Science VS. Religion

[Mr Cheese]

Wrong. Science is as old as man, and older than deity based religions as well.

I am talkign about modern science...

ancient science was never divorced from R/S...

in effect then, your statement is piffle

 

[Storm]

Oh, I get what you're talking about. For instance, to Pythagoras, geometry was sacred.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Not the first time the 1st born is the older, more dim-witted sibling, with the youngest sibling being the brighter and more skilled child.

Joking aside... that's among religions biggest problem... it was around long before science, and when people needed to explain things, there was only a supernatural explanation.

But when science came along, those supernatural explanations could be replaced with natural ones. Continually being discredited has erroded the credibility of the institutions making the false claims for most rational people.

well thats if you consider the new model superior
in may ways it is
in many ways it is not though

But then your one of those that totally dismiss anything outside of of the scientific model....

 

[AxisMundi]

I am talkign about modern science...

ancient science was never divorced from R/S...

in effect then, your statement is piffle

The "modern" Scientific Method has examples in ancient Egypt and Greece as well.

Timeline of the history of scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, science, as in hypothesis and experimentation, is as old as man.

Stone tools didn't suddenly pop out of the ground. Bronze didn't come along and show humanity how to make it. Fire didn't show man how to rub sticks together. Livestock didn't breed themselves into being. et cetera ad nauseum.

Religion, whether deity or nature based, was certainly used to explain those things we did not have the tools or knowledge to comprehend fully in the ancient world.

However, this doesn't negate science itself for those things we did have the wherewithal to perceive.

 

[Jose Fly]

So, what exactly is religion's "model of reality", how is it established, and how is it differentiated from myth?

 

[painted wolf]

Scientists: what about religion and spirituality is difficult for you to accept as feasible or logical?

I find the inherent hypocrisy of religions distasteful... though not as distasteful as the money grubbing I've encountered.

Religious/Spiritual: what about science is blind and deaf to what you consider your path or the "truth" as you understand?

While our cultures/faiths are valued for their vast ethno-botanical and ethno-biological knowledge, the philosophy that drives that knowledge is often divorced from it. Which I find a shame.

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

My faith is about striving for balance and an understanding of ones place with the wider world... Science helps me with this by informing me of the processes at work in the universe.

Is there a point where scientific reasoning goes beyond the subtle awareness needed to be r/s?

I don't think so... I being a biologist meshes quite well with my faith.

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

Science doesn't deal with the unmeasurable... I may be able to incorporate science into my faith but I can not incorporate my faith into my science. And that isn't a bad thing, it limits bias and helps force informed investigation.

wa:do

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

So, what exactly is religion's "model of reality", how is it established, and how is it differentiated from myth?

That is a loaded question. How many religions are there? How many spiritual paths? I think this is part of the problem as well. Science is fairly straight forward, and it's methods are used around the globe. R/S models change with each path, so there are many, as we can see from other threads in the community.

 

[Jose Fly]

That is a loaded question. How many religions are there? How many spiritual paths? I think this is part of the problem as well. Science is fairly straight forward, and it's methods are used around the globe. R/S models change with each path, so there are many, as we can see from other threads in the community.

It's only "loaded" because of the inherent nature of religion, i.e. it is indistinguishable from myth.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

It's only "loaded" because of the inherent nature of religion, i.e. it is indistinguishable from myth.

Again, only because you have a predetermined idea of what religion is. Many paths don't have a mythology, and even the ones that do, not all of their followers are blind enough to accept everything because they are told to. Religions present a model for their followers as a stepping stone, but even Christianity pushes its followers to make their path personal and as individual as themselves.

My path has no model. It seeks to open my eyes to the universe, not to truth, not to god. Many paths are like this. It is a logical fallacy to lump all religions into having the same model, let alone the many paths that aren't really religious but simply spiritual. Science is a bit easier to lump, but even then there are differing theories, yet they have basic logic and rationality to tie their findings together, R/S doesn't. That only makes r/s less valid if you look at it from one side, but then the same for science. Which doesn't matter, to each to their own. As long as they learn to live in harmony with others, even if their views aren't the same.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The "modern" Scientific Method has examples in ancient Egypt and Greece as well.

Timeline of the history of scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, science, as in hypothesis and experimentation, is as old as man.

Stone tools didn't suddenly pop out of the ground. Bronze didn't come along and show humanity how to make it. Fire didn't show man how to rub sticks together. Livestock didn't breed themselves into being. et cetera ad nauseum.

Religion, whether deity or nature based, was certainly used to explain those things we did not have the tools or knowledge to comprehend fully in the ancient world.

However, this doesn't negate science itself for those things we did have the wherewithal to perceive.

science was not divorced from religion back then, as such then, there is a line between modern science and that which you speak of

 

[Mr Cheese]

So, what exactly is religion's "model of reality", how is it established, and how is it differentiated from myth?

It depends on religion there are many

For the Gnostics, the model is pretty easy to construct...
It involves emanationism and aeons....

How is it differentiated from myth? well cosmology is cosmology
I dont really see the relevance of the question

 

[Mr Cheese]

It's only "loaded" because of the inherent nature of religion, i.e. it is indistinguishable from myth.

well science has its own "problems"

the views of Heisenberg and others call into question the entirety of the scientific method... in effect saying science is only "good" for "so much"

just like a religious cosmological model...

but I doubt that is worth consideration for many here...

 

[Mr Cheese]

My path has no model. .

Perhaps you are unaware of what models are....

could you explain how you have no model?

 

[AxisMundi]

science was not divorced from religion back then, as such then, there is a line between modern science and that which you speak of

Not at all.

How is stone knapping religious?

How was bronze tool making linked to religion at all?

You've made the preposition, now please provide some proof.

 

[AxisMundi]

well science has its own "problems"

the views of Heisenberg and others call into question the entirety of the scientific method... in effect saying science is only "good" for "so much"

just like a religious cosmological model...

but I doubt that is worth consideration for many here...

Have some citable quotes from Werner Heisenberg?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Not at all.

How is stone knapping religious?

How was bronze tool making linked to religion at all?

You've made the preposition, now please provide some proof.

I have no idea what stone knappign is

bronze tool making is science now? :areyoucra I thought that would be metal work

however...many ancient cultures viewed tool making as an act of interaction with the divine.... I am sure there were ancient atheists, but the divine was far more inherantly inseprabel from a persons life...in every aspect, than it is now

 

[Mr Cheese]

Have some citable quotes from Werner Heisenberg?

Yes, I can use google:

Werner Heisenberg Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes

http://www.todayinsci.com/H/Heisenberg_Werner/HeisenbergWerner-Quotations.htm

It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consists only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme—the quantum theory—which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes; for visualization, however, we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies—the wave picture and the corpuscular picture.

— Werner Heisenberg

The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, trans. Carl Eckart and Frank C. Hoyt (1949), 11.
See also: | Atom (92) | Particle (13) | Quantum Physics (14) | Wave (16)



It seems sensible to discard all hope of observing hitherto unobservable quantities, such as the position and period of the electron... Instead it seems more reasonable to try to establish a theoretical quantum mechanics, analogous to classical mechanics, but in which only relations between observable quantities occur.

— Werner Heisenberg

In Helge Kragh, Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century (1999), 161.
See also: | Electron (30) | Observation (147) | Quantum Physics (14) | Theory (192)



Our scientific work in physics consists in asking questions about nature in the language that we possess and trying to get an answer from experiment by the means at our disposal. In this way quantum theory reminds us, as Bohr has put it, of the old wisdom that when searching for harmony in life one must never forget that in the drama of existence we are ourselves both players and spectators. It is understandable that in our scientific relation to nature our own activity becomes very important when we have to deal with parts of nature into which we can penetrate only by using the most elaborate tools.


— Werner Heisenberg
—
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory (1958). In Steve Adams, Frontiers (2000), 13.
See also: | Experiment (218) | Quantum Theory (19) | Question (52) | Research (221)



Science no longer is in the position of observer of nature, but rather recognizes itself as part of the interplay between man and nature. The scientific method ... changes and transforms its object: the procedure can no longer keep its distance from the object.


— Werner Heisenberg

The Representation of Nature in Contemporary Physics', Symbolism in Religion and Literature (1960), 231. Cited in John J. Stuhr, Philosophy and the Reconstruction of Culture (1993), 139.
See also: | Change (44) | Man (115) | Nature (255) | Object (14) | Procedure (6) | Recognize (4) | Science (463) | Scientific Method (62)

 

[painted wolf]

metallurgy is in fact a science... knapping is the shaping of stone by percussive force.

wa:do

 

[Mr Cheese]

metallurgy is in fact a science... knapping is the shaping of stone by percussive force.

wa:do

well i'm no expert, but I know that samurai sword makers were/are not divorced from "the divine" as they perform their "science"....

:sarcastic perhaps an "expert" can correct me....

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, only because you have a predetermined idea of what religion is. Many paths don't have a mythology, and even the ones that do, not all of their followers are blind enough to accept everything because they are told to.

Ok, so what methodology does religion offer to differentiate myth from reality?

My path has no model. It seeks to open my eyes to the universe, not to truth, not to god. Many paths are like this.

That's nice feel-good rhetoric, but what exactly does it mean? What does "open my eyes to the universe" mean? And if it's "not to truth" then how is what you're talking about different than making stuff up?

It is a logical fallacy to lump all religions into having the same model, let alone the many paths that aren't really religious but simply spiritual.

I've done no such thing, and in fact am specifically using the fact that religions are so diverse to make my point.

Science is a bit easier to lump, but even then there are differing theories, yet they have basic logic and rationality to tie their findings together, R/S doesn't.

Exactly.

That only makes r/s less valid if you look at it from one side, but then the same for science. Which doesn't matter, to each to their own. As long as they learn to live in harmony with others, even if their views aren't the same.

What other side are you referring to?