Why religious organizations are forced to use “scientific” language to prove their po

[standing_alone]

Many scientists, or just people with a love and knowledge of science, don't want to hear about the supernatural *at all*, even when it doesn't step on the toes of science or pretend to be "scientific" (which it shouldn't).

How does the supernatural not "step on the toes" of science, when science deals strictly with the natural?

The supernatural has no business in being involved in science.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Science rules!

J

IMO, religious leaders use scientific language to prove their point precisely because of the attitude expressed in your slogan, "Science rules!" In many ways, science does rule our technological age. It keeps us alive longer, it educates us, and it makes our lives easier. Religious leaders are forced by the times to have some relationship with the most important aspect of our post-modern lives.

IMHO, philosophy has basically become an interpretative tool of science and no longer can address the metaphysical. It's basically a logical construct that interprets and reviews what we can know from science, and the metaphysical can't be addressed by science. Religious teaching, as a philosophy (albeit mostly irrational and illogical) struggles with the idea that they can no longer address the metaphysical - if indeed the religion propounds anything supernatural --- like the existence of God and God's actions in history.

That's why we have some Christians responding to this pressure by saying that God is dead and the formation of a purely existential theology. If we deny God's life and action in history, then all of our scientific problems are completely solved.

I fall somewhere in the middle. The Bible's relationship to science and history is mythological. However, we can participate in the myth in a very real way by faith.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are no religions to embrace science.

This statement completely ignores scores of religious movements all over the world that have embraced science. Islam, for example, is famous for its achievements in math and science.

 

[Booko]

At the very least, they've proven the existence of watchmakers!

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to $userinfo[username] again.

How DARE you be so funny with a frequency so that I can't frubal you for this! :biglaugh:

 

[Booko]

How does the supernatural not "step on the toes" of science, when science deals strictly with the natural?

When religion minds it's own business and does not try to dictate to scientists how to do their job.

At most, religion might comment on the ethical nature of certain lines of research (human cloning, developing the Doomsday Machine, that sort of thing), and even that has to be done with the utmost care and not out of a motivation to prove a theological pov (e.g. stem cell research limitations).

The supernatural has no business in being involved in science.

I hope you weren't expecting me to disagree with you on this.

 

[lunamoth]

This statement completely ignores scores of religious movements all over the world that have embraced science. Islam, for example, is famous for its achievements in math and science.

Quite right. And let's not forget that the majority of scientists are also theists, and I'm not talking about the kind of scientist out trying to prove the young earth theory either. It's amazing how we never seem to have any touble confusing the 'supernatural' with an empirical approach.

lunamoth

 

[standing_alone]

When religion minds it's own business and does not try to dictate to scientists how to do their job.

At most, religion might comment on the ethical nature of certain lines of research (human cloning, developing the Doomsday Machine, that sort of thing), and even that has to be done with the utmost care and not out of a motivation to prove a theological pov (e.g. stem cell research limitations).

Ah, I get what you're saying now.

I hope you weren't expecting me to disagree with you on this.

I didn't know what to expect. I was confused by what you were saying at first.

 

[Tony]

As I have said innumerable times before... the choice between science and religion is not binary. They are two separate fields with different methodologies, different requirements and coming from completely different perspectives. You can have both. Subjecting religion to science is absurd as subjecting the quadratic formula to literary criticism... it is irrelevant to the task at hand. This entire battle is completely irrelevant as science will never be able to disprove God and religion will never be able to prove God. There is a strong tendancy in humans to criticize what they do not understand, which brings out the worst in the scientist and believer alike.

Since ancient people tried to explain the nature the best way they could, they used their then scientific knowledge. When they didn't have enough of scientific knowledge, they used their imagination to answer their questions about the nature.

(That's why we have so many different religions. Many of them are already obsolete, like ancient Greek myths, for example.)

So, what we have now is the battle between the modern science and the ancient science+imagination. Since the subject of this debate is still the nature and people as part of the nature - it's exactly the same field.

Person can have both if person is not honest to him/herself.

Scientific methodology excludes religious one.

There is no point to look for natural answer if we already have supernatural one.

It's not a purpose of science to disprove gods and religions - what's the point to disprove fantasies?

I like your opinion that religion will never be able to prove god. I agree 100%.

There nothing about religion that people can't understand. It's very simple: ancient people didn't have enough scientific knowledge, they needed answers, so they used their imagination.

 

[Tony]

many religious speakers use philosophical language.... is philosophy a science? not in my mind, but i could be wrong

Not because I say that, of course.

 

[evearael]

Scientific methodology excludes religious one.

Different methodology for different purposes. How's that literary critique of the quadratic equation coming?

 

[Booko]

Since ancient people tried to explain the nature the best way they could, they used their then scientific knowledge. When they didn't have enough of scientific knowledge, they used their imagination to answer their questions about the nature.

ok.

(That's why we have so many different religions. Many of them are already obsolete, like ancient Greek myths, for example.)

There are other explanations, but that's another thread.

So, what we have now is the battle between the modern science and the ancient science+imagination. Since the subject of this debate is still the nature and people as part of the nature - it's exactly the same field.

No, what we have is a false dichotomy, first perpetrated by certain religious fanatics, and now taken up by certain non-theists as if it had anything to do with anything.

What amazes me is how so many of you seem to think the original theists were actually *right*. <shaking head>

Oh, and btw, it keeps being pointed out to you, repeatedly, that religion _per se_ is not opposed to science. That's a phenomon of Western Christianity that grew out of historical events in Europe and it got carried over here, unfortunately.

And then there's the rest of the world, and time, and religious belief, which doesn't subscribe to the sort of nonsense you abhor.

Scientific methodology excludes religious one.

Duh? Scientific metholodogy deals with the natural. Religious methodologies use other means, and are not interested in the natural, but the ethical.

There is no point to look for natural answer if we already have supernatural one.

It's not a purpose of science to disprove gods and religions - what's the point to disprove fantasies?

Including, I guess, the fantasy that religion is always opposed to science.

Look, a search for the truth is a search for the truth, whether the "truth" is a physical one, in which case use science, or whether it concerns other questions of life, which science is ill-equipped to deal with.

I like your opinion that religion will never be able to prove god. I agree 100%.

So do I. I believe in God, but I am not stupid enough to think I can "prove" it in any scientific way. So clearly, there are people who understand science and don't have a problem believing in God or thinking that religion should be messing in science's business.

There nothing about religion that people can't understand. It's very simple: ancient people didn't have enough scientific knowledge, they needed answers, so they used their imagination.

Clearly there is something about religion that you don't yet understand.

They aren't all ancient, and they don't all spring from a time when people didn't understand science.

This leaves you in a position where you must explain your position in terms of modern religion.

Is the mid-1800s modern enough for you?

Please tell me how my religion needed answers to natural phenomena, and got "imaginative" and depended on supernatural ones instead.

 

[Tony]

Science rules? Well, perhaps if you're willing to take ads claiming to sell a "scientifically designed" fishing pole as evidence for your thesis, then science rules.

I was kidding about "Science rules". I mean, I agree with this statement, but the way it's put is funny.

For many people (perhaps for most people) science and technology are synonymous, and the proof that science is valid is nothing much more than its peculiar ability to come up with fuel injected cars, life extending pacemakers, new home cleaning products, and portable music. Those people don't so much look at the world through the lens of science, as they value and desire the technological marvels spun off from science. Both their desire for, respect, and understanding of, science is similar to a woman who loves a man only for his wealth, or a man who loves a woman only for her sex.

That's very narrow view on science. Science is so much more than just new products of technology. Philosophy, psychology, astronomy and many other fields of science don't produce "technological marvels". I agree with you that some not very educated people see science as you described. It doen't mean that they are correct.

If science ever quite spinning off new technology, they would fall out of love with it, and they would do so without ever having bothered to really understand and appreciate science in the first place. For the most part, I don't think you can properly call their views of the world "scientific", and it's questionable whether the impression science makes on them has much significance to their religiosity.

When a preacher sermonizes that "60% of AIDS cases in America involve homosexuals" he might sound a bit "scientific", but he's really doing nothing more than the copywriter who inserts the words "scientifically proven design" into his ad about fishing poles. Both the preacher and the copywriter are playing on the emotional appeal of "science" in order to gain respect for their drivel, but they most certainly are not promoting a scientific view of the world.

You see the same thing on a much grander scale when you go to a creationist website that purports to refute the theory of evolution with "scientific facts", or you go to the Focus on the Family website and read up on their "scientific evidence concerning homosexuality". You could study each of those sites for years and it would still be an unassailable Act of God if you could learn from those sites to have a genuinely scientific outlook.

Evolution doesn't have all answers yet and never claimed that. It's a work in progress.

Religions, on the other hand, are obsolete points of view of ancient people.

There is nothing scientific in religions from modern point of view. They were "scientific" thousands of years ago.

Tony, I just don't think I can take your statement, "science rules", without some significant qualifications.

Again, "Science rules" was jokilnly put but I agree with this statement in principal.

 

[Booko]

Different methodology for different purposes. How's that literary critique of the quadratic equation coming?

Will you stop saying things like this? You're making me have to go change my underthings again! :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

Oh yeah...and frubals too...

 

[anders]

The actual fact that religious organizations are forced to use “scientific” language

After six pages, I still haven't noticed any examples proving that this really occurs somewhere.