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.

[Slopeshoulder]

Religion is the world's ignorance. Anyone who believes in religion is essentially a slave. They are a slave to their gods, goddesses or God. They are a slave to their ridiculous moral codes which are bringing this country (U.S.A.) as well as many other countries to a standstill. Religion is holding societies back from progression.

Moderator comment:

These would be blanket assertions without support. And if you stay here long enough, you will find out that it is difficult to paint the people here with such a wide brush.

Well sit down and think about it...logically. Try to make sense of something rather than base everything on FAITH. Try to find out the facts. When I say it is the world's ignorance you should look at how religion is affecting the lives of human beings all around the world. In America the Conservatives are so pent up on morals and family values. Now that's all fine and dandy but when you think to yourself...where are they getting these "morals" from? What is morale to them? How do they define morality? It all goes back to the Christian bible. Their perspective on morality is coming from a book written over 2,000 years ago.

Stem cell research? Heard of it? We are trying to progress and help mankind for the better, yet there are many outcries over the issue of stem cell research as it is deemed "unethical". According to who? Religious advocates?

Arguing with moderators is also aginst the rules. You may wish to reread them before further posting and the risk of probation or banishment.

And you really should read much more of what people here have posted before shooting from the hip. many of us have studied religion as you claim and have M.Div's. Despising and rejecting religion is a valid conclusion. But peurile screeds and sarcasm do not make your case. My argument is that your argument...doesn't exist. But opinions noted.

Although you'll find in me an ally against assinine sheep, religious objectivists, fundamentalists, extremists, fools, crusaders, etc., but I do like religion.

You'll find good discussion hidden here in the weeds, if you bother to look for it and step up. Otherwise, ypu may not last long around here.

Your hypocrisy in your message is despicable. When I write a sentence ending in a question mark that means I am asking a question and I am looking for your response. You have yet answered or argued any of my questions. The best you could come up with was "opinions noted". Try finding an argument for one of my statements. Your last post was based off of a user "GRUMPY's" opinion yet you gave your point of view. Why? Pure hypocrisy.

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

If it really was Satan himself then this person wouldn't be going to a mental institution would they? Why doesn't the ACLU get involved? After all Satan is real isn't he? Oh that's right Satan has never been proven as a fact. 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. 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).

Religion is being used as an excuse for delusional thought processes. Disagree? If so, why?

Sorry, if you read my many posts you'll see I do debate with civil members. But I do not respond to personal attacks.

[Slopeshoulder]

OH OK, i can't resist!
Putting aside your uncivil attacks up front in the multiple paragraphs, here are my replies.

Think about this

You can assume I'm thinking about it, and have no need to remind me.

why (SARCASTIC AND UNCIVIL PERSONAL ATTACK DELTED) 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 such a belief makes them incompetent to stand trial. This is news?

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

Correct. But satan's existence is outside the courts rulings. I don't personally think he exists.

Why doesn't the ACLU get involved?

Because the court is right not to accept the existence of satan.

After all Satan is real isn't he?

Not in my book. I'm no fundy literalist. Why would you assume anyone thinks satan is real?

Oh that's right Satan has never been proven as a fact.

Spare us the sarcasm.
That's right, the supernatural and the mythical cannot be proven as fact. What does this prove?
What point are you making? This is gettign long and going nowhere...

Sorry

Why sorry? Who's defending this poor nutcase criminals point of view?
Who are you arguing with? Not me surely. Was that more sarcasm?

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

Question and sarcasm noted.
Yes, of course you are right, and everyone with a brain agrees with you. Were you under the impression i wouldn't? or that many many many religious people wouldn't also agree? I see nothing to argue with. I also see no argument. Can't see what your point is.

Religion is being used as an excuse for delusional thought processes. Disagree? If so, why?

OF COURSE, I agree. It's being done by a nut.
Were you under the assumption that religious people share this view that satan exists and makes us do things and that we are not repsonsible (any of those three pioints)?

Is your point this: we can infer from the ravings of schizophrenics that all religion is a crock and all religious people are delusional? is this your case? Are you equating all religion with schizophrenia?
That is quite a leap. It fails as equivelancy and as analogy.
Is this really your idea of an argument or debate?

This is a waste of time. Good day.

[Grumpy]

Slopeshoulder

I consider you a proponent not only of reason and science (which I also, um, propone...), but of scientism

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.

I'm sure most theists think this is a bad thing, the term is often used perjoritively.

Michael Shermer self-identifies as "scientistic" and defines the term as "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."

That's a pretty good description of my view and I understand why theists would be against such a view. But I am not prostelitizing, to each his own.

However, regarding the specific quote above, I think that the first sentence has the potential to reduce imagination to engineering, and obscenity in my book.

Obscenity? I don't see why you would use that perjoritive.

"Imagination that springs from experience, insight, and non-linear thinking that is somehow intelligable and meaningful leads to art; religion is like this, an art form, not a physics."

Religion is ideology, not art.

religion itself is an art, an imaginative leaning into at the edge of experience and understanding, a way of seeng and making.

Most of what religion sees and makes is patently false, and worse, misleading, misdirecting.

But what was Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot's excuse?

The ideology of Communism which, like all ideologies given too much power, will not tolerate any other ideology(religion, capitalism). In addition all three were dictators with cults of personality(they weren't even "good" Communists).

As discussed before, Atheism is just a lack of religious belief, it is not an ideology on it's own. It only indicates what one DOES NOT BELIEVE, not what one BELIEVES.
It says only what one is not(a believer in god), not what one is(call me a scientist, Humanist, Skeptic, rationalist, bon vivant and all around good guy).

Enron's? Wall Street's?

Greed, pure and simple, Me Firstism.

the Jefferson Starship's

I remember when they were Jefferson Airplane.

I submit they also had a religion, an even falser one.

True, that's why I stick to evidence and reason, at least then you are on solid ground.

Grumpy

[Slopeshoulder]

Slopeshoulder

I consider you a proponent not only of reason and science (which I also, um, propone...), but of scientism

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life.

I'm sure most theists think this is a bad thing, the term is often used perjoritively.

I don't consider it a pejorative, and I don't use it that way. I merely consider it wrong, naive, self-defeating, outdated, and dishonest. And I learned about it from philosophers, not theologians or theists. Popper wasn't a theologian, most deconstructionists are theists. Criticism of t is not limited to theists, and wasn't driven by theists. Your engaging in a fallacy, although I never learned the names of the fallacies.

Michael Shermer self-identifies as "scientistic" and defines the term as "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."

That's a pretty good description of my view and I understand why theists would be against such a view. But I am not prostelitizing, to each his own.

Scientistic is a new word to me, and I'll read up on it. I agree that we are in a scientific age and on the face of it these pillars are sensible.
But calling this an "Age of Science" and excluding all other meaning making tools strikes me as closed minded, triumphalist and, well, scientism. What might possibly follow this age? Nothing, implying it is the end of history? This is a totalizing world view. A new medieval hegemony? Nope. Fail.

However, regarding the specific quote above, I think that the first sentence has the potential to reduce imagination to engineering, and obscenity in my book.

Obscenity? I don't see why you would use that perjoritive.

I use the pejorative in this specific contect because I consider the reduction of art to engineering, or the conflation of the two, to be an obscenity. A kind of orwellian nightmare.

"Imagination that springs from experience, insight, and non-linear thinking that is somehow intelligable and meaningful leads to art; religion is like this, an art form, not a physics."

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.

religion itself is an art, an imaginative leaning into at the edge of experience and understanding, a way of seeng and making.

Most of what religion sees and makes is patently false, and worse, misleading, misdirecting.

Yes, i agree, absolutely. If we can agree on "most," we're cool. I think the rest in extraordinary. Do you truly dismiss the best of the buddha and rumi because they didn't use a protractor?

As discussed before, Atheism is just a lack of religious belief, it is not an ideology on it's own. It only indicates what one DOES NOT BELIEVE, not what one BELIEVES.
It says only what one is not(a believer in god), not what one is(call me a scientist, Humanist, Skeptic, rationalist, bon vivant and all around good guy).

I agree, when it works right and is honest.
Except that some forms of atheism do become ideology. And any form of committed unknowing is a faith. And hiding behind the empty set argument is insincere and not credible. It's like when Rush Limbaugh says he's a comedian.

But as you say, to each his own. But you might wish to read some Popper and Kuhn and Wittgenstein and Rorty.

I submit they also had a religion, an even falser one.

True, that's why I stick to evidence and reason, at least then you are on solid ground.

Grumpy

I stick to evidence and reason 99% of the time. But that other one percent, in the right context, can be wonderful.

[Jester]

Mocerator Comment

Your hypocrisy in your message is despicable. When I write a sentence ending in a question mark that means I am asking a question and I am looking for your response. You have yet answered or argued any of my questions. The best you could come up with was "opinions noted". Try finding an argument for one of my statements. Your last post was based off of a user "GRUMPY's" opinion yet you gave your point of view. Why? Pure hypocrisy.

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

If it really was Satan himself then this person wouldn't be going to a mental institution would they? Why doesn't the ACLU get involved? After all Satan is real isn't he? Oh that's right Satan has never been proven as a fact. 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. 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).

Religion is being used as an excuse for delusional thought processes. Disagree? If so, why?

There are a number of personal comments in this post that are against the rules. Remember to debate the topic, not the person.

[WinePusher]

Stem cell research? Heard of it? We are trying to progress and help mankind for the better, yet there are many outcries over the issue of stem cell research as it is deemed "unethical". According to who? Religious advocates?

It is YOUR burden to make the case that experimentation on potential human beings is ethical. You have not done so.

If it really was Satan himself then this person wouldn't be going to a mental institution would they? Why doesn't the ACLU get involved?

Because the ACLU has shown itself to apply their selective bias to the lawsuits they file.

[Atheologist]

Sorry, if you read my many posts you'll see I do debate with civil members. But I do not respond to personal attacks.

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.

Because the court is right not to accept the existence of satan.

Why are they right to not accept the existence of Satan? Why is it that the courts will not accept these claims that people are being possessed by the devil or evil spirits? It's because the courts need something called FACTS. They want EVIDENCE. You CANNOT prove this devil exists nor can you prove demons exist. Correct? Or do you disagree?

The fact is...these people are delusional and religion is not helping the situation. I was born and raised as a Catholic. For many years I was brainwashed by my parents that there was this fallen angel named Lucifer who ruled a fiery place called hell and people were being possessed by demons. Many say when you look into the corner of your eye you can see evil spirits or angels. I believed this for many years. I saw things in the corner of my eye but it turned out it was a cat's shadow as it was walking past the door. But in my mind I thought it could have been one of those evil spirits my parents would talk about.

It wasn't until I began to think for myself and realized religion is one of the primary causes for these delusional thoughts or behaviors.

Sometimes I would play pranks on my parents pretending something was tugging onto my clothes or that my door opened by itself at 2 in the morning. They would become hysterical thinking there really were evil spirits in the house. They'd grab the holy water and sprinkle it around the house saying prayers in Latin. PURE IGNORANCE. This was just a small sample test to prove that their thoughts were DELUSIONAL. Religion is telling them these things exist when in fact they weren't true at all.

If my parents didn't believe in religion their thinking would have been completely opposite. They would have thought I was the delusional one.

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.

We have methods other than religion to help people with addiction to alcohol, pornography, sexual misconduct, drug use etc. Why aren't all the atheists killing, raping, torturing and stealing if they aren't bound by these religious laws? We don't need religious laws, we already have laws and they are set in place by Legislation and Congress.

[Grumpy]

Slopeshoulder

I merely consider it wrong, naive, self-defeating, outdated, and dishonest.

Dishonest? Another inappropriate perjorative. I do not try to hide my reliance on reason and evidence, I do not claim to be other than I am. Where is the dishonesty.

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

Describing how I view the world is a fallacy? Disagree all you like, but this is not called for by my replies.

But calling this an "Age of Science" and excluding all other meaning making tools strikes me as closed minded, triumphalist and, well, scientism.

There don't seem to be any other paths to objective knowledge, and subjective opinions do not lead to objective or universal meanings. I am open to you trying to present such a method(thus not close minded), but I really doubt you can. And subjective "meanings" are largely meaningless.

Besides, give the "Age of Science" a little time, the "Age of Superstition and Ignorance" lasted thousands of years. I have no doubt the Age of Science will last much, much longer and our descendents will look upon us as we look upon Ancient Humans, intelligent but backwards(knowledge wise), beset by superstitious non-sense and stumbling around in the dark trying to make sense of it all.

What might possibly follow this age?

I cannot conceive of anything replacing the scientific method as a means of gathering objective knowledge, but neither could those living several thousand years ago conceive of a paradigm that could replace religious dogma.

Fail.

Nope(he says while utilizing a machine not even conceived of just decades before now). Like the discovery and ability to utilize fire separated man from being just another animal(a sign post, not a cause), science will forever change man in the future. They will look at your religious beliefs like we see the lexicons of Greek or Egyptian gods, quaint but deeply flawed and false.

I use the pejorative in this specific contect because I consider the reduction of art to engineering, or the conflation of the two, to be an obscenity. A kind of orwellian nightmare.

There is no reduction at all, just insight into the science behind it ala DeVinci. Music is probably the easiest to see the math in, notes have a rigid relationship that can be reduced to mathematical equations, That does not change the art of the music, it just helps us understand why certain relationships are pleasing, others not so much(say, the difference in scales of Western music and Japanese music). Chords, counterpoint, harmonies, rhythm, harmonics, acoustics and other aspects of music can be(and are)studied with scientific methods, add imagination and you have new art("Imagination applied to reality can create new, valid things").

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.

Of course scientism is an ideology, but at least it has a solid basis in reality. Religious thought(current or past)strikes me as arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin head. No one has shown any reason to think angels exist, or that they can dance, for that matter. And it is false to claim that anything religion does is not possible with science(aside from making unevidenced claims of supernatural entities).

Do you truly dismiss the best of the buddha and rumi because they didn't use a protractor?

Of course not, but it would be equally in error to say that the thoughts of Budda were uninformed by reality, by comparing his ideas with evidence of their efficacy as rules to live by(sociology). That is science.

Except that some forms of atheism do become ideology.

It is then Atheism +. It is more accurate to say some atheists(all actually)have ideologies. The word Atheism does not indicate any particular ideological beliefs and atheists disagree in their ideologies throughout a great range of beliefs(probably even more that theists). We are individuals who only share one attribute, a lack of belief in god(s), anything beyond that really has nothing to do with being an atheist.

And any form of committed unknowing is a faith. And hiding behind the empty set argument is insincere and not credible.

I'm sorry but this is rubbish! Not accepting unevidenced things is the only rational position to have and is scientifically supportable and valid. "I don't believe in your sky fairy" is the absolute truth, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

"Faith is believing in things you know just ain't so."

Samuel Clemens

Grumpy

[Atheologist]

Because the ACLU has shown itself to apply their selective bias to the lawsuits they file.

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

[Lux]

Again your hypocrisy is disgusting.

Moderator Warning

Refrain from personally attacking other users.

Also, refereing to other's beliefs and holy books as delusional, ignorant, pointless, etc. is not in keeping with the rules of this forum regarding civility and respect.

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. Comments about another poster that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

16. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

Please review the Forum rules.