Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

science vs. religion, conflict?


pantheory

Recommended Posts

The youngest generation of adults today (2022) seems to be more likely to think that science is compatible with religion (link below)? Could this mean that in time more scientists will be religious, more than the ~50% which are scientists today?

 

Does this mean that it will take a much longer time for science (many decades longer) to escape the bad influences of religion on scientific theory IMO all  over the world?  I certainly hope not. What do you think?

 

https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/why-the-science-vs-religion-debate-is-changing-for-good/12966.article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I am one of those who think science and religion are compatible. Without the aspect of religion, science can't explain "life" better. Life in flowers and babies is mysterious and amazing. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dearnear said:

I am one of those who think science and religion are compatible. Without the aspect of religion, science can't explain "life" better. Life in flowers and babies is mysterious and amazing. 

 

Granted, your ideas of life can be a soothing philosophy for many.  As a scientist myself I believe explanations of life are very simple. Life is simply the difference between a clock that is wound up and running, and one that is not running. For life, its food is its winding, and death can be like the clog in the wheels of a running clock that stops it forever -- nothing more complicated than this IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

For life, its food is its winding, and death can be like the clog in the wheels of a running clock that stops it forever -- nothing more complicated than this IMHO.

 

 

Not even just a little bit more complicated??  😄

 

I have no faith in "religion" having all the answers, but personally have came to the conclusion that life and the existance of the universe is possibly a HECK OF A LOT MORE COMPLICATED than we realize with our relatively primitive brains.  IMHO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dearnear said:

I am one of those who think science and religion are compatible. Without the aspect of religion, science can't explain "life" better. Life in flowers and babies is mysterious and amazing. 

 

I agree, life is extremely mysterious and amazing.  And I don't see any competition between science and religion.  They are 2 completely different concepts, and neither "knows" where life came from.  So, where does the conflict come from??.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

There is a difference between life and life, though.  As a biological scientist, I can say that the reason I live is the ability to maintain biological homeostasis.  As a human, husband, father, friend, the reason(s) I live are many and varied.  Science can really only speak to the homeostasis part; for the rest of it, you need psychology, philosophy, and possibly some sort of spirituality (though not necessarily a religion, per se).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, Weezer said:

So, where does the conflict come from?

As I see it, mainly from certain Theories and models that seem to exclude the possibility of most gods described by religions.  Evolution is one such example, as it excludes the idea that god created the animals and such.  Cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics all seem to exclude the possibility that god created the heavens and earth a few thousand years ago. 

 

Religious folk don't like evidence that runs counter to their presupposed conclusions; but neither do scientists. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

 

Not even just a little bit more complicated??  😄

 

I have no faith in "religion" having all the answers, but personally have came to the conclusion that life and the existance of the universe is possibly a HECK OF A LOT MORE COMPLICATED than we realize with our relatively primitive brains.  IMHO.

 

The study of the universe is my specialty, It is a relatively simple place, unbelievably simpler than what they presently believe IMHO.

 

And yes, life is extremely complicated, but the difference between life and death is  simple. It's like an iron clock that has a clog is its wheels and thereafter rusts very quickly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

but the difference between life and death is  simple. It's like an iron clock that has a clog is its wheels and thereafter rusts very quickly.

 

 

Now I see your point, and agree.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

............Religious folk don't like evidence that runs counter to their presupposed conclusions; but neither do scientists. 

 

 

Yes, I agree. In that way there is a parallel between science theory and religion -- where neither have tolerance for opposition. But that's not the way science is supposed to be conducted. All science theories and hypotheses should be continuously tested and must be falsifiable, if not testable or  falsifiable, they are not even good speculations. Such theories can become more like unchallenged religious dogma.  A number of such theories, hypotheses, and proposals can be found in modern physics today IMHO  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As I see it, mainly from certain Theories and models that seem to exclude the possibility of most gods described by religions.  Evolution is one such example, as it excludes the idea that god created the animals and such.  Cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics all seem to exclude the possibility that god created the heavens and earth a few thousand years ago. 

 

Religious folk don't like evidence that runs counter to their presupposed conclusions; but neither do scientists. 

 

I thought that Methodological Naturalism was the baseline in science, Prof.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

 

Where anything supernatural is excluded from the scientific method for the reasons listed in the Wiki article.

 

Leaving scientists to hold supernatural beliefs as a matter of personal choice, but to exclude those beliefs from their scientific work.

 

The 'conflict' coming when non-scientists don't understand this or when scientists themselves mix these two incompatible systems of thought. 

 

 

 

You're the scientist here Prof, so I defer to your experience and knowledge of these matters.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

The study of the universe is my specialty, It is a relatively simple place, unbelievably simpler than what they presently believe IMHO.

 

 

Please expound on this.   It seems I heard recently that the different galaxies are similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

 

Please expound on this.   It seems I heard recently that the different galaxies are similar.

 

 Concerning "A much simpler universe"

 

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) appears to be contradicting many aspects of mainstream cosmology, the Big Bang Theory (BB) IMHO.  What I think you are referring to above is that some JWST photos appear to be very similar to galaxy cluster photos taken close by, as well as Hubble Space Telescope photos at much closer distances than the JWST is observing. I think these facts are a clue to future conclusions in cosmology. Below are some of the related links to papers I with co-authors, and others have written and published over the past 8 years, concluding that  a much simpler universe than what we presently believe.

 

https://www.space.com/30783-our-universe-it-s-the-simplest-thing-we-know.html

 

http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363649063_The_Surprising_and_unexpected_discoveries_the_James_Webb_Space_Telescope_will_likely_make_based_upon_our_research

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365487237_The_Pan_Theory_of_Cosmology_Explaining_away_nearly_all_mainstream_cosmology_problems_while_also_explaining_away_the_contradicting_observations_of_the_JWST

 

Getting back on topic, any mistakes of science theory can be corrected over time via the scientific method-- the same cannot be said for Religion IMO.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I thought that Methodological Naturalism was the baseline in science, Prof.

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

 

Where anything supernatural is excluded from the scientific method for the reasons listed in the Wiki article.

 

Leaving scientists to hold supernatural beliefs as a matter of personal choice, but to exclude those beliefs from their scientific work.

 

The 'conflict' coming when non-scientists don't understand this or when scientists themselves mix these two incompatible systems of thought. 

 

 

 

You're the scientist here Prof, so I defer to your experience and knowledge of these matters.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

This is also a source of conflict in thst science is, in and of itself, is agnostic.  Most theist, though, do not understand why and simply assume that scientists are all atheists out to prove that god doesn't exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is also a source of conflict in thst science is, in and of itself, is agnostic.  Most theist, though, do not understand why and simply assume that scientists are all atheists out to prove that god doesn't exist. 

 

Indeed.

 

They usually arrive here clutching a bundle of misapprehensions and misunderstandings, loathe to let them go and usually unwilling to learn the facts.

 

Just off the top of my head, their errors tend to be along these lines.

 

1.  They think that science is anti-theistic, when, as you've already pointed out Prof, it is actually agnostic.

2.  Some of the hard liners don't even accept the possibility of agnosticism, citing Mark 9 : 40 'Whoever is not against us is for us.'

3.  They think that science proves things, when in fact only mathematics uses proofs.

4.  They don't understand that the empirical sciences never use proofs and only deal in evidence.

5.  They think that science is like religion, giving absolute truth, when in fact empirical science gives only tentative answers.

6.  They think that science IS a religion, when in fact it is simply a tool for understanding the natural universe.

7.  They think that science can investigate the supernatural, when in fact it confines itself to investigating only the natural.

8  They think that science and religion can be mixed together, when in fact they are two separate ways of understanding reality.

9.  They think that if a scientist expresses a personal view on religious matters that this gives the ok to 6, 7 and 8.  When in fact a scientist is free to express their personal views on religion without compromising their professionally agnostic position on scientific matters.

10.  They also tend to be sucked in by the lies promoted by certain duplicitous Christian scientists who have a religious agenda, such as Francis Collins and Hugh Ross.  These scientists are cynically trading in on their reputations and using their expertise to 'bring in the kingdom of god' by tricking the unwary into believing that Christianity is supported by scientific evidence.  But science is agnostic and can say nothing at all about religious, theological or supernatural matters.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good read about the topic of this thread.  Many theists whine about it, which is a good sign.  Coyne's writing is clear, direct and quite easy to understand.  

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23281637-faith-versus-fact

 

image.jpeg.f89f17e418a6ae1c484611e950141d92.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

This is a good read about the topic of this thread.  It's shows a bit of bias, but that is overcome by Coyne's clear and direct writing.

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23281637-faith-versus-fact

 

image.jpeg.f89f17e418a6ae1c484611e950141d92.jpeg

 

moat all of us here would agree with your opinion. But the problem is not Faith vs. fact.  The actual contest is faith vs. science theory. Some of science theory is certain, such as natural selection, and most of the theory of Evolution is very good IMHO. But some other parts of science theory are not so great since they also require faith to believe in it such as much of modern physics IMHO. Yet  the understandings of modern science have many certainties within them, while the faith in religion is simply two to five thousand year-old pure BS IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

moat all of us here would agree with your opinion. But the problem is not Faith vs. fact.  The actual contest is faith vs. science theory. Some of science theory is certain, such as natural selection, and most of the theory of Evolution is very good IMHO. But some other parts of science theory are not so great since they also require faith to believe in it such as much of modern physics IMHO. Yet  the understandings of modern science have many certainties within them, while the faith in religion is simply two to five thousand year-old pure BS IMO. 

 

"Faith vs. Science Theory" would not have made a very good title.  In any event, the content of the book fits the title "Faith vs. Fact" rather well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 12/28/2022 at 8:28 AM, Dearnear said:

I am one of those who think science and religion are compatible. Without the aspect of religion, science can't explain "life" better. Life in flowers and babies is mysterious and amazing. 

 

Let us know what you think after reading the suggested citation: 

 

 

On 12/29/2022 at 11:27 PM, sdelsolray said:

This is a good read about the topic of this thread.  Many theists whine about it, which is a good sign.  Coyne's writing is clear, direct and quite easy to understand.  

 

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23281637-faith-versus-fact

 

image.jpeg.f89f17e418a6ae1c484611e950141d92.jpeg

 

 

Reading this can only add more depth to your perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.