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
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 251
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?Page 6 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)

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 Because we recognize that today's understanding can be superseded by a new discovery that calls into question the previous paradigm.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!
 ApollinaireG
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 252
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/8/2010 9:18:12 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?

Religion is very much about nature, seen and unseen. It doesn’t remove itself from the physical world rather has a different understanding of its manifestation. Much like Science, the starting point of Religion is observation. Similar to Ethics and Morality Religion has meaning only in one’s social context. The “consequences” are limitations imposed by one’s Ethics and Morality in response to one’s environment. Here “reality” is both physical and social and Religion is at the center. But Icould be wrong...
 ApollinaireG
Joined: 3/28/2010
Msg: 253
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/8/2010 9:51:09 PM

I couldn't agree with you more Taken. Having an open mind does not mean that one would believe every fanciful whim that comes along, rather it means that a person is open to accept that what we consider as a truth or fact now is subject to change

A great many think they are “open-minded” but so few truly are.
Do you show respect for one’s beliefs?
Do you try to understand one’s ideas and views?
Do you base the discussions solely on the merit of the arguments?
Do you hold judgment until you’ve explore all avenues?
Do you allow the possibility that you may not know enough and may be wrong in your views?
Yes to the above then you are truly open-minded.
Anything else and you are like me, still submerging in his subjectivity.
But I ask: are there any eternal truths, facts that can never change?
 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.
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 275
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/20/2010 12:13:52 PM
He he, thanx guys: Krebby2001 and quietjohn2

Of course it wasn’t my intention to change the course of the thread, or to provoke any personal attacks, herminius, it’s jut that you really don’t seem interested in what other posters are actually MEANING to say. You are interested in the words they type but not their meaning.

Take this for example:

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.

It was written by RocketMan_Len in response to a post number 331, and it means effectively the same as what is written in post 334 – that is that it’s possible to be comfortable appreciating that life exists as a consequence of cause and effect rather than as a result of the conscious decision making of some “thinking” super power (such as a god). Sure everything still happens for a reason, seeing everything in the world follows “laws” (chemical and physical ones). These laws which we are saying do exist are the internal sources; the god which we are saying we have no need to believe in is the ‘external source’ referred to by rocketMan_Len.

NOTE: he didn’t imply that life emerged unguided! He implied that it emerged unguided by an external source! That is very different.

Then, even though I get the impression you actually agree, you come and start playing with the words that were used to convey that simple message. In the process of doing so you also give the “creating force” which you believe in human like properties, such as “the ability to care and “dictate things”, even though you have previously claimed not to believe in any type of god....as a consequence you make very little sense! Also as a consequence it is very difficult for posters to feel like you actually understand what they’re saying!

Okay so you didn’t really imply the existence of a god – maybe I’m just playing with YOUR words – see how annoying it is?

Please all feel free to correct me if I’ve miss-interpreted any of the quoted (or otherwise referred to) posts. Please also speak up if other posters don’t agree with the last sentence of the fourth paragraph – maybe it’s only me that feels that way.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 276
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/20/2010 2:18:07 PM
One thing that I think Herminius is overlooking (perhaps not deliberately...) is that I was referring to 'guidance' in a rather specific sense - that of an active and purposeful intervention.

Sure - we can't get away from the fact that our development is influenced by our surroundings...but those are factors that are dictated by the principles of physics and chemistry, and have no consciousness or goals behind them.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 277
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/21/2010 12:48:19 PM

I guess, what I am trying to say is that would it be possible that once we are able to create a formula to what is obvious to our eyes, we then demistify a lot what seems to be at first glance paranormal or what some of us associate to a diety.

That's highly unlikely. It's straight forward to determine whether or not the outcome of many experiments is due to random chance or due to some undiscovered phenomenon. Statistics. If there is an underlying cause for something, then after some number of trials, you should be able to make future predictions with accuracy better than a coin toss. If so, there is an algorithm (i.e., formula) that you may or may not understand to obtain predictions. Newton, for example, stated explicitly that he had no idea what the nature of gravity was. He merely provided a formula for it that reproduced the observations he and others made and used it to predict the outcome of experiments.

Let me put it this way. We have a theory of the force that binds protons and neutrons into nuclei. The force has a range of only about 1.6 x 10^-15 m (i.e., 0.00000000000000015 meters). If we can quantify something this hard to observe, something like telekinesis is a snap.


Basically, we are acknowledging that there are things we do not understand but we are aware of its presence however elusive it is.

This is done everyday in physics labs. No one completely understands qcd for example, but we have a theory that predicts the outcome of experiments which are much more difficult to sort out than claims involving the paranormal. If someone really believes he/she has paranormal abilities, I would advise him/her to contact the Randi Foundation immediately. There's a $1,000,000.00 cash pprize being offered to anyone who can use a paranormal ability to correctly predict whatever he/she claims to do with better than random chance.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 278
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/21/2010 1:22:16 PM


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.


Listen, I don't care about ideologies, be they anthropomorphic or not, any more than nature does.
Just the other day I watched my dog interact with another canine and what they were saying to each other with their body language was as clear as the words on this web site.


Wow! Okay, herminius, let's try this:


an·thro·po·mor·phize (nthr-p-môrfz)
v. an·thro·po·mor·phized, an·thro·po·mor·phiz·ing, an·thro·po·mor·phiz·es
v.tr. To ascribe human characteristics to.
v.intr. To ascribe human characteristics to things not human.


The tendency to anthropomorphize has nothing to do with "ideology" but with the normal human tendency to ascribe human tendencies to non-human things. Cars, ships, natural processes...

Is it really necessary to jump tooth and nail onto something without actually understanding what the poster is actually trying to say? No? Okay, let me be clearer for you...by ascribing human tendencies to the natural process of evolution is to not only venture into scientifically inaccurate descriptions for things but also opens the door to non-scientific explanations such as divine creation.

For instance, I've even read Richard Dawkins state that a species "responds" to environmental change by evolving to meet that challenge (or die) but even that is inaccurate since evolution doesn't respond to anything. Individuals within a species may have adaptations that provide a selective advantage and so give the appearance of a "response." But it is not a response in the classic meaning of the word.

Got it now?
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 279
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/22/2010 3:44:09 AM
Has Herminius gone? Because I used to be able to see his picture and access his posting history, and now I can’t :S

It would be a shame if he’s gone. I didn’t intend to do that! Herminius, are you out there? If you can hear me, come back!! He he lol.

I honestly couldn’t have predicted he would just vanish, and I still doubt that he has. I know lots of posters don’t like their posts/attitudes/ideas criticized, but I didn’t pick Herminius as one of them – I thought he was pretty keen on the idea of a debate!
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 280
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/22/2010 2:01:16 PM
Annasthasia, Great post.


Our world has, in my view, a lot of laws left to discover and as much as I try to understand, I do sometimes feel in awe of it all. (I am really into fractals now and the more I learn, the more I am in awe of that very simple formula with very complex results. )

Agreed.


I guess, what I am trying to say is that would it be possible that once we are able to create a formula to what is obvious to our eyes, we then demistify a lot what seems to be at first glance paranormal or what some of us associate to a diety.


Interesting idea, and the Newton-gravity analogy is quite powerful. But the problem is that it just isn’t intelligent to make up explanations and assume they contain truth just because “they might” (and we “might” realise it at a later date). This is especially the case while hardly even a skerrick of supporting evidence for the explanation. The other problem is that (at least for me) the existence of a God doesn’t add anything to my understanding of the world; it just doesn’t help me generate logical/convincing answers to any of my questions.

Of course theories are theories, so they don’t have to be proven to be considered. However there does have to be some reason to consider them. Thus, the god theory is effectively a fairytale in my mind.


Basically, we are acknowledging that there are things we do not understand but we are aware of its presence however elusive it is.


This is something I often say to people:

“I can make up a theory which you can’t prove wrong, but the odds of it being right will be very small seeing I will have just made it up using my imagination. Will you put faith in it just because no one can prove it wrong?”


In this thread and several others in the S/P forum there are a few folks that seem to find enjoyment in baiting other posters, and their posting history proves this out.

Ascendo tuum, that crap about me making the forum “distasteful” is hardly even worth responding to. At best, it is miss-directed when aimed at me. I don’t use personal insults and my “allegedly offensive” post was directed at one particular person for the sole reason that the points in it applied only to him. E.g, I didn’t notice other posters taking statements WAY out of context. Of course context is relative and that’s why I gave an example of what I meant by “out of context”. Herminius (or anyone else for that matter!) is welcome to disagree, but I believe the point was still worth making because if Herminius was forced to pay special attention to the MEANING of peoples post the quality of the debate would be improved (again, IMO). Furthermore I didn’t chose to pick on a poster who uses the forums solely to share their opinion (as some do); instead I believe(d) that Herminius is not opposed to the idea of being made to defend his ideas, attitudes and statements (although now, if he’s run away, it seems I may have been wrong).

At first glance my posting history may appear to support aspects of your statement, but there are a number of posters (lyingcheat would be the example you notice in my history) who enjoy the debate as much as I do. Go into the actual threads, or check out THEIR posting history’s. I think you’ll find we’re on the same page – thus, there is nothing distasteful about it.

The real question is, why am I posting those last two paragraphs? Maybe I should just delete it...or send it to you s a private message...oh well.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 283
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/22/2010 11:21:57 PM

As I mentioned earlier there are a few whose main agenda is to promote discourse on these threads, and if these certain few are called on it, then perhaps we might be able to help them change their behavior or if that doesn't work, be rid of them

The entire purpose of these fora IS discourse. I'm unclear on why the promotion of discourse would be so heinous, particularly when proselytizing is more or less the opposite, and is prohibited!
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 284
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/23/2010 12:38:17 AM
Anybody into Science cannot have Wonder and Awe. They are too educated. Anybody who has no education has little chance of realizing what wonder is. After that...we all die. Who really wins??? Nobody. But...then there are the inspired..educated or not...something very profound is calling...and it skips the educated and most of the non-educated and these are the ones you listen to. The rest are just deluded.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 285
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/23/2010 4:17:05 AM
^^^^^^^^^

You seem to have a very jaded outlook on life. The educated can't have Wonder and Awe?

I'll take this opportunity to throw the following excerpt out for your consideration. It's a quote from the Niven/Pournelle/Flynn novel 'Fallen Angels'...




"It's so cold that the moisture in our own breath freezes as soon as we exhale. It creates a cloud of millions of tiny ice particles." His own beard glistened with frost as he spoke.

Bruce made a snowball and threw it at Mike. Sherrine grinned and made a rainbow ring. " A lot of my mundane friends," she said to Alex, "think that explaining a phenomenon 'ruins the magic'. I think the explanations just make it more magical than before. `Danes live in a world where everything happens on the surface; where everything is a symptom - like the rainbows. But a cloud of microscopic crystal prisms is as magical as an unexplained rainbow any day."


Put simply - the more we know, the more there is to Wonder AT.

Perhaps it's YOU who is deluded...?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 286
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/23/2010 5:55:22 AM

Anybody into Science cannot have Wonder and Awe. They are too educated. Anybody who has no education has little chance of realizing what wonder is. After that...we all die. Who really wins??? Nobody. But...then there are the inspired..educated or not...something very profound is calling...and it skips the educated and most of the non-educated and these are the ones you listen to. The rest are just deluded.


I couldn't disagree more vehemently! As rocketman said, the more we know of something, the more amazing we find it to be. In my own pastime of astronomy, the average person who has never looked through a telescope before is suitably amazed at images of the moon or Saturn. But after many years, I still never tire of these images. Knowing the wheres and why-fors of the structure of Saturns rings or the geological processes that went into making the moon the way it is today adds a whole level of wonder.

I would imagine the same would be true for anyone in any other scientific pursuit or pastime.

I have to admit to a certain admiration for those who have scientific knowledge and also profess to religious faith. And yes, there are some scientists who are also religious. For them, everything they know about is enhanced (at least for them) by their faith in a supreme being. Some of the best realize, however, that finding "God" in nature is a pointless exercise as God is outside the reasoning of science and every process in nature is reduceable.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 288
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/23/2010 12:04:42 PM
Question for the group - what do YOU consider to be more awe-inspiring...

The notion that some 'Supreme Being' conjured us to be their playthings,

or,

The notion that some *simple* chemical reactions, given enough time, can give rise to thought, self-realization, and emotion?

Personally, I find the latter more awesome than the former, and FAR more wondrous.
 whitegold765
Joined: 12/26/2007
Msg: 290
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/23/2010 6:28:45 PM
I would agree with those who say they see more awe and wonder in science than in God.

More on the OP topic, I actually do thing science and religion are naturally opposed. Science is about skepticism, doubt, and evidence. Religion is the opposite. Science changes, adapts, evolves. Religion must by nature be static. The process of reason and logic is antithetical to the religious view, and I think reconciling the two WHEN THEY CONFLICT is difficult.

God is shrinking, the God of the Gaps. Science is shrinking him. Not on purpose or maliciously, but the more we know of the world around us the less we need him.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 292
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 4/26/2010 7:56:03 AM

Anybody into Science cannot have Wonder and Awe.

Really? I'm a scientist and I've found that the more I understand science, the more amazing I find nature to be. The more you know, the more you can appreciate. If you know nothing about science, how can you even appreciate a flower beyond liking or disliking the way it looks?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >