Science vs Religion

[satindesire]

Uhuh. It's cool to hate religion. We're doing this to be cool.
You've fully missed Stella's point: religion isn't Jody Foster. Religion says: XYZ is bad. It does that. Actively. Now, of course people choose to act based on that, so, the blame lies with them 90% of the way, but they are focusing their malice/energy on XYZ because of religion.

No. Religion is still doing quite well, thank you very much. It is not the fat man of the internet. It is the fox news of humanity- hugely popular.

So, you're religious, and you can't see religion as evil. Noted. What else have you got?

Also, by your reasoning, millions of people have done good, 'cause they are good, not 'cause of religion. Either pull it out completely, or let it take the blame as well as the benefit. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. What I'm trying to do here is state my beliefs about religion...that it's a system of humanity that has the ability to help or harm. NOT JUST HARM.

If you disagree, go ahead and tell me why.

Also, note the bolded part. I'm being respectful of you, and I'd appreciate the same. You may disagree with me, but that doesn't excuse acting like a jerk.

 

[teknight]

Science is a measuring stick, a way of trying to figure out the great questions of humanity like how the universe works.

A few hundred years ago, Science was POSITIVE that the earth was the center of the universe. Then we figured out that wasn't actually fact.

The fact is, we're always just guessing about what the universe is, and we find out new things that disprove our "beliefs" frequently enough for there to be questions about things that used to be "known fact".

As much as people like yourself would like to believe, Science is not the be all end all of all facts to prove exactly how the universe works. Until we know everything, we know nothing.

In that vein, it's no different than Religion. A system of things we THINK we know.

You make it sound as if they're all the same. You are WRONG.
OK. We don't know everything. But, here's the thing:
Science has moved on in the past few hundred years. Science doesn't say : "I KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT IS ABC." It says "to the best of our knowledge, based on what we see as valid empirical models, abc is the best explanation for whatever." I call that enlightened.

The sum of scientific knowledge we hold is infinitesimal. You are right. But science gives us a verifiable way to know the universe, as opposed to stories based on...what?

What's your better alternative? And how is it better?

 

[teknight]

I'm not trying to have it both ways. What I'm trying to do here is state my beliefs about religion...that it's a system of humanity that has the ability to help or harm. NOT JUST HARM.

If you disagree, go ahead and tell me why.

Also, note the bolded part. I'm being respectful of you, and I'd appreciate the same. You may disagree with me, but that doesn't excuse acting like a jerk.

The parts in bold. You accuse me of treating religion like the fat man of the internet. That's an accusation lacking respect. No, you didn't say it was me, but I fall in that unnamed group of fat man haters. I'm an automatic hater because I don't like what you like.

You were trying to have it both ways in your statement. You said religion was used to do good things (really? like what?), but religion has not done bad things. People have done bad things. Now, you've modified this in the italicized part. OK. I now have a better understanding of what you meant to say (as opposed to what you said.)

It's so easy to see when you're being insulted, but not when you're insulting others, huh? The you I'm using here is not satindesire, but a rhetorical device.
Mind you, this bit above applies to me as it does to you. I can tell when I feel insulted, but I don't have an easy time telling when my words will insult people. That's not to say I don't insult people on purpose, and I'm by no means saying that I never insult people.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm insulting you. I'm asking questions, you're assuming my tone. You're accusing me of being a jerk, but, you've not answered my questions. I'm sorry, but I disagree with this method of debating. Call me names, but offer a cogent counter argument. Or, take the moral high road, tell me you don't like being insulted, and offer a cogent counter argument.

Also, if you'll see my first reply to this post, I said that religion was misused by evil people. I don't disagree with you as much as you think.


ETA:
I disagree with the usage of religion for good v evil because of what I've said above: religion says XYZ is evil, making really ignorant decisions. The symbols don't match up, so xyz is bad. People act on those directions. A lot more act on them then on Jody Foster or other things.

 

[welkin]

A few hundred years ago, Science was POSITIVE that the earth was the center of the universe. Then we figured out that wasn't actually fact.

Hmm, was it the scientists or the church who persecuted people for proposing ideas other than the geocentric model?

Science isn't infallible, but at least its followers are willing to acknowledge that.

 

[eastern sun]

OK.
What good has religion done? Lay it out.

I have witnessed a large number of people who use religion as the foundation for a productive, compassionate, thoughtful life of service to their community. I have watched a lot of people transform lives steeped in criminality, addiction, alcoholism and self-abuse through the introduction of spirituality and, for some, religious beliefs. I have participated in and witnessed effective social safety nets that were created and administered by religious groups, often using government money .

I also know that religion has been used as a tool of oppression, hate-mongering, and disenfranchisement.

How do I reconcile the two? I think religion is potentially helpful and potentially harmful. And it's what you do with it that matters.

Since you don't have your own viewpoint, can you tell us what the Lama's saying. Quotes would help, a synopsis would be second best.

I do have my own viewpoint. It's what I'm expressing. I mentioned the Dalai Lama's book in order to point to the most recent influence in my thinking. I encourage you to read the book if you are really interested in his perspective.

What's the alternative that beats this "science" (why the quotation marks?)

Personally, I think the scientific method is a very good tool. What science hasn't yet resolved - as I understand it - is the role of the questioner - the observer - in the method. I think that's a really interesting question, for precisely the reasons we're arguing. Can we ever be truly objective in our observations? Can we ever fully know all the variables that contribute to an event?

At some point, we take it on faith that this thing we're seeking is knowable.

So I guess I think that there is a form of knowledge available that derives from a combination of scientific and religious (or in my terms spiritual) understanding. Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly can't prove it's efficacy outside of my own experience. Which sort of gets to the meat of the problem.

(I used the quotation marks, because I began to realize that we weren't all using the word "science" to mean the same thing. Some people seemed to be referring to the scientific method; some seemed to be referring to the proven body of knowledge; and some people seemed to be referring to the material universe itself. I used the quotation marks to narrow the term to my particular definition.)

What makes a good decision? Nail it down, will you?
How does science prevent us from making good decisions?

I'm not sure I know what a universally "good" decision is. But since you've challenged me, I'll try.

A good decision is founded on an accurate assessment of the impact it will have.

Science wouldn't prevent us from making a good decision. It might be very valuable in that process. But it also might give the illusion of accurately assessing the impact by looking at a limited set of variables and give people faith in its viability when the full scope of the situation is unknowable.

And how do we determine the morality of our decisions? I'm curious how science alone would guarantee that we make good decisions.

It seems like a balanced mix of science and religion is more beneficial. But that's just my opinion.

What are you saying?
Science is just one more human belief system, so, obviously, it has little merit, since it can't stand out from all the other ways of knowledge. You're saying progress is evil since it's outpaced our "morals."

Sorry, but progress has been keeping us on our toes at least since we discovered/invented fire. Surely fire transgressed the morals of primitive man, I mean, it was idolized and deified. You don't do that to just anything. Weirdly enough, we seem to have faced the onslaught of fire on morals and ethics quite well.

Why do you hate progress?

Here's the crux of our problem, teknight. I never said it had little merit. That's an assumption you're making. Our human belief systems are of great merit. That's why we need to view them so critically. All of them.

I don't hate progress. And I don't think progress is evil. I just don't think we, as a species, have progressed as much as we claim we have. We have incredible tools at our disposal, and we're still using them in the same old ways.

I think our technological progress has outstripped our spiritual progress as a species. And it wouldn't hurt us at all if intelligent people would grab the horns of morality, spirituality and religion and wrestle with it to find out what it really is.

 

[welkin]

It makes me incredibly sad and disappointed to see Religion as the Fat Gay of the internet. It's cool to make fun of it. It's TRENDY to claim to hate it. It's funny to poke fun at it.

Now you're making an assumption about others' motive.

It's not funny to poke fun at religion. In these types of arguments, the religion being targeted and examples of "evil" given is usually Christianity. If it's really trendy to hate religion, do you not wonder why Christianity is singled out?

As far as I know, in the US, I don't see atheists or Buddhists for example trying to impose their way of living on others. The most devout Buddhists are vegetarian, but you don't see them lobbying for government to pass laws to prevent non-Buddhists from eating meat. On the other hand, you have Christian fanatics trying to define what marriage should be and should not be for others.

Honestly, if those Christians would keep to themselves and practice whatever the Bible says in their own homes, I think at least I personally would be a lot less irked by "religion" in general. What I don't see doesn't bother me.

 

[teknight]

I have witnessed a large number of people who use religion as the foundation for a productive, compassionate, thoughtful life of service to their community. I have watched a lot of people transform lives steeped in criminality, addiction, alcoholism and self-abuse through the introduction of spirituality and, for some, religious beliefs. I have participated in and witnessed effective social safety nets that were created and administered by religious groups, often using government money .

I also know that religion has been used as a tool of oppression, hate-mongering, and disenfranchisement.

How do I reconcile the two? I think religion is potentially helpful and potentially harmful. And it's what you do with it that matters.

OK. Fine. I can accept this (the positive part) as religion's role for good.

I do have my own viewpoint. It's what I'm expressing. I mentioned the Dalai Lama's book in order to point to the most recent influence in my thinking. I encourage you to read the book if you are really interested in his perspective.

Do you drive a Dodge too?

Personally, I think the scientific method is a very good tool. What science hasn't yet resolved - as I understand it - is the role of the questioner - the observer - in the method. I think that's a really interesting question, for precisely the reasons we're arguing. Can we ever be truly objective in our observations? Can we ever fully know all the variables that contribute to an event?

But, mind you, science takes precautions to isolate the observer from what's observed. We understand that interaction, and can control for it, if only by such simple things as switching observers. If the effect changes as well, then, well, the observer's a variable.

At some point, we take it on faith that this thing we're seeking is knowable.

Vague statement, to which I'll reply as vaguely:
We take it on faith it's not knowable. So?

So I guess I think that there is a form of knowledge available that derives from a combination of scientific and religious (or in my terms spiritual) understanding. Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly can't prove it's efficacy outside of my own experience. Which sort of gets to the meat of the problem.

?

(I used the quotation marks, because I began to realize that we weren't all using the word "science" to mean the same thing. Some people seemed to be referring to the scientific method; some seemed to be referring to the proven body of knowledge; and some people seemed to be referring to the material universe itself. I used the quotation marks to narrow the term to my particular definition.)

Thanks for the explanation.

I'm not sure I know what a universally "good" decision is. But since you've challenged me, I'll try.

A good decision is founded on an accurate assessment of the impact it will have.

Science wouldn't prevent us from making a good decision. It might be very valuable in that process. But it also might give the illusion of accurately assessing the impact by looking at a limited set of variables and give people faith in its viability when the full scope of the situation is unknowable.

So, (my words) science is bad because it might fuck up...systematically?
What's the alternative? Guessing blindly, without considering any variables?

And how do we determine the morality of our decisions? I'm curious how science alone would guarantee that we make good decisions.

It seems like a balanced mix of science and religion is more beneficial. But that's just my opinion.

So, without religion, we're amoral? We don't know good and evil if we don't listen to preachers, holy men (and, let's be serious, they have to be men )
Religion is the sole gatekeeper for morality, while science is an amoral quagmire?
Have you ever pondered that the controls, methods and techniques applied to the practical matter of science ( the experiments, tests, etc) are there to ensure the results aren't biased, and thus, unethical?

Here's the crux of our problem, teknight. I never said it had little merit. That's an assumption you're making. Our human belief systems are of great merit. That's why we need to view them so critically. All of them.

I don't hate progress. And I don't think progress is evil. I just don't think we, as a species, have progressed as much as we claim we have. We have incredible tools at our disposal, and we're still using them in the same old ways.

I think our technological progress has outstripped our spiritual progress as a species. And it wouldn't hurt us at all if intelligent people would grab the horns of morality, spirituality and religion and wrestle with it to find out what it really is.

All of them have merit? Even the ones that say that XYZ should be killed because they're different? The ones that say that abc have fewer rights 'cause, they lack something?

What is this spiritual progress of which you speak? I'm fully ignorant of the progression of spirituality. Why must it progress? I thought that spirituality dealt with the absolute, thus making the need for progress obsolete, and downright dangerous, possibly. Please, explain this, as I'm fully ignorant on the subject matter.

Let me try this another way:
You're saying that human beings, some of whom are, for lack of a better word, evil, now have access to more ways to do harm.

Intelligent people aren't dealing with morality? Really? Those bastards!
How about if the stupid people (humanity minus the intelligent people) acted more morally? Or are they absolved of responsibility, 'cause they're dumb? Yes, yes, yes, I'm putting words in your mouth. But grant me that you're making it easy for me to do so.

 

[rida]

a) what's the unprovable principle behind science?
b) Regarding the emboldened part: I'm gonna expose my ignorance here and claim that I dunno what you're talking about. Where have theories and hypotheses (both? really?) been turned to dogma and subsequent policy? Can you give one example? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just can't think of any such case. I plead ignorance.

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

b) global warming.

I'm not going to discuss in favor or against it as a theory. I am referring to the fact that instead of being treated as a working theory to be tested and proved, it is now considered an universal truth and a scientist that wishes to rise an opposed voice, not only does not get funding for his research, he/she get shunned by the scientific community and risks loosing his/her job.

I have a scientific background. I'm an ecologist at heart. And I'm appalled at the lack of understanding of the scientific method shown by too many articles that claim to scientifically and "unquestionably" prove the truth of global warming.

The word "unquestionable" does not belong to science.

 

[teknight]

It makes me incredibly sad and disappointed to see Religion as the Fat Gay of the internet. It's cool to make fun of it. It's TRENDY to claim to hate it. It's funny to poke fun at it.

What's not cool is to be openly religious. "Your religion is the CAUSE OF XYZ EVIL. How dare you?!"

It makes me incredibly sad and disappointed to see signs like this:
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/raptureblog04.jpg
All around Toledo. The Apocalypse already happened in 2000. Was it so successful they're coming out with a sequel?

Now, see, I fully admit my sarcasm in this post. But it's still sad.

 

[rida]

It makes me incredibly sad and disappointed to see signs like this:
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/raptureblog04.jpg
All around Toledo. The Apocalypse already happened in 2000. Was it so successful they're coming out with a sequel?

Now, see, I fully admit my sarcasm in this post. But it's still sad.

They calculated it wrong, I saw it on TV the other night: the end of the world is coming March 21st 2020.

It is the end of both the Maya Calendar and the Indu Calendar (or something like that).

But then again I might personally be glowing in the dark before that ...

 

[teknight]

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

b) global warming.

I'm not going to discuss in favor or against it as a theory. I am referring to the fact that instead of being treated as a working theory to be tested and proved, it is now considered an universal truth and a scientist that wishes to rise an opposed voice, not only does not get funding for his research, he/she get shunned by the scientific community and risks loosing his/her job.

I have a scientific background. I'm an ecologist at heart. And I'm appalled at the lack of understanding of the scientific method shown by too many articles that claim to scientifically and "unquestionably" prove the truth of global warming.

The word "unquestionable" does not belong to science.

a) So...religious truth is axiomatic? Interesting that. If it were self evident, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as there would be no atheists...
What's more, and sorry for being so daft- what is the axiom behind science?
b) Well, you've called it a theory, so, it has some merit, or else it'd be a hypothesis.
But, you see, science doesn't hold all contenders as equal. That's why we've moved on to quantum physics from Newtonian physics. The best supported theory wins, for lack of a better word. However, I see your point. But, let me ask you this- are you familiar with their methods of analysis? Are you familiar with time series analysis? Are you familiar with (and pardon my bias) econometric studies? They're not empirical in the sense of being able to set them up in a lab, and run them 50 times over. We don't have 50 earths to run analyses on. But, I'm ignorant to your experience with science. And, whereas I can't speak for poor quality global warming studies, I can admit (from econ) that some studies do sound daft, and that there are assumptions made that I can't agree with. I have to suspend disbelief when reading some of this stuff.

 

[welkin]

I do see ES's point that as technology advances, new moral questions arise (cloning, stem cell research, genetic discrimination, etc.) and are still in hot debate.

What I don't see is the need to rely on religion or spirituality to find the answer. In fact, because of the myriad of religious and spiritual beliefs there are, seeking the answer from one religion may not necessarily satisfy the members of a different creed.

And furthermore, technological development outstripping spiritual (for me this just reads "moral") progress is the only way it can happen. It's impossible to contemplate and judge the morality of something before it comes into existence... How else would you have it done?

 

[teknight]

I do see ES's point that as technology advances, new moral questions arise (cloning, stem cell research, genetic discrimination, etc.) and are still in hot debate.

What I don't see is the need to rely on religion or spirituality to find the answer. In fact, because of the myriad of religious and spiritual beliefs there are, seeking the answer from one religion may not necessarily satisfy the members of a different creed.

And furthermore, technological development outstripping spiritual (for me this just reads "moral") progress is the only way it can happen. It's impossible to contemplate and judge the morality of something before it comes into existence... How else would you have it done?

OK. I can understand the point when it's presented like that- namely that new problems arise with new technology... and that some of them entail making moral decisions. OK. That I get.

Like you, though, I don't get the role of religion in all this. I think better by example anyway.

 

[eastern sun]

We take it on faith it's not knowable. So?

Are you actually agreeing with me that it's fundamentally an act of faith to determine that something is or is not knowable? I think that's a question worth debating.

You seemed confused by my statement that my inability to prove something beyond my own experience goes to the meat of the problem . . . . I was simply, and somewhat playfully, trying to point out the fundamental problem with issues of faith as it is expressed in individuals' experiences.

How can I argue against someone's experience of "god"? People have spiritual experiences that inform their lives, and all we can see is the potential effect it has on their behavior. We can't know the experience itself.

That's something that science hasn't been able to quantify, to my knowledge. But it is a frequently reported subjective experience.

So, (my words) science is bad because it might fuck up...systematically?
What's the alternative? Guessing blindly, without considering any variables?

I don't think science is bad. Those are your words. I do think we have faith sometimes that science is giving us accurate information when only a limited set of variables are being considered. And our acceptance of those findings is, in essence, an act of faith.

So, without religion, we're amoral? We don't know good and evil if we don't listen to preachers, holy men (and, let's be serious, they have to be men )
Religion is the sole gatekeeper for morality, while science is an amoral quagmire?
Have you ever pondered that the controls, methods and techniques applied to the practical matter of science ( the experiments, tests, etc) are there to ensure the results aren't biased, and thus, unethical?

Of course, I have pondered this. It's fundamental to scientific inquiry. I am simply suggesting that science, as practiced by humans, is not immune to human corruption, greed, ignorance and arrogance.

Are you suggesting that these controls and techniques are the methods by which morality is introduced to science?

Because I would counter that very immoral people could use those same techniques to justify their findings.

All of them have merit? Even the ones that say that XYZ should be killed because they're different? The ones that say that abc have fewer rights 'cause, they lack something?

What is this spiritual progress of which you speak? I'm fully ignorant of the progression of spirituality. Why must it progress? I thought that spirituality dealt with the absolute, thus making the need for progress obsolete, and downright dangerous, possibly. Please, explain this, as I'm fully ignorant on the subject matter.

Let me try this another way:
You're saying that human beings, some of whom are, for lack of a better word, evil, now have access to more ways to do harm.

Intelligent people aren't dealing with morality? Really? Those bastards!
How about if the stupid people (humanity minus the intelligent people) acted more morally? Or are they absolved of responsibility, 'cause they're dumb? Yes, yes, yes, I'm putting words in your mouth. But grant me that you're making it easy for me to do so.

What, in your opinion, is the absolute?

 

[teknight]

How can I argue against someone's experience of "god"? People have spiritual experiences that inform their lives, and all we can see is the potential effect it has on their behavior. We can't know the experience itself.

And yet they've stimulated people's brains with electrical impulses, and those people have felt "the touch of the divine"- question me on this, 'cause I have to find a source here.

That's something that science hasn't been able to quantify, to my knowledge. But it is a frequently reported subjective experience.

So, yay, the subjective wins over the objective? My words, my words, chill.

I don't think science is bad. Those are your words. I do think we have faith sometimes that science is giving us accurate information when only a limited set of variables are being considered. And our acceptance of those findings is, in essence, an act of faith.

OK. After all your check are done, you have to, at some point, act, and say "x is z." Are you proposing that we never act?
And, I'm sorry, the mere fact that you're calling it an act of faith, doesn't make it the same as an act of religious faith. Here's the difference:
In religion, you're told you have to believe. PERIOD. Honestly, if you were a hardliner, you should consider anyone questioning the divine/spiritual/pyl as an apostate. Belief is demanded for nothing in return.
Science backs itself up with facts and numbers, resulting in conclusion being made that are reasonable. Yes, it's an act of faith, but, it's a whole other animal.

Of course, I have pondered this. It's fundamental to scientific inquiry. I am simply suggesting that science, as practiced by humans, is not immune to human corruption, greed, ignorance and arrogance.

True. Very true. I'm not saying scientists are holy men above reproach, I'm not saying studies aren't flawed- but the questions are being asked, again, and again, and again. The lies do come out. The facts that don't fit are chucked out.

Are you suggesting that these controls and techniques are the methods by which morality is introduced to science?

Because I would counter that very immoral people could use those same techniques to justify their findings.

Not really...if you follow the rules- go double blind, have valid instruments, record the data accurately, etc, then, you could be as immoral as you want, your results will be accurate.

What, in your opinion, is the absolute?

That's easy. It's a concept that exists in the human mind alone. I can't pin it down.
Why does that matter?

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Disregard.

 

[rida]

a) So...religious truth is axiomatic? Interesting that. If it were self evident, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as there would be no atheists...
What's more, and sorry for being so daft- what is the axiom behind science?

I was using axioms in relations to science.

For religion we have the existence of God/Gods, that is of course at the foundation and the tenants of faith (such as trinity and the virgin birth to quote a couple from the Roman Catholic church.)

In the case of science, as in any logical construct, you need to start from axioms and postulates. I would say that the ultimate axioms and postulates are the one on which the language used to describe the physical world (mathematics, geometry, quantum mechanics and so forth)

The point that Esternsun rose about the the influence of the observer in any give scientific experiment is actually something that science has to deal with. And is part of the Uncertainty Principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

b) Well, you've called it a theory, so, it has some merit, or else it'd be a hypothesis.
But, you see, science doesn't hold all contenders as equal. That's why we've moved on to quantum physics from Newtonian physics. The best supported theory wins, for lack of a better word. However, I see your point. But, let me ask you this- are you familiar with their methods of analysis? Are you familiar with time series analysis? Are you familiar with (and pardon my bias) econometric studies? They're not empirical in the sense of being able to set them up in a lab, and run them 50 times over. We don't have 50 earths to run analyses on. But, I'm ignorant to your experience with science. And, whereas I can't speak for poor quality global warming studies, I can admit (from econ) that some studies do sound daft, and that there are assumptions made that I can't agree with. I have to suspend disbelief when reading some of this stuff.

My background is Astronomy. We do not set up stars in lab to make them evolve and see how it goes . And Hubby and a PhD in economics ... so yeah, I've heard all about those methods of analysis. Hence my/our distaste for the total lack of scientific method in many of the studies that are presented as the ultimate proof of the truth of global warming.

For the record, I'm using hypothesis and thesis without giving to the latter any validation, simply as:
Hypothesis - the starting point
Thesis - what we/they want to prove
So I call global warming a theory under the above definitions.

 

[satindesire]

The parts in bold. You accuse me of treating religion like the fat man of the internet. That's an accusation lacking respect. No, you didn't say it was me, but I fall in that unnamed group of fat man haters. I'm an automatic hater because I don't like what you like.

You were trying to have it both ways in your statement. You said religion was used to do good things (really? like what?),

How about this? http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf

This? https://secure2.convio.net/ftc/site/SPageServer?pagename=dotorg_homepage

How about a few more? http://www.jesussite.com/ministries/charitable.html

I really can't believe you're sitting here implying that religion has done absolutely NO GOOD for ANYONE EVER. Really? Really really?

Also, if you'll see my first reply to this post, I said that religion was misused by evil people. I don't disagree with you as much as you think.

So what are you arguing with me for?

OK. We don't know everything. But, here's the thing:
Science has moved on in the past few hundred years. Science doesn't say : "I KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT IS ABC." It says "to the best of our knowledge, based on what we see as valid empirical models, abc is the best explanation for whatever." I call that enlightened.

The sum of scientific knowledge we hold is infinitesimal. You are right. But science gives us a verifiable way to know the universe, as opposed to stories based on...what?

What's your better alternative? And how is it better?

I don't have a better alternative and I never said I did, did I? How are you coming to me saying I'm implying that science is bad and religion is the only method of looking at the universe? I don't even understand where you're coming from with this kind of stuff.

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Religion at it's core is a system of beliefs we hold in order to put some sort of meaning into our short exsistence...a set of rules to tell us how to better ourselves and be helpful to our fellow man. How is that bad? How is that evil?

At the beginning of human existence religion existed for the same reason science exsists today...to explain things that as human beings we are too limited to see. That ideal, that core ideal can't be evil.

When it's twisted by humans into an excuse to do evil, anything can be evil, EVEN SCIENCE...but I won't stop living my life by these choices just because some faceless person isn't following the same path as I am. And I simply WILL NOT be held accountable for sins I didn't commit.

Lumping religion into this broad-brush "bad bin" is as facelessly bias as religious fanatics get...yet I don't think you see how fanatical this idea you seem to have seems.

Yes, I am deeply disappointed that the Almighty Overall Religion has become the Fat Gay of the internet, because if we came into here and made a "Fat Vs Skinny Person" thread, we'd be chased out of the board. Yet it's totally okay to sit here and say things like "I hate Religion" in some kind of loosely or poorly defined rant based on some kind of boogey man that Big Bad Ole Religion has become. I have no idea where this kind of mindset comes from, but I find it deeply crushingly painful that people can make bad choices and become obese and no one's allowed to critisize them, but if you are openly Religious you're a bad person because of the bad choices OTHER people have made.

That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Ranting about hating religion is okay, it's cool and everyone's fine with it. It's become the last bastion, the last safe haven of hate on the internet.

Claiming that all religion is bad and all science has done is help people is nonsense.

Without science, we wouldn't have the nuclear bomb, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Without science, we wouldn't have biological warfare.

The events of Hiroshima alone were responsible for the deaths of between sixty and one hundred and forty thousand deaths. ONE BOMB.

Yet, religion gets painted at the bad guy responsible for so many deaths and chaos...and science gets painted as the good guy responsible for only great things.

No...I don't have a better alternative for either. Like I said, either can be used for great good and great evil, depending on the person wielding it. I'm not going to sit here and say that I have all the answers or I'm better than anyone else, and I'm not stupid enough to think I know everything...but what I do know is that having such a hard-line stance on ANYTHING on this planet, trying to make something BLACK or WHITE...isn't doing anyone any favors.

 

[teknight]

I was using axioms in relations to science.

Yup. You were. My brain jumped from there to religion though. It's a bad brain. It goes places.

For religion we have the existence of God/Gods, that is of course at the foundation and the tenants of faith (such as trinity and the virgin birth to quote a couple from the Roman Catholic church.)

Yeah...but, again, those are not self evident...they become apparent after they're taught. At most, you might take sign x as a sign of the divine, but you won't take it as a sign of the catholic divine without having been exposed to Catholicism.

In the case of science, as in any logical construct, you need to start from axioms and postulates. I would say that the ultimate axioms and postulates are the one on which the language used to describe the physical world (mathematics, geometry, quantum mechanics and so forth)

So...?!

The point that Esternsun rose about the the influence of the observer in any give scientific experiment is actually something that science has to deal with. And is part of the Uncertainty Principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

We needn't go to quantum physics for that one. It applies to the social sciences as well, and tangibly. But it's not like we're benightedly ignoring the observer factor and plowing on with studies and experiments. I can't speak for how physics accounts for it, but I know that at the very least it is known to have an effect. Science isn't ignorant, despite the small number of variables it considers (for efficiency's sake).

My background is Astronomy. We do not set up stars in lab to make them evolve and see how it goes . And Hubby and a PhD in economics ... so yeah, I've heard all about those methods of analysis. Hence my/our distaste for the total lack of scientific method in many of the studies that are presented as the ultimate proof of the truth of global warming.

For the record, I'm using hypothesis and thesis without giving to the latter any validation, simply as:
Hypothesis - the starting point
Thesis - what we/they want to prove
So I call global warming a theory under the above definitions.

See? I honestly am not up to speed with the actual studies being done on global warming. What's more, knowing what I know from econ, I don't know that I could easily and correctly interpret those studies. Heck, I don't even know what constitutes a top peer reviewed journal in the field, so I'd take all comers as valid (well, ok, I could always backtrack citations... I'm guessing the better (known?) studies would get cited more often than the junk?...but the comparison would be time consuming.)
Sorry- the above is special pleading- I plead ignorance on the topic of global warming.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Are you actually agreeing with me that it's fundamentally an act of faith to determine that something is or is not knowable? I think that's a question worth debating.

I would call it a matter of judgment, really. You have to factor some things in; is this knowledge persueable, in view of what we already know? Is it worth persueing? Then you could call it knowable, at least untill you find yourself facing one more wall than you are willing to climb over. then, it's unknowable-- as far as you are concerned. Someone else might scale that wall.

You seemed confused by my statement that my inability to prove something beyond my own experience goes to the meat of the problem . . . . I was simply, and somewhat playfully, trying to point out the fundamental problem with issues of faith as it is expressed in individuals' experiences.

How can I argue against someone's experience of "god"? People have spiritual experiences that inform their lives, and all we can see is the potential effect it has on their behavior. We can't know the experience itself.

That's something that science hasn't been able to quantify, to my knowledge. But it is a frequently reported subjective experience.

Which is fine. If people want to experience god I'm all for it. BUT! if they then try to tell me that god exists for me as well-- and that therefore I had better behave in the ways that the god they experienced expects me too-- that's when I have a real problem with their subjective, unprovable, non-replicable experience.

I don't think science is bad. Those are your words. I do think we have faith sometimes that science is giving us accurate information when only a limited set of variables are being considered. And our acceptance of those findings is, in essence, an act of faith.

and faith is something that has been actively trained into us by generation after generation of church leaders. I have said this before, and will say it again; if we sent our children to science school on sundays instead of bible school, they would have learned not to take everything on faith, and the worst problems of public gullibility would be ameliorated.

Of course, I have pondered this. It's fundamental to scientific inquiry. I am simply suggesting that science, as practiced by humans, is not immune to human corruption, greed, ignorance and arrogance.

Unlike religion which has catered to greed ignorance and arrogance for millennia now. Science at least has tried to put peer review systems into place to minimise bad science by constantly exposing it to peer view.

Are you suggesting that these controls and techniques are the methods by which morality is introduced to science?

Because I would counter that very immoral people could use those same techniques to justify their findings.

science is a process of finding things out. It's only moral, if you will, perogative, is to find out things as accurately as possible, and when the most accurate findings present moral questions-- then we have moral questions to consider, and that part is most often taken right out of the hands of scince and placed in the political realm. And I have not seen anything particularly moral in the considerations of public policy makers lately-- they don't listen to scientists.

What, in your opinion, is the absolute?

What do you mean, the absolute? The absolute what?

 

[rida]

Not really...if you follow the rules- go double blind, have valid instruments, record the data accurately, etc, then, you could be as immoral as you want, your results will be accurate.

Accurate within a margin of error. Because there is always an error. And calculations magnifies them.*

And depending on what kind of experiment we are talking about, the ability to manipulate the data and make them say what you want is actually pretty amazing.

No, you can be really immoral when it comes to set up an experiment to prove your own agenda.

Especially if any opposing voice is silenced. Sounds familiar, right?

The only saving grace is that if you give it enough time, reality will show the truth.


* due to the amazing calculating power of our computers, I'm noticing that a lot of younger scientist have no idea that the act to manipulate data add errors, and that the magnitude of your error is not necessarily of the magnitude of the last digit of your number ...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Accurate within a margin of error. Because there is always an error. And calculations magnifies them.*

And depending on what kind of experiment we are talking about, the ability to manipulate the data and make them say what you want is actually pretty amazing.

No, you can be really immoral when it comes to set up an experiment to prove your own agenda.

Especially if any opposing voice is silenced. Sounds familiar, right?

The only saving grace is that if you give it enough time, reality will show the truth.


* due to the amazing calculating power of our computers, I'm noticing that a lot of younger scientist have no idea that the act to manipulate data add errors, and that the magnitude of your error is not necessarily of the magnitude of the last digit of your number ...

You see, that's what I think is happening right now, with religion. There has been enough time, and reality is showing the truth. The religious don't like this-- who would?

 

[satindesire]

You see, that's what I think is happening right now, with religion. There has been enough time, and reality is showing the truth. The religious don't like this-- who would?

I disagree.

I think it's wonderful that people now have total freedom of choice to believe whatever they want. Some people that are vested in religion in earthly ways, such as the lovely Pope who lives a life of luxury while his largest base of followers are poorer than church mice mind the pun, would hate having his bread and butter questioned. However, someone who thinks that freedom of choice is the best thing God ever gave to man (eh? I made another joke see? ) sees this newfound push to give everyone the ability to believe what they want WITHOUT being ostracized for it is wonderful. Normal religious people like myself, in my opinion, welcome this change.

 

[teknight]

How about this? http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf

This? https://secure2.convio.net/ftc/site/SPageServer?pagename=dotorg_homepage

How about a few more? http://www.jesussite.com/ministries/charitable.html

I really can't believe you're sitting here implying that religion has done absolutely NO GOOD for ANYONE EVER. Really? Really really?

You implied it. I'm gonna use your argument and say that PEOPLE have done good things, under the guise of religion. Religion as such has done NO GOOD. Hey, if it can't be blamed for anything, it can't get credit for anything. That seems fair to me.

So what are you arguing with me for?

I'm trying to figure out what you're saying...and harping on the specifics, 'cause they're written in front of me, easy to pick apart.

I don't have a better alternative and I never said I did, did I? How are you coming to me saying I'm implying that science is bad and religion is the only method of looking at the universe? I don't even understand where you're coming from with this kind of stuff.

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

I'm interpreting your words through my mind. Is that not allowed? Dumb question, ain't it?

Religion at it's core is a system of beliefs we hold in order to put some sort of meaning into our short exsistence...a set of rules to tell us how to better ourselves and be helpful to our fellow man. How is that bad? How is that evil?

Is it, though? Would I be a better man by being religious? Methinks not. Thinking being the key word there.

No, hold your horses. I'm not saying you're dumb for believing- I'm saying that religion requires a suspension of disbelief that I am unwilling to engage in.

At the beginning of human existence religion existed for the same reason science exists today...to explain things that as human beings we are too limited to see. That ideal, that core ideal can't be evil.

That's right. But, here we are, a long time later. We have a better way to figure stuff out than religion. We have a mechanism we can hold accountable, without invoking special pleading. I like that about science. You can take it to court.

When it's twisted by humans into an excuse to do evil, anything can be evil, EVEN SCIENCE...but I won't stop living my life by these choices just because some faceless person isn't following the same path as I am. And I simply WILL NOT be held accountable for sins I didn't commit.

Did I ask you to stop believing? I don't seem to recall. Why are you putting words in my mouth?*

*fuck, this is gonna become tedious.

Lumping religion into this broad-brush "bad bin" is as facelessly bias as religious fanatics get...yet I don't think you see how fanatical this idea you seem to have seems.

No. You've already proven that religion has NO EFFECT and that men are responsible for everything.

Yes, I am deeply disappointed that the Almighty Overall Religion has become the Fat Gay of the internet, because if we came into here and made a "Fat Vs Skinny Person" thread, we'd be chased out of the board. Yet it's totally okay to sit here and say things like "I hate Religion" in some kind of loosely or poorly defined rant based on some kind of boogey man that Big Bad Ole Religion has become. I have no idea where this kind of mindset comes from, but I find it deeply crushingly painful that people can make bad choices and become obese and no one's allowed to critisize them, but if you are openly Religious you're a bad person because of the bad choices OTHER people have made.

Ah, OK. You're not to blame for anything. I don't seem to recall saying that you were, though. But, your blamelessness... makes religion pure as snow? Methinks not.

That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Ranting about hating religion is okay, it's cool and everyone's fine with it. It's become the last bastion, the last safe haven of hate on the internet.

Hey, if you're not to blame for its mistakes, then what's your problem with it? Are you standing up for poor bullied religion?
Are you standing up to the people coming to my door to preach?
Are you standing up to the people that show up at my school, holding signs that cast me to hell?
Let me guess: You're not?
But poor little religion, which permeates everything to the point where I can't curse without referencing it and I can't sneeze without being impinged upon by it is OK?
Religion is the force and rhetoric behind a lot of hate, that you don't seem to be seeing. That's fine. You can't be all knowing, I get that.

Claiming that all religion is bad and all science has done is help people is nonsense.

You've already said religion has no effect whatsoever.

Without science, we wouldn't have the nuclear bomb, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Without science, we wouldn't have biological warfare.

I'll give you Hiroshima. You're wrong about bio warfare. In the middle ages, when they were sieging a city, they'd catapult dead bodies into said city to spread disease. Boom. Biological warfare.
Is that all that science has done? Oh, wait, it's not science's fault. PEOPLE are evil. Science is just ideas.

The events of Hiroshima alone were responsible for the deaths of between sixty and eighty thousand deaths. ONE BOMB.

Yet, religion gets painted at the bad guy responsible for so many deaths and chaos...and science gets painted as the good guy responsible for only great things.

No...I don't have a better alternative for either. Like I said, either can be used for great good and great evil, depending on the person wielding it. I'm not going to sit here and say that I have all the answers or I'm better than anyone else, and I'm not stupid enough to think I know everything...but what I do know is that having such a hard-line stance on ANYTHING on this planet, trying to make something BLACK or WHITE...isn't doing anyone any favors.

...especially the religious folks.

 

[satindesire]

You implied it. I'm gonna use your argument and say that PEOPLE have done good things, under the guise of religion. Religion as such has done NO GOOD. Hey, if it can't be blamed for anything, it can't get credit for anything. That seems fair to me.

...especially the religious folks.

Ah. I see now that the idea of cogent counter arguments went out the window a long time ago.

Carry on.