Who forbade to mix Religion and Science?

[Audie]

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.

We see a lot of complaints about scientism,
but examples are hard to come by.

Although, if we go with your "excessive" then
it can be applied willy-nilly to any degree of
reliance on science at all, and thus the word
is rendered meaningless... my point all along.

 

[sooda]

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".

How do you feel about the Flat Earth Society?

 

[Wandering Monk]

It's not about the merits of science vs. religion.

It's about the bias of the observer and the close-mindedness of those who refuse to look at another approach....at all.

This is why we have others check our work, to eliminate the effects of bias. How do we check our work when it comes to the magical world of religion?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Science is to knowledge, as faith is to the truth.

No. If faith is to truth, why are there so many faiths out there, even within individual religions?

 

[sooda]

This is why we have others check our work, to eliminate the effects of bias. How do we check our work when it comes to the magical world of religion?

We have people on this board who claim the Moon Landing was faked in a movie studio and that the earth was flat before Noah's flood.

 

[columbus]

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...

THIS!!!
I have no problem using the word "God" to refer to "the reason that there is something, rather than nothing." So, in a sense, I believe in God.

I'm a non-theist because I think religion is fiction. People who tell me about God are quite lacking in credibility. The usual image of God around here is like a human king with superpowers. God has human characteristics like sentience and will, plans and wishes and disappointments. Triumphs and disasters, a moral code that shifts with the times( although commonly a generation or so of lag time).

I don't find the humans who describe God, the religious folks, at all credible. I can't believe in religion, so I'm a non-theist.
Tom

 

[columbus]

To take a look at what scientism means?

Honestly, I think scientism is one of those vague words, the meaning of which is more about connotation in the context than anything objective.
The meaning can't really be reduced to a couple of pithy sentences in a dictionary

Tom

 

[Wandering Monk]

Honestly, I think scientism is one of those vague words, the meaning of which is more about connotation in the context than anything objective.
The meaning can't really be reduced to a couple of pithy sentences in a dictionary

Tom

We hear the term scientism from the same folks who say evolutionism. It is a derogatory term because 'isms' are usually defined as foolish or unfounded beliefs.

 

[Audie]

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".

Of course, all who venture into the ivy covered halls do
fall prey to what is it, ah, squared boxes of consensus
dogmatism.

Alas, we cannot freely think. So sad.

Still, we have our fun.
We are always entertained by hearing versions of
"I am better than them rich / upper class /
ivory tower / people coz I am with
the Lord!" (or whatever, "self educated" perhaps.)

 

[columbus]

This is why we have others check our work, to eliminate the effects of bias. How do we check our work when it comes to the magical world of religion?

This is the most fundamental difference between science and religion.
The scientific method includes a mechanism for distinguishing between objective truths and subjective opinions. The religious method carefully avoids any such mechanism.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

This is why we have others check our work, to eliminate the effects of bias. How do we check our work when it comes to the magical world of religion?

(snort)

having others check out our work does anything BUT eliminate the effects of bias. In terms of publishing and peer review, bias is simply confirmed; that is, getting something peer reviewed is, partly, to see if one's own views fit it with the bias of one's peers.

Scientists have been dealing with this for...pretty much ever. All you have to do is 'google' 'scientists who were right but not accepted,' or search terms to that effect.

Take, oh, Alfred Wegener, for instance. He proposed (and published, when he could get someone to do so) the idea of continental drift.

.....................which wasn't accepted until thirty years after he died, and people were arguing about it even then.

Or, er. Semmelwiess? He of the handwashing, whose ideas were so completely rejected that he died, having been beaten to death in an insane asylum? Coley, whose work in the very beginnings of immunotherapy were rejected in the 1890's?

Or Gregor Mendel, or Harvey, or...Marshall, who finally, after years and a whole lot of opposition, kept claiming that ulcers were caused by bacteria and not by stress.

No, 'bias' is a part of the process, both in science and in religion. As one can see, the consequences of bucking that bias can be very similar. Religious ideas that buck the system tend to result in charges of heresy, and imprisonment and death. In science, bucking the bias results in ruined careers...and as in the case of Semmelweis, possible imprisonment and death.



Scientists ARE biased. Very much so, just like theists. The trick is to realize that and to get around it. The trick is to...not pretend that bias not only exists, it's...the elephant in the room.

For both 'sides' of this debate.

 

[columbus]

The attempt to heal the old separation
between heart (faith) and mind (science).

In my experience, it's religionists who forbid science and religion to mix. Religious people want to hang on to beliefs that are demonstrably unsupported and irrational. Science pokes a pin in all that balloon juice. So religionists respond with things like AnswersinGenisis(.org).
Etc Etc
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

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."[/QUOTE]

That's pretty much correct...and you will note that none of those definitions/explanations require the definition of 'mythology' as used here, pretty much meaning 'false drivel and fairy stories that should be utterly dismissed as unworthy of examining.'

Because they ARE worth examining, and studying. What mythology is NOT, is a text on how volcanoes operate and why Yellowstone National Park may or may not erupt in the next century or so. Even if it is called 'vulcanology.'

Just as an examination, by ultra sound and x-rays and tectonic collection devices is a very good way of examining Yellowstones possible geological effects, that examination is a lousy way to examine the ways of the native Americans who have lived around there for millenia.

It's a really good idea, too, to not utterly close oneself off from learning things BECAUSE the 'other side' is the 'other side.'

One might think about the scab lands of eastern Washington, and how long it took scientists to get over their distaste of catastrophic geological events (such as floods) so that they could figure out that the ancient flood stories of the native Americans might be accounts of actual events; that the scab lands really are the result of one...and more than one...catastrophic flood, such as is spoken of in mythology. Accepting that sometimes this happens is NOT the same thing as swallowing the tale of Noah whole.

One must be very careful NOT to utterly dismiss information from the 'other side,' BECAUSE it is from 'the other side.'

One must be very careful about what one does with it, but...???

But religion is religion. Science is science. One does not use a teaspoon to measure how hot a Death Valley summer is.
One does not use a kitchen scale to measure the age of a tree. Nor does one throw that scale away. It IS useful for its proper purpose.

....and you should not dismiss one of these out of hand just "because."

 

[dianaiad]

In my experience, it's religionists who forbid science and religion to mix. Religious people want to hang on to beliefs that are demonstrably unsupported and irrational. Science pokes a pin in all that balloon juice. So religionists respond with things like AnswersinGenisis(.org).
Etc Etc
Tom

I don't see a difference between the two. Confirmation bias, however, is generally present...that is, scientists claim that it is the theists who are at fault here, and theists claim it's the scientists.

Everybody is biased here, and everybody is guilty of this.

 

[ecco]

A little from column A, a little from column B?

I do love the honesty.

 

[dianaiad]

We have people on this board who claim the Moon Landing was faked in a movie studio and that the earth was flat before Noah's flood.

And we have people on this board who claim that Bigfoot is real, and that the Big Bang is bunkum.

BTW, since I live in the town most famous for two things: the home of the astronauts and the space program (close to Edwards AFB) AND the beginnings of the Flat Earth Society, I am willing to acknowledge that yeah, some people are pretty dumb.

Most aren't.

 

[columbus]

I don't see a difference between the two. Confirmation bias, however, is generally present...that is, scientists claim that it is the theists who are at fault here, and theists claim it's the scientists.

Everybody is biased here, and everybody is guilty of this.

The difference is plain.
Scientists publish. If their conclusions don't convince other educated people in their field those people can use the same method to publish their own opinions.
Consensus is built, albeit sometimes slowly, especially when data is hard to collect.

This is in stark contrast to the religious method. A "prophet" claims to have information about the unknowable. If he's sufficiently charismatic to gain a following, he's started a new religion. Or maybe a new denomination of a religion that already exists. But there is nothing like peer review, because the "evidence" is indistinguishable from a delusion. Religionists just make unsupportable claims and rely on their own authority to support the claims. Human authority, claiming to speak for God or something.

There is a sort of peer review in religion. One could listen to a Muslim describe his opinion of Hinduism, a Catholic describe his opinion of LDS, a Protestant describe his opinion of Shinto, etc. Etc.
I do listen to religious people describe other religions. And I came to the firm conclusion that religion is fiction. It's all well and good as long as nobody tries to force their subjective and unsupported opinions on me.
But religious people, such as Mormons, often do.
Tom

 

[ecco]

One might think about the scab lands of eastern Washington, and how long it took scientists to get over their distaste of catastrophic geological events (such as floods) so that they could figure out that the ancient flood stories of the native Americans might be accounts of actual events; that the scab lands really are the result of one...and more than one...catastrophic flood, such as is spoken of in mythology.

Please show what Native American story there is about the scablands being the result of ancient floods.

The rejection of Bretz's concept was, in part, because Bretz could not propose a source for the massive amounts of water needed to produce the landscape. If there was no water source, then science was correct in setting aside the concept.

 

[ecco]

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".

More accurately: a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture by explaining aspects of the natural world as understood at the time and delineating the psychological and social practices and ideals of a society

....and you should not dismiss one of these out of hand just "because."

If the aspects of the natural world are based on a 6000-year-old understanding of the natural world, and we have better information now, then "because" of that, we have an obligation to dismiss them.

 

[Marcion]

The same people who resist the coupling of spirituality and rationality (against religious superstitions and empty ritualism) are those who resist the integration of intuitive science and the spiritual cult.
Such people promote religious dogma and stagnation and are the enemies of human progress.