Is the Debate Between Science and Religion Unnecessary?

[Diogenes]

My friend Gary Conkling writes about the potential conflict between science and relgion.
Question for debate: Is there necessarily conflict between science and relgion?

People with religious beliefs often view science as anti-religious, even as an attack on religion. The tension between scientific inquiry and religious zealotry is real. Scientists focus on questions while zealots settle for answers, sometimes based on dubious evidence or misconstrued history.

There is a path through the tension. Scientists don’t have to dismiss a greater force and zealots have to rely on faith rather than crypto-facts. We could someday figure out how the universe truly works, but still never know how it came to be. The desire – and for many the desperate need – to know there is something larger out there larger than life as we know it can yield an emotional calm and an enhanced ability to deal with very real and present distress.
....
Questions are not disbelief. Probabilities are safer to cling to than facts in assessing the universe. The scientific method and faith are not incompatible.

https://garyconklinglifenotes.wordpress ... UfIEseHtLQ

Is there a religion that seeks truth, rather than declaring it?

[Runner]

Would you seriously describe this as a "declaration of truth?"

How many times would you guess the phrase "Trust the science." has been repeated from every major News affiliate across the world in the past, oh ... , 3-4 years?

Trusting the science is exactly what most people do on a daily basis in this day and age.

That is fundamentally NOT science. True science demands to be questioned.

Today's counterfeit science religion culture operates in the opposite way.

I really don't think that can be debated.

It is right out in the open for all to see. It is a reality.

[Runner]

Anyway, here's another example of how scientists do not "declare truth," but are proud to change their positions when new facts warrant it:

The changing recommendations during the Covid-19 pandemic on things such as whether to wear face masks has confused the public and caused them to lose faith in science.
But changing your mind based on new evidence is a badge of honor in the scientific community.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/23/why-sci ... agree.html

And there ya go. There's a perfect example.

Just because they don't outright admit they were wrong to begin with, and claim it was based on "new" evidence, doesn't discount my argument one bit.

And it's completely unnecessary for me to dig up what you demand when the evidence is so abundant it takes a simple Google search to produce abundant examples.

Also, I don't have some need for you to agree with me. If science is your god, I couldn't change your mind if I tried.

All good. Believe what you're most comfortable believing.

[Diogenes]

Would you seriously describe this as a "declaration of truth?"

How many times would you guess the phrase "Trust the science." has been repeated from every major News affiliate across the world in the past, oh ... , 3-4 years?

Trusting the science is exactly what most people do on a daily basis in this day and age.

That is fundamentally NOT science. True science demands to be questioned.

Today's counterfeit science religion culture operates in the opposite way.

I really don't think that can be debated.

It is right out in the open for all to see. It is a reality.

You quote me, yet leave out the very sentences that refute what you write. You left out my:

YOU are the one making the claim that scientists "declare truth," so you are the one who needs to support your claim with an example.

What you may be referring to is generalities in the media, rather than actual statements by scientists. Take an actual peer reviewed scientific journal article, cite it properly, and quote from it, showing where it "declares" something to be the "truth."

You actually admit (now) you are not quoting scientists but rather "most people." But your initial arguments blame science, not what the media and general public say about science.

But, perhaps you are now admitting your error when you finally confess exactly what have been telling you:

True science demands to be questioned.

[Runner]

Would you seriously describe this as a "declaration of truth?"

How many times would you guess the phrase "Trust the science." has been repeated from every major News affiliate across the world in the past, oh ... , 3-4 years?

Trusting the science is exactly what most people do on a daily basis in this day and age.

That is fundamentally NOT science. True science demands to be questioned.

Today's counterfeit science religion culture operates in the opposite way.

I really don't think that can be debated.

It is right out in the open for all to see. It is a reality.

You quote me, yet leave out the very sentences that refute what you write. You left out my:

YOU are the one making the claim that scientists "declare truth," so you are the one who needs to support your claim with an example.

What you may be referring to is generalities in the media, rather than actual statements by scientists. Take an actual peer reviewed scientific journal article, cite it properly, and quote from it, showing where it "declares" something to be the "truth."

You actually admit (now) you are not quoting scientists but rather "most people." But your initial arguments blame science, not what the media and general public say about science.

But, perhaps you are now admitting your error when you finally confess exactly what have been telling you:

True science demands to be questioned.

The issue is that science, like so many other words/concepts, has been hijacked and counterfeited.

The first scientists were True Christians and practiced their profession very honestly.

When I speak against science, I am speaking against the modern mainstream interpretation of the discipline. I am referring to the counterfeit understanding of the word that is used in the mainstream; to the religion of science that so many embrace.

That science that "declares" facts about the solar system and medical concepts that nobody can, or does, test for themselves.

I have not moved the goal posts, nor my original claim, you have changed tactics.

[Tcg]

The only religion I can think of that fits under that category would be Atheism.

Nice try, but atheism isn't a religion.


Tcg

[Tcg]

And it's completely unnecessary for me to dig up what you demand when the evidence is so abundant it takes a simple Google search to produce abundant examples.

This is a debate forum where posters are expected to support their claims. Simply claiming that Google says so doesn't accomplish that.


Tcg

[Tcg]

Almost nobody tests any of these claims for themselves, they simply embrace them by faith in their chosen religion.

Science.

Another swing and a miss. Science isn't a religion.


Tcg

[Diogenes]

The issue is that science, like so many other words/concepts, has been hijacked and counterfeited.

The first scientists were True Christians and practiced their profession very honestly.

When I speak against science, I am speaking against the modern mainstream interpretation of the discipline. I am referring to the counterfeit understanding of the word that is used in the mainstream; to the religion of science that so many embrace.

That science that "declares" facts about the solar system and medical concepts that nobody can, or does, test for themselves.

I have not moved the goal posts, nor my original claim, you have changed tactics.
[/quote]

Ahhh... so, like the early Christians, you believe the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around it? Or would you care to name these "first scientists" who were "True Christians?"

Actually, the first scientists were not Christians, but secular Greeks.

Aristotle is considered by many to be the first scientist, although the term postdates him by more than two millennia. In Greece in the fourth century BC, he pioneered the techniques of logic, observation, inquiry and demonstration.

https://www.nature.com/articles/512250a

As Jose Fly has informed you, science is a method not a religion.

And you are wrong in your claim about blind acceptance. Many people who believe the Earth is spherical and goes around the Sun, with the Moon orbiting the Earth, have tested these facts. We can see the evidence of the curvature of the Earth when we go to the sea shore and note how that curve obstructs the our view of the lower portion of ships far out to sea. We can SEE the roundness of the Earth by the changing shape of the moon and when viewing an eclipse. We can actually test the gravitational force (the attraction of one mass to another) by replicating the Cavendish experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

[Runner]

Nice try, but atheism isn't a religion.

Oh really?

Atheists don't choose to believe that God doesn't exist?

Just as all other religions choose to believe the teachings of their doctrines?

Try again.

[Runner]

This is a debate forum where posters are expected to support their claims. Simply claiming that Google says so doesn't accomplish that.

The point of argument has been addressed and dismissed.

You are likely of the sort that doesn't accept any form of proof whatsoever anyway.

I know that kind well and I don't waste much of my time with them as they never have any sincere intention of discussing/debating anything fairly and intelligently to begin with.