Whats the relationship between science and religion?
1) Both Fields are conflicting subjects that often contradict eachother. If so, which is the best methodology when inquirying about the world.
2) Both Fields are incomplete without the other. If so, what aspects of science or religion are lacking wherein the other could fill the gap.
3) Both Fields should be completely seperate from eachother and should not "overlap" (Stephen Jay Gould's Idea).
4) WinePusher has presented a false dichotomy. If so, please present your own answer.
Science And Religion: Are They The Same?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
WinePusher
The only thing they share is that each tries to explain reality.
Religion is an attempt to do so based on fears, superstitions, fables, feelings, traditions and is, at heart, ignorance of reality except at a superficial level. It is a "top down" process where beliefs are inculcated at an early age and are reinforced by society(sometimes violently and fatally)through communal ritual.
Science, on the other hand, is a "bottom up" process based on the scientific methods.
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Charles Sanders Peirce in 1877 outlined four basic methods of discovering "truth" and allaying doubt, they are...
"1. The method of tenacity (clinging by policy to initial belief) " which brings comforts and decisiveness but leads to trying to ignore contrary information and others' views as if truth were intrinsically private, not public. Its successes can shine but tend to be transitory.
2. The method of authority " which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutally. Its successes can be majestic and long-lived, but it cannot operate thoroughly enough to suppress doubts indefinitely, especially when people learn of other societies present and past.
3. The method of congruity or the a priori or the dilettante or "what is agreeable to reason" " which promotes conformity less brutally but depends on taste and fashion in paradigms and can go in circles over time, along with barren disputation. It is more intellectual and respectable but, like the first two methods, sustains capricious and accidental beliefs, destining some minds to doubts.
4. The scientific method " the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself."
Religion uses the first three, science only the fourth.
The first method is clinging to beliefs even if one must ignore or deny contrary information(Creationists/Fundamentalists use this method almost exclusively)
The second method was practiced by the Catholic Church from it's founding until the time of Bruno and Galileo(Inquisition is the ultimate enforcement of authority).
The third is what is practiced by the Catholic Church(along with most religions today). It is reason without the benefit of observation or correction given new facts(apologetics is within this method).
The fourth consists of several steps(IE the scientific method)and is mostly self correcting(if practiced with rigor), it will tend to eliminate biases and preconceptions over time. It can never lead to absolute certainty(there is no such animal, no matter what theisms claim), it can be ambiguous if methods, instruments or inaccessibility are not yet able to give accurate observations or ability to test hypotheses but it does not guess and is acknowledged by those practicing science by saying "We don't(yet)know". As Einstein said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
So, to answer your question, Gould was right, religions are not scientific and science is not a religion. They are two completely separate and fundamentally different methods of viewing reality.
Grumpy
The only thing they share is that each tries to explain reality.
Religion is an attempt to do so based on fears, superstitions, fables, feelings, traditions and is, at heart, ignorance of reality except at a superficial level. It is a "top down" process where beliefs are inculcated at an early age and are reinforced by society(sometimes violently and fatally)through communal ritual.
Science, on the other hand, is a "bottom up" process based on the scientific methods.
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Charles Sanders Peirce in 1877 outlined four basic methods of discovering "truth" and allaying doubt, they are...
"1. The method of tenacity (clinging by policy to initial belief) " which brings comforts and decisiveness but leads to trying to ignore contrary information and others' views as if truth were intrinsically private, not public. Its successes can shine but tend to be transitory.
2. The method of authority " which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutally. Its successes can be majestic and long-lived, but it cannot operate thoroughly enough to suppress doubts indefinitely, especially when people learn of other societies present and past.
3. The method of congruity or the a priori or the dilettante or "what is agreeable to reason" " which promotes conformity less brutally but depends on taste and fashion in paradigms and can go in circles over time, along with barren disputation. It is more intellectual and respectable but, like the first two methods, sustains capricious and accidental beliefs, destining some minds to doubts.
4. The scientific method " the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself."
Religion uses the first three, science only the fourth.
The first method is clinging to beliefs even if one must ignore or deny contrary information(Creationists/Fundamentalists use this method almost exclusively)
The second method was practiced by the Catholic Church from it's founding until the time of Bruno and Galileo(Inquisition is the ultimate enforcement of authority).
The third is what is practiced by the Catholic Church(along with most religions today). It is reason without the benefit of observation or correction given new facts(apologetics is within this method).
The fourth consists of several steps(IE the scientific method)and is mostly self correcting(if practiced with rigor), it will tend to eliminate biases and preconceptions over time. It can never lead to absolute certainty(there is no such animal, no matter what theisms claim), it can be ambiguous if methods, instruments or inaccessibility are not yet able to give accurate observations or ability to test hypotheses but it does not guess and is acknowledged by those practicing science by saying "We don't(yet)know". As Einstein said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
So, to answer your question, Gould was right, religions are not scientific and science is not a religion. They are two completely separate and fundamentally different methods of viewing reality.
Grumpy
Re: Science And Religion: Are They The Same?
Post #3Well, they are certainly not "the same"!WinePusher wrote:Whats the relationship between science and religion?
Science. Religion has a miserable track record at identifying natural phenomena, at predicting or explaining the natural world, at creating anything of value other than a few books of questionable value, and some admittedly magnificent cathedrals (built using scientific principles).1) Both Fields are conflicting subjects that often contradict eachother. If so, which is the best methodology when inquirying about the world.
Actually, neither field needs or even wants the other around.2) Both Fields are incomplete without the other. If so, what aspects of science or religion are lacking wherein the other could fill the gap.
Probably true. Most people seem comfortable using the fruits of science in their everyday lives, and using religion as a bedtime story / security blanket.3) Both Fields should be completely seperate from eachother and should not "overlap" (Stephen Jay Gould's Idea).
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
-
WinePusher
Post #4
This is true only because science and religion inquire about different aspects of the natural world. Science can only answer the very basic, shallow questions concerning our existence while Religion takes aim to answer more deep and meaningful questions.Grumpy wrote:Charles Sanders Peirce in 1877 outlined four basic methods of discovering "truth" and allaying doubt, they are...
"1. The method of tenacity (clinging by policy to initial belief) " which brings comforts and decisiveness but leads to trying to ignore contrary information and others' views as if truth were intrinsically private, not public. Its successes can shine but tend to be transitory.
2. The method of authority " which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutally. Its successes can be majestic and long-lived, but it cannot operate thoroughly enough to suppress doubts indefinitely, especially when people learn of other societies present and past.
3. The method of congruity or the a priori or the dilettante or "what is agreeable to reason" " which promotes conformity less brutally but depends on taste and fashion in paradigms and can go in circles over time, along with barren disputation. It is more intellectual and respectable but, like the first two methods, sustains capricious and accidental beliefs, destining some minds to doubts.
4. The scientific method " the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself."
Religion uses the first three, science only the fourth.
I agree, but you speak with to large a brush. Young Earth Creationists and Close Minded Fundamentalists use that method almost exclusively.Grumpy wrote:The first method is clinging to beliefs even if one must ignore or deny contrary information(Creationists/Fundamentalists use this method almost exclusively).
I think you're making inconsistent comparisons. If you're going to compare primitive religion with science then do so with primitive science. Don't compare 10th century catholicism with 21st Century Science.Grumpy wrote:The second method was practiced by the Catholic Church from it's founding until the time of Bruno and Galileo(Inquisition is the ultimate enforcement of authority).
While the Church did do this, it was quite a while ago and religion does evolve. Science, in the same way, engaged in this same type of ignorance long ago. Aristotle thought our mental work was done in our heart, and Empedocles thought all matter was made up of four elements. They were both horribly wrong.
Not quite, it's simply making inferences and rational assumptions based off of observations. It is just as far fetched to posit many invisible universes than it would be to posit a designer.Grumpy wrote:The third is what is practiced by the Catholic Church(along with most religions today). It is reason without the benefit of observation or correction given new facts(apologetics is within this method).
I think Gould is somewhat wrong. The goal of science is to understand the natural world, so, take death for an example. At death, the heart stops, the brain stops functioning, etc...........that's the realm of scientific inquiry. However, a deeper and more meaningfuly question is what happens after death. Science cannot answer this questions and it seems that it may never be able to. In this area, science is lacking enourmously.Grumpy wrote:So, to answer your question, Gould was right, religions are not scientific and science is not a religion. They are two completely separate and fundamentally different methods of viewing reality.
But in the realm of religious inquiry, questions such as these are able to be answered or attempted to be answered. So I would say that science and religion do overlap at points when science has reached its limit and religion can take over.
Post #5
WinePusher
The many Universe hypothesis is not claimed to be a theory, there just is too little evidence. But the math indicates it is not far fetched, but it cannot(yet)show it is likely. You've been instructed in this several times now, do you never learn anything?
You can posit a designer all you like, there is no evidence supporting that at all. It is seen as unlikely because of that lack.
Now you may believe that there is something after death, but you cannot show any reason to think that is true.
Grumpy
Religion is in no way about anything in the natural world. And the natural world has only one aspect. Religions are by definition about a supposed supernatural world, one that there is no evidence to support.This is true only because science and religion inquire about different aspects of the natural world.
ALL Creationists ignore scientific evidence that falsifies the claims made, Fundies don't even bother with evidence, they already know without thinking.I agree, but you speak with to large a brush. Young Earth Creationists and Close Minded Fundamentalists use that method almost exclusively.
Why not, you asked about the difference between science and religion. Religion, for most of recorded history, was the only explanation, science is only a few hundred years old and has replaced religion as an explation of natural events. When you say science it is only modern science that you can be talking about(philsophical science ala Plato does not qualify as science, too much guesswork and sophistry, not enough investigation, no testing).I think you're making inconsistent comparisons. If you're going to compare primitive religion with science then do so with primitive science. Don't compare 10th century catholicism with 21st Century Science.
As I pointed out. The change began with Bruno(burned at the stake alive for daring to posit that the Earth was not the center of the Universe)and Galileo(tried by the inquisition, saved from a similar fate by his life long friendship with the Pope). Prior to that(and for some years afterwards)the church was the effective ruler of the world and disagreement or innovation brutally suppressed.While the Church did do this, it was quite a while ago and religion does evolve.
As I pointed out, philosophical science can not be called science as we now understand the term. Aristotle, Empedocles, Plato were philosophers, not scientists.Science, in the same way, engaged in this same type of ignorance long ago. Aristotle thought our mental work was done in our heart, and Empedocles thought all matter was made up of four elements. They were both horribly wrong.
Inferences and logic without observation and testing is what religions do today, they make no real world observations of any kind, it's all apologetics, having nothing in common with reality.The third is what is practiced by the Catholic Church(along with most religions today). It is reason without the benefit of observation or correction given new facts(apologetics is within this method).
Not quite, it's simply making inferences and rational assumptions based off of observations. It is just as far fetched to posit many invisible universes than it would be to posit a designer.
The many Universe hypothesis is not claimed to be a theory, there just is too little evidence. But the math indicates it is not far fetched, but it cannot(yet)show it is likely. You've been instructed in this several times now, do you never learn anything?
You can posit a designer all you like, there is no evidence supporting that at all. It is seen as unlikely because of that lack.
Six feet deep, you rot and return your substance to the Earth. There is no credible evidence of any kind of continuation of the id. In fact, brain trauma studies show conclusively that what we experience as conciousness is directly affected by damage to the physical brain(IE it depends upon that brain for it to exist). Do enough damage and conciousness ceases to exist even though the body continues to live(Terry Schiavo was a vegetable, not a concious person).However, a deeper and more meaningfuly question is what happens after death.
Now you may believe that there is something after death, but you cannot show any reason to think that is true.
You have shown no reason to think the question is valid, until you can generate evidence, testing methods, etc. it is a waste of time asking them and of no importance in the real world. It is not science's lack but your inability to provide evidence that is the problem. Religion cannot answer these questions with anything other than baseless speculation and wishful thinking.Science cannot answer this questions and it seems that it may never be able to. In this area, science is lacking enourmously
Hogwash! Absolute non-sense! The limits of science are the limits of what we can know about reality(and no evidence exists that indicates there is anything more than reality), science and religion remain two entirely different and seperate ways of explaining the world and only one of them has evidence to back it up, the other is pure superstitious speculation about unevidenced things. The two paradigms are incompatable, trying to keep both in your head usually leads to cognitive dissonance because both cannot be true. Some choose to believe the concepts passed down in their religious traditions(which is fine, not everyone has a scientific mindset), some choose to actually look at reality and build an understanding from first principles(even some of these may continue to have a belief in god(s), but recognize that most religious dogmas, claims and fables are false).But in the realm of religious inquiry, questions such as these are able to be answered or attempted to be answered. So I would say that science and religion do overlap at points when science has reached its limit and religion can take over.
Grumpy
-
cnorman18
Science And Religion: Are They The Same?
Post #6(Sigh) Once again:
Modern Jews, almost as a rule, find the idea that science and religion are inevitably in conflict deeply puzzling. We revere science, and in fact learning of all kinds; and the percentage of Jews involved in the hard sciences is higher than for any ethnic or national group in the world. Check out the number of Jews who have been awarded Nobel prizes in the sciences, and then reflect on the fact that we represent 1.5% of the world's population. Then try to find out how many have been awarded to fundamentalists.
Oh, and if anyone's going to allege or speculate that the Jews who are scientists are atheists, be prepared to document and prove that claim. Maimonides was not only the greatest rabbi of his generation in 12th century Spain and Egypt; he was also the greatest physician.
Biblical literalism is inevitably in conflict with science. Religion is not, or at least not necessarily.
Modern Jews, almost as a rule, find the idea that science and religion are inevitably in conflict deeply puzzling. We revere science, and in fact learning of all kinds; and the percentage of Jews involved in the hard sciences is higher than for any ethnic or national group in the world. Check out the number of Jews who have been awarded Nobel prizes in the sciences, and then reflect on the fact that we represent 1.5% of the world's population. Then try to find out how many have been awarded to fundamentalists.
Oh, and if anyone's going to allege or speculate that the Jews who are scientists are atheists, be prepared to document and prove that claim. Maimonides was not only the greatest rabbi of his generation in 12th century Spain and Egypt; he was also the greatest physician.
Biblical literalism is inevitably in conflict with science. Religion is not, or at least not necessarily.
Post #7
cnorman18
I agree that the Jewish faith has less conflict with science, but not none. I have no problem with anyone's belief, just don't try to pawn off dogma as science. If a Jew or Christian thinks that Genesis is a factual account that actually describes physical reality then there is a problem(and some sects of Judaism do believe that). As I said, some scientists retain their belief systems, but they recognize that the Bible/Torah/other cannot be read literally as truth in every jot and tittle but can contain truths in allegorical form and most religious dogma is pure non-sense, scientifically speaking(the subject of this thread, after all). The point is that science and religion are not in any way the same thing, they do not have equal value in describing reality and they are not even the same kind of thought process.
Grumpy
I agree that the Jewish faith has less conflict with science, but not none. I have no problem with anyone's belief, just don't try to pawn off dogma as science. If a Jew or Christian thinks that Genesis is a factual account that actually describes physical reality then there is a problem(and some sects of Judaism do believe that). As I said, some scientists retain their belief systems, but they recognize that the Bible/Torah/other cannot be read literally as truth in every jot and tittle but can contain truths in allegorical form and most religious dogma is pure non-sense, scientifically speaking(the subject of this thread, after all). The point is that science and religion are not in any way the same thing, they do not have equal value in describing reality and they are not even the same kind of thought process.
Grumpy
-
cnorman18
Post #8
I agree with almost every word you've said here. As I said: "Biblical literalism is inevitably in conflict with science. Religion is not, or at least not necessarily."Grumpy wrote:cnorman18
I agree that the Jewish faith has less conflict with science, but not none. I have no problem with anyone's belief, just don't try to pawn off dogma as science. If a Jew or Christian thinks that Genesis is a factual account that actually describes physical reality then there is a problem(and some sects of Judaism do believe that). As I said, some scientists retain their belief systems, but they recognize that the Bible/Torah/other cannot be read literally as truth in every jot and tittle but can contain truths in allegorical form and most religious dogma is pure non-sense, scientifically speaking(the subject of this thread, after all). The point is that science and religion are not in any way the same thing, they do not have equal value in describing reality and they are not even the same kind of thought process.
Grumpy
I would also agree that "Religion and science are not in any way the same thing, they do not have equal value in describing reality" - which I would define in this context as the objective reality of the physical world. That would include actual history as well as the scientific principles that govern that reality. As I've said many times, literature ought not be confused with scientific treatise or historical study.
I'm not sure about their not being the same kind of thought process, though. I think that logic and rational argument are central to the evolution of Jewish ethics, for instance; that isn't just an exercise in metaphysical assumptions. It involves the realistic and objectively verifiable assessment of the real-world effects of human actions on real human beings. But I would grant that science and even religious ethical discussions are not directed toward the same ends, and that "morally right and wrong" are not the same as "factually correct or incorrect." Does that sound reasonable?
Post #9
cnorman18
Grumpy
Yes. I find most of your posts thoughtful and cogent, we disagree on little. And my statement about being completely different thought processes doesn't apply to religions universally, there are many thoughtful theists. I had Fundamentalists mainly in mind and picked up the wrong paintbrush, a narrower one gives much neater results.Does that sound reasonable?
Grumpy
-
cnorman18
Post #10
Well said, and thank you. As I have very often observed, I find myself arguing on the same side as atheists/nontheists in the majority of these debates. Just as you acknowledge that there are thoughtful theists, I would affirm that there are thoughtful atheists - and in my experience, the proportion of thoughtful and reflective folks is rather higher among your crowd than mine.Grumpy wrote:cnorman18
Yes. I find most of your posts thoughtful and cogent, we disagree on little. And my statement about being completely different thought processes doesn't apply to religions universally, there are many thoughtful theists. I had Fundamentalists mainly in mind and picked up the wrong paintbrush, a narrower one gives much neater results.Does that sound reasonable?
Grumpy
