Science and Religion

[Polymath257]

Apropos nonsense: Then what about the increased expansion velocity of the Universe?

To me this is an evidence of false measurement methods and nothing else.

Well, which of the instruments that made the measurements are faulty, then? Are you saying we should be taking these measurements at all? What, specifically, is wrong with the methods?

You do realize that the increased rate of expansion is completely consistent with the cosmological constant introduced by Einstein about a century ago, right?

 

[Native]

I might suggest you learn a bit more about what the BB theory actually says before you go and criticize it. Maybe a book on cosmology would be a good start? Weinberg has a very good one that is recent enough to be on topic with latest observations. Good luck!

Good grief! This is the usual patronizing advise wich comes up from the believers of the cosmological ad hoc assumptions which, when it comes to the cosmological facts, have nothing to have their besserwissen attitudes in.

The Emperor of the New Clothes advises others to get more dressed in cosmological issues. Funny indeed!

 

[ChristineM]

The last sentense disqualify you as a decent debater. To me you´re just a waste of time.

So you still can provide no evidence, or, as you say"facts" to justify your claim, fair enough

Consider looking in the mirror and telling yourself who is a waste of time

 

[Native]

You do realize that the increased rate of expansion is completely consistent with the cosmological constant introduced by Einstein about a century ago, right

Oh, get real! How can a "cosmological constant" suddenly result in an increased motion? This is contra-intuitive and non sensical indeed.

 

[ChristineM]

Good grief! This is the usual patronizing advise wich comes up from the believers of the cosmological ad hoc assumptions which, when it comes to the cosmological facts, have nothing to have their besserwissen attitudes in.

Your first paragraph disqualifies you as a decent debater on the big bang. To me you´re just a waste of time.

 

[Native]

So you still can provide no evidence, or, as you say"facts" to justify your claim, fair enough
Consider looking in the mirror and telling yourself who is a waste of time

I prefer to let you have the rigth - and me to have the peace Don´t bother replying to me anymore.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, get real! How can a "cosmological constant" suddenly result in an increased motion? This is contra-intuitive and non sensical indeed.

Well, I would suggest that you learn what Einstein's equations say and how the CC relates to them. In essence, it is an energy density of space itself and provides a negative pressure proportional to the density.

 

[Polymath257]

But back to the OP. Religion was, initially, the best guess on how the universe works. As such, many of the initial stages in science were developed in a religious context.

But, as we gained more information and experience, we realized that the religious answers didn't work any longer.

There were two basic responses of religion to this: ignore it, or change the religious beliefs to adapt to the new information. But religious views, per se, stopped being a fundamental driving force for the development of science and our understanding of the world around us.

This also gets to the basic difference between religion, which is faith based, and science, which is evidence based. For science, any notion that cannot be tested, even in theory, is considered to be irrelevant. That is because evidence is what determines what is and what is not science. Religion, on the other hand, uses faith as its central value. That means that many untestable ideas are accepted and promoted. This is the basic disconnect between the two realms of investigation.

So, are they correlated? The question itself is a bit strange, but initially they were positively correlated. Now they tend to be negatively so.

 

[ChristineM]

I prefer to let you have the rigth - and me to have the peace Don´t bother replying to me anymore.

Perhaps i should remind you that this is a public thread on a forum that i am a member and i reserve the right to respond to any post i feel that i can provide input to. Thanks for understanding.

 

[Audie]

Yes.

Traditional religion doesn't contradict empirical natural science, nor specifically affirm a particular religion due to it's logical limitations.

But Scientism is itself a religion, philosophy, ideology and Totalitarian political system.

I wonder why we here so much about rare, semi mythical
thing called "scientism".

I never heard of it as a political system. Are you sure?

 

[ChristineM]

I wonder why we here so much about rare, semi mythical
thing called "scientism".

I never heard of it as a political system. Are you sure?

It appears to me that fundimentalists et al are getting fed up with banging their head against science and so made a new word to play with

 

[Audie]

Both are, you don't know what faith is.

Dr Richard Feynman, Nobel physicist, said that
religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt.

 

[Audie]

It appears to me that fundimentalists et al are getting fed up with banging their head against science and so made a new word to play with

it goes deeper than that, I think.
It is about equivalencies, comparisons,
or as the op had it, correlations.

atheist science-creation science

materialism-spiritualism

religion is religion-atheism is religion

religion is faith based-science is faith based

science that tries to go beyond "common sense",
provable and practical is an -ism.

And all shall fall short of the glory of God's
True Religion.

 

[viole]

Do you believe there is a correlation between science and religion or not?

Yes, like an entangled pair when oberved.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

Yes, like an entangled pair when oberved.

Ciao

- viole

Prease exprain

 

[viole]

Prease exprain

When you observe an entangled pair, they are always correlated. Alas, when one says yes, the other says no.

Just a silly QM joke, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

Do you believe there is a correlation between science and religion or not?

No, but only because "religion" is not a singular thing and incredibly diverse. Frankly, neither are the sciences, but it's the diversity of religions that really causes issues with a correlation here. How they intersect depends entirely on the specific culture/religion (if not the specific individual human) one is talking about. It is not wise to generalize. That said, there's no doubt that the sciences emerge from fundamentally religious impetuses - the desire to make meaning of the world around us and understand our place in it. Religion is broader when it comes to the tools it can use to make that meaning happen; it is inclusive of the sciences as well as of the arts. That flexibility is an asset, but also creates a lack of sharp focus. Some prefer the limitations that sciences impose on making meaning happen and do not care about story or arts when it comes to answering questions like "why are we here?" As I said, it's really a matter of personal/cultural taste, so the correlation necessarily varies.

 

[ChristineM]

it goes deeper than that, I think.
It is about equivalencies, comparisons,
or as the op had it, correlations.

atheist science-creation science

materialism-spiritualism

religion is religion-atheism is religion

religion is faith based-science is faith based

science that tries to go beyond "common sense",
provable and practical is an -ism.

And all shall fall short of the glory of God's
True Religion.

They have a problem right there, creation science is an oxymoron.

Materialism and spiritualism show no correlation that i can see other than ending in "ism" ;-)

Another, atheism is a religion like not playing football is a game

Science is evidence based

And going beyond common sense is more research

Which god?

 

[Audie]

They have a problem right there, creation science is an oxymoron.

Materialism and spiritualism show no correlation that i can see other than ending in "ism" ;-)

Another, atheism is a religion like not playing football is a game

Science is evidence based

And going beyond common sense is more research

Which god?

Darn, I thought I could win you over to
the land of false equivalencies.

 

[Native]

Six days of Creation does not make sense from an earth reference . . .,

I suggest the "6 days creation" really should be interpreted as "6 stages of creation".