists that their idiotic ideas about "reality" should be held in the same regard as established scientific principles.


Not quite...
Scientific principles usually include some notion that alternatives may exist, and some degree of respect for those who come up with the alternatives. The problem arises with those who fail to recognise the possibility of alternatives and insist that their version of reality is the "truth". I would venture to include in the latter even those whose version of the "truth" provides no flexibility in the relationship between science and faith.


No one failed to recognize the possibility of alternatives. The statement was simply about the importance of considering which of the proposed hypothesis have the most legitimacy, based on the current evidence (regardless of the topic at hand).
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 235
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/2/2010 10:15:58 PM

Religion is not in the business of demonstrating what is "real"....that's Science. Hence your quote may be "valid" it is certainly misleading if not erroneous.


Read the whole thread. Religion makes many claims about what is real. It makes claims about how the world was created, for a start. Christianity (which just happens to be the religion that I know the most about) makes claims about people walking on water, rising from the dead, and getting knocked up by holly spirits – all of these things are about what is ‘real’ and they are ALL in conflict with what science thinks it understands about the world.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 236
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/2/2010 10:19:51 PM
Religions make MANY claims about reality. When those claims are integral to the religion, they are frequently at odds with scientific evidence.

The presence of Jerusalem in the Bible, for instance, is not a religious claim. The fact it exists does nothing to validate the Bible as a whole. Christ, however, is integral to the faith, and there's no evidence he even existed.

Adherents to these religions also frequently extend the claims to even greater conflict [eg. claims of a 6000 year history for "creation"]. That's the real issue. Not every religion makes refutable claims, but a great many of the followers do.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 240
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/4/2010 2:26:01 PM

Legimate science, when it stays within its own area of applicability, has no conflict with religion pe se.


And vice versa. Let religion tell you how to go to heaven, let science tell you how the heavens go.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 241
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/4/2010 4:55:02 PM
I understand that you like to keep things simple, because that's you. What you don't get is the idea of standards of proof, methods of proof, and - surprise - circumstantial evidence.


Standards applicable in a criminal court. Not in a scientific investigation. Clearly a source of confusion for you.


Listen Up…Legitimate Science? What does that mean? Some Sciences are illegitimate? Oh such a subjective notion for such a subject matter. I may need some examples. Religion? Christianity? I’m afraid the door is open, intentionally or otherwise, to many tangents.


Bang on the money, musicman.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 244
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/4/2010 6:23:17 PM
I'm curious... how can religion remove itself from being involved in 'reality', yet still talk of ethics and morality - the consequences of which are *very much* rooted in reality?
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 246
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/4/2010 6:48:00 PM

Legimate science, when it stays within its own area of applicability, has no conflict with religion pe se.


Religion and science both began existing as a means of answering questions about the world. In the beginning religion made MANY MANY claims about the physical world. Over time, science proved MOST religious ideas WRONG, and now all that religion is left with is what you people like to call it’s “area of applicability”. The only reason religion still has that “area of applicability” is because it deals with issues that are so detached from the physical world that they can probably never be proven wrong. For the same reason, there can also probably never have any supporting evidence (note: I didn’t say physical evidence, I said ANY evidence).

In other words, religions current "area of applicability" is really all that religion still has left after the NUMEROUS conflicts that religion has already had with science. In fact, as a result of these conflicts, many concepts that were once fundamental religious beliefs are now put in the “extremist only” box, even by those who want to call themselves religious.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 247
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/8/2010 2:33:11 AM
Krebby...

(First off - I know I'm behind in my postings... new job has me running ragged... )

Maybe I'm taking things too literally, but I still don't see how religion can provide a basis for morality that isn't grounded in reality. Your example shows 'The Moral Reason', but not the reasoning behind it (which is the reality of the situation...)

My take on it would be...

Moral Reason - Bullying is Wrong.

Philosopher - so WHY is Bullying Wrong?

Religious Answer #1 - Because it IS! (Unspoken comment - Shut Up and stop asking Stupid Questions...)
Religious Answer #2 - Because God Says So.
Religious Answer #3 - Because Our Holy Book Says So.

Realist Answer - Because Bullying doesn't gain you as much as you think it does. When you force people to do something for you - not only will they hate you for it, but they will only do the minimum amount that they can get away with to keep you from pressuring them more. The better choice is to be honest and trustworthy, because people will WANT to do things for you when you're good to them.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 251
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/8/2010 8:58:13 PM

Science allows for change, it is only close minded fools who do not.


Couldn't agree more. Frequently, us "science enthusiasts" are the most open-minded individuals you could hope to meet. Why? Because we recognize that today's understanding can be superseded by a new discovery that calls into question the previous paradigm.

Indeed, we revel in the possibility. That's what makes it interesting!
 MacAllen
Joined: 3/30/2006
Msg: 256
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/12/2010 12:52:22 PM
New to the thread and forums, but not the site, wanted to chime in.

From my perspective, both religion and science have a place. Religion is the study of the spirit, science is the study of the world. Science, taken to the greatest lengths, is as much faith as it is hard data...take the big bang. We do not know the big bang happened or why. We have physical data that we've extrapolated via mathematics into a theory, a theory that changes and grows every year as we gain new ways to gather data. That's as much faith as anything else.

The problem comes when people on either side of the equation become insecure about their position and feel threatened. Religious fundamentalists who feel that science threatens "The One Truth (tm)" and try to discredit it for fear their power over their flock will be lessened by it, or scientists who do things because of their athiesm, with malice towards religion who do things deliberately to disprove religion (like carbon dating the shroud of Turin).

They are both needed. As we advance technologically, we need science to be able to do things as much as we need religion to help us understand whether or not we should do it.

My $.02, for what it's worth.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 257
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/12/2010 3:24:10 PM

The problem comes when people on either side of the equation become insecure about their position and feel threatened. Religious fundamentalists who feel that science threatens "The One Truth (tm)" and try to discredit it for fear their power over their flock will be lessened by it, or scientists who do things because of their athiesm, with malice towards religion who do things deliberately to disprove religion (like carbon dating the shroud of Turin).

I think it's telling that you assume radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin was undertaken "deliberately to disprove religion."

The only people who are going to be threatened by the disclosure of the true age of the Shroud are those who have taken a stand on whether it is or is not a true artifact of Christ's death and resurrection. Strangely, it turns out to be from 1260-1390 years after Christ's alleged death and resurrection. Now we know. Did it disprove religion?

Is it truly an attempt to "disprove religion" to want to know the actual age of an alleged artifact? Or just a desire to know whether that one artifact is or is not legitimate? I suspect there are those who wanted the dating done to PROVE religion. Why does the central core of the matter have to lie at one fringe or the other? Most of the scientists I know would simply be CURIOUS as to the results of the radiocarbon dating.


They are both needed. As we advance technologically, we need science to be able to do things as much as we need religion to help us understand whether or not we should do it.

I'd contend that ANY reasonably-advanced system of ethics or morality will suffice for "whether or not we should do it." No religion required. Just a good sense of right and wrong, which can come from a completely secular childhood. Weird, that.

"Science" will also never "disprove religion," as most people have too much riding on a pleasant afterlife to give it up entirely. They'll always fall back on Pascal's Wager, if nothing more.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 258
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/12/2010 3:49:31 PM

Science, taken to the greatest lengths, is as much faith as it is hard data...take the big bang. We do not know the big bang happened or why. We have physical data that we've extrapolated via mathematics into a theory, a theory that changes and grows every year as we gain new ways to gather data. That's as much faith as anything else.


Um...wrong. The big bang is derived largely from observational data. And any theory such as the big bang or evolution is easily superseded by observations that provide counter evidence i.e. a cambrian-era mammal fossil or a "nearby" galaxy with a greater redshift than one interpreted as further (also interpreted as "farther") away.

Since neither of these conditions have been met, then the current theory stands.

No one has ever actually "observed" God or provided independently verifiable evidence for said "God's" existence. The conflict comes when people try to counter actual verifiable evidence with "But God did it."
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 260
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/14/2010 11:41:33 PM
true science and true religion are both, well, true.
and, like we have discussed forever on these threads, not much is true.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 262
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/15/2010 10:29:44 PM
Krebby..."Truth is often NOT relative." Actually truth is more likely what is ignored.
Empirical investigation is fine and validating findings has merit. It all ends up being taken for granted... but that is part and parcel of evolution.
Truth in Religion....who really understands and acts on the wise, profound words that have been offered by savvy "religious" philosophers? Not many at all.
So long as we understand that we live in our very own self-created tunnels, all will be well...for whatever time it takes until the light begins to inform. Sometimes the light is death.
Then how do you easily separate wonder from science, hard facts, etc. Ain't possible. If you do...you are conflicted and not whole. Yep.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 265
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/18/2010 11:24:17 PM
O.k...religion is what is the worst that you already imagine. But...start with the Bible, work your way through the ancient theologians such as ...Aristotle...etc. work your way to the moderns who profess belief in God..its late night for me...and just google...belief in God... and give it a reading beyond your initial repugnance....just do. I thank the stars that there are those.... beyond those who do not believe. I would feel pretty wretched trapped in the world of the Christopher Hitchens and the rest. Their smugness is no different to me from the deluded Christian who does not value the silence of wonder.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 266
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/19/2010 2:30:16 AM
Are you kidding...? I think that it's even MORE wonderful that our existence - and the very existence of life itself - could emerge ON ITS OWN... without the help of an external source to guide its' development.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 269
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/19/2010 11:52:34 AM

Life did neither emerge "on its own", nor is its development unguided.


Um....little bit of a 'slippery slope' that one. Even by saying that evolution "guides" itself, it still falls into the anthropomorphizing trap. Of course, I tried to come up with a response that didn't sound like anthropomorphizing.
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 271
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/19/2010 9:56:40 PM
Not meaning to hijack the thread, but I propose that herminius chooses not to look for the meaning of peoples post, but to instead pick on an individual statement and play games with the way it is worded. I also propose that the statements he picks on are no more vulnerable to such treatment than many of his own statements. The only reason herminus doesn't receive the same style of responses that he dishes out to other people, is that most forum users are above that!!

And what kind of a ridicules statement are these:

Listen, I don't care about ideologies, be they anthropomorphic or not, any more than nature does.


Life serves itself, and nothing else. The environment in which we exist dictates all, and not even the most advanced human civilization (or prayers for divine miracles) can escape that fact indefinitely.


Of course I could chose to think about you mean, but instead I’m going to stoop to your level and say that if you personify life like that, and give it human like properties, you may as well be talking about a supreme being, such as a God!! Life doesn't "serve anything" and it doesn't make "decisions" and it doesn't "dictate things" and it doesn’t choose what to “care” about and what not to.

See...any idiot can play with words! It's just that it doesn't contribute anything to a discussion!

Do you see how it’s annoying when you respond to statements people have said but display absolutely no understanding of what they meant??



Life did neither emerge "on its own", nor is its development unguided.

Um....little bit of a 'slippery slope' that one. Even by saying that evolution "guides" itself, it still falls into the anthropomorphizing trap. Of course, I tried to come up with a response that didn't sound like anthropomorphizing.


And what a good choice that was. As a result you make a lot more sense than good old herminius does, even though I’m sure he makes sense to himself.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >