Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[AlpsStranger]

Take for example the electron. Surely you'd agree they exist,

Electrons were created by the Copernican Warlocks Guild to distract us from the godless agenda of the NWO.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's certainly the mainstream position of professional theologians, so there's certainly good arguments for it beyond wishful thinking.

And as an insider looking at it, the whole modern notion of hell seems surprisingly lacking in the bible. It certainly takes more from Dante and Milton then the new testament.

 

[Leoreth]

And as an insider looking at it, the whole modern notion of hell seems surprisingly lacking in the bible. It certainly takes more from Dante and Milton then the new testament.

This so much. Interestingly even bible literalists like this picture of hell too much to not drop it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You make good points about science being wrong, civ2. That's why you aren't reading this on a computer right now.

Ha. I know you said this as a reducto ad absurdum, but I'm totally not reading this on a computer right now.

Take for example the electron. Surely you'd agree they exist,

Correction, "take for example the electron, I agree that it exists."
All other electrons are illusory.

 

[_random_]

Religion relies on faith, which is the polar opposite of that system. Its incompatible. Faith requires presupposition. Even a liberal christian believes god exists and that god is good. They accept these things as fact first, without looking at the evidence or the arguments for/against. When confronted with things such as the "problem of evil" or the genocide in the bible, instead of looking at the evidence and coming up with the conclusion that the christian god is an awful spoiled brat, they instead argue things like "gods ways are above our own, who are we to question him? he is good!!!!" such an argument can only hold if you already believed god was good in the first place.

You do realize that Christians haven't been sticking fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalalala" since the time of Emperor Frederick II, right? The objections you raise have existed for a long time, and Christian philosophers have been creating arguments for why an omnibenvolent God could or does exist all the while.

Why do all these believers have faith? Typically they had religious parents or they were converted at a young age before they could think critically. They are scared to give up this faith, often times because of the resulting ostracism and shunning from former friends and family. Also, for religions like christianity, they are worried about burning in hell for eternity, which is not a pleasant prospect.

So we can declare things false just because some people believe them for stupid reasons?

 

[warpus]

So we can declare things false just because some people believe them for stupid reasons?

To be fair, people believing things for stupid reasons can be a red flag that the belief is in fact incorrect.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Science is a way of gaining knowledge by coming up with hypotheses and testing them. After being tested enough, they become theories, which can then be used to make predictions.

Agreed.

Religion relies on faith, which is the polar opposite of that system. Its incompatible.

Maybe the problem is the way incompatible is used. If you mean it's incompatible because you cannot draw scientific conclusions via religious reasoning and vice versa, then yeah, I agree. Obviously not. If that is what you're arguing I can see your point.

I took the meaning of the thread and the word incompatible as: can they exist without interference in society. In that regard I do believe religion and science can be compatible as long as they operate in their own habitat.

And sure there are plenty of examples of them straying outside it, and in those cases, sure, they clash.

Correction, "take for example the electron, I agree that it exists."
All other electrons are illusory.

There are no other electrons. There is one electron manifesting itself in lots of places.

So we can declare things false just because some people believe them for stupid reasons?

We can declare there is no reason to accept "things" exist when there is no evidence that implies they exist.

edit: I have to clarify. If by some spiritual experience someone believes something supernatural exists, they have reason to accept something to exist. If one is without that experience, they don't. And this goes back to religion and science staying within their own boundries, if someone has a religious experience they have reason to accept something to exist, but someone else hasn't, that person still doesn't have a reason. The process of passing on evidence by repeatable experiments is a scientific field. This is why I believe most proselytising misses the point when they try to convince people the God of their choice exists. Also the personal nature of religion means passing the religion on to others, even their children, or raising a kid to be religious makes no sense to me. I can of course understand the motivation behind it, but it just doesn't make sense.

 

[Berzerker]

there's a tribe down in New Guinea I think that changed their religion when a doctor showed them the microscopic critters causing disease, kinda like the cargo cults during WWII... When the "science" is strong the religion eventually changes enough to accommodate the new information...

 

[Masada]

Well, if Luther believes "faith" is enough, and that rationalism and empiricism are not needed, then he is admitting that faith is irrational and has no evidence to back it.

That's not the case. It's the kind of thinking we engage in all the time. For instance if I bought a new car I might choose not to get it checked over on the grounds that I have "faith" in the manufacturer. I might have no reason to suppose that this manufacturer is better than the others; heck, it might even be worse. But I think its better. Provided I don't go too far with the idea it isn't irrational in of itself; what would be irrational would be to check all the goods before one purchases them. (More on this below).

you might as well have faith in any of the thousands of other gods and deities that humans have invented, if you can't use reason or empirical evidence to determine which one is real.

Except Luther and most people at the time thought one could indeed know God through reason. The Catholic Church still thinks one can for the record; as do most mainstream Protestants denominations. The belief was so pervasive that people as a general didn't think to check out the claim; much as people didn't think to check whether it was a good product (idea) to begin with. Kind of like how people didn't think to check if the Chevie Corvair was prone to going ass up at all speeds because that's not what Chevie's or cars usually do. It would have been irrational, on balance, to have checked a car out to see if it did that before one bought it. Much the same as it would have been strange to question whether or not God could be known through reason. That's the context that the quote needs to be placed in. (I'd accept that it would be more irrational to have reviewed the literature before using the quote; but now that I've pointed it out I think it fair to say that continuing to use it like a blunt hammer would be a failure of critical thinking).

And this is why faith is a horrible thing, and causes people to commit great evil and atrocity. Not questioning and exercising critical thinking is fail.

Ehhh repeating a statement half heard in a class falls under this...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There are no other electrons. There is one electron manifesting itself in lots of places.

thats some kind of gibberology I suppose...

edit: I have to clarify. If by some spiritual experience someone believes something supernatural exists, they have reason to accept something to exist. If one is without that experience, they don't.

That is nice and clear. As former atheist I could have hardly accepted spirituality only on the base of someone else faith or emotional outburst or easily contradicted intelectual reasoning. Some kind of solid inner experience is realy necessary if one doesnt take religion and its faith as something only on the cultural/social level.

This is why I believe most proselytising misses the point when they try to convince people the God of their choice exists. Also the personal nature of religion means passing the religion on to others, even their children, or raising a kid to be religious makes no sense to me. I can of course understand the motivation behind it, but it just doesn't make sense.

I am quite strongly opposed to proselytising becouse it cannot convey anything meaningful of the subtle but solid higher nature which is the goal of spiritual progress. Again I can see its practical use as tool when organising large bodies of ignorant humanity.
When it comes to teaching children one should show them the best one knows but when they come out of age and are ready to choose for themself one should respect if they change with detachment and love which is at root of every meaningful teaching.

When the "science" is strong the religion eventually changes enough to accommodate the new information...

I like this view of a "play of assertive forces"...

 

[El_Machinae]

I should point to the FTL neutrino threads to show how the current 'faith' in science is so absolute. It really isn't. There's broad consensus in those threads. "Hmmn, that would violate what we know. That would be cool! It really needs to be independently replicationed! Honestly, I kinda hope we've found a hole in the Theory of Relativity, but I doubt it"

That, to the best of my knowledge, is well-trained scientific thinking. We want new theories. And we want good data.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

thats some kind of gibberology I suppose...

It's an existing hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

It's an existing hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

Wow! Cool! I wish I did that .....bet it felt good

 

[ParkCungHee]

To be fair, people believing things for stupid reasons can be a red flag that the belief is in fact incorrect.

No it's not. If anything, it's the opposite. When large number of people believe things for stupid reasons, it tends to indicate there's a true statement that isn't properly understood.
Large numbers of people have stupid reasons for believing you'd die if you step out of a space shuttle, doesn't mean it's a red flag.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's an existing hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

Wow, as a Platonist, I don't know how to feel about this.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Maybe a little context will help

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html

As a by-product of this same view, I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron!" And, then he explained on the telephone, "suppose that the world lines which we were ordinarily considering before in time and space - instead of only going up in time were a tremendous knot, and then, when we cut through the knot, by the plane corresponding to a fixed time, we would see many, many world lines and that would represent many electrons, except for one thing. If in one section this is an ordinary electron world line, in the section in which it reversed itself and is coming back from the future we have the wrong sign to the proper time - to the proper four velocities - and that's equivalent to changing the sign of the charge, and, therefore, that part of a path would act like a positron." "But, Professor", I said, "there aren't as many positrons as electrons." "Well, maybe they are hidden in the protons or something", he said. I did not take the idea that all the electrons were the same one from him as seriously as I took the observation that positrons could simply be represented as electrons going from the future to the past in a back section of their world lines. That, I stole!

Simple really.

 

[Tarquelne]

Wow, as a Platonist, I don't know how to feel about this.

Would it help to know that the electon's name is Elizabeth, and that it's a Libra?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Would it help to know that the electon's name is Elizabeth, and that it's a Libra?

What about me? I feel little Platonist too.

 

[warpus]

No it's not. If anything, it's the opposite. When large number of people believe things for stupid reasons, it tends to indicate there's a true statement that isn't properly understood.

That's a fallacy though - things aren't true because large numbers of people believe that they are. The number of people believing something has no impact on the truthiness of it.

Now, if you come across something that people believe for a stupid reason, the only thing that tells you is that it could be true.. or it could be false.. and that the reason given for believing it is bs. It's a red flag to sit down and figure out if it's actually true or not (if possible), cause you really have no idea.

Large numbers of people have stupid reasons for believing you'd die if you step out of a space shuttle, doesn't mean it's a red flag.

I don't understand your example. What stupid reason do people have for believing that you'll die if you step out of a space shuttle? I'm pretty sure most people realize exactly why that is a bad idea. Nobody thinks that space crocodiles are going to eat you.

 

[Leoreth]

The number of people believing something has no impact on the truthiness of it.

Actually, that's the very definition of Truthiness

Truthiness doesn't imply truth, though.