Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 187

Thread: The equivalence of religion and science?

  1. #141
    Registered User Isis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,398
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    Can I have one?
    Hell no, you'll be insufferable!

  2. #142
    Registered User John S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deepest, Darkest Fife
    Posts
    1,182
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    The Christian Bible makes a fairly specific set of predictions about what will happen when I die, for example.
    Errr..... which Christian Bible is that?

    There is not even agreement between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches on what constitutethe whole Bible - the RC Church accepts as canonical several books (the Apocrypha) which the protestant churches do not consider to be divinely inspired. There are also differences with the various Orthodox churches and the Ethiopian Church.

    And I'm not even going to go into the convoluted discussions and human conferences that were held hundreds of years after the original books were written, to detemine which were truly inspired by God.

    Then of course there are various groups of believers (most of whom call themselves Christians), eg Mormons, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses etc who have added further books which teach about what happens after death.

    And as to what happens after death, then even when a broadly similar bible is agreed upon by the different groups, there are differences of opinion - eg the state of limbo, the need for extreme unction etc etc.

  3. #143
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    I disagree, for the reasons I have given before. Please either:
    a) Address those reasons, or:
    b) Agree to disagree.
    I looked back through your posts and saw you address, what you called "state atheism" but I don't see where you suggested atheism is a religion.

    What do you base that opinion on?
    Human nature, i can see how it would be possible to hate what religion stands for either from a belief point of view i.e you don't or a control point of view i.e. you don't want people to have anything other than the state. By banning or trying to ban all religion, you're not going to endear yourself to the populace - so whats the point? tighter control.

    I suppose if you only have atheists in power who feel the populace rely too much on "religious superstition" you may feel you are "doing them a favour" but thats an altruistic sentiment i find quite unlikely in the states you mentioned that tried to remove all religion.

    Are you suggesting the tighter control of the populace is a secondary concern after banning religions and pissing everyone off just because we don't like it ?

  4. #144
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Isis View Post
    Hell no, you'll be insufferable!
    be ?

  5. #145
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    IAre you suggesting the tighter control of the populace is a secondary concern after banning religions and pissing everyone off just because we don't like it ?
    I think it's pretty obvious that all the states which banned / persecuted religions, or which do so now, are doing so because they don't want any competing centres of influence. Religions are treated like any other opposition group, using the standard tools these regimes employ - harassment, oppression, imprisonment, propaganda etc.

    And from their point of view, this makes sense - one only has to see the example of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland, or Archbishop Desmond Tutu in South Africa, to see that religion can act as a focus for opposition to despotic regimes.

    But going from that, to saying that "State Atheism" is a religion, is too much of a stretch. State atheism - in any form - is usually another control tool, nothing more. China doesn't ban Catholicism because it's Christian, they ban it because Catholics are (by definition) influenced by a non-Chinese leader.

  6. #146
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Read Genesis, Stewart. There was something before the light, it claims.
    Sure here it is

    What don’t you understand ? God create and then said........


    Book of Genesis

  7. #147
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post

    But going from that, to saying that "State Atheism" is a religion, is too much of a stretch. State atheism - in any form - is usually another control tool, nothing more. China doesn't ban Catholicism because it's Christian, they ban it because Catholics are (by definition) influenced by a non-Chinese leader.
    exactly

  8. #148
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    I thought this program about atoms last night was fairly interesting

    Radio Times | The ultimate TV, radio and film guide

    The review re Gravity tonight on BBC at 9pm is a bit heavy , it says its long winded but ill give it a chance


    Radio Times | 400 channels, 14 days

    If we can crack gravity we are nearly there

  9. #149
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Perhaps we can agree that some interpretations of the Christian bible lead to scientifically testable predictions, some interpretations lead to predictions that are not scientifically testable, and some interpretations do not lead to any predictions at all?
    The key point I was making was that when you start making predictions (that is, predictions that are scientifically meaningful) from the Bible (or any other religious document), you are making claims about material reality. And material reality is not a foundation of religious belief. As I've repeatedly said, the two are not necessarily in opposition to one another, but they are very, very different things.
    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    A difference I notice is that sciences generate millions more predictions than religions.
    Of course it does: that's what sciences do. Without prediction, we don't have science. Where these predictions come from is largely irrelevant - as long as they are treated with scientific discipline to be refined and tested. The critical point is not that these predictions are correct, but that we can test them and find out if they are correct. If they are, great. If not, we think again...

    As a perfect example: Thompson's inital discovery of the electron lead to the theory that the atom was that it was a "pudding"with electrons scattered through it like plums. Then Rutherford made a number of predictions about how alpha radiation would behave when passing through atoms. The resulting observations (mainly by Geiger and Marsden) were inconsistent with the plum pudding model. Rutherford's model that explained their behaviour required most of the mass to be found in a small, positively charged lump at the centre of the atom with tiny, negatively charged electrons spinning around the edge. This is, of course, the discovery of the nucleus and the birth of nuclear physics. Based on this theory, Rutherford further predicted that if you hit the nucleus hard enough with alpha particles, it would split, resulting in a change of one element to another. He achieved this, splitting hydrogen from nitrogen.

    To suggest that any religion is supposed to operate like this: to make testable predictions that will confirm or falsify the truth claims of the religion is an error (and one too many people make - including a number of people who should know better). Any 'scientific predictions' made based on the Bible are in fact made on the basis of human interpretations and involve shifting the truth claim in the Bible from it's basis to a different one (from spiritual to material). That shift is messy and impossible to reverse. The Biblical claim is the inspiration, but the process of generating a testable prediction is pure science. Thus, where science "disproves" claims from the Bible, it disproves a specific interpretation and translation of that claim. This is not the same as disproving the claim itself. Similarly, scientific evidence supporting a claim from the Bible does not prove that claim to be true.

  10. #150
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    ..snip....
    I accept everything you say Geoff. My point in starting this thread however, was to suggest that whereas for many people who have firm beliefs either in the primacy of Religion or scientific methodology, it is black and white - for the majority who don't, creating a middle ground could lead to more harmony.

    In doing this I'm not suggesting that one changes the Bible or one changes the doctrine of certain religions - or that one changes the basis of scientific methodology (I've used this only as an example at the beginning of the thread, but I think it's been taken too literally - which is probably my fault for not defining the purpose suffeciently).

    Instead, maybe what one does is create an alternative approach that seeks to harmonize the two. This new ideology would be seperate from what currently exists (although I can't be certain that it hasn't already been tried before..) The aim is to help people to maybe understand religion from a different view point, based on using some scientific evidence, and to help people to understand science from a different view point by using some metaphysical evidence.

    In doing this, even if people don't accept the ultimate joining of the two, it should lead people to a better understanding of why people believe what they do - and therefore an acceptance that they have a right to believe what they do.

    It's my belief that division, lack of understanding and mis-information is the 'root of all evil'. All fundementallism comes from the belief in only one prime truth. If we can break the boundaries of division that seperate people's ideologies we can create more harmony. It is only in the understanding and empathatic acceptance of someone's right to believe what they do, that we truly know what it is to be Human.

  11. #151
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Just so I'm clear, was that option (a) or option (b)?
    Neither. I rejected your formulation.
    Are you?
    I'm sorry - was it a tricky question for you? I did not think I needed to say so, but since you ask, no, I reject the whole of christianity as being utterly in error. But I was interested to know - given the to and fro - where you stood.
    Perhaps we can agree that some interpretations of the Christian bible lead to scientifically testable predictions, some interpretations lead to predictions that are not scientifically testable, and some interpretations do not lead to any predictions at all?
    I'm at a loss to discover anything in the bible that could qualify as a scientifically testable prediction, whatever the interpretation, though I suppose it does make some scientifically testable claims.

  12. #152
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Sure here it is

    What don’t you understand ? God create and then said........


    Book of Genesis
    One step at a time then.

    You have been saying " 'Let there be light', there is light, the light is proof of the fiat and this is similar to the big bang coming from nothingness."

    I pointed out that let there be light isn't the beginning of everything in genesis. You cited chapter 1.

    1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    So before light, there was heaven and earth; the earth was without form and void, and there was 'the deep' and 'the waters'. All of these things preceded the creation of light.

    So there isn't a one to one comparison between cosmology and the bible in their explanations of the origin of the universe.

  13. #153
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    The key point I was making was that when you start making predictions (that is, predictions that are scientifically meaningful) from the Bible (or any other religious document), you are making claims about material reality. And material reality is not a foundation of religious belief. As I've repeatedly said, the two are not necessarily in opposition to one another, but they are very, very different things.
    Of course it does: that's what sciences do. Without prediction, we don't have science. Where these predictions come from is largely irrelevant - as long as they are treated with scientific discipline to be refined and tested. The critical point is not that these predictions are correct, but that we can test them and find out if they are correct. If they are, great. If not, we think again...

    As a perfect example: Thompson's inital discovery of the electron lead to the theory that the atom was that it was a "pudding"with electrons scattered through it like plums. Then Rutherford made a number of predictions about how alpha radiation would behave when passing through atoms. The resulting observations (mainly by Geiger and Marsden) were inconsistent with the plum pudding model. Rutherford's model that explained their behaviour required most of the mass to be found in a small, positively charged lump at the centre of the atom with tiny, negatively charged electrons spinning around the edge. This is, of course, the discovery of the nucleus and the birth of nuclear physics. Based on this theory, Rutherford further predicted that if you hit the nucleus hard enough with alpha particles, it would split, resulting in a change of one element to another. He achieved this, splitting hydrogen from nitrogen.

    To suggest that any religion is supposed to operate like this: to make testable predictions that will confirm or falsify the truth claims of the religion is an error (and one too many people make - including a number of people who should know better). Any 'scientific predictions' made based on the Bible are in fact made on the basis of human interpretations and involve shifting the truth claim in the Bible from it's basis to a different one (from spiritual to material). That shift is messy and impossible to reverse. The Biblical claim is the inspiration, but the process of generating a testable prediction is pure science. Thus, where science "disproves" claims from the Bible, it disproves a specific interpretation and translation of that claim. This is not the same as disproving the claim itself. Similarly, scientific evidence supporting a claim from the Bible does not prove that claim to be true.
    He's good, isn't he?

  14. #154
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Neither. I rejected your formulation.

    I'm sorry - was it a tricky question for you? I did not think I needed to say so, but since you ask, no, I reject the whole of christianity as being utterly in error. .
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    One step at a time then.

    .
    Anyone else think Barry is being rude, condescending and insulting as well as being desparaging of people's beliefs? Or is it just me...

  15. #155
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    One step at a time then.

    You have been saying " 'Let there be light', there is light, the light is proof of the fiat and this is similar to the big bang coming from nothingness."

    I pointed out that let there be light isn't the beginning of everything in genesis. You cited chapter 1.

    1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    So before light, there was heaven and earth; the earth was without form and void, and there was 'the deep' and 'the waters'. All of these things preceded the creation of light.

    So there isn't a one to one comparison between cosmology and the bible in their explanations of the origin of the universe.
    This is so boring now

    God created the heaven and the earth lets assume thats at 0 time

    Assume light occurred at Planck time

    Planck time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The rest is semantics

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I'm sorry - was it a tricky question for you?
    Don’t you ever give it a rest ? .

  16. #156
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    677
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    I accept everything you say Geoff. My point in starting this thread however, was to suggest that whereas for many people who have firm beliefs either in the primacy of Religion or scientific methodology, it is black and white - for the majority who don't, creating a middle ground could lead to more harmony.
    No, the "middle ground", as I said, is based on ignorance (or active deception, in the case of people who know better). The notion that the two in some way opposition is a simple false dichotomy. Rather than creating harmony by pander to this ignorance, the goal should to be inform and educate. Trying to conflate science and religion is disrespectful to both science and religion: they are different.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    what one does is create an alternative approach that seeks to harmonize the two
    The idea of harmony presumes that these differences are in some way related so they can be reconciled. The basic difference between science and religion is that they take different metaphysical positions. The entire scientific method requires the presumption of materialism: without that basic assumption, science does not work: it's non-negotiable. Similarly, the religious metaphysic is based on some form of dualism - that there is a spiritual reality in addition to the material reality we inhabit. And religious views almost invariably give the spiritual reality primacy over the material. Science is simply incapable of commenting on spiritual reality. Religion does comment on the material reality - although when it does, it drops into the realm of science.

    Reconciling metaphysical positions has been tried in the past - Kant tried it with the rationalists and empiricist and failed (he subsumed most of one under the other and kept a few bits that he needed from the former). The differences between the rationality and empiricist metaphysics were much, much smaller than the difference between the basic positions of science and religion. And hundreds of very smart people tried before Kant, all to fail miserably. It took 2000 years for that difference to be reconciled - and the process of reconciliation was more akin to a hostile take-over.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    All fundementallism comes from the belief in only one prime truth.
    So you want people to give up their prime truth of a creator or of all powerful science for your prime truth of there is no prime truth? That claim is a paradox - one that all forms of relativistic knowledge slip in to: it's just another case of, "I'm right, you're wrong". In a very real sense, all knowledge is fundamentalism. Convincing me to replace my fundamentalism with yours is the sort of thing that usually requires lots of big guns.

  17. #157
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    No, the "middle ground", as I said, is based on ignorance (or active deception, in the case of people who know better). The notion that the two in some way opposition is a simple false
    You are taking me far to literally Geoff. We 'actively deceive' children all the time about fundemental truths - it's called 'the lies we tell our children'.. It is so that we can explain things in a way that they can understand and accept AND if done correctly, it should also be done in a way that enables us to lay the foundation for us to add to that explanation to explain things more fully when they are ready to understand it.

    I think you are making the assumption that most people are as bright as you: This gives the false impression that they can therefore extract the truth from the hyperbole. The vast majority can't, and that's what leads to tension that manifests from ignorance and fundementalism.

    And they ARE opposed. For example, on all these threads about religion, Barry is using scientific reasoning to undermine people's beliefs - and that's what I'm concerned to stop - however mis-guided you think that notion is.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    Trying to conflate science and religion is disrespectful to both science and religion: they are different. the idea of harmony presumes that these differences are in some way related so they can be reconciled.
    Again, far too literal. I gave an example at the very beginning. Relativity DOES prove that time is relative. If, in this new ideology, we explain that principle it enables people to understand how God could be seperate from the Universe and create the Universe in a different timescale to how we perceive it. Now, whilst I accept that Christians wouldn't accept this and scientists would hate to see this happen, I don't think that you can deny that for those people in the middle ground, that it would help them to have a better understanding of why each thinks the way that they do.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    So you want people to give up their prime truth of a creator or of all powerful science for your prime truth of there is no prime truth?
    No, as I said at the very beginning of the post you're replying to. You cannot change the opinion of people who are set on what they believe. But, I believe you can create a more open minded way of thinking for those that are unsure.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    That claim is a paradox - one that all forms of relativistic knowledge slip in to: it's just another case of, "I'm right, you're wrong". In a very real sense, all knowledge is fundamentalism. Convincing me to replace my fundamentalism with yours is the sort of thing that usually requires lots of big guns.
    All knowledge is fundemental in nature, but how it is interpreted is what defines how it is used. If knowledge is explained in 'open' terms it leads to more harmony, if it is explained in 'closed' terms it leads to division and to the big guns you refer.

    All I'm trying to do is think of an open minded and creative approach to help suggest an alternative for future generations - and within that I do accept that our generation is probably already too set within the 'comfort' of their prejudices to be changed...
    Last edited by Rocky; 29th-January-2008 at 05:02 PM.

  18. #158
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Stewart's post on the outside thread today at 12 noon

    Quote Originally Posted by stewart38 View Post
    Its well know since my car accident at the age of 10 my grammar and spelling took a downward step

    My Computer teacher once said try using English rather then your own dialect

    To mock the afflicted is harsh but I can take it
    Barry's reply at 2.15pm

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Not to me it wasn't.
    I'm sorry to hear it, incidentally.

    I've often made remarks about your grammar and spelling, but after a while it had become clear to me that this was more than just impatience at the keyboard, and so I became a little more circumspect.
    Barry's reply to one of Stewart's posts on this thread at 2.32pm

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    One step at a time then....
    I'm not going to say anything. You take from that what you will...

  19. #159
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff332 View Post
    No, the "middle ground", as I said, is based on ignorance (or active deception, in the case of people who know better). The notion that the two in some way opposition is a simple false dichotomy. Rather than creating harmony by pander to this ignorance, the goal should to be inform and educate. Trying to conflate science and religion is disrespectful to both science and religion: they are different.
    The idea of harmony presumes that these differences are in some way related so they can be reconciled. The basic difference between science and religion is that they take different metaphysical positions. The entire scientific method requires the presumption of materialism: without that basic assumption, science does not work: it's non-negotiable. Similarly, the religious metaphysic is based on some form of dualism - that there is a spiritual reality in addition to the material reality we inhabit. And religious views almost invariably give the spiritual reality primacy over the material. Science is simply incapable of commenting on spiritual reality. Religion does comment on the material reality - although when it does, it drops into the realm of science.
    Too simplistic

    Science is incapable 'at the moment' to comment on spiritual reality (in its widest sense). Re ESP its ‘tosh’ etc or ‘unexplained’ etc etc

    Push bike = Religion
    Science = Motor Bike

    At a high level there very similar two wheels go on the road etc etc

    The harder you look of course the more dissimilar they become (one has a engine etc)

    I don’t think anyone said science = religion no one says push bike = motor bike

    The idea is that they have many things in common and maybe one day they will be joined

    There is NOTHING in science (too date) that would exclude the concept of a God


    The rest is semantics

  20. #160
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Stewart's post on the outside thread today at 12 noon

    Barry's reply at 2.15pm

    Barry's reply to one of Stewart's posts on this thread at 2.32pm

    I'm not going to say anything. You take from that what you will...
    Ok you got me I didnt have a car crash at 10 I was 23 and it was my fault

    I thought id get more sympathy if I said 10

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •