Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[columbus]

should science be chosen over religion?

Religion and Science will not be in harmony any time in the foreseeable future.
This is because Science is about Reality. Not what people want to do or believe, but Reality.
Reality is about God.

Religion is not about Reality, it's about people and what they want to do and believe. It's about humans and their delusions.

Science is about God. Religion is about humans.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would claim that true science and religion are never in opposition with one another.

FYI, when people say things like this, I generally take it as "I refuse to even consider science that conflicts with my religion."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Reality is about God.

... unless God isn't real.

 

[Earthling]

#nPeace asserted that religion did experiments. I asked him for examples.
I don't know the first thing about auto mechanics or fractional reserve banking, so can't help you. Anyway, neither of them claim to be sciences,

True, but neither does religion. I interpreted @nPeace as meaning the faithful experiment with religious possibilities just as science, or anyone investigating any possibility, would. I think the scientific method is sometimes given an almost dogmatic significance, as if experimentation were exclusive to the methodology, or it is more significant than it actually is. This is also true of other terms like "Peer Review" and "Evidence."

 

[Earthling]

FYI, when people say things like this, I generally take it as "I refuse to even consider science that conflicts with my religion."

Would you consider a religion that conflicts with science?

 

[Altfish]

True, but neither does religion. I interpreted @nPeace as meaning the faithful experiment with religious possibilities just as science, or anyone investigating any possibility, would. I think the scientific method is sometimes given an almost dogmatic significance, as if experimentation were exclusive to the methodology, or it is more significant than it actually is. This is also true of other terms like "Peer Review" and "Evidence."

Perhaps nPeace could clarify because that's not how I understood it.
The scientific method works, call it dogmatic if you like but it is more systematic and that ensures uniformity and accuracy. Peer review is just discussion and argument.

 

[columbus]

... unless God isn't real.

God, defined as "the reason that there is something, rather than nothing." is undeniably real.

God, defined as "ineffable sentient being with superpowers", not so much.
Tom

 

[Into the Night]

Yet you are happily happy to use the results of "godless science" to complain about godless science. Do you honestly think the quantum technology that is a requirement of every single semiconductor device would be around in a easily useable form without "godless science"

Science is apparent in most of everyday life, easy so see if not blinkered.

I am wondering, do you take medication when you are ill? Developed by "godless science".

Do you drive a car? Materials and fuel developed by "godless science"

Do you have central heating in your home? Again, the fuel, and the electronic control system would not exist without "godless science"

Have you travelled by plane. Modern avionics, computers, wing design, and fuel all results of "godless science"

Is the food you eat healthy?

Is the water you drink clean?

Do you listen to the radio, watch TV, talk to your friends on the phone.?

Read whatever holy book you favour?

It is so "telling" that some modern day people dis science when they have no clue how science makes their lives so much easier, more convenient, healthier .

Without "science" we would be living in the pre industrial age with an average lifespan of around 30 to 35 years.

You should be thanking your god and prophet for '''godless science"

Science isn't godless. It's agnostic. It simply doesn't address the matter. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
There are scientists of all religions, including atheism, but science isn't any scientist or group of scientists. It's just the falsifiable theories themselves.

 

[Into the Night]

What happened 200 years ago was that this planet started to become very very dirty.

Earth's crust is dirt and rock. It's dirty.

 

[Into the Night]

Religion and Science will not be in harmony any time in the foreseeable future.
This is because Science is about Reality. Not what people want to do or believe, but Reality.
Reality is about God.

Religion is not about Reality, it's about people and what they want to do and believe. It's about humans and their delusions.

Science is about God. Religion is about humans.
Tom

This gets into what 'real' actually means. What is 'real' to you is not 'real' to another. You should look into that branch of philosophy known as 'phenomenology'.

 

[ChristineM]

Science isn't godless. It's agnostic. It simply doesn't address the matter. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
There are scientists of all religions, including atheism, but science isn't any scientist or group of scientists. It's just the falsifiable theories themselves.

That is not my wording i was quoting @Tony Bristow-Stagg

If you dont like the word godless take it up with him.

 

[sealchan]

Don't care. The point is it was wrong, or it is now wrong. Can't have it both ways. Stop teaching bull**** to kids in school like its fact and they're stupid if they don't buy it. Stop saying **** about God when you don't know what the **** you are talking about. Sort out Pluto and then maybe you can learn colors, and then maybe God. As long as you don't want to teach that in school and **** it up like you did Pluto and monkeys turning into people.

This, to me, is precisely what is wrong with religion and what is so right about science. To even think that science was ever arrogantly confident that anything is anything is to be playing in the wrong league of confidence about knowledge from that of science.

The confidence to change one's mind about one's understanding of a trustworthy ladder even while standing on it is what science does and religion rarely achieves.

 

[Into the Night]

Theoretically, yes, but in actuality your Constitution was created only to give you the illusion of freedom. Link.

Joe Bidden couldn't have written the Patriot Act expecting it to come into effect, with a constitution.



Very well said, I agree completely. But I don't care. I don't care if Evolution or Creation is taught in public schools because I think that anyone with a mind of their own knows that the [expletive] taught therein is government sponsored propaganda designed to dumb down the citizenry, and quite effective as such. I would prefer them not to teach Creationism because they would [expletive] it up just as the Creationists have.

I don't think that was our argument, but again, I don't care. I don't remember what our argument was, if there was one. It doesn't matter. You've presented such an interesting post, gasping for a breath of fresh air in this regard, whatever argument we might have had has slipped my mind, and for that, I thank you.

Since this is a religious forum in general and a thread about science and religion, I will limit my response to your comment about government. It is off topic.

A constitution is only as good as the owners that created that contract. The States own the U.S. Constitution. It is up to the States to enforce it. I agree the federal government regularly exceeds its authority. The further away from the constitution that defines it, however, the closer the nation moves to civil war. It is a very dangerous game they are playing. Here I end any further response concerning government.

Heh. Since you found the post interesting and it managed to distract you from a conversation you were having, I'll take that as a 'thank you'.

 

[Into the Night]

So, no examples as I requested.
Yes, science can be wrong. BUT it is peer reviewed and other scientists discover the mistakes.
Please give me an example of experimentation in religion

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Consensus is not used in science. Peer review is just a form of consensus. There is no elite voting bloc in science. No one votes on a theory.

Peer review is used by publishers. If you want to publish in a 'science' magazine, you submit your thesis to their editorial staff for review. That's all peer review is. Nothing about science requires you to publish in a magazine, book, or any other media. Nothing about science requires you to publish at all. Indeed, a fair bit of it occurs in private industry and is kept secret by that company. Other scientists simply post on the Internet. Others just write their own book and publish it themselves.

Peer review is not a required aspect of science.

 

[Into the Night]

All the idea of a creator is doing is filling gaps in knowledge. Some people are content to say, "I dont know, and given current technology the chances of knowing are close to zero"

Then there are others who say "i done know .i dont like not knowing so god must have done it"

There is actually more evidence for creation of the universe by natural caused than there is for any god.

There is no need for a creator so why make the assumption that the universe was created by an imaginary magic being?

Supporting evidence means very little. It can be assigned to support almost any conflicting view.

The supporting evidence of the Theory of Creation? Life itself.
The supporting evidence of the Theory of Abiogenesis? Life itself.
Yet these two theories are mutually exclusive.

The supporting evidence of the Theory of the Big Bang? The bit of the Universe that we see.
The supporting evidence of the Theory of the Continuum? The bit of the Universe that we see.
Yet these two theories are also mutually exclusive.

We really have no idea if the Universe ever 'began' or if its always been there and always will be.
We really have no idea if life came to Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence or if it came to Earth as the result of a series of random unspecified events acting on non-biological materials.

There is simply no proof either way. There is no falsifiable theory about it either way either. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not speculations about the past. Science has no theories about past unobserved events.

 

[Altfish]

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Consensus is not used in science. Peer review is just a form of consensus. There is no elite voting bloc in science. No one votes on a theory.

Peer review is used by publishers. If you want to publish in a 'science' magazine, you submit your thesis to their editorial staff for review. That's all peer review is. Nothing about science requires you to publish in a magazine, book, or any other media. Nothing about science requires you to publish at all. Indeed, a fair bit of it occurs in private industry and is kept secret by that company. Other scientists simply post on the Internet. Others just write their own book and publish it themselves.

Peer review is not a required aspect of science.

If you don't publish your hypothesis sinks without trace. If you are saying that commercial companies keep their research secret then yes they do. It is a huge problem particularly in pharmaceutical industry.
The likes of Michael Behe also fail to publish in even semi scientific journals

 

[Into the Night]

#nPeace asserted that religion did experiments. I asked him for examples.
I don't know the first thing about auto mechanics or fractional reserve banking, so can't help you. Anyway, neither of them claim to be sciences,

The theory behind the metering of gasoline was developed through chemistry. Today, that theory has allowed us to engineer a much more efficient burn of fuel in today's cars, increasing their mileage.
The theory behind fractional reserve banking was developed long before the Fed. Those experiments were performed by various banks upon their local town. Turns out that most people just save and actually pay their loans, leaving the bank to loan out more money than it actually has knowing that enough of the loans will be repaid to keep the depositors trusting the bank to obtain their money when they wanted it.

This experiment failed. Fractional reserve banking causes bankruptcy of the bank itself. The same is true of the Fed.

 

[Into the Night]

If you don't publish your hypothesis sinks without trace. If you are saying that commercial companies keep their research secret then yes they do. It is a huge problem particularly in pharmaceutical industry.
The likes of Michael Behe also fail to publish in even semi scientific journals

Not at all. Privately funded science regularly doesn't publish. It would 'give away the farm', so to speak. Yet the engineering that comes out of those theories produces the products you buy.

There is no problem in the pharmaceutical industry. Science is not concerned with price. Engineering and marketing are. Price is set by market forces. Any attempt to introduce price controls always fails.

 

[ChristineM]

Supporting evidence means very little. It can be assigned to support almost any conflicting view.

The supporting evidence of the Theory of Creation? Life itself.
The supporting evidence of the Theory of Abiogenesis? Life itself.
Yet these two theories are mutually exclusive.

The supporting evidence of the Theory of the Big Bang? The bit of the Universe that we see.
The supporting evidence of the Theory of the Continuum? The bit of the Universe that we see.
Yet these two theories are also mutually exclusive.

We really have no idea if the Universe ever 'began' or if its always been there and always will be.
We really have no idea if life came to Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence or if it came to Earth as the result of a series of random unspecified events acting on non-biological materials.

There is simply no proof either way. There is no falsifiable theory about it either way either. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not speculations about the past. Science has no theories about past unobserved events.

Nope, life is not evidence for the guess (it is not a theory) of creation. It is just a convenient tool to fill in gaps in god magic.

I suggest you learn a little cosmology, consider the hubble diagram

BTW. Just a heads up RF is far less tolerant of spam than the forum you usually frequent.

 

[Earthling]

Perhaps nPeace could clarify because that's not how I understood it.

Yes, of course, I can't speak on behalf of @nPeace, it was just my take on it up for your consideration.

The scientific method works, call it dogmatic if you like but it is more systematic and that ensures uniformity and accuracy. Peer review is just discussion and argument.

Oh, I know it works, and like you say peer review is just discussion and argument. The trouble is when people tend to imply that these methods are, like I said, more significant than they are. For example, that science is ultimate truth, or fact, because it is peer reviewed, experimentation etc.