Why the divide between Science and Religion...

[Jaymes]

People in Columbus' time certainly knew the earth was round. Anyone at the time who used the stars to navigate knew this. The myth that Columbus knew something the rest of the world didn't is a fairy tale invented by Washington Irving. The debate was over whether it was possible to circumnavigate the world, not if it was round or flat.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

+++MOD POST+++

Please keep the confrontational tone to a minimum.

 

[Sunstone]

Hi, SnaleSpace, nice to meet you.

But I love what you just said. It is a beautiful illustration of what I'm talking about.

You say those who once believed the earth was flat.

How did they come to believe that, when Isaiah and David taught otherwise?

I'll tell you. Some rebellious Bibliphobe decided that his "science" and "observations" were more authoritative than Scripture, and started teaching that heresy as 'science'. Then people, CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE, started believing it.

Then comes someone like Christopher Columbus, who knows better because he believes the Bible, not 'science' ... and basically proves 'science' wrong and the Bible correct.

But what do the 'scientists' do? They just say, "Oops, now we have more evidence" and they readjust their data to ... guess what? ... coincide with the Bible!

Yup. That's the way it happened alright. Just like you say. :sarcastic

 

[michel]

+++MOD POST+++

Please keep the confrontational tone to a minimum.

Sorry, Feathers --- will do!

 

[ChrisP]

Hi, SnaleSpace, nice to meet you.

But I love what you just said. It is a beautiful illustration of what I'm talking about.

You say those who once believed the earth was flat.

How did they come to believe that, when Isaiah and David taught otherwise?

I'll tell you. Some rebellious Bibliphobe decided that his "science" and "observations" were more authoritative than Scripture, and started teaching that heresy as 'science'. Then people, CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE, started believing it.

Then comes someone like Christopher Columbus, who knows better because he believes the Bible, not 'science' ... and basically proves 'science' wrong and the Bible correct.

But what do the 'scientists' do? They just say, "Oops, now we have more evidence" and they readjust their data to ... guess what? ... coincide with the Bible!

Hi AV, I agree with what you've said in this post as it is quite true that scientists disregard scripture. This is to me is for two reasons:

Scientists choose only to believe what they can see, touch, taste, feel and smell.

Scientists have an obligation to disregard religion as religion encompasses (mostly) they physically unknowable.

So even if they are among the few scientists who don't scorn religion as superstition then they are obliged to act in this way to further their studies of the physical world.

Religion= study of the metaphysical and unknowable.
Science= study of the measurable.

 

[michel]

Scientists choose only to believe what they can see, touch, taste, feel and smell.

Well they better start believing what they can read too, so they can invest our tax dollars on more philanthropic things like the homeless and sick in this world, instead of looking for 'intelligent' life out in space, or 'communicating' with porpoises, or moving things telekinetically, or other junk stuff.

 

[Jaymes]

Human rights/aid groups tend to be more focused on that. A scientists' job is to search for answers to questions, a human rights/aid worker's job is to help those in need. Seems fair to me.

It's really ridiculous that there's a divide to begin with. You need science to have religion; 'God did it' gets to be a weak and tired explanation after a while.

 

[ChrisP]

Well they better start believing what they can read too, so they can invest our tax dollars on more philanthropic things like the homeless and sick in this world, instead of looking for 'intelligent' life out in space, or 'communicating' with porpoises, or moving things telekinetically, or other junk stuff.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there such as yourself doing these things daily to set a good example. Lead by example (if i can remember my childhood Sunday School) is Jesus suggestion for teaching.

 

[michel]

You need science to have religion; 'God did it' gets to be a weak and tired explanation after a while.

Believe me, Jensa, I'm getting tired of repeating it over and over. You just read it, I have to type it --- LOL --- (but it's worth it).

'Need science to have religion?' --- Cart before the horse?

 

[michel]

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there such as yourself doing these things daily to set a good example. Lead by example (if i can remember my childhood Sunday School) is Jesus suggestion for teaching.

Very good advice! Thank you! - (And I'm not being sarcastic, either.)

 

[Sunstone]

You need science to have religion

I think the consensus among historians of science is that modern science begins about 500 years ago. Religions, on the other hand, seem to have been around for at least 35,000 years, since the caves in France were painted. So, it is quite possible to have religion without science.

 

[michel]

I think the consensus among historians of science is that modern science begins about 500 years ago. Religions, on the other hand, seem to have been around for at least 35,000 years, since the caves in France were painted. So, it is quite possible to have religion without science.

By 'modern science' do they mean that to include programs like SETI, and government programs superintended by Uri Geller, and cows belching methane gas, and finding Gumby on Venus, and a face on Mars? Would this include Project Bluebook, the search for phlogiston, and funding for perpetual motion machines? As well as funding thousands of dollars to find out that prayer is actually beneficial to the one praying?

The point I'm trying to make here is that science hasn't changed at all. Their experiments are just more expensive, and they've learned to put their hands in OUR pockets.

 

[Jaymes]

Good point, Sunstone. I stand corrected.

 

[mr.guy]

Well they better start believing what they can read too, so they can invest our tax dollars on more philanthropic things like the homeless and sick in this world, instead of looking for 'intelligent' life out in space, or 'communicating' with porpoises, or moving things telekinetically, or other junk stuff.

Sounds good to start, don't it? But don't disregard the scientific tradition of serendipity!

 

[Sunstone]

The point I'm trying to make here is that science hasn't changed at all. Their experiments are just more expensive, and they've learned to put their hands in OUR pockets.

I think you must have a pretty loose definition of science to assert that science in any meaningful way existed prior to about 500 years ago. It's true that science has a long history of development, and roots in, for instance, ancient Greek philosophy. But those roots are more precisely proto scientific than scientific.

 

[michel]

Sounds good to start, don't it? But don't disregard the scientific tradition of serendipity!

Good point, Mr Guy. We've come a long way from the days when Archimedes yelled Eureka! when he discovered Buyoncy. But it's still just the same. Go grab a copy of Scientific American or Popular Science ... nothing new. Just trying to make a fast car go faster, or a shaver to shave closer, or frame-by-frame depictions of the Hal 9000 computer in 2001: A Space Odessy (which reminds me --- they argue over when the Millenium started --- 2000 or 2001 --- and, of course, scaring us to pieces with Y2K). I gotta admit though, if it weren't for scientists, we'd all be posting in the dark.

 

[michel]

Good point, Mr Guy. We've come a long way from the days when Archimedes yelled Eureka! when he discovered Buyoncy. But it's still just the same. Go grab a copy of Scientific American or Popular Science ... nothing new. Just trying to make a fast car go faster, or a shaver to shave closer, or frame-by-frame depictions of the Hal 9000 computer in 2001: A Space Odessy (which reminds me --- they argue over when the Millenium started --- 2000 or 2001 --- and, of course, scaring us to pieces with Y2K). I gotta admit though, if it weren't for scientists, we'd all be posting in the dark.

Addendum: I meant the HAL 9000 'reading Dave's lips'. (Incidentally HAL should have rotated the pod when Dave told him to, if HAL was reading their lips.)

In the '60 Stark Trek episode where Captain Kirk is on trial for jettisoning the pod that supposed killed a man, Spock discovers that the computer has been tampered with. The way he finds out, is because he's playing the computer Chess, and is winning game after game. He concludes that since he himself programmed the computer, the best he could hope for is a draw.

That was the ongoing scientific theory of the time. That people who programmed computers to play Chess had to be very good at it, and would never be able to beat it themselves.

Another example of sloppy science, disproved this time by the Coleco Game Co. and Mattel, Inc.

 

[painted wolf]

heh... I love how you say that Pop Sci and Scientific American are perfect examples of what Scientitst do... :biglaugh:

try the jurnal Science or Nature for a clue as to what science is really about instead of pop culture science.

And your example of programming isn't scientific theory... its 'conventional wisdom' wich often isn't... :bonk:

wa:do

 

[DeepShadow]

Studies are ongoing in this area, and conclusions, though tentative, are becoming much more certain with each successive replication. Within academic circles, there is near universal agreement that there is no pattern of migration of mitochondrial DNA corresponding to the migration of peoples as claimed by the Book of Mormon.

Only because the "migration of people as claimed in the Book of Mormon" has been grossly misrepresented, by LDS as often as anyone else. Hugh Nibley made a case over fifty years ago that vast majority of the Book of Mormon peoples came from Middle Asia, which would only be supported by the current DNA evidence. I've summarized the high points of his evidence--all from peer-reviewed non-LDS sources--in a discussion thread. Since that thread is excluded from debate, please feel free to raise objections in the debate I started on the subject.

 

[DeepShadow]

By 'modern science' do they mean that to include programs like SETI, and government programs superintended by Uri Geller, and cows belching methane gas, and finding Gumby on Venus, and a face on Mars? Would this include Project Bluebook, the search for phlogiston, and funding for perpetual motion machines? As well as funding thousands of dollars to find out that prayer is actually beneficial to the one praying.

These are some pretty blatant straw-man arguments, aren't they? What about vaccines, or drought-resistance crops, or the mass printing techniques that allow for scriptures to be spread throughout the world?