Science VS. Religion

[Madhuri]

I am a Fusion R/S example. I find that people who are totally scientific limit themselves. There is far more that we humans do not know than what we do know. There is also a lot of arrogance in the contemporary scientific community that leads to the complete and utter rejection or dismissal of any unexplainable event.
On the flip side, I find that many religious people are far too close minded and dismiss any attempt to think for themselves. Any faith that condemns exploration, questioning and reason is dangerous in my opinion.

I have had far too much experience in my life to even be capable of dismissing the possibility of a spiritual realm and mysticism. But I also understand the importance of science and the gifts it offers to human kind. I believe in the evolution of this material existence and I believe in the eternal spiritual journey of the soul.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

The idea of "nothing is as it seems" is a meaningless point that only leads to a complete dead end, both scientifically and philosophically.

The truth is that things are as they seem - until demonstrated otherwise.

That implies accepting blindly, and faith that they are as they seem, or distrust that they are not what they seem but one must accept that they are as they seem. Better, to me, to accept that reality is subjective and nothing is as it seems, only as we allow ourselves to view them.

This isn't to say that knowledge is something that we simply grasp and that ascertaining truth is somehow inherent within us all, but assuming that things are other than what logic and rationale dictate they are without merit does not lead anywhere.

How so?

If all knowledge were so loose weave then you would not get out of bed in the morning for fear of stepping into a black hole.

Nothing is certain.

Human perception, in your opinion, may not be substantial enough to plumb the very depths of the universe's meaning, but you know what it is good for? Saving lives. Learning. Understanding basic tenets of existence. You can fault your perception all you want, but it's the only one you'll ever have and you're doing a disservice to yourself and society by squandering it on meaningless ruminations about how you "can't know the truth".

I can do no disservice to anyone by questioning and confirming that which I do not know.

But how does that make it "easier"? In what way is it "easier" to observe, study, test, predict and quantify something than it is to just to make it up out of thin air and assume it's already true?

Because you can more easily observe, study, test, predict and quantify. You have answered part of your question. The other part you go a bit too far and lump r/s into stereotypes of blind faith, which is far from the average, and a disservice to many. Most that I know spend years searching, and even after that cannot attest to what is true.

 

[footprints]

Simple put, science doesn't prove, science attempts to explain given the knowledge we have available at any point in time.

Religions are a worldwide, known event. There is little to doubt their existance. They are real and they exist. It is the job of science to rationally and logically explain these events, using scientific method. Unfortunately where religion is concerned, most scientific knowledge pertains to personal opinion, personal faith and personal belief, and science gets washed out the window.

 

[skydivephil]

Would you then consider the information from r/s sources valid? They are believed and supported by many ways within the r/s upholding them.
R/S can validate their claims, and science can validate their own, but how do you choose which one is more reliable? Science is easier, as it deals with the physical, but r/s relies on some areas not covered by science, or 'rebuked' by it.
It is unlikely that there is an all powerful being at the head of creation, but it is only unlikely, not fact, correct?
I am not one for believing in such a being, but to my knowledge, science itself has not determined the alpha of the universe.

The question is , how do the RS community validate their claims? Is there a level of scrutiny especially hihg? I doubt that is and there methods are not usaully vigioorous, moreover they are undermined by cognitive bias:
Cognitive bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sciences sets up a methodology to avoid the pitfalls of cognitive bias by such things as peer review, blinding experiments, controls etc.
I agree its only "unlikely" there is a head of creation, we cant prove there isnt one. But the same goes for Santa Claus.

 

[footprints]

The question is , how do the RS community validate their claims? Is there a level of scrutiny especially hihg? I doubt that is and there methods are not usaully vigioorous, moreover they are undermined by cognitive bias:
Cognitive bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sciences sets up a methodology to avoid the pitfalls of cognitive bias by such things as peer review, blinding experiments, controls etc.
I agree its only "unlikely" there is a head of creation, we cant prove there isnt one. But the same goes for Santa Claus.

Peer reviewed doesn't mean anything, many people can be fooled by the same thing, especially if they have had exactly the same education. Experiments may be empirical, based on scientific method, albeit, conclusions based on these experiments are always perception based. These are two of the major flaws in scientific method, and the very thing scientific method was meant to stamp out.

 

[skydivephil]

I agree peer review is not a guarantee of truth, but to say it doesnt mean anything is laughable. A friend of mine just published an aritcle on calcium channel in PNAS , she had five independent reviewers check over her work. Once it gets published , thats just the begining, other sceintist will replciate her work, if they fail to do so they arent going to keep quiet about it.
Moreover scientist use controlos and blinding in order to remove bias and perception effetcs. What otheer system of thought does that?

 

[Alex_G]

The questions, please answer which you can:
Scientists: what about religion and spirituality is difficult for you to accept as feasible or logical?

Well, talking with my scientists hat on, i think the trouble i have with a lot of religious belief is its lack of humility. In the sense that its rigidity makes me doubt its integrity, and its usually clear parallel history of great philosophers combined with superstitions of the masses, human insecurities and curiosities. Once when our best explanations for phenomenon like the weather were godly depictions, understandably religions and beliefs mirrored. But with changing times, and new light shed on the universe, many religious beliefs stay rooted in a sort of denial stance, too proud to change. Like the aged grandparents, loosing touch with the world thats moving too fast for them, but never the less still wise in their own respect, and with what they know. Admirable, yet not candidates for running the world.

From a more belief orientated angle, i personally feel very detached from many religions, as they done seem to speak to me at all. Their out dated, and non individualistic nature (for the most part), does not grab me, as i find greatest satisfaction and connection with that which i form myself from my experiences and interests. The old fasion clothes in my grandads wardrobe are no doubt clothes as i recognise, but i dont think i would wear them.

Fusion-Science+R/S: how have you come to terms with the two and how does each support you on each relative path?

Religion i wouldnt say supports me directly, other that allow me to see and realise that many are not for me. Spiritually, or rather, philosophically i am supported. I enjoy pondering what is beyond, trying to figure out and grasp what i dont know. Like finding the door in the dark, you know its there, but it can be a challenge to traverse the furniture and arrive safely.

Science is my lense, it allows me to focus through it and see the world in a beautifully objective way that would otherwise not be available to me. Its look, see, explain, and test nature is very satisfying. But i recognise its realm is in what we can 'see' as it were, processes and phenomenon. It isnt that usefull for the completely unknow, well not yet.
I use science (my eyes) to get to the door, when in a brightly lit room, but they dont do so well in the dark.

What point do many r/s beliefs about the universe become illogical/irrational to the scientist?

What i dont like is blind religious belief, and what i mean is blind minded. No good to be a sheep. The richness of our world and knowlege/understanding comes from diversity. 1000 individual thinkers over 1000 sheep anyday.

I think unfortunately the quality philosophy thats burried in many religions have been in the past tarted up with elaborate stories to aid the teaching and inspiration of the massess, unfortunately today, this nackered makeup, mini skirt and broken heel is still being worn, and many people are getting hung up on this in quite a vain way, and are obviously running into trouble v science. I think its important to remember to look under the surface, and not loose track of whats important.

 

[Alex_G]

First one must ask this question: what is truth?

Truth is one of those words that only has meaning within a specific context. If spot is a dog, it would be the truth that spot was a dog. There is no abstract entity out there in the universe called 'truth'

Hey, wack your definitions and ideas in my thread too
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-discussion/94019-rf-dictionary-truth.html

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

There seems to be some confusions or ignorance (not being rude, it's fine to not know everything) about r/s path. Many continue to state blind faith, blind acceptance of what is stated. This is true for some, but many do not follow. It would be the same as r/s stating science takes as fact every theory brought to light.

I would be interested in knowing which religion you follow if you are a scientist (that is if you are a fusion of the two) or which spiritual path.

 

[Storm]

There seems to be some confusions or ignorance (not being rude, it's fine to not know everything) about r/s path. Many continue to state blind faith, blind acceptance of what is stated. This is true for some, but many do not follow. It would be the same as r/s stating science takes as fact every theory brought to light.

Frubals.

I would be interested in knowing which religion you follow if you are a scientist (that is if you are a fusion of the two) or which spiritual path.

Well, I'm only a layman, but I don't think you meant to restrict it to professionals. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm a rather weird panentheist, thologically, and my religious affiliation is Unitarian Universalist. I reject the supernatural, though I believe the laws ofnature are wider and weirder than the average atheist. I've also long said that in the absence of personal experience, agnosticism (or weak atheism) is the only rational stance.

 

[Alex_G]

yeah good point, i was not intending to suggest that is applicable to all of religion and spirituality, only that it is an aspect that troubles me when present.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The questions, please answer which you can:
Scientists: what about religion and spirituality is difficult for you to accept as feasible or logical?
Religious/Spiritual: what about science is blind and deaf to what you consider your path or the "truth" as you understand?
Fusion-Science+R/S: how have you come to terms with the two and how does each support you on each relative path?
Is there a point where scientific reasoning goes beyond the subtle awareness needed to be r/s?
What point do many r/s beliefs about the universe become illogical/irrational to the scientist?

what about science is blind and deaf to what you consider your path or the "truth" as you understand? Science uses the scientific method, as such it is stuck and confined within a certain model. Religion and spirituality all also use a model. as such then, "cosmology is cosmology" and is useful, but not to be taken seriously...a model is a model and a model is never that which it potrays. as such then, R/S and science are all false.

how have you come to terms with the two and how does each support you on each relative path? There are certain parralells, obviously you cant measure the number of angels within certain emanations, but some ideas are the same. As such then science and religion can both be the same, and as such arguably both are describing reality...and as such it is really not all that surprisign they say the same thigns occaisonally; a model is a model however

What point do many r/s beliefs about the universe become illogical/irrational to the scientist? Well that's obvious, when we leave anything physical. Science will only deal with the physical; although there is psychology, but this still often just deals with the physical...

Is there a point where scientific reasoning goes beyond the subtle awareness needed to be r/s? Not really. If you only allow for a certain perspective, in this example, "data" that fits the scientific model, then fine, but if we allow for other things, then no.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Simple put, science doesn't prove, science attempts to explain given the knowledge we have available at any point in time.

.

correct, what most science fundamentalists forget on this and other forums is:

science does not deal with the truth
It deals with models of the truth
In their arrogance, ignorance and/or stupidity
people tend to think science deals with the truth.

But then people do the same with religion.

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."

--Werner Heisenberg

 

[Mr Cheese]

The question is , how do the RS community validate their claims? Is there a level of scrutiny especially hihg? I doubt that is and there methods are not usaully vigioorous, moreover they are undermined by cognitive bias:
Cognitive bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sciences sets up a methodology to avoid the pitfalls of cognitive bias by such things as peer review, blinding experiments, controls etc.
I agree its only "unlikely" there is a head of creation, we cant prove there isnt one. But the same goes for Santa Claus.

A model is a model....
the RS "community" speaks within the language of their model
Science speaks within its own model.

People get upset when the two differ, it would be like comparing sausages to socks.
Both begin with the letter S, but clearly socks have far different attributes, actions etc than sausages. But in forums such as this, the sausage brigade scream, jump up and down and get upset at, and often think the sock brigade stupid, because they wont describe their socks in line with sausages.

 

[skydivephil]

Scientific models are testable, religious models are not.

 

[ChristineES]

I have never understood why it needs to be science vs. religion. They are two separate entities and have nothing to do with each other. You can study both extensively without any contradiction (not that everyone does, most people can make contradictions with any non-related items.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That implies accepting blindly, and faith that they are as they seem, or distrust that they are not what they seem but one must accept that they are as they seem. Better, to me, to accept that reality is subjective and nothing is as it seems, only as we allow ourselves to view them.

No it does not, it implies the opposite - accepting the world for what it is unless there is evidence to the contrary. Perhaps I was over-simplifying.

As for your notion that "nothing is as it seems", again, you've added nothing to the discussion in terms of insight or actual knowledge. Such statements have no purpose in any intelligent, rational debate because it creates a dead-end argument. "You cannot know anything absolutely therefore everything is subjective" is a cheap cop-out argument that people use to avoid facing the fact that there are degrees of certainty. Like it or not, human beings do have a reliable basis for establishing fact from fantasy.

How so?

Because if you're going to forgo the requirement for evidence and rationale you could make any statement you want and it would not be possible to demonstrate it to be false - since there is no basis.

Nothing is certain.

So, every morning you wake up terrified of the possibility of a black hole opening-up where your bedroom floor should be?

Why do you never, for a change, decide to leap out of your bedroom window rather than leave your house via the front door?

You're avoiding the simple undeniable fact that there are degrees of certainty that we employ on every level of our lives. Your argument has no point other than to ignore this fact in favor of fantasy.

I can do no disservice to anyone by questioning and confirming that which I do not know.

Except you're neither questioning nor confirming anything with such ruminations as "nothing is certain", just positing an intellectual black hole in place of substance. You're effectively forgoing the rationale part of your brain so that you can leap to a meaningless conclusion that neither answers anything nor provides any real benefit to either your perception of those around you. It's pointless.

Because you can more easily observe, study, test, predict and quantify. You have answered part of your question. The other part you go a bit too far and lump r/s into stereotypes of blind faith, which is far from the average, and a disservice to many. Most that I know spend years searching, and even after that cannot attest to what is true.

Are you saying that people who study science do not spend years reading, learning, searching, travelling, examining, writing and testing their minds? And yet at the end of this process their effort is deemed for naught if they cannot then utilize what they have learned to formulate an observation, test it, make predictions, test it again, make more predictions and submit their findings for peer review before finally applying their theory and dedicating the remainder of their lives to utilizing it for further study for the benefit of mankind.

And yet, according to you, the job of these people is "easier" than that of someone who spends years "searching" and coming up with nothing?

You're just plain wrong.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Wow, Immortal, wow...
I had not expected an attack from you (nothing is as it seems, haha).
I am not touching your rebuttal, not because I don't have opinions or lack the intelligence, but because I don't feel such attacks deserve rational responses.
Hope you have a good day.

P.S.: Who says I don't jump out my windows some mornings? ; )

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wow, Immortal, wow...
I had not expected an attack from you (nothing is as it seems, haha).
I am not touching your rebuttal, not because I don't have opinions or lack the intelligence, but because I don't feel such attacks deserve rational responses.
Hope you have a good day.

P.S.: Who says I don't jump out my windows some mornings? ; )

Where did I attack you? I merely attacked your argument.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Ok, then I will respond, ; ).