Science and Religion: Allies Not Enemies

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

esupposition that existence is indeed a creation, requiring a creator. Until you can substantially prove that existence is a creation which required a creator, you have no right, privilege, or authority to tell anyone that they are right or wrong about anything.

See, evolutionists are social darwinists who regard the existence of God, what is good and evil as matter of fact issues.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Ok. Me, I was making a point about the nature of a world WITHOUT evolutionists. Ya kinda have to go back a ways. I suspect we have differing opinions about the timelessness of human nature then.

I'd be interested in hearing a coherent rationalisation of evolutions role in the start of ww1....

Why do you flip between the scientific theories of evolution and a moral cesspool like social Darwinism?
You're not conflating them, surely?

You always trot out this line without clarifying in an understandable manner. I don't believe in objective morality. I don't see good and evil as fact. But you constantly say I do. Colour me confused.

You use all different defintions for choosing, freedom, subjectivity, objectivity, etc. That is the confusion.

Basically I define my conceptual scheme around the principle that in choosing there are several options available, any of which can be chosen. With this conceptual scheme, and words defined along these lines to be consistent with that principle, you are regarding what is good and evil as fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It would appear, then, that you are the one who doesn't quite understand how subjectivity works.

Oh man, are people still attempting to talk sense into Muhammad? I have him on ignore, and I have to say my life has considerably improved since doing so. I've felt a lot happier, women find me sexier, I even managed to lose a few pounds. I strongly recommend it to everyone.

 

[dust1n]

Oh man, are people still attempting to talk sense into Muhammad? I have him on ignore, and I have to say my life has considerably improved since doing so. I've felt a lot happier, women find me sexier, I even managed to lose a few pounds. I strongly recommend it to everyone.

I'm immensely humored myself. It's like watching a child speak their first words and a gorilla attempt to tie a shoe, all wrapped up into one.

 

[dust1n]

Basically I define my conceptual scheme around the principle that in choosing there are several options available, any of which can be chosen.

Groundbreaking. Let me make sure I got this. When it comes to choosing, there are several options available, any which may be chosen in the choosing.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Oh man, are people still attempting to talk sense into Muhammad? I have him on ignore, and I have to say my life has considerably improved since doing so. I've felt a lot happier, women find me sexier, I even managed to lose a few pounds. I strongly recommend it to everyone.

But I would miss out on so much fun!

 

[morphesium]

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.

Science . . . has been accused of undermining morals—but wrongly.
The ethical behavior of man is better based
on sympathy, education and social relationships, and
requires no support from religion. Man’s plight would,
indeed, be sad if he had to be kept in order through fear
of punishment and hope of rewards after death.

—Albert Einstein

​

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

The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.

—Arthur C. Clarke

​

Do you think it is possible to have morale only through religion? What is the morale of those deeply religious ISIS people????

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.

The Way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.

—Benjamin Franklin​

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 ?

Science is based on reason whereas religion is against reasoning. How can they go hand in hand? How can they compliment each other?

 

[Louis Chérubin]

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 ?

I think the apparent "war" is actually between naturalism and religion. Many scientists who operate with a naturalistic worldview feel very strongly against the idea that any truth can be discovered outside of empirical data. Religion obviously accepts revelation as an equally valid source of knowledge.

 

[Bunyip]

I think the apparent "war" is actually between naturalism and religion. Many scientists who operate with a naturalistic worldview feel very strongly against the idea that any truth can be discovered outside of empirical data. Religion obviously accepts revelation as an equally valid source of knowledge.

Which of course is religions greatest failing, and why science has contributed so much more than religion ever could. Indeed, religion does accept revelation as if it were knowledge.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Which of course is religions greatest failing, and why science has contributed so much more than religion ever could. Indeed, religion does accept revelation as if it were knowledge.

Most scientists are disgusted with scientism, social darwinism. There is no contribution of social darwinists to science because we do not acknowledge them as being proper scientists. It is just the anti-thesis of science, it represents the moral collapse of the scientific pursuit in the holocaust.

 

[Bunyip]

Most scientists are disgusted with scientism, social darwinism. There is no contribution of social darwinists to science because we do not acknowledge them as being proper scientists. It is just the anti-thesis of science, it represents the moral collapse of the scientific pursuit in the holocaust.

Social Darwinism? That went out with the NAZI's buddy. Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Don't be ridiculous.

May want to re-read his username...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Social Darwinism? That went out with the NAZI's buddy. Don't be ridiculous.

The one society most heavily influenced by science today is China, which is a social darwinist nation with various far reaching eugenic policies, and the general sense of a struggle to survive on a national level.

 

[Bunyip]

The one society most heavily influenced by science today is China, which is a social darwinist nation with various far reaching eugenic policies, and the general sense of a struggle to survive on a national level.

LOL

 

[Looncall]

The one society most heavily influenced by science today is China, which is a social darwinist nation with various far reaching eugenic policies, and the general sense of a struggle to survive on a national level.

What China has is a horrendous overpopulation problem, not social darwinist notions.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Why has religion and science been placed in an adversarial role ?

Because science seeks evidence to explain reality but religion presupposes reality and tries to find or shove the evidence to fit their preconceived notions. One uses faith to define "truth" then finds the evidence to support it. The other allows evidence to point them to "truth". Because science begins by asking a question and finding the evidence and religion answers a question and seeks the evidence to support the answer, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

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 ?

But they are "enemies". Science uses reason and religion uses faith. At their most basic levels, they are dynamically opposed.

Can you give us some examples, please ?

"Though shalt not suffer a witch to live".
"... man lies as with a woman, both shall be put to death".
-- Women being stoned under Sharia Law for not being virgin ...

I believe in God...because of science.

No you don't. YOu can't. That is a fallacy from the word "go". Science is silent about God.

Science and Religion are not automatically enemies, but it depends heavily on whether the philosophy of science excludes the possibility of supernatural explanations through 'scientific materialism'.

But science IS materialism. Remember the very fundamental principles of science; that a theory must be Testable, Repeatable, Observable, Falsifiable and Form a Predictive Model of Reality. By very definition, science is materialistic. It can operate in no other way other than by being materialistic. Remember the method: Ask a question; Conduct research; Form an hypothesis; Conduct an experiment; Record your results; Revise hypothesis as necessary; Submit findings for peer review. How can we possibly create an experiment about the existence of anything that is beyond physical tests, experiments and observations? Science does, will and must exclude the possibilities of that which is beyond the reach of which it can observe and test. So yes; science and many religions are automatically enemies.

It is all because of evolution theory and interrelated ideological doctrines such as materialism, atheism, physicalism, racism, nazism, communism. etc.

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with racism, nazism, communism, etc. We tire of repeating ourselves on this point. You provide no evidence to support this stupid, idiotic, ignorant claim. Most Evolutionary Biologists of which I am aware will condemn Racism and Nazism; will condemn eugenics and Selective Breeding of Humans; your concept of what "Evolutionary Theory" is, is deeply delusional.

And all these people who have a problem with the spiritual, they also have a problem with acknowledging the fact that freedom is real.

Strange. I've never heard an Evolutionary Biologist stand and say that humans should be denied basic rights or enslaved or exterminated. I accept Evolution for the fact that it is; but I believe in freedom, including YOUR freedom to be a science denier.

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.

We have been through this. I have described to you how "natural selection" works; and that, in a sense, nature "chooses" or "selects" a given species for extinction in exchange for other species more suitable for their environment. But that isn't good enough for you; because this "choice" or "selection" is rejected because it does not include an "intelligent" chooser.

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

No. Evolutionists discounts "opinions" that are not grounded in evidence. And yes, scientists in general seek out that "single proven fact" as by finding that "single proven fact", we find "truth" of how the world really works. Thus, it can NOT be a matter of "opinion" about whether or not the world is flat or whether or not mosquitoes spread disease. These are not subject to subjectivity and are not subject to "opinion". They either are; or they are not. Many things, however, such as "meaning of marriage" or "which economic system is better" or "whether or not we go to war against _______" are opinions; and these kinds of opinions are not summarily rejected or "destroyed". Your problem is that you can NOT separate the distinction between observations of the natural world from the realities of subjectivity and personal bias and freedom and opinion. Either everything is subjective and matters of opinion, or nothing is subjective and matters of opinion. The thought distortion is yours.

That you are disengenious and that later you will demand answers to questions about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, to be forced by evidence, in stead of choosing the answer.

We do not choose the answer as to whether or not we will fall to our deaths if we step off a cliff.

You reject anything for which there is, in principle, no evidence available. That means you reject subjectivity altogether.

No. We reject explanations of the natural world when the alleged explanations are devoid of evidence. We do not reject the subjectivity of holding a founded opinion, falling in love, being angry, or having a stand on economics or government. Your assertion that "evolutionists" decry "subjectivity" and "opinion" is ludicrous, as has bee pointed out to you numerous times and in numerous ways. Steel will cut Styrofoam; no other way around that; but Styrofoam can not cut steel. This is not a matter of subjective opinion, choice or freedom. It is a matter of physical properties of the world.

Subjectivity has no place in science or in finding explanations of how the world works. Objectivity has no place when determining if two people feel "love" for each other.

Distinghuishing matters of fact from matters of opinion is key.

Exactly! Where we came form; common descent; why it rains; these are not matters of opinion. These are matters of fact.

I don't believe you have emotions. That's my opinion. You don't believe in God, I don't believe in you.

Then substantiate your opinion. There are parts of the brain that are responsible for experiencing emotion. Does the one you are accusing have damage to that brain function? If so, maybe you can turn your "opinion" into "fact". Does the one in question NOT show signs of emotional changes? Then you have a point! But you simply stating that so-and-so does not have emotion but fail to provide any evidence whatsoever of that assertion, then the assertion is completely worthless.

You are getting the hang of it. My opinion about you having no emotions, is about who you are choosing the things you do. But I arrived at the opinion by choosing it, so the opinion just as well says as much about who I am as choosing the things I do.

But your "choosing" that "so and so" doesn't have emotions doesn't make that person have no emotions. Your "opinion" is worthless if it can be substantiated; and it is much more worthless when your "opinion" contradicts observation and evidence. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

They didn't have religion on Star Trek so that proves science will win in the end....

Right On! Star Trek rules!

In all societies you have the evolutionist intellectual cliques who want to take control of policy and bypass democracy, because they presume to know for a fact what is good and evil.

Give me one example of an evolutionary scientist -- not some nutjob like Hitler or Mao, but someone who is an evolutionary or molecular biologist -- attempting to take control of government and become a dictator. Show me one example. Just one. If you can't show me that one example, stfu.

Creation needs creator.

Design needs designer.

Universe apparently needs a universer.

I hope you're being fecisious. The problems with this line of thought include several suppositions which are not substantiated by science:

• The universe was "created".
• The universe was "designed".

Before you can assert a "creator", you must substantiate that there is a "creation". Before you can assert a "designer" you must substantiate that a "design process" occurred.

See, evolutionists are social darwinists who regard the existence of God, what is good and evil as matter of fact issues.

Herbert Spencer is the "father" of Social Darwinism. Darwin and Evolutionary Sciences had nothing to do with Social Darwinism. Why must we keep repeating ourselves?

You use all different defintions for choosing, freedom, subjectivity, objectivity, etc. That is the confusion.

Actually, the confusion is that you use definitions of Choosing, freedom, Subjectivity, Objectivity that are completely your own and are apparently shared by nobody. The only one using "different" definitions for the ideas is you.

 

[dust1n]

I hope you're being fecisious. The problems with this line of thought include several suppositions which are not substantiated by science:

• The universe was "created".
• The universe was "designed".

Before you can assert a "creator", you must substantiate that there is a "creation". Before you can assert a "designer" you must substantiate that a "design process" occurred.

I was. Just pointing out basically what you were saying but less clearly. It's rhetorical device. Creation needs a creator presupposes a creator because it's called creation, but if there was no creator one couldn't rightly call it creation.

 

[Laika]

But science IS materialism. Remember the very fundamental principles of science; that a theory must be Testable, Repeatable, Observable, Falsifiable and Form a Predictive Model of Reality. By very definition, science is materialistic. It can operate in no other way other than by being materialistic. Remember the method: Ask a question; Conduct research; Form an hypothesis; Conduct an experiment; Record your results; Revise hypothesis as necessary; Submit findings for peer review. How can we possibly create an experiment about the existence of anything that is beyond physical tests, experiments and observations? Science does, will and must exclude the possibilities of that which is beyond the reach of which it can observe and test. So yes; science and many religions are automatically enemies.

Not the Big Bang or quantum mechanics. they aren't materialist at all- so you're forced to chose between materialism as an ideology or science as a 'neutral' method of investigation. You'd also have to chose sides on many questions of neuroscience and solve the hard problem of consciousness.materialism can give an answer, but I'm not 100% satisfied it will be the right one as it redefines the scientific method to something overtly partisan on philosophical and religious questions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Then substantiate your opinion. There are parts of the brain that are responsible for experiencing emotion. Does the one you are accusing have damage to that brain function? If so, maybe you can turn your "opinion" into "fact". Does the one in question NOT show signs of emotional changes? Then you have a point! But you simply stating that so-and-so does not have emotion but fail to provide any evidence whatsoever of that assertion, then the assertion is completely worthless.

See, where else you said "sadness" is subjective, and love is subjective, you still just measure love and sadness objectively in the brain.

When you say subjective you don't mean reaching the conclusion by choosing it, you mean something like an observation related to the uniqueness of the observer, or whatever. You reject subjectivity in the creationist sense of choosing about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion. Of actually having alternative answers available, each of which answers is logically valid, and can be chosen.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Oh man, are people still attempting to talk sense into Muhammad? I have him on ignore, and I have to say my life has considerably improved since doing so. I've felt a lot happier, women find me sexier, I even managed to lose a few pounds. I strongly recommend it to everyone.

*chuckles*
This made me laugh.
I was wondering why I'd put on a coupla pounds lately...