Science And Religion: Are They The Same?

[WinePusher]

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.

[cnorman18]

deleted

[ChaosBorders]

Your engaging in a fallacy, although I never learned the names of the fallacies.

Here is a list: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... gicForever

It makes a good read. As do many articles on that website. Try not to end up trapped there though. TvTropes can ruin your life.

[ChaosBorders]

The ACLU would never take this case into consideration because they know they would lose.

I seem to be missing something about what you guys are alluding to, but what precisely would the ACLU gain by taking the case?

The courts want FACTUAL EVIDENCE. They need proof. In order for this man to win this case the ACLU would have to prove Satan exists and that this man was really possessed by Satan.

True.

With that said it's pretty obvious Satan cannot be proven, he is based on ancient stories and mythological fables. Where are the facts supporting his existence on this planet?

Satan cannot be proven nor disproven to exist. But what is your point?

[naz]

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.
4) WinePusher has presented a false dichotomy. If so, please present your own answer.

If by the same you mean science and religion have the same premises to look for understanding then I would say yes. Religion will look at the bigger picture and science will look at the smaller picture. Science will attempt to dissect the past based around its own predictions, calculations and understandings. Where an archeologist would search for artifacts to further understand people or things from years past to help reconstruct things that were once lost over the ages so they can be further analyzed. With religion you can look into the lives of those people that lived in the past, whereas people today would bury time capsules so those in future generations can get an understanding what life was like in the XX century of time, therefore artifacts are laid out and people dont have to go searching for them because they have already been recorded and document, etc. It is kind of like a never ending process.

Most religions would say they are on a search for everlasting life while scientist and doctors are looking for cures to certain cancers, diseases, etc. to further peoples life span. They all relate in some way or another. What might seem reliable to one person might seem inaccurate to another and vice versa. I think it really depends on how you look at it.

Just like scientist say dinosaurs existed millions of years ago others might say interbreeding can speed up the evolution process, etc. I just read a web-site that talks a little bit about this " the fallen sons of God corrupted the earth with false doctrines by intermarrying with humans and thus teaching them their ways. --- Site here. And another that speaks about dinasours and touches on parts of the bible. That site can be found here.

3) Both Fields should be completely seperate from eachother and should not "overlap" (Stephen Jay Gould's Idea).

I would agree with this to a certain extent. I think science would be better off if they put more time focusing on the present and future than the past. Though there are many things and lessons to be learned from the past it is often said, Those who dont learn from the past are destine to repeat it.

[Atheologist]

Religion is ideology, not art.

Opinion noted.
But might I suggest that this reflects an ignorance of current thinking about religion, and that any religion that is in fact an ideolgy can be considered craptastic. Indeed, I find scientism to be an ideology.

Do you mind explaining how religion is considered art?

DEFINITION of Religion according to Webster's:

1. The service and worship of God or the supernatural : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2. A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3. Archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4. A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

DEFINITION of art:

1. The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2. The class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

DEFINITION of ideology:

1. The body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

It looks to me that ideology is more relative to religion rather than art.

[Atheologist]

The ACLU would never take this case into consideration because they know they would lose.

I seem to be missing something about what you guys are alluding to, but what precisely would the ACLU gain by taking the case?

The ACLU doesn't do things for "gain". Their job is to fight for human rights.

[Atheologist]

Satan cannot be proven nor disproven to exist. But what is your point?

That is exactly my point, he cannot be proven. So if he cannot be proven nor dis-proven that would mean all that would be left is belief. No facts, just belief. I was mentioning earlier to another member that I favored science and factual evidence over a belief system without proof.

[ChaosBorders]

The ACLU would never take this case into consideration because they know they would lose.

I seem to be missing something about what you guys are alluding to, but what precisely would the ACLU gain by taking the case?

The ACLU doesn't do things for "gain". Their job is to fight for human rights.

I see. Having found it let me address the original post you bring up this scenario.

Since you have yet attempted to debate my arguments this tells me one thing, you lack any ability to debate at all.

Firstly, this was an entirely uncalled for comment. I have never seen someone get cited for rule violations by four different moderators in the very first thread they have posted in, but I would encourage you to try harder not to make ad hominem attacks like this in the future or you will probably be banned rather quickly.

Think about this, why (take note, this is a question and I am seeking an answer if you can come up with one) is it when a person is convicted of a crime such as murder and they blame it on the devil or that they were possessed, the courts find this person incompetent to stand trial?

Because more likely than not that person is crazy.

If it really was Satan himself then this person wouldn't be going to a mental institution would they?

Of course they would. There's no way to prove it was Satan. That doesn't mean it wasn't. But the courts can only make rulings on what they can reasonably determine. (Though given how faulty eyewitness testimony is, that's actually only true to an extent...)

Why doesn't the ACLU get involved?

Because there's no way they could win. Even if they wanted to, it'd be a waste of their time. Besides which, they've fought quite hard for the separation of church in state, so it would hardly be sensible for them to plead a special case that someone was 'possessed by Satan.'

After all Satan is real isn't he? Oh that's right Satan has never been proven as a fact.

Even if Satan is real, his typically proposed nature is such I doubt he could be empirically proven to exist. As such, any organization that bases (or tries to anyways) its decisions off of verifiable evidence, such as the legal system, must ignore any supernatural possibilities out of hand. A parallel is miracles in the academic subject of history. From the historical perspective whether a miracle actually happened or not is irrelevant because due to the rules of historical reasoning you can never say a miracle is historical fact, end of story. Likewise, whether someone is actually possessed by Satan or not is irrelevant because the courts cannot, by the rules with which they work, ever acknowledge such a thing.

Sorry, in psychology this person would most likely be labeled as a schizophrenic or someone with significant MENTAL disorders. Nothing religious or supernatural about it.

Most likely this would be the case. But even if it were not it would still be treated as the case.

A human is responsible for their own actions. You cannot blame it on any evil demonic force or Satan himself. Am I right? (another question for you as well).

No, you're not right. The reason schizophrenics and the like typically end up in a mental institution instead of prison is that they aren't considered responsible for their actions. If they are deemed to be a continuing threat to society they may well never be released. If their condition is treatable, they will likely be treated and may eventually be allowed back into society upon showing signs of mental stability. I would suspect that if someone actually were possessed by Satan the end result would be little different than the latter case. Either way, possession can be neither proven nor dis-proven and as such courts reasonably go the position that it should be assumed to be false. After all, the consequences of occasionally locking up some poor guy who was actually possessed are far less severe than allowing loose a lot of violent schizophrenics to terrorize society. I forget the technical term, but it's a basic statistical analysis of which of two errors causes the most damage and trying to prevent that one from occurring.

Lastly, I would like to address this comment:

Based on your accusations it sounds like you are refusing to debate with me simply because I am a new member and I have several posts. Is this what makes me uncivilized? Or maybe you're basing it on my age.

Again your hypocrisy is disgusting. You stated you do not respond to personal attacks, yet you personally attacked me by saying you debate with "civil" members. Are you implying I am uncivilized? Get over your prejudices and personal biases that age = wisdom.

You have made multiple personal attacks which have been called out by the moderators, which is why Slopeshoulder considers your behavior uncivil. Though his phrasing was a little more condescending than strictly necessary, the degree to which you have openly attacked him is far, far greater and it should not be surprising that he became frustrated.

Furthermore, I can assure you with complete certainty that neither he, nor anyone else on this forum (that I am aware of) bases any of their judgments upon a person's age. I am five years younger than you and have never been cited by a moderator for breaking the rules and get a fair share of MGP donations for my posts. Lucia, who is a month younger than I am, has just been made a moderator for her utmost civility.

It is not your age by which you are judged, but by your actions. You have repeatedly broken the rules and you have been judged accordingly. My personal advice would be to apologize for this, read the rules carefully, and try to follow them. You seem to have a lot of questions and I for one would be more than happy to answer some of them for you (though I would suggest making separate threads for a lot of them given many forum members do not like getting as off-topic as I'm willing to). But if you continue breaking rules at the pace you have in this thread, I would be amazed if you last to the end of the month. Seeing you get banned would certainly be a shame.

[cnorman18]

Here's another moderator, Atheologist, echoing that advice.

I'll put it a bit more bluntly; clean up your act or get out of Dodge. No one's dumping on you because you're young or new. "Uncivil" doesn't mean "uncivilized." it means "rude," and you ARE being rude.

Stop.

[carramrod]

carramrod

Religion deals with real people having real experiences.

If by real you mean actual, evidenced and observable by all, it is not real. Do you have another definition of real?

Science is trying to provide facts (just like the courts). If religion did not exist in our society we wouldn't be fighting over POINTLESS scriptures like the bible and the Quran. Religion can make many feel guilty for their petty actions. Being free from the confines of religion is like being free of debt or monthly mortgage payments. You are no longer bound by the laws and rules of religion (pray at this time, eat only these types of foods, wear these types of clothes, don't work hard on a particular day...just rest...if you do work then have you sinned against God?) You feel guilt for breaking a religious or spiritual law. Without religion you are no longer bound to these pointless laws. If you think religion is helping keep a moral and ethical set of living standards I disagree.

I will address both of these with this post.

The Law of Human Nature, or the Law of Descent Behavior, or the Moral Law is something that is not a fact in the general sense, but still true and real. It is also not a law in the sense that the law of gravity is a law. With the law of gravity, an object cannot disobey it. However the Law of Human Nature is a standard by which we feel bound (not in the sense of chains or oppression, but in the sense of a compulsion), but are still able to break it.

The Law of Human Nature is a standard by which people act and expect other people to act as well. If this was not the case, then there would be no arguments over what was fair or not. We would also have no basis on which to accuse people (such as Atheologist) of being rude or uncivil. Therefore, there must be some universal sense of what is right and what is wrong. But who made this Law?

To quote C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity) again,

Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must
somehow or other be a real thing" a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is
not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behaviour is a fact. It begins to look as if
we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is
something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behaviour, and yet quite definitely real"a
real law, which none of us has made, but which we find pressing on us.

Now, I am not saying that this Law of Human Nature is something that is dictated by religious dogma. Rather the other way around. Religion does its best to adhere to this Moral Law while also acknowledging its source. Religion is also not the only attempt at adhering to this Moral Law. The laws made by governments also try their best to protect the "natural rights" that people have. Contracts are put in place to make sure people keep their promises. Certain rules are put in place for forums such as this so as make sure that participants are courteous.

Yes, Atheologist, being "free" from religion may release you from petty rituals such as dressing up for church or not eating pork, but it will not free you from the reality of the Moral Law. [/quote]