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
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 328
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?Page 8 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)
Why would anybody that believed in Science...
pose this question. Obviously most who believe
in Science have no belief in God or religion.
Am I wrong? Are you feeling lack of something?
Otherwise. in my perception those that believe
in Science, believe they are also some kind of
God. Or they do not recognize anything
beyond their own singular mind and ruminations.
This world is tiresome ridden on the back of mainly
men's opinions.
 i_am_ausar
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 329
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/9/2010 2:40:00 AM
legitimate science is in direct conflict with theology and more imaginary based sciences are in conflict with "metaphysics".but the schools of mystery are where most observations that are likened as laws within the realm of physical sciences have sprung.in some way as growth overcomes life's expression the debate will be has the expression of science encroached upon the realms of thought.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 332
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/24/2010 10:47:21 AM

In modern times, it's common for many people to try to apply science beyond its legitimate range of applicability, effectively worshipping a science-based cargo-cult religion.


That seems to be your favourite straw man you keep building up. Actually, the opposite is demonstrably true. Even while we become more reliant on the technology we build and the science behind it, there is more of a suspicion of science and a reversion to more "magical" thinking. Just look at the success of "supernatural" shows, the popularity of psychic fairs and the embracing of "alternative" health approaches including things like crystal "therapy," etc.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 333
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/24/2010 11:00:06 AM
IF you promise not to PRAY in our schools

I'll promise not to THINK in your churches..
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 334
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/24/2010 11:50:27 AM

IF you promise not to PRAY in our schools

I'll promise not to THINK in your churches..


or perhaps in thsi case it should be:

"IF you promise not to PRAY in our laboratories

I'll promise not to THINK in your churches.. "
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 335
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/24/2010 12:15:15 PM

In modern times, it's common for many people to try to apply science beyond its legitimate range of applicability, effectively worshipping a science-based cargo-cult religion.

For example?
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 341
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/24/2010 8:30:58 PM
I'm curious - what do you consider the 'rightful area' of scientific inquiry to BE? Isn't the whole idea behind science is that everything is open to examination, experimentation, and understanding?
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 344
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/24/2010 9:41:29 PM
Religion quickly evolves to a set of rules to live by
Then slowly dissolves as those rule become redundant

Through Science, understanding slowly evolves by discovering the individual rules of cause and effect.
From understanding these rules, individuals make choices.

So I would say that science and religion are not so much in conflict
as religion is a stepping stone to science
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 345
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/24/2010 10:02:25 PM

You've posted to my Materialism thread, and so I know that you've heard this before. Materialism is the metaphysics that says that this physical universe is the ultimate reality, and is all of reality.

Your materialism thread was a non-sequitur. By definition, the universe is all of reality. It's a tautology. If you think it isn't you're notion of the universe with something left out is unique to you and it's only purpose is to create a strawman by attributing your personal definition to science. Second, your use of the word materialism is not only non-standard, but totally meaningless in view of your misuse of the term universe. Your thread could have been interesting since there are a lot of philosophical debates about reality that are quite deep. Unfortunately, what you wrote falls into the not even wrong pile. You are trying to argue a point without even knowing the basic language required to capture the concepts you are trying to illustrate.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 346
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/25/2010 7:04:58 AM
Krebby...

I'm sorry, but I don't see how religion can 'guide' science in terms of where we should look for answers. That has already been tried - the Popes told Galileo that he should NOT be looking through that telescope contraption of his. Religions, like any organization, are composed of fallible humans that have feelings, agendas and biases... so if the people behind scientific pursuits are not to be trusted because of these qualities, why should we trust religious people to be any better?

I can, however, see ethical guidelines as a scientific concept... after all, the idea behind ethical behaviour is to understand the consequences of ones' actions - through prior example (experimentation), debate and careful thought. That's the very ESSENCE of the scientific process! Morality is a slippery term, and I dislike using it.

Science, at least, adapts to its' mistakes. Taking the spill in the Gulf - BP screwed up BIG TIME in not having the proper precautions in place... unless they're fools, next time they WILL. Now that they've learned the cost of their mistake, it won't be repeated. That's an exceedingly rare thing in religious circles, who take their 'holy books' as absolute.

The only thing religions are good for (or, rather... good AT) are manufacturing fears in the minds of others, and then offering salvation from the very fears that they themselves made.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 348
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/25/2010 10:38:28 AM
Exogenist...

It can be argued that someone who is drunk or high is happier than a sober person... but does that make being drunk or stoned as valid as being sober? As to their being more sensible - is that a product of their religion, or their intelligence?

Interesting phrase you've coined there - the science of belief. Are you trying to equate beliefs with science...? I would be more inclined to consider belief to be an ART - as both are essentially totally subjective, and not necessarily dependent on reality.

Every argument on the topic of science and religion seems to reach the point of 'Well, science can't tell us the PURPOSE of existence'. What makes you so certain it cannot, given enough time to examine the topic? And there's also the arrogant assertion that existence somehow HAS to have a meaning... when that isn't necessarily so.

Religion has no more claim to being the absolute arbiter of ethical behaviour than any other organization that has come into being throughout human history. You say that science has no 'heart'... but neither does religion. Many of the most heartless acts are perpetrated by the most religious people. ("Drill baby Drill" - remember...? Where was the ethical consideration in THAT devoutly religious persons' statement?) And incidentally, isn't it SCIENCE that is working towards cleaner energy, protecting the environment, and all that other good stuff...?
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 349
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/25/2010 11:48:16 AM

Same problem, how can you prove that you aren't thinking ? You'd better be convincing!


I simply would not enter a church, thius could not be caught thinking IN one
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 351
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/25/2010 1:22:40 PM
But does the man whose leg is cut off feel better if, while drunk, he thinks that his leg is still there?

I never said that subjectivity doesn't have import (did I...? ) But at the same time, it's markedly different from objectivity - which is what the various fields of science work at. I also don't say that there might be some overlap between the two.

What HAS religion 'got right'...? From what I've seen - every religious claim, when put to the test, has been shown to be dead wrong.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 353
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/25/2010 9:27:53 PM
But there ARE sciences that are separate from the physical. Sociology, psychology, politics and yes - even religion can be approached from the viewpoint of being quantified and understood at a rational level. Elections can be thought of as crude experiments in sociology.

I get the impression that you're operating under the assumption that the term 'science' is something that only equates with 'technology' when it is really a process by which phenomena are studied and understood. Where is the difference in observing and learning how people interact in groups, and learning how atoms behave when moving at near the speed of light? Same game, different players.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 357
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/26/2010 12:26:52 PM
Sociology and politics are SOFT sciences, not pseudo sciences. Please take a moment to learn the difference.

'Hard' sciences deal with the tangible - physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.

'Soft' sciences deal with things that are less concrete... such as sociology and psychology - where the effects might be less obvious, but still measurable.

PSEUDO sciences, on the other hand, make claims about things that cannot be duplicated, or tested. They rely on the gullibility of the listener to make their point seem valid when it actually isn't. Much like the snake-oil salesmen of the Old West - who hyped their products and were gone before their claims were demonstrated to be bogus.


All I mean is that I personally don't mean that when I say "science".


In that case, you're operating under a flawed definition.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 358
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/26/2010 12:52:01 PM
Dogmatic Fundamentalist Scientificism


This is worth all the straw it took to build it....


^^ as far as politeness goes, this is just a quid pro quo response to a ridiculous intellectual dishonesty.

Ridicule is all it deserves.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 360
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/26/2010 2:32:29 PM

Maybe the members of this forum deserve posts that actually say something, instead of just angry noices expressing un-supported opinions?


My motivations exactly.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 361
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/26/2010 3:52:11 PM
RE Msg: 429 by RocketMan_Len:
But there ARE sciences that are separate from the physical. Sociology, psychology, politics and yes - even religion can be approached from the viewpoint of being quantified and understood at a rational level. Elections can be thought of as crude experiments in sociology.
It is very true that we can apply the same approaches as we normally apply in subjects like physics and chemistry, the hardest of the sciences, to other subjects.

1) We say in physics that it's a perfectly acceptable scientific hypothesis to claim that there are things that we can't see, hear or touch, like Dark Matter.
In physics, it's a perfectly acceptable scientific hypothesis to claim "there must be 5 times as much matter as we can find, so darkmatterdidit."

2) But on the other hand, before we accept a scientific theory that either accepts or rejects the existence of Dark Matter, or accepts or rejects anything else, we require a high level of accuracy. We require predictions that we can test in the present day. We require that the theory must have a mathematical formula, one that we can use to clearly test any expected results.

3) Moreover, if we do discover things that we are pretty sure of, like relativity, then we try to integrate them into our general theories. We try to take them into account everywhere. We do that, even if it produces predictions that go against our common sense.

However, it's my observation that we tend to apply more subjective reasoning when it comes to the softer subjects:

1) We are far more likely to dismiss hypotheses that contradict our common sense, or that claim intangibles.

2) We are apt to accept hypotheses as valid theories, under quite flimsy evidence.

3) Even when we know something to be true everywhere, like the power of the self-image, and the placebo effect, we don't really try to integrate that into our view of the human mind. Rather, we tend to ignore such results.

It thus strikes me that in the hardest of sciences, we tend to lean much more towards objective reasoning, considering everything possible, and deciding if something is definitely true or false, only when we have overwhelming evidence, and even then, we are somewhat tentative, still accepting that new theories might be possible that completely overthrow our ideas.

But in the softer sciences, we seem to stick with our preconceptions, even against what we know for sure.


I get the impression that you're operating under the assumption that the term 'science' is something that only equates with 'technology' when it is really a process by which phenomena are studied and understood. Where is the difference in observing and learning how people interact in groups, and learning how atoms behave when moving at near the speed of light? Same game, different players.
You are quite right in that we can apply the same approach to many subjects. However, when we refer to science, we use different approaches to different subjects. We use very different approaches to physics, than we do to psychology, or even to economics. But we regard the theories of all those subjects as scientifically valid. So it becomes very difficult to say that science is an approach, when we don't use one approach over all things we call science.

At best, then, all we can do is to consider science in terms of its subject matter.

However, I won't deny that a lot of people seem to say that "we have science, so we're better than everyone else." It's just unrealistic to think that way about science. Each approach that we might take, has pros and cons. It's a matter of keeping in mind ALL approaches that we might take to a subject, and deciding on which approaches to try FIRST, based on the application of those pros and cons to the questions being asked. But still, multiple approaches might be valid, and thus, we are losing a lot of very valuable knowledge by taking a dogmatic approach to scientific styles of inquiry.

We serve humanity far more, by accepting that there are multiple approaches to epistemology, some called scientific, some not, and that each approach has its pros and its cons, and each has their appropriate usage in each question to be asked.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 363
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/27/2010 1:51:45 AM
RE Msg: 438 by Krebby2001:
Somewhere in the DOD need to expend funding, and academic's need for funding, was the question of "What is the right thing to do?" As the parent of 3 cats, I would sooner lose my right arm than to have any of them subject to getting shot in the head, for no apparent valid scientific reason. But I had to rely on my own love for the "little tigers." Where was RELIGION in all of this? Nowhere to be found. Stuck inside of analyzing their own as*hole, or perhaps the shortest route to getting the maximum tithing.
Krebby, having attended many religious talks, I can tell you that religious texts speak about how one should minimise harm to animals as much as possible. However, the scientific community has been highly critical of religion for decades, especially when religious leaders give guidance on how best to conduct religious studies. As a result, religious leaders now give those talks to those who come to those talks to learn what they might, and are willing to not dismiss anything that might require self-discipline on their part.

There is an old saying that applies in this case: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". You bit it, so it stopped feeding you. Don't like it? Then stop being critical of religious leaders when they DO tell you that certain types of scientific study have to be treated with a lot more respect than is currently given.

Religion seems to care only about one thing -- $$ to keep on operating.

What a shame. Organized religion has lost its true calling. It might just as well operate as a late night show offering the latest "As Seen On TV" merchandise.

Organized religion has lost its way. Good riddance.
This is called negative criticism, when you find fault with something, not to tell them how to improve, but simply to make others feel bad, and to take away the good value that they have in things. It's a way to hurt through speech, and as such, is considered an extension of hurt that is caused through all speech, such as being a talebearer:

Leviticus 19:16: "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD."

A good example of this is in Numbers 12, when Miriam criticises her brother, Moses, for no good reason or advantage, by claiming that he lords himself over her and Aaron. All it does is make everyone else feel bad. G-d gives her the illness of Tzara'at as a result. However, Moses shows his nature. He doesn't get upset at Miriam. He doesn't demand that Miriam pay for saying something so humiliating. He does the reverse, and asks G-d to heal her. However, G-d points out that she still needs to learn a lesson about how to show respect for others, and that she does by being forced to keep away from everyone else for seven days. It gives everyone a lot of time to think if her actions were really actions that could benefit humanity or would just hurt them, and whether it might be better in the future to not be so negative of others, particularly the one person who is trying to lead her people away from slavery and oppression, into safety and security.

Now, if you really want a piece of moral code to work from, one thing I can tell you: I've been on quite a few courses on job-seeking over the years. One thing universally acknowledged is never to criticise your former employers, not even if they were really evil to you, not even if the employer specifically asks you what was wrong with your previous employer. Your potential employer knows that one day, he will be a previous employer, and to the extent that you are now willing to criticise previous employers, you might criticise him in the future. He doesn't want you or anyone else bad-mouthing him. So if you bad-mouth previous employers, he'll know you'll do the same to him, and he won't employ you.

The same thing is true of everywhere else. If you already criticise religious leaders, then many religious leaders will be silent, to avoid further criticism. But further, if you already criticise your teachers, then many of your teachers will be silent on many matters, to avoid further criticism. As a result, if you already criticise religious teachers, then many science teachers will be silent on many matters. They will consider if what they have to say, is so different to your current way of thinking, that you might criticise them for it. They will consider that their aim is to help humanity, and by your criticism of their ideas, their ideas might likely be put in the trash can, and that will make it harder for humanity to gain benefits from such ideas. So the very scientists who have the most to teach us, because they give us understandings that go against what we currently think, and so correct our errors, and who are truly only interested in helping humanity, are the ones to stay silent when we negatively criticise our teachers, including our religious mentors.

Who does that leave left? Well, the rest, of course. Those who have nothing worthwhile to say, and who just want to claim they have discovered something important, for fame and fortune, but without having to do the work for it. Those who have an agenda to pursue, that will help them, and hurt humanity dreadfully in the process. This brings humanity to suffering, to being faced with problems like oil slicks, for we have chased away the worthwhile ones, and kept the ones who hurt us.

If you want people to give you good and open ideas, then take a leaf out of Dale Carnegie's book: Do not criticise, condemn, or complain.

You will find that every time you do, you are best by problems like the Deepwater Horizon. But when you do not, then some innocent scientist or religious leader will come to you, and say "Hey, are you SURE that the safety mechanisms you're using are safe enough? We don't want an oil slick on our coast. Maybe we better double our safety procedures." Then, you never have the problem, because you have freed the world to solve your problems before they began.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 364
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/27/2010 8:23:55 AM

Maybe the members of this forum deserve posts that actually say something, instead of just angry noices expressing un-supported opinions?


My irony meter just went off-scale!
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 366
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/27/2010 3:20:10 PM

This might be terrible to say but I walked into a church and saw an ATM.

Not terrible, more like, ...affirming.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 368
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/27/2010 5:08:16 PM

The correct and accurate answer is that we don't know.


Almost, but not quite, not if you take into consideration the law of parsimony/Ockham's Razor, one of the cornerstones of logic, reason and critical thinking.

The burden of proof is on the existence of god(s).

Barring that, there is no need to disprove a thing or idea that is not falsifiable, as there is no evidence to examine (or falsify).


That's a classic fallacy.


The classic fallacy FOR the existence of god(s) is known as petitio principii, all evidence FOR revolves around this fallacy (no pun intended, but if the shoe fits).
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 370
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/27/2010 6:26:05 PM

and I still am positive that there is no evidence for or against the existence of God. We really don't know.

By the same reasoning, we also "really don't know" about unicorns, elves, leprechauns, poltergeists, and Russell's Teapot. Demons, fairies, pink elephants, and compassionate Republicans can also be tossed into the mix. Space spiders, portals into John Malkovich's brain, evil succubi in my closet, Orcs, magic rings, halflings, immortality, car engines that run on water alone... where DO we stop with the "but you can't PROVE it does NOT exist, either, phhbbttttt!!!?"
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 373
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/27/2010 7:03:15 PM
Here's some fascinating comments about religion and science from Neil deGrasse Tyson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLvh64sMrWY&feature=related

We are made of stardust!
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 374
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 6/27/2010 7:34:05 PM
RE Msg: 440 by annasthasia:
Here we go with the religious stuff again...
I guess you don't know that these points have been made by religious sources, and philosophers, and science.

You actually believe what you just wrote?
I've spent a great deal of time researching the issue from a scientific basis. I hate to consider that anything is true, unless I have a scientific explanation for it.

I'm going to try to make my long post short.

In the UK, when it happens in the workplace, it's called the blame culture. I have incredibly painful experiences of working in companies where the blame culture was strong, and the joys of working for companies where the blame culture was absent. It basically amounts to this:
1) Everyone has bosses. Even the CEOs has shareholders and they are far worse bosses than a normal boss.
2) In a blame culture, your boss is blamed by his boss for everything that ever happened to his boss, including that his wife is having a particularly bad bout of PMS, and thta his wife's mother has cancer, and she's taking it out on him.
3) Your boss takes all that he gets out on you, and all the grief he gets at home too.
4) If you get criticised too much, you can get the sack.
5) As a result, you do whatever it takes to cover your a**, and it takes most of your day.
6) If you EVER do better than normal, then everyone asks why you didn't do it the rest of the time, and then you get expected to do it all the time, even if you can't. So you cover your a**, and NEVER do better than normal, or you get screwed.
7) The Peter Principle, which only happens in a blame culture, means you get promoted until you cannot do your job, and then you cannot be demoted, because that will make the person who promoted you look like an idiot for promoting you. So you end up in a job you are incompetent at. You get criticised regularly for your incompetence. You hate your job as a result.
8) When things go wrong, a scapegoat is used, to ensure that he takes the blame, so that everyone else who is also at fault, can cover their a**.
9) The most important: You will do anything to protect your job, which usually means covering your a**, even if it screws up everyone else's life.

Leaders of CEOs have this worst of all, because they have the worst of bosses, shareholders, who will sack them for almost any reason whatsoever, and because of the Peter Principle, they are often incompetent.

Government politicians are employed by voters, so they are the worst kind of shareholders, the ones with very little knowledge, understanding, or interest, in anything you do, other than what helps them personally. So although a lot of people enter politics as idealists, to get as far as Parliament, of Congress, you either have to be a serious masochist, or you are in it for the fame and fortune in back-handers.

The execs at BP wanted to fix that well, or they never would have authorised Transocean to evaluate the well in the first place. They definitely had right on their side, with 260 separate faults exposed when the report was issued in 2001. They knew that with that many faults, it was bound to blow someday. So they certainly put it as high as they could go.

But downtime costs ridiculous amounts of loss of profits, so much so, that it's often cheaper to ignore the problem. I've seen estimates that put the costs of shutting down that well, at $1.35 million per DAY! Probably, it would take a lot more than a day, maybe a few days at least, maybe a few weeks, considering that it had to be placed in deep water, with deep pressure stopping it being removed and replaced. You could be looking at losses of $4 million to $40 million. I cannot see any of them even suggesting to deliberately cause those kinds of losses, without shareholders demanding they lose their jobs, just for suggesting that the shareholders lose that level of money, and that's probably what happened to the execs who did originally suggest it.

I've also worked for companies where no blame culture existed. There, I told my boss about every problem I found. He found it annoying. But he really appreciated my work, and my conscientious nature. He preferred me to tell him about things that weren't problems, because some might be problems he wanted to know about. He never asked me to do anything seriously morally questionable, and when I did have a problem with something, he backed off immediately. Those companies actually turned down 50% of new business, because they weren't sure that the company could handle that much new growth. It's an entirely different ethos, one in which these sorts of problems are welcomed, as a way to save oneself from much worse problems later on. But then, they'd have probably turned down deep-sea drilling, because it was so dangerous, even if it meant they lost out on rich oil fields off the Louisiana coast.

However, those companies were not as committed to profit, as to a good place to work, and to keeping their customers treated well, even if it did mean annoying them sometimes. So as a result, they aren't the biggest players, and they don't make the problems that draw attention to themselves in the media. So you don't hear about them, not unless you're in the industry, and then, the only reason you do hear about them, is because everyone has little to say about them, but what they do say is nothing but good.

The difference is not what you say, but HOW you say it, that you don't just mention a problem, but that you are clear that it isn't your boss' fault, or his boss's fault, or anyone else, that you praise them for their good work so far, and that whatever the issue, you always keep the focus firmly fixed on the solution. Even if you don't know what the solution is yet. It isn't always possible. But where it is possible, it's like sweet nectar, compared to acid on your face.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >