v

[Gianna99]

There is a deep and continuing conversation between science and religion. While science uses reason and factual data to comprehend the natural world, religion frequently uses faith and tradition to investigate issues of morality and meaning. Both fields provide insightful understandings of the human condition and encourage a diverse range of viewpoints.GB Whatsapp download

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Gianna99 in post #1]

I'm not sure how 'deep' the conversation really is.

Science is in the business of exploring the universe we find ourselves in. It is the best method we have come up with to actually learn how things work. It has built in checks and balances that should eventually weed out wrong ideas and/or information.

Religion on the other hand is primarily based in worshipping something that we have never and can't observe. In other words, something is made up and declared to be true and then rules/morals/ideas are generated based on these made up stories and attempted to be imposed on the followers (and everyone else too). Usually, the religion is somewhat cast in stone since it's supposed to have been originated by some 'perfect' being. This is where things usually fall apart. Because religion is generally unmovable, it's necessary to either invent new religions or try to make excuses for the existing ones.

I think pretending that good morals and ideas can only come religion is wrong. Humans are a social species and our social groups, not making up stories, are what drive our morals. If we want to live in harmony, that necessitates creating some standards that the group agrees on. Generally we don't like to be in pain, be lonely, have stuff stolen from us, be abused in any way, etc. Since we generally have some level of empathy, this creates an environment where we can get rules/morals that look like what many religions proclaim only came from them (when in fact they just hijacked what humans were already agreeing were 'good' ways to live).

[AgnosticBoy]

There is a deep and continuing conversation between science and religion. While science uses reason and factual data to comprehend the natural world, religion frequently uses faith and tradition to investigate issues of morality and meaning. Both fields provide insightful understandings of the human condition and encourage a diverse range of viewpoints.GB Whatsapp download

Sometimes, I view religion and science as competing explanations. Sometimes, they may conflict (creationism vs. evolution), compliment (e.g. evolution + theism= theistic evolution), or they may just be offering different ways for things to happen (creation and/or evolution?). It's that last part that gets me. Many non-believers may view any differing of views as a true/false dichotomy with only science being correct, but I wonder if that's the only result. What if there's two ways for something to come about (w/ science showing how things can happen without God).

What if we have a disease that some people recover from using medicine while others have recovered from it through the power of prayer and miracles. Just because medicine can cure it, does that mean miracles are false or miracles can't happen?

[benchwarmer]

Many non-believers may view any differing of views as a true/false dichotomy with only science being correct, but I wonder if that's the only result.

For me, it's not so much "science is correct", but that science has a way to verify claims if said claims have any way to verify them.

For example: We observe the Earth is not flat. Science in action. If someone feels this is not correct, they are welcome to gather evidence that doesn't fit this observation. At the end of the day, a useful scientific theory has to cover ALL the observed data. If it doesn't, then an update or new theory is required.

What if there's two ways for something to come about (w/ science showing how things can happen without God).

Science is not about showing things can happen without God. It is about showing how things happen based on observation and accumulated evidence. If we could observe a god, then that would be a valid thing to potentially insert into a theory. Science also does not try to show things happen without fairies, goblins, elves, pixies, or other characters no one can show are real.

What if we have a disease that some people recover from using medicine while others have recovered from it through the power of prayer and miracles.

Right away we have a problem. We can't know if someone recovered from "the power of prayer and miracles" or they simply recovered without taking medication. They have likely recovered due to some unknown process in their own body.

In order to study whether "prayer and miracles" are a thing, one would have to do a proper study to see if there is anything to this concept. Guess what? It's been done and no significant results were found that show "prayer and miracles" do anything.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1176149 ... are%20unit.

Just because medicine can cure it, does that mean miracles are false or miracles can't happen?

No. Miracles may very well be true and can happen, but no one seems to be able to actually show this.

It's quite telling that believers who are told that intercessory prayer works and how to do it, have no better results that no prayer at all. That should be a significant red flag, but of course there are lots of apologetics to explain why this happens. It all boils down to either God's answer is "no" or the humans are not praying correctly.

If Christians could consistently and routinely clear out hospitals with sustained prayer campaigns, you can bet we would all be paying attention and giving "prayer and miracles" a serious look.

[AgnosticBoy]

Benchwarmer,

I can't say I disagree with anything you've said, but I do have a different perspective that I think warrants looking at things differently.

Many non-believers may view any differing of views as a true/false dichotomy with only science being correct, but I wonder if that's the only result.

For me, it's not so much "science is correct", but that science has a way to verify claims if said claims have any way to verify them.

That's a good perspective to have. My point is directed at those that would dismiss religious views entirely, especially on matters that scientists already cover. For instance, in matters of health, both science and religion deal with that matter and have their own explanations and practices. In my experience, many non-believers would dismiss the religious explanation in that case or say that it's not needed, and they might even bring up 'Occam's razor'. I think it is reasonable to not look at this as a true/false option because it's possible for there to be more than one way for things to happen.

What if there's two ways for something to come about (w/ science showing how things can happen without God).

Science is not about showing things can happen without God. It is about showing how things happen based on observation and accumulated evidence. If we could observe a god, then that would be a valid thing to potentially insert into a theory. Science also does not try to show things happen without fairies, goblins, elves, pixies, or other characters no one can show are real.

I'm skeptical of that point. Perhaps as a pure concept, science is all about facts and it should be, but in practice, I find that it's not open to any type of facts. Scientists tend to only look for facts within an ideological lens, mostly metaphysical naturalism. It's even worse than that in that only certain natural explanations make the cut, and it's usually those that are more in line with the current scientific understanding of things. Take for example, the study of UFOs. If scientists were open to studying any phenomenon, then there would not have ever been a taboo about UFOs. There were certainly many facts to be discovered about it, videos, military encounters, etc. It's only recently that scientists are opening up about UFOs.

IN my view, if scientists are open to any facts, then they must be willing to take any observed phenomenon seriously. Don't rely on organizations or lone skeptics to do the work for them.

What if we have a disease that some people recover from using medicine while others have recovered from it through the power of prayer and miracles.

Right away we have a problem. We can't know if someone recovered from "the power of prayer and miracles" or they simply recovered without taking medication. They have likely recovered due to some unknown process in their own body.

In order to study whether "prayer and miracles" are a thing, one would have to do a proper study to see if there is anything to this concept. Guess what? It's been done and no significant results were found that show "prayer and miracles" do anything.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1176149 ... are%20unit.

I'd question such a study right off the bat on the grounds that even the Bible doesn't guarantee that all prayers work. God may choose to say no to some or a lot of them. I question how any study on prayers get around that issue. I'd want a study to look at a group of people that were cured seemingly through the use of faith and prayer. THe more drastic, like missing limbs coming back in place, then the better.

[William]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #5]

IN my view, if scientists are open to any facts, then they must be willing to take any observed phenomenon seriously. Don't rely on organizations or lone skeptics to do the work for them.

I think the truthful way to view this is that part of the problem is that scientists are simply those who do things using the process of science, and they are limited by what it is those who pay them to do the science want, as to what it is they can and cannot use the process of science for.

Ordinary Folk are thus generally left to their own resources, and in the case of the mention of prayer being answered, the process of science is getting done and even replicated and "papers" in the form of such things are being reported daily by those who experience the and connect through that means and continue with the process together as "communities".
(This is also true of all such phenomena - such as NDE's, vinsions et al)

The difference is in how folk choose to understand the process of science. Some (even many/most) will not budge from the belief that the only science which matters/is of any consequence is physical science, well-funded/invested in, even claiming to be ultimately for the (longterm) "benefit of all mankind", and even for the overall benefit of the Earth itself...

Some are as dubious about those claims, as atheists are about religious ones.

This video from a physical scientist sheds more light on that institution...

[AgnosticBoy]

I think the truthful way to view this is that part of the problem is that scientists are simply those who do things using the process of science, and they are limited by what it is those who pay them to do the science want, as to what it is they can and cannot use the process of science for.

Funding is a factor. When there's limited funding, researchers will be more selective about which things deserves to be studied vs. the ones that don't. I also think that politics can sometimes play a role.

However, I think in other cases, it goes beyond funding issues when topics are dismissed as being unscientific or pseudoscience or when such topics can't even be discussed openly (by scientists, by pilots, etc). This article goes a little into that stigma attached to UFOs:

NASA’s public announcement of its UAP Independent Study Team membership was met with interest and spurred both positive and negative feedback. At least one scientist serving on the study team reported receiving negative (hate) mail from colleagues due to their membership. Others were ridiculed and criticized on social media. Study Team members also noted firsthand knowledge of colleagues who were warned to stay away from research in areas like extraterrestrial technosignatures, which could damage their scientific credibility and promotion potential. These experiences further confirm the negative stigma associated with studying unusual or unexplained phenomena. Such criticism, either by detractors or by proponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, are anathema to the scientific method, which NASA always has and will continue to promote in an objective and open-minded fashion.

Source:NASA.gov (pg. 27 of report)

Even though the United States government has acknowledged the existence of unidentified aerial phenomena – perhaps better known in popular culture as “unidentified flying objects,” or UFOs – for many professors and researchers, the topic is still cringe-worthy.

So it’s perhaps unexpected that almost a fifth of academics in a recent, anonymous survey said they’ve witnessed something in the skies they can’t explain.

And it’s perhaps a problem that they’d rather not discuss it openly.

Source: Virginia.edu

Just to think that this happens even with a well-documented phenomenon coming from various independent sources, including from different countries.

[Purple Knight]

This article goes a little into that stigma attached to UFOs:

This is an example where what is [considered] scientific is actually just faith. Those who have baseless faith that aliens are not surveying this planet or even that UFOs (now called UAPs) don't exist, are considered more scientific than those who are agnostic about those premises and want further information, and these latter are considered unscientific and crazy.

[benchwarmer]

What if there's two ways for something to come about (w/ science showing how things can happen without God).

Science is not about showing things can happen without God. It is about showing how things happen based on observation and accumulated evidence. If we could observe a god, then that would be a valid thing to potentially insert into a theory. Science also does not try to show things happen without fairies, goblins, elves, pixies, or other characters no one can show are real.

I'm skeptical of that point. Perhaps as a pure concept, science is all about facts and it should be, but in practice, I find that it's not open to any type of facts. Scientists tend to only look for facts within an ideological lens, mostly metaphysical naturalism. It's even worse than that in that only certain natural explanations make the cut, and it's usually those that are more in line with the current scientific understanding of things. Take for example, the study of UFOs. If scientists were open to studying any phenomenon, then there would not have ever been a taboo about UFOs. There were certainly many facts to be discovered about it, videos, military encounters, etc. It's only recently that scientists are opening up about UFOs.

I think perhaps you are putting scientists on a pedestal. You do realize that anyone can practice science right? If you want to study a phenomenon, then go for it.

Yes, there have been stigmas about all kinds of things in the past (and present). That doesn't stop those who can find evidence for something and show it to be true. Scientists on the edge have often been ridiculed until they weren't anymore.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that we have largely been brought up in a culture where religion holds some sway. People are taught early on to just believe things one way or the other rather than being taught critical thinking skills. I think what is lacking in many education systems and cultures is teaching children how to think. Many of our current teaching styles seem to focus more on what to think rather than how to figure it out ourselves.

IN my view, if scientists are open to any facts, then they must be willing to take any observed phenomenon seriously. Don't rely on organizations or lone skeptics to do the work for them.

As I said above, nothing is stopping you from doing science and becoming one of these scientists that you hope for.

Are you going to get push back from the community if you can't provide solid evidence and methodology? Yes! Should that stop you from pursuing something if you want to keep digging? No!

In order to study whether "prayer and miracles" are a thing, one would have to do a proper study to see if there is anything to this concept. Guess what? It's been done and no significant results were found that show "prayer and miracles" do anything.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1176149 ... are%20unit.

I'd question such a study right off the bat on the grounds that even the Bible doesn't guarantee that all prayers work. God may choose to say no to some or a lot of them. I question how any study on prayers get around that issue. I'd want a study to look at a group of people that were cured seemingly through the use of faith and prayer. THe more drastic, like missing limbs coming back in place, then the better.

I suggest actually reading some of the studies to see what was done. Feel free to do your own study. Or simply attend a healing service at a local church and see if any limbs grow back, people wheelchair bound walk, blind see, etc. I think you will find that the observed number of obvious miracles approaches zero. At best you may get a story from someone who knew someone who saw someone have something miraculous happen. I witnessed this song and dance myself and once the rose colored glasses started slipping off, it was obvious that no limbs, etc where going to be healed.

At best, prayer seems to do nothing more than motivate a few people to do something themselves to help. Everyone else just prays and "leaves it to God".

If "prayer and miracles" worked at all, we should see some statistical difference between the different groups. We don't. If "prayer and miracles" are so rarely useful as to fall into the statistical noise, why bother touting it as something real and/or useful?

By the way:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

[AgnosticBoy]

I think perhaps you are putting scientists on a pedestal. You do realize that anyone can practice science right? If you want to study a phenomenon, then go for it.

Yes, there have been stigmas about all kinds of things in the past (and present). That doesn't stop those who can find evidence for something and show it to be true. Scientists on the edge have often been ridiculed until they weren't anymore.

I don't think the lone researcher gets as much credit as the lone skeptic. As you bring up, the lone researcher may not get any credit when they rely on poor methodology and evidence. Any theories coming out of that scenario should not be accepted as fact by anyone (the majority or otherwise).

However, I see a bigger problem that exists at a point that comes before the theory or explanation stage. Basically, it's the limitations on what you can look into or study. For instance, there are times when there is resistance/stigma when it comes to looking into a subject, and that can sometimes happens even when there's good data to work with (data which can be used to get solid evidence and a better understanding of what's going on). Sure, in that case any lone researcher, perhaps even you and I, can get the evidence ourselves. That still leaves the problem that this would cause us to progress slowly in our knowledge, and assumes that we can even progress at all that way (having only one researcher working on the issue or they may not have the resources to continue it vs. having an entire field(s) taken it seriously devoting a group of researchers). If this was an issue of having limited funding/resources then that's one thing, but I find that this issue tends to occur with certain types of phenomena, and researchers are even afraid to touch it. This leads me to suspect that there's an ideological problem in science.

By the way:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

I disagree with that point because you're taking it in isolation. There are plenty of other passages that detail what God won't do (e.g. two people can't come together and ask God to kill innocent Christians). All of those points, including yours, should be taken together before coming up with a view on prayer.