The "Two Causes" Solution to the Religion and Science Conflict

[Gambit]

No, that is false. Science HASN'T fully explained the origin of the universe, you can not honestly claim that it CAN not, because that is not knowable. It is an utterly fatuous claim.

Science cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing. That you believe that it can (or, at least, that it is possible that it can) simply demonstrates that you don't understand the limitations of science. More to the point, it reveals your faith in "scientism."

 

[Gambit]

The issue is, no one can.

Well, we at least agree on one thing, namely, that science cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing.

 

[Bunyip]

Science cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing. That you believe that it can (or, at least, that it is possible that it can) simply demonstrates that you don't understand the limitations of science. More to the point, it reveals your faith in "scientism."

You are stuck repeating the same empty claims. That science can not yet explain something does not demonstrate a limitation to science. You are trying to defend your indefensible claim simply by ignoring all questions and repeating it.

That science does not yet have an explanation for something is not a limitation of science, it is WHY WE DO SCIENCE.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, we at least agree on one thing, namely, that science cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing.

Nobody can - we do not even know if there is a 'why'. Science can not yet explain 'X', neither can you - so what? It is not a limitation of science it is why we apply science to the question.

Your own reasoning by the way invalidates metaphysics - because metaphysics has no explanation for origins either, it must therefore be a limitation of metaphysics.
So you solution (metaphysics) is eliminated by the argument you use to eliminate science.

 

[psychoslice]

The only cause of conflict between religion and science is ignorance, from both parties.

 

[Gambit]

Nobody can - we do not even know if there is a 'why'. Science can not yet explain 'X', neither can you - so what? It is not a limitation of science it is why we apply science to the question.

So, science has limitations, and the argument I presented in the OP still stands. That's what.

 

[Bunyip]

So, science has limitations, and the argument I presented in the OP still stands. That's what.

Not having an explanation you do not have either is not a limitation of science, it is why we do science. The argument you presented in the OP depends upon misasumptions you refuse to address.

Science is not LIMITED to what we know, you have it backwards. Science is about how we explore what we do not know. Science BEGINS with the limits of our knowledge - it does not end there.

 

[Bunyip]

The only cause of conflict between religion and science is ignorance, from both parties.

But neither are parties in any sense, science is a tool that can be as readily applied by religion, and religion a faith that many scientists embrace.

 

[psychoslice]

But neither are parties in any sense, science is a tool that can be as readily applied by religion, and religion a faith that many scientists embrace.

Well that's more or less what I meant, one is blind without the other, they are the same coin.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...the argument I presented in the OP still stands. That's what.

You still haven't explained why science shouldn't be involved in primary causes, or what basis there is for theism having a monopoly.

 

[Bunyip]

Well that's more or less what I meant, one is blind without the other, they are the same coin.

Why would science need religion? In what way is it blind without it?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why would science need religion? In what way is it blind without it?

Science needs religion like fish need bicycles.

 

[psychoslice]

Why would science need religion? In what way is it blind without it?

Ask Einstein, that's what he believed.

 

[Bunyip]

Einstein is dead, you seriously did not know that? I was asking why YOU believe that. Was it just because Einstein said it?

 

[psychoslice]

Einstein is dead, you seriously did not know that?

He He, you so funny, of course I knew that, but then many believe in Jesus who has been dead much longer lol.

 

[Bunyip]

He He, you so funny, of course I knew that, but then many believe in Jesus who has been dead much longer lol.

I was asking why YOU believe that?
Why is science blind without religion?

 

[psychoslice]

I was asking why YOU believe that?
Why is science blind without religion?

Science is not even interested in religion, they have much more to deal with than hocos pocus.

 

[Bunyip]

Science is not even interested in religion, they have much more to deal with than hocos pocus.

Sure. But why would science be blind without it?

 

[psychoslice]

Sure. But why would science be blind without it?

Their not blind, unless they want to be blind, as I said they have no interest in religion, why on earth would they ?.

 

[Bunyip]

Their not blind, unless they want to be blind, as I said they have no interest in religion, why on earth would they ?.

I'm not sure I understand. Science is interested in religion - just look at all the neurological research into religion.