[Cold Iron]

Great post, mud, if I may attempt to assist with your lost train of thought, the thread was about the validity of the popular concept of science as a belief system that stands in opposition to other belief systems such as religion.

[Mentalist]

Thanks, CI

What I could never realy wrap my head around was, what exactly is this supposed major contradiction between religion and science.
I mean, I went to a Catholic high school, but despite that fact, I was taught evolution and it was freely accepted. I'm not an extremely religious person, but I do believe in God, but nonetheless I don't have much trouble reconciling that fact with the bulk of scientific knowledge humanity's amassed.

and so I'm trying to look at the basics, at this "cultural box" as Gem calls it and I really want to see, just what is it about these precepts that's so different from religion.
And I mean, the only thing I can really find (which is something that I seem to be detect in Gem's reasoning--though I apologize if I misinterpreted it) is the objection to the notion of parsimony. The one major stumbling block which people seem to have between reconciling religion and science is the notion that science doesn't offer human beings any "special treatment", so to speak--that science reduces humans to the same basic processes as those which govern all other, "lower" species.
Which, I suppose, is a big thing, as humans are supposedly created in the image of God, and that notion appears to carry with it the assumption that we are somehow "better" than all other species.
But at the same time, I really don't see whythe fact that God would shape us the same way he would have shaped everything else is such a difficult notion (in terms of reconciling it with what we already believe)
Fundamentally, evolution as a scientific theory does not sum up to "life arising from a rock", or even the fact that life arose by chance from a bunch of inorganic compounds--these assumptions are NOT part of the theory of evolution. Evolution itself is not concerned with explaining the origin of life--but rather it's diversity --by reducing it to the simplest terms. THe question of origin--which is the actual conflicting point, as far as religious dogma is concerned--is beyond the scope of the actual theory. whilst it's true that many people associate teh two notions, from a purely scientific point, that is not the case.

I guess the other issue that's more fundamental to the disagreement between science and religion is the notion of falcifiability--science has a built-in conditionality that it could be wrong. Religion does not. I really can't see a way to reconcile this particular difference, I must admit.

[Cold Iron]

Mentalist, on Apr 28 2009, 02:41 AM, said:

And I mean, the only thing I can really find (which is something that I seem to be detect in Gem's reasoning--though I apologize if I misinterpreted it) is the objection to the notion of parsimony. The one major stumbling block which people seem to have between reconciling religion and science is the notion that science doesn't offer human beings any "special treatment", so to speak--that science reduces humans to the same basic processes as those which govern all other, "lower" species.
Which, I suppose, is a big thing, as humans are supposedly created in the image of God, and that notion appears to carry with it the assumption that we are somehow "better" than all other species.

You're right, this is a big thing, and for various reasons. If god is not like us it opens the door to Spinoza's god, which seems to close the door on a personal relationship, which is central to the relevancy of the church. I believe it's something of a residual conflict of interest. To have a personal relationship with nature and the universe is not now a strange concept, but it may well have been a few hundred years ago. It could be that the church saw the idea of a pantheistic god as a threat to their continued viability, what do we need with a church if god is everything and anything? What is the point of a relationship and what is the difference between religion and the study of philosophy and ethics? I think the kneejerk reaction to this threat is what has lead us down the path to biblical literalism and fundamentalism. But it is a false threat. Modern churches should be embracing the scientific knowledge that has brought us closer to the true face of god, we need not be afraid of being just like the other animals on this planet and we need not be afraid of having a god that is not like us. Indeed I believe the inherent uncertainty associated with the concept of a personal god is defeated by the pantheistic god, we need not wonder if this god is real, we need not wonder if it cares or if it listens or if it has a sense of justice or righteousness, we need only open our eyes and observe. Time is but an illusion experienced by life. Our minds are born and die but within the confines of each of our experiences this birth and death are not felt, we live forever in our own personal forever, we need have no fear of death or hope for some life afterward. All the utility and splendor of religion but none of the separatism and rivalry can be embraced if we but expel the notion of this god over that god.

/rant

Mentalist, on Apr 28 2009, 02:41 AM, said:

I guess the other issue that's more fundamental to the disagreement between science and religion is the notion of falcifiability--science has a built-in conditionality that it could be wrong. Religion does not. I really can't see a way to reconcile this particular difference, I must admit.

Even the pope now admits the world is round.

[Dolorous Menhir]

I always thought the missing factual basis for religion was a major stumbling block.

[Cold Iron]

Dolorous Menhir, on Apr 29 2009, 06:27 AM, said:

I always thought the missing factual basis for religion was a major stumbling block.

Would you say you have been shaped in some way by the works of one Mr. Lundin?

[Skywalker]

First of all, mind BLOWN! This thread got... fun... while I wasn't looking.

Dolorous Menhir, on Apr 29 2009, 01:57 AM, said:

I always thought the missing factual basis for religion was a major stumbling block.

+rep to DM.

The other big problem with BOTH organized religion and some spirituality for me is the 'leap of faith', ergo belief without evidence. The corollary being accepting any *seemingly* good explanation as being the truth.

I could for instance bring up once again the now falsified claim that sentient Martians built canals on Mars. Any scientist will immediately point to a mountain of, well, mounting evidence that this wasn't the case. I can then go and say yes, but you haven't looked at 100% of the Martian surface yet, and your data is based on a horribly limited sample, with no "in-person" verification. You may talk all you like about how Mars likely hasn't supported life as we can imagine it for bazillions of years, and I can come back at you with "well, what about unimaginably exotic forms of life, based on say, silicon, not carbon (or some such)."

Of course, anyone rational would see that I have gone past being interested in truth backed by evidence and into "argument for the sake of it backed by statements that cannot be disproven without significant (unnecessary) pain" territory.

This is precisely what I see happening through this thread with Gem. You say evolution isn't real, you are given evidence to the contrary (and plenty thereof) and you seek to ignore it, and you carry on with a pedantic argument that becomes this thing with a life of its own, but ultimately serves no purpose/ adds no value.

@Gem - For all your alleged 'philosophical training', you seem to have fallen into one of the oldest problems with self-involved sophistry. I suggest you let it go.

The difference, friends between Science and Religion is, as DM clued us in, that i) Science demands evidence. I'd add to this: ii) Science has no dogma, and gives each argument and theory the attention it merits, often unseating the prior "consensus" or "common wisdom" in favor of an upstart and iii) it does so based not on leaps of faith or simple bias/ preference, but rational analysis of the best evidence available to date.

This post has been edited by Skywalker: 30 April 2009 - 06:57 AM

[Cold Iron]

As I've said, the problem is that accepted scientific opinion is interpreted as truth upon which ridicule of opposing viewpoints can be based. As I've also said, ridiculing specific viewpoints such as biblical literalism can be done quite successfully using the bible itself and does not need the backing of science.

Anyway that's enough reiteration. The point of my previous comment was to indicate that fiction also has no factual basis, but is no stumbling block to it's purpose. A requirement for religion to have factual basis is nonsensical. Religion is built on metaphor and is hence nonfactual by nature.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Cold Iron, on Apr 30 2009, 08:36 AM, said:

As I've said, the problem is that accepted scientific opinion is interpreted as truth upon which ridicule of opposing viewpoints can be based. As I've also said, ridiculing specific viewpoints such as biblical literalism can be done quite successfully using the bible itself and does not need the backing of science.

Anyway that's enough reiteration. The point of my previous comment was to indicate that fiction also has no factual basis, but is no stumbling block to it's purpose. A requirement for religion to have factual basis is nonsensical. Religion is built on metaphor and is hence nonfactual by nature.

This is BS. Something that is "built on metaphor" and "nonfactual" is BS. Your argument is BS.

You say that it is a mistake to interpret scientific opinion as the "truth," so that it can be used to fight opposing viewpoints. Nonsense. I disagree with your framing. This is a not a contest between equivalent viewpoints that happen to be labelled"religious" and "scientific," though you would love it to be regarded this way.

I do not claim that science gives the truth. I claim that it gives the closest possible approach we have to "truth," and when I say the "truth" I mean "an accurate picture of the ways things are". This is why it is superior to religious learning and reasoning. This is not an equal contest.

[Cold Iron]

Dolorous Menhir, on May 1 2009, 06:01 AM, said:

This is BS. Something that is "built on metaphor" and "nonfactual" is BS. Your argument is BS.

You say that it is a mistake to interpret scientific opinion as the "truth," so that it can be used to fight opposing viewpoints. Nonsense. I disagree with your framing. This is a not a contest between equivalent viewpoints that happen to be labelled"religious" and "scientific," though you would love it to be regarded this way.

No, this is precisely what I'm saying, they are not equivalent viewpoints, they don't even address the same subjects, thus there is no validity in ridiculing religion with science or saying religion is wrong when it conflicts with science or claiming that religion is flawed because it has no factual basis. It is thus your argument that is inconsistent.

Dolorous Menhir, on May 1 2009, 06:01 AM, said:

I do not claim that science gives the truth. I claim that it gives the closest possible approach we have to "truth," and when I say the "truth" I mean "an accurate picture of the ways things are". This is why it is superior to religious learning and reasoning. This is not an equal contest.

It's not an equal contest because it's not any sort of contest. By saying science is superior to religion you are either falsely interpreting science to be a belief system or religion to be based on logic. The only place where they conflict is where people are misinterpreting.

Even when scripture is specific about things that happened or will happen, one must be a fool to take them literally. Why when the whole thing is couched in metaphor would you choose to interpret specific passages literally? Why when prevailing scientific theories are challenged and overturned daily would you choose to interpret specific ones as unassailable truth?

I'll admit that the majority of laypeople don't see things this way, but it is my opinion that any true expert on both sides does. A true scientists knows precisely upon how much or how little evidence some of our most accepted theories are based. And a true religious leader knows precisely the history, sociology and political environment in which scriptures are written and the impacts and outcomes these scriptures have on individuals and communities through time together with changes in prevailing interpretations.

If you speak out for either religion or science without a well informed backing you are likely to make mistakes. I see no reason why the idiots who speak out for science should be seen as clever where the idiots who speak out for religion are seen as idiots.

[Dolorous Menhir]

I am reminded of why I hate arguing with you. At least when Gem is your opponent she will stick to her guns no matter how exposed she becomes. But you, there doesn't seem to be any point or counterargument out there that you can't dance around and vaguely elaborate on until nailing you down becomes impossible.

[Mentalist]

I must agree with CI. I still fail to see why every debate we have about this turns into an adverserial-type trial where one of the sides must defend against the other.

The basis of religion, its relevance to day to day lives stems form how it affects people's actions--their ethics and morals. none of these things are in the area of competence of science, to the degre where we can use science to create clear-cut rules.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Mentalist, on May 1 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

I must agree with CI. I still fail to see why every debate we have about this turns into an adverserial-type trial where one of the sides must defend against the other.

Because Cold Iron's argument - that religious thought and argument is built on metaphor and non-factual - is basically an assault on logical and critical thinking, and so deserves strong pushback.

Quote

The basis of religion, its relevance to day to day lives stems form how it affects people's actions--their ethics and morals. none of these things are in the area of competence of science, to the degre where we can use science to create clear-cut rules.

You are talking about the effects of religion. I was challenging its basis, which is surely within the realm of the factual despite Cold Iron's claims.

[Cold Iron]

Dolorous Menhir, on May 1 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

I am reminded of why I hate arguing with you. At least when Gem is your opponent she will stick to her guns no matter how exposed she becomes. But you, there doesn't seem to be any point or counterargument out there that you can't dance around and vaguely elaborate on until nailing you down becomes impossible.

Sorry, you're right I was falsely combining two separate arguments. Whether any scientific knowledge can be considered truth has nothing to do with whether religion is a valid alternative, it's not. The reason science can't be used to ridicule religion has nothing to do with it's validity or truthfulness. You were right to correct me there.

In fact it was completely irrelevant of me to argue the validity of the standard model with sm, that whole direction was wrong (although fun). I did not need to attack science to show why you can't use science to attack religion.

Anyway I'll try to backpedal all the way to my initial point which was supposed to be that science is not a platform from which to ridicule religion. Due to what I just said not due to the challengeable nature of science. Apologies.

[Cold Iron]

Dolorous Menhir, on May 1 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Mentalist, on May 1 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

I must agree with CI. I still fail to see why every debate we have about this turns into an adverserial-type trial where one of the sides must defend against the other.

Because Cold Iron's argument - that religious thought and argument is built on metaphor and non-factual - is basically an assault on logical and critical thinking, and so deserves strong pushback.

Quote

The basis of religion, its relevance to day to day lives stems form how it affects people's actions--their ethics and morals. none of these things are in the area of competence of science, to the degre where we can use science to create clear-cut rules.

You are talking about the effects of religion. I was challenging its basis, which is surely within the realm of the factual despite Cold Iron's claims.

The church has throughout it's history attempted to bolster it's authority by claiming divine truth about the world and the universe. This indeed came to be at odds with logical and critical thinking and to this day does more harm to the church than good. However the basis of religion is seated in an attempt to understand the subjective world as opposed to science's attempt to understand the universe objectively.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Cold Iron, on May 1 2009, 01:09 AM, said:

The church has throughout it's history attempted to bolster it's authority by claiming divine truth about the world and the universe. This indeed came to be at odds with logical and critical thinking and to this day does more harm to the church than good. However the basis of religion is seated in an attempt to understand the subjective world as opposed to science's attempt to understand the universe objectively.

I do not concede this point to you either. This is a false contradiction. The questions that religion tackles are not subjective, unless you are distorting that word to mean something else. If we consider these to be the basic religious questions, I do not see how they can be called anything other than objective:

"Where did we come from?"
"What happens when we die?"
"Is there more than this life?"

[Cold Iron]

The only believable meaning of the answers to these questions given by religious teachings is a metaphorical one and thus the answers are purely subjective. Any literal interpretation of these answers is a misinterpretation. Anyone claiming that religion has any more than subjective answers to these questions is likely either intentionally misleading you, under the influence of a form of mass hysteria where their reasoning is overridden by their emotional attachment to the community or they are of the opinion that in order to gain the full benefit of these teachings you must believe in them literally. I am of the opinion that this latter is false as blind belief is not belief at all as it is uninformed, and informed belief is impossible as one cannot simply decide to believe in what one knows is not literally true.

My belief is that there is wisdom in religious teachings that is worthwhile investigating and contemplating and that there are social benefits from being part of a religious community. Having said that, though, I am not part of a religious community, and I spend relatively little of my time investigating and contemplating religious teachings, so the benefits are not currently of great importance to me. But regardless, they are there and they are real and they are meaningful and important in everybody's life and they are not deserving of ridicule simply because of their misinterpretation or misrepresentation as literal and objective.