Previously on Science and Religion....

Tired of wandering the lawless wilds of the AC&A forum? Have a friendly chat in our cozy, velvet-covered civility lounge. Alcohol not permitted, only the Kenny G button works on the jukebox. All undesirable types will be quietly escorted out the back door.

Previously on Science and Religion....

Postby Stacie Cook » Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:34 pm

I like making this post sound like it is a tv show, so I thought it would be fun to say, "Previously on..."

Anyway, forgive me as I know this has been discussed, but.....

Why does there need to be a separation between science and religion? Why cannot they be tied together?
Dare I say, that in MY subjective opinion of science, God is who created science in the first place.
I KNOW not everyone will agree and I am not asking anyone to agree, but stating my perspective.

Can you see emotion? Can you see the wind? Can you see the air you breathe?
How do we measure emotion? By its effect on people?
Without a secondary person to observe it, how do we know it is there?

We can see evidence OF wind and how wind affects other things like trees, curtains, etc.
We can measure air with the presence of something else (oxygen tank), but without the tank,
how is air there?

Another thought-
No matter what thought there is on how we all got here (evolution, creation, other),
Would you say that the same system used to create/make the earth was used to make our bodies?


I am just asking questions to think about these things more.
I am certainly not trying to 'persuade' or 'convince' anyone of anything, certainly not fairy tales.
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

Re: Previously on Science and Religion....

Postby Simplyme » Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:28 pm

Why does there need to be a separation between science and religion? Why cannot they be tied together?


Same reason for a separation of science and fairy tales.

Dare I say, that in MY subjective opinion of science, God is who created science in the first place.
I KNOW not everyone will agree and I am not asking anyone to agree, but stating my perspective.


Dare I say that's silly. I know you will not agree with me, i'm not asking you to, but simply stating my opinion

Can you see emotion? Can you see the wind? Can you see the air you breathe?
How do we measure emotion? By its effect on people?
Without a secondary person to observe it, how do we know it is there?


Really?

We can see evidence OF wind and how wind affects other things like trees, curtains, etc.
We can measure air with the presence of something else (oxygen tank), but without the tank,
how is air there?


You are kidding right?

Another thought-
No matter what thought there is on how we all got here (evolution, creation, other),
Would you say that the same system used to create/make the earth was used to make our bodies?


Yes
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Previously on Science and Religion....

Postby Stacie Cook » Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:29 pm

Thank you Simplyme. Ever faithful to offer up a perspective that is uniquely you and simply you.
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

Re: Previously on Science and Religion....

Postby spongebob » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:30 am

Stacie Cook wrote:Why does there need to be a separation between science and religion? Why cannot they be tied together?


Because science does not work the way religion works. Science is based on observations and evidence. Anyone is free to imagine any idea about the universe that they want, but for that to be accepted as reality, it must be supported by something observable. Religion does not work this way at all. Religions declare that someone was born to a virgin and had divine powers and status. There is no real evidence to support these claims. Religion teaches that when people die their "spirit" or "soul" goes to a different place, a place where no living person can go and the place they go is determined by what they believe or how the behave. None of this is observable. There is no evidence that any of this exists but if you want to believe it for whatever reason, you are welcome to do that. Various religions also hold contradictory beliefs, so it is impossible for all of them to be true. Again, science does not work this way. Both the static, eternal universe and a universe with a beginning and an end cannot be true; one has to be true and the other false and the determining factor is the preponderance of evidence, not opinions and not faith. This is how science works.

This is not to say that some things cannot exist without scientific evidence to support it; that is certainly possible because humans do not know the limits of reality. So it is possible that things in religion may describe reality and science simply does not have the tools to verify them. But that is where science ends, so there cannot be a blending of science and religion in that respect. Also you cannot simply say that if science cannot determine if god exists, therefore god does exist. That is a matter of faith. And none of this means that religion cannot be compatible with science. It can as long as the dictates of the religion do not conflict with science. The vast majority of conflict between science and religion is due to various religions not wanting to give up on ancient myths that have been demonstrated to be false, such as the belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that evolution is not factual. Religion can continue to exist but it has to recognize real science and it has to change and continue to be relevant and unfortunately, many religious people abhor the idea of change in their religion primarily because it erodes their ability to control people.

Dare I say, that in MY subjective opinion of science, God is who created science in the first place.
I KNOW not everyone will agree and I am not asking anyone to agree, but stating my perspective.


And that is all that is, a subjective opinion. There's nothing bad about that but you have to accept the reality that you are one of millions and millions of people who have competing, contradictory opinions on the matter, all with nothing concrete to support your opinion.

Can you see emotion?


Yes.

Can you see the wind?


Absolutely, under the right conditions.

Can you see the air you breathe?


When the air is cold enough, yes. And when it is very hot, I can see the distortions of heat transferring from hot surfaces as well. There's absolutely nothing mysterious about air. Just because it is made up of a few colorless gasses does not make it difficult to detect or measure.

How do we measure emotion? By its effect on people?
Without a secondary person to observe it, how do we know it is there?


MRI scans can measure emotional activity in the brain and the locations that contain it. Enzymes and hormones are also produces during emotional outbursts as well as several other physiological changes to the body.

We can see evidence OF wind and how wind affects other things like trees, curtains, etc.
We can measure air with the presence of something else (oxygen tank), but without the tank,
how is air there?


Wind and air are easily measured by a number of mechanisms, mechanical, electronic and so forth. You must be confusing the wind (something that is quite simple to measure and observe) with something like the luminiferous aether. This was something that was proposed in the 17th century to explain the ability of light to travel through empty space. Its existence was later falsified by experiments and new theories replaced it entirely. Read more here.

Another thought-
No matter what thought there is on how we all got here (evolution, creation, other),
Would you say that the same system used to create/make the earth was used to make our bodies?


All the evidence points to a completely natural and material process that has produced everything you see on the earth in the bodies that inhabit the universe. No other viable theory has been presented. Many have been offered, but they are all flawed because major elements do not agree with the observed evidence and thus cannot be accepted as viable theories.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Previously on Science and Religion....

Postby Simplyme » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:47 am

Sponge, Isn't that what I said? :-)
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Previously on Science and Religion....

Postby somecallmeTim? » Sat Oct 31, 2015 4:50 pm

spongebob wrote:Science is based on observations and evidence. Anyone is free to imagine any idea about the universe that they want, but for that to be accepted as reality, it must be supported by something observable.


By this definition, wouldn't all historical events be beyond the realm of science?

Various religions also hold contradictory beliefs, so it is impossible for all of them to be true. Again, science does not work this way.


Many scientists hold contradictory beliefs about reality. They can't all be true. Science does work this way. It is based on what each scientist believes to be the evidence in support of their theory.
User avatar
somecallmeTim?
recruit
recruit
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:32 am
Location: Roanoke, Virginia
Affiliation: Christian (Evangelical)

Re: Previously on Science and Religion....

Postby Jesus Raves » Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:39 pm

You're unable to observe ancient documents and archaeological sites?
User avatar
Jesus Raves
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Affiliation: Anti-Labelist

Re: Previously on Science and Religion....

Postby Razor » Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:58 am

somecallmeTim? wrote:
spongebob wrote:Science is based on observations and evidence. Anyone is free to imagine any idea about the universe that they want, but for that to be accepted as reality, it must be supported by something observable.


By this definition, wouldn't all historical events be beyond the realm of science?


No, perhaps you should look into, for example, archaeology. Or paleontology.
Various religions also hold contradictory beliefs, so it is impossible for all of them to be true. Again, science does not work this way.


Many scientists hold contradictory beliefs about reality. They can't all be true.

Quite right! And you know what, only one of them can be right. That is the great thing about science - you can be WRONG. And then CHANGE your understanding.
Science does work this way. It is based on what each scientist believes to be the evidence in support of their theory.

I don't think it really is, tho is it? Normally a scientist will publish his work, and then his peers can go away and replicate his experiments and check it all out. If they all agree then that is one thing. If everyone else gets different results then not so much.
Razor
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Previously on Science and Religion....

Postby spongebob » Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:04 pm

somecallmeTim? wrote:By this definition, wouldn't all historical events be beyond the realm of science?


Absolutely not! The passage of time does not disqualify evidence if such evidence is valid within the span of that time. What you are implying is that because geological formations are very old, they cannot be used as evidence of how the earth formed or the age of the earth, which is preposterous. This is akin to walking out to see your new car with a huge dent in it, knowing that your teenage son was driving the car last night, and concluding that the dent must just be a natural part of the car. That dent is evidence that your son hit something. The fact that there was no dent in it yesterday does not make it irrelevant; it makes it completely relevant!

Many scientists hold contradictory beliefs about reality. They can't all be true. Science does work this way. It is based on what each scientist believes to be the evidence in support of their theory.


Your first sentence if partially true, but the rest of your comment demonstrates your confusion. "Science" is an objective activity, meaning that the evidence must be accepted by a consensus before it is considered valid. No one scientist can declare that he/she knows something special about the universe; it must be demonstrated to others in the field and through a messy process of peer reviews and corroboration, which involves much intent to prove one another wrong, a theory can be confirmed as matching the evidence. The fact that scientists can imagine differences in reality is what makes science work. Without that bit of insight, we would still be assuming the stars were mere pinpricks in a giant fabric in the sky and that cholera was caused by angry gods.

Contradictory hypothesis arise all the time, yet they do not continue to occupy the same space when evidence is applied. The incorrect ones are either extinguished or changed to conform to the evidence. What you may be thinking of are competing theories that have yet to be confirmed with evidence, such as String Theory and LQG. Theories can exist for a considerable amount of time, waiting for validation, if they don't conflict with standard models and mathematics. As an example, think of Big Bang Theory. It took some time and considerable work to reject the static theory of the universe and replace it with the Big Bang. The static model was the originally accepted theory, and the two co-existed for a number of years, but evidence eventually grew to favor Big Bang Theory. And by the way, it's important to note that the evidence that grew into the Big Bang Theory was found mostly by accident. What's a scientist to do? Just ignore the data, of course, because it doesn't fit the standard "belief system" of Science? Because that is what many anti-intellectuals believe scientists do, ignore new data, hide new information, pretend there is only one truth, prop up the scientific propaganda machine. No! The foremost agenda on the mind of most scientists is simple; prove that other guy wrong!
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Previously on Science and Religion....

Postby Simplyme » Sun Nov 01, 2015 4:28 pm

See!!!! This is what words are suppose to do.

I envy you Sponge........
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5953
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am


Return to The Civility Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest