Is science incompatible with religion?

[Snowy_One]

it does not assume that at all!

Science doesn't have to diddly squat for someone to turn it into a faith. It could just be an in-depth observation on the use of cheese-wiz and someone could end up worshiping it as the cure to all life's problems and it would become a religion. Not an organized one but it would be one just the same.

But more directly, there are many things and uncertainties in this world. Imagine you were stricken with a disease tomorrow and went to the hospital. You would have faith that the doctors could cure you, that a treatment existed, and that it could be given to you. However, for all you know the disease is untreatable or entirely new to science. You could swallow a pill believing that the science behind it will make whatever ails you better even if it is just a placebo. There are many things in life in which a belief that science is the answer is just as valid as a belief in a higher, divine, power.

for a person, science can become more than a body of knowledge. astrophysicist carl sagan said in his final interview before his death that, "science is more than a body of knowledge. it's a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe." sagan, and indeed for many, many individual scientists, the practice of science can be something more. planetary scientist carolyn porco argues that "the same spiritual fulfillment that people find in religion can be found in science," for example. however, this is far different from religion because these values are not meant to be shared across those who practice it, rather it is deeply personal for every individual person.

And the same can be said for religion, especially since there are hundreds of religions and even more sub-divisions and each person holding their own beliefs on a personal level. However, you are VERY wrong in regards to the 'values to be shared' bit because, without things like the scientific method, the division between hypothesis, theory, and law, the sharing of conclusions, and the like science simply could not function. People may have different interpretations of the same math of the stars but the math MUST be the same across all bodies or else nothing could be done with the data.

science is only a body of knowledge. religion is not this way. if you are christian or islamic or jewish, you adhere to the beliefs not-so-neatly conveyed by holy texts and the interpretations of officials. you are not constrained in this way in science

Actually, you are. This is the whole point OF science. That we DON'T understand the world perfectly and strive to better understand it. For example many years ago people believed the sun revolved around the Earth. While we know better today at the time THIS WAS SCIENTIFIC! All observable evidence pointed to it being true. But things didn't quite add up entirely so people sat down and conducted more experiments and built better instruments until things changed and new evidence came to light to show that the Earth revolved around the sun. Because that's how science works.

Our knowledge of dinosaurs is not neatly conveyed either. We once believed they were scaly, like reptiles, but now there is evidence pointing to some of them having feathers, but we're not even certain of that. It's just our best interpretations of not-so-neatly conveyed science.

--this is precisely why you can be a scientist and religious person. you can't be a muslim and a christian. you can't be a scientologist and a jew.

​This statement is just ridiculous. There are MANY fields of science out there and you're seriously going to claim that someone cannot be involved in oceanography and not be Christian as well? That's just... stupid. May as well claim someone cannot study geology and believe that Kennedy wasn't assassinated by Oswald.

science is a direct rejection of religion. also, no one thinks that science can answer every question. there are areas in which science does concern itself with--the existence of deities is one of those areas. the supernatural in general, actually.

why do you say science deals with the "known"? the entire point of science is making the unknown known in a valid and reliable way.

Ummm... Because the idea of science is to make the unknown known. It can't deal with the unknown cause it's very function is to turn it into the known. It's like saying you can make a steak using a whole cow. The whole point of the steak is that it's NOT the whole cow.

Science to explain the known, faith to explain the unknown. Is it really THAT hard to understand? Especially since there ARE things which science doesn't really grasp like how gravity can be so weak that you can break it's pull with your own muscle via jumping, but strong enough to keep entire stars and planets in orbit.

Edit: Something is wonky with the quote boxes.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Snowy_One

[Phoenix Wright]

Science doesn't have to diddly squat for someone to turn it into a faith. It could just be an in-depth observation on the use of cheese-wiz and someone could end up worshiping it as the cure to all life's problems and it would become a religion. Not an organized one but it would be one just the same.

what? for two reasons i say this: i simply don't follow what's being said at all, and also that religion is defined as an "organized set of beliefs."

But more directly, there are many things and uncertainties in this world. Imagine you were stricken with a disease tomorrow and went to the hospital. You would have faith that the doctors could cure you, that a treatment existed, and that it could be given to you. However, for all you know the disease is untreatable or entirely new to science. You could swallow a pill believing that the science behind it will make whatever ails you better even if it is just a placebo. There are many things in life in which a belief that science is the answer is just as valid as a belief in a higher, divine, power.

i suppose since we're bringing this particular section of the argument about me personally, all i can really say is that this is an entirely inaccurate assumption about how i think of science, medicine, and a hospital's abilities to cure a person.

a person may have faith that their prayers will cure them because prayer has no basis by which it can be said that praying leads to a cure. this is not so with medicine. last year, i was hospitalized for sepsis--treatment for this includes tons of fluids (iv) and antibiotics. sepsis in the united states has millions of cases per year, and the treatment has proven it is useful. prayer has not.

And the same can be said for religion, especially since there are hundreds of religions and even more sub-divisions and each person holding their own beliefs on a personal level. However, you are VERY wrong in regards to the 'values to be shared' bit because, without things like the scientific method, the division between hypothesis, theory, and law, the sharing of conclusions, and the like science simply could not function. People may have different interpretations of the same math of the stars but the math MUST be the same across all bodies or else nothing could be done with the data.

you're mistaking the process of science with a "belief system." any self-identifying christian you pull off of the street will tell you they believe in god, jesus, heaven, hell, the ten commandments, and sin. this is ubiquitous across christianity because they are the principle beliefs of any christian.

science does not have a belief system. the scientific method is merely the structure we have in place to conduct science. it is a necessary part of the rigor in understanding reality. what people choose to project onto the method is up to them.

Actually, you are. This is the whole point OF science. That we DON'T understand the world perfectly and strive to better understand it. For example many years ago people believed the sun revolved around the Earth. While we know better today at the time THIS WAS SCIENTIFIC! All observable evidence pointed to it being true. But things didn't quite add up entirely so people sat down and conducted more experiments and built better instruments until things changed and new evidence came to light to show that the Earth revolved around the sun. Because that's how science works.

Our knowledge of dinosaurs is not neatly conveyed either. We once believed they were scaly, like reptiles, but now there is evidence pointing to some of them having feathers, but we're not even certain of that. It's just our best interpretations of not-so-neatly conveyed science.

i don't see your point. yes, science is a self-correcting process. what does this say about anything? i'm lost here.

​This statement is just ridiculous. There are MANY fields of science out there and you're seriously going to claim that someone cannot be involved in oceanography and not be Christian as well? That's just... stupid. May as well claim someone cannot study geology and believe that Kennedy wasn't assassinated by Oswald.

huh? i've said countless times that a scientist can be both (albeit with some cognitive dissonance). otherwise, i have to say i don't really follow this at all either...

Ummm... Because the idea of science is to make the unknown known. It can't deal with the unknown cause it's very function is to turn it into the known. It's like saying you can make a steak using a whole cow. The whole point of the steak is that it's NOT the whole cow.

Science to explain the known, faith to explain the unknown. Is it really THAT hard to understand?

Edit: Something is wonky with the quote boxes.

is this not dealing with the unknown? it sounds like what you mean is the supernatural. in which case, sure. but religion, by virtue of requiring faith, is not a reliable source of information. one must believe it because it says to.

Especially since there ARE things which science doesn't really grasp like how gravity can be so weak that you can break it's pull with your own muscle via jumping, but strong enough to keep entire stars and planets in orbit.

i'm extremely confused by this. this is not a problem in physics. if a person jumps and can't stop himself from falling back to the ground, how is that breaking away from earth's gravitational pull? accelerating upwards is not the same as escaping a celestial body's gravitational influence. i recommend watching phil plait's beautiful explanation of gravity and the rest of the astronomy crash course series.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[eclipse]

your post basically said "i can't handle a discussion about this because my feelings about god get hurt too easily by infidels who make bold claims."

If you can't respect a different opinion then yours, then don't post in Serious Discussion. If you can't be bothered to word your opinion in such a way that it doesn't come across as disrespectful, then don't post in Serious Discussion.

Or, you can take a page from the following:

olwen, dondon, and myself aren't really making a bold claim. science and religion are not compatible. using christianity like earlier (and again, i'm sure it is this way for every religion), points perceived as fact to modern society (evolution, age of the earth, evolution of the universe in general) contradict fundamental christian beliefs. besides that, the two are fundamentally incompatible--as one body of thought/knowledge rejects faith outright and the other requires faith.

States his opinion, without making a statement about those that disagree with him.

Hopefully the mods will keep watch in this topic as closely as they watched Chiki's, but one can only hope.

Invent a time machine so I can get my RL stuff done while keeping an eye on it.

this is a geniuine question: since a reason for fundamental incompatibility has been presented--faith v. evidence--and subsequently ignored, shouldn't those that support your claim be the ones providing evidence? i don't get why the burden of proof lies upon us when the other side is the one actually making claims!

I think both sides should bring out evidence.

I didn't see this gem. No one who is studying logic should make asinine arguments like this.

I don't think there's people studying logic in here (or of they are, the person you responded to isn't one of them).

religion requires faith.

science rejects faith.

This is. . .wrong. But I'll get to why when I get around to answering the topic in question.

i don't think it's fair to discount a post's substance simply because you don't like the style in which the poster said it

This is also true, to an extent. If I have to step in and say "word this better or get out", that's a problem.

---

Science requires faith - in this case, faith in the scientists doing the experiments. Some things can be proven easily, such as "ice turns into water when exposed to enough heat". Others cannot be replicated so trivially. For the latter case, the greater population must trust that the reporting scientist(s) are accurately reporting their procedures and results. If the science involves other people (like drug testing), then it also requires the people who are being tested to report accurate results. It requires the scientist(s) in question not to scrap the experiment because he/she/they got unexpected results (didn't consider this until my biology professor mentioned it in a lecture). Lastly, it's something that we humans must be able to observe, whether it be by our own senses, or equipment that's designed to measure things that we're not able to perceive (like infrared light).

"But scientists are honest!" I have three words for you - "vaccines and autism". Despite being disproven, this awful theory still persists. Science is still growing, and I think it will continue to grow, as long as humanity exists.

Religion also requires faith, but this time, it's in something that's superhuman. . .and is also reported second-hand (at best).

So my answer is "why the hell are we comparing what we humans can observe to something that is supposedly beyond our comprehension?"

Not to say that science is bad. . .it's simply not complete. I want medical science to advance to the point where whatever I have is given a name, and a treatment. Just like how my vision can be corrected with glasses.

[Snowy_One]

what? for two reasons i say this: i simply don't follow what's being said at all, and also that religion is defined as an "organized set of beliefs."

You DO realize that the organization utilized in that definition isn't the same as an 'organized religion', right? It's the difference between a collective set of individual, likely tribal, beliefs held by a group and a codified and, well, organized religion.

a person may have faith that their prayers will cure them because prayer has no basis by which it can be said that praying leads to a cure. this is not so with medicine. last year, i was hospitalized for sepsis--treatment for this includes tons of fluids (iv) and antibiotics. sepsis in the united states has millions of cases per year, and the treatment hasproven it is useful. prayer has not.

You seem to have missed the point entirely. The point is that, when faced with an unknown, it doesn't matter if said faith that there is a cure comes from placing it in God or in Science. There very well may not be a cure right now or possibly ever for this fictional disease. What matters is that the person ended up believing that science could save them; regardless of if it can or cannot.

science does not have a belief system. the scientific method is merely the structure we have in place to conduct science. it is a necessary part of the rigor in understanding reality. what people choose to project onto the method is up to them.

Still wrong. Science, while it is supposed to be objective, can be twisted to represent many things while still technically adhering to the core principle. However there are things like the 'Rule of Large Numbers' that do try to prevent such things but they only work when applied universally. Otherwise that scientist who says that blacks are dumber than whites is just as credible as the person who claims that they are just as smart simply because he elected to take a small sample size, took one from a biased group, or may have even simply been unlucky with his picks.

'But that's not how science works'. Well true. But then one can turn right around and claim that getting in the way of science 'is not how religion works' either.

i don't see your point. yes, science is a self-correcting process. what does this say about anything? i'm lost here.

The point is that there was a flaw and an unknown in the first place. A flaw that came about due to poor interpretations of misunderstood and/or incomplete facts. Several decades from now our grandchildren will be laughing at us for perceiving the universe as 3D instead of a 2D hologram simply because science progressed and changed. To claim that religion is flawed due to poor understanding, archaic beliefs, and the like and then turn around and say that science is NOT is pure bias if not outright hypocrisy.

'But religions don't adapt and change'. Yes, they do. The Bible itself went from the core teachings of Jesus to the additions of Paul's letters and the Revelation in the New Testament alone and that's not to mention the centuries of changes, divisions, and the like that have happened since then. Science is no different in that regard either. The two have evolved down identical paths despite dealing with entirely different things.

huh? i've said countless times that a scientist can be both (albeit with some cognitive dissonance). otherwise, i have to say i don't really follow this at all either...

I think either copy-paste or my spellchecker decided to play a prank on me because I could have sworn that 'can' was a 'can't'. Worst-case, I misread and apologize. If we are agreeing that it's entirely possible for someone to be religious and a scientist without conflict, then fine. Agreed.

is this not dealing with the unknown? it sounds like what you mean is the supernatural. in which case, sure. but religion, by virtue of requiring faith, is not a reliable source of information. one must believe it because it says to.

But someone can also hold a belief in something backed up by, but not proven by, science. See: Aliens. Scientifically there is nothing stopping them from existing; but nothing has actually given conclusive proof that they do, so it is a matter of faith regardless of actual facts.

In other words, science may say aliens are possible, and it is possible some alien sightings are legit, but said sightings can't be proven and to claim that aliens are real despite no scientific contradiction is as much a matter of faith as saying God is real.

i'm extremely confused by this. this is not a problem in physics. if a person jumps and can't stop himself from falling back to the ground, how is that breaking away from earth's gravitational pull? accelerating upwards is not the same as escaping a celestial body's gravitational influence. i recommend watching phil plait's beautiful explanation of

and the rest of the astronomy crash course series.

I know. I've watched it for quite a while and am looking to break out into the world history section as soon as I get the time. But basically gravity is highly unknown for a multitude of reasons. The upwards acceleration bit is just part of it. There are many other things like how gravity can maintain an entire galaxy yet individual stars basically move around however they please within said galaxy, or how gravity kind of stops working when you get down to really microscopic levels. The point, though, is more of how there are things that science doesn't grasp, like why water expands when it freezes unlike every other liquid out there or how time can change simply by changing altitude (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdfI really wish I knew how to link in text) . Is there a scientific explanation for this? Maybe. But for now the fact that time passes slower in Earth orbit than on Earth itself may as well be the work of a warlock.

Do you get what I'm saying though? Having faith that science will solve these things when there may, very well, be no solution is no less a religion than saying God, Buddha, The Great and Powerful Anna the RNG Goddess, or anyone else can explain things.

​But be ware. We KNOW Anna is a real goddess and she WILL smite you with the 1/1 curse if you don't play nice.

[Phoenix Wright]

haha, i had this very same discussion with my brother a little while ago!

eclipse is first, found below

Some things can be proven easily, such as "ice turns into water when exposed to enough heat".

that is actually nontrivial. ice melts to water with specific conditions, and those conditions change drastically depending on the environment. also, discovering why ice melts to water (which is a necessary part to the statement you said above) is nontrivial. i understand the point you're trying to make, but i felt the need to point this out. even in my attempt to convey the complexity of the example given, i have oversimplified the problem. anyway,

For the latter case, the greater population must trust that the reporting scientist(s) are accurately reporting their procedures and results. If the science involves other people (like drug testing), then it also requires the people who are being tested to report accurate results. It requires the scientist(s) in question not to scrap the experiment because he/she/they got unexpected results (didn't consider this until my biology professor mentioned it in a lecture). Lastly, it's something that we humans must be able to observe, whether it be by our own senses, or equipment that's designed to measure things that we're not able to perceive (like infrared light).

this is simply not true. on the scientists' side, the process of actually getting funding, conducting an experiment, and publishing results is a difficult process. one huge requirement of science is that valid, useful data must be reproducible, and scientists all the time are looking for ways in which current theories don't hold up. for example, i apologize for going a little abstract with this, when it comes to the famous f=ma force equation and the equation of gravity, it is a nontrivial effort in showing that the inertial mass (one from f=ma) is equal to the gravitational mass in newton's equation. scientists today are still trying to show that somewhere, those two masses are different. i think it's been shown that they're equal to something like 30 decimal places now! 300 years, and we're still working on this particular problem alone! the monopole for magnetism is another example.

on the non-professional scientist's side, it is not expected for a person to simply accept a study as truth. that's ridiculous. skepticism is healthy, and when there is doubt, one should look into the studies (or at least articles describing the studies well) for more information. a world in which science is blindly accepted is a bad one.

"But scientists are honest!" I have three words for you - "vaccines and autism". Despite being disproven, this awful theory still persists. Science is still growing, and I think it will continue to grow, as long as humanity exists.

no one said science is infallible. however, as an example of my point that science is rigorous, this study was challenged and was shown to not be the case. no one expected this study to be blindly accepted.

indeed, science is still growing. this only furthers the point that science does not require faith, because humanity is aware that it is ever-changing.

So my answer is "why the hell are we comparing what we humans can observe to something that is supposedly beyond our comprehension?"

you've shown here that you agree that they're incompatible. the two cannot be reconciled. science cannot attempt to answer what is perceived to be supernatural, by virtue of it being supernatural. therefore, there is no scientific basis to believe in it.

Not to say that science is bad. . .it's simply not complete.

of course not. but, many in this topic are severely undermining just how important and powerful science actually is.

to snowy, below

You DO realize that the organization utilized in that definition isn't the same as an 'organized religion', right? It's the difference between a collective set of individual, likely tribal, beliefs held by a group and a codified and, well, organized religion.

the definition of organized religion isn't really all that different.

You seem to have missed the point entirely. The point is that, when faced with an unknown, it doesn't matter if said faith that there is a cure comes from placing it in God or in Science. There very well may not be a cure right now or possibly ever for this fictional disease. What matters is that the person ended up believing that science could save them; regardless of if it can or cannot.

this is a fact: science has set a precedent, particularly in medicine, that modern hospitals are able to treat disease and injury. there is a strong reason to feel that going to a hospital will help. religion does not have any such precedent. prayer has never shown itself to be useful in curing disease.

Still wrong. Science, while it is supposed to be objective, can be twisted to represent many things while still technically adhering to the core principle. However there are things like the 'Rule of Large Numbers' that do try to prevent such things but they only work when applied universally. Otherwise that scientist who says that blacks are dumber than whites is just as credible as the person who claims that they are just as smart simply because he elected to take a small sample size, took one from a biased group, or may have even simply been unlucky with his picks.

'But that's not how science works'. Well true. But then one can turn right around and claim that getting in the way of science 'is not how religion works' either.

this does not prove that the scientific process isn't actually just a process, but a set of organized beliefs. there's room for bad scientists--i don't see how that's relevant to the question "does science have a core set of beliefs" at all.

The point is that there was a flaw and an unknown in the first place. A flaw that came about due to poor interpretations of misunderstood and/or incomplete facts. Several decades from now our grandchildren will be laughing at us for perceiving the universe as 3D instead of a 2D hologram simply because science progressed and changed. To claim that religion is flawed due to poor understanding, archaic beliefs, and the like and then turn around and say that science is NOT is pure bias if not outright hypocrisy.

that science and religion are both fallible is completely irrelevant. science has a basis for its answers. by definition of faith, religion does not. it seems people take this fact as a personal attack because we're arguing that people believe something without reason--but isn't that the entire point of faith?

religion is flawed in my worldview because it requires accepting something without evidence. actually, it's not just religion. blindly accepting anything at all is flawed because of that reason.

we have many reasons to belive that there exists a subsurface ocean on europa. i'm pretty sure that link won't work, but if it does, what you're looking at is 200 cited publications that assert one way or another that there exists super salty water on europa. christianity has a single text that doesn't even have data to support its claim.

But someone can also hold a belief in something backed up by, but not proven by, science. See: Aliens. Scientifically there is nothing stopping them from existing; but nothing has actually given conclusive proof that they do, so it is a matter of faith regardless of actual facts.

the existence of aliens isn't backed up by science. there's no data that suggests with certainty that there is life on other worlds. all discussion on this subject is speculative.

But basically gravity is highly unknown for a multitude of reasons. The upwards acceleration bit is just part of it. There are many other things like how gravity can maintain an entire galaxy yet individual stars basically move around however they please within said galaxy, or how gravity kind of stops working when you get down to really microscopic levels. The point, though, is more of how there are things that science doesn't grasp, like why water expands when it freezes unlike every other liquid out there or how time can change simply by changing altitude (http://relativity.li...2003-1Color.pdfI really wish I knew how to link in text) . Is there a scientific explanation for this? Maybe. But for now the fact that time passes slower in Earth orbit than on Earth itself may as well be the work of a warlock.

Do you get what I'm saying though? Having faith that science will solve these things when there may, very well, be no solution is no less a religion than saying God, Buddha, The Great and Powerful Anna the RNG Goddess, or anyone else can explain things.

stars don't move around as they please. gravitational interactions dictate how they orbit. nonetheless, stellar movements are actually quite complicated, but generally are known. there's no real problem. gravity works on macroscopic levels because it requires lots and lots of mass to have any big effects on the stuff around you. in particle physics, scientists are looking for how gravity works on a microscopic scale (ie, we're looking for the famous 'graviton').

there's a scientific explanation for both of those things. it's not expected that any average person with no physics background can really follow the explanation of time dilation (especially gravitational time dilation!!!), but it exists and is quite cemented in our understanding.

again, it's not a faith that it can solve these problems. science attempts to understand our reality. if it's a part of reality, it can be dissected, experimented with, etc. it can be explored to its fullest. some things are harder to experiment on, but it's still possible. and again, it's not faith that science can--there's a precedent set that science has been able to answer the questions concerning our natural world quite well over the past four hundred years or so.

edit: like this:

[/url=PASTE URL HERE]your text here[/url]

Edited July 13, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[dondon151]

States his opinion, without making a statement about those that disagree with him.

first of all, phoenix wright agrees with what i say.

second of all, it's impossible to speculate about why people think that religion is compatible with science without making a statement about the nature of their understanding of religion and science.

[FionordeQuester]

I haven't participated much in this discussion because I haven't felt like doing so...but for what it's worth, there are a lot of famous scientists who also happened to be devout Christians, such as Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Nicolaus Copernicus, and of course, Benjamin Franklin (who used to be a deist, but later became more orthodox in his beliefs do to what he saw as a decline in his morals).

They're seen as some pretty brilliant men, and evidently THEY didn't see any contradiction between religion and science. And actually, the Bible outright encourages scientific thought (or at least, the pursuit of knowledge. "Science" wasn't a word back when it was written)...

Daniel 1:17 - "God gave these four young men an unusual aptitude for understanding every aspect of literature and wisdom. And God gave Daniel the special ability to interpret the meanings of visions and dreams."

Daniel 5:12 - "'This man Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar, has exceptional ability and is filled with divine knowledge and understanding. He can interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve difficult problems. Call for Daniel, and he will tell you what the writing means.'”

Proverbs 6:6 - "Take a lesson from the ants, you lazybones. Learn from their ways and become wise!"

Proverbs 10:4 - "Wise people treasure knowledge, but the babbling of a fool invites disaster."

Proverbs 18:15 - "Intelligent people are always ready to learn. Their ears are open for knowledge."

Proverbs 19:2 - "Also it is not good for a person to be without knowledge, And he who makes haste with his feet errs.

Proverbs 25:2 - "It is God’s privilege to conceal things, and the king’s privilege to discover them."

Romans 1:19-20 - "They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

So basically, observe and learn about the world God made, and you'll acquire wisdom that way. I imagine that's precisely WHERE Christian scientists get a lot of their motivation. By learning about the attributes of nature, they can infer things about the attributes of God. And while we're at it, many atheists bash Genesis for claiming that the Earth was made in 6 days, when actually, the word "days" is simply one translation of a word that can mean many different things.

Basically, the Hebrew word for "days" can also mean "age", or "extended period of time". So essentially, the phrase may be translated as "6 days", but that may not actually be the correct one. It could actually be more like "6 ages", or "6 eons", or something like that. Just some food for thought.

[Phoenix Wright]

I haven't participated much in this discussion because I haven't felt like doing so...

They're seen as some pretty brilliant men, and evidently THEY didn't see any contradiction between religion and science. And actually, the Bible outright encourages scientific thought (or at least, the pursuit of knowledge. "Science" wasn't a word back when it was written)...

So basically, observe and learn about the world God made, and you'll acquire wisdom that way. I imagine that's precisely WHERE Christian scientists get a lot of their motivation. By learning about the attributes of nature, they can infer things about the attributes of God.

...sd isn't a soapbox. it's suggested that if a user isn't willing to have a discussion, the user might as well not post in sd at all--unless the original topic calls for opinions and only opinions.

responding to bolded bit:

...so the answer is yes, they are incompatible--but also that it doesn't matter. a bad scientist will do bad science, and religion can be blamed for it (eg, an astrophysicist that is also a ye creationist and looks for evidece of the ye belief), but a good scientist will just ignore the religious bits altogether. sort of like georges lemaitre and how his view was "god created it this way so that we may discover it."

as i've said before, though, it doesn't really matter since a scientist's religious beliefs does not necessarily mean that he is bad scientist.

and like i've said twice now, whether they contradict doesn't matter anyway. i don't think having a religion makes you a bad scientist and i don't think attempting to understand the natural world as it actually is makes you a bad religious person. as dondon more succintly put it, the two are not incompatible within the same person. there will be cognitive dissonance, but i suppose that's okay.

any form of "god did it" contradicts science either because it contradicts what we presently know, or attempts to reject the intellectual basis of science--curiosity. well, also the basis of the doing science, which is experimentation.

imo, there really isn't a way to reconcile the two unless a scientist has the perspective of "god created it ('it' meaning the universe) this way so that we may discover it."

can everyone see why it's frustrating when users pop up to give their two cents, when in actuality the point has already been discussed ad nauseam? if one has no desire to participate in the discussion, what good is a post? especially if the point's already been made?

it's natural that they did not perceive a contradiction because their reasoning involves what you, myself, and others (in sf and elsewhere) have already said. it's a lot tougher to reconcile the contradictions if one believes that god is still active today (eg, stops natural disasters, cures cancer, treats blindness).

it should be said, though, that despite the feelings of many of those scientists, their thoughts on science and religion still did not agree with each other. on one hand, a deep respect for only what can be observed is shown, and on another hand a disregard of that deep respect for faith in a god. there still exists cognitive dissonance within the scientist. so i'm backpedaling a bit and clarifying that i don't think it's the "only way to reconcile the two," because i don't think they can be reconciled. what i actually mean is that it's the only stance a religious person can take without running into very concrete issues between what nature says and what their holy text says.

but for what it's worth, there are a lot of famous scientists who also happened to be devout Christians, such as Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Nicolaus Copernicus, and of course, Benjamin Franklin (who used to be a deist, but later became more orthodox in his beliefs do to what he saw as a decline in his morals).

so what? that select scientists believe in a deity says nothing on the overall compatibility of religion and science.

And while we're at it, many atheists bash Genesis for claiming that the Earth was made in 6 days, when actually, the word "days" is simply one translation of a word that can mean many different things.

Basically, the Hebrew word for "days" can also mean "age", or "extended period of time". So essentially, the phrase may be translated as "6 days", but that may not actually be the correct one. It could actually be more like "6 ages", or "6 eons", or something like that. Just some food for thought.

islam argues that creation took 6 days. that's three holy texts of the three abrahamic religions that argue creation took 6 days to complete. or are both islam and judaism wrong, and christianity correct? what is the basis for believing this?

Edited July 13, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[FionordeQuester]

...sd isn't a soapbox. it's suggested that if a user isn't willing to have a discussion, the user might as well not post in sd at all--unless the original topic calls for opinions and only opinions.

Oh don't worry, I don't plan on preaching to you all. I just had what I thought were some interesting thoughts to contribute to the discussion, that's all.

so what? that select scientists believe in a deity says nothing on the overall compatibility of religion and science.

Yes. I do realize that correlation does not equal causation. The reason I bring it up is because I want to ask you, "how could such brilliant scientists still believe in their God if they saw any contradictions between science and religion?" Surely they wouldn't be comfortable playing both "sides" unless they felt as though science and religion could be reconciled?

islam argues that creation took 6 days. that's three holy texts of the three abrahamic religions that argue creation took 6 days to complete. or are both islam and judaism wrong, and christianity correct? what is the basis for believing this?

Well, first of all, Wikipedia itself has two warnings that the quality of that article may have been confounded by poor research. But putting that aside, all that article says is that Islamic scholars believe that the Earth took six days. Islamic scholars. Flawed human beings, just like us. So if those Muslim scholars are misinterpreting their own texts (assuming it IS a misinterpretation), that's their problem, not the Bible's. And if it turns out I'm the one misinterpreting my own Holy Text, that's MY problem, not the Bible's. But either way, your claim that "Islam" endorses the 6 day view is incorrect. It's the Islamic scholars that are saying that according to the article you linked.

And since all three of those religions at least quote from a common source (the Old Testament), I can easily choose to disagree with said scholars while still arguing that all three religions have valid creation stories.

Edited July 13, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

The reason I bring it up is because I want to ask you, "how could such brilliant scientists still believe in their God if they saw any contradictions between science and religion?" Surely they wouldn't be comfortable playing both "sides" unless they felt as though science and religion could be reconciled?

Well, first of all, Wikipedia itself has two warnings that the quality of that article may have been confounded by poor research. But putting that aside, all that article says is that Islamic scholars believe that the Earth took six days. Islamic scholars. Flawed human beings, just like us. So if those Muslim scholars are misinterpreting their own texts (assuming it IS a misinterpretation), that's their problem, not the Bible's. And if it turns out I'm the one misinterpreting my own Holy Text, that's MY problem, not the Bible's. But either way, your claim that "Islam" endorses the 6 day view is incorrect. It's the Islamic scholars that are saying that according to the article you linked.

And since all three of those religions at least quote from a common source (the Old Testament), I can easily choose to disagree with said scholars while still arguing that all three religions have valid creation stories.

what about brilliant secular scientists? surely they wouldn't remain secular if they thought there was a way to reconcile perceived religious truths and science?

unless you refute the idea that religion has more than the requirement of faith to back it up, any venture into this sort of reasoning is unnecessary. religious scientists believe because they do. it's very circular because there is no scientific basis by which their beliefs hold. to them, it's reconciled because they're so sure god exists--and if god exists there aren't actually issues. this is not reality, though.

the issue with the wikipedia entry is that it's heavily biased and mostly only quotes the quran itself. i'm not incorrect in saying that islamic texts propose a six-day creation period (sometimes it proposes an eight-day period too), it's literally what the quran says. it's literally what the bible says. it's literally what the torah says. people would believe it blindly to this day were it not for discoveries that show otherwise. indeed, millions still believe its literal interpretation. this is but one example of religion and science's incompatibility.

it's interesting that you adhere to the religious philosophies of select scientists, but reject those from religious scholars.

[Rapier]

haha, sure, the bible and science both agree that rainbows exist. this is trivial.

how does religion attempt to explain how rainbows exist? it's a fairly complicated phenomenon--i doubt religion can explain it. the statement that god made dogs, frogs, and logs directly contradicts with what we know because we know that's not how they were made! we know how rainbows are made.

any form of "god did it" contradicts science either because it contradicts what we presently know, or attempts to reject the intellectual basis of science--curiosity. well, also the basis of the doing science, which is experimentation.

imo, there really isn't a way to reconcile the two unless a scientist has the perspective of "god created it ('it' meaning the universe) this way so that we may discover it."

historically it didn't conflict because what the church said is what we knew, or just had no clue about.

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to make a case for science and religion's agreement toward the existance of rainbows, but this is not what I meant. I mean that the description of any given phenomenon is not enough to conflict with the statement that God made the universe and stuff. For example, the Big Bang theory does not (correct me if I am even more wrong about this) contradict the creation of the universe through God's "hands" - for all we know, the Big Bang event could have been done by God. For such a claim to conflict with the view that God made the universe, it necessitates evidence showing that God had no participation in this event, which I think is impossible for science. Sure, you can use the burden of proof tactic to put the other side in check, but you'll need a positive claim in order to state that God had no participation - otherwise, the discussion ends with a big interrogation mark.

God's existance can only be put into trial by logic. Science can only derive truths from the nature of the world around us - but we know a triomni being can do whatever they want with nature, it's extremely trivial. God's limits are bound by logic only, from what the consensus between intelectuals tells us.

Bolded part is where you answer the paragraph in the top with the paragraph in the bottom. Thinking that God made the universe does not bring an end to curiousity, because it does not answer what things are. It is still up to humans to understand the elements in the world around them and make a sense of things through observation and experimentation. Also, for the underlined part, is there any scientific knowledge that tells us God has no place within creation?

imo there is a problem with this line of thinking: "God made the universe, and it is up to me to make a sense of it", because it seems to me like backwards thinking. You don't go from the conclusion (God made the universe) to the premises ("I will make a sense of the world around me from what God has revealed to me by the Bible"). If anything, the conclusion that God exists should come from one's sense of the world, backed up by accurate thinking. I admit I am confused about this bit.

[FionordeQuester]

what about brilliant secular scientists? surely they wouldn't remain secular if they thought there was a way to reconcile perceived religious truths and science?

Well sure. But I'm putting the ball in YOUR court. I'm asking you how YOU think the Christian scientists I talked about followed both philosophies. I'm just wondering, do you think some of them were too eccentric to see the problems that others did? Were some of them too invested in their religion to throw it away? Or did some of them legitimately see something that other secular scientists did not? I really am curious to see what you have to say about that, as I believe it would help me to get to know your thought process better.

unless you refute the idea that religion has more than the requirement of faith to back it up, any venture into this sort of reasoning is unnecessary. religious scientists believe because they do. it's very circular because there is no scientific basis by which their beliefs hold. to them, it's reconciled because they're so sure god exists--and if god exists there aren't actually issues. this is not reality, though.

Well, "Religion" does have more than the requirement of faith to back it up if we're talking about Christianity. It also does not contradict anything we know as scientific fact, which is a feet in and of itself. It also has the changed lives of previously broken people to attest to the effectiveness of it's teachings. And it also has the radical religious transformations of people like the Apostle Paul, real life people who used to be ardently against it, but decided to convert to it despite knowing they'd suffer persecution for it.

Now, is all of that definitive proof? No, of course not. The evidence is merely correlational, and not causal, so it's up to you to decide whether or not that's good enough for you. But either way, there's nothing in the Bible at least that our science outright contradicts. If we're talking about Extra-Biblical works, you might find some contradictions, but as for the Bible itself...it can easily be reconciled with the scientific findings we have found.

the issue with the wikipedia entry is that it's heavily biased and mostly only quotes the quran itself. i'm not incorrect in saying that islamic texts propose a six-day creation period (sometimes it proposes an eight-day period too), it's literally what the quran says. it's literally what the bible says. it's literally what the torah says.

So you happen to know the Aramaic, Hebrew, and Islamic languages? You've actually read the Quran yourself? You can read straight from the Hebrew language, and know enough about Hebrew culture that you can say, for absolute certain, that the "six days" interpretation is correct? Those are the qualifications I think you would have to have in order to make the claims you just made.

As for the Bible (and the Torah, since the "Torah" is just another name for the first five books of the Old Testament), again, "six days" is simply one translation of the phrase, not the definitive one.

people would believe it blindly to this day were it not for discoveries that show otherwise. indeed, millions still believe its literal interpretation. this is but one example of religion and science's incompatibility.

I still don't see this incompatibility you are referring to. Like I said, it's easy to reconcile those two statements by saying that either the "six days" thing was a mistranslation, or it was the Bible speaking figuratively rather than literally. All this really means is that we have to be open-minded, and exercise the old gray matter a little more than we did before. And that's precisely what the Bible encourages anyway, as you'll see from the bolded passages I linked.

it's interesting that you adhere to the religious philosophies of select scientists, but reject those from religious scholars.

Well of course. Without knowing more about WHY they have their beliefs (because everyone's different, and not everyone has the same reasons for their belief), all I really know about said secular scientists is that I happen to disagree with them on their religious views.

Edited July 13, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

i've grown tired of making long-winded posts where i just repeat information.

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to make a case for science and religion's agreement toward the existance of rainbows, but this is not what I meant. I mean that the description of any given phenomenon is not enough to conflict with the statement that God made the universe and stuff.

i realize this. the post can be read like:

how does [particular religion] attempt to explain how [thing 1] exists? it's a fairly complicated phenomenon--i doubt [particular religion] can explain it. the statement that god made [thing 2], [thing 3], and [thing 4] directly contradicts with what we know because we know that's not how [those things] were made! we know how [thing 1] is made.

particularly to yourself and eclipse, you both enjoy using specific examples to argue your case. i enjoy flipping those particular examples (if they don't work) and making it general. this is then why i say "any form of 'god did it'," because it can be extended far beyond those particular examples of ice melting or rainbows forming. don't misunderstand the quoted text either, i don't mean to say that at this point science can explain every physical thing, but i feel i can assert safely that most things are described better by science than religion (if religion attempts to describe them at all).

the point is to get one to think "huh, if that's true about rainbows, frogs, or logs, then is it also true for x, y, and z?"

For example, the Big Bang theory does not (correct me if I am even more wrong about this) contradict the creation of the universe through God's "hands" - for all we know, the Big Bang event could have been done by God. For such a claim to conflict with the view that God made the universe, it necessitates evidence showing that God had no participation in this event, which I think is impossible for science. Sure, you can use the burden of proof tactic to put the other side in check, but you'll need a positive claim in order to state that God had no participation - otherwise, the discussion ends with a big interrogation mark.

there's no reason to believe god had any hand it either. but, if one is to assert that god did, then this is where the incompatibility lies--science requires evidence for that assertion, but it does not exist. believing it is then a rejection of the process of science (this is the part where cognitive dissonance comes in). it really is this simple! the discussion of whether god exists and all of that hooblah is irrelevant, so i'm ignoring all of it.

Thinking that God made the universe does not bring an end to curiousity, because it does not answer what things are. Also, for the underlined part, is there any scientific knowledge that tells us God has no place within creation?

sure it does. if people went by only the teachings found in religious texts, we'd never know about cells, atoms, quarks, or z bosons. it's not information that could be known, because the makeup of the universe was already "known."

also, yes. everything in science. if god held a necessary place in creation, we'd find evidence of it. so far, this has not been the case. this is why faith is involved. there is no reason to believe god had a hand in it.

whether god had a place in creation itself, not the products of creation, is forever unknown with current methods. we cannot know what physically went on before time started. any discussion of this topic is speculative and not scientific.

imo there is a problem with this line of thinking: "God made the universe, and it is up to me to make a sense of it", because it seems to me like backwards thinking. You don't go from the conclusion (God made the universe) to the premises ("I will make a sense of the world around me from what God has revealed to me by the Bible"). If anything, the conclusion that God exists should come from one's sense of the world, backed up by accurate thinking. I admit I am confused about this bit.

i'm not sure why god making the universe must be the conclusion, but i both don't think this way and don't really want to argue why this works for people (because i also think it doesn't solve the incompatibility problem anyway). make of it what you will. the point of this entire discussion is that if one attempts to bring spiritual faith into their science, it contradicts the scientific process.

Well sure. But I'm putting the ball in YOUR court. I'm asking you how YOU think the Christian scientists I talked about followed both philosophies. I'm just wondering, do you think some of them were too eccentric to see the problems that others did? Were some of them too invested in their religion to throw it away? Or did some of them legitimately see something that other secular scientists did not? I really am curious to see what you have to say about that, as I believe it would help me to get to know your thought process better.

(you missed the point, which was that the topic itself is meaningless because the very same question can be asked of the other side. it tells us nothing).

i think they were born in an era of religious indoctrination and were products of their time. as religious scientists are today. most christians are christian because they were raised christian. the topic is complex, off topic, and not all that interesting to me though, so i'm not going to go into much. also:

unless you refute the idea that religion has more than the requirement of faith to back it up, any venture into this sort of reasoning is unnecessary. religious scientists believe because they do. it's very circular because there is no scientific basis by which their beliefs hold. to them, it's reconciled because they're so sure god exists--and if god exists there aren't actually issues. this is not reality, though.

the two (science and religion) aren't incompatible within individuals. the two are incompatible overall, though. i must stress that i'm only willing to talk about this topic alone, because everything has has clearly served as a detractor to this point which has yet to be refuted at all.

It also does not contradict anything we know as scientific fact, which is a feet [sic] in and of itself.

this is false. the creation narrative, even if we submit that its language is mostly pretty rhetoric, is in the wrong order. it gets the age of the earth wrong. people lived for centuries, yet evidence suggests no human can live as long as, say, moses did. and we've had billions of people be born.

So you happen to know the Aramaic, Hebrew, and Islamic languages? You've actually read the Quran yourself? You can read straight from the Hebrew language, and know enough about Hebrew culture that you can say, for absolute certain, that the "six days" interpretation is correct? Those are the qualifications I think you would have to have in order to make the claims you just made.

this is simply ridiculous. millions of people know hebrew, arabic, and english. they can read and correctly translate for us despite my not knowing hebrew at all or very little arabic. usually, when language is meant to be taken literally or rhetorically, the structure of the text is telling. according to the bible, day and night are concretely defined--the day is defined. there's also an inaccuracy--it says that god created "two lights"--one for morning and one for night, which we can assume are the sun and the moon. the moon is not a source of light, though. so, this is wrong.

we can infer from the language used that it was meant to be taken literally. only when mankind can confidently assert that the universe took longer than six days to complete did there become a need to claim the bible was being literary.

I still don't see this incompatibility you are referring to. Like I said, it's easy to reconcile those two statements by saying that either the "six days" thing was a mistranslation, or it was the Bible speaking figuratively rather than literally. All this really means is that we have to be open-minded, and exercise the old gray matter a little more than we did before. And that's precisely what the Bible encourages anyway, as you'll see from the bolded passages I linked.

i stress that i will only respond to this statement from here on out:

science rejects faith, religion requires it. i have shown that science does not require faith in the several suggested ways claimed here. if you can show me that any religion does not require faith to accept it, i will concede.

by faith alone we assume the creation narratives are correct.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[FionordeQuester]

science rejects faith, religion requires it. i have shown that science does not require faith in the several suggested ways claimed here. if you can show me that any religion does not require faith to accept it, i will concede.

Actually, science DOES kind of require faith if you really think about it. I mean, how many times have Americans been told incorrect information about what foods are, and are not healthy for us? How many times have we had debacles like when scientists were claiming that white people were biologically superior to every other race (back in the days around the Civil War)? How many times have we conclusively said that atoms were the smallest material there, and then later on, found out that, no, actually, quarks (or whatever they are) are the smallest? How many times have we decided that dinosaurs looked like they did in Jurassic Park, only to later turn around and say "no, wait, we think they may've actually been covered in feathers instead?". How many times have we decided that lobotomies were TOTALLY the best solution for mental patients, before realizing "no, actually, that's stupid. Lobotomies seem to create more problems than they solve!"

The thing with science is that it's always changing. You can believe something for a long time, only to find out "oh, that thing you believed? Turns out, the guy who made that data did his calculations wrong. No, THIS or THAT thing is correct instead". It's the same problem I have with my own FE4 LP. I've poured all my effort and all my time into making sure my directions for Max Ranking the game are as easy AND quick as possible for newcomers to implement...and yet, I also know in my heart that someday, somehow, some new strategy is going to come along to render some of my own obsolete.

So if you ever decide to live your life based on specific things you find out in science, it seems to me that there's always going to be that fear that everything you know is someday going to turn out to be all wrong. Therefore, if you decide to live your life based on scientific fact anyways...aren't you kind of putting faith in the fact that it's not going to let you down? Aren't you kind of "putting faith" in the fact that whatever principles you apply aren't just going to turn out to be bupkiss 20 years later?

Edited July 14, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[dondon151]

Actually, science DOES kind of require faith if you really think about it. I mean, how many times have Americans been told incorrect information about what foods are, and are not healthy for us?

yes and you know what happened to these claims

they were disproven and rejected

can you please stop with the "science requires faith" parroting. apparently, a major mode of scientific progress involves a lack of faith in accepted wisdom, which you so graciously helped to illustrate. if science really required faith, we'd still believe that disease was spread by miasma and not germs, for example, because we'd take it on faith that the miasma theory of disease was correct despite there being barely any evidence to support it.

So if you ever decide to live your life based on specific things you find out in science, it seems to me that there's always going to be that fear that everything you know is someday going to turn out to be all wrong.

how is accepting the possibility of being wrong worse than rejecting the near certainty of being wrong

every religious person whom i've spoken to about this topic asks me this question as if it were a "gotcha!" moment and i just stare blankly while issuing a vehement "no"

Edited July 14, 2015 by dondon151

[FionordeQuester]

yes and you know what happened to these claims, they were disproven and rejected

Exactly. So how do you know that the same exact thing won't happen with whatever scientific facts we and our society happen to believe right now? Or, for that matter, how do I know that I won't eventually find my Bible to be a pack of lies? Because my point is not to say that Christianity is a better thing to pin your hopes on than science. I mean, I DO think that, but that's not the point I'm trying to prove right now. What I'm saying is that science does indeed require faith if you're going to actually apply any of it's principles to how you live your life.

can you please stop with the "science requires faith" parroting. apparently, a major mode of scientific progress involves a lack of faith in accepted wisdom, which you so graciously helped toillustrate. if science really required faith, we'd still believe that disease was spread by miasma and not germs, for example, because we'd take it on faith that the miasma theory of disease was correct despite there being barely any evidence to support it.

You seem to be misconstruing "faith" for "beliefs entirely devoid of logic" if that's what you think. Yes, science requires that you accept the possibility of it being wrong...but you also have to have at least SOME faith in whatever discoveries you think you've made, or else none of it really makes a difference in your life. If some new revelation comes about through the scientific method, but you don't have any faith in science, you'll just look at said revelation, and think "yeah, that sounds neat...buuut I think I'll just stick to whatever I've been doing. Because who knows if that's right or wrong?"

I do not do that of course. Because I for one actually do put faith in science as well as my loving God. In fact, I believe that my God encourages me to learn about science, mathematics, and to acquire knowledge. I'm just saying that science does require faith, and therefore, Phoenix is wrong to say otherwise. Because of that, there is not necessarily a conflict between science and religion, and DEFINITELY not a conflict between science and the Christian and Judaist religions (Islam I'm not so sure about. Haven't read it's holy books yet...actually, I haven't read any Judaist holy books either, but as far as I know, they only use the Old Testament, and maybe the Apocrypha for the source of their faith).

how is accepting the possibility of being wrong worse than rejecting the near certainty of being wrong

It's not. Good thing my faith isn't the latter eh? Or at least, I don't think it is.

every religious person whom i've spoken to about this topic asks me this question as if it were a "gotcha!" moment and i just stare blankly while issuing a vehement "no"

Really? I don't see how you can really deny the truth of what I've said. Would you mind explaining it to me?

Edited July 14, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

So if you ever decide to live your life based on specific things you find out in science, it seems to me that there's always going to be that fear that everything you know is someday going to turn out to be all wrong.

dondon already handled most of your post beautifully, but allow me to respond to this in particular.

it is insulting that you actually think i'm afraid of being wrong, or having my world turned upside-down. scientists don't fear (at least, shouldn't) the unknown or being wrong about the unknown--it's a part of the job! this is perhaps the greatest misunderstanding a person can have of science in general. every discovery is worthy of celebration, not fear! a self-correcting process only gets better with time.

when my reality is challenged, i embrace it.

Really? I don't see how you can really deny the truth of what I've said. Would you mind explaining it to me?

i ask only that if someone takes the time to explain something to you, you actually listen.

Exactly. So how do you know that the same exact thing won't happen with whatever scientific facts we and our society happen to believe right now?

we accept that it might happen. we aren't sure that it won't happen. well, kinda. some things are so well-cemented that something really flippy would have to be going on to shake our understanding (eg, that gravity is a purely attractive force, magnetic monopoles may exist but aren't found, inertial mass and gravitational mass actually being different). other things are not so well-understood; but, in these cases, it's not that we have faith in the theories, but that we have a scientific basis for them and accept that they may be wrong. we don't have faith that there is an electron, or a quark, or a strange. these are publicly verifiable.

If some new revelation comes about through the scientific method, but you don't have any faith in science, you'll just look at said revelation, and think "yeah, that sounds neat...buuut I think I'll just stick to whatever I've been doing. Because who knows if that's right or wrong?"

in science class, i assume you've participated in labs, correct? let's say you're going into a physics lab and the subject you're studying is rotational motion. you step on a rotating platform and stick your arms out. with some assistance, you start spinning. you alternate between folding your arms in closer to your body and extending your arms, keenly noticing that when you arms are folden in, you rotate faster! why is this? it's because of the conservation of angular momentum. this is verifiable, clear, and most certainly not based on faith. prior to the experiment, you thought that you'd spin at the same rate no matter how your arms were extended, but afterwards your tune will have changed.

this is what all of science is like, except much more rigorous. you don't have faith in anything because you can clearly experience reality for yourself and draw from that a valid scientific conclusion. the exact opposite of what you say is true. if science required faith, we wouldn't advance. just like how christianity has not advanced on its own--it's been forced to adapt to a changing world. because when you have faith, there's no reason to believe anything else!

edit: but let's clairfy something. would you all agree that if faith is absent in science, that science and religion aren't compatibile? if your answer is still no, why?

bad astronomer post on the subject.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[FionordeQuester]

dondon already handled most of your post beautifully, but allow me to respond to this in particular.

it is insulting that you actually think i'm afraid of being wrong, or having my world turned upside-down. scientists don't fear (at least, shouldn't) the unknown or being wrong about the unknown--it's a part of the job! this is perhaps the greatest misunderstanding a person can have of science in general. every discovery is worthy of celebration, not fear! a self-correcting process only gets better with time.

when my reality is challenged, i embrace it.

I never said that you were afraid of being wrong! I'm just saying that what you described still requires some measure of faith. Again, if you draw a conclusion from the results you achieve, you have to have SOME amount of faith in your ability to interpret the data correctly. And for that matter, you have to have some measure of faith in OTHER scientist's ability to measure their data correctly, if you believe in theories you did not test yourself. And also, you have to have faith in the idea that "having your world turned upside" is better than living in ignorance, which we can't necessarily PROVE or anything (even though I think you're right when you say that).

Otherwise, what's the point of implementing them? What's the point of doing any kind of diet if you're absolutely certain that whatever you think you know is going to be disproved later? Obviously, the answer is that you're confident that whoever made up the diet is actually competent at their job, and therefore, you're PROBABLY going to be better off following it than if you didn't, even if it doesn't turn out perfectly.

Once again, I believe that science is one of God's greatest gifts to the world. I'm just saying that you're wrong in that it doesn't require faith to believe in it. That said though, it's possible that I may be using a very literal definition of "faith". What exactly is YOUR definition of faith, if you don't mind my asking? We don't want to be on totally different tracks after all.

i ask only that if someone takes the time to explain something to you, you actually listen.

Well of course I will. Just because we're in a debate doesn't mean I'm unwilling to be proven wrong.

we accept that it might happen. we aren't sure that it won't happen. well, kinda. some things are so well-cemented that something really flippy would have to be going on to shake our understanding (eg, that gravity is a purely attractive force, magnetic monopoles may exist but aren't found, inertial mass and gravitational mass actually being different). other things are not so well-understood; but, in these cases, it's not that we have faith in the theories, but that we have a scientific basis for them and accept that they may be wrong. we don't have faith that there is an electron, or a quark, or a strange. these are publicly verifiable.

Actually, that's what I call faith, even if it is just faith in your own abilities, or faith in how well you remember your own lessons. And of course, you have good reason to have faith in yourself, of course. You're a really smart guy, and I'm not patronizing you when I say that. But then, I think I have good reason to believe in God, and what he's done for me throughout my life.

Like I said, "faith" should not be confused with "blindly believing in something without logic". And I can tell you why my faith in God is not like that if you wish.

in science class, i assume you've participated in labs, correct? let's say you're going into a physics lab and the subject you're studying is rotational motion. you step on a rotating platform and stick your arms out. with some assistance, you start spinning. you alternate between folding your arms in closer to your body and extending your arms, keenly noticing that when you arms are folden in, you rotate faster! why is this? it's because of the conservation of angular momentum. this is verifiable, clear, and most certainly not based on faith. prior to the experiment, you thought that you'd spin at the same rate no matter how your arms were extended, but afterwards your tune will have changed.

Indeed. Like you said, some of our scientific theories are so solid, that it'd take a lot to call them into question. But not all of science is like that. At the very least, you're putting faith in the fact that science will make humanity better off than it otherwise would have been. Or maybe you're putting faith in the fact that discovering the truth will make you better off than if you remained ignorant (again, I believe that is true as well). And of course, you're putting some amount of faith in yourself and/or other's ability to correctly interpret whatever data they see.

this is what all of science is like, except much more rigorous. you don't have faith in anything because you can clearly experience reality for yourself and draw from that a valid scientific conclusion. the exact opposite of what you say is true. if science required faith, we wouldn't advance. just like how christianity has not advanced on its own--it's been forced to adapt to a changing world. because when you have faith, there's no reason to believe anything else!

No, it's not that the Bible itself has been forced to adapt to a changing world...it's that our understanding of it has been forced to adapt to a changing world. Some people have made some unhealthy assumptions about what the Bible was telling us in regards to, say, race, or child rearing, or whatever, so we're forced to re-examine what God is probably trying to tell us. But that doesn't mean the Bible itself had to be rewritten!

And that's what science is like as well. For example, the aforementioned "eugenics" debacle that I talked about, where scientists thought that white people were smarter than every other race, and that women were dumber than men. One of the ways they arrived at those conclusions was by measuring the heads of their test subjects. And in that situation, sure, women's heads WERE indeed smaller than men's heads...but, it turns out, that was NOT indicative of intelligence, as we found out only later. Therefore, it wasn't the data that was wrong, it was our understanding of the data that was wrong, just as it is with our understanding of the Bible.

So again, you ARE putting faith when you let science have any impact on your life. You're putting faith on your own abilities, your own intelligence, your own level of discernment, and in other people.

edit: but let's clairfy something. would you all agree that if faith is absent in science, that science and religion aren't compatibile? if your answer is still no, why?

I wouldn't, frankly. Science is the study of natural phenomena, finding explanations for why things work the way they do. In other words, it's mainly concerned with the material world, not the spiritual, or supernatural world. So with stuff like the Big Bang...yeah, I believe in it. But to me, that just means "God caused the Big Bang", not "the Big Bang created the universe instead of God". Or rain. If you tell me that rainfall happens because of condensation and the like...ok. To me, that just means "God gives us rain by causing condensation", not "condensation creates rain instead of God". Or if you tell me that animals were created by Evolution. To me, that just means "God created animals by helping them to evolve over millions of years". That doesn't mean "Evolution created them instead of God".

You happen to know what I mean?

Edited July 14, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

let's define faith for ourselves: belief or acceptance of an idea or thing without proof. does this work, or is this wrong in some way?

I never said that you were afraid of being wrong! I'm just saying that what you described still requires some measure of faith. Again, if you draw a conclusion from the results you achieve, you have to have SOME amount of faith in your ability to interpret the data correctly. And for that matter, you have to have some measure of faith in OTHER scientist's ability to measure their data correctly, if you believe in theories you did not test yourself. And also, you have to have faith in the idea that "having your world turned upside" is better than living in ignorance, which we can't necessarily PROVE or anything (even though I think you're right when you say that).

faith in oneself doesn't mean that science as a process requires faith. i don't need to have faith in other scientists' abilities to experiment--i can look at the data myself (and methods of experimentation) to come to a conclusion. i don't need to personally test a hypothesis to come to a valid conclusion on it, thankfully. i don't need "faith" that discovery is better than ignorance, as that's only an opinion.

At the very least, you're putting faith in the fact that science will make humanity better off than it otherwise would have been. Or maybe you're putting faith in the fact that discovering the truth will make you better off than if you remained ignorant (again, I believe that is true as well). And of course, you're putting some amount of faith in yourself and/or other's ability to correctly interpret whatever data they see.

again, personal faith in something doesn't mean science requires faith. nothing here has anything to do with the actual scientific process. it is all personal.

No, it's not that the Bible itself has been forced to adapt to a changing world...it's that our understanding of it has been forced to adapt to a changing world. Some people have made some unhealthy assumptions about what the Bible was telling us in regards to, say, race, or child rearing, or whatever, so we're forced to re-examine what God is probably trying to tell us. But that doesn't mean the Bible itself had to be rewritten!

it's not being rewritten, but parts of it are simply ignored. the bible says to never eat shellfish. it says that when a virgin woman is raped, the assailant must pay the father fifty shekels of silver and marry the woman. it says not to wear clothing of two different kinds of material. it says that if a man lies with an animal, both are to be executed. all in plain english and cannot be interpreted in any other way (if you actually want people to take you seriously, anyway).

it has been forced to adapt with the times. if the times didn't change, people would still be publicly stoning their children for "stubborness and rebelliousness." we need only turn to islam to see an example of what happens when times don't change (see: the islamic state).

science is not this way. it asserts itself not as an everlasting law of the land, but an everchanging process that only helps us attempt to understand the natural world.

I wouldn't, frankly. Science is the study of natural phenomena, finding explanations for why things work the way they do. In other words, it's mainly concerned with the material world, not the spiritual, or supernatural world. So with stuff like the Big Bang...yeah, I believe in it. But to me, that just means "God caused the Big Bang", not "the Big Bang created the universe instead of God". Or rain. If you tell me that rainfall happens because of condensation and the like...ok. To me, that just means "God gives us rain by causing condensation", not "condensation creates rain instead of God". Or if you tell me that animals were created by Evolution. To me, that just means "God created animals by helping them to evolve over millions of years". That doesn't mean "Evolution created them instead of God".

this makes the fundamental assumption that god exists. this is an assumption outside of the realm of science, and therefore directly contradicts science's aim if introduced; thus, the two are incompatible. does this make sense?

[Chiki]

So I got banned for 5 days for this post, but I'm back already. I'll need some time to catch up with this thread. Here's something I said in a PM to Rapier:

As far as I know, there is nothing logically wrong with saying you need a positive claim to disprove God, which is what I said regarding science. To disprove God, they need a positive scientific claim... It's basic reasoning, lol.

Also, Occam's Razor is a method for erasing unnecessary parts from a theory. It has no place in applying a value to whether something is true or false. It can not be used to establish whether God's existance is true or not...

Are pink unicorns irrelevant? I'd argue most people think so. Even if it exists, as long as it doesn't eat my carrots, I'm fine with it. Is God irrelevant, though? I think many people would argue that a being who supposedly created the universe and has a big role in how we came to be is too (ideally, at least) relevant to be cast away by Occam's Razor. Maybe God is irrelevant to science, alright, but to the big picture he shouldn't be.

Science can't disprove God, only logic can, since God is outside the limits of science and can't be empirically examined. Obviously.

Not conclusively, but it helps.

God is irrelevant since scientific theories don't need him at all.

[dondon151]

i'd just like to point out that there is a distinction between faith and trust (although they are sometimes synonymous depending on the context). a person who has faith in god does so through rationalizing evidence that conflicts with the veracity of his religion:

- why does god let bad things happen; the answer is that they're not bad in the view of god.

- the biblical creation myth is literally incorrect; the answer is that it's merely allegorical.

a person who has trust in scientific publications or authority does so by applying mental bayesian statistics to assess the veracity of a claim. if the scientific publication has a reputation for rigorous review and its publications are consistently corroborated, then we are allowed to have trust in those publications.

Edited July 14, 2015 by dondon151

[Rapier]

Just a question, as IIRC PW is interested in astrology. How does science deal with the claim that aliens exist? How is it more probable than, say, a being that lives outside of science's reach? I can understand that it is probable that, if there are planets like ours somewhere, life could've evolved just like on Earth, but that's a bold claim anyway. Many theories are made about why aliens haven't made contact with us, each theory relying in mere speculation with no evidence to prove their claim (because it is impossible for our current science to study aliens, obviously). So how are they even scientifically important?

Another question that might border on stupidity, but ok: If you think something is right because it has, let's say, 80 or 90% chances of being true, does that not imply you need to believe (or have faith on) it to be true, since it has a chance of being false? You can't state for certain that you're right. The space between certainty and doubt is filled with belief. And since we can't know everything with absolute certainty, I dare say belief plays an important role in our ability to know.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Rapier

[Chiki]

Just a question, as IIRC PW is interested in astrology. How does science deal with the claim that aliens exist? How is it more probable than, say, a being that lives outside of science's reach? I can understand that it is probable that, if there are planets like ours somewhere, life could've evolved just like on Earth, but that's a bold claim anyway. Many theories are made about why aliens haven't made contact with us, each theory relying in mere speculation with no evidence to prove their claim (because it is impossible for our current science to study aliens, obviously). So how are they even scientifically important?

Another question that might border on stupidity, but ok: If you think something is right because it has, let's say, 80 or 90% chances of being true, does that not imply you need to believe (or have faith on) it to be true, since it has a chance of being false? You can't state for certain that you're right. The space between certainty and doubt is filled with belief. And since we can't know everything with absolute certainty, I dare say belief plays an important role in our ability to know.

Why is the existence of aliens a problem for science?

It is extremely, extremely, extremely likely that aliens exist since the universe is so large and there are more stars (by extension, I think, planets too) in the universe than there are specks of sand in the world (is this right?).

Assuming that humans are not special, it's almost impossible for there to not be aliens.

===

Science does require faith in certain regards, though it's not really relevant. Even math does, for axioms like 0 is a natural number, the successor of a natural number is a natural number, etc. Science needs axioms like "the external world exists" which is impossible to prove.

[dondon151]

Another question that might border on stupidity, but ok: If you think something is right because it has, let's say, 80 or 90% chances of being true, does that not imply you need to believe (or have faith on) it to be true, since it has a chance of being false? You can't state for certain that you're right. The space between certainty and doubt is filled with belief. And since we can't know everything with absolute certainty, I dare say belief plays an important role in our ability to know.

if you have 80% or 90% or 95% confidence in the veracity of a claim, then that may or may not be enough for you to operate assuming that the claim is true. the spectrum of choice here is largely binary, i.e., you usually act one way if a claim is probably true and another way if a claim is probably false. you're not filling in the space between certainty and doubt with anything; it just appears that way because, say, if i were 60% or 80% confident in a diagnosis of lung cancer based on available evidence, then i can't prescribe only 60% or 80% of the standard chemotherapeutic treatment; i would have to go all in.

Edited July 14, 2015 by dondon151

[Rapier]

Why is the existence of aliens a problem for science?

It is extremely, extremely, extremely likely that aliens exist since the universe is so large and there are more stars (by extension, I think, planets too) in the universe than there are specks of sand in the world (is this right?).

Assuming that humans are not special, it's almost impossible for there to not be aliens.

Problem is, it just borders on "it's likely that they exist", and not "they have been verified, experimented and observed. I can state that they exist". Sure, the same can be said about dinosaur poop (we have never seen, but we can assume it existed), but we know dinosaurs existed and that they had physiological needs, whereas we have no example of aliens ever existing. As for your argument, it is equally possible for there to be planets where life is viable, but no intelligent species have developped beyond the most basic evolutionary states (this is also basic logic). It's one of the answers for the Fermi paradox, by the way, which admitedly poses a problem for aliens (if the term "paradox" isn't an indicative already), as stated:

The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.The basic points of the argument (...) are:

• The Sun is a typical star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older.
• With high probability, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets. Assuming the Earth is typical, some of these planets may develop intelligent life.
• Some of these civilizations may develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now (such as the 100 Year Starship).
• Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.

According to this line of thinking, the Earth should already have been visited by extraterrestrial aliens. But Fermi saw no convincing evidence of this, nor any signs of alien intelligence anywhere in the observable universe. Hence, Fermi's question, "Where is everybody?"

There's still no clear answer to the Fermi paradox so far. So one can only assume the existance of aliens is merely conjecture based on probabilities. Yet it's a scientific issue. Why? From what you told me about science and Occam's Razor, science should use the latter to dismiss aliens completely.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Rapier