Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Historically, that partnership has been more harmonious and productive, than trying to force atheism and science together
-
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!
Can Religion and Science work together?
- Thread starter Nefelie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- religion and science
Historically, that partnership has been more harmonious and productive, than trying to force atheism and science together
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
A very good point. Thanks
Regards
Considering methodology can become quite religious, my response is "not sure." Methodology with all its (strict) rituals, reverence for certain (so called) objective phenomenon and many loyal adherents, who if they stray are shunned. I'm usually wondering if science can work within humanity and not become its own religion?
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone tries to "force atheism and science together." I think largely what happens is, the more we advance science the less we need God as an explanation for things. Never has anyone applied the scientific method to a question, and had "God" as the output/answer.
So I think the association between science and atheism is passive and coincidental, not active and intentional.
In my opinion, ego-s cannot work together. True, mature investigators OTHT, whether of the subjective or of the objective, know of synergy and the limitations of mind.
Last edited:
What is "the scientific method" of which you speak? I thought a month or so ago that it existed, but an RF residential (practicing, well versed) scientist convinced me no practicing scientist actually follow a single particular method and that is more akin to a myth we pass along to our offspring. My guess is to indoctrinate them.
Not really. I'm wondering if you misunderstood what that person was saying.
The full term is "scientific method of deduction." That is to say, it's a way to learn about the world deductively. It's no more "indoctrination" than any other set of instructions on how to do something "correctly" are.
Broadly speaking, the method is:
-Ask a question
-Form a hypothesis
-Falsify the hypothesis (i.e., try to prove it wrong, through observation and experimentation)
-Write report of the method of falsification and subsequent conclusion
-Send the report to scientific peers for review
This is broad because it doesn't account for all the intricacies of the different fields, some of which are "harder" (i.e., have more precise and concise data, such as astronomy, biology, etc), and others of which are "softer" (i.e., the data is more nebulous and difficult to pin down, such as psychology, anthropology, etc). In some cases, direct experimentation isn't possible, so we have to observe. Sometimes there's a lot of mathematics and calculations involved; the vast majority of astronomy, for instance, is number-crunching.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Religion /can / answer the questions, that ''science'', can't.
//theoretically/
//theoretically/
Uh.. how would anyone know? Has the attempt even been made?
It is too bad in a way.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"1.3.1 Deductive Arguments
An argument is said to be deductive if its conclusion is claimed to necessarily follow from its premises. That is, if it is claimed that since the premises are true or acceptable, the conclusion must also be true or acceptable, then the argument is deductive. We can also define deduction by saying that in a deductive argument, the logical relation between the premises and the conclusion is claimed to be 100% supporting."
- It is basically a circular argument.
- It is never claimed to be 100% accurate.
- It has many "ifs" and "buts".
- The result has to be interpreted.
- Many a times, therefore, adjustments are made afterwards.
Right? Please
Regards
Last edited:
Wrong context.
The scientific method of deduction has less in common with philosophical argumentation, and more with detective work.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But are the answers correct is the BIG question?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
oh, puhleazzzzzzze.....
firedragon
Veteran Member
Some people twist their religion and defy growth. Whats happening in Afghanistan. And Saudi Arabia. Think about it, half the brains are female. If you stunt their intellectual growth, you are losing half the intellectual contribution, not only the loss of science, also the loss of womens different thinking patterns, an amazing part of intellectual thinking lost. Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo Galilei were two scientists who printed books that later became banned. Copernicus faced no persecution when he was alive because he died shortly after publishing his book. Galileo, on the other hand, was tried by the Inquisition after his book was published. Both scientists held the same theory that the Earth revolved around the sun, a theory now known to be true. However, the Church disapproved of this theory because the Holy Scriptures state that the Earth is at the center, not the Sun. As the contents of the Bible were taken literally, the publishing of these books proved, to the Church, that Copernicus and Galileo were sinners; they preached, through their writing, that the Bible was wrong.
Ibn Tamiyyas episode against people like Ibn Arabi.
Intellectual growth can be stunted.
Took me a moment to find the thread (What do you think is the "scientific method" and why?) I was speaking about, but found a post where quotes make it, I feel, very clear that what I was conveying in this thread is accurate.
So, when you say:
In view of the other thread, it would be akin to having a 'religious method' being widely known as:
- ask a question
- be open minded (to how responses may come)
- be neutral or appreciative about a spiritual existence
- be willing to update messages (answers) once received
- write down all messages received
- share findings with others (for review, as more experienced religious persons are very open minded)
Just made that up. Imagine though if that was THE religious method known by all, but reality was once you actually entered a specific religion (any religion, doesn't matter), you were told by authority types, something along lines of, "no we don't use that method. Specifically, you can't be neutral in relation to our aims. And open minded has its limitations. Oh and you can only update things if we (the authority figures) instruct you to do so."
Wouldn't that then lead someone to think THE religious method is a way to indoctrinate young people into a paradigm that has vastly different procedures than THE one conveyed as 'fundamental principles' of the method, and that method is actually a myth of sorts? Especially if ever conveyed as the one method that binds all religions together?
And where you say:
I think that conveys what I would call popular understanding of (the) scientific method as it relates to (all) scientific fields or branches. But again, from the other thread, I strongly believe that is a false understanding by laypeople and not how actual practicing scientists frame their understanding. More like, forget the method, we don't (ever) use that in our field. Here is the particular methodology we do follow, and our authority figures will dictate any changes in methods for you to follow. Until that happens, please stick to practices we have put forth for contributing our (trademarked brand of) knowledge to this particular field.
I say all of this, and make the points I am because whenever this topic arises (science and religion), some people wish to express science as some general, fundamentally principled, endeavor that all are welcome to do because of "observation, questioning, experimenting" while religion is relegated to a role of not pertinent to inquiry and understanding. Not it's job. Not it's role. (See post #4 of this thread. Pretty sure I could find others like that in this thread, and for sure in similar discussions on this topic.)
I consistently see science (particularly practice and research as it is actually done) being dogmatic. Being elitist. Having a scope that is subject to funding/funding sources. I have a current issue where I'd have no problem citing either scientific papers or articles about scientific studies where all this, I feel, is crystal clear. Not the only issue where I observe it occurring, but the other issues would have me sit on the sidelines a bit as I feel others would do more justice in explaining just how utterly over the top in bias the scientific field has become, and is essentially at a point of - if you don't share in the consensus approach (regardless of how unscientific some of its findings are), you are to be shunned. Ad hom attacks are perfectly legit if you are in a minority that doesn't peddle the popular understandings.
Thus, nearly as scary as some dogmas of centuries past. Probably not as nefarious given how ethics a few hundred years ago were, but given that science wishes to take credit for all (current) technology, the recipe for what is aligned with these current dogmas means our wars/battles stand a chance to do damage in ways that inquisitors of old would've thought not possible.
Pendulum on "science vs. religion" has swung so far away from backwards religions to 'noble science' to be considered a great thing, until one becomes acutely aware of how not so noble current science is, in many regards. Here's hoping scientific practice humbles itself by learning a thing or two from spirituality / spiritualists who had similar issues with religion all along, but learned to maintain principles in face of highly dogmatic, popularly accepted, political overlords.
Not really. Still, I appreciate the link. That post is rather informative.
From what I've seen, I have a somewhat better understanding of how the sciences work than "laypeople" who don't take the time to learn how it works, but those same "laypeople" have better understandings than I do of their own particular areas of expertise. I only have that "better" understanding because I expose myself to scientific matters a lot as an area of fascination.
I don't.
I do see that, however.
THE scientific field?
Dude, there's no such thing. There are many scientific fields, not just one.
Popular understandings of scientific findings are frequently outdated. Usually only to about 5 or 10 years, but there are some instances where popular understanding is nearly 100 years outdated.
You speak of "science" as if it were a person.
All this seems to stem from your interpretation of that post. But from what I've seen, I don't think you understood. From what it looks like, @LegionOnomaMoi is expressing frustration that public education is woefully inadequate when it comes to teaching "science" (something that I already knew). It seems like you're latching onto a single statement and running away with it.
Which part does the "not really" assertion apply to? I'm prepared to argue, "quotes (in other thread) make it, I feel, very clear that what I was conveying in this thread is accurate."
Interesting choice of words with "the sciences."
I think the debate we are having is whether science (in general) has fundamental principles that are true of scientific practice/research. I'm saying it does not, based on posts from another thread (that I linked to). I feel able to counter-argue that position because I think it is a huge disservice to science if it doesn't have fundamental, and specific, actions within its paradigm.
I believe you are taking "the scientific field" out of context of what I conveyed. The implication in the context is ALL scientific fields have (over the top) bias.
And in context of this discussion, I would add, they pretend like they don't because of THE scientific method being seen as fundamental guideline for ALL fields.
Which I am prepared to argue, in this thread, is a myth. The reality is more like each scientific method is perpetuating a bias that is based on consensus, and is closer to pseudo science in that regard. I'm compelled to add that it is not (ever) treated as pseudo science cause adherents would never allow their study/image to be tarnished in that manner. My daring to say these things is worthy of being shunned for having the nerve to criticize our holy scientific endeavor(s).
Feel free to bring in quotes from the other thread if you think I'm latching onto one statement and running with it. In essence what I'll be doing is arguing against the position I had in the other thread. So, I'm feeling confident I can speak to both positions. Yet, I knew when participating in that other thread that it would have implications in a thread like this, and I intend to take advantage of that for whoever is serious about the (larger) debate (between science and religion).
I understand where the religion vs. science come from, but I still don't understand why is there a need to make a battle between the two. They answer completely different things, science "explains" how things work around us & religion gives answers to Who created those rules and how we should live. I do believe that Qur'an does not contradict the scientific revelations made today or in the past (but before Revelation).