• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who forbade to mix Religion and Science?

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
Good response! But I honestly think if we assume that there exists a God that is capable of creating a universe that is so unbelievably vast and beyond human comprehension it is incredibly presumptuous to think that we might have any perception of why God might have done this or that or anything...science does not presume to answer the why question about realities that, for all we can possibly imagine, just are...there is no why? in science - there's only how, and science knows its limitations - even if scientists (or at least some of them) don't. Whether or not a God actually exists, humans are a very, very long way from having a clear view of the big picture. That's what I meant. And religions (or at least some of them) do presume to know what that big picture is. How could they possibly know "why God..." without shrinking an incomprehensibly powerful and wise deity down to the size of the human intellect? That surely is presumptuous. Isn't it?

Well, not if one believes that God actually tells us stuff like this. You know, why He made it, what we need to do to be good people...

I think that it would be presumptuous of us to decide that He could, and would, not communicate those things.

Of course, that does raise many questions, but basically, most religions do have some hint/belief that God actually tells us things.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Are you challenging gravity or free will or Bible inerrancy????
The attempt to heal the old separation
between heart (faith) and mind (science).
Everyone has the right to choose.
But not a sinful choice! The God
of the Bible cursed those who chose
sin! Freedom is defined as action
within God's laws. That is why even ordinary
criminals are not free, but instead sit in prisons.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It's not about the merits of science vs. religion.

It is also about the lack of merits of either, as well as about how fallacious it is to talk of "religion" as a whole.

But above all, it is about how unbelievably silly and insane it is to even consider presenting "religion" as a challenge or "necessary balance" for science.

Far too often "religion" is used as code for "license to be irrational and expect to get away with it".

We really should not suffer that anymore. All the more so if we happen to value religion, as I do.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
....????
Of course it does. "Science" (defined here as a system of opinion/belief that does not include religious/theistic based explanations for anything) and religion (or 'supernatural' 'mythology' or 'faith') both attempt to answer the same questions.


It's just that you like the one and disparage the other.

As for 'faith,' the scientific method works with faith all the time. Sheesh.

"Faith,' means 'trust.'

"Science" works on probabilities...which requires faith. There is very, very little absolute knowledge out there, and scientists will be the first to tell you that.


As for 'mythology,' I do wish you would actually work with the definitions that belong to the words. "Mythology" means, basically, 'creation stories" for the culture in which they occur. There is no requirement that mythology be false. In fact, most mythology, even if not scientifically factual, ends up being 'true,' in that it teaches morals and cultural ideals important to the group.

As for science not dealing with the supernatural....that's the biggest load of bunkum I've seen posted here yet. OF COURSE it deals with the 'supernatural.' The whole point of scientific learning and experimentation is to look at the unknown and make it 'known,' or understandable in terms of natural laws as presently accepted...or if that can't be done, to adjust our understanding of physical laws so that we can fold these events within them.

There is, IMO, no such thing as 'supernatural.' Only 'natural' things we don't know about yet.

To determine that 'science' is somehow too good, or too 'smart,' or whatever to LOOK at this stuff is to utterly stop learning.

I have no more patience for those 'scientists' who refuse to look at anything with so much as a hint of 'God did it' or "I dunno.." than I do with the young earth creationist flat earthers who refuse to look past Genesis.
[/QUOTE]

Folklorist Alan Dundes defines myth as a sacred narrative that explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form.

Dundes classified a sacred narrative as "a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture by explaining aspects of the natural world and delineating the psychological and social practices and ideals of a society".

Anthropologist Bruce Lincoln defines myth as "ideology in narrative form."
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The attempt to heal the old separation
between heart (faith) and mind (science).
Everyone has the right to choose.
But not a sinful choice! The God
of the Bible cursed those who chose
sin! Freedom is defined as action
within God's laws. That is why even ordinary
criminals are not free, but instead sit in prisons.


Until the seventeenth or eighteenth century, mythology was used to mean a moral, fable, allegory or a parable, or collection of traditional stories, understood to be false.

It came eventually to be applied to similar bodies of traditional stories among other polytheistic cultures around the world
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I guess no one understands sarcasm. But science makes some wierd claims that it can't prove. Just says they are the most likely based on observations.

We get sarcasm just fine. Creationists dont understand
self parody. Or no, they understand how to do it.
but they are dead serious!

Creos say such stupid things as your "sarcasm",
all the time!*

Hence "Poe's Law"

*should anyone think there is something too outlandish
for even a creo to say, well, we give you "flash frozen
mammoths" as a aby product of the 'flood", and, that
the extra water from said flood was wafted to Neptune
where it shines to this day as a warning beacon against,
yes, incoming rogue angels.
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
What is Scientism?

Excerpt:

Scientism of Today
Scientism today is alive and well, as evidenced by the statements of our celebrity scientists:

“The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” –Carl Sagan, Cosmos

“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” –Stephen Weinburg, The First Three Minutes

“We can be proud as a species because, having discovered that we are alone, we owe the gods very little.” –E.O. Wilson, Consilience

While these men are certainly entitled to their personal opinions and the freedom to express them, the fact that they make such bold claims in their popular science literature blurs the line between solid, evidence-based science, and rampant philosophical speculation.

Whether one agrees with the sentiments of these scientists or not, the result of these public pronouncements has served to alienate a large segment of American society.

And that is a serious problem, since scientific research relies heavily upon public support for its funding, and environmental policy is shaped by lawmakers who listen to their constituents.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, it would be wise to try a different approach.

Physicist Ian Hutchinson offers an insightful metaphor for the current controversies over science:

“The health of science is in fact jeopardized by scientism, not promoted by it. At the very least, scientism provokes a defensive, immunological, aggressive response from other intellectual communities, in return for its own arrogance and intellectual bullyism. It taints science itself by association.” (13)
 

Audie

Veteran Member
What is Scientism?

Excerpt:

Scientism of Today
Scientism today is alive and well, as evidenced by the statements of our celebrity scientists:

“The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” –Carl Sagan, Cosmos

“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” –Stephen Weinburg, The First Three Minutes

“We can be proud as a species because, having discovered that we are alone, we owe the gods very little.” –E.O. Wilson, Consilience

While these men are certainly entitled to their personal opinions and the freedom to express them, the fact that they make such bold claims in their popular science literature blurs the line between solid, evidence-based science, and rampant philosophical speculation.

Whether one agrees with the sentiments of these scientists or not, the result of these public pronouncements has served to alienate a large segment of American society.

And that is a serious problem, since scientific research relies heavily upon public support for its funding, and environmental policy is shaped by lawmakers who listen to their constituents.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, it would be wise to try a different approach.

Physicist Ian Hutchinson offers an insightful metaphor for the current controversies over science:

“The health of science is in fact jeopardized by scientism, not promoted by it. At the very least, scientism provokes a defensive, immunological, aggressive response from other intellectual communities, in return for its own arrogance and intellectual bullyism. It taints science itself by association.” (13)


I do not doubt that "scientism' does exist; there
is no end to human silliness.
It is though, imo, wildly overdiagnosed, as by one
of out posters who claims it is allover RF, yet he
will not (cannot) id any specifics.

As for what Sagan said, you can take it as
"scientism" if you are determined to. To me, it
reads in more awkward prose as, "the sum of
all there is or could be is called the cosmos."

Sorry, but I also fail to detect "scientism" in the
other quotes either.

"We owe the gods" a saving rain for crops,
a typhoon to repel the Mongols, a son in the
family, recovery from snakebite?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I do not doubt that "scientism' does exist; there
is no end to human silliness.
It is though, imo, wildly overdiagnosed, as by one
of out posters who claims it is allover RF, yet he
will not (cannot) id any specifics.

As for what Sagan said, you can take it as
"scientism" if you are determined to. To me, it
reads in more awkward prose as, "the sum of
all there is or could be is called the cosmos."

Sorry, but I also fail to detect "scientism" in the
other quotes either.

"We owe the gods" a saving rain for crops,
a typhoon to repel the Mongols, a son in the
family, recovery from snakebite?

Perhaps those aren't the best examples.

What is the goal of education? Is it to pass knowledge down to the next generation?

Scientism is an accusation to denigrate science and scientists.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Is a degree required to obtain knowledge?

We do not require degrees to do anything. They are not
capable of doing anything.



Now of course what you meant to ask
was whether one must have a degree in
order to be able to "obtain" knowledge.

Of course, the answer to said rhetorical
question is no, and that the q was irrelevant
and pointless.

When one such as the opster posts about
his grand knowledge exceeding that of anyone
else, it is not inappropriate to ask about his
formal education.
The storied Einstein did have a solid educational
background, after all.

What we have with the op is the equivalent of a
7 yr old seeing a chalkboard covered with equations
who says it is all fake, and dumb.

"What degrees in math do you hold, boy?"
would
be an appropriate question.

The creationist-style answer from out clever child
would be-
Why? Coz math is done with numbers, and those are just
squiggles!!


Oh and btw... you need to money, to make money and
you need education to obtain an education.

If you do not believe me-

Go sit in on a 400 level chemistry class and
see how much you get out of it! :D
 

sooda

Veteran Member
We do not require degrees to do anything. They are not
capable of doing anything.



Now of course what you meant to ask
was whether one must have a degree in
order to be able to "obtain" knowledge.

Of course, the answer to said rhetorical
question is no, and that the q was irrelevant
and pointless.

When one such as the opster posts about
his grand knowledge exceeding that of anyone
else, it is not inappropriate to ask about his
formal education.
The storied Einstein did have a solid educational
background, after all.

What we have with the op is the equivalent of a
7 yr old seeing a chalkboard covered with equations
who says it is all fake, and dumb.

"What degrees in math do you hold, boy?"
would
be an appropriate question.

The creationist-style answer from out clever child
would be-
Why? Coz math is done with numbers, and those are just
squiggles!!


Oh and btw... you need to money, to make money and
you need education to obtain an education.

If you do not believe me-

Go sit in on a 400 level chemistry class and
see how much you get out of it! :D


Soon every crackpot theory that had adherents enough to start a lobby would have to be included. Here's a probable list:

  1. Astrology would be granted equal time with astronomy.
  2. Pyramid power would be matched side-by-side with modern physics.
  3. Divining rod technology would be taken seriously for the benefit of future oil geologists and hydraulic engineers.
  4. The toxemia theory and Christian Science "negative thinking" theory of disease would get equal time with the germ theory.
  5. The flat earth theory would get equal mention with the space program.
Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught As Science
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Newton's Theory, and therefore Einstein's Theory (as the successor of Newton) is fundamentally wrong, because they do not describe the movement of bodies in space. It is necessary to know at least something about Dark Matter and Dark Energy. However, Dark Energy and Dark Matter still contain neither energy as such nor matter. So should Newton have introduced the function of God into the laws?

Science, such as cosmology, does include religion, but it is not called this. For example, dark matter and dark energy are inferred from large scale affects we observe within the universe. However, neither dark energy or dark matter have been proven to be real in the lab. Cosmology is still using an invisible and unproven set of godlike forces, that cannot be proven in the lab, to animate the heavens. Atheism conveniently does not call this a form of religion, even though the principles of science specifically require proof in the lab.

If I attributed the same observational movement of the matter of the universe, not to dark matter and dark energy, but to the breath of God, but I could not show God's breath in the lab, atheism would react differently to the exact same scenario of no lab proof. They do not like strange gods before their gods. They will play by dual standards. If this was pure science, the dark energy and dark natter would be expelled, until lab proof appears. But faith in a foreign god makes this hard to do; selective gods.

In terms of Einstein theories of Relativity, this theory has more of a connection to our visual observation field, than to tangible matter. Newton's theory dealt more with tangible matter. Getting hit in the head with an apple is different from observing the apple at the top of the tree that you cannot reach.

Let me give a simple example of the contrast. If you look at a large mass objective such as a star, General relativity; GR, which deals with gravity, has space-time contracted the most in the center of gravity. Time slows the most in the center of gravity. This is basic. If we ignore the matter and draw a space-time grid this is how the math adds up.

spacetime.jpg


On the hand, the core of a star is where solar fusion occurs. This is the place where gravity causes matter to compress, phase change, and vibrate the fastest. It is also where energy emissions have the fastest frequency; gamma rays. The matter and energy in the center, is actually speeding up due to gravity; to faster frequency, even though Einstein GR says times should be slowing in terms of space-time. Time is not coordinating properly between the vibrational nature of matter, and a visual overlay grid model of space-time. They go in opposite directions.

The core of the earth is supposedly made of solid metallic iron. However, the core of the earth is so hot that the iron should be a liquid. The pressure is causing the iron to remain a solid. At the level of distance, GR, says distance will contract, while Newtonian predicts the same thing; denser matter. Newtonian assumptions are better at inferring detailed analysis of district material phases.

Although both theories have distance going in the same direction, time is going in the opposite for each theory. This implies two independent time vectors. Relativity and Newtonian each uses one of the two time vectors. Einstein found the second. The two time vectors, could have been inferred from Newtonian acceleration, due to gravity, which has dimensions of d/t/t or is one part distance and two parts time. Relativity needs a Newtonian time vector upgrade to get the second time vector. This way science can eliminate some observational faith based gods.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Perhaps those aren't the best examples.

What is the goal of education? Is it to pass knowledge down to the next generation?

Scientism is an accusation to denigrate science and scientists.

As noted it is real hard to find any examples.

Education has a number of goals, but that is OT.

In the absence of any sufficient knowledge of science
in general, or of course "evolution" specifically, our
anti science types concoct various issues and
terms to use.

I am well aware of the use of the word "scientism"
as a pejorative. I was a bit surprised to see you
joining in.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Science, such as cosmology, does include religion, but it is not called this. For example, dark matter and dark energy are inferred from large scale affects we observe within the universe. However, neither dark energy or dark matter have been proven to be real in the lab. Cosmology is still using an invisible and unproven set of godlike forces, that cannot be proven in the lab, to animate the heavens. Atheism conveniently does not call this a form of religion, even though the principles of science specifically require proof in the lab.

If I attributed the same observational movement of the matter of the universe, not to dark matter and dark energy, but to the breath of God, but I could not show God's breath in the lab, atheism would react differently to the exact same scenario of no lab proof. They do not like strange gods before their gods. They will play by dual standards. If this was pure science, the dark energy and dark natter would be expelled, until lab proof appears. But faith in a foreign god makes this hard to do; selective gods.

In terms of Einstein theories of Relativity, this theory has more of a connection to our visual observation field, than to tangible matter. Newton's theory dealt more with tangible matter. Getting hit in the head with an apple is different from observing the apple at the top of the tree that you cannot reach.

Let me give a simple example of the contrast. If you look at a large mass objective such as a star, General relativity; GR, which deals with gravity, has space-time contracted the most in the center of gravity. Time slows the most in the center of gravity. This is basic. If we ignore the matter and draw a space-time grid this is how the math adds up.

spacetime.jpg


On the hand, the core of a star is where solar fusion occurs. This is the place where gravity causes matter to compress, phase change, and vibrate the fastest. It is also where energy emissions have the fastest frequency; gamma rays. The matter and energy in the center, is actually speeding up due to gravity; to faster frequency, even though Einstein GR says times should be slowing in terms of space-time. Time is not coordinating properly between the vibrational nature of matter, and a visual overlay grid model of space-time. They go in opposite directions.

The core of the earth is supposedly made of solid metallic iron. However, the core of the earth is so hot that the iron should be a liquid. The pressure is causing the iron to remain a solid. At the level of distance GR; says distance contraction and Newtonian predict the same thing; denser matter. Newtonian assumptions are better at inferring any detailed analysis of district material phases.

Although both theories have distance going in the same direction, time is going in the opposite for each theory. This implies two independent time vectors. Relativity and Newtonian each uses one time vector. The two time vectors, could have been inferred from Newtonian acceleration, due to gravity, which has dimensions of d/t/t or is one part distance and two parts time. Relativity needs a Newtonian upgrade to get the second time vector. This way science can eliminate some observational faith based gods.

We do not doubt for a moment that you believe
cosmology involves god / religion.
It is what believers do; they believe things.
And of course, they see "god" everywhere.

Example:
Autumn, strolling across campus with another girl.
A nice leaf flutters to our feet, she picks it up.
"Look", she says "It is a Sign from God, the three
parts represent the Trinity!"
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Many self-educated people miss the point completely..

They don't understand the underlying legal theory.

They could have 100 hours in Scofield, or Hal Lindsey or Time Lahaye and never know about the Book of Revelation..

You know.. garbage in --- garbage out.
Aren´t we a bit patronizing now?

The advantage of being self-educated is the possibility to think freely and out of the squared boxes of consensus dogmatism and find new solutions.

Long long before any of the modern scientific education system, all knowledge was based on personal philosophical thoughts and empirical observations and inspirations.

In some scientific branches, for instants the subject of "cosmology" and it´s different theories, the scientists don´t understand what´s really going on. Which don´t hinder the scientists to add much speculative "garbage in and garbage out".
 

sooda

Veteran Member
As noted it is real hard to find any examples.

Education has a number of goals, but that is OT.

In the absence of any sufficient knowledge of science
in general, or of course "evolution" specifically, our
anti science types concoct various issues and
terms to use.

I am well aware of the use of the word "scientism"
as a pejorative. I was a bit surprised to see you
joining in.

To take a look at what scientism means?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Aren´t we a bit patronizing now?

The advantage of being self-educated is the possibility to think freely and out of the squared boxes of consensus dogmatism and find new solutions.

Long long before any of the modern scientific education system, all knowledge was based on personal philosophical thoughts and empirical observations and inspirations.

In some scientific branches, for instants the subject of "cosmology" and it´s different theories, the scientists don´t understand what´s really going on. Which don´t hinder the scientists to add much speculative "garbage in and garbage out".

Up to about the 17 century anyway..


So, in the context of a basic education system that recognizes the existence of knowledge and a body of professionals who have a consensus on some subjects, the introduction of "scientific creationism" into the science classroom would only open a can-of-worms. Soon every crackpot theory that had adherents enough to start a lobby would have to be included. Here's a probable list:

  1. Astrology would be granted equal time with astronomy.
  2. Pyramid power would be matched side-by-side with modern physics.
  3. Divining rod technology would be taken seriously for the benefit of future oil geologists and hydraulic engineers.
  4. The toxemia theory and Christian Science "negative thinking" theory of disease would get equal time with the germ theory.
  5. The flat earth theory would get equal mention with the space program.
It would be easy to go on, but let's stop and detail this last one just to show how serious the issue really is and how similar the demands of these other theorists might be to those of the creationists.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
To take a look at what scientism means?

Um, you were finding fault in people as ones
displaying "scientism" and posting that it is
somehow a big problem.

Chimera, maybe, but big problem? Show me
an example, and lets see if it is.

One of our "philosophers" here sees scientism all over
RF. Do you?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Um, you were finding fault in people as ones
displaying "scientism" and posting that it is
somehow a big problem.

Chimera, maybe, but big problem? Show me
an example, and lets see if it is.

One of our "philosophers" here sees scientism all over
RF. Do you?

Scientism is defined as excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. Yes, I do see the scientism put down frequently on RF.
 
Top