-
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!
How reliable are the findings of science?
- Thread starter tomspug
- Start date
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Huh? What is this supposed to mean?
He also said "Imagination is more important than knowledge". I think both quotes mean the same thing. I'm still unclear on why science needs religion and religion needs science, unless you're using them metaphorically, as Einstein was.
The idea of science is to explain what we sense with our five senses. However, the second sentence is incorrect. Einstein's relativity theory, for instance, was completely new and radical.
Again, please realize the difference between a scientific theory and a regular theory. You can even just refer to my earlier post, if you want.
That's the beauty of science. It's self-correcting and adjusts with the times.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I didn't quite understand this. Could you explicate? Thanks.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
Self-correcting, basically, is saying that science can be refuted. People always knew that when something went up in the air it always came down but not always in the same locations. A recent scientific study came out that said if you drink hot liquids in the onset of illness you were more likely to get better fast.We didn't already know this?
Certain foods grow better in this climate then over in that one. Or grow better with this much water. Or quarantine this illness or it will spread and some will die. Better yet, that we didn't always know that the earth was round or that time is relative.
Science is only proving what was already known. Those of us that understand this are laughing right about now.
Certain foods grow better in this climate then over in that one. Or grow better with this much water. Or quarantine this illness or it will spread and some will die. Better yet, that we didn't always know that the earth was round or that time is relative.
Science is only proving what was already known. Those of us that understand this are laughing right about now.
MindHunter
Member
rakhel said:
Why? Science is objective, about finding proof, theories, being testable, explaining phenomena. And what exactly would science be trying to prove that didn't happen and would need religion to do so?
Religion is about faith, believing with no proof, so I don't understand why it'd need something to prove. Doing that would contradict the basic premise of faith and belief.
Science needs some phenomena and scientists to investigate it. Blind faith is of no use whatsoever, for a simple reason: it's purely subjective. Science is to be objective.
If science needs religion, that is the same as saying objectivity needs subjectivity. That is completely false. If some event didn't occur, then using religion implies that depending who you talk to, there will be a different account of that event in some way. Take for example 3 Christians. One is a die-hard one who takes the bible literally. The other takes the bible metaphorically, mostly for advice. The last one is closer to be agnostic. Depending which one you talk to about, say, god, then you'll get variations. If you are to investigate this scientifically, then it's hopeless because it's too inconsistent, you'll have no reliability and no validity. Also, how are you to test it? If it didn't happen and it's purely subjective, then what is the testability for the theory? How are you to explain the mechanisms, when you cant even figure out what the event is in the first place?
Therefore, science needing religion to prove something didn't happen is false. Religion needing science to prove it is false, as that contradicts faith, contradicts belief, and therefore, contradicts the basis of religion.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
That doesn't sound much like science to me. You are right that science explains things. However, for one, people didn't always know the Earth was spherical. for another, it's not just about saying if we quarantine this illness, it won't spread. It's about explaining why it needs to be quarantined and what we can do to actually stop it.
Tell me, if you lived in the year 1000, would you have known that light actually moves, or that it moves at a constant rate or what that rate is? Would you have known how to build a computer? Would you have been able to fly in an airplane? Science doesn't just explain what we already know, it builds on it to increase that "stuff we already know".
Some of us are laughing for a different reason right about now.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Yeah, it's a good thing we always knew about antibiotics or that Black Death could have been really bad. 
Silly science, trying to tell us what we already knew.
Or how to split the atom, or what an atom even was.... man where do those scientists get off huh? Everyone already knew about that stuff.
wa:do
Silly science, trying to tell us what we already knew.
Or how to split the atom, or what an atom even was.... man where do those scientists get off huh? Everyone already knew about that stuff.
wa:do
Anti-thesisofreason
Explorer
Something interesting I found a few days ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...ws/5081751/Why-science-doesnt-make-sense.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencea...ws/5081751/Why-science-doesnt-make-sense.html
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Those of you who believe this are wrong.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Before we know of any form of religion existing, of course due to the lack of the written word, we do know human beings started using logic to track animals. Careful observations that lie at the foundation of tracking plus the onset of agriculture and mathematics in early civilizations tells us that an understanding of the natural world similar to modern science developed at least as early as religion. Probably earlier. That some societies codified their natural observations into myths leads in no way to the conclusion that the fractions of a myth we are familiar with of early people was actually indicative of the beliefs of those people and not just of a fraction of the populace.
But there is much they did not know. Blood circulation, the functions of organs (of which to this day our vernacular talks much of the heart having nothing to do with its actual function), what causes disease, vision (humans learned light enters the eye as opposed to beams emitted from the eye), etc.
Infants learn that when something goes up in the air it comes down. Knowing something falls to the earth in no way is the same thing as understanding gravity. Heck, scientists are still trying to explicate a better understanding of gravitational force from observation. There isn't a known religious doctrine in existence to shed light on that subject.
Stating that science needs religion, or vice-versa, means nothing. Providing a valid argument as to why one needs the other would be better.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
One can definitely hear some very hearty laughter right now.
In an ironic twist on a common statement - they are laughing AT you, not WITH you.
Last edited:
J Bryson
Well-Known Member
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
I followed the link, J - and I have to say that that is one disturbing site.
I guess I knew that such lunacy had to exist, but man, that was tough to browse through.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
The sad thing is, when I was the Deacon of a Southern Baptist church, I used to hand these ignorant tracts out left and right.
:sorry1:
mordorf
Member
How reliable are the findings of science?
Well a scientist will always look at let's say a volcano and he/she will use experiments and theories to figure out how a volcano works.
But those who follow holy scriptures never ask why the earth orbits around the sun, or what are humans made of for example no they always claim that it is what it is simply because god made it so, they never try to use reasoning to figure something out that they can't explain it is always a supernatural thing that they claim is the creator.
But we who don't follow some "holy scripture".
When there is something that we don't understand or can't explain we do research about that object or whatever it is and we try to figure out what it is what it's made of.
We don't suddenly claim that it is a god or an alien simply because we can't explain what is.
Let's take Michael Behe and the theory that he uses "irreducible complexity" now that theory is a load of ******** the bacteria flagellum that he claims will be of no use when you remove a part of it's engine is not ture one bacteria flagellum that look almost the same but it not so many components is Yersinia pestis how come that one is working didn't that bacteria kill millions of people in Europe.
And Michael Behe claims that it's true that if you remove one thing and it will be of no good but they haven't done that experiment in labs and i can almost be very certain that it won't stop working if you remove one thing of it's engine.
Well a scientist will always look at let's say a volcano and he/she will use experiments and theories to figure out how a volcano works.
But those who follow holy scriptures never ask why the earth orbits around the sun, or what are humans made of for example no they always claim that it is what it is simply because god made it so, they never try to use reasoning to figure something out that they can't explain it is always a supernatural thing that they claim is the creator.
But we who don't follow some "holy scripture".
When there is something that we don't understand or can't explain we do research about that object or whatever it is and we try to figure out what it is what it's made of.
We don't suddenly claim that it is a god or an alien simply because we can't explain what is.
Let's take Michael Behe and the theory that he uses "irreducible complexity" now that theory is a load of ******** the bacteria flagellum that he claims will be of no use when you remove a part of it's engine is not ture one bacteria flagellum that look almost the same but it not so many components is Yersinia pestis how come that one is working didn't that bacteria kill millions of people in Europe.
And Michael Behe claims that it's true that if you remove one thing and it will be of no good but they haven't done that experiment in labs and i can almost be very certain that it won't stop working if you remove one thing of it's engine.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
How reliable are the findings of science?
Simple. They are the most reliable findings we can achieve based on our current understanding of the variables involved.
We no of no other process which consistently results in reliable findings.
Simple. They are the most reliable findings we can achieve based on our current understanding of the variables involved.
We no of no other process which consistently results in reliable findings.
tomspug
Absorbant
I was watching an interesting tv show the other day about the Shroud of Turin. Now, I know next to nothing about this artifact and have never considered it holy, but what I found interesting was how stubborn the scientific community seemed to hold to incorrect data. "STRP" had concluded that the Shroud was dated somewhere around a millenia ago, but they had dated a part of the Shroud that had been restored with dyes in the 1500s, thereby ruining the results. Worse, it was non-scientists who were simply curious that were able to realize this by simply taking a closer look at the data STRP had collected. And yet, you will find it easy to find members of the scientific community who hold the original STRP conclusions to be true, even though they have been admitted by its own original members with access to the original data to be faulty.
Just thought it was relevant to this topic. Doesn't it seem like certain people just love to say that people's faith is a lie, even if they themselves are speaking out of faith?
Just thought it was relevant to this topic. Doesn't it seem like certain people just love to say that people's faith is a lie, even if they themselves are speaking out of faith?
mordorf
Member
Even scientists can make mistake.
I know of one christian scientist that made a claim of the banana that it must be god who made the banana simply because it fits so good in our hands but the bananas that we can bye in the US or Europe has been cultivated by man not by some god.
If the banana fits in our hands why not the coconut or the watermelon, no because the real banana that grows in the wild is much thicker and shorter than the banana that man has grown.
And one thing that religious people always do is when you claim that there is a god and we who don't believe in god you always make the assumption that it's the one who claim that there is a god the burden of evidence is on not the non-believer.
I know of one christian scientist that made a claim of the banana that it must be god who made the banana simply because it fits so good in our hands but the bananas that we can bye in the US or Europe has been cultivated by man not by some god.
If the banana fits in our hands why not the coconut or the watermelon, no because the real banana that grows in the wild is much thicker and shorter than the banana that man has grown.
And one thing that religious people always do is when you claim that there is a god and we who don't believe in god you always make the assumption that it's the one who claim that there is a god the burden of evidence is on not the non-believer.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What's interesting is how you decided that Ray Rogers is right, and the overwhelming preponderance of scientific papers from several different fields are all wrong. Since you know nothing about this artifact, how did you come to this conclusion?
It is relevant, toms. It's a good example of how bad science can be accepted uncritically by people eager to bolster their faith beliefs, while they simultaneously reject the scientific process itself, and the majority of mainstream scientists who question it.
A Skeptical Response to Ray Rogers on the Shroud of Turin