Science and Religion

[durentu]

people who say that they believe in god and that god exists are to be questioned. First be asking them where this god is.

If they point up to the sky, they are misinformed. If they point at themselves, then they are correct.

The reason for this is because the King James version of the bible made translation changes that were confusing. All the italicized words are to note translation changes, not* for emphasis. In the original script, jesus said that he is 'A god" not "THE god".

So there in lies the problems.

Furthermore, belief in anything is a sign of the weak minded and it's not loving at all no matter how it's dressed up. Belief requires that all the things that exist in the world fit this belief structure as a prerequisite. Faith, has no conditions what-so-ever. Belief and Faith are completely different things.

Where religion and science meet is this unconditional view of the world. To accept everything that is there. For religion, they rationalize it their way, and science rationalizes it their way. But, in the truest form, both religion and science have no conditions for which the world must meet.

Science is becoming the new religion because of all the books that have been successful in describing the universe, gains a mass that cannot be tampered with according to the administration. Newton was right, and to disprove him is heresy. Einstein disproved newton and is now the new king. to disprove him is heresy. etc.

But the true scientist is always prepared to burn all the scientific books if a discovery makes all that knowledge obsolete.

Both religious and scientific practitioner must be prepared to burn all the book they have some to rely on. Those who haven't prepared to do so are fanatics.

I should also point out that science is an abrahamic religious thing. Islam, judaism, christianity, catholicism etc etc etc. The reason why science is a western religious thing is because the religion holds the world view that the universe is an artifact. It was something that was created and thus only god has the knowledge to undo them. Eastern though doesn't hold this ideology and thus their growth in history have been different.

Western religion and science are the same. The sooner they realize this the better, but they are both increasingly becoming more insecure in modern times, ergo becoming ever more intolerant of opposing views.

Science and religion can learn a great deal from each other, but that's not happening in the west. The Dalai Lama is progressive and merging science and eastern religion together.

 

[Jack]

One need not believe in a philosophy in order to utilize it. A person may behave in a particular way devoid of the labels associated with that behavioral pattern. This does raise internal conflicts, but they may be ignored.

Also, many people think that science is metaphysically naturalistic in addition to be methodologically naturalistic (many of the people who don't think that are often also called creationists). If it is metaphysically naturalistic, then you could argue that you must actually adhere to this position in order to practice science. I think it is also possible to adhere to it without fully accepting it as long as one is willing to compartmentalize the issues surrounding it. If you don't accept metaphysical naturalism to some extent, it becomes difficult to test ideas scientifically because you technically do not have anything to test. By definition you cannot test what is not testable; you cannot naturally inquire into what is beyond nature.

I wouldn't say that the issues with whatever conflict between scientific philosophy and an individual's belief has to be ignored, I think a person can have a good reason for accepting or rejecting any particular philosophical assumption of that kind, or even have a valid reason for rejecting a particular scientific conclusion in the face of contrary experience, while still doing science well, following all the rules, etc.

I don't see what benefit science would have of making the leap from methodological naturalism to metaphysical naturalism... about 40% of the scientific community personally rejects metaphysical naturalism, as they are religious in some way, but see the reasoning behind the methodological naturalism in science. I think the creationists you are thinking of are the ID proponents who argue that methodological naturalism in science is limiting.

Also, I think the idea that the supernatural is 'by definition' untestable is simply a convenient way of avoiding conflict (for some) and/or discounting the supernatural (for others depending on their personal philosophical positions) without really getting dirty. Yes I grant we cannot observe the thing itself directly, but observing and experimenting indirectly has not stopped us in the past. I think we are building a wall where none exists as per the issue of testability.

 

[Faye]

I don't see what benefit science would have of making the leap from methodological naturalism to metaphysical naturalism...

To use a simplified example:

It is hard to test the gravity of an object if you believe that object is being pulled down by invisible ghosts.

You're not going to go looking for the natural cause to an event if you believe that the event has an unnatural and untestable source (i.e. God). It is more than just an excuse to avoid controversy; for thousands of years, humans have used God to fill in the gaps, and when things become very difficult, it is easy to continue to do so.

Unless someone wishes to search for evidence that directly contradicts what they believe, that is. And some do.

 

[Jack]

It is hard to test the gravity of an object if you believe that object is being pulled down by invisible ghosts.

Why? I don't see how the procedures would be any different for someone who believed that way.

Anyway, lets play with this, what say you have a situation wherein a certain event is unexplainable by natural causes, and has a direct, strong, correlation with something dealing with the supernatural. In such a situation, I see no reason to extend an indefinite promissory note by virtue of philosophy alone, other than a desire to hold a particular philosophy directly in the face of evidence, such a practice is a inhibitor of investigation. That can work in science, to some extent, because science is merely a methodology to inform our ideas, not a conclusion in itself. Once science starts pushing metaphysical naturalism, as opposed to methodological naturalism though, you've crossed the bridge between science, and philosophy, and begin to make claims about absolute, rather than provisional truth.