When science does not work

[Rufus21]

I follow science where one should follow science and I follow religion/revelation where science does not work.

Can someone give an example of a situation where science doesn't work?

I've heard people say that science cannot handle situations outside the natural world, but there is no indication that religion can either. In fact, neither can offer any evidence that a supernatural realm exists in the first place. So what are some situations where science does not work but religion does?

[fredonly]

I stand corrected on the scope of the thread. I believe such people are pitting a methodology against a philosophy, which is not appropriate. I say this because I presume you mean theistic philosophy, when you use the term "religion". However, I view religion is those practices that follow from a philosophy, not the philosophy itself.

I'd be in discussing this further, if you open a new thread in the Philosophy subforum.

[Rufus21]

Correct, they use science, among other things, to make assumptions regarding the past and predictions about the future.

So they are soft sciences - they are less rigorous but still use scientific data and follow the scientific method. I think we should include branches of social science under the category of science in this case since they fall outside of religion.

I say this because I presume you mean theistic philosophy, when you use the term "religion".

I am trying to use a very broad definition of both religion and science since I don't yet know what other people are referring to when they make such claims as the OP.

Well, it is not just the meaning of life, but many philosophical questions, specifically regarding the past and the future, can not be answered by science alone.

I definitely agree with that. Philosophy is an area that science (other than logic and reason) is often not capable of fully addressing. Is religion able to offer any reliable insight where science leaves off? Does biblical scripture and/or divine revelation benefit philosophy in any way?

[bluethread]

Correct, they use science, among other things, to make assumptions regarding the past and predictions about the future.

So they are soft sciences - they are less rigorous but still use scientific data and follow the scientific method. I think we should include branches of social science under the category of science in this case since they fall outside of religion.

Well, if anything that uses scientific information is science, then some theistic philosophy is also science. It appears that you are attempting to create a conflict, where one does not exist. If someone makes a philosophical argument that contradicts scientific data, that argument creates a conflict. Also, here can very well be conflicts between philosophical positions when those positions interpret scientific data differently. However, viewing science and theistic philosophy as inherently in conflict seems rather presumptuous, IMO.

I say this because I presume you mean theistic philosophy, when you use the term "religion".

I am trying to use a very broad definition of both religion and science since I don't yet know what other people are referring to when they make such claims as the OP.

That is often the problem in discussions of "science" and "religion". People are generally not very clear with regard to what they mean. Thus many such discussions break down into visceral responses to personal perceptions.

Well, it is not just the meaning of life, but many philosophical questions, specifically regarding the past and the future, can not be answered by science alone.

I definitely agree with that. Philosophy is an area that science (other than logic and reason) is often not capable of fully addressing. Is religion able to offer any reliable insight where science leaves off? Does biblical scripture and/or divine revelation benefit philosophy in any way?

That is philosophy. The only difference between revelation and inspiration is that the first requires a third party and the later does not. The ideas and hypothesis that result need not be related to how they came to be.

[Rufus21]

Well, if anything that uses scientific information is science, then some theistic philosophy is also science.

It would depend on how the information is being used. For example, a tobacco company might use scientific data to show that cigarettes are harmless, or Dr. Oz might try to convince us that a new herbal extract can create softer skin in women over the age of 40. Simply using scientific information is only the first step. To reach a valid conclusion one must be sure that the scientific method is followed.

Unfortunately my knowledge of theistic philosophy (in fact all philosophy) is terribly limited. Other than a little Godel I'm pretty clueless, so I have no reason to think that such philosophy is not based on science as you say. I also have no examples of philosophy reaching valid conclusions that extend beyond our knowledge of the natural world. I would be very excited to learn of some.

That is often the problem in discussions of "science" and "religion". People are generally not very clear with regard to what they mean.

Agreed. Honestly, I wish I didn't have to be as vague as I am being. I am just trying to leave the door wide open for any examples of religious knowledge that is independent of science.

That is philosophy. The only difference between revelation and inspiration is that the first requires a third party and the later does not. The ideas and hypothesis that result need not be related to how they came to be.

Unless someone is claiming that their ideas are divine revelation and not simply ordinary inspiration. That would require additional proof. Since this thread is about separating one from the other, that would be a very important distinction.

[marco]

Can someone give an example of a situation where science doesn't work?

Koestler left money to set up a parapsychology post at Edinburgh University. The incumbents try hard to achieve results but I think this is an area where science is knocked on the head. Replicating paranormal experiences is rather problematic.

But I have friends who are eminent scientists, with no belief in the paranormal, who have experienced an odd sighting of what seemed to be a ghost. Their comment was that they saw what they saw, simultaneously, but have no rational explanation. Their science failed them.

[paarsurrey1]

When science does not work

Sorry, I didn't notice this thread earlier. Friend Rufus21 has brought my attention to this thread vide his Post 101: Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:56 am in the thread :"Scientific search for what is God." Forum:Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion:
viewtopic.php?p=890658#890658

I am neither against science nor against religion. I believe both are essential for human development and progress.
Science with the grace of One-True-God has done marvelous things in its domain since the discovery of "Scientific Method" which I understand changes with the discipline of science and the problem/issue in hand due to the nature of the discipline it is being applied to. To start with it was applied in "Physics" properly and formally. Its father/mother is Mathematics and it Grandfather/mother is Philosophy where it is not applied altogether, or not to much extent. Right, please?
Regards

To add further:
As I have written in a post in another forum, please see the following "where science is incapacitated to work" :

The University of California, Berkeley
snapshot

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.

misconceptions
Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God.

Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities.
It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.(Read more about it)*.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesnt make moral judgments
Science doesnt make aesthetic judgments
Science doesnt tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesnt draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

* https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0 ... science_12
Right, please?
Regards

[Rufus21]

misconceptions
Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God.

Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities.
It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.

That is only somewhat true. While science cannot support or contradict the general concept of god, it can support or contradict the events that are claimed to be the work of a specific god. For example, it is easy to disprove the claim that a man is throwing lightening bolts from the top of Mt. Olympus, therefore science can debunk Zeus. Science can also disprove that nearly all life forms (including humans) were killed in a global flood, or that the first two life forms were fully formed humans, of that all life came into existence at the same time in the same place, or that a supernatural force suddenly scattered humanity across the globe and caused them to speak different languages.

Science is able to debunk specific gods, but it can never stop people from making up new ones.

misconceptions

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesnt make moral judgments

That is only somewhat true. Moral judgements are (hopefully!) based on logic, reason, cultural opinions, and valid and sufficient evidence. They have a scientific basis.

However, all the rest are true:

Science doesnt make aesthetic judgments
Science doesnt tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesnt draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

So we have seen several examples where science is either weak or useless. As per the OP, are there any examples where religious scripture or revelation are more reliable?

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 47 by Rufus21]

While science cannot support or contradict the general concept of god,
it can support or contradict the events that are claimed to be the work of a specific god.
For example, it is easy to disprove the claim that a man is throwing lightening bolts from the top of Mt. Olympus(1), therefore science can debunk Zeus. Science can also disprove that nearly all life forms (including humans) were killed in a global flood(2), or that the first two life forms were fully formed humans (3), of that all life came into existence at the same time in the same place (4), or that a supernatural force suddenly scattered humanity across the globe and caused them to speak different languages (5).

Science is able to debunk specific gods, but it can never stop people from making up new ones.

Has science taken up the following issues formally?:

~ a man is throwing lightning bolts from the top of Mt. Olympus
~Science can also disprove that nearly all life forms (including humans) were killed in a global flood

The Truthful Religion does not hold the followings concepts:

~the first two life forms were fully formed, humans
~that all life came into existence at the same time in the same place
~that a supernatural force suddenly scattered humanity across the globe and caused them to speak different languages.

Kindly look into the above, please.

Regards

[phlegmnoire]

[Replying to post 1 by Rufus21]

Can someone give an example of a situation where science doesn't work?

I've heard people say that science cannot handle situations outside the natural world, but there is no indication that religion can either. In fact, neither can offer any evidence that a supernatural realm exists in the first place. So what are some situations where science does not work but religion does?

--------
"Works"
--------

Science always "works" in that it always provides a sound method for working toward a solution to a scientific question. A scientific question begins with observations and asks how or why these things are as they are, when did those things come to be as they are, what mechanisms were at play to make them as they are, and how were they before.

Science sometimes doesn't "work" if by "work" you mean that it doesn't conclude what you hoped it would conclude, or if by "work" you mean that it hasn't yet produced a result in the time frame you hoped it would.

--------
"Natural World"
--------

If science deals with the "natural world", then what is excluded from the natural world? Some would say it's the "spiritual world". But I challenge you (anyone) to come up with a description of the spiritual world, other than "anything not of the natural world."

The reason the above is no real definition is because if we define the "natural world" as "that which we observe, either directly or indirectly," and if science deals only with observed phenomena, then saying that science can only deal with the natural world is nothing more (or less) than a tautology.

[phlegmnoire]

[Replying to post 5 by Rufus21]

So can religion be used to fill in any of these areas where science stumbles?

In fact, religion IS used to fill in the gaps of scientific knowledge, but not reliably as history has shown. As technology continues to improve and science continues to advance, the gaps continue to shrink and the guesses by religions about the contents of those gaps have been proven wrong for the most part.