What is at the core of the science/religion conflict?

[outhouse]

The fault is almost entirely due to flawed religious conceptions that glorify superstition when they should instead flush it out of the doctrine.

If we used reason and logic combined with education, there would be no need for religion

The crutch replaced with real knowledge

 

[LuisDantas]

Certainly not for theistic, supernaturalistic religion.

 

[Skwim]

And evolution isn't at all about "random processes". We know precisely what processes they are, and they aren't random at all, or they are as "random" as physical processes. Like gravity is random. You should not presume to lecture people on what you don't even understand.

Mutations are the drivers of evolution and occur at random. Over time, random mutations enable organisms to adapt and diversify, often when geographically separated groups of the same species grow better suited to their local environment and less like members of the other group.
source: Scientific American

 

[sayak83]

Science emerged largely because of religion.
“The orthodox view of the nature of the laws of physics contains a long list of tacitly assumed properties. The laws are regarded, for example, as immutable, eternal, infinitely precise mathematical relationships that transcend the physical universe, and were imprinted on it at the moment of its birth from “outside,” like a maker’s mark, and have remained unchanging ever since – “cast in tablets of stone from everlasting to everlasting” was the poetic way that Wheeler put it (Wheeler , 1989 ). In addition, it is assumed that the physical world is affected by the laws, but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe. No matter how extreme a physical state may be in terms of energy or violence, the laws change not a jot. It is not hard to discover where this picture of physical laws comes from: it is inherited directly from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws. And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence, whereas God’s existence does not depend on the universe.
Historians of science are well aware that Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order...
Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science and theologians. From the scientific standpoint, however, this uncritical acceptance of the theological model of laws leaves a lot to be desired.”
Davies, P. (2014). Universe from bit. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregersen (Eds.). Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics (pp. 83-117). Cambridge University Press.
(see also Galileo and the Origin of Science)

Ok, this is outright misleading. Have you forgotten Greek philosophers? Platonism? Epicurean and Aristotelian physics? Christian theology absorbed some of these ideas into into its medieval theology (through Augustine and Aquinas) which got added with Greek ideas transmitted through Islamic and Byzantium scholars. Furthermore, I challenge you to find a single civilization on the planet earth that does not believe that cosmos is governed by immutable laws (Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, Indians etc.) Planet earth's various natural systems are so suffused with order (day/night, seasons, star constellations, winter and rainy seasons) that it is ridiculous to think that there exists any group of people anywhere who does not understand the significance and primacy of an ordered word. Chaos was the exception and people feared chaos (eclipse, floods, comets) as they suggested disquiet in the heavens. The key innovation of science was not the discovery of order in nature, but experimental and mathematical investigation of this order through tinkering and testing. It is unifying the knowhow of the craftsman with the knowwhy of the philosophers and theologians. This new hybrid of this worldly artisan who makes telescopes, prisms and clocks and the reflective philosophers who writes like Socrates or Augustine was the scientist.

 

[psychoslice]

The core is ignorance, now can you think of who is the ignorant one ?.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Science and religion have always found themselves in conflict with each other. A state of discord or at least perception that still exists today.

source
​

So why such conflict, and where does the fault lie?


.

The source of conflict between science and religion is the commonly human head vs heart struggle. That means the head encroaches on the heart, meaning that matters of opinion are construed as matters of "pseudoscientific" fact. The reverse of the heart encroaching on the head doesn't happen much, or doesn't lead to problems much.

Schoolbook for the Hitler youth: a factual outlook on life
https://archive.org/stream/NaziPrim...iPrimer-TheHitlerYouthManual#page/n5/mode/2up

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution serves as a catalyst for the commonly human head vs heart struggle
https://archive.org/stream/NaziPrim...Primer-TheHitlerYouthManual#page/n25/mode/2up

And in competition with each other, nazism and communism enflamed the common sense middle ground of the common humanity of people's emotions.
Scientific socialism
https://www.marxists.org/archive/weisbord/conquest17.htm

While nazism and communism are now very much diminished, the vast majority of scientists presently still do not acknowledge the validity of subjectivity, which is an inherently creationist concept.
Creationism is pseudoscience.
http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/scientific-creationism-as-pseudoscience

Specifically scientists object to the procedure of reaching a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the conclusion. That is how subjectivity works. For example to say that beauty is "real", but the reality of it is not a fact, and that beauty can determine the way things turn out, is not accepted by the vast majority of scientists presently.

Because most scientists reject the validity of subjectivity, they also generally reject the fact that freedom is real, because subjectivity operates on a free basis.
Daniel Dennett: I could not have done otherwise, so what?
https://philosophy.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/I Could not have Done Otherwise--So What - Daniel Dennett.pdf

 

[Blastcat]

Mutations are the drivers of evolution and occur at random. Over time, random mutations enable organisms to adapt and diversify, often when geographically separated groups of the same species grow better suited to their local environment and less like members of the other group.
source: Scientific American

The fact that mutations occur at random doesn't mean that mutation itself is some "random" process. Think of the processes at work on a billiard table. The forces that act on the balls during a game are occurring in a random fashion. But the physics involved is not, itself, very "random".

We can., actually predict where the balls will be. And, evolutionary scientists can also make useful predictions due to the non-randomness of the processes.

 

[Skwim]

The fact that mutations occur at random doesn't mean that mutation itself is some "random" process.

The mechanics of copying "errors" that occur in the process of DNA replication are, of course, quite simple; however, what these errors consist of and where they occur is quite random---without order. And this is where randomness becomes important; it provides for "test" organisms, the variety in the resultant organisms that determine whether or not an organism will be more successful in adapting to a new habitat than an organism that arose with different coding instructions.

​

Think of the processes at work on a billiard table. The forces that act on the balls during a game are occurring in a random fashion. But the physics involved is not, itself, very "random".

But we're not talking about the mechanics, but what the mechanics have to work with, DNA condons in this case, and their random nature and placement.

We can., actually predict where the balls will be. And, evolutionary scientists can also make useful predictions due to the non-randomness of the processes.

And just what do they predict? That the DNA strand will have a copying error in its coding instructions at some specific site? Of course not. So . . . . . .?

 

[Blastcat]

The mechanics of copying "errors" that occur in the process of DNA replication are, of course, quite simple; however, what these errors consist of and where they occur is quite random---without order. And this is where randomness becomes important; it provides for "test" organisms, the variety in the resultant organisms that determine whether or not an organism will be more successful in adapting to a new habitat than an organism that arose with different coding instructions.

Think of the random ways snowflakes congregate together. The process that causes water molecules to gather into very pretty patterns is not itself random. The patterns are very pretty and rather randomly sorted but the mechanism isn't random at all.

​

 

[Skwim]

Think of the random ways snowflakes congregate together. The process that causes water molecules to gather into very pretty patterns is not itself random. The patterns are very pretty and rather randomly sorted but the mechanism isn't random at all.

So what? You've already admitted that mutations occur at random. Why are you beating a dead horse?

 

[Blastcat]

So what? You've already admitted that mutations occur at random. Why are you beating a dead horse?

I was trying to help you out with your bad thinking. That's the horse that I have to stop beating.

 

[Skwim]

I was trying to help you out with your bad thinking.

Okay, then just so we're on the same page, please explain the following two operations, which come from your statement in post 107

1.Mutations occurring at random.

2.The process of mutation.​

 

[Blastcat]

Okay, then just so we're on the same page, please explain the following two operations, which come from your statement in post 107

1.Mutations occurring at random.

2.The process of mutation.​

Like the snowflake. The pretty snowflakes aggregate at random.
the PHYSICS that cause the formation.. the cold, gravity, the form and shape of the water molecules.. not random.

Like the billiard balls. The pretty billiard ball locations are random after the break, but the cause and effect.. not random. It's physics.

So, mutations are like billiard balls and snowflakes. they happen randomly, but how mutation works is not some kind of magical, random process.

Think of rain.. the pretty rain drops fall RANDOMLY.. but why it rains, how the drops form and fall aren't random processes. It's chemistry and physics.
The PROCESSES of evolution aren't random, even though they HAPPEN randomly, and are randomly distributed. What is being distributed isn't a random process. It has amazing REGULARITY. That's how people get to know how things happen. When we notice a regularity. Evolution is a set of regularities. Like the pretty snowflakes and the pretty billiard balls.

but sorry, I am not a biology teacher, and I wont be able to give you the explanation in detail you ask for. You might want to pick up any number of books that deal with your questions in MINUTE detail.

There are plenty of sites on the internet. You have to realize that you ask for VERY complex answers. I'm not a biologist. I can only give you analogies, like the pretty snowflake analogy.

Even though things happen randomly, does not mean that what is happening is random. We get patterns from random events. Evolution is like that.. patterns from random events. The physical chemical effects aren't random, but very regular.

I hope that helps you a bit.

 

[outhouse]

Like the snowflake. The pretty snowflakes aggregate at random.
the PHYSICS that cause the formation.. the cold, gravity, the form and shape of the water molecules.. not random.

Like the billiard balls. The pretty billiard ball locations are random after the break, but the cause and effect.. not random. It's physics.

So, mutations are like billiard balls and snowflakes. they happen randomly, but how mutation works is not some kind of magical, random process.

Think of rain.. the pretty rain drops fall RANDOMLY.. but why it rains, how the drops form and fall aren't random processes. It's chemistry and physics.
The PROCESSES of evolution aren't random, even though they HAPPEN randomly, and are randomly distributed. What is being distributed isn't a random process. It has amazing REGULARITY. That's how people get to know how things happen. When we notice a regularity. Evolution is a set of regularities. Like the pretty snowflakes and the pretty billiard balls.

but sorry, I am not a biology teacher, and I wont be able to give you the explanation in detail you ask for. You might want to pick up any number of books that deal with your questions in MINUTE detail.

There are plenty of sites on the internet. You have to realize that you ask for VERY complex answers. I'm not a biologist. I can only give you analogies, like the pretty snowflake analogy.

Even though things happen randomly, does not mean that what is happening is random. We get patterns from random events. Evolution is like that.. patterns from random events. The physical chemical effects aren't random, but very regular.

I hope that helps you a bit.

That is a lot of certainty on a topic not completely scientifically nailed down in all details beyond the facts we do know about it.

 

[idea]

Science studies the materialistic world, while religion's focus is on non-material entities (conscience, character, etc.) and "the natural man is an enemy to God".. religion seeks to overcome natural "selfish" etc. tendencies.

 

[idea]

So what? You've already admitted that mutations occur at random. Why are you beating a dead horse?

Random does not actually exist - for something to be random, it would have to move without being caused by anything - you would have to turn off all of the forces and laws of science for something to behave randomly. Most people confuse the word "random" with "complex", or "highly sensitive to small perturbations".

snowflakes aggregate at random.
billiard ball locations are random
pretty rain drops fall RANDOMLY..
....

Nothing that you have listed happens randomly....

not even chaos theory is random

"Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect.[1] Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[2] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Science does not work for anything except determinism.

Another reason that religion and science might clash - at least for my religion, we believe free will is real, and science has a hard time with self-determinism.

 

[outhouse]

while religion's focus is on non-material entities

That simply is not true.

Religion focusses on the living human being. Just in a limited capacity compared to science you owe your life to.

When you get hurt, your mythology does not save you. A doctor trained by science that uses science daily will keep you alive.

Religion will not save your life when science is required.

 

[Skwim]

Random does not actually exist - for something to be random, it would have to move without being caused by anything - you would have to turn off all of the forces and laws of science for something to behave randomly. Most people confuse the word "random" with "complex", or "highly sensitive to small perturbations".

I was speaking of random in the sense of an absence of structure or pattern. However, true randomness is said to actually exist.

"True randomness does not exist in classical physics, where randomness is necessarily a result of forces that may be unknown but exist. The quantum world, however, is intrinsically truly random. This is difficult to prove, as it is not readily distinguishable from noise and other uncontrollable factors. Now Pironio et al. present proof of a quantitative relationship between two fundamental concepts of quantum mechanics — randomness and the non-locality of entangled particles. They first show theoretically that the violation of a Bell inequality certifies the generation of new randomness, independently of any implementation details. To illustrate the approach, they then perform an experiment in which — as confirmed using the theoretical tools that they developed — 42 new random bits have been generated. As well as having conceptual implications, this work has practical implications for cryptography and for numerical simulation of physical and biological systems."
source​

 

[idea]

I was speaking of random in the sense of an absence of structure or pattern. However, true randomness is said to actually exist.

"True randomness does not exist in classical physics, where randomness is necessarily a result of forces that may be unknown but exist. The quantum world, however, is intrinsically truly random. This is difficult to prove, as it is not readily distinguishable from noise and other uncontrollable factors. Now Pironio et al. present proof of a quantitative relationship between two fundamental concepts of quantum mechanics — randomness and the non-locality of entangled particles. They first show theoretically that the violation of a Bell inequality certifies the generation of new randomness, independently of any implementation details. To illustrate the approach, they then perform an experiment in which — as confirmed using the theoretical tools that they developed — 42 new random bits have been generated. As well as having conceptual implications, this work has practical implications for cryptography and for numerical simulation of physical and biological systems."
source​

The quantum world is still not fully understood. I'm in the camp who does not think it is random.

It also depends on how you define patterns, and how you define order. - which is more ordered, a glass cup sitting on a table, or a glass cup shattered on the floor? One person might think the cup on the table is more ordered ... from another perspective, the earth would be more ordered if everything existed at a uniform height creating a perfectly smooth surface...

 

[outhouse]

The quantum world is still not fully understood. I'm in the camp who does not think it is random.

It also depends on how you define patterns, and how you define order. - which is more ordered, a glass cup sitting on a table, or a glass cup shattered on the floor? One person might think the cup on the table is more ordered ... from another perspective, the earth would be more ordered if everything existed at a uniform height creating a perfectly smooth surface...

Um he has credible sources supporting his position.

Your rhetoric doe snot even address the topic at hand in context.