Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[civ2]

@IO
OK.
At least someone understands me.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're missing one very important fact about science: it works. Science makes testable predictions, such as "force depends on mass and acceleration", and we test them, and they work. Science hasn't made a testable prediction about everything yet, as not everything is yet testable. But all confirmed science (Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, to some extent relativity, quantum mechanics) works.

Indeed. And when science encounters an unknown, it's honest about it. Dark matter for instance is nothing less than an admission, we don't know .... yet. And those railing against science when it conflicts with their worldview, embrace the exact same method in about every part of their everyday life. They differentiate between real and made up science, but can't identify that difference beyond: I don't like these results, so that's bad science.

Science is a method. Not the conclusions of that method.

 

[civ2]

Zig
Aha, tell that to the horde of anti-theists that claim, that evolution disproves G-d.
I've met a load of them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Evolution does not disprove God or gods, the science of evolution has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God or gods. Science hardly ever ventures into god territory.

The issue is that people with untestable convictions run into scientific theories based upon evidence which are incompatible with their convictions. Like people who have no idea about what science says about the Big Bang, and how much of that is based on evidence and extrapolation. Or the science that describes the era of the dinosaurs.

 

[Lillefix]

Zig
Aha, tell that to the horde of anti-theists that claim, that evolution disproves G-d.
I've met a load of them.

I suspect they rather claim that evolution disproves certain things in the bible, and therefore disproves the Jewish and Christian god(or at least how he is described in the bible). Not gods in general. Even Dawkins admit that.

 

[civ2]

Zig
The last sentence is heavily subverted by the constant claim of loads of atheists, that G-d doesn't have "scientific proof".
If what you said WAS true, life would be much easier for ALL...

Lillefix
Aha, I disprove the police, the judges, the attorney, the jury...
But there is still JUSTICE - I never said anything against it!
(<= Irony/sarcasm.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@ Lillefix, Indeed. It's neigh impossible to disprove God. But it is very possible to disprove a God which has loads of characteristics which can be tested and falsified.

edit: But civ, God does not have scientific proof. I just said science doesn't dabble into the unprovable and the undefined.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

@ Lillefix, Indeed. It's neigh impossible to disprove God. But it is very possible to disprove a God which has loads of characteristics which can be tested and falsified.

what are such characteristics?

 

[civ2]

Zig
Meaning, you contradict yourself by claiming that science SHOULDN'T even DEMAND "scientific proof" from something that is beyond it, and then saying that there isn't such proof.
Another sarcasm:
I'm not against blacks, but I'd shoot one, if he comes at my sight distance.
The A contradicts the B.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

what are such characteristics?

Specifically, not a characteristic of a god, but rather claims of it's actions. Like creating the Earth 6000 years ago. This is tested and that claim has been proven wrong.

It's hard to get believers to specify God itself, so it's also kind of hard to test that which is undefined. It's always it's actions and motivations that are described.

Zig
Meaning, you contradict yourself by claiming that science SHOULDN'T even DEMAND "scientific proof" from something that is beyond it, and then saying that there isn't such proof.

Not a contradiction. Not what I said. I said science doesn't engage in the unprovable and untestable. Science only demands that it's method is followed. It's not an entity that can demand scientific proof.

I'm not against blacks, but I'd shoot one, if he comes at my sight distance.
The A contradicts the B.

Worst analogy ever. You know, just thinking of two contradicting statements doesn't make any point.

Heliocentrism was wrong, Gallileo was right, therefore I'm right. See how that also doesn't work?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Specifically, not a characteristic of a god, but rather claims of it's actions. Like creating the Earth 6000 years ago. This is tested and that claim has been proven wrong.

It doesn't say when he created the world. And where is the evidence to back up your claims.

also here's an article for you:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c026.html

 

[civ2]

Zig
Oh, my...
1. Since when 6000 years ago is TESTABLE/PROVED?
Did YOU invent a time machine, so that Doc could go Back in Time, to see what ACTUALLY happened?
I really hate "scientific ignorance" of what constitutes a TESTABLE scientific thing, and what not.
2. So does G-d is demanded to be scientifically proven, or not?
Cause your very sentence starts with one claim and ends with another.
3. Welcome to the age of Doc Albert E.!
ANYTHING-centrism is but a MATHEMATICAL model, to calculate real objects' movement.
NOTHING is "orbiting" ANYTHING.
EVERYTHING is just moving RELATIVELY to EVERYTHING else.
I could say, that my pinky was the center of the universe - and I'd be RIGHT! Relatively.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

@Celtic: I'm not going to turn this into a creationism 'debate', but thanks for illustrating an example where religious convictions render themselves incompatible with.science.

Christian answers indeed.

Civ, sorry to hear you still don't understand me.

 

[civ2]

Zig
So make it clearer then...
What exactly I don't understand now?

Celt
Jurassic Park... is REAL???

 

[Lillefix]

Zig
So make it clearer then...
What exactly I don't understand now?

Celt
Jurassic Park... is REAL???

Carbon dating and a dozen other dating methods proves beyond a shadow of doubt that certain things are older than 6000 years. How would you respond to that specific statement?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Zig
So make it clearer then...

Ok, I'll try.

What exactly I don't understand now?

What SCIENCE is.

 

[civ2]

Lil
All of them get different results, to begin with.
Also, there's no proof, that these methods are effective for extrapolating such long time periods.
We have no way to know, so why assume it as a proved fact?
Leave it as a GUESS (whatever nice), don't claim it's the KNOWLEDGE (which it's NOT).

 

[civ2]

Zig
No, I do.
There's real science, that is what we CAN use.
And also fake science, that is only used to deny religion, no other practical use.
Name me one practical implementation of the idea of Big Bang or big-scale evolution.
Not of their preceding source ideas (like, adaptation does work, still no proof for dinos), of THEMSELVES.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Carbon dating and a dozen other dating methods proves beyond a shadow of doubt that certain things are older than 6000 years. How would you respond to that specific statement?

Well, radiometric dating in case of dinosaur bones.

Zig
No, I do.

No, you REALLY don't

Allow me to demonstrate:

There's real science, that is what we CAN use.
And also fake science, that is only used to deny religion, no other practical use.

I have more EVIDENCE that you don't, if you're interested

Name me one practical implementation of the idea of Big Bang or big-scale evolution.
Not of their preceding source ideas (like, adaptation does work, still no proof for dinos), of THEMSELVES.

Any QUESTIONS?

 

[fishjie]

And those railing against science when it conflicts with their worldview, embrace the exact same method in about every part of their everyday life. They differentiate between real and made up science, but can't identify that difference beyond: I don't like these results, so that's bad science.

So true. Science is the very antithesis of religion, as summarized by this succinct pic:

And arguing that science cannot explain x,y, z therefore "GOD EXISTS!!!" is a god of the gaps argument. just because we do not know the cause of x, y, or z does not mean that saying it happened by magic (which is what the god of the gaps argument is) adds no value. we might never know some things, but that is not evidence of a god. furthmore, it is not evidence for a specific instance of god, such as the christian god. those specific gods that are clearly defined are provably false. earth is not 6000 years old, there was never a global flood, etc etc, therefore the bible is full of lies and the christian religion is fail.