What is wrong with believing in both science and religion?

[idea]

What is wrong with believing in both science and religion?
Here is a similar question -
Are science and liberal arts both valid fields of study?
Liberal arts is different from science - what makes liberal arts a valid field of study?

 

[idea]

Yes, science answers the hows. But you told us that religion answers the whys.

I have no clue, since I am not religious and have no knowledge of that, as you said, and therefore I expect I can profit from your know-how. Oops, know-why, sorry.

So, why is that mountain there instead of somewhere else? I hope you are not telling me

Your reply seems to indicate that you do not really need the whys when you have the hows. Is that so?

Ciao

- viole

Why -

Why is science able to predict and understand thing like mountains, but not people? If you could predict the next war, the next fashion trend, the stock market - if you could predict who someone will get married to, is there an equation to tell you what someone is thinking?

 

[viole]

Why -

Why is science able to predict and understand thing like mountains, but not people? If you could predict the next war, the next fashion trend, the stock market - if you could predict who someone will get married to, is there an equation to tell you what someone is thinking?

If people were not predictable, Google and Facebook would be bankrupt.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idea]

If people were not predictable, Google and Facebook would be bankrupt.

Ciao

- viole

Quite a few liberal arts majors involved with fb...

the point is, liberal arts is as valid a field as science is - there is more than chemistry, it takes poetry to understand as well.

 

[viole]

Science tells you how mountains are formed and how the Swiss mountain is in Switzerland.

Science tells us how the Sun shines because of nuclear fusion. Science tells us how the Sun provides us both heat and light. Religion rightly tells us that we need the Sun to survive so according to religion the Sun is there for our existence

Science can't create life or make us live forever; even cloning requires a Mother's eggs or womb. We have incurable illnesses. Religion says it's because the soul outgrew the body

You are evading the question. When did I ask you about the sun or souls outgrowing the body, or other nonsensical deepities? I asked, I believe, something very simple. Why is Rigi or the Sanserhorn (the mountains I see from my window) here and not in, say, New Jersey?

You started the whole OP trying to defend the theory: religion and science are not overlapping magisteria, because the former answers the whys and the latter the hows. And so, you can believe both and be a cool believer while being scientifically fit. Cool. Isn't that nice to be both? It is like squaring a circle really. All the nonsense we read in Scriptures is actually a why, not a how, and so it is not a concern of the scientist to judge.

Of course, it is self-evident that this is just a pathetic attempt to find a last, safe and little respectful corner for religion and superstition, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and the chance to defend your claim.

So, I can answer how those mountains grew in Switzerland. I just need a bit of mundane geology.

Can you tell me why they grew here and did not grow somewhere else? Something spiritual about that we are missing?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Quite a few liberal arts majors involved with fb...

the point is, liberal arts is as valid a field as science is - there is more than chemistry, it takes poetry to understand as well.

Liberal arts? What on earth is that? You mean like making a portrait of H. Clinton?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Milton Platt]

Science tells us how it works, religion tells us why.

I don't see anything wrong with some unseen force creating the rules of the Universe even if he/she doesn't intervene. We can't create life or resurrect the dead; even our understandings of medical science is limited as people still die from cancer, AIDS, alzhiemers,etc.

Don't really know the Abrahamic view on things but in Hinduism they believed that the Sun and Moon were not planets and they discovered planets too. I believe in Hinduism also acknowledged that there were multiple galaxies which contained stars and planets we could not see. Hinduism also predicted matter and antimatter.

I'd like to know what the different religions predicted

One is free to believe whatever one wishes, at least in non-Muslim countries. But why would you arbitrarily believe in your "unseen force" as the "creator" of the universe simply to fill the void of ignorance? Why not be satisfied with "I don't know" until you have evidence that allows you to know? What is the "unseen force" you are conjuring up, by the way???

 

[viole]

What is wrong with believing in both science and religion?
Here is a similar question -
Are science and liberal arts both valid fields of study?
Liberal arts is different from science - what makes liberal arts a valid field of study?

Well, fashion is also different from science. That does not entail we should not discuss fashion. Same thing with sport or cuisine. Among other things.

The question is: does your liberal arts involve necessarily enablers to believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, airborne Messiahs and horses, sins universally canceled by taking the weekend off, and similar stuff....or not?

If yes, then ciao liberal arts, I am afraid. But I don't think they do, so maybe we can salvage them. Humans seem to need them, for some reason.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idea]

Well, fashion is also different from science. That does not entail we should not discuss fashion. Same thing with sport or cuisine. Among other things.

The question is: does your liberal arts involve necessarily enablers to believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, airborne Messiahs and horses, sins universally canceled by taking the weekend off, and similar stuff....or not?

If yes, then ciao liberal arts, I am afraid. But I don't think they do, so maybe we can salvage them. Humans seem to need them, for some reason.

Ciao

- viole

Liberal arts has produced movies, art, literature, music - all of which to some degree teach the morals, hopes, opinions, political views etc. of the people who created them. The laws of nature, and the laws of humanity - social views of proper behavior and government are taught by liberal arts.

 

[exchemist]

Quite a few liberal arts majors involved with fb...

the point is, liberal arts is as valid a field as science is - there is more than chemistry, it takes poetry to understand as well.

Amen.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[exchemist]

You are evading the question. When did I ask you about the sun or souls outgrowing the body, or other nonsensical deepities? I asked, I believe, something very simple. Why is Rigi or the Sanserhorn (the mountains I see from my window) here and not in, say, New Jersey?

You started the whole OP trying to defend the theory: religion and science are not overlapping magisteria, because the former answers the whys and the latter the hows. And so, you can believe both and be a cool believer while being scientifically fit. Cool. Isn't that nice to be both? It is like squaring a circle really. All the nonsense we read in Scriptures is actually a why, not a how, and so it is not a concern of the scientist to judge.

Of course, it is self-evident that this is just a pathetic attempt to find a last, safe and little respectful corner for religion and superstition, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and the chance to defend your claim.

So, I can answer how those mountains grew in Switzerland. I just need a bit of mundane geology.

Can you tell me why they grew here and did not grow somewhere else? Something spiritual about that we are missing?

Ciao

- viole

No I think it is you that has chosen a somewhat facile way to respond to the point that was being made.

The "how" versus "why" distinction is a fairly common shorthand for indicating that science makes predictive models to account for natural phenomena (the "how"), while religion is teleological: it concerns itself with the idea of purpose (the "why").

 

[exchemist]

Well, fashion is also different from science. That does not entail we should not discuss fashion. Same thing with sport or cuisine. Among other things.

The question is: does your liberal arts involve necessarily enablers to believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, airborne Messiahs and horses, sins universally canceled by taking the weekend off, and similar stuff....or not?

If yes, then ciao liberal arts, I am afraid. But I don't think they do, so maybe we can salvage them. Humans seem to need them, for some reason.

Ciao

- viole

You display a silly caricature of religious belief here, which is a bit disappointing. Consider: our ancient universities still have thriving theology departments. Do you really think these thoughtful and learned men and women waste their time with talking donkeys and snakes? And what of philosophy? Is that also a waste of time, in your opinion?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Science can't create life or make us live forever; even cloning requires a Mother's eggs or womb. We have incurable illnesses. Religion says it's because the soul outgrew the body

500 years ago scientists couldn't make lightning. They can now. It would seem dangerous to base religious beliefs on what scientists can't do right now.

“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.” --Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[viole]

You display a silly caricature of religious belief here, which is a bit disappointing. Consider: our ancient universities still have thriving theology departments. Do you really think these thoughtful and learned men and women waste their time with talking donkeys and snakes?

Yes. At least if they subscribe to a special version of God. For, what does it mean to be a Christian theologian, for instance, if you do not believe that Theos is the Christian one? That would be a pointless exercise that surely applies for being a "waste of time".

And how do those theologians know that this God is the Christian God if not for something like miracles and stuff? Would they qualify for their job if they believed that all those accounts of Jesus were the result of some ancient delusion or superstition? Would you take them seriously?

I ask, because from my vantage point, talking donkeys are not much less plausible than transmutations of wafers into ancient gods, or Messiahs taking off to Heaven after taking a short passover vacation for our sins. You might not like the wording, but the substance is the same, is it not?

Fact is: the evidence of a particular brand of God, does not depend on what brand of God we are talking about. So, being a Christian, or a Muslim, is the same as being a fan of Excalibur and its magic powers. Like Jesus And Mohammed, Arthur might also have existed. I could probably also make up a huge intellectual edifice built upon the moral foundations and honor of medieval knights and how magic swords were instrumental to value and support their righteousness. But you would probably laugh at me, and rightly so.

But, why shouldn't then I laugh at those theologians since their evidence is the same? Just because there are more Christians than Excaliburists? Or is that because those Universities with Christian theologians are so ancient and prestigious?

And what of philosophy? Is that also a waste of time, in your opinion?

This is a strange question. It is like asking me if medicine science is a waste of time, because of some doctors writing very intellectual studies about the effectivity of homeopathy.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

Liberal arts? What on earth is that? You mean like making a portrait of H. Clinton?

Ciao

- viole

You need a smiley or something, or we will think you are
serious.

 

[viole]

You need a smiley or something, or we will think you are
serious.

Point taken.

I though that I needed to make an anti-smiley (a sort of sad smiley) to signal when I am not facetious, instead.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

Point taken.

I though that I needed to make an anti-smiley (a sort of sad smiley) to signal when I am not facetious, instead.

Ciao

- viole

So you, like, were serious?

 

[viole]

So you, like, were serious?

No, I would have put a sad smile otherwise.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ronki23]

You are evading the question. When did I ask you about the sun or souls outgrowing the body, or other nonsensical deepities? I asked, I believe, something very simple. Why is Rigi or the Sanserhorn (the mountains I see from my window) here and not in, say, New Jersey?

You started the whole OP trying to defend the theory: religion and science are not overlapping magisteria, because the former answers the whys and the latter the hows. And so, you can believe both and be a cool believer while being scientifically fit. Cool. Isn't that nice to be both? It is like squaring a circle really. All the nonsense we read in Scriptures is actually a why, not a how, and so it is not a concern of the scientist to judge.

Of course, it is self-evident that this is just a pathetic attempt to find a last, safe and little respectful corner for religion and superstition, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and the chance to defend your claim.

So, I can answer how those mountains grew in Switzerland. I just need a bit of mundane geology.

Can you tell me why they grew here and did not grow somewhere else? Something spiritual about that we are missing?

Ciao

- viole

I'll answer your question with another question.

If science was the be-all-end-all then why can't we agree on economics?

Ronald Reagan increased the national debt a hell of a lot and we're still paying it off but half the world thinks he was excellent and the other half said he was awful.

Margaret Thatcher smashed the trade unions and privatised industries and caused record unemployment yet we can't agree whether she was good or bad.

The British Labour party in 2001-2010 created sky high deficits and raised taxes, leading to a massive amount of debt yet economists say they were terrible while many people thank them.

Obama followed tax and spend and many people think he was a crappy President yet he's loved by many for getting America out of recession.

Why do banks keep getting deregulated and we keep getting in recessions again and again?

I'm not saying religion can answer those questions but if science was the answer to everything then why can't we agree on economics? Surely science should've found us the right way to run a country

 

[viole]

I'll answer your question with another question.

If science was the be-all-end-all then why can't we agree on economics?

Ronald Reagan increased the national debt a hell of a lot and we're still paying it off but half the world thinks he was excellent and the other half said he was awful.

Margaret Thatcher smashed the trade unions and privatised industries and caused record unemployment yet we can't agree whether she was good or bad.

The British Labour party in 2001-2010 created sky high deficits and raised taxes, leading to a massive amount of debt yet economists say they were terrible while many people thank them.

Obama followed tax and spend and many people think he was a crappy President yet he's loved by many for getting America out of recession.

Why do banks keep getting deregulated and we keep getting in recessions again and again?

I'm not saying religion can answer those questions but if science was the answer to everything then why can't we agree on economics? Surely science should've found us the right way to run a country

And who said that science is the answer to everything? it is actually easy to show, by using scientific arguments, that it is possible for science to be unable, in principle, to account for something proven to be true.

So, you are just erecting a giant straw man, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole