Yes,.
-
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 are not necessarily in conflict.
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I think that you have a very distorted view of science there, to the point of being truly insulting and demeaning. Science does not dismiss all things that are not of the physical domain - that is simply false. Science is the study of the physical domain - if you are talking about something outside of the natural worlds it is outside of the realm of science.
If there were scientific evidence for deities and paranormal claims, science would show it. Science and scientists have no reason whatsoever to reject or deny evidence, in fact there would be nothing to gain from such denial and everyth8ng to lose.
Personally I find the idea that there is eidence, but science rejects such things to be an insult to the integrity of science and the intelligence of the general reader.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Well even Ghosts might have different meaning to individuals>
But a question for you George.
Ghosts' Appearances, Clothes and Mental States
“Ghost, n. The outward and visible sign of an inward fear. There is one insuperable obstacle to a belief in ghosts. A ghost never comes back naked: he appears either in a winding-sheet or 'in his habit as he lived.' To believe in him, then, is to believe that not only have the dead the power to make themselves visible after there is nothing left of them, but that the same power inheres in textile fabrics. Supposing the products of the loom to have this ability, what object would they have in exercising it? And why does not the apparition of a suit of clothes sometimes walk abroad without a ghost in it? These be riddles of significance.”
"The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce (1967)
Ghosts, Physical Properties and Ghostly Clothes: A Skeptical Investigation
But a question for you George.
Ghosts' Appearances, Clothes and Mental States
“Ghost, n. The outward and visible sign of an inward fear. There is one insuperable obstacle to a belief in ghosts. A ghost never comes back naked: he appears either in a winding-sheet or 'in his habit as he lived.' To believe in him, then, is to believe that not only have the dead the power to make themselves visible after there is nothing left of them, but that the same power inheres in textile fabrics. Supposing the products of the loom to have this ability, what object would they have in exercising it? And why does not the apparition of a suit of clothes sometimes walk abroad without a ghost in it? These be riddles of significance.”
"The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce (1967)
Ghosts, Physical Properties and Ghostly Clothes: A Skeptical Investigation
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
This is one of the interesting things about modern times - EVERYONE has a camera. People have cameras on them all the time and there are CCTV systems all over. It would be fair to assume that UFO's , ghosts, demons, bigfoot, chupacabras etc etc etc etc have been for all intents and purposes categorically disproven.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Personally I wouldn't go quite that far, especially for UFO's. Which are just unidentified flying objects, but actually about 5% unexplained and I am not talking the history channel ancient alien show. One difference is some of these can be studied scientifically others not at all.
Bigfoot and chupacabras, I think if ANY evidence were found would be considered natural and not quite the same at least for me as demons and ghosts really. Hence some difference between supernatural and paranormal.
This is an interesting article.
Supernatural Science: Why we want to believe
Monsters are everywhere these days, and belief in them is as strong as ever.
Supernatural science: Why we want to believe - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News
Amazing !!!
Invisible friends....with no apparant thoughts.
Add to that the power of causing death, or preventing it.
And the causality of everything, and nothing, from nowhere.
A war there, and another one over there, and all over the place, over religion.
Is science right about everything, NO, but it normally doesn't go to war,
it does provide the utilities for war, and the idiots that cause them.
But....that comes right back to the religious causality of war, hate, and greed.
And GHOSTS ???? Give me a break....where is reality ?
~
I can see that this is going nowhere.....
So....nuff stuff,
'mud
Invisible friends....with no apparant thoughts.
Add to that the power of causing death, or preventing it.
And the causality of everything, and nothing, from nowhere.
A war there, and another one over there, and all over the place, over religion.
Is science right about everything, NO, but it normally doesn't go to war,
it does provide the utilities for war, and the idiots that cause them.
But....that comes right back to the religious causality of war, hate, and greed.
And GHOSTS ???? Give me a break....where is reality ?
~
I can see that this is going nowhere.....
So....nuff stuff,
'mud
Source, please.
Science is concerned with the causes of physical phenomena. The only religion that has no potential to conflict with science is a religion that makes absolutely no claims about the natural world or its causes. Such a religion would be unverifiable and irrelevant.
Again, I understand all the above in theory. I was getting at the emotional attitude of many in the science community that promotes the conflict.
Conflict is what science is all about. You take your hypotheses, try to kill them with evidence, then put them out in front of your colleagues, who try to find any weakness in them that they can. Only the hypotheses that survive all that get kept.
The Devil's Dictionary? Ghost clothes? I'm not following any train to your arguments, sorry. We can discuss 1,001 individual things each deserving a separate thread. This thread is about conflict between religion and science.
But anyway, above the physical plane your appearance is controlled by your thoughts. You look the way you think you look to others. And yes you can change your clothes by thought. On the physical plane matter is heavy and psycho-kinetic abilities are extremely small.
Again, all great in theory.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Yes, I'm familiar with Aristotle's four causes. And, my approach was somewhat simplistic. Most people here do not understand the difference between efficient cause and final cause (let alone formal cause and material cause). But the fact is that science has generally discarded the Aristotelian classes of causes and focuses primarily on what Aristotle would have called the efficient cause. That being said, the formal cause is making somewhat of a comeback in the form of information (e.g. digital physics).
Gambit
Well-Known Member
It doesn't appear you understand the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. The physical sciences are based on the third-person perspective. Consciousness can only be experienced from the first-person perspective. As such, it is not directly amenable to the scientific method. Neuroscience is making progress on identifying the neural correlates of consciousness. But correlation does mean identification.
...not in practice
I wish I had a frubal for every time I have heard things like 'irrational beliefs', 'crazy things' , etc. from the science minded even right here on RF. And especially from the so-called skeptics. I'm saying I'm feeling 'emotion' in practice not cold intellectual interest as discussed in theory.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
I hate to tell you but what you "feel" may or may not have any relation to what the "science minded" is telling you. Additionally, an investment of emotion does not falsify the observation that something may represent 'irrational beliefs' or 'crazy things.' Often such things are easy to detect, even in an emotional state.
But it sure should make you suspicious.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Discovery should be exciting, and excitement is definitely emotional. You sound like one of those guys who never enjoyed math or science classes.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yes I know, and you are wrong to do so. The lack of evidence is not the fault of scientists, nor is there an 'emotional attitude' inspiring scientists to ignore evidence. The truth is that there are many, many honest and decent Hindu, Moslem, Christian (etc) scientists who work hard in their fields. To insult them by inferring that they reject evidence dishonestly because they have some kind of beef with the supernatural is unwarranted.
The truth is that whether scientists are believers or not, they get the same results. Theistic scientists have the exact same pool of evidence as do atheist scientists.