39 replies to this topic

[Phoenix Wright]

As far as I can tell, the only way that the history of evolution would provide practical dividends for us is inspiration for genetic coding for certain characteristics. Mostly, we'd be focusing on studying modern day genotypes and phenotypes for clues as to how to code for advantageous genes - I'm no expert in agricultural sciences, but the few modifications I've read about that they made to crops were inspired from modern genes, though not always of the same species as the plant being modified. If creationists deny genetics like they deny evolution, then that's a practical concern.

This is truly the only use you see in understanding evolution?

If someone feels the urge to pursue knowledge of the history of evolution in the American Bible Belt, then I suspect they wouldn't want to stay there to pursue it anyway. And if they don't, I don't particularly care about inculcating them with that urge.

Evolution is merely an example. The point is raising scientific literacy. And, of course, the techniques that we should use to do that.

How does astrology stunt the growth of knowledge in astronomy or astrophysics? Unless you would argue that they have the time, the capabilities, and the finances to achieve learning in any area and advance that body of knowledge if only they would discard the more erroneous models and assumptions, and that there are enough resources poured into the facilities for study of the stars to handle a larger influx of students, there's no positive utility to be gained from them if they stopped believing in astrology (assuming they really do). And their incorrect beliefs don't interfere with those who want to know the truth from finding it.

It doesn't. I said the fact that people hold it in higher regard does. Astrology by itself is not important. An opinion that astrology is valid, however, is harmful to growth in general. Because, you know, people matter.

It also furthers the idea that people are willing to accept things without evidence as long as it makes them feel good.

My point is that people seem to find a use in worship and in belief, and also people in power probably find a use in having people believe, so it's rather short-sighted to say that religion has been useless. Maybe in your life, it's been useless. That's not the same thing as saying it's useless.

Judaism (as I remember it) actually spends a fairly small amount of time attempting to explain the how of the universe, so I don't see how it's really (perhaps only) a failed science...and not so much of the why either, it doesn't say anything about why god wanted to create the universe that I remember. It's more like the what, what you should do according to a being that claims superiority. And also what your story is as a member of the Jewish people - fabricated or not. Who the important people are, and when they were around, where they lived. I would say that religion has obviously failed a lot on the grounds of telling people what they should do, but it's also succeeded a lot, and morality isn't really something that science attempts to supply in the place of religion - because it can't. Morality is too subjective.

So I think that whoever said that religion is failed science is making an ignorant generalization, one that hinders knowledge and opposes progress in understanding since you seem to have taken it up. I wonder if I should lie and say I'm an atheist to convince him that he's wrong?

Your point is valid, but it was not a part of the discussion that was raised. The "spiritual" satisfaction does nothing to advance knowledge. Using religion as a way to control people does the opposite.

Religion is useful in that it was a stepping stone to achieve something better at acquiring knowledge. Something that not only aids in gaining knowledge, but shows us why it's correct. And I'm not ruling out the possibility that science itself may merely be a stepping stone to something better either.

As an example, it is sort of like how philosophy use to be the closest we got to physics. Philosophy is no longer used to obtain knowledge on that subject. Is it useless? In that sense, yes. In every other sense, no. Not at all. Religion is just the same. It has its uses for some people, and I'm fine with that.

The claim that it is a failed science only applies to the technique we use to obtain knowledge. It is not meant to claim that it is better to use as a moral compass, it's more spiritual, et cetera. It is merely better at helping us obtain knowledge.

That's obviously not true. For one thing, if you think evolution has any grounds, you believe that progression existed prior to the formulation of theory. Even within the context of theory, progression occurs by accident, incidental to theory. Progression also occurs in the absence of theory, in the past even sometimes unaware of an existing theory (less so now), a kind of divergent progression (I don't know if this ever occurred in the natural sciences, but it has occurred). It surely occurs when theory is supplemented and further strengthened.

Haha, sorry! Let me explain: in the world of science, to challenge a theory (until we obtain theories that hold up to scrutiny) is the only thing that helps science to progress. In reality, for those outside of the fields of science (like you or I, I assume), progression occurs in a multitude of ways. Sorry about that.

Scientific progression is very new in terms of the history of life, so there's absolutely no logical way I could state that progress only occurs when theories are challenged. Progression has occurred for nearly one hundred thousand years before science existed.

Religion is a perfect attempt at science; science, is a perfect attempt at religion. They are the same thing. And both worked pretty accurately for the longest times, until people abused the pursuit of "All" and moved towards making them more cultural facets, such as didactic rulership--until the pursuit of understanding became transformed into a method of power and powerless.

It sounds like your Sam is aiming at the body of the hostage, not the thing which took it hostage.

They are the same thing in the sense that they both have been used to pursue knowledge. Other than that, they are fundamentally different. That is why religion is seen as the stepping stone.

What route would you like to have seen these take? It seems to me that it was only natural that these methods of understanding became intertwined within our culture enough to used it as means of power.

[Aere]

The whole basis of religion is faith, rather than proof. Because one can't prove if God exists or if he doesn't, a believer doesn't even have to open his doors to listen to the formulas or thought-and-proved equations that science involves. Both science and religion are just means to an end, and the most of the questions starting with "Why?" or "How?" could be determined by one or the other.

[SlayerX]

The whole basis of religion is faith, rather than proof. Because one can't prove if God exists or if he doesn't, a believer doesn't even have to open his doors to listen to the formulas or thought-and-proved equations that science involves. Both science and religion are just means to an end, and the most of the questions starting with "Why?" or "How?" could be determined by one or the other.

Not necessarily because said why/how questions which are answered by religion sometimes don't make much sense and can easily be proven false.

[Celice]

What route would you like to have seen these take? It seems to me that it was only natural that these methods of understanding became intertwined within our culture enough to used it as means of power.

The route they were taking was pretty dandy. Each worked together to explain what this Existence thing is. And they modified one another as time went on. At some point, people began to weaponize the two, and see them as aiming cannons at the homes of each's own innocents. Sure, there are incompetent faithful--science and religion both have that. As does politics. As does philosophy. People are pretty fucking stupid and gullible a lot of the time about everything. It's just become a bit more accessible to fall under science as a shield as it has more objective purpose. But that still doesn't make it any better, as

The whole basis of religion is faith, rather than proof.

isn't quite true. Science itself takes an ounce of faith for it to hold any real importance. Fairly, we don't have any way to really know what science says it true. We can see it is repeatable, and otherwise confirmable, but this in no way makes it a valid interpretation of existence. As the joke goes, "Induction is impossible." We cooperate with assumptions and temporary solutions. It's pretty much the best we can handle. And that's exactly what religion was and is. I think far too many people attach their definition of religion to the institution of Christianity. These are not the same things.

Religion explained that how stars are helpful for finding your way home, and so has scientific evaluation. And both came to the conclusion pretty much the same way, through rational and critical insight and understanding of the world around them. Religion just had the nice habit of bringing accompanying stories to pass on the knowledge, just as folktales and oral epics had functioned to.

[Aere]

Not necessarily because said why/how questions which are answered by religion sometimes don't make much sense and can easily be proven false.

They don't have to be proven. As I said, it's religion, and covering a hole with a thin sheet of paper is better than leaving it open. That is, until somebody stumbles along into that hole when that sheet of paper proves to be inadequate and misleading.

isn't quite true. Science itself takes an ounce of faith for it to hold any real importance. Fairly, we don't have any way to really know what science says it true. We can see it is repeatable, and otherwise confirmable, but this in no way makes it a valid interpretation of existence. As the joke goes, "Induction is impossible." We cooperate with assumptions and temporary solutions. It's pretty much the best we can handle. And that's exactly what religion was and is. I think far too many people attach their definition of religion to the institution of Christianity. These are not the same things.

Religion explained that how stars are helpful for finding your way home, and so has scientific evaluation. And both came to the conclusion pretty much the same way, through rational and critical insight and understanding of the world around them. Religion just had the nice habit of bringing accompanying stories to pass on the knowledge, just as folktales and oral epics had functioned to.

There are things in life that we, as non-omnipotent humans have to take in as fact. Gravity, maths, etc. because saying such laws (yes, laws) aren't true because there could be some all-powerful God just messing with us is just a fallacy (I want to say strawman, but I'm not sure if it's applicable here...).

Science provides some realistic backup and attempts to find the method behind the madness. With religion, there is no need to find a method. It's an unsatisfying answer to anybody who is truly looking for one. While religion may have seemed perfectly rational and logical at the time, it's pretty clear (for example) the Earth is not some-6000 years old and carbon dating is completely unreliable. As of now, science makes a much better argument, and therefore wins. This may change in the future as more is discovered, but as we know now, it's the best we have. Religion is slightly outdated in comparison.

EDIT:: I know you said Christianity isn't the be-all, end-all of religions, but it's the easiest to argue against because it is spread across the world. But, "seeing is believing" can be used against any religion with a creator-figure. I see a rock drop off a 100m cliff into the water in a handful of seconds, and it happens again and again, it is safe to believe that it will generally happen.

Edited by Aere, 18 January 2012 - 05:18 PM.

[Celice]

There are things in life that we, as non-omnipotent humans have to take in as fact. Gravity, maths, etc

Ah, but there are cases in which we can validate and make sense of things in the entirely wrong way, just like getting one quarter of a Sudoku board correct, yet fucking up all the rest. The ability to soundly and thoroughly document and test something doesn't necessarily make something true--it only shows that under repeated circumstances, things will likely, repeat.

Things like gravity and mathematical probing work very well, when they function under the objects we scrutinize. But simply because right now, at this moment, on this planet, out in the expanse of blankness, something seems to work, doesn't mean it's necessarily true. It only means that at that moment, under specific circumstance, there is support for causation to occur, for something to appear constant, dependable, and "real."

EDIT: like you said about the rock, a perfect example: under specific circumstances which apply to us right now, it's a safe assumption. That doesn't in any way mean that's how things really work. If we were eternally restricted to a field of existence that completely contained in an ever-turning plane, to the point that we no longer felt the force of gravity, it doesn't suddenly mean that the force isn't real. It only means that for our current senses and technology, we haven't detected anything.

Science provides some realistic backup and attempts to find the method behind the madness. With religion,

Religious groups have equally tried to dissect existence and give reason to it, and often their results weren't far off from scientific findings. "Common sense" (that is, rational, critical evaluation and understanding) tends to create an able image of what's happening in the world. At times it may not be the most clearest, leaving speculation as to the "how" exactly works, but science deals with this as well. Both have attempted to construct as large a picture as possible, explaining in believable circumstance, everything that has come to be, is to be, and will be to be. And where introspection and exploration is limited, by both science and religion, the only thing we can really do is suppose turtles must be holding up the world, all the way into turtle-finity.

While religion may have seemed perfectly rational and logical at the time, it's pretty clear (for example) the Earth is not some-6000 years old and carbon dating is completely unreliable.

Well, perhaps you shouldn't selectively look at the blatantly stupid beliefs? Selecting the one Christian popular view isn't representative of religion as an entirety.

Edited by Celice, 18 January 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[Aere]

But simply because right now, at this moment, on this planet, out in the expanse of blankness, something seems to work, doesn't mean it's necessarily true. It only means that at that moment, under specific circumstance, there is support for causation to occur, for something to appear constant, dependable, and "real."

I agree wholeheartedly with this. But, doesn't it make more sense to believe in something that has the higher probability of occurring, and is relatively rational? Even if proof is only relative to our state of observation, it makes much more sense to agree with that proof than questioning something that cannot be answered. There is, at this time, no way of knowing whether or not any God, or Gods, or intergalactic Turtles exist. We cannot observe such, and therefore cannot respond to it.

However, in our plane of knowledge, we can see gravity is holding the Earth in its orbit, and laws that revolve around such give a logical and reasonable explanation for many questions. If we looked further, and somehow found that it really WAS a turtle carrying the earth, science would be forced to readjust its position. Religion could simply say "No, because that Turtle is not God" and leave it at that. The map science constructs is made up as it is discovered, while religion's map could be like comparing a 14th century European map to one of today. Assuming the map we have today is accurate, of course.

[dondon151]

Ah, but there are cases in which we can validate and make sense of things in the entirely wrong way, just like getting one quarter of a Sudoku board correct, yet fucking up all the rest. The ability to soundly and thoroughly document and test something doesn't necessarily make something true--it only shows that under repeated circumstances, things will likely, repeat.

Dear Serisu,

You are making it sound like science is purely glorified guesswork. Perhaps you have trouble distinguishing between rational explanation and irrational explanation; whatever the case, you are really selling short the rigor under which scientific analysis must be scrutinized.

Things like gravity and mathematical probing work very well, when they function under the objects we scrutinize. But simply because right now, at this moment, on this planet, out in the expanse of blankness, something seems to work, doesn't mean it's necessarily true. It only means that at that moment, under specific circumstance, there is support for causation to occur, for something to appear constant, dependable, and "real."

This is the dumbest thing that I've ever read. Have you ever performed a scientific experiment before? There are parameters called controls. We can only determine things to happen within a certainty of testable controls. Obviously it's not currently possible to send a guy to the edge of the universe and see if the laws of gravitation and electromagnetism hold true there, but that's completely irrelevant. As far as science goes, it's "true until proven otherwise," not "irrevocably true," which is a far superior standard of rigor compared to any religious metric (except for like, deism, but that's basically just science with a god standing outside of the window).

What you're doing right now is exactly using religion to argue against science. You may not be invoking the name of a divine figure, but you're trying to deny the validity of science by asserting hypotheses that are untestable and possess no supporting evidence. It's extremely disturbing how often dissenters use this train of logic to validate religion, because it shows a lack of understanding of science at its very core.

Edited by dondon151, 19 January 2012 - 03:42 AM.

[Lord Raven]

But simply because right now, at this moment, on this planet, out in the expanse of blankness, something seems to work, doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

I'm tempted to go the "are you stupid?" route but dondon covered it. I don't think "are you stupid" is right, more like "you are clueless."

Logically, if a phenomena is happening in our planet, then why the hell wouldn't something like gravity happen on another planet? The laws of physics do not vary by planet, and I can't fathom any sort of reason why someone like yourself (who clearly isn't versed in science at all, based on your responses) would even act like they have a clue about what the fuck goes on everywhere in the universe. Especially considering that introductory university physics and/or high school physics is actually just a really accurate approximation that applies to what goes on in our everyday life, and therefore cater to a more specific background than you'd think. Perhaps that is one portion of this misunderstanding, but...

A scientific theory goes a much longer way than you seem to think, and most theories in physics have been experimentally backed up after the math crunching- there are still untested theoretical physics out there that we've yet the means to properly test, either way, but the point is that there's no way in fuck you can say that the general concepts of physics as we've measured on earth *may* not be consistent with other planets while having any bit of clue what you are talking about.

This isn't anywhere near Sudoku; the fact is that you can derive many things mathematically in physics and much of the derivations that were tested were confirmed experimentally, either before or after the derivation. And it's going to keep going like that. They're not hoping that their guess is correct, they're wondering if the next step is significant, which is without a doubt a lot better.

You have no clue what you are talking about and I advise you stop now. Science has proven itself experimentally, and all doubt of it is bred from lack of understanding.

Edited by Mercenary Raven, 19 January 2012 - 04:55 AM.

[Celice]

You are making it sound like science is purely glorified guesswork.

If it comes across this way, please, ask for clarification! I'm talking about the limitation of scientific pursuits, which, at their stretch, regress back into a matter of faith, because of the inability to actaully know whether something is true. We can only witness it, and accept that, for the time being, this is how the cards play out.

This goes on the answer the rest of your post: it's not about questioning whether the method works, and using that questioning to invalidate science. It's about recognizing that as far as scientific unraveling goes, it only unravels so far, and beyond this final point, we can't see. We're limited by the space we have, and as such, can only believe that which occurs in this limitation is, in someway, objectively real.

Logically, if a phenomena is happening in our planet, then why the hell wouldn't something like gravity happen on another planet? The laws of physics do not vary by planet, and I can't fathom any sort of reason why someone like yourself (who clearly isn't versed in science at all, based on your responses) would even act like they have a clue about what the fuck goes on everywhere in the universe. Especially considering that introductory university physics and/or high school physics is actually just a really accurate approximation that applies to what goes on in our everyday life, and therefore cater to a more specific background than you'd think. Perhaps that is one portion of this misunderstanding, but...

And again, I am not disqualifing the foundation of science and what it discovers about our world. What I am saying is that at the end of it all, it all regresses back into an absolute state of believing. But I mean, it pretty much comes out of your example: if something is happening on this planet, why shouldn't it happen else where? There's numerous reasons why it shouldn't, and why it should--and our explanations are only possible by that which we can detect. Beyond that, into the impossibly real, mere conjecture and speculation exists. And both science and religion attempt to dignify, extract, and inspect our "everything."

I think you need to step back from the linear scope you've fell into, when responding to my post. When I said planet, I wasn't saying that the Earth is supernaturally special, and that planets are able to be excluded on whim from phsyical laws. I am saying the laws can appear to apply, and that's the extent of it. We can build on our findings and see across the entire universe, and see things which seem to match what we first thought, that which applies here, and from that, blahblahlbah--find cohesive, brilliant understanding, which seems to apply throughout the universe. Wherever you got the suggestion of I was against this, unrobe it.

I can't really reply to most of your text because you've somehow tangled targets at my knowledge of science (which, you've made an ugly assumption over, rather than actually discovering--I am here to explain after all! assumptions are unnecessary :) ), rather than what I was saying. But hopefully this somehow clears the discussion a little for you.

I hope somehow you weren't building your replies based on what the previous two posters said. I can see how you can get a slanted view by first reading the replies :/

I agree wholeheartedly with this. But, doesn't it make more sense to believe in something that has the higher probability of occurring, and is relatively rational?

I think it is more helpful in terms of exisiting within our exitential environment, to work with all this junk around us and use it to the best of our advantage, whatever that may come to be, yes. And naturally, things which appear to be most sound in theory and explicit material tend to be the more obvious beliefs to rely upon.

Even if proof is only relative to our state of observation, it makes much more sense to agree with that proof than questioning something that cannot be answered.

Rather, it's questioning whether that proof is an absolute proof, or only the best that we've been able to realize. Always keeping this in mind is quite... I don't think important is the word, as that suggests an intrinsic meaning. I put it this way: one can observe how flowers and birds/insects seem to attract one another, and then speculate, with all faculties available, rationally, critically, and objectively obeservable, how this connection occurs. One of the first suggestions would be the color of the flowers. The scent, too, could matter. The shape. Location. Some could suppose little green Gods wire into the brains of the birds, that This flower, I'm going for this flower (Berkeley liked this idea, I forget the years of his life though, for reference). In all of these cases, we're trying to understand the phenomena, basic existing, through our sense and rational insight. But if don't have the means to speculate on that which we cannot observe, we tend to miss potential explanations, such as the discovery that many flowers reflect patterns when shown under UV light. I don't study the interactions between flowers and birds and insects, but it seems possible that anyone who speculate that phantasmal designs on the flower would be the thing which actaully causes the attraction would be sharply rebutteled, simply because it was something so unreal and beyond-detection that it could be deemed as mere-fantasy. Yet, we've now the means to see these ghostly images, and bring into the picture of understanding our existence how these UV-receptive designs could be related to how the three forms of life interact with one another.

The faith comes from relying on what we've discovered to be true. Luckily, fire is something we've come to understand as being bad for our fingers--but, not always will it harm the finger. There's circumstances in which it won't--being open to the possibility of these circumstances is a key feature to understanding. Beliving absolutely that fire is as fire was, harmful, is just... small.

However, in our plane of knowledge, we can see gravity is holding the Earth in its orbit, and laws that revolve around such give a logical and reasonable explanation for many questions. If we looked further, and somehow found that it really WAS a turtle carrying the earth, science would be forced to readjust its position. Religion could simply say "No, because that Turtle is not God" and leave it at that. The map science constructs is made up as it is discovered, while religion's map could be like comparing a 14th century European map to one of today.

Hey, science has tried to say new findings were radically wrong. People get attached to making sense of things. If something comes along that puts your idea of understanding in jeopardy, sometimes people react defensively, trying to call these new things simple radicals that conform in some way that has yet to be understood--"God intended it"--or else call the idea mere story-telling (as with the UV example). As I said, and believe, being willing to adress the problem at its absolute limits--not at the limits of your current understanding--is something that is... I think necessary, to understanding.

Assuming the map we have today is accurate, of course.

It's about being willing to engage that assumption, and always build on top of it. Numerous religions have engaged in this willingess as well, if you just sit and study cultures and their mythologies. Each are prone to arrogant, irrational stubbornism as well. One need be very careful of generalizing, lest you come out with a skewed perception of what something is (science or religion, in this case).

[dondon151]

If it comes across this way, please, ask for clarification! I'm talking about the limitation of scientific pursuits, which, at their stretch, regress back into a matter of faith, because of the inability to actaully know whether something is true. We can only witness it, and accept that, for the time being, this is how the cards play out.

No, actually, this is entirely incorrect. There is no rigor in pure faith. A scientist does not just "accept how the cards play out;" he tries to figure out why the cards play out in that way, and then tries to use that knowledge to figure out how other cards play. Now I suppose one can qualify belief in logic as some sort of faith, but that is a fallacy of oversimplification.

ITT Serisu doesn't know what he's talking about

[Lord Raven]

And again, I am not disqualifing the foundation of science and what it discovers about our world. What I am saying is that at the end of it all, it all regresses back into an absolute state of believing. But I mean, it pretty much comes out of your example: if something is happening on this planet, why shouldn't it happen else where?

It's not believing when it's been shown repeatedly that our theories agree with the experiments.

There's numerous reasons why it shouldn't, and why it should--and our explanations are only possible by that which we can detect. Beyond that, into the impossibly real, mere conjecture and speculation exists. And both science and religion attempt to dignify, extract, and inspect our "everything."

Except I am not referring to specific phenomena. Once again, specific phenomena occur in our planet; science explains these specific things by a more general statement that, once you bring in the relevant controls into said statement, then you see how they apply in our planet. *That's* what I'm getting at. And all of that has been experimentally verified. Religion has absolutely no such backing.

I hope somehow you weren't building your replies based on what the previous two posters said. I can see how you can get a slanted view by first reading the replies :/

I can guarantee you I wasn't. That specific statement rubbed me completely in the wrong way and it made it somewhat clear

[SlayerX]

They don't have to be proven. As I said, it's religion, and covering a hole with a thin sheet of paper is better than leaving it open. That is, until somebody stumbles along into that hole when that sheet of paper proves to be inadequate and misleading.

I don't see why thats the case. There are always things that will be unknown. But i find that better than having a false idea of something, or just making something up on the spot. Even if that means i might go crazy just looking for an answer. Thats perhaps the biggest reason i don't find religion a suitable answer. A paper thin cover is no good for a hole. All it does is allow you to fall into said hole because that paper is too weak to sustain your weight.

Edited by SlayerX, 19 January 2012 - 06:06 PM.

[Celice]

No, actually, this is entirely incorrect. There is no rigor in pure faith. A scientist does not just "accept how the cards play out;" he tries to figure out why the cards play out in that way, and then tries to use that knowledge to figure out how other cards play. Now I suppose one can qualify belief in logic as some sort of faith, but that is a fallacy of oversimplification.

ITT Serisu doesn't know what he's talking about

I'm still not talking about the process of science, or what science does. In fact, I've actually said "he tries to figure out why the cards play out in that way, and then tries to use that knowledge to figure out how other cards play" through my other post, so whatever you're trying to clarify or contrast... is more reiteration.

:/

It's not believing when it's been shown repeatedly that our theories agree with the experiments.

It's still believing. One of the definitions of the word is as "Any cognitive content held as true." Unless you're seeing belief as something else entirely...? A machination of religion, perhaps?

Except I am not referring to specific phenomena. Once again, specific phenomena occur in our planet; science explains these specific things by a more general statement that, once you bring in the relevant controls into said statement, then you see how they apply in our planet. *That's* what I'm getting at. And all of that has been experimentally verified. Religion has absolutely no such backing.

While I admire your willingness to say it, I don't think anyone yet has disagreed.

That specific statement rubbed me completely in the wrong way and it made it somewhat clear

You made it very clear. It essentially bore through your conversation like a raging serpent I was more worried that you let it predict the course of your response, rather than actual reflection.

There are always things that will be unknown. But i find that better than having a false idea of something, or just making something up on the spot.

Pretty much this

Edited by Celice, 19 January 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[Lord Raven]

It's still believing. One of the definitions of the word is as "Any cognitive content held as true." Unless you're seeing belief as something else entirely...? A machination of religion, perhaps?

My interpretation of "belief" implies a certain sort of uncertainty. I'm not turning this into a semantics war, but science is an absolution, not belief. Essentially, science can be trusted to be fact, whereas and anything else (along the lines of religion) is fact in the eye of the beholder.

Edited by Mercenary Raven, 19 January 2012 - 06:25 PM.

[dondon151]

I'm still not talking about the process of science, or what science does. In fact, I've actually said "he tries to figure out why the cards play out in that way, and then tries to use that knowledge to figure out how other cards play" through my other post, so whatever you're trying to clarify or contrast... is more reiteration.

No, but you are likening science to religion, which is, once more, an oversimplification that obscures the difference between religion and science. A nun is a woman, and a whore is a woman, but that's where the similarities end.

It's still believing. One of the definitions of the word is as "Any cognitive content held as true." Unless you're seeing belief as something else entirely...? A machination of religion, perhaps?

No, it's not just "believing." It's logic vs. the lack of logic.

[Aere]

I don't see why thats the case. There are always things that will be unknown. But i find that better than having a false idea of something, or just making something up on the spot. Even if that means i might go crazy just looking for an answer. Thats perhaps the biggest reason i don't find religion a suitable answer. A paper thin cover is no good for a hole. All it does is allow you to fall into said hole because that paper is too weak to sustain your weight.

Religion is the paper. If somebody happens to come across the paper, it would be the best for them to remove it and cover or fill the hole with something more substantial. Otherwise, anybody who tries to step on that patch of land will be in for a nasty shock.

[SlayerX]

Religion is the paper. If somebody happens to come across the paper, it would be the best for them to remove it and cover or fill the hole with something more substantial. Otherwise, anybody who tries to step on that patch of land will be in for a nasty shock.

Except the problem occurs when people think the paper is the most suitable thing to cover the hole with. Also, your analogy is making a picture in my head which actually goes against your point. Its like the traps team rocket made to make ash fall into a hole. The covered it with grass and twigs. That isn't the best thing to do, you know, it just fools people to think the ground around them is stable. The best course of action is to leave the hole open and find an actual solution to the problem, not covering it with weak grounds.

Edited by SlayerX, 19 January 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[Aere]

Except the problem occurs when people think the paper is the most suitable thing to cover the hole with. Also, your analogy is making a picture in my head which actually goes against your point. Its like the traps team rocket made to make ash fall into a hole. The covered it with grass and twigs. That isn't the best thing to do, you know, it just fools people to think the ground around them is stable. The best course of action is to leave the hole open and find an actual solution to the problem, not covering it with weak grounds.

EXACTLY. Which is why religion is not the optimal choice here! I think you completely missed the point haha

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Looking at former great theist scientists, they always had that perspective that science was God's way of putting order to the world, and they sought to discover what God had created. No problem there. The result is the same, the perspective is different. I'm not sure why people would have a problem with it. Science and religion do not need to be exclusive.

I both agree and disagree at the same time.

While getting a degree in science (and hell, even in high school), I noticed the more religious students trying to come to terms between science and religion. Practically all of the time, they all come to the same conclusion -- that religion is "why" things are and science is "how" things are; once you take this stance, everything falls into place, and both the theist and non-theist scientist work together nicely.

However, they NEED to be exclusive. HOW and WHY are two entirely different questions, and you can't mix them together, and theist scientists can sometimes muddle the distinction; a perfect example of this is creationism, which tries to make science bend to their interpretation of how species evolve -- honestly, if the Bible never existed, the idea of creationism wouldn't have nearly the appeal it does now (which isn't even that much, but still), simply because any evidence supporting it is slim and flimsy compared to evolution.

That's not to say theist scientists are incapable of getting past bias or being as fully capable as non-theists. The most recent famous example I can think of is Einstein, who was a major contributor in the development of quantum mechanics, despite his serious personal grudge against the field; he famously stated that "God does not play dice", a reference to the role that probablilities play in determining the location of matter (which is considered to be unfixed and entirely "random", for lack of a more suitable word atm). On a side note, I find it ironic that this concept is a weird exception to most theories/laws in science, which give exact predictions based on starting conditions -- quantum mechanics is probably a haven for theists to claim the possibility of an existence of the "hand of God" (similar arguments can be made for the existence of free will).

In short, @ OP:
While I may not agree with being deceitful like that, the perspective he convinces people to take is probably extremely productive -- people should be open to science, whether or not they are religious, and if he can do that without offending the party he is trying to convince, that's good. It's entirely possible that the creationists he talks to would be far less likely to view his message with an open mind if they thought he was attacking their view of the universe rather than coming from a similar perspective as themselves.