Debate and Discussion

Science VS religion -A VERY well beaten dead horse,
ozoneocean at 8:00AM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
OK, I know this one is a boring, over discussed topic (Oh do I know it), but after reading this news report I just had to put this up.
WTF:
USA today
Americans by-and-large admire scientists – unless they get crosswise on issues with religious overtones such as evolution, global warming, embryonic stem cell research – according to a new survey released today from the Pew Forum.

Dr. Alan I. Leshner, of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, called it a “communications gap” but it may be more of a belief gap.

The survey found 55% say science and religion are often in conflict and 36% say science sometimes conflicts with their own religious beliefs. Among those 36%:

*41% refer specifically to evolution, creationism, Darwinism and debates about the origin of life.

*15% cite differences over the beginning of life, primarily concerns about abortion(12%) but also cloning and birth control.

*9% are concerned about the use of stem cells.

While 95% of the public said they believe in God or a higher power, 41% of scientists don't believe in either. Nearly half of scientists say they're atheist, agnostic or believe “nothing in particular” but only 17% of the general public is unaffiliated.
Source.

These people are morons. Science and religion don't conflict in any way (as concepts), they're two completely different things in modern day practise. The only place they intersect is in the minds of stupid people. You can be a devout elephant worshipping Hindu priest and still be god's gift to science. There is no contradiction or issue with that unless you are a cretin and then you probably shouldn't be religious or a scientist. Being part of the human race, part of our big civilisation of cultural social beings means having a big brain that has to cope with learning new stuff as well as holding onto cultural knowledge that's part of the social cohesion essential for maintaining that civilisation. Which means a functioning adult human should be able to function perfectly with all sorts of science, religion, dungeon and dragons rules and even songs by Lady Gaga going in their brains at the same time without having any existential problems because of that.

For f**k's sake… If it wasn't for religion we wouldn't have science as it is today. Consider-
Most of the scientific culture, method etc, has always been propagated and nurtured in universities. ALL the famous original universities were founded by churches for the study of religion. Even the title “doctor” is a religious one.
That doesn't make religion some sort of secret scientific advocate, all it does is prove that the world isn't some simple, moronic fight between Ying and Yang, black and white, that everything is interwoven and connected and if you can't understand that life will be difficult for you.

…/Rant

TlDr: Science VS religion is a false debate.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
Sea_Cow at 9:40AM, July 11, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,687
joined: 4-5-2007
Then why is it in this category?
I am so happy to finally be back home
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:26PM
lothar at 9:41AM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
i guess it realy depends on the religion . i think there are plenty of religions out there that can't logicaly coexist with scientific thought in the minds of any sane person.
fundementalist christianity for one , you would have to be shizo to be able to believe everything that's in the bible andstill be a rational science minded person. why did so many of those early scientists get so much trouble from their peers in the mideval universities ? i'm sure there are 40 year olds out there that still believe in santa claus , but they are delusional . there's prolly a reason why so many scientists don't believe in all that mythology , mainly cuz it sounds so prosaic and primitive when viewed from an intergalactic/quantum physics perspective . maybe it can work as a parable or as literature , but taken as the gospel from the creator of the cosmos , it really does that creator an injustice
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
isukun at 9:42AM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I wouldn't say that just because religion created a need for and nurtured science in the earlier days that that necessarily means they are interwoven and not contradictory in some ways. Religion created a social foundation by giving meaning to life. This eventually lead to scientific study to learn more about the universe around us. The more science progresses, though, the more it tries to take the place of religion in the masses. It gives an alternative meaning to life, making old mythologies harder to grasp and replacing faith with rationality. It can be hard for a person to give up their faith that has been drilled into their mind since birth.

Honestly, I don't see why this matters so much, anyway. In the cases of abortion and stem cell research, it is a moral issue to them, not a challenge to their faith. They believe these acts are murder and they are entitled to their opinion. When it comes to creationism, their beliefs may negate the possibility of evolution, but how many jobs in this country require a belief in evolution? I know creationists who are insistant that evolution does not occur, yet they are still functional members of society. As a rational person, I often wish they would be more open-minded, especially when presented with evidence that they are in fact wrong (and honestly, why does creationism necessarily have to negate evolution? Couldn't evolution still occur even if the world was created by God a few thousand years back?), but their inability to accept a scientific theory doesn't mean they aren't functional.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
ozoneocean at 11:08AM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
isukun
I wouldn't say that just because religion created a need for and nurtured science in the earlier days that that necessarily means they are interwoven and not contradictory in some ways.
They're unrelated. A coffee cup doesn't contradict my underpants, and I use them both for different purposes. :)

Religion contradicts nothing except for itself. The mythology, institutions and social structures that make it up have nothing to do with science these days- the thing about the religious universities was essential in giving us science as it is today, but the time of church patronage is long past. Science has a role in technology and through that; industry, medicine, military, the arts etc. It's a practical discipline.

Religion has a role in various aspects of social cohesion. It's purely cultural. That's what it does.
The only time religion messes with science is not because of its existence, its because of morons who's interpretation of their social institution is such that they think it entitles them to interfere in the lives and actions of the broader community. That is their fault because they are cretins, not “religion”.
isukun
but their inability to accept a scientific theory doesn't mean they aren't functional.
Of course not. It just means that they function as a fifth wheel.
Sea_Cow
Then why is it in this category?
Because the debate or discussion topic I'm proposing is NOT Religion VS Science
My assertion is that "Religion VS Science" does not really exist except within the minds of fools. It is a purely social construction that people have fooled themselves into believing because they either don't understand very much about science, religion, or both.

Feel free to disagree. ^_^
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
isukun at 3:52PM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
People will disagree since religion is not simply a social construct. Government is the purely social construct with religion falling somewhere inbetween. Religion doesn't just give us a set of rules to follow, but also attempts to explain the universe around us as an incentive to get people to follow those rules. Even ignoring the mythologies, religion tries to explain the spiritual aspects of humanity. This is an attempt to understand consciousness and life itself. The concept of a soul directly contradicts many theories brought up by biologists and psychologists.

By that logic, then, all people who claim to be religious are illogical morons who “function as a fifth wheel” in society. There is no way to avoid it, science evolved from religion's need to explain the unexplainable, but chooses a completely different approach to doing so. There are going to be contradictions and it is going to be hard for people to simply give up their beliefs because some scientist has a theory, especially when mankind still has an intense fear of death.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
El Cid at 6:33PM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 945
joined: 5-4-2009
While your idea that religion and science somehow don't contradict one another is a very *interesting* conclusion, I don't at all see that it's an intuitive one, so maybe you could flesh that out just a bit more before you go off calling everyone a moron? I don't see that the mythologies of religions (creation myths, fictional characters, commandments of what thou shalt and shalt not do) are entirely separable from the more vacuous and subjective ( read: “meaningless” ) spiritual elements. So if those are clearly in conflict with our scientific understanding of the universe, and you believe in science, then that would immediately relegate religion to some sort of overblown self-help seminar that's been going on for thousands of years. How's that not a conflict? If you are an elephant worshiper, but it can be demonstrated that elephants have no mystical powers, do not answer your prayers, and wish you'd leave ‘em the hell alone, I’d call that a pretty big conflict.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
arteestx at 9:21PM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
Saying that religion and science shouldn't be in conflict is like saying Arabs and Jews shouldn't be in conflict. You're right in theory, but that isn't how it is in practice.


Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
Product Placement at 9:40PM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
The idea of religion is to have faith in a certain idea. That the universe works this way and that it shouldn't be questioned. It's just the way it is. A man of faith does not ask questions because he knows that he's not meant to know.

The idea of science is to question the foundations of everything and seek to understand how the world works. Everything is questioned and the most probable ideas are considered first. Hard evidence is sought after and if anything contradicts something that's considered a solid fact, then it's looked through again until people realize what's wrong with the current idea, if there's anything wrong with it to begin with. A man of science asks questions because he needs to know.

These two things are like oil and water. They don't mix at all. A self respected scientist would never try to claim they can disprove the existence of god. How can you? Sure you can't prove the existence of a higher being but there's nothing around that can disprove it. In the same manner, a self respected man of church would never attempt to justify his religion by using scientific facts. Yeah that's right. Intelligent design is a terrible idea.

It's funny to watch someone who believes in science argue with a man of faith. You'll here the religious man state things like “well what happen before that”. The scientific man answers to which the religious one asks the same question again. This continues until we hit the point where the scientific man answers “I don't know what happened before that”. To which the religious man responds “Then god must have done it”. What the religious man fails to understand is that this debate has been repeated time and again. The only difference is that each time it happens the scientist manages to go further back because he keeps researching what happened before. Once he finds an answer to his questions, he'll simply start asking new ones. A man of faith is content in knowing that god did it and he doesn't need to ask any more questions.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:51PM
lothar at 9:42PM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
arteestx
Saying that religion and science shouldn't be in conflict is like saying Arabs and Jews shouldn't be in conflict. You're right in theory, but that isn't how it is in practice.

or … an even better analogy would be like saying vodka doesn't mix well with fruit juice . it all depends on what juice you are mixing it with and also on your own sense of taste

i found an interesting movie last night that comes eerily close to this very debate , i wasn't looking for it , but it's almost as if the internet knew what i was thinking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU


it's mostly about how quantum physics and some religions might not be as seperate as they first seem

i'm not sure i really understand it all that much
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Orin J Master at 9:50PM, July 11, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
religion hates science because it won't simply defer to their beliefs on any questions they want to answer. science is constantly pissed at religion because they always meddle for their own sake. both are often a little too full of themselves, as neither is flawless.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
ozoneocean at 12:38AM, July 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
No.

Your problem is that you all fall into the same old conventional crap of seeing religion as a purely proscriptive doctrine.

It's not. Religion is quite a lot more than that (which I've outlined further up). The doctrine is only one part and that part is interpreted differently by individuals. What you're thinking of as religious intransigence is simply individual intransigence- And it's actually mostly your own since you are the ones interpreting religion in that way in this instance here and now. :)

You're also mistaking science for some way of life or definition of the world as it actually is. That is a childish mistake- What science is, is a discipline. Science is NOT its findings and conclusions, those are simply integrated into the fabric of our society on the point of their discovery. They become part of our body of knowledge, while the discipline of science builds on those, re-examines them and goes on to bring us more.

Now I've explained these things a little more, can you start to see what's happening?

There can be no real Science Vs religion.
That is a social construction- people believe it too be true so that make it so, like the way aspects of religion are grown in fact.
So I could say that if you really subscribe to this artificial conflict, then I'll respect your little faith based movement, but I'm sorry guys, but I don't share in this primitive belief system. :(
Dualistic, adversarial visualisations of concepts are very simple and appeal to our primitive instincts, but at some point you have to look at them for what they are and move beyond that sort of naivete. ;)

So, now that's settled. Who's going to the be the chief priest? :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:34PM
lothar at 3:19AM, July 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
well then , i don't really know what you're getting at Ozone .
you quoted the article about the americans and their troubles with science versus religion . the story there is about the adherents to these to methods of looking at the universe . but it seems like you are arguing that religion and science are abstract concepts that can exist outside of their adherents . neither science or religion would exist if not for the people that created both methods . so i think it is a valid argument to say that religion is often at odds with science, because religionists and scientists are often at odds with each other . because neither idea exists outside the skulls of the human race , as far as we know

science - a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.




last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Orin J Master at 8:08AM, July 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
ah. he's not arguing religion Vs. Science; he's arguing Faith Vs. Understanding. he's confused the two i think.

i could be wrong, his argument is a bit cryptic in nature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
arteestx at 10:46AM, July 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
ozoneocean
Now I've explained these things a little more, can you start to see what's happening?

Half the people in the original study say science conflicts with their religious beliefs. You can argue all you want that they are morons, childish, cretins, simple, naive, etc. You can call the rest of us the same names for falling into the same trap because we don't have the superior understanding you do. You can say that religious endeavors are cultural and involve social cohesion, and those religious people who feel entitled to interfere with science are morons.

But these morons have been around for a long time. Yes, there are times when religion and science do work hand in hand, as in the Islamic libraries and the creation of religious universities. But you don't have to look long and hard to find examples throughout history of scientists being persecuted for discoveries that went against the church. And you don't have to look long and hard today to find pastors and religious leaders who fight against science.

If someone is punching you in the face, you can claim that you don't have a problem with them and that no fight is necessary. If they are punching you in the face, you're in a conflict. Redefine it as you want, you're in conflict. Call them morons for feeling entitled to fight, you're still in conflict. Say they have no business going outside their endeavors, if they're punching you in the face you're still in conflict. Say there is no conflict other than in the minds of fools, if they are punching you in the face, you my friend are in conflict.

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
kyupol at 12:13PM, July 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Science and Religion do have a conflict.

Religion means any belief system that has dogmas – you have to do this and do that on certain days. This is the one and only TRUE WAY to go to heaven. Everyone else is false.

If your belief system is closed-minded in any way, shape, or form and you ignore all the other possibilities as false, you ARE following a religion whether or not you acknowledge it.

But science and SPIRITUALITY do not conflict. See quantum physics and look into how alternative therapies work (like reiki, hypnosis, ayurveda, acupuncture, reflexology, etc).

You'll be amazed.



NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
isukun at 7:32PM, July 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Actually, many people in the psychiatric practice might argue that those alternative methods work because of physical or chemical impulses triggered by either the way the treatment interacts with the body or by a belief in the patient that the treatment works, causing a chemical reaction in the brain which makes the body mimic the desired effect.

It shouldn't be much of a surprise that there are more psychiatrists who are non religious than any other medical field, yet the vast majority agree that religion can actually bring about both mental and physical stability in patients. It is an odd irony, but I'd wager most of your psychiatrists wouldn't argue that there is any mystical power helping their more religious patients.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
lothar at 3:58AM, July 13, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
kyupol
science and SPIRITUALITY do not conflict.

exactly !!!

religion does not equal spirituality
sometimes people get something spiritual out of some religions ,but there are many many religious people who are not getting anything spiritual out of their religion . many time they are less spiritual than atheists or agnostics .
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Kilre at 10:19PM, July 13, 2009
(online)
posts: 221
joined: 9-25-2007
kyupol
But science and SPIRITUALITY do not conflict. See quantum physics…

Quantum physics is not spiritual. What are you smoking now? Define spiritual so that it can relate to the WHOLE of quantum physics.

kyupol
…and look into how alternative therapies work (like reiki, hypnosis, ayurveda, acupuncture, reflexology, etc).

No. Just no. Show me the double-blind clinical trials that prove these work, though, and I'll consider conceding that they're materialistically based, and still not spiritual.



Anyway, Ozone, I completely disagree with you. Science and religion conflict. They are conflicting as we speak. What do you think the Intelligent Design movement is all about?

And I have several posts to back my position up.

Why Evolution Is True
For those who claim that no religious scientists allow their scientific statements and beliefs to be infected with religion, here’s a counterexample. It’s from Francis Collins’s BioLogos website (funded by our friends at The John Templeton Foundation) and is a statement about how God may influence the world through quantum mechanics:

The mechanical worldview of the scientific revolution is now a relic. Modern physics has replaced it with a very different picture of the world. With quantum mechanical uncertainty and the chaotic unpredictability of complex systems, the world is now understood to have a certain freedom in its future development. Of course, the question remains whether this openness is a result of nature’s true intrinsic chanciness or the inevitable limit to humans’ understanding. Either way, one thing is clear: a complete and detailed explanation or prediction for nature’s behavior cannot be provided. This was already a problem for Newtonian mechanics; however, it was assumed that in principle, science might eventually provide a complete explanation of any natural event. Now, though, we see that the laws of nature are such that scientific prediction and explanation are ultimately limited.

It is thus perfectly possible that God might influence the creation in subtle ways that are unrecognizable to scientific observation. In this way, modern science opens the door to divine action without the need for law breaking miracles. Given the impossibility of absolute prediction or explanation, the laws of nature no longer preclude God’s action in the world. Our perception of the world opens once again to the possibility of divine interaction.

This view is nearly identical to that of Kenneth Miller in his book Finding Darwin’s God. What this means, of course, is that what appear to us to be random and unpredictable events on the subatomic level (for example, the decay of atoms) can really reflect God’s manipulation of those particles, and that this is the way a theistic God might intervene in the world. And of course these interventions are said to be “subtle” and “unrecognizable.” (Theologians are always making a virtue of necessity. They never explain why, if God wanted to answer a prayer, he would do it by tweaking electrons rather than, say, directly killing cancer cells with his omnipotence. After all, a miracle is a miracle. Theology might, in fact, be defined as the art of making religious virtues out of scientific necessities.) And why did these interventions used to involve more blatant manipulations of nature (several thousand years ago, virgin human females gave birth to offspring, were taken bodily to heaven, and their offspring brought back to life after dying), while in more recent years the manipulations have been confined to the subatomic level?

And think about how ludicrous this theology really is. God: “Well, let’s see. Johnny’s parents have prayed for a cure for his leukemia. They’re good people, so I’ll do it. Now how to do the trick?. If I can just change the position of this electron here, and that one over there, I can cause a mutation in gene X that will beef up his immune system and allow the chemotherapy to work.” Why can’t God just say “Cancer, begone!”? (He apparently did that in Baltimore.) I already how the theists will respond: “That’s not the way God works, because we know how he works and it’s not that way!”

The BioLogos statement appears as part of the answer to the question, “What role could God have in evolution?” I submit that the statement is a scientific one that is deeply infected with religious views. The statement is this: “God acts by tweaking electrons and other subatomic particles, constantly causing non-deterministic changes in the universe according to his desires.” Further, the clear implication is this: “God intervened in the evolutionary process, tweaking some electrons to eventually ‘evolve’ a creature made in his image”. That is a religious statement masquerading as science. And that appears to be the view of some religious theists, especially those Catholics who adhere to the Church’s position that God intervened in human evolution.

Well, what happens if we find out some day that the subatomic “nondeterministic” changes really turn out to be deterministic? After all, quantum mechanics and its indeterminacy are provisional scientific theories; we might eventually find out that what appear to be totally unpredictable events really do have a deterministic causation. Where does Collins’s deity go then? Do you suppose for a minute that Collins and his fellow theistic evolutionists would say, “Right. Everything is in principle predictable after all. Obviously, there’s no room for God to intervene in nature, so theism is wrong.” I wouldn’t count on it.

Making quantum mechanics the bailiwick for celestial intervention is a God-of-the-gaps argument, no different in kind from many arguments for intelligent design. Do theistic evolutionists really want to make quantum mechanics God’s playground? Remember the words of the martyred theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer about the dangers of mixing science and faith:

If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed farther and farther back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat.

______________________________

Note: Someone once asked me what the “H.” in the expression “Jesus H. Christ!” came from. I used to reply, “haploid,” since he came from an unfertilized egg. But now I am starting to wonder if it might be “Heisenberg.”

Link.

But wait! There's more!

Pharyngula
John Wilkins has tried to make some arguments for accommodationism. I am unimpressed. He makes six points that I briefly summarize here, with my reply.

It's the job of the religious to reconcile their beliefs with science, and atheists don't get to “insist that nobody else can make the claim that their religious belief is consistent with science.” The first part is obvious — we aren't going to compromise science with superstition, nor are we going to make excuses for them. The second part makes no sense. Nobody has been making that demand…but we will point out how silly the excused people make are.

The usual excuse that making nice with religion is strategic, coupled with the claim that religion is always going to be around. Other people can be strategic. Scientists just ought to be honest. As for the tired argument that religion will always be around — no. Some of us have shed the old myths. More will follow. I don't have any problem seeing a coming future where religious belief is an irrelevant minority position. Of course, if you start out with a defeatist attitude, it becomes a bit more difficult.

Some scientists are religious, and we don't have the right to insist that they give it up. I have not heard a single atheist insist that anyone must give up their religion. I can imagine a majority voluntarily giving it up, but my imagination fails at the idea of going up to some believer and ordering them to stop believing. How do we do that? So, sorry, Wilkins — it's another complaint about something no one is proposing.

Scientific institutions shouldn't be asserting that science is compatible with religion — let the religious do that themselves. That's the very same thing the atheists have been saying all along.

Religion has always been wrong about the natural world, but religion is seeking knowledge of something different. Again, first part fine, second part weird. What knowledge? Can you even call it “knowledge” if it's nothing that anyone can know? Why should we accept any claims by religion?

NOMA is wrong, and there is no war between religion and science. Wilkins continues his pattern of being half right. I agree that NOMA was a false attempt at reconciliation. I disagree that there is no conflict between religion and science. Religion is an archaic, failed mode of thinking that continues to demand greater respect than it deserves, and exploits tradition, fear, and emotion to maintain its undeserved position. Wilkins tries to compare it to two dancers jostling for space on a dance floor, I prefer to think of it as one dancer, humanity, afflicted with lice, religion, and twitching and squirming unpleasantly while struggling with a persistent parasite.

So, a resounding “eh”. However, then he tosses out this bizarre bit of philosophical insipidity that irritates, like an annoying bit of grit in my shoe. It's one of those superficially reasonable comments that, with just a little thought, looks awfully stupid.

Only those who are completely without self-knowledge think they are entirely rational on every subject, and that this licenses attacking others for their perceived failings in that respect. I know I won't change their mind either.

Grrr. Once again, we've got a caricature of the atheist position: who among us claims perfect self-knowledge and flawless rationality? We're human beings, last I looked. However, to imply that we can therefore have no license to criticize irrationality is to claim that no one can say anything ever against foolishness. It's an abdication of intellectual responsibility.

If I were to announce that I were absolutely rational and that I had perfect knowledge, I would expect to be rightfully attacked by people like John Wilkins for my obvious failing. Hey, he just did — even though I've never made such an assertion. But I think we'd both agree that such an extravagant claim would most definitely be an astonishing foolishness that ought to be smacked down. What a crazy idea!

John clearly thinks some philosophical claims are wrong. But the curious thing is that he thinks certain other claims are beyond our capacity to criticize.

If, for instance, someone believes that a god gave us magical absolution by turning into a man and dying temporarily, well, heck—that may not be an irrational, wacky idea at all. If this someone claims that they have a magical communication line to an omniscient superman who assures him that the 36-hour death absolution was really, really true, we should step back, take a charitably philosophical view of the idea, and abstain from calling him a very silly man.

There are limits to what we can attack as bad ideas.

But, apparently, there are no limits to the absurdities that the religious can advance.

It's an asymmetrical situation that will be maintained as long as we have people insisting that we grant religious ideas a specially protected status. I reject that — I'm going to insist that it is fair game to attack the obvious failings of religion. And it's not because I am unaware of the limitations of my knowledge, or because I believe I'm flawlessly rational.

It's because the invisible monkeys in my pants dart out every once in a while to whisper the truth in my ear, in the ancient language of omniscient primates. And that is a source of knowledge nobody can attack me on, by Wilkins' rules.

Link.

I'm not done yet.

Science and religion are meant to conflict. They both seek answers for the way the world works. Religion, as it turns out, is utterly false, and reliably demonstrated to be thus. Religion makes claims that science can test, like “gods” talking to people, or “miracles”, intercessory prayers, the “assumption”, turning water into wine, walking on water, faith healing. Bulllllllllll shit.

Why Evolution Is True
From Peter M. J. Hess, Catholic theologian and director of the “Faith Project” of the National Center for Science Education, comes this trenchant analysis of the faith/science dichotomy. Quote of the week in bold:

Evolution can certainly be compatible with religious faith. Because the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, we must consider it to be a truth about the natural world — the world which we as people of faith believe was created by God, and the world made understandable by the reason and natural senses given to us by God. Denying science is a profoundly unsound theological position. Science and faith are but two ways of searching for the same truths.

Lordy, I’m so tired of hearing this statement over and over again from accommodationists (over at The Intersection, Chris Mooney praises Hess’s “great column”). We’re both searching for the same truths? That’s news to me. I didn’t know faith was trying to find out where the genes are for reproductive isolating barriers between species of fruit fly. Or that the faithful are praying for some revelation about dark matter. Likewise, I don’t know many scientists who are working on the Big Question of whether unbaptized babies go to limbo.

Really, we need to think about statements like Hess’s. They may sound good — for a nanosecond — but they’re intellectual pablum. They are balm for believers, Panglossian tactics meant to reassure everyone that, hey folks, we’re all in the Big Search for Truth together!

As I’ve maintained repeatedly, religion is neither set up for finding truth nor very good at finding truth. Let me correct that — faith is incapable of finding truth, or at least no more capable than is astrology. The methods of ascertaining “truth” via faith are either revelation or acceptance of dogma. These methods have produced “truths” like a 6,000-year-old Earth and the Great Flood. Not a very good track record. In fact, I have yet to find a single truth about humans, Earth, or the universe that has come uniquely from faith. If you have one, please send it to me! If faith did hit on truths, the tenets of all the world’s religions would not be in irresolvable conflict. But they are.

In all these debates about the compatibility of science and faith, I have yet to see an intellectually respectable answer to this ultimate dichotomy between “ways of knowing.” Instead, people like Mooney go after us for our tone, for polarizing people, and so on. Does Mooney sign on to Hess’s statement that the faithful and the scientists are all really engaged in the same endeavor? If not, why does he call Hess’s column “great”? Instead of beefing about our “militancy,” why don’t accommodationists start addressing the question of whether faith can tell us anything that’s true? Let’s hear about whether you can coherently accept a Resurrection on Sunday and then go to the lab the next day and doggedly refuse to accept any claim that lacks evidence. Now that would raise the tone of this debate.

Link

Lawrence Krauss, The Wall Street Journal
My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.

– J.B.S. Haldane

“Fact and Faith” (1934)

Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in several exciting panel discussions at the World Science Festival in New York City. But the most dramatic encounter took place at the panel strangely titled “Science, Faith and Religion.” I had been conscripted to join the panel after telling one of the organizers that I saw no reason to have it. After all, there was no panel on science and astrology, or science and witchcraft. So why one on science and religion?

I ended up being one of two panelists labeled “atheists.” The other was philosopher Colin McGinn. On the other side of the debate were two devoutly Catholic scientists, biologist Kenneth Miller and Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno. Mr. McGinn began by commenting that it was eminently rational to suppose that Santa Claus doesn't exist even if one cannot definitively prove that he doesn't. Likewise, he argued, we can apply the same logic to the supposed existence of God. The moderator of the session, Bill Blakemore, a reporter with some religious inclination, surprised me by bursting out in response, “Then I guess you are a rational atheist.”

Our host was presumably responding to all those so-called fundamentalist atheists who have recently borne the brunt of intense attacks following the success of books like Sam Harris's “The End of Faith,” and Richard Dawkins's “The God Delusion.”

These scientists have been castigated by believers for claiming that science is incompatible with a belief in God. On the one hand, this is a claim that appears manifestly false – witness the two Catholic scientists on my panel. And on the other hand, the argument that science suggests God is a delusion only bolsters the view of the of the fundamentalist religious right that science is an atheist enemy that must either be vanquished or assimilated into religion.

Coincidentally, I have appeared numerous times alongside Ken Miller to defend evolutionary biology from the efforts of those on various state school boards who view evolution as the poster child for “science as the enemy.” These fundamentalists are unwilling to risk the possibility that science might undermine their faith, and so they work to shield children from this knowledge at all costs. To these audiences I have argued that one does not have to be an atheist to accept evolutionary biology as a reality. And I have pointed to my friend Ken as an example.

This statement of fact appears to separate me from my other friends, Messrs. Harris and Dawkins. Yet this separation is illusory. It reflects the misperception that the recent crop of vocal atheist-scientist-writers are somehow “atheist absolutists” who remain in a “cultural and historical vacuum” – in the words of a recent Nature magazine editorial.

But this accusation is unfair. Messrs. Harris and Dawkins are simply being honest when they point out the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science.

J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a “god, angel, or devil” will interfere with one's experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.

Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.

While such a leap may not be unimpeachable it is certainly rational, as Mr. McGinn pointed out at the World Science Festival. Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world's organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an “atheist absolutist,” a “reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions.”

When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues on the panel with the apparent miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of Catholic theology.

Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Moreover, the true believers in each of these faiths are atheists regarding the specific sacred tenets of all other faiths. Christianity rejects the proposition that the Quran contains the infallible words of the creator of the universe. Muslims and Jews reject the divinity of Jesus.

So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God, and thus to conclude that claimed miracles like the virgin birth are incompatible with our scientific understanding of nature.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that these issues are not purely academic. The current crisis in Iran has laid bare the striking inconsistency between a world built on reason and a world built on religious dogma.

Perhaps the most important contribution an honest assessment of the incompatibility between science and religious doctrine can provide is to make it starkly clear that in human affairs – as well as in the rest of the physical world – reason is the better guide.


Mr. Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University. His most recent book is “Hiding in the Mirror” (Viking, 2005).

Link

Why Evolution Is True
Over at his website, Metamagician and the Hellfire Club, philosopher Russell Blackford (who has been out of town), finally weighs in on the debate about accommodationism. His tactic is to take on Steve Gould’s concept of NOMA, or religion and science as “nonoverlapping magisteria.”

There is more to be said about this, but I’d like to spend more time on another claim, the idea, popularised by Stephen Jay Gould, that science deals with the empirical world, where it has authority, while religion deals with questions of how we ought to live, essentially the realm of morality, where it has authority. Thus, science and religion have separate spheres of authority and that do not overlap. According to this view, we are entitled to tell religious leaders to keep out of such matters as the age of the Earth and whether Homo sapiens evolved from earlier forms of life. However, so the idea goes, scientists should not challenge the authority of religion in the moral realm.

In my view, this is comprehensively wrong.

(Snipped . . . a lot of good arguments)

. . . I conclude that NOMA is comprehensively false. Religion is not confined by its very nature to the moral sphere and in principle it has as much authority in the empirical sphere as anywhere else. I.e., it could have made accurate empirical claims if really in receipt of knowledge from an angel or a god.

Conversely, science has at least as much authority as religion in the moral sphere: science cannot determine the ultimate point that morality should be aiming at, but neither can religion. Once we know what we want to achieve from morality, science is at least as well placed as religion to tell us how to achieve it, though we also need to rely on personal and historical experience, etc., since the most relevant sciences (such as psychology) are relatively imprecise and at an early stage of development.

However we look at it, religion is neither conceptually confined to the moral sphere nor authoritative within that (or any other) sphere. NOMA is a false doctrine. NOMA no more!

Of course, NOMA is a contentious doctrine. While I have put the case that it is false, that does not entail that, for example, science organisations should say that it is false, or that school students should be taught that it is false. Nor, however, should it be promulgated to students and the public as true. While I’m convinced that religion has no special authority in matters of morality (or in matters involving a supposed supernatural realm if it comes to that), other intelligent and reasonable people may disagree with this assessment.

All I ask from science organisations and school curricula is neutrality on the point, but I am personally convinced that NOMA is a completely specious philosophical doctrine. Those of who are not already convinced of the claims of religion should not buy it, and we should in no way be convinced by its proponents that we ought to back away from our critique of religion. Religion possesses no special authority in the moral sphere, and no one should persuade us to stop saying so.

I reviewed Gould’s lame book on NOMA, Rocks of Ages, in the Times Literary Supplement some time ago (need I say I was critical?), but it doesn’t seem to be online these days.

Link

Why Evolution Is True
Take a look at this article by Tom Clark at Naturalism.org; it’s about the misguided notion that in some areas faith can give us genuine answers to questions before which science is impotent. This is the NOMA (”nonoverlapping magisteria”) refrain that we hear constantly from organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Are there “ways of knowing” that are not only unique to faith, but provide real answers about the nature of the universe? I have long thought that this notion is completely misguided, a conclusion reached in the article. A snippet:

A popular rationale for such respect is that science and religion don’t conflict since science can’t evaluate religious claims about the supernatural; it’s only concerned with the natural, material world. This suggests that religions have epistemic authority when it comes to the supernatural. Some recent statements about the relationship of science and religion make this point:

Science is recognized internationally as the best way to find out about the natural world. But the natural world is not the only thing that human beings ask questions about…ost people believe that there is a universe or world or something beyond or other than the material one, which is populated by gods, spirits, ancestors, or other non-material beings. Science doesn’t tell us anything about this world; this transcendent world is the provenance of religion. – Eugenie C. Scott, Evolution vs. Creationism, p. 47, original emphasis.

Because science is limited to explaining the natural world by means of natural processes, it cannot use supernatural causation in its explanations. Similarly, science is precluded from making statements about supernatural forces because these are outside its provenance. Science has increased our knowledge because of this insistence on the search for natural causes. – National Science Teachers Association, in Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science p. 124


At the root of the apparent conflict between some religions and evolution is a misunderstanding of the critical difference between religious and scientific ways of knowing. Religions and science answer different questions about the world. Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science. . . . Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral. – National Academy of Science, also in Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, p. 58

These statements suggest that faith-based religions, or more broadly, non-empirically based worldviews, might have domains of epistemic competence, for instance in knowing about the supernatural, paranormal or astrological. This in turn suggests that there might be reliable and objective understandings of these domains, lending support to the idea they actually exist. In the last quote above, the National Academy of Science (NAS) contrasts religious and scientific ways of knowing, and says science can’t pronounce on the nature and existence of the supernatural. This implies that religious ways of knowing can, and might be authoritative in confirming its existence the way science is when describing nature. But this is exactly what should not be conceded. By implying non-empiricism might have some epistemic merit as a route to objectivity in certain realms, the NAS and other science-promoting organizations miss the biggest selling point for science, or more broadly, intersubjective empiricism: it has no rival when it comes to modeling reality in any domain that’s claimed to exist.

Note that Eugenie Scott’s quote (she’s director of the National Center for Science Education) clearly implies — if not states outright — that religion is able to tell us something true about the transcendent world. Really? What is that? Can it settle the question of whether Jesus or Mohammed was the real prophet? (Note that the Qur’an states flatly that anyone believing Jesus to be the divine prophet will burn in hell for eternity.) The “claims” of all major faiths are in direct conflict, so what are the “truths” they tell us?

Link.

Like I said above, religion and science are indeed in conflict. To think otherwise is quite silly. This is intellectual war, albeit on one side there are people who just want to test the universe to seek knowledge and truth, and on the other side are people who get their “truth” by ignoring the real world and putting “god” everywhere. This is the very definition of conflict.

Ignore it if you want.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
Orin J Master at 7:00AM, July 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
Kilre
RAMRAMRAMRAM-

two things. first, all your references are too highly biast to be considered good, as they go out of their way to instill a tone of “why religion is a failure compared to science” in their writings. while i agree the two are in conflict, those arguments are too manufactured to serve as an example in a proper debate.

also, kyupol's just nutty. it's best to take his contributions like light comedy, rather than trying to figure out what he's actually trying to explain. i'm not sure he knows sometimes.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
Kilre at 7:19AM, July 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 221
joined: 9-25-2007
Orin J Master
Kilre
RAMRAMRAMRAM-

two things. first, all your references are too highly biast to be considered good, as they go out of their way to instill a tone of “why religion is a failure compared to science” in their writings. while i agree the two are in conflict, those arguments are too manufactured to serve as an example in a proper debate.

Of course they're biased. They're PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, and Lawrence Kraus: well-known scientists, well-known atheists, and I'm in complete agreement with what they say, which is again that science and religion both attempt to reach the same truth-claims about the universe but go about doing it in radically different ways. This creates conflict.

I'd consider the words of scientists before the rants of apologists or laypersons, especially when it deals with science.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
Orin J Master at 9:12AM, July 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
Kilre
Orin J Master
Kilre
RAMRAMRAMRAM-

two things. first, all your references are too highly biast to be considered good, as they go out of their way to instill a tone of “why religion is a failure compared to science” in their writings. while i agree the two are in conflict, those arguments are too manufactured to serve as an example in a proper debate.

Of course they're biased. They're PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, and Lawrence Kraus: well-known scientists, well-known atheists, and I'm in complete agreement with what they say, which is again that science and religion both attempt to reach the same truth-claims about the universe but go about doing it in radically different ways. This creates conflict.

I'd consider the words of scientists before the rants of apologists or laypersons, especially when it deals with science.

in other words, you're uninterested in considering how debate actually works, and simply intend to prop up your beliefs to the exclusion of everything else. well played, well played.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
Kilre at 9:55AM, July 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 221
joined: 9-25-2007
Orin J Master
in other words, you're uninterested in considering how debate actually works, and simply intend to prop up your beliefs to the exclusion of everything else. well played, well played.

I'm willing to believe anything provided there's falsifiable, testable, empirical evidence for said beliefs. Faith without evidence is not a virtue, it's a vice. But that's off-topic.

You and I are in agreement that science and religion conflict. I put forward arguments from scientists that explain exactly why they conflict. I personally don't see what's wrong with agreeing with scientists over matters of the material world, especially when it comes to discussions such as this.

If it could be argued that religion and science are incompatible, I'd love to hear actual reasoning, but at this point in time religion and science, as I said above, both argue for the same truths about the universe, and come to those truths using either the scientific method (science) or putting the supernatural in place and saying “goddidit” (religion). That's conflict, pure and simple.

If religion didn't try to explain anything, there wouldn't be a conflict. But when you get abiogenesis and the big bang coinciding with the Genesis account of creation…CONFLICT. Does “god” talk to you in your head? That's scientifically testable. Miracles? Also scientifically testable. Anything that interacts with the natural world is scientifically testable, and religion makes claims that interfere with the way the natural world works. That's just screaming for conflict.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
Orin J Master at 11:01AM, July 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
Kilre
You and I are in agreement that science and religion conflict. I put forward arguments from scientists that explain exactly why they conflict. I personally don't see what's wrong with agreeing with scientists over matters of the material world, especially when it comes to discussions such as this.

because you're not actually using the scientific method here. you're using “— said it, so it has to be true unless you can PROVE it's wrong” as your defense, the same as religious groups. which i disagree with.

the thing to remember about known science is it's invariably flawed. somewhere, somehow, there's something where the numbers don't add up and science just tries really hard to ignore the little gap where things are working when they really shouldn't.

there is, for example no way a Bumblebee should be able to fly under it's own power (barring being carried around by wind sprites which falls under the perview of spiritualism) but the rotund little bugs do it all the time.

science does not offer all the answers except in the “it'll make sense eventually” way religion does. as the result of this, we agree on the end result, but differ wildly on how to reach it.

also, agreeing with scientists is only advisable if you give more consideration to the validity of their research than to their opinions. all you're doing is gathering talking heads that agree with your opinions. and you can't be expected to be taken seriously if you only aknowlege the results that are in your favor. that's bad science.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
Kilre at 11:45AM, July 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 221
joined: 9-25-2007
Orin J Master
because you're not actually using the scientific method here. you're using “— said it, so it has to be true unless you can PROVE it's wrong” as your defense, the same as religious groups. which i disagree with.

I'll admit you caught me in an argument from authority.

I also don't get the tone you're using. I already said I'd change my mind with empirical evidence. I'm frankly baffled that you think I'm that conceited. It's still off-topic. If you want to continue decrying how I presented the side of the argument that religion and science are incompatible, let's please continue in PQs.

Orin J Master
the thing to remember about known science is it's invariably flawed. somewhere, somehow, there's something where the numbers don't add up and science just tries really hard to ignore the little gap where things are working when they really shouldn't.

At least scientists admit they don't know and are willing to put everything to the test. I've never run across a religious person that won't readily admit that “goddidit”, or that it's his/her/its work in mysterious ways. Assume first that there's no supernatural interference. If there's a natural way to describe something, and then that natural way is then expounded to be just the way god works, that's breaking Occam's razor.

Yes, there's going to be some things that science won't be able to explain. We have many of them now. That doesn't mean that “goddidit” at all.

Orin J Master
there is, for example no way a Bumblebee should be able to fly under it's own power (barring being carried around by wind sprites which falls under the perview of spiritualism) but the rotund little bugs do it all the time.

Um. No.

The persistent rumour that bumblebee flight escapes scientific explanation has been traced back by some to an aerodynamics research group in Gottingen, Germany, in the 1930s.

‘Supposedly someone did a back of the envelope calculation, taking the weight of a bumblebee and its wing area into account, and worked out that if it only flies at a couple of metres per seconds, the wings wouldn’t produce enough lift to hold the bee up,’ explains Charlie Ellington, Professor of Animal Mechanics at Cambridge University.

The tale lives on, but science has long since caught up with the bumblebee. In the 1990s, Ellington’s research group studied bee flight and exposed the mechanism behind the insect’s physics-defying acrobatics.

As a bee takes flight, air swirls in a tight circle, a vortex, over the leading edge of the wing. ‘The vortex is a low pressure region above the wing, and it sucks the wing upwards,’ explains Ellington. This is what gives the bee the extra bit of lift it needs to buzz around from flower to flower.

Link

And: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-0233/12/11/318

And: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bumblebee+energy:+what's+the+buzz%3F-a08986270

Orin J Master
science does not offer all the answers except in the “it'll make sense eventually” way religion does. as the result of this, we agree on the end result, but differ wildly on how to reach it.

Conflict. Exactly.

However, we also disagree on the end result. “Flood geology” made the Grand Canyon at supersonic speeds. If that were true the mud wouldn't have been able to hold its own weight up, and the layers formed would not have been layers at all but one single deposit.

Here is a page detailing some Flood geology: http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/geology.htm

And videos debunking Flood geology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA

And here is a clinical trial on intercessory prayer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

And a page with several quick notes about the study of the human brain, its states, and how they relate to not only what we think but religious experiences as well: http://www.npr.org/news/specials/2009/brain/

More Flood geology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss

Orin J Master
also, agreeing with scientists is only advisable if you give more consideration to the validity of their research than to their opinions. all you're doing is gathering talking heads that agree with your opinions. and you can't be expected to be taken seriously if you only aknowlege the results that are in your favor. that's bad science.

This is a thread started with an opinion. I posted opinions from scientists that I agree with. Their reasoning has yet to be refuted. Scientists who are all embroiled in a larger debate happening right now about accommodating religion in science. I find it slightly ironic that this thread was started on a webcomic site while the real debate rages outside, with much more frightening consequences.

This thread is far from scientific. If it was scientific every post in here would have been overflowing with actual test results and analyses, not anecdotal evidence. You're not helping anything, either. You're just arguing semantics.

So make a case and stop attacking the messenger. Saying you disagree with how I presented my argument doesn't prove anything other than you disagree with how I presented my argument.

Contrary to what you think of me, I look forward to someone disproving the arguments put forward by PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, and Lawrence Krauss–and by extension my own arguments. I'm actually hoping I'll get something interesting out of this thread.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
Orin J Master at 1:01PM, July 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
i tried…i really did….

Kilre
This is a thread started with an opinion. I posted opinions from scientists that I agree with.

opinions are not facts. they never were, i tried to allow you to side step the whole matter entirely, very hard, but you can't swallow your own faith here. you want people to disprove facts you never presented because they NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. you can't disprove an opinion because you can't make someone stop beliving what they believe. therefore noone can dissuade you from your current position, and no resolution can be reached.

there's no point to trying to argue someone's opinions, and because of this not anything you've said religion and science are stuck in conflict. there's always someone that insists on have other prove they're wrong in their beliefs so there never any progress.

thanks ever so much for the reminder that science isn't free of closed mindedness. i'll put it with all the others…
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
Kilre at 1:18PM, July 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 221
joined: 9-25-2007
Orin J Master
opinions are not facts. they never were, i tried to allow you to side step the whole matter entirely, very hard, but you can't swallow your own faith here. you want people to disprove facts you never presented because they NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Holy shit dude. I never said they were facts in the first place. I said from the beginning they were opinions. You're projecting meaning where there wasn't.

Orin J Master
you can't disprove an opinion because you can't make someone stop beliving what they believe. therefore noone can dissuade you from your current position, and no resolution can be reached.


You can't disprove an opinion, true, HOWEVER: opinions change all the time. I know this because my own mother is slowly starting to question her religion. Anecdotal evidence it may be, but regardless it puts aside your notion that opinions can't change. And more evidence for changing opinions can be seen in people converting to or de-converting from various religions or political parties.

AND THIS IS STILL OFF THE TOPIC.

Orin J Master
there's no point to trying to argue someone's opinions, and because of this not anything you've said religion and science are stuck in conflict. there's always someone that insists on have other prove they're wrong in their beliefs so there never any progress.

thanks ever so much for the reminder that science isn't free of closed mindedness. i'll put it with all the others…

You could have played devil's advocate and attempted to disprove the logic in the posts above. Instead you bitched and moaned. I honestly don't see the point of you pulling an ad hominem on me instead of either agreeing or disagreeing with the position that science and religion conflict.

Debate should consist of propositions and rebuttals. I've provided several propositions for the side of “religion and science conflict”. Nit-picking how I presented my argument is not how you go about rebutting or even adding to the debate.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
kyupol at 10:33PM, July 14, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
One can read all the arguments for and against the non-contradictory relationship between science and spirituality.

But it all changes once experience sets in.

Here's a few experiences I'd like to share – because I believe that everyone who reads this post is a spiritual being and has the right to know about their true nature as well as the reality that they exist in. Its up to you to decide though. I can only show you the red pill but cannot force it down your throat. If you think I'm a loon, so be it. There is nothing I can do to alter your perception of reality.

1) In a church. I was in this bad mood. Suddenly a lady reacts in terror and just looked at me in fear as her male companion (God knows if he's her boyfriend, brother, husband, or whatever) was hugging her as if to protect her from something. She suddenly reacted to it and I wasn't even doing anything to her. Not even looking at her.
Perhaps she's insane? Maybe.
But how do you explain the consistent crying of babies whenever I walked by (I used to work in a retail store and was always in a bad mood. Babies and mentally challenged individuals can detect your aura). Without me even looking at them or acknowledging their existence.
Also it is consistent with what my ex-girlfriend (who was sort of psychic) told me about dark energy building up around my aura.
“You were not born with it. It was something that built up over time” – her exact words.
Back then, I had this atheist-this-world-is-all-there-is kind of mindset and I just laughed it off.
But logic dictates that if the same thing is observed by multiple sources who do not know each other, then it must be true.
If in court, you have a number of consistent witnesses, it is highly likely that the judge will decide that that is true.
This example illustrates the fact that dark energy builds up in one's aura.


2) I was in a classroom. I arrived early and just decided to read the class textbook.
After 5 minutes of reading it, I decided to meditate – in a discrete way… that from an external observer, it would look like I am reading a book. I wasn't sitting in a lotus position or something. I wasn't even closing my eyes. My eyes were wide open.
And then out of nowhere, the professor smiled and asked me if I am meditating.
“I'm reading a book, sir” I replied.
He just laughed. And he had this “I-know-you-are-meditating-do-not-lie-to-me” expression on his face.
It was clear that he was able to detect a change in my aura in some way. Auras don't necessarily get seen. They can be felt, smelled, and heard as well.


3) Strange knocks at my place. At first I tried looking for rational explanations. Things to consider:
- My pet turtle just made a sudden movement in its aquarium, therefore causing the knocking sound.
- something fell.
- must be the plumbing or something.
- must be the fridge automatically shutting off and/or turning on.

But no. The strange knocks just happen out of nowhere and always near me.
The spirit world (or perhaps other vibrational realities or dimensions) does exist. Your physical eyes can only pick up certain things.
Your physical eyes are limited objects and can only grasp a certain fraction of what is really out there.

——–

This list could go on and on and on.


NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
El Cid at 6:53AM, July 15, 2009
(online)
posts: 945
joined: 5-4-2009
Umm, Kyupol, I should probably point out that those examples you just gave us, besides not being procedurally sound experiments, sound like textbook examples of schizophrenia. Seriously, if you're not just putting on an act, you should seek some professional help. It only gets worse if you let it fester.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
Dark Clown at 8:32AM, July 16, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,087
joined: 2-28-2007
Science.. gods… does it really matter? in the end you all worm food.

This Fluid feels like Pain, This stoic mood is all in vain.
I reach into the dark, I tear this other me apart.
How many years ago, How many deaths I can't let go.
My Flesh Is Temporary, My God Extraordinary.
You… can''t… Kill… My… MIND!!!!!

The War Will continue, Just on a different battle field
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:07PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved