Post Reply
Page 6 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why bother with evolution?
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 6:10PM #51
mountain_man
Posts: 38,037

Feb 6, 2011 -- 5:19PM, Faustus5 wrote:

There are plenty of scientists and highly educated, smart non-scientitsts who manage to make room for belief in supernatural forces and entities that are at the core of most religious belief.  No one denies this.

The issue is whether they come to have these beliefs through methods that are themselves compatible with the scientific method.  The issue is whether they can justify these beliefs with the same attention to detail, honesty, rigor, and care that models are justified in science.  The issue, in a word, is whether the epistemology of religious ways of knowing is compatible with the epistemology of scientific ways of knowing.

The answer to all of these questions is a loud NO!, and that is why science and religion are not, in fact, compatible.  All religious scientists are doing is studiously avoiding the application of all the reason, all the care, all the concern for fact checking, all the things that make them successful as scientists, when the subject is their religion.  If they are up front and honest about this, they admit that it is entirely a matter of faith.  Anything less is intellectual dishonesty.


That was said far better than I ever could. Thanks.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 8:36PM #52
MMarcoe
Posts: 14,651

Feb 6, 2011 -- 6:07PM, mountain_man wrote:

Feb 6, 2011 -- 4:49PM, MMarcoe wrote:

What a load of BS. I can handle the truth just fine, and I'm still religious. You should try talking to people who don't fit your sad stereotype.


What "stereotype"?

The stereotype that religious people can't handle the truth. It's what you yourself said.



The truth is that gods have nothing to do with science or evolution. They are two incompatable ways of answering questions.

I wasn't referring to this.


Religion relies on beliefs and supernaturalism, science relies on facts and free inquiry.

That's odd. My Buddhist religion doesn't rely on any supernaturalism. Nor does it rely on beliefs. Feel free to admit you were wrong. I know it's hard for you, but do it anyway.




There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 8:43PM #53
solfeggio
Posts: 8,520
I agree with Mountain_man and Faustus.

And, to expand upon that thought, it is well to remember what, exactly, science does.  Science posits hypotheses, uses them to make predictions, and then tests those predictions against empirical evidence.  A scientist will then make a judgment about which hypothesis is more likely, given the data. 

A tenable hypothesis must be unambiguous and well-defined.  The existence of god is an untenable hypothesis.   It's not well-defined, and in this hypothesis there is no necessity to fit the data. 

Science includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world in which we live.  But, to quote Sam Harris: 'Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe (unreasonable) propositions when reasons fail.'

Harris goes on to say that 'That difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle.'



Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 9:23PM #54
jane2
Posts: 14,287

Feb 6, 2011 -- 8:43PM, solfeggio wrote:

I agree with Mountain_man and Faustus.

And, to expand upon that thought, it is well to remember what, exactly, science does.  Science posits hypotheses, uses them to make predictions, and then tests those predictions against empirical evidence.  A scientist will then make a judgment about which hypothesis is more likely, given the data. 

A tenable hypothesis must be unambiguous and well-defined.  The existence of god is an untenable hypothesis.   It's not well-defined, and in this hypothesis there is no necessity to fit the data. 

Science includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world in which we live.  But, to quote Sam Harris: 'Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe (unreasonable) propositions when reasons fail.'

Harris goes on to say that 'That difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle.'






Solf

I find this a bit harsh.

Not all who have faith are anti-science. I find the attitude that one must be an agnostic and aetheist
to fully grasp the scientific world a bit simplistic.

Science and religion are separate disciplines.


discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 9:38PM #55
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,741

Feb 6, 2011 -- 5:29PM, Christianlib wrote:

Feb 6, 2011 -- 4:40PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Feb 6, 2011 -- 3:53PM, Christianlib wrote:

From what I can tell, science and religion are irreconcilable.

Nope.  The fact that SOME people on either side of the question can't reconcile them does not make it impossible.  I know plenty of folks who do so just fine.



Did you read beyond the first sentence?





Sure.  But the first line is what I wanted to comment on.



It's often when people apply scientific thinking to their religious beliefs that the incompatibility is recognized, and sometimes, the religious beliefs are abandoned. For a lot of creationists, it's where they reject science in favor of their religious beliefs. In any case, you haven't shown how religion and science are compatible, whereas I have indicated a number of ways in which they are not. Your not addressing what I said is not a persuasive argument against it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 9:56PM #56
mountain_man
Posts: 38,037

Feb 6, 2011 -- 8:36PM, MMarcoe wrote:

The stereotype that religious people can't handle the truth. It's what you yourself said.


That's not a stereotype. Those that cannot handle the facts of evolution, science, and a modern society, have a religion filled with god beliefs and magical happenings instead.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 9:56PM #57
piecesofthewhole
Posts: 1,380

Feb 6, 2011 -- 5:19PM, Faustus5 wrote:

There are plenty of scientists and highly educated, smart non-scientitsts who manage to make room for belief in supernatural forces and entities that are at the core of most religious belief.  No one denies this.

The issue is whether they come to have these beliefs through methods that are themselves compatible with the scientific method.  The issue is whether they can justify these beliefs with the same attention to detail, honesty, rigor, and care that models are justified in science.  The issue, in a word, is whether the epistemology of religious ways of knowing is compatible with the epistemology of scientific ways of knowing.

The answer to all of these questions is a loud NO!, and that is why science and religion are not, in fact, compatible.  All religious scientists are doing is studiously avoiding the application of all the reason, all the care, all the concern for fact checking, all the things that make them successful as scientists, when the subject is their religion.  If they are up front and honest about this, they admit that it is entirely a matter of faith.  Anything less is intellectual dishonesty.




Fair enough. 

The path of faith is different than the path of science in terms of how...but you do agree that it is possible for a person to be firmly planted on both paths, yes?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 9:58PM #58
jane2
Posts: 14,287

Feb 6, 2011 -- 9:38PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Feb 6, 2011 -- 5:29PM, Christianlib wrote:

Feb 6, 2011 -- 4:40PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Feb 6, 2011 -- 3:53PM, Christianlib wrote:

From what I can tell, science and religion are irreconcilable.

Nope.  The fact that SOME people on either side of the question can't reconcile them does not make it impossible.  I know plenty of folks who do so just fine.



Did you read beyond the first sentence?





Sure.  But the first line is what I wanted to comment on.



It's often when people apply scientific thinking to their religious beliefs that the incompatibility is recognized, and sometimes, the religious beliefs are abandoned. For a lot of creationists, it's where they reject science in favor of their religious beliefs. In any case, you haven't shown how religion and science are compatible, whereas I have indicated a number of ways in which they are not. Your not addressing what I said is not a persuasive argument against it.




NJ, old friend

You chose science as your life work.

I try to read about wassup in scientific progress but I much prefer reading and analysing political science, history and language, and theology. In college for four years I studied the "Faith and Reason" aspects of Aquinas and felt them quite compelling.

I'm far from a creationist but I don't see an incompatibility between facts of science and religion.

discuss catholicism
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 10:01PM #59
piecesofthewhole
Posts: 1,380
I wonder if we're miscommunicating.... when i hear "compatable", i think can have both... not that they're both the same.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2011 - 10:05PM #60
mountain_man
Posts: 38,037

Feb 6, 2011 -- 8:43PM, solfeggio wrote:

I agree with Mountain_man and Faustus.

And, to expand upon that thought, it is well to remember what, exactly, science does.  Science posits hypotheses, uses them to make predictions, and then tests those predictions against empirical evidence.  A scientist will then make a judgment about which hypothesis is more likely, given the data. 




What that boils down to is a self correcting mechanism. Something that is missing from religions. Science asks a question, looks at all the possible answers and then tests to see which one answers the question the best. If they find that answer they keep testing. If they don't find a good answer they keep testing. Religions assert something and then carves it, unchangeable, in stone.

A tenable hypothesis must be unambiguous and well-defined.  The existence of god is an untenable hypothesis.   It's not well-defined, and in this hypothesis there is no necessity to fit the data.




Science doesn't deal with gods for that very reason; a god can't even be defined. Then there's the null hypothesis; what would the Universe, and everything in it, look like if a god did not exist? It would look as it does now.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 15  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook