• 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!

Science and Religion: Allies Not Enemies

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
What about the social sciences, which explicitly study things like human beliefs, cultures, and ideas?

What about them?

I'm assuming you are classifying the social sciences in with the hard sciences as if they were they were the same thing. But that can only work if you can find me a school where the study of the social sciences isn't housed in the Liberal Arts building... ya know what I mean?

And besides, the study of people doing things doesn't make the things that they do any more legitimate, right?

Witch-doctors can't cure leprosy by blowing magic smoke on people just because we study the practice of witch-doctors blowing smoke. Regardless of how sincere a witch-doctor is in his application of herb burning and smoke blowing, and regardless of how many hundreds of years his ancestors practiced the same "medicine", there is nothing magical about it. Blowing smoke still doesn't cure disease. It will always just be some guy blowing fragrances on sick people, despite how neat it might be to observe.

We can learn about the cultures of people, and we can gather data about their behaviors, and about their faiths, and that's all part of social science, but it's not the same thing as the physical sciences. The physical nature of our existence cannot be disputed just because some of us prefer to believe in magic.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Apparently I have more respect for people who hold the notion of evolution as true.
I care.

Almost always acceptance of the notion of evolution stands in the way of acceptance of creationism. So the facts about how anything is chosen are discarded, in favor of supposed facts about descendancy.

Would you say anybody really knows a human being, if they did not know people choose? Same for the freedom in the universe at large. Fact wise, it is just not acceptable to me to ignore the fact that freedom is real. And opinion wise, subjectivity is a creationist concept. Which means evolutionists are bad at subjectivity because of rejecting creationism. And if that is not enough there are the social darwinists, who incorporate what is good and evil into science as fact, the anti-thesis of science as well as religion. Social darwinism is a very, very, big issue.
 

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Can you give us some examples, please ?

Not something you'll want to see, haha.
Besides I don't know if there are infinite characters to the comments,
so I don't know if we could fit them all.

There really are quite a few...
Pick a religion first then the examples should come second.
Pretty sure we can get at least 10 things from 90% of all religions in.

Christian faith might fit 50, but no more because I'm lazy :D
 

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Isn't that a bit of a stretch?
I like science. I believe in evolution.
I believe God is stirring the chemistry.

I am not entirely apathetic.

Don't agree with all of what you say here.
But it's better than what I normally get from you.

Good to know you aren't at least a total lost cause.

:D
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I think that science and religion are allies and not enemies. The confusion stems from what they do, and from the fact they look at issues from a different perspective.

Science is based on observation, experience and experiments. It can tell how things, the way they work. It Is good for independently verifying facts, extrapolating from an experience.

Religion is good at moral questions and setting up a system of thought that is consistent.

They are not the enemies of each other. Each plays a part in society, and one should not be seen better then the other. They play, in fact, a complimentary role to each other, in a way one hand washes the other.

Why has religion and science been placed in an adversarial role ? Why do some religions suggest and propose absurd thins, stop progress and act in a manner that is the opposite that human beings want to live ? What can we, personally do, to erase the so called " War", and help religion and science see they compliment each other, and should not be turned into enemies ?
Short answer ... tradition and the reluctance to change/progress has caused this split.
 

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Please, teacher, teach us all about ourselves. We'd never know what with living with ourselves and all. We rely on your superior knowledge of what we are more than the actual experience of being ourselves. We shine only under your superior tutelage.

It seems you have also been entranced by his supreme wisdom!
Welcome, to the religion of no making sense, we worship what we are told to.
But the Wise One is our ruler and we only know what he says we know.
It is truly a great place to be!

Damn that got annoying fast.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I think this is appropriate.
image.png



Until you start abusing it



awrvwz.jpg
 
Last edited:

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
What about them?

Social sciences study what people believe. A blanket statement that "science doesn't care what you believe" is simply incorrect. That, and the entire statement is something of an anthropomorphism. Sciences, not being persons, can neither "care" nor "not care" about anything. Kind of makes that entire poster/meme/whatever little more than a political statement designed to buttress personal values or point of view. I'm not really sure what the point of posting that was, actually.


I'm assuming you are classifying the social sciences in with the hard sciences as if they were they were the same thing.

Why would you make such an odd assumption? Curious.

And besides, the study of people doing things doesn't make the things that they do any more legitimate, right?

It's also very curious that you took what I said in this direction. Hmm.

Honestly, sir, you understand you're preaching to the choir, right? I just don't like the meme, because it's wrong in addition to being a bit silly. :D
 

dust1n

Zindīq
There can of course never be any peace with such a view. Love is a matter of opinion, not fact, and any who advertises the view that it is fact is an enemy of Islam, democracy and just civilization in general.

To be fair, there hardly seems like there is anything that isn't an enemy of Islam, except Islam itself.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
To be fair, there hardly seems like there is anything that isn't an enemy of Islam, except Islam itself.
Which isn't something Christianity can say.

bar.gif

A

B
C
D
E
F
G
H
DENOMINATIONS CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
DENOMINATIONS CONTINUED

I

J
L
M
N
O
P
R
S
T
  • Traditional Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
U
V
W
Homechurch/Cell Groups/Miscellaneous
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Which isn't something Christianity can say.

The meaning of you posting this list, is that evolutionists would like to destroy all opinion, and only have the single proven fact.

There is no surprise there is a large variety in religion, because religion is subjective, and subjectivity operates by choosing, and for choosing there are at least 2 valid answers available.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Please, teacher, teach us all about ourselves. We'd never know what with living with ourselves and all. We rely on your superior knowledge of what we are more than the actual experience of being ourselves. We shine only under your superior tutelage.

Subjectivity is a creationist concept. And we can all see how evolutionists are on the forums, and in general, that they suck at subjectivity.
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
Subjectivity is a creationist concept. And we can all see how evolutionists are on the forums, and in general, that they suck at subjectivity.
I humbly await your next instruction in what a pathetic human being those of us who understand science are. Perhaps, under your supreme tutelage, I shall come to understand that only you truly understand science, only you truly understand me, and that I can know these things only through you.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Social sciences study what people believe. A blanket statement that "science doesn't care what you believe" is simply incorrect. That, and the entire statement is something of an anthropomorphism. Sciences, not being persons, can neither "care" nor "not care" about anything. Kind of makes that entire poster/meme/whatever little more than a political statement designed to buttress personal values or point of view. I'm not really sure what the point of posting that was, actually.

Perhaps we shouldn't take memes too seriously, then....

Like any one-liner, it serves to highlight an idea, not to be read as a manifesto.
The whole point of the concept behind the meme is that there is a difference between reality and what we believe about reality. Objectivity versus Subjectivity, for example. There are those things that we believe about existence - and then there are the facts of existence - Science , as an endeavour which attempts to ascertain the facts of existence, doesn't care about our invented understandings of existence. It only cares about the facts.

It's a true statement.

Why would you make such an odd assumption? Curious.

Because that's the only way that your dismantling of the very serious meme that I posted would work.

Honestly, sir, you understand you're preaching to the choir, right? I just don't like the meme, because it's wrong in addition to being a bit silly. :D[/QUOTE]

Science doesn't care if you like the meme or not....
giphy.gif
 
Top