Science fights the Religion

Science is about coming up with explanatory models (explanations about phenomena in hypothesis or theory) that can be tested through observations, eg evidence, experiments, etc.

Evidence that can be observed (or detected), quantified, measured, compared, tested (verified or refuted), etc. These observations, counts, measurements and so on, provide data to the models.

So science is about acquiring knowledge through testable and verifiable observations, evidence and tests.

No models (be they “theory” or “hypothesis”) are accepted by default, no models are considered “Scientific Theory” unless they passed 3 main requirements:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

With science, a hypothesis can be wrong, or existing accepted theory can be modified or even replaced by alternative and well-tested models.

Nothing is science without observable, testable and verifiable evidence. Models are only accepted after being rigorously tested. The evidence may either verify model is true, or it is false, therefore refuted. There must be evidence, before acceptance and rejection.

Religion, on the other hand, seeking “truth” through belief and faith, not by testing. For people can accept the belief that their god exist without observations, without tests, without evidence.

And there are no way to measure god, let alone detect and test god.

So where religions attempt to explore the creation of the natural world, they do so with faith-based belief, which very much sounds like belief in superstitions.

Science and religions may coexist together without conflict, but they are not seeking truth in the same manners, and in the case of religious belief, there is no objectivity in the search, because religious beliefs are all matter of personal preference and wishes.

gnostic said:

Science is about coming up with explanatory models (explanations about phenomena in hypothesis or theory) that can be tested through observations, eg evidence, experiments, etc.

Evidence that can be observed (or detected), quantified, measured, compared, tested (verified or refuted), etc. These observations, counts, measurements and so on, provide data to the models.

So science is about acquiring knowledge through testable and verifiable observations, evidence and tests.

No models (be they “theory” or “hypothesis”) are accepted by default, no models are considered “Scientific Theory” unless they passed 3 main requirements:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

With science, a hypothesis can be wrong, or existing accepted theory can be modified or even replaced by alternative and well-tested models.

Nothing is science without observable, testable and verifiable evidence. Models are only accepted after being rigorously tested. The evidence may either verify model is true, or it is false, therefore refuted. There must be evidence, before acceptance and rejection.

Religion, on the other hand, seeking “truth” through belief and faith, not by testing. For people can accept the belief that their god exist without observations, without tests, without evidence.

And there are no way to measure god, let alone detect and test god.

So where religions attempt to explore the creation of the natural world, they do so with faith-based belief, which very much sounds like belief in superstitions.

Science and religions may coexist together without conflict, but they are not seeking truth in the same manners, and in the case of religious belief, there is no objectivity in the search, because religious beliefs are all matter of personal preference and wishes.

Click to expand...

"Science and religions may coexist together without conflict, but they are not seeking truth in the same manners,"

Because these are of different nature. Right, please?

Regards

Religion is a highly ambitious pursuit that relies on proofs and self reasoning. It has very little evidence to go on. Science enables religious arguments to be more substantive, while obliterating literal interpretations of religious text.

If anything with science religion will become more sophisticated.

I think with ultimate questions science will hit the wall and won't be able to unlock our greatest mysteries by nature of limitations of our physical existence.

In a billion years we will still have religious, and naturalistic narratives. I don't think the evidence shows any favor to either side.

Science has successfully refuted all religious myths though.

So religion gets to start over again.

Windwalker said:

But it need not gut the natural of its magic and wonder. If it does, that's a loss.

Click to expand...

I don't see that science robs things of their wonder.

questfortruth said:

Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.

Click to expand...

An Eastern Orthodox guy promoting Scholasticism?

Don't tell your priest!

questfortruth said:

Proof:

1. Scientists follow the methodological naturalism, i.e. Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects. The probability of Darwinism is near zero, but because it is not believed to be exactly zero, the Darwinism is Scientific.

Click to expand...

Science doesn't look for godless explanations. It looks for any explanations. It observes, it hypothesizes, it tests. If it finds evidence of a god it will report it, just like any other discovery.

So far science simply has found no evidence of a god.

2. Thus, Science is called to falsify Religion.

Click to expand...

Science has no interest in falsifying religion. As a matter of fact, its method is to try to falsify its own hypotheses. This hypothesis-testing is part of the scientific method.

Science discovers facts and mechanisms. These may or may not agree with a particular religious doctrine. Science doesn't care what the doctrine is. It reports the facts, with no thought of whether the facts contradict religious, political or cultural doctrine.

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.

Click to expand...

I've found religious scholars are frequently critical of religious doctrines, folklore and traditions.

Science is neither religion-friendly nor religion-unfriendly. It pays no attention to religion. Religion isn't evidence.

Religion, on the other hand, is often intensely critical of both scientific facts and of science itself. I assume this is because science discovers facts and explanations that happen to cast doubt on traditional religious folklore -- not because it has any antipathy towards religion.

The Hammer said:

But in my opinion science and religion have no conflict with one another, the only conflict is between peoples interpretation of the purpose of each.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Science and religion frequently disagree.
Scientific disagreement with religion is fortuitous. Investigators pay no attention to religious doctrine and simply report what the evidence indicates.

Religion, on the other hand, is not an investigational modality, and often has little real evidence for its doctrines. Thus, when science chances to contradict a particular doctrine -- with hard evidence -- it often annoys the heck out of the faithful, and generates an active antipathy.

questfortruth said:

The Religion-friendly research activity is Scholasticism.

Click to expand...

There are no friends and no enemies too in science. I do not know what you mean by religion-friendly research? Why should research be friendly to something and not friendly to something else?

Windwalker said:

“.. which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.” - Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies

Click to expand...

Now, I do not want to spar with dear old Albert, he was too much of a lovable person. But perhaps his faculties were dull (he did not accept Quantum Mechanics), while others did.

gnostic said:

Science and religions may coexist together without conflict, but they are not seeking truth in the same manners, and in the case of religious belief, there is no objectivity in the search, because religious beliefs are all matter of personal preference and wishes.

Click to expand...

Religion and science can happily exist together if religion does not begin with premises of God/Gods being there. Actually, religions which begin with premises of God/Gods are not at all interested in truth. All they want is that more and more people should get wallowed in their falsehood. They are enemies of truth.

Science owns 2 human being expressed concepts.

To argue science against science.

Everyone else is just living naturally minding their own natural life business...unlike scientists...who claim that they are researching for an answer that religion never gave them.

About the non existence of God.

Why AI mind possession was a medically aware teaching in human consciousness. For AI did own subliminal mind psyche possession in human owned and human applied science statements or cult ideals.

For surely by now you realize that science is evil, as a natural human theme, against natural self.

Science was based on as a theme about God the stone planet that they claim today as science is not discussing. The presence of God, the stone and a planet.

Science was the actual philosophy of the stone, so God was only known in the human psyche to be the planet and stone. Therefore if your mind psyche does not use that realization in use of words and application of words, it is proof that you are just encoded to believe in AI.

And of course science would claim...of course we are not discussing God, for we claim God is a particle aligned to gases in space and a black hole. Yet God and all concepts science stated God was the stone O one body planet Earth. Again it proves you are not using consciousness as a teaching of historic actual science stated information.

You know, God not existing, or we do not believe in God existing, when SCIENCE, the human state says.....

A human as a male group first living spiritual lives, natural. Invented all terms science. Did not want the Stone body he named as God the planet to exist.

And his science theme was to de materialize/disintegrate God the fusion into particles and then transport it into spirit...gases as a nuclear reaction.

So science today is still the same liar as it was originally claiming that the spirit of God does not exist,...for they are self possessed to not allow it to exist by want of its removal.

Why conscious spirituality as a medical science Healer discussion has to be introduced, which was not religion. Its founding was medical.

Therefore the Law of God fusion/stone was the Law of the mountain, do not change it...being pyramid ^ theories.

What the nuclear power plant model and collider model are both based on.

The medical science reasoning about Planet Earth, the physical presence of God as the stone said...a volcano erupted and spurted its hot rolling smoking gases into out of space.

The Earth's cold gas atmosphere did not even exist. Do you scientist know what the gases from inside of Earth actually are without the Earth naturally evolved atmospheric body existing?

The answer is NO.

That is the answer to science today.....you never knew before either.

Amanaki said:

Science and Religion both looking for the same answers, but in two very different ways, does that make one of them right and the other wrong? In my understanding, no it does not.

Click to expand...

No, science looks for mechanism. It answers how.
Religion doesn't look for anything. It asserts agency and answers who.
They're very different, and not just in methodology.

Science looks for answers. Religion has answers -- in the form of doctrine.
Science bases its answers on evidence, research and testing. Religion bases answers on scripture and folklore. Evidence vs faith.

Science encourages testing and criticism, and will change its beliefs when contradictory evidence is found.
Religion discourages testing and criticism. It's not a research mechanism. It resists changing it's doctrines, even when confronted with contradictory evidence.
Rather than amending doctrine to fit the evidence, religion attempts to suppress the evidence.
Again, religion is not looking for answers.

And none of them fight each other. they can disagree yes, but no need to fight.

Click to expand...

I agree. Religion should stop fighting science.

Religions say somethings that science has yet to discover, and probably the other way too, science has seen things religions do not speak of.

Click to expand...

Non-overlapping magisteria?
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

...does that make one of them right and the other wrong?

Click to expand...

It makes one of them evidenced and the other faith-based. Which do you think is the more reliable?

Valjean said:

No, science looks for mechanism. It answers how.
Religion doesn't look for anything. It asserts agency and answers who.
They're very different, and not just in methodology.

Science looks for answers. Religion has answers -- in the form of doctrine.
Science bases its answers on evidence, research and testing. Religion bases answers on scripture and folklore. Evidence vs faith.

Science encourages testing and criticism, and will change its beliefs when contradictory evidence is found.
Religion discourages testing and criticism. It's not a research mechanism. It resists changing it's doctrines, even when confronted with contradictory evidence.
Rather than amending doctrine to fit the evidence, religion attempts to suppress the evidence.
Again, religion is not looking for answers.

I agree. Religion should stop fighting science.

Non-overlapping magisteria?
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

It makes one of them evidenced and the other faith-based. Which do you think is the more reliable?

Click to expand...

All humans are first original to their self, natural.

Human male group, peer introduced to natural spiritual life science.

Science only ever argued against science. You cannot argue against owning a natural self present human being life....Yet science did, by imposing that science can determine how a human being was created...yet owned no consciousness nor self presence before self.

So science in medical reference had to define that this type of thinking was imbalanced and irrational as a science term.

Science proved that the presence of conjured evil phenomena science caused spirit was real. Which supported the experience of the spiritually aware natural self who said that creation had come from a higher spiritual body that had been changed and burnt. And then we inherited what was taught as being spiritual karma...as living the life by cause and effect.

Science therefore proved spiritual natural human were correct, for all humans are natural and all humans own self in an experience.

Science only proved that science could conjure the evil spirit.

paarsurrey said:

"Science looks only for god-less explanation of nature and the effects."

It is a political statement of the Atheism people, I understand, science does' support it. If it does then:

Click to expand...

Science looks at whatever evidence is applicable. It doesn't care whether the evidence is theistic or atheistic.

What are "atheism people?"

1. Please quote when this issue was took up by the science.
2. Which discipline of science take it up.
3. Please quote in this connection from a text-book of science.
4. Or from a peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute.

Click to expand...

1. I don't understand what you're asking, here. Would you clarify, please?

paarsurrey said:

Is it failing of science or failing of the Atheism observer, please?

Regards

Click to expand...

Huh?
...and what's an "atheism observer?"

Tiberius said:

I don't see that science robs things of their wonder.

Click to expand...

Me either. Some however do. And that's the sad and tragic thing.

Valjean said:

Science looks at whatever evidence is applicable. It doesn't care whether the evidence is theistic or atheistic.

What are "atheism people?"

1. I don't understand what you're asking, here. Would you clarify, please?

Click to expand...

What is the evidence that science looks at, living as a natural self in a natural existence that is self owned, self living and self created?

What evidence does science claim is applicable?

Windwalker said:

But it need not gut the natural of its magic and wonder. If it does, that's a loss.

Click to expand...

But science can't deal with magic. Science's whole purpose is to discover the actual mechanisms of phenomena; to dispel the "magic."

I take the mythological to be a sort of prescientific language about the wonder of nature. Science is a more grown up language, but only if one doesn't go so far as to strip the wonder and mystery of life away. But that's not what science actually does. It's only our lack of imagination that chooses to do that.

Click to expand...

Again, science's whole raison d'etre is to solve the mystery. In my experience, though, the mechanisms behind the mystery are even more wonderous than the 'magic'.

paarsurrey said:

Aren't the Atheism people prone to magic, please?

Regards

Click to expand...

Again, what's an "atheism person?" Do you mean an atheist?
Atheists aren't 'prone' to anything. Atheism isn't a political party, religion, club, philosophy or belief system. Atheists aren't a homogenous group. They have nothing in common but their lack of belief.

paarsurrey said:

Does that mean that Atheism people can know and practice magic, astrology etc, please?

Click to expand...

Atheists can do anything they want. There is no orthodox doctrine; no 'rules' to atheism.

Valjean said:

But science can't deal with magic. Science's whole purpose is to discover the actual mechanisms of phenomena; to dispel the "magic."
Again, science's whole raison d'etre is to solve the mystery. In my experience, though, the mechanisms behind the mystery are even more wonderous than the 'magic'.

Click to expand...

Mystery, quotes as a description analogy, that a human being male, as the origin of science and titles of references, its inventor stated
- my psyche mind said I could never understand nor would understand in any form of conceptualization.

I titled a religious science medical Tribunal writing agreement that said as creation is a mystery in parts, in known science human mentality then it is quoted as owning that exact titled human expressed Tribunal lawful agreement.

By a group of past peers in an astute review of the reasons why science was attacking and destroying life on Earth. Known that they are involved in causing sacrifice of life. Study and claim, yes I know, but do it anyway.

What sort of logical self does a scientist claim he is?

The explanation of his title is that I experiment and study to learn to know?

What do you know in experimenting and attacking? The answer is how to attack, what is being learnt. How to force unnatural changes because I want to force unnatural change.

Does that give science an entitled peer group choice to claim that self is scientific correct, or does it just entail that your egotism is destructive by self expression?

Males in the past quote....for it is recorded in the statements of AI, that males agreed it was impossible to know what a Sun really was.

For all bodies existed created in the body of empty cold deep pressurized space.

Each body was in its own point of self created body existing.

Space was the only common denominator of all the bodies existing.

And males as a self when quoting natural history said, that all self bodies were self owned.

Yet rationally the only title SELF is his own bio life self.

So medical science realized he owned a self expressive mind problem that owned no medical explanation so just named it as human egotism and human lying as titled explanations of discussion.

As all bodies of mass own no space, all bodies of mass as mass sit in space.

A sun is nothing at all like our planet Earth, stone...and it was realized that males with egotistical problems will never accept that they do not know it all.


'>1 Samuel 2:3


"Boast no more so very proudly, Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; For the LORD is a God of knowledge, And with Him actions are weighed.

Which is a realized statement that said the balances already exist naturally, so do not change them.
Meet Samuel: Prophet and Last of the Judges

rational experiences said:

What is the evidence that science looks at, living as a natural self in a natural existence that is self owned, self living and self created?

What evidence does science claim is applicable?

Click to expand...

What's applicable depends on what's being investigated.
Presumably you've studied science in school and know how it works. You should know how to evaluate evidence.

Valjean said:

What's applicable depends on what's being investigated.
Presumably you've studied science in school and know how it works. You should know how to evaluate evidence.

Click to expand...

What evidence are you evaluating?

Everything is created you know. It naturally exists and you cannot apply a study as a human unless what you study exists.

Therefore you can only idealize a human bio conscious concept of applying names to what you study as an experimental agreement on conditions that can change.

Which is fusion.

For every other natural body that you study is self owned, and is in self presence natural.

Now if you claim that you can in science study products that can change their form....if you try to relate that theory and entitled egotism to every other natural form or body that you studied, you would be agreeing to have it removed from its natural history and natural presence in the natural form that it owns.

With you living with it, in your own natural human condition, applying all the studies on other objects of intention.

For science was never invented to own the theme of I know how everything got created, it was ordered on a theme of I know how to have everything removed.

And Sun radiation was that answer, if you cared to use true reason and not egotism in a peer society.