The utterly false dichotomy of Religion Vs. Science

[Artimis]

After reading some of the threads in here with posts by members with a background in religion, science and religion + science, I think we should have a debate on what's really going on with this ridiculous idea that it's either science or religion and you've got to choose between the two.

For me the great irony is that it was The Church that initially setup institutions to encourage learning and scholarly investigation into many fields of study. Presumably the motive behind this was that science would prove the existence of God and verify other widely believed geo-centric concepts such as the Earth was at the centre of the solar system. Well, they've got some answers and some of them were more than they bargained for.

To say that Religion and Science don't always see eye-to-eye is a gross understatement. The fact is that we're in a bit of a trap here, science can't be used to *prove* the existence of God/Goddess/Other Deity because then faith would no longer be required, because we'd all know beyond reasonable doubt that God/Goddess/Other Deity existed. So should Science continue to attempt to prove the existence of the Divine?

Maybe Science should just focus on more important matters, such as how to save the environment, feed a growing Human population and expand the Human reach across the solar system and beyond. Which leaves the subject of the Divine to Religion where it belongs.

[Metsfanmax]

Maybe Science should just focus on more important matters, such as how to save the environment, feed a growing Human population and expand the Human reach across the solar system and beyond. Which leaves the subject of the Divine to Religion where it belongs.

This is what working scientists and engineers do every day. We only talk about religion when we're off the clock.

[DoomYoshi]

it depends which variety of religion. it is not correct to call it a false dichotomy - the dichotomy is real, just not in all cases.

let us take a simple, classic example.
john calvin, on science:

Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend.

Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. For since the Lord stretches forth, as it were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the sun and moon, how great would be our ingratitude were we to close our eyes against our own experience? There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God.

here is luther:

People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.'

Of course, luther was not a smart man (since the bible was codified to prove that catholics were the true christians, and not for example the Gnostics, accepting the bible as the word of God means accepting Catholicism as the true faith [or whatever the cunt the east-Os do])

[Timminz]

[mrswdk]

Exactly. Good, agenda-free science would never oppose religion.

[thegreekdog]

After reading some of the threads in here with posts by members with a background in religion, science and religion + science, I think we should have a debate on what's really going on with this ridiculous idea that it's either science or religion and you've got to choose between the two.

For me the great irony is that it was The Church that initially setup institutions to encourage learning and scholarly investigation into many fields of study. Presumably the motive behind this was that science would prove the existence of God and verify other widely believed geo-centric concepts such as the Earth was at the centre of the solar system. Well, they've got some answers and some of them were more than they bargained for.

To say that Religion and Science don't always see eye-to-eye is a gross understatement. The fact is that we're in a bit of a trap here, science can't be used to *prove* the existence of God/Goddess/Other Deity because then faith would no longer be required, because we'd all know beyond reasonable doubt that God/Goddess/Other Deity existed. So should Science continue to attempt to prove the existence of the Divine?

Maybe Science should just focus on more important matters, such as how to save the environment, feed a growing Human population and expand the Human reach across the solar system and beyond. Which leaves the subject of the Divine to Religion where it belongs.

I can only speak for Catholicism, but my religion doesn't have a problem with science (in fact, I would say we embrace it).

[Metsfanmax]

Exactly. Good, agenda-free science would never oppose religion.

Yes, it would, if religion was actively precluding science from happening.

[crispybits]

Exactly. Good, agenda-free science would never oppose religion.

And vice versa, good, agenda-free religion (is that an oxymoron?) would never oppose science, but accept the truths it finds, even if that means adjusting some tenet of the religion to be more in line with reality (religion in line with reality, now THAT is an oxymoron )

[chang50]

The late great Carl Sagan described religion and science as 'non-overlapping magisteria'.

[Lord Arioch]

What would u get IF u merges science and religion? Something totally useless or something...intresting?
SciGion or something:)

[khazalid]

Maybe Science should just focus on more important matters, such as how to save the environment, feed a growing Human population and expand the Human reach across the solar system and beyond. Which leaves the subject of the Divine to Religion where it belongs.

This is what working scientists and engineers do every day. We only talk about religion when we're off the clock.

i lol'd. do ye's f*ck

[Artimis]

[aside]
Hi TGD, I see you're still around.
[/aside]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

It seems that Einstein thought there was room for both Science and Religion. So is the failing of the two to get along down to us?

Exactly. Good, agenda-free science would never oppose religion.

The problem is, mrswdk, as Humans we all have agendas of our own. So the way I see it the problem is political, not necessarily government political, but that has come into it at times during history. God creates Man, Man creates Religion. So any conflict that arises between Science and Religion has got nothing to do with God, it's just us and our own pigheaded stubborn tribalism.

[DoomYoshi]

Exactly. Good, agenda-free science would never oppose religion.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. "Science" doesn't oppose anything. Scientists oppose stuff. If it were scientifically proven that religion is as bad for your brain as opium is for your liver, do you not think scientists would oppose religion?

Do you think there is no scientific evidence against drinking the Kool-Aid?

Clearly, you don't understand science, as you are making a characterization which indicates that you know all the answers (there is no reason to oppose religion), in opposition to the scientific method (I wonder if there is any reason to oppose religion).

[thegreekdog]

[aside]
Hi TGD, I see you're still around.
[/aside]

Yeah dude. I can't leave. Glad to see your back(ish).

[BigBallinStalin]

After reading some of the threads in here with posts by members with a background in religion, science and religion + science, I think we should have a debate on what's really going on with this ridiculous idea that it's either science or religion and you've got to choose between the two.

The false dichotomy between science and religion is debatable, but more importantly there is instead a false belief that either X or Y must be chosen. First, there is the fundamental choice of methodology (theological v. scientific) which involves a normative position--e.g. X should be applied to best address questions a,b, and c. Second, that normative decision varies in response to the topics at hand. So, on some issues one can choose to apply the scientific method while on other issues one can choose to apply religion (i.e. revelation through interpretation of some Special Book), and finally some choose to mix both methodologies while addressing certain issues.

Then, we have two sources of confusion:

(1) On the frontiers of logic are propositions whose soundness are unknown (and perhaps unknowable)--e.g. Descartes' Evil Genius/Brains-in-jars v. Wittgenstein and the Practical philosophers. Some people mislabel the conclusions of these dilemmas as 'faith-based' reasoning--e.g. I believe human sensual experiences of the world framed within the scientific method are good enough, so I won't worry about the claims of radical skeptics ("AH! Faith-based reasoning!" No.). There's a difference between faith and belief mostly because 'faith' lies within the realm of religion (properly understood); whereas, 'belief' lies within a meta-category within which lies a segment called 'faith'. Therefore, in this sense it's not a conflict between science and religion; instead, it's a conflict between the scientific method and beliefs (a.k.a. strong priors, preconceived notions).

(2) Recall that we apply different methodologies for addressing particular questions. Often times, the use of the scientific and 'theologic' methodologies become blended until some point where the practitioner is not engaging in real science--e.g. much of creationism, or some atheists' insufficiently grounded claims about religion being on net a bad thing (Hawkins and Sam Harris). In the latter case, they're blending their beliefs too much into their science which taints their conclusions.

One implication of (2) is as crispybits says. The scientific community is content with playing soccer and will welcome anyone to the game--so long as the new entrants bring their soccer gear and abide by the rules of soccer. Typically, conflict arises between religion and science when the new entrants (the religious) join the soccer game and insist on abiding by the rules of basketball while playing soccer. One implication of (1) is that even within the scientific community, you'll get conflict due to people's beliefs/strong priors; however, it should be noted that the corrective mechanism for weeding out crap arguments/hypotheses is more efficient within science than within theology/religion.

[Artimis]

The false choice between Religion and Science is what I'm getting at, as well as the possible motives of those seeking to push this false choice.

I don't have the in depth knowledge of religions that other posters here have. From the outsiders perspective(mine), I see creationism and its proponents pushing really hard to discredit evolution and to push their theory(belief?), they're also challenging the estimated age of the Earth and the Universe. Here in Britain we have Faith-schools opening up, which is proving to be kind of an open door for Creationism. It is important to note that it's not just Creationists that are opening up Faith-schools, other religious organisations are opening Faith-schools in order to teach(or not teach as it turns out) what they deem should be in their curricula. So we're going to wind up with a fragmented standard of education across our population, as well as a significant section of our population being indoctrinated against a theory that has a broad evidence base to support it. I don't know how this is playing out in America, hopefully wise heads are prevailing and Creationism is confined to R.E.(Religious Education), which as far as I'm concerned is fine, R.E. is where various faiths should be taught.

I'm concerned because the majority of the noise seems to be coming from religious groups, are they pushing this false choice because they want people to turn away from science, because they feel that the expanding knowledge base that is accumulating as science seeks to explain more and more is perceived as threatening the validity of their belief system? I honestly cannot see religion dying out anytime soon, so for me any fear that religious groups might have about the encroachment of science into what used to be the realm of the Divine(the motion of celestial bodies, the origin and development of life) is unfounded in my humble opinion.

I want to focus on the interest groups that would benefit from pushing the false choice of siding with Religion or Science only. What do they get out of it? More importantly how do we bring this nonsense to an end?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

The discrepancy comes when you can call a theory "science" without actually following the scientific method.

Without scientific theories how would we conduct science?They are integral to the whole business.

[_sabotage_]

God is everything, science studies everything, science is the study of God.

[chang50]

God is everything, science studies everything, science is the study of God.

Interesting theory,how would you test it?

[BoganGod]

After reading some of the threads in here with posts by members with a background in religion, science and religion + science, I think we should have a debate on what's really going on with this ridiculous idea that it's either science or religion and you've got to choose between the two.

For me the great irony is that it was The Church that initially setup institutions to encourage learning and scholarly investigation into many fields of study. Presumably the motive behind this was that science would prove the existence of God and verify other widely believed geo-centric concepts such as the Earth was at the centre of the solar system. Well, they've got some answers and some of them were more than they bargained for.

To say that Religion and Science don't always see eye-to-eye is a gross understatement. The fact is that we're in a bit of a trap here, science can't be used to *prove* the existence of God/Goddess/Other Deity because then faith would no longer be required, because we'd all know beyond reasonable doubt that God/Goddess/Other Deity existed. So should Science continue to attempt to prove the existence of the Divine?

Maybe Science should just focus on more important matters, such as how to save the environment, feed a growing Human population and expand the Human reach across the solar system and beyond. Which leaves the subject of the Divine to Religion where it belongs.

I can only speak for Catholicism, but my religion doesn't have a problem with science (in fact, I would say we embrace it).

So who killed Galileo? Yes he died at home from natural causes, whilst under house arrest. House arrest for heresy. Imagine how much better this world would be right now if religion had let him reach his scientific potential. Catholicism before lapsing into/specialising in pederasty used to f*ck grown up scientists. It is only now that the church is lacking in hard power(still has too much soft power, look at its role in promoting the spread of aids. Ethnic cleansing maybe?), that the church exclusively preys on the vulnerable. If they could get away with it the catholic(roman, and this distinction is not made often enough) hierarchy would be burning high school science text books, locking women in home economics class, and promoting literacy as only suitable for the clergy.

[_sabotage_]

I am aware of me and others are aware of me. This assures me that I am me. Through awareness I know that I am. My awareness has existed since I was. I have always been aware of me as long as I have been. Therefore my awareness is my always. When my awareness is gone, my always ends. My awareness will never be gone as long as I am. In this, I am the image of God.

Am I God? no because I did not create my awareness, I was given it. Whatever gave it to me was God. Science has taught us that the interactions of the land and water, with the moon and Earth, the sun and Earth, the sun in our solar system, in the galaxy in the universe from the big bang containing all the original ingredients gave it to me. So this is God.

How compatible are the theories of Christianity and science?

Jesus was able to transform matter. Water to wine, crippled to well, but he was also able to in state awareness, dead flesh back to life, and a path to perfection. God's blueprint's were able to grant us awareness but Jesus was the built in mechanism to ensure perfection in the system.

He made us aware that man through the tools of God could and should put the finishing touches on his creation, but that also those same tools could and would lead us towards our own destruction.

Since I am not the creator of my awareness, and I recognize that many were created, I recognize that awareness is intertwined. Would it really be too much if the central tenet of Christianity, do onto to others as you would have others do onto you, could find it's way into our science and religious institutions? It has been denied by the Rulers, it has been denied by the Church, it has been denied by the elite and we see ourselves at a brink. Were this central tenet upheld by diverse groups, then we would see science directed towards the perfection of the planet for all of it's inhabitants. With perfectly suitable alternatives, science has us enriching the few to poison our planet, creating weapons that can eliminate us, profiting off disease instead of curing it, profiting off drugs instead of educating and preventing excess.

I know I am not answering your question, but I would like to ask you one instead. If we have the tools to create a state of perfection should we persist in using them towards our own destruction?

[chang50]

I am aware of me and others are aware of me. This assures me that I am me. Through awareness I know that I am. My awareness has existed since I was. I have always been aware of me as long as I have been. Therefore my awareness is my always. When my awareness is gone, my always ends. My awareness will never be gone as long as I am. In this, I am the image of God.

Am I God? no because I did not create my awareness, I was given it. Whatever gave it to me was God. Science has taught us that the interactions of the land and water, with the moon and Earth, the sun and Earth, the sun in our solar system, in the galaxy in the universe from the big bang containing all the original ingredients gave it to me. So this is God.

How compatible are the theories of Christianity and science?

Jesus was able to transform matter. Water to wine, crippled to well, but he was also able to in state awareness, dead flesh back to life, and a path to perfection. God's blueprint's were able to grant us awareness but Jesus was the built in mechanism to ensure perfection in the system.

He made us aware that man through the tools of God could and should put the finishing touches on his creation, but that also those same tools could and would lead us towards our own destruction.

Since I am not the creator of my awareness, and I recognize that many were created, I recognize that awareness is intertwined. Would it really be too much if the central tenet of Christianity, do onto to others as you would have others do onto you, could find it's way into our science and religious institutions? It has been denied by the Rulers, it has been denied by the Church, it has been denied by the elite and we see ourselves at a brink. Were this central tenet upheld by diverse groups, then we would see science directed towards the perfection of the planet for all of it's inhabitants. With perfectly suitable alternatives, science has us enriching the few to poison our planet, creating weapons that can eliminate us, profiting off disease instead of curing it, profiting off drugs instead of educating and preventing excess.

I know I am not answering your question, but I would like to ask you one instead. If we have the tools to create a state of perfection should we persist in using them towards our own destruction?

Nothing you have written has anything to do with science,sorry........

[Artimis]

[aside]
An interesting tangent, _sabotage_, worthy of it's own thread if one of that nature does not already exist. I'm sure someone has already started a thread to debate Human nature, search one up or start a new one, either suits me.
[/aside]

This however, is a bit of a mind f*ck.

God is everything, science studies everything, science is the study of God.

If true, then effectively science will be incapable of disproving God, because the mere act of investigating the universe and all that it contains is to observe God. Unfortunately it's most likely not provable. A shame, because this would kick a lot of the rhetorical propaganda from some religious groups into touch.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I am aware of me and others are aware of me. This assures me that I am me. Through awareness I know that I am. My awareness has existed since I was. I have always been aware of me as long as I have been. Therefore my awareness is my always. When my awareness is gone, my always ends. My awareness will never be gone as long as I am. In this, I am the image of God.

Am I God? no because I did not create my awareness, I was given it. Whatever gave it to me was God. Science has taught us that the interactions of the land and water, with the moon and Earth, the sun and Earth, the sun in our solar system, in the galaxy in the universe from the big bang containing all the original ingredients gave it to me. So this is God.

How compatible are the theories of Christianity and science?

Jesus was able to transform matter. Water to wine, crippled to well, but he was also able to in state awareness, dead flesh back to life, and a path to perfection. God's blueprint's were able to grant us awareness but Jesus was the built in mechanism to ensure perfection in the system.

He made us aware that man through the tools of God could and should put the finishing touches on his creation, but that also those same tools could and would lead us towards our own destruction.

Since I am not the creator of my awareness, and I recognize that many were created, I recognize that awareness is intertwined. Would it really be too much if the central tenet of Christianity, do onto to others as you would have others do onto you, could find it's way into our science and religious institutions? It has been denied by the Rulers, it has been denied by the Church, it has been denied by the elite and we see ourselves at a brink. Were this central tenet upheld by diverse groups, then we would see science directed towards the perfection of the planet for all of it's inhabitants. With perfectly suitable alternatives, science has us enriching the few to poison our planet, creating weapons that can eliminate us, profiting off disease instead of curing it, profiting off drugs instead of educating and preventing excess.

I know I am not answering your question, but I would like to ask you one instead. If we have the tools to create a state of perfection should we persist in using them towards our own destruction?

Quit bastardizing Sartre.

-TG