Conflicting Science Vs. Religion - PSP3D.com - Sony PlayStation Portable News, Homebrew, Hacks, Reviews, Videos, Mods, Forums

theaceoffire · #1 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 11:17 AM

Science and Religion.

Both have holes, gaps, and other flaws.

Science attempts to fill these holes with guesses, theories, and so forth, and tests these attempts with trial and error when possible, faith/hope when not. The strange and bizarre are searched for with glee as a chance to test something new.

Religion by it's very nature is desired by many, and it is human nature to fear the unknown. Not only does this mean that it must explain everything, but none of the explanations can be challenged, for if a theory is debated, we are back to the unknown which we ran from to begin with.

This is the true reason that the two conflict: Science is the admition that we do not know everything, which is horrifying to Religion.

This is why it is less difficult to be a Religious Scientist rather than to be a Scientifically Religious person. A Religious Scientist takes Religion, using the Bible as a theory, and attempts to test and prove its existence/validity. A Scientifically Religious Person on the other hand, takes the Bible as fact, and attempts to fill in the gaps using the Bible. Scientific Religion also has a second flaw: It is difficult to test theories if your background discourages questions.

So most scientists have the option to be religious, but most religious people have a difficult time being scientific.

Now for an aside:
1. I have no numbers to justify Most, few, or many.
2. I am not saying there are NO scientifically religious people, just that it is difficult.

^_^ Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest. Too many people think that just because you are a scientist you must be an atheist, and that just because you enjoy questions that you are evil.

Anywho, I would love to hear any thoughts on this, along with any Scientifically Religious People who frequent this site...

DANO 69 · #2 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 12:00 PM

i guess it deppends wah religion u are in some way im a catholic hu goes 2 mass evry sunday vry borin but anyway lol 2 some scientists tings mentiond in da bible are imposible but i beleive da god created all!

theaceoffire · #3 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 12:15 PM

"I guess it depends what religion you are in some way... I am a catholic who goes to mass every Sunday (very boring), but anyway... Heh. True, some scientific things mentioned in the bible are impossible, but I believe that God created all!"

True, I am sure there exists SEVERAL religions that go against the points I made above, but the major ones such as Christianity, Muslim, Hinduism, Judaism, and so forth... They shun new interpretations and cling to older ideas/ideals.

O.o and on a side note, I am annoyed at what Church has become... It used to be a time for praising God, but now it is a mandatory role call for gathering money for church Goals.

>.< If you believe in God, (Or some other deity), you should be praising EVERY day, not just on one randomly assigned day of the week that *happens* to be off from work.

O.o course, I suppose I am in the smaller opinion group on that one, but what can ya do.

DANO 69 · #4 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 12:45 PM

wel i aint 2 pushd bou all da science conflicts but if sum1 came up 2 me and cald me a fool 4 beleivin it all id loaf dem haha

jcoolkatzerg · #5 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 01:20 PM

Science is not a religion, and religion is not science. Both are independant and seporate from each other. But that does not mean they cannot co-exist together. Science is the search for understanding of the world around us through observation, prediction, and re-observation (Sorry, Aceoffire, not faith/hope here). Religion, on the other hand, is the refinement of one's soul (or whatever you want to call it) through morals.

For something to be called 'science,' it must be (borrowed from Wikipedia):

Consistent (internally and externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

Because morals are none of these things, they are outside the area of science. Religion is biult around the idea of faith in a moral code.

I have noticed, however, that many people who belive in thier code, yet do not adhere to it themselves. While driving down the freeway, I get cut off left and right (It's Los Angeles, after all) and I have lost count how many times it has been someone with a Cristian bumper sticker or a Jesus fish. So much for "love thy nieghbor." Going to church doesn't automaticly make you a better person, it's how you choose to live you life. </rant>

Quote:

Originally Posted by DANO 69

i guess it deppends wah religion u are in some way im a catholic hu goes 2 mass evry sunday vry borin but anyway lol 2 some scientists tings mentiond in da bible are imposible but i beleive da god created all!

Here is something I though you'd find interesting:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Paul II

"The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer".

In summary, science and the Roman Catholic Chruch do not conflict in any way according to the last three Popes.

dq9 · #6 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 01:44 PM

I didn't read any of the other posts mind you.

I believe in science, but I still believe in my relegion.

theaceoffire · #7 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 06:43 PM

"(Sorry, TheAceOfFire, not faith/hope here)" - Explain String Theory without faith. It is an untestable theory.

"Religion, on the other hand, is the refinement of one's soul (or whatever you want to call it) through morals." A refinement, or a redefinition? This seems to not be self evident.

"For something to be called 'science,' it must be (borrowed from Wikipedia): {list follows}"
O.o what is your point? I never said morals were scientifically based.
Are you claiming that morals:
1. Are not useful?
2. Are not based on observations? You were born knowing them?
3. Can not be corrected? (No one's morals change?)
4. Are not Progressive? (You don't base your new morals on your old ones?)
5. Are not Provisional? (Oh come on now, look up "Situational Ethics")

"Because morals are none of these things, they are outside the area of science." I believe you are wrong. Morals have 5 of the 8 items on the list, which suggest that half of the time morals CAN undergo a scientific analysis. ^_~.

"I have noticed, however, that many people who believe in thier code, yet do not adhere to it themselves." ~ Aka hypocrites.

Here is something I though you'd find interesting: ~ Seems like he was bending over backwards to keep his powerbase from leaving.

The church has a BIG problem: All there followers and doctrines come from the past, no new ideas are allowed. The church has consistently and brutally killed or attempted to silence any and all advancement of knowledge that challenged its power.

Even Scientology tries to kill ideas that they are wrong, a group who's name seems to imply that they encourage Science of all things.

O.o Wow, I am so biased here. Ah well, I am sure I didn't hide it very well to begin with.

Callapidae · #8 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 07:41 PM

I honestly hate what religion has become. People have got so caught up in obeying the 'rules' and 'laws' I guess you could say, of there religion that they have forgoten what religion really is, which is pretty much peace, hope and empathy.

jcoolkatzerg · #9 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 08:06 PM

"(Sorry, TheAceOfFire, not faith/hope here)" - Explain String Theory without faith. It is an untestable theory.
True, most of it is untestable now. But the parts that have been tested point to the rest as being true. However, I still belive that this "theory" is still just a hypothesis, and I understand the math behind it all! Heck, I even wrote a research paper on it! I can see how you may interpret this as faith, but faith implies a belief that something can only be true. Science, on the other had, is the belief that something is true untill it is false. I definetly beleve that this hypothesis needs far more development before I put any faith in it

.

"Religion, on the other hand, is the refinement of one's soul (or whatever you want to call it) through morals." A refinement, or a redefinition? This seems to not be self evident.
A great point. I'd even go on to say that it's more of a subjective definition of the soul.

"For something to be called 'science,' it must be (borrowed from Wikipedia): {list follows}"
O.o what is your point? I never said morals were scientifically based.
Are you claiming that morals:
1. Are not useful?
2. Are not based on observations? You were born knowing them?
3. Can not be corrected? (No one's morals change?)
4. Are not Progressive? (You don't base your new morals on your old ones?)
5. Are not Provisional? (Oh come on now, look up "Situational Ethics")
No, at that point I was going on a rave about Intellegent Design's clam that it was a science (A so-called faith-based science). My browser seemed to have left that part out

. My appologies.

"Because morals are none of these things, they are outside the area of science." I believe you are wrong. Morals have 5 of the 8 items on the list, which suggest that half of the time morals CAN undergo a scientific analysis. ^_~.
This was also left out. I posted that science can not test morals. It is true, we can analyse them, but they are subjective because they vary between cultures and there is more then one correct answer. I then breifly listed a few things about objectivity and how moral codes are not those.
Science can study them, see how they affect people, and can even contribute back. But the one thing it can't do is define a theory that will discribe everyone because of our individuality. Approximation is the best that will be ever possible.

"I have noticed, however, that many people who believe in thier code, yet do not adhere to it themselves." ~ Aka hypocrites.
Agreed

Here is something I though you'd find interesting: ~ Seems like he was bending over backwards to keep his powerbase from leaving.

The church has a BIG problem: All there followers and doctrines come from the past, no new ideas are allowed. The church has consistently and brutally killed or attempted to silence any and all advancement of knowledge that challenged its power.
I partly agree with you here. There has been a shift over the last 400 years in the church. They have gone from prosicuting Copernicus and Galileo to accepting all theory, even Darwin and friends. In a sence, I think the Catholic Church is (forgive the pun) evolving. But it's not just them. Buddist, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, and almost every other group I can think of has begun to accept the changes in our world. The only exceptions are the usual fundimentalists that are in every group and the Evangelical churches here in the U.S. (I know not all of them are this way, forgive me for generalising here).

Even Scientology tries to kill ideas that they are wrong, a group who's name seems to imply that they encourage Science of all things.
LOL!! I am not even going to go there. I have a whole rant about their teachings and their name. Alien souls? ¡Ay, dios mío!

O.o Wow, I am so biased here. Ah well, I am sure I didn't hide it very well to begin with.
Hey, don't worry about it! I am too. Personaly, I enjoy having these friendly debates. Though, PSP3D is kind of an odd place for one

.

theaceoffire · #10 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 09:20 PM

They have gone from prosicuting Copernicus and Galileo to accepting all theory, even Darwin and friends. In a sence, I think the Catholic Church is (forgive the pun) evolving. But it's not just them. Buddist, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, and almost every other group I can think of has begun to accept the changes in our world. The only exceptions are the usual fundimentalists that are in every group and the Evangelical churches here in the U.S. (I know not all of them are this way, forgive me for generalising here).

I would not mind as much if it didn't feel like a hollow evolution... As if they are covering themselves with as many patches as possible to avoid starting over.

^_^ Imagine if the Pope (The leader of the Catholic faith, direct speaker for God (If your Catholic) actually spoke AS god's word, and redid the text? Clarified all issues? Man that could get messy.

(Oh, quick rant: How come pedophiles in the Catholic church who lead the faith get shifted and relocated, but heterosexual married couples who lead the faith get excommunicated for marrying? Marriage was only forbidden in the catholic church in the first place because the children were claiming that they owned the churches land, implying that Marriage of the church's leaders was originally a political decision)