Are science and religion incompatible?

We'll get to this. In many ways you are.



Clearly such knowledge removes power from the ruling priesthood class. This is apparent throughout history. From the village priestess who dicates law, to church run governments, to official religons, history is replete with the masses being held down by such willful ignorance willed on us by those who would wish to stay in power.



You raise an interesting point; Should we remove the degrees of those who would purposely obstruct scientific theory and can be shown to be doing so? YES!



You have to realize that, when deconstructed, ID simply points to existing theories where scientists have not fully researched and at each point where that research is not complete or fully verified they say, "It must be designed/Irreducibly Complex/God did that". The fallacy in this is people, a long time ago, said the same thing about lightning, "Zeus did it!". To that end, providing theories that have no bona fida explanation as to cause or effect IS a bad thing, and would indeed hurt research if ID was considered to have more merit than the Zeus Lightning Causal Theory.



Newton work contains and has sound grounding in mathematics. It is even still useful for simpler/easier to understand physics models. Is it less accurate than Einstein? Sure. Is what we've developed better than what Einstein did, yes. This is how science works. However, Einstein didn't set out his theory because he thought Newton was 'wrong', that's not how science works. He provided a model for physics that worked better given the experiments, observations, and calculations he was able to make. The point being here that Newton's work wasn't wholly wrong (indeed gravity is pretty important). Nor have any Scientific Theories been held as absolute. The effect of Gravity for instance is a given and absolute. It's there. So is Evolution. There's no changing that. Point being that the theories change over time. ID proponents have posed no improvements or better theory than evolution. What's worse is that they contradict some basic chemical reactions by saying they can't happen without the interference of a designer, when they do.



I don't know what you're getting at, but I'm glad the 'Thor Causes Thunder Theory' got shot down. While some people may have been upset, I wouldn't call it hate or bigotry on the scientific community's part.



Technically, zero and dividing by such is undefinable and unknowable. As such the majority of our science and math includes the concept of "we don't know, we're not going there at this point in time". To that end, we don't replace undefined with defined on a whim because we find comfort in our religious beliefs, we do science.



This is pretty easy to explain and reproduce. Step 1: divide an atom. Step 2: Seperate resulting photons a given distance. Step 3: interact with 1 photon in the set and observe that the split atom's photons will all react. Now getting this to work on a consistent and commercial basis is entirely a separate matter (I mean, can you imagine a seperated photon-based internet??!@), as splitting atoms, what type of atom this works most reliably on, etc etc etc. science. As to the why or how it happens, I'm sure they're looking into it as the potential benefits would be pretty cool.



Because they're blatently not. "God did it" "It must be God" "It was the Lord's Plan" is never a scientific answer. No matter how hard the question. Also science is usually pretty good about coming together on a consensus. Religion has yet to do so or even pretend to make the attempt. Until they agree on a god, a set of Dogma, and a Codex of Morality From Which Taboo Shall Spring, religion has no basis telling science anything.

I almost loath to go into this because I agree at this point the question is not one of science and religion, but one of agendas and logical conclusions...

No, I was not discounting other religions at all. As a matter of fact, it all has to do with agendas, whether or not you are theist, non-theist, or atheist.

The question posed has nothing to do with this. Today, scientific studies include peer review, not the dark ages were a select few were even allowed to view the evidence.

I am assuming you are stating the same for those who do things not necessarily for religious purposes (or to disprove such), but also those who would try to bend the rules for monetary, authoritative, or influential gain? That will certainly disallow many of the academic field from doing further research.

You are assuming that because such is said that the search for a 'how' (not by who) is discontinued. I can't see this as the case since theist scientist are still doing just that.

Maybe I am confused. Are you saying that someone would take something they thought was correct and infallible and try to prove it was wrong? I am pretty sure that Einstein found that for some reason the observables in experimentation did not hold true to current theory and felt that Newton's theory was in fact wrong. If not, why would he look for a correct theory?

You seem to be lumping everything together here, just as you seem to lump all religions and religious scientist together (and seeming in the dark ages state of mind at that). I make no mistake in thinking that all proponents of any idea are right thinking, but then I do not lump all things together and judge them. It should be done on a per person / idea basis.

The effect of gravity as we know it certainly has changed though, even since Einsteins time. Then you have to mention that environmental effects change gravity. If you isolate something in a vacuum, you can make some pretty good assumptions. Take it out of a vacuum and into the real world (RL for those of you who are playing along), those assumptions often time fall appart, and it is back to sceintific study to find out why and what caused the change.

I am not sure to the exact charge you are making against ID, but I will assume you are correct since I have seen some not so sane claims by ID proponents. But I have seen the same type of statements come out of atheist scientists mouths to pound down a theist's ideas.

Are you honestly saying that there has never been bigotry aimed at the religious thoughts on science? Even empirically verified science? Do you think it odd that Newton was afraid to let the world know that he was very religious? Do you honestly think it was just fear from the religious?

That is absolutely not true. Sciences does it at every turn, as does mathematics. But, because I say that X is 'by the hand of God' does not change the fact that I still want to find out what X will do in situation Y. Because some one does not believe that X is 'by the hand of God' but by natural or unknown phenomena, does the stop the experiment? Absolutely not.

And many scientists are at this point guessing that this is proof that we have no idea of what we are really dealing with. The whole idea will open up a huge chunk of the scientific world that no one has seen before if we can find causation for such. At this point, you have to ask the question, what is connecting the two. If I say it theistic in nature and the try to find 'how' it happens, have you now disqualified any opion I might propose, even if experimentation and observation proved it out?

Man, I can almost feel venom coming from you. I am sorry that you have had such a bad experience with whatever form of theism you've dealt with.

Know this, not everyone who has faith in a deity is out to claim control of the world, nor are they content to sit in a corner with a book proclaiming they have all the answers.

All this being said, I do believe that the real problem has more to do with agenda and reasoning than comparing the actual science vs religion as has been stated previously.

You could have just suggested that they read the rest of the thread. :hrug::

Oh stop, you are making someone else work...

Edit---
And he had some points that I thought he was kind of off base on (man, that is a bazaar sentence)... But, that is me, and I should have shut up already, so I will shut up... For a moment...

I think that religion and science can be seen as very similar at times. They both rely on 'faith' to define knowledge, where knowledge is a belief that happens to be true. You can believe something. something can be true. It is only knowledge when you have both.

Religion, Philosophy and Imagination all give us the ability to think about things. Einstein was a (not very good patent clerk) who famously has quoted that the latter is more important than facts. All his work, much of it for a time being seen as mistaken - the constant for stopping the expanding universe for example, which is now prophetic given the issue of dark matter and dark energy - was done by sitting and thinking.

The Scientific Method gives us the technique for tracing down observation and belief and where possible combining them together. Or allowing us to realise that we have to throw one or other away and start again. I am going to generalise a bit now, but Science has not capitol T TRUTHs. Everything is assimilated or abandoned eventually as new and better fitting theories render then redundant. Religion, particularly the orthodox religions in the way they are expressed and understood by humans, has many absolute TRUTHs, and paradoxically, very relative truths; e.g. If you are not one of us, you are damned/expendible/a threat and so on. This socio-political spin is also in the science community. It's in everything human in fact.

This is where I think the incompatibility comes: Science argues it is seeking absolute truths, but realises it has to use best guesses toget there. Religion offers absolute truths, which are then resistant and vulnerable to methods that seek to refine and improve.

I am a pagan and a scientist. As a pagan, I am less reliant on absolutisms - it's part of being a pagan that all paths are valid and (in my own case at least) our symbols and models of the world are just ways to connect, but without the dogma of requiring absolute acceptance. It's why the old pagan kings were happy to convert to Christianity. It was just another belief system. for some this belies their experience and their religious teaching, which may be why people are contemptuous and suspicious of pagans. I wonder if it might be why some religious people are threatened by scientists?

Doc

I'm sure Kevn would feel better if there were other teachings in public schools, and I'm sure Ulrika would feel better if all religions disappeared tomorrow.

But - agendas? I don't think so. Rather, these things simply *make sense* to their proponents. That is more than enough for a conflict of ideas.

A quick, easy way of finding out would be to simply ask each other. Not all of us would bother to hide an agenda, I think.



Here is my agenda.

I hit a philosophical wall many years ago, and find the ideas of others to be tools for furthering my own personal search for understanding. That's my #1, other than simple enjoyment of a discussion of intelligent people.

My minor agenda - Dare I whisper the obvious: *someone* has to be wrong. Terribly wrong. 4/5ths of the globe, about 5 billion people - wrong, if you accept even one religion (or even atheism) to be correct. This speaks volumes about the accuracy of deep seated belief, and about ourselves. I want everyone to realise that, just once. Before they silence yet another voice not their own.


Lastly - I like to leave people with a good sense of just what it is that *they* believe.

It is easier to speak up if you don't believe in hell, a subservient role for womankind, or punishment for homosexuality. Yet if you respect many religions - if you *truly* respect the core words - you'll find a lot of clear, unambiguous statements on those topics. Atheism too, in a back-handed way: utter lack of purpose for all mankind is no fountainhead for altruism.


I accept the possibility that my values and beliefs are utterly, absolutely wrong.

Is there anyone else who dares accept such possibility too?

Desmond, while I certainly would like to go into this further with you, please don't bring yet another thread down... I truely do value other peoples thoughts, even if I don't agree with them, but I can see this start to get nasty... And it is way off-topic...

Yes. All scientists who are actually practising science.

Desmond. I KNOW that all my values and beliefs are at core utterly wrong. In the sense that if I open my eyes wide to comprehend it all, there is nothing but whiteness (or blackness which is the same). It is only as a I lower my metaphorical eyelids, and squint in a particular direction, making choices about what I see, that I create meaning and purpose and reality, and some things become true, some false.

To occupy this reality, here, and to have it substantially the same for both you and me, we each must focus in the same direction with gimlet like accuracy. All this talk about reality is about nothing more than the direction and narrowness of that communal focus. And all this talk about the spiritual is only about what you see intermediately during the process of widening out the focus towards the blankness of totality, and in closing it back down to where we stand. Like swivelling and refocussing a flashlight, moving from one state to the other can be done via a variety of tracks, each generating its own delicious flavors of delusion (religions?).

Tell me, I'm interested - does this make even the slightest sense to anyone? Or does it seem like I am raving ? It is an attempt to use metaphor to overcome the difficulties of language in this most difficult of all areas of communication. Does it achieve anything at all ?

Hmmmm....

Looking at it I can see it simply isn't good enough yet.

The truth is, "understanding it all" is an absolute doddle compared with "trying to communicate it". Witness the almost total failure at the latter task by the whole of humanity to date !

This flashlight/focus metaphor is one I've been developing for a little while, but it's definitely not much more yet than a work in progress. This is a rather crude extempore exposition, but it needs more work anyway.

All opinions very welcome. To me it is so obvious that I simply can't see it through your eyes. Like all loonies, I guess

In regards to any agenda....
My agenda is to discuss a topic that is interesting, and at the same time help lurkers feel more comfortables expressing their opinion without fear of being attacked.

While it's true I believe in a creator based on logical deduction, it's not my duty to convert people to any religion. In fact, I'm not religious at all. I'm not commited to any religion, and I don't attend any church (unless you count talking about God with my friends and family).

I have to admit I find it unfair schools have effectively kicked out one side of the debate and left only one side represented (Only disbelief in God is allowed to be explored, which is a religion).

It's my contention science should be taught as a method of exploring what is visible, admitting science isn't going to provide abosolute answers to anything, and that everything we know scientifically will most likely change over time.

In my opinion we should teach science to children in a way that encourages the exploration into the possibility of a creator. No particular religion need be discussed.

At this time children are being taught some things as scientic fact that are simply not fact at all. A few atheists have been able to remove any reference to a creator from text books because it offends them. They say seperation of church and state protects them.

The Bill Of Rights does not say there should be a seperation of church and state. The second amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;....." As long as schools teach ID from a neutral position (not suggesting it's fact or insisting it be believed) it's not an "establishment of religion." Therefore, the whole issue is moot, there is no problem talking about a generic creator according to the Constitution.

Ok, that's my opinion of my agenda in discussing these kind of topics.

You shouldn't be untrue to your own beliefs. When I used to discuss progressive issues with conservatives, I'd always prefix the discussion with a lie that I didn't lean one way or the other. It had the effect of undermining my credibility.

~Ulrika~

I think this is the nub of where so many others here disagree with you, Kevn.

You set up a symmetry here which they do believe to be false, and so do I.

I thought we had established here that science does not imply in any way a positive disbelief in god. That is indeed a "religion". But that is NOT science. Science is NOT in that sense a religion, and is not on an equal footing with belief in God. Creationism founded on belief in god is NOT therefore in any sense symmetrical with science, and should not be taught in schools on an equal footing.

Religion = unproved belief. Science rejects unproved belief (for now).

What we teach in school is the process of testing and proving hypotheses (potential beliefs), and constructing from them a consistent and interconnected structure of mutually compatible and testable beliefs (usually expressed as models and formulae) which are of value in predicting and controlling the material world.

This is a toolkit for interacting with the material world. It is a tool the children need for totally practical reasons. Yes, some of its hypotheses are less firmly established, and more up for review than others, but none of it is ABSOLUTE TRUTH. It is a set of interconnected and temporary hypotheses under constant review by a massive peer group, and with entirely practical intent related entirely to this material reality.

Most of the science which the high school kid will meet is so solid that it can almost be taught as fact, but a good teacher will make it clear that absoluteness is not actually what science is about.

Religion is something entirely different from this huge practical edifice, and must be taught separately if at all. I prefer not at all, as I think it is a purely personal matter of individual development, but I can see that for social engineering reasons, and for cultural indoctrination, and for those who will never have any moral or spiritual insight of their own, it may well be justifiable.

I clearly admitted I lean one way. Read it again, "While it's true I believe in a creator based on logical deduction, it's not my duty to convert people to any religion." In other threads I clearly stated I follow Christs teachings. Everything I said is true, I'm not religious, unless you consider trying to follow Christ's teachings religious. I haven't hidden my beliefs. The only thing I haven't done that Christ teaches in Mark 16:15 is to preach the gospel (good news) to everyone. The reason I don't preach is because I think the best preaching is done by example. Christ was an example that made people listen to His message. They followed Him up the mountain to hear the message of salvation,He didn't force Himself on anyone.

I don't attend any church and I don't care for organized religion. If you want to believe I am hiding my true beliefs that's your prerogative.

Firstly, with regard to your "Religion = unproved belief. Science rejects unproved belief (for now) " point, I must say, I think you might have not seen current textbooks. Science books are replete with refferences to unproven theories (such as abogenesis and the "Big
bang" as fact. I could go on, but those examples alone make the point.

Lastly, no one is suggesting we teach any religion. Exploring the possiblity of a creator isn't a religion.

I don't want my kid muddling his tool box with his mirror.
I don't want him gazing into his mirror too soon.
And I don't want someone else painting his face before he does so.

In another thread Kevn admitted that creationism is not science. So, I say: We should not teach unscientific theories in a science class.

Exploring the possibilty of a creator without being told it's real isn't painting anyone. It's allowing the child the right to explore all possibilties. Being open minded to other possibilities is a good thing. If one thinks religions are wrong for teaching in a box (that excludes anything not made by God) then they should also dislike non-religious people teaching in a box that refuses to look at other possibilities.

I did? I think I said it's a faith comparable to the faith of abiogenesis, which is regarded as science. Science is about exploring the World around us with the tools in hand. There are scientific ways to explore the possibility of a creator, and some scientists are currently looking for the answers that will lead us farther into that topic.

The answer for me is... YES -- and NO. But that's based on MY OWN theory of the universe, nobody else's

for me, the concept of "god" IS the equation

As covered, you are. Your particular brand of god disagrees with and discounts many other brands or types of gods or ultimate beings or creaters or fonts from which the universe and afterlife or nirvana come forth. To put it in more scientific terms, you would need a Unified Theory of God that not only covers everything, but is acceptable to everyone as far as theism goes.



The point I was making was religion does not include peer review on the scale science does. Thus it should have no input in the scientific process.



Regardless of theism or lack thereof, doing bad science is doing bad science. I disapprove of any particular person falsifying a study to push a drug, for instance, but this doesn't invalidate the overall field.



Okay now that we 'know' Thor is the cause of thunder, let us examine the 'how'. Hmm it must be his mighty hammer! I do hope you can see why this is bad science.



To effectively replace a scientific theory you don't prove it wrong, you prove your new theory right. You don't begin from the assumption that another theory is wrong, but merely that there is an additional way to explain the issue. If someone came out tomorrow with positive evidence for god (which in thousands of years there has been none), we would probably re-examine Newton's theory as it is more god supportive. What Einstein had as an impetus to research his theory was obviously some observation or other that didn't fit into Newton's no matter how hard he tried. However, I'd rather not speculate further on his actual motivations because that's all you're asking me to do here, speculate on his motivations. I don't, unfortunately, have any advanced degree in physics that might be required to explain exactly why. Sorry.



Mind you I made the distinction between bad scientists and good. You can be a religious scientist and still do good science. However when you begin inserting religion into science, you start becoming a bad scientist. Science doesn't mind being lumped together as a concept as it is durable to such. I have explained why religion is not.



Please provide evidence at the point of time when apples fell up or sideways or something to that effect? The observed effect of gravity has never changed. Our methods of describing it certainly have. But the effect itself has not. Unless you want to get into super particles and big bang scenarios, but that's extremely complex stuff that I don't think you were talking about. The rest of what you're talking about is also about the method by which we describe what is happening that always happens. Even if our particular model of desription for it changes, it doesn't mean the fundamental aspects of the universe change because our understanding of science did. As an example, back when we thought the earth was the center of the universe and switched to the 'sun is the center' model, it didn't just suddenly fling us around to be so. It was always that way, our own perspective just shifted.



Bad ideas can come from all corners, however, the charge made against ID is it's just a 'Shiva did it' theory that seeks to put God wherever scientists currently have "insert theory here" in the grand make up of science. This is bad because people are trying to develop real theories for those "insert theory here" spots.



Are you honestly saying there is empirically verified proof of a god(s)? Again, I wouldn't call good criticism of bad science 'bigotry'. I suppose you can if you want, but it's not going to affect science. Honestly, I have not read a good bio of Newton in a long time. I can't comment on if he was religiously persecuted or even if he was afraid.



What do you do when you find out X is 2 and you had X equal to God a few minutes ago? The problem with putting God into formula is that often there are ways to solve formula for a particular variable or will be at some point in the future. Now I've put forth several times that you must define and unify all god/gods/theist concepts into one concept if you want to use it as a catchall. The reason for this is that science defines things and a vague and undefined god would not stand under this scrutiny. You'll find most scientists are ambivalent, or don't really care, whether or not there is a god. They just want some evidence or good definitions before they start using it in formula or theories.



Finding new modalities in science is very good as it gives new lines of research instead of rehashing old ones. I wouldn't say a theist needs to jump in immediately and propose god and that's that before anyone can come up with something reasonable. Often throughout scientific history exactly that has happened. Some theist jumps in and says god did it, and scientists shrug and look at their navels for the next hundred years. Then the next generation of scientists look at the wasted time and have a collected 'wtf moment'. The thing to realize is many people will jump right on your bandwagon because tenur, retirement, and a lifetime of pointless research is comforting to some people. Whether they're doing good science or not, they're still going to get paid the same. If they know at the outset that they'll never find the definition of god, then they're assured an entire career. They could even get into the media if they make a bold enough claim with some pseudoscience backing it up. Now all that said, if you actually set out with a decent theory, definition (good luck), and set of experiments to prove some theistic hypothesis and you did? Certainly, everyone would support you. Even me. No GOOD scientist would contest you if you had done good science. That's the point. Do good science.



I apologize if it seemed my venom was directed AT theism. I intended it to be directed at both bad scientists and people who abuse their positions of authority to direct science in a particular way irrespective of the science. So it's not the theism or the theists, it's the people who use their theism (or others' theism) to support bad science.

My mistake, I took your lack of response to my post as assent.



I provided commentary that showed that existing theories of abiogenesis meet the criteria of a scientific theory. You did not show that any existing theories of ID meet the criteria of a scientific theory.

For reference:


with regard to faith and abiogenesis...

This is a bit like the "strawman" tactic, Kevn. I know nothing of textbooks that misrepresent science as absolute fact, and totally disapprove if they do so except in limited situations.

Textbooks for children must be simplified, and cannot continually underline that science is about evidence and goodness of fit to experiment. But even they should make this clear as a general principle (introductory chapters?)

Most of what is taught to children is likely to be the simple well established stuff. Deep within the scientific structure. In these cases, talking of "facts" is perfectly ok. This stuff is the closest thing to "fact" that we have, and indeed is probably the only sane meaning for the word.

If kids are taught cutting-edge stuff, where the hypotheses are still fluid, and the evidence less well established, then the word "fact" should be more carefully qualified, and the true nature of the scientific process should be emphasized again.

If this is indeed being neglected, Kevn, then you do have cause for complaint.But we would have to examine actual textbooks to see if these qualifications are truly inadequate, or if the opponents decline to notice them. Though I wouldn't be that surprised if you are right, if things are degenerating to warfare.

On your specifics:

As I understand it the mathematical modelling for the big bang takes us back to within microseconds of the mysterious event, with superb observational fit. If this is the case, then it meets the most stringent test for provability, and can fairly be taught, provided it is correctly represented - as a model fitting so well that it is almost (but not quite) inescapable to conclude that it is what actually happened.

Abiogenesis. I don't know much about this, but I believe that actual organic and protein-like substances have been seen to form given the right non-organic environment. Also that the right organic precursors have been found in abundance in virgin cometary material. If this is the case, then the evidence is stacking up, and it is fair to report this buildup of probability to the young enquiring mind.

One can see that these two continuing areas of investigation are of interest to both the opponents and proponents of conventional religions, and may even be hijacked by those engaging as warriors on either side. This does not invalidate them. It does not rule them out from rational discourse. It is an unfortunate consequence, but must be ignored by the rational amongst us.

Yes, me too. I am simultaneously obsessively rational and the total opposite. But I know when each is appropriate. It's all a matter of changing focus.........

Did I bring a thread down!? I thought I was a mere mouse-peep in the discussions over the past week or so.


We should all be able to express ourselves without fear, and in an atmosphere of tolerance. This is at the core of the culture, and terms of residency within Second Life.

It is a good policy and not oxymoronic, unless it means we must all be tolerant of those espousing intolerant views.

Can we tackle sensitive issues here? My impression: yes. If no one is 'bashed', if no one is driven from the table by ridicule, intimidation or subterfuge.

...

Incidentally Ellie, yours is a fascinating view and I think I am getting an idea where you are coming from.

Not sure if I reach the same conclusions, but there are some stunning parallels between your conclusions regarding a paradox requirement for existence, and the 'illusion' of consciousness that the atheists sometimes discuss when speaking of what others call the soul.

I smell something interesting down this path - the concept of denying certain things to ourselves, in order for everything else to make sense. Almost like trying to define the border of the 'self'. Sometimes my 'self' fills my skin, sometimes it expands to all my doings of the day, sometimes it is a tiny speck in a great void.

It would be interesting to know where various people of various beliefs defined the border of the self. You are the first person I've ever encountered, who intellectually at least has no border at all.

- Desmond Shang