Is it possible.....

[Ehav4Ever]

After viewing some of the science vs. religion debates I had the following considerations.

1. Is it possible that some religous people understand various disciplines of science very well finding no contradiction between their particular religion and current accepted scientific findings?
2. Is it possible that non-religious people understand certain religions and religious principles better that some people who adhere to those religions or religious principles?
3. Is it possible that there exist religions that have no contradictions with science past or present?
4. Is it possible that today's science could end up being the future's superstition?
5. Is it possible that some people who talk about science (religious or not) themselves have never really studied any discipline of it seriously and have never performed any practical science experiments.
6. Is it possible that there are some religious people who accept things 2nd, 3rd, and even 10th hand with no direct research into whether what they believe is even historically true or not?
7. Is it possible that that the words like science and religion are often used in a very general minimalist ways to where the lack of specifics causes the division and not the actual science or religion themselves?

 

[exchemist]

After viewing some of the science vs. religion debates I had the following considerations.

1. Is it possible that some religous people understand various disciplines of science very well finding no contradiction between their particular religion and current accepted scientific findings?
2. Is it possible that non-religious people understand certain religions and religious principles better that some people who adhere to those religions or religious principles?
3. Is it possible that there exist religions that have no contradictions with science past or present?
4. Is it possible that today's science could end up being the future's superstition?
5. Is it possible that some people who talk about science (religious or not) themselves have never really studied any discipline of it seriously and have never performed any practical science experiments.
6. Is it possible that there are some religious people who accept things 2nd, 3rd, and even 10th hand with no direct research into whether what they believe is even historically true or not?
7. Is it possible that that the words like science and religion are often used in a very general minimalist ways to where the lack of specifics causes the division and not the actual science or religion themselves?

Yes to all I think, except possibly no.4. I am trying to think of occasions in history in which a refuted or outdated scientific model became a superstition. I can't think of any. There are very few ideas from science that seem to have become embedded in popular culture Perhaps the popular picture of the atom with orbits is an example, but that hardly constitutes a superstition.

Do you have anything in mind to illustrate this happening?

 

[SalixIncendium]

After viewing some of the science vs. religion debates I had the following considerations.

1. Is it possible that some religous people understand various disciplines of science very well finding no contradiction between their particular religion and current accepted scientific findings?
2. Is it possible that non-religious people understand certain religions and religious principles better that some people who adhere to those religions or religious principles?
3. Is it possible that there exist religions that have no contradictions with science past or present?
4. Is it possible that today's science could end up being the future's superstition?
5. Is it possible that some people who talk about science (religious or not) themselves have never really studied any discipline of it seriously and have never performed any practical science experiments.
6. Is it possible that there are some religious people who accept things 2nd, 3rd, and even 10th hand with no direct research into whether what they believe is even historically true or not?
7. Is it possible that that the words like science and religion are often used in a very general minimalist ways to where the lack of specifics causes the division and not the actual science or religion themselves?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. No.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. Yes.

 

[Harel13]

except possibly no.4. I am trying to think of occasions in history in which a refuted or outdated scientific model became a superstition. I can't think of any

Flat-earthers? (if I understood the question correctly)

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Yes to all I think, except possibly no.4. I am trying to think of occasions in history in which a refuted or outdated scientific model became a superstition. I can't think of any. There are very few ideas from science that seem to have become embedded in popular culture Perhaps the popular picture of the atom with orbits is an example, but that hardly constitutes a superstition.

Do you have anything in mind to illustrate this happening?

Yes, an a few examples I can think of are some aspects of Alchemy, Astronomy, and Medicine from ancient cultures. Mainly the parts that said generation had no real way to fully understand, given their technology of their time or a lack of access to the proper tools or understandings.

This is again getting into the issue of how one defines science or the disciplines of sciences.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

 

[Augustus]

. There are very few ideas from science that seem to have become embedded in popular culture Perhaps the popular picture of the atom with orbits is an example, but that hardly constitutes a superstition.

Scientific racialist theories still influence many people today.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Also, Medical astrology was once considered by some cultures to be science. Over time, of course, various aspects of it were proven to not be correct.

 

[exchemist]

Scientific racialist theories still influence many people today.

Yes, that's a nice example!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

After viewing some of the science vs. religion debates I had the following considerations.

1. Is it possible that some religous people understand various disciplines of science very well finding no contradiction between their particular religion and current accepted scientific findings?

What do you think a 'yes' answer suggests?

 

[exchemist]

Also, Medical astrology was once considered by some cultures to be science. Over time, of course, various aspects of it were proven to not be correct.

Not really. It is fairly meaningless to talk of what people before the Renaissance might have "considered to be science", as there was no science in the modern sense then and it was not a term they used.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

science | Origin and meaning of science by Online Etymology Dictionary

It is not so much that gravity is the same for all humans. It is, what science is a human behavior, which can change and how we view knowledge. That is what we always fight over. Who knows and who only believes.
I only believe in the end and I have done so for over 20+ years, but apparently I am still here. So I doubt what knowledge and thus science really is, other than a human cultural product, which is in a sense a product of nature and nurture.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

What do you think a 'yes' answer suggests?

I am seperating my own thoughts from the questions. It is up to the forum participants to decide.

 

[HonestJoe]

After viewing some of the science vs. religion debates I had the following considerations.

1. Is it possible that some religous people understand various disciplines of science very well finding no contradiction between their particular religion and current accepted scientific findings?
2. Is it possible that non-religious people understand certain religions and religious principles better that some people who adhere to those religions or religious principles?
3. Is it possible that there exist religions that have no contradictions with science past or present?
4. Is it possible that today's science could end up being the future's superstition?
5. Is it possible that some people who talk about science (religious or not) themselves have never really studied any discipline of it seriously and have never performed any practical science experiments.
6. Is it possible that there are some religious people who accept things 2nd, 3rd, and even 10th hand with no direct research into whether what they believe is even historically true or not?
7. Is it possible that that the words like science and religion are often used in a very general minimalist ways to where the lack of specifics causes the division and not the actual science or religion themselves?

1. Not just possible, it is certainly true in some cases (though that doesn't necessarily mean they're right)
2. Again, not just possible but true in some cases. That certainly doesn't mean it is true in all the cases where non-religious people claim it though.
3. Not sure about that one, it kind of depends how widely we're defining religion. In general, a religion will rely on faith to make factual assertions for things without evidence and that contradicts science on principle (even if they happen, by pure chance, to be correct). I'm not sure that anything that is entirely consistent with scientific principles could really be called a religion by any normal definition.
4. Again, depends on definition. Some scientific conclusions which fit the evidence a one time can be proven wrong or incomplete with newly discovered evidence at a later date, yet some people can refuse to accept the new evidence and stick to the flawed conclusions. I guess that could develop in to superstition over time.
5. Oh, that is certainly true. That doesn't automatically invalidate anything they say on the topic though, nor does it mean those who have formally studied are automatically correct all the time.
6. Everyone does that, religious or not. We can't really operate any other way since we can't possible study everything we interact with ourselves. The key thing is to be aware of the sources of your information and treat it appropriately (which we all often fail to do).
7. Loads of words can be and are used in that manner. "Science" and "religion" are just two of them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

After viewing some of the science vs. religion debates I had the following considerations.

1. Is it possible that some religous people understand various disciplines of science very well finding no contradiction between their particular religion and current accepted scientific findings?

What do you think a 'yes' answer suggests?

I am seperating my own thoughts from the questions. It is up to the forum participants to decide.

Very well. Then my answer to the first question is:

Sadly, yes: simple awareness is not, in and of itself, curative.​

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

1. Not just possible, it is certainly true in some cases (though that doesn't necessarily mean they're right)
2. Again, not just possible but true in some cases. That certainly doesn't mean it is true in all the cases where non-religious people claim it though.
3. Not sure about that one, it kind of depends how widely we're defining religion. In general, a religion will rely on faith to make factual assertions for things without evidence and that contradicts science on principle (even if they happen, by pure chance, to be correct). I'm not sure that anything that is entirely consistent with scientific principles could really be called a religion by any normal definition.
4. Again, depends on definition. Some scientific conclusions which fit the evidence a one time can be proven wrong or incomplete with newly discovered evidence at a later date, yet some people can refuse to accept the new evidence and stick to the flawed conclusions. I guess that could develop in to superstition over time.
5. Oh, that is certainly true. That doesn't automatically invalidate anything they say on the topic though, nor does it mean those who have formally studied are automatically correct all the time.
6. Everyone does that, religious or not. We can't really operate any other way since we can't possible study everything we interact with ourselves. The key thing is to be aware of the sources of your information and treat it appropriately (which we all often fail to do).
7. Loads of words can be and are used in that manner. "Science" and "religion" are just two of them.

1. Being right, is not science as such. That is a form of prescriptive and sometime normative claim.
3. That in part depends as such as much on how you define science as how you view religion.

Even with 1. and 3. good answers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it possible that there exist religions that have no contradictions with science past or present?

Of course. Some religions make no claims about the physical world (e.g. Unitarian Universalism).

OTOH, I haven't found a religion yet that both:

- makes claims that have implications for the physical world, and
- is correct about all of those claims.

 

[Altfish]

After viewing some of the science vs. religion debates I had the following considerations.

1. Is it possible that some religous people understand various disciplines of science very well finding no contradiction between their particular religion and current accepted scientific findings?
2. Is it possible that non-religious people understand certain religions and religious principles better that some people who adhere to those religions or religious principles?
3. Is it possible that there exist religions that have no contradictions with science past or present?
4. Is it possible that today's science could end up being the future's superstition?
5. Is it possible that some people who talk about science (religious or not) themselves have never really studied any discipline of it seriously and have never performed any practical science experiments.
6. Is it possible that there are some religious people who accept things 2nd, 3rd, and even 10th hand with no direct research into whether what they believe is even historically true or not?
7. Is it possible that that the words like science and religion are often used in a very general minimalist ways to where the lack of specifics causes the division and not the actual science or religion themselves?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No - please tell me if I'm wrong
4. No
5. Very doubtful; I did science at school and we did loads of experiments - I assume most people have had the same experience
6. Yes
7. No, at least I don't believe so.

 

[Kenny]

Is it possible that some religous people understand various disciplines of science very well finding no contradiction between their particular religion and current accepted scientific findings?

Generally yes. However, science continually makes adjustments which might invalidate previous positions which, if the first was contradictory to the religious position, then it became in harmony.

Likewise, one interpretation of a religious text may have been in disagreement with science but after better study came in harmony with science.

At this point it appears that miracles will always be in disagreement with science.

Is it possible that non-religious people understand certain religions and religious principles better that some people who adhere to those religions or religious principles?

I guess that is possible if study time is not equal. But given study time to be equal, the answer would be no.

Is it possible that there exist religions that have no contradictions with science past or present?

Since I don't know all religions, I will pass on this one.

Is it possible that today's science could end up being the future's superstition?

no

Is it possible that some people who talk about science (religious or not) themselves have never really studied any discipline of it seriously and have never performed any practical science experiments.

Of course.

Is it possible that there are some religious people who accept things 2nd, 3rd, and even 10th hand with no direct research into whether what they believe is even historically true or not?

Certainly. I find that equally the same on the scientific side

Is it possible that that the words like science and religion are often used in a very general minimalist ways to where the lack of specifics causes the division and not the actual science or religion themselves?

I would think so