I do not just accept anecdotal claims; I consider them. A body of anecdotal claims are studied for things such as quantity, quality and consistency. From that I determine what I believe is most reasonable.
-
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
Zen Sensei
Member
Science and Religion are necessarily in conflict. The words science and religion appearing in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Like Christian Science, it is neither Science nor Christian. Christinity is a faith based religion, not concerned with Science, Science is based on peer reviewed demonstrable and verifiable physical phenomena. Anything over and above that is only a hypothesis as in an attempt to explain and understand an unknown phenomena, example Big Bang Hypothesis, Black Hole Hypothesis, Higgs Particle Theory, Dark Energy and Matter Hypothesis, String (Mathematical Model, Multiverse, TOE)Theory, Origin of the Universe and Cosmology, Origin of Life. It is a starting point model to study and probe the nature of an unknown phenomena and attempt to understand and explain the phenomena behavioral characteristics and physical law.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Hey. Me too!
And when the anecdotal claims assert that something is common or reproduce-able or having significant effect but conveniently fails to show up under any scrutiny... well. No bigfoot. No Loch Ness Monster. No alien abductions. No telepathy. No ghosts.
That's a lot of 'No's. Each of those to me are lengthy discussions. Maybe the 'scrutiny' is done with wrong assumptions.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
There are anecdotal accounts indicating that the assumptions are not wrong
Zen Sensei
Member
When the information is transmitted electronically (by internet cables or telephone land lines.) That is not telepathy. That is electronic communication in binary form. Plain and simple. Nothing supernatural here. You are deliberately being dishonest. Nothing exciting to write home about.
Since you seem so convinced of this, perhaps you could explain a few things to us:
How does celebrating the seasonal cycles (a religious thing) by using astronomy to determine the proper time (a science thing) work if science and religion necessarily conflict?
Is using sciences to understand gods, and in particular immanent gods, wrong? If there is a necessary conflict, is it wrong to use sciences to understand the sun, moon, and trees to frame a more meaningful worship of those entities?
How do you explain the large number of people who are both scientists and have a religion at the same time? If science and religion necessarily conflict, how could both be present in the same person? How is it possible for someone to be a member of both of these communities and enjoy the social value of that?
Is art and literature necessarily in conflict with the sciences too? A central component of most religions is mythic narrative, so does this mean scientists can't be storytellers, artists, or fiction writers?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
All science can say is that there is no sign of any immanent gods.
Uh... not exactly. Perhaps I haven't communicated what I mean by immanence, or you're thinking of it differently than I am. When a theology posits that the gods are immanent, that means they are not separate from the world. Basically, they are synonymous with the world. Thus, if sciences are the study of the world, it is also the study of the gods, and all science does is uncover signs or information about the gods!
But, I would say that the sciences themselves cannot place the label of "gods" on anything, much like it can't place the label "beautiful" on something either. Doing that is a value judgement, and questions of value lay outside of the sciences. The sciences cannot tell us what is worthy of worship or what is worth celebrating and being grateful for. That's a personal decision we make.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Science cannot photograph God.
He will not be fingerprinted.
No petri dish is large enough for the experiment.
No proof available.
That's not God's fault.
tkdrocks
Mellowing with Age
Woah! I just had to check if monkeys were flying out my butt, because I agree with Thief on this: It isn't God's fault. But, then again, it isn't the Invisible Pink Unicorn's fault that we can't detect him either.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Your not saying I implied anything supernatural I hope. I don't
Its called electronic or synthetic telepathy. The name scientists choose not me.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
George, I am using the first one as an example.
"
The Lowdown on Anecdotal Evidence
Anecdotal evidence is essentially a story told by individuals. It often comes in the form of “I know a person who . . .,” but it can take many guises. In advertising, it’s often called a product testimonial. For example, someone takes a dietary supplement and claims to have lost a lot of weight. Or anecdotal evidence can be more personal, such as this classic example: someone doubts smoking is hazardous because they have a relative who smoked for decades and lived to a ripe old age.
Regardless of the form, you can’t trust anecdotal evidence!
Statistics versus Anecdotal Evidence
In many ways, anecdotal evidence is the opposite of proper statistical and scientific methodology."
Why Anecdotal Evidence is Unreliable: The case against raspberry ketones and Dr. Oz | Minitab
anecdotal (testimonial) evidence
anecdotal (testimonial) evidence - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
"
The Lowdown on Anecdotal Evidence
Anecdotal evidence is essentially a story told by individuals. It often comes in the form of “I know a person who . . .,” but it can take many guises. In advertising, it’s often called a product testimonial. For example, someone takes a dietary supplement and claims to have lost a lot of weight. Or anecdotal evidence can be more personal, such as this classic example: someone doubts smoking is hazardous because they have a relative who smoked for decades and lived to a ripe old age.
Regardless of the form, you can’t trust anecdotal evidence!
Statistics versus Anecdotal Evidence
In many ways, anecdotal evidence is the opposite of proper statistical and scientific methodology."
Why Anecdotal Evidence is Unreliable: The case against raspberry ketones and Dr. Oz | Minitab
anecdotal (testimonial) evidence
anecdotal (testimonial) evidence - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Walt Whitman said:
Compartmentalization is probably a big part of it. Also, no working scientist studies "science as a whole", so even if science as a whole is compatible with a given religion, individual scientific disciples don't necessarily conflict.
And what are you assuming it means for someone to "have a religion"? The mere fact that someone states a religious preference on a survey doesn't necessarily mean that he or she has carefully considered and intellectually assented to every single point of their religion's doctrines. Presumably, those scientists who "have a religion" run the gamut from true believers to "I think this stuff is garbage, but I need to keep going to church for family reasons" or "I was raised in religion X and I've never given religion enough consideration to call myself anything else."