What is wrong with believing in both science and religion?

[Audie]

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

Scioence is not, nobody says it is the be all, end all.

Economics it not sciencel

Also, like weather, human events have so much chaos,
so many variables, only limited predictability is possible.

But as it is a phony baloney claim that anyone says science
is be all end all, can answer all questions, this is kinda pointless.

 

[exchemist]

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?



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

Well, I ask about philosophy because to many philosophers it is not trivially obvious that religious or metaphysical ideas are ridiculous.

And I suggest to you that there may be more to religious thought than these caricatures you like to make fun of, or it would not be the subject of serious academic study in the liberal arts programmes that we were discussing. There is some risk in ridiculing an intellectual enterprise without making an attempt to understand what it entails. That's what creationists do in the case of evolutionary biology, and they look pretty silly as a result.

 

[viole]

Well, I ask about philosophy because to many philosophers it is not trivially obvious that religious or metaphysical ideas are ridiculous.

Yes, and to many homeopathists, homeopathy makes a lot of sense. When it is obvious that in the homeopathy fluid you drink there are more molecules coming from Julius Ceasar bladder than from the pathogen that it is supposed to cure you. Please, don't tell me you believe in that nonsense, too.

You are not going to like it, but Christian theology, like all theologies, is like leprechaunology. It really is, I am not trying to ridicule believers in leprechauns, I promise. And it is not difficult to build up an intellectual mountain of intimidating deepities that are just naked nonsense when analyzed with precision.

And I suggest to you that there may be more to religious thought than these caricatures you like to make fun of, or it would not be the subject of serious academic study in the liberal arts programmes that we were discussing. There is some risk in ridiculing an intellectual enterprise without making an attempt to understand what it entails. That's what creationists do in the case of evolutionary biology, and they look pretty silly as a result.

Yes, but you are a creationist too, are you not? You are just slightly more scientific hip, but substantially not different. I actually feel more sympathy for Young Earth Creationists. They have the guts to claim their nonsense with a straight face. At least they do not damage both science and the Bible. And they do not demote Scriptures to metaphors when they read something new in Nature magazine.

And I say what I think. If you don't like it, then I suggest that you, or the divinity you so valiantly defend, grow a thicker skin. Feel free to caricature my atheism, worlview, or whatever, I promise not to be offended in the slightest.

Guten Abend and ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and to many homeopathists, homeopathy makes a lot of sense. When it is obvious that in the homeopathy fluid you drink there are more molecules coming from Julius Ceasar bladder than from the pathogen that it is supposed to cure you. Please, don't tell me you believe in that nonsense, too.

You are not going to like it, but Christian theology, like all theologies, is like leprechaunology. It really is, I am not trying to ridicule believers in leprechauns, I promise. And it is not difficult to build up an intellectual mountain of intimidating deepities that are just naked nonsense when analyzed with precision.



Yes, but you are a creationist too, are you not? You are just slightly more scientific hip, but substantially not different. I actually feel more sympathy for Young Earth Creationists. They have the guts to claim their nonsense with a straight face. At least they do not damage both science and the Bible. And they do not demote Scriptures to metaphors when they read something new in Nature magazine.

And I say what I think. If you don't like it, then I suggest that you, or the divinity you so valiantly defend, grow a thicker skin. Feel free to caricature my atheism, worlview, or whatever, I promise not to be offended in the slightest.

Guten Abend and ciao

- viole

The only one offering caricatures in this discussion is you.

I don't pretend to be a philosopher or a theologian but, as as educated man, I am prepared to concede the possibility that the Faculties of Philosophy and Theology at my old university are not entirely manned by idiots. That's all.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I'll answer your question with another question.

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

Because people are greedy and will ignore the science if it lowers their chance of making money. Humans will ignore long term economic damage in order to make short term profits. If you want to understand why people can't agree on economic policies then psychology might be a better field to look at.

 

[exchemist]

Because people are greedy and will ignore the science if it lowers their chance of making money. Humans will ignore long term economic damage in order to make short term profits. If you want to understand why people can't agree on economic policies then psychology might be a better field to look at.

Pace Clausewitz, it could be said that economics is the continuation of politics by other means.

 

[paarsurrey]

Firstly there is nothing wrong with believing in science and religion, The Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury already do.

That is the most appropriate thing to do. I agree with one.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That is the most appropriate thing to do. I agree with one.

Many very renowned scientists were active believers in religion also. Right, please
Regards

 

[gnostic]

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.

Because economics belonged to umbrella category of “social science”, relating to human activities, like sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, etc. These are don’t belong to natural science or physical science.

Unlike physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science, astronomy, these are natural science, and required verification through falsifiable (testable) theories, that have undergone scientific method and peer review.

Economics don’t require scientific method, nor peer review.

You need to understand that social science and natural science are not the same, and follow different processes.

 

[Yokefellow]

I'd like to know what the different religions predicted

The Christian Bible teaches (among other things) Particle Physics and Cell Biology in great detail.

For example, the High Priest's Breastplate is what we call the Standard Model...

[GALLERY=media, 8533][/GALLERY]

The Godhead is what we call Atoms...

[GALLERY=media, 8534][/GALLERY]

And the Tabernacle in the Wilderness was a scale model of a Eukaryotic Cell...

[GALLERY=media, 8535][/GALLERY]

[GALLERY=media, 8536][/GALLERY]