Religion vs Science

[rousseau]

Religion resolves our psychological discomfort over uncertainty, while technology actually solves uncertainty materially.

Science does resolve some material uncertainties, but for me, religions only aggravate them. There is a point of "spirituality" and wonder that emerges from rigorous scientific study. But the tenets of religions routinely conflict with that rigor, destroying the efficacy of both.

YMMV, and I accept that... reluctantly.

You won't get any argument from me, there. I'm more in the anthropologist, over the 'save the world' boat. I'm more interested in understanding what's happening than promoting any particular mode of being or ideology.

In my view religion and technology are two parallel currents that are just happening. They appear to be in conflict because science provides better, but scarier, explanations. God created this sounds a lot better to many than the scientific results we've found.

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and

epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".[1]

The term scientism is often used critically, implying an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards.

Lets try and compare science and religion.

Science is based on observation and experiment to separate objective fact from subjective opinion and feelings. Objective fact I that which can be demonstrated by anybody, and the fact does not change based on what or how you believe.

Its efficay is clearly demonstrated by the results. Combative peer criticism winnowing out ideas that do nor work.

Over the last 300 years science has gone through multiple rvisions.

Religion produces no tangible results, only subjective feelings and claims. Jesus talks to me. My prayer was answered. The saying philosophy bakes no bread applies to relgion.



It is clear how science derives a truth, such as aerodynaics used to design jets. It works. No faith or philoshy affects how the plane flies.

Religion has no interdependent reviewed process for claims. I can prove aerodynaics works, there is no experiment that proves religious faith. If so it would be scince….

For the theist, how do you derive truth, simply believing the bible as true? Hearing god and Jesus? A feeling that you are right?


We watch Christian politicians who ignore measurable climate chnage and invoke god for guidance.

Does a theist want to argue that reilgion is a way to derive facts about physical reality? That is the real question here.

Religion is about feelings. Not facts.

Scienticism is science reduced to being about feelings. It makes both science and religion look bad.

I think it's better to accept that there's going to be a lot of things science can't help us with. the meaning of life. How to have a good life. Should I have kids or not? Stuff like that.

 

[steve_bank]

From past experience on the forum I think that atheists aften miss the point that relgion is about feelings and emotions. It is nor t subject to physical scintfic reductionism and logic.

A recurring Star Trek theme was the logical Spock versus the emotional Doctor Macoy. Inbetween was Kik whi=o listend to bih logic and emotion deriving a solution to a problem.

Intuitive balance of opposites.

 

[Lion IRC]

For the theist, how do you derive truth...

The same way as everybody else.
Sensory evidence.

In science it is not personal sensory experience. It is instrumented measurements.

Trust me on this. Scientists (personally) rely on their senses to see/hear/feel those instruments.

Religious experience is not sensory, it is subjectve perceptions.

If someone sees a stone rolled away from the entrance of a tomb, do you think their eyes are playing tricks on them?

You do not seem to understand the question.

It's not a complicated question.
All evidence is derived from the senses.
We're not born with evidence.

how do you dervive factual knowledge of physical reality?

Let me repeat.
The same way as everybody else.
Sensory evidence.

Your use of scientism as a pejortive is cognitve disonance. Your life is based on the products of 'scientism'.

Where did I use the word scientism?
I think you're confusing me with someone else.

 

[Lion IRC]

I prefer repeatable observations.

How do you get repeatable evidence of an event which only happened once?

How do you get repeatable evidence for an event you can't control? The Big Bang. Whether or not yesterday actually happened.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If someone sees a stone rolled away from the entrance of a tomb, do you think their eyes are playing tricks on them?

If the story is told to you 4 times, and in only one version did the "witnesses" (quotes because the story is not told in first person) say they saw the stone being moved -- preceded by an earthquake and a worker angel, no less -- and in the other 3, no earthquake, no worker angel caught in the act, and the stone already moved out of place -- then you have every reason to assume that mythologizing has taken place.

 

[steve_bank]

If somebody reports Bigfoot it must be true.

 

[ideologyhunter]

And Muhammad's account, in the hadith, of flying on Buraq, the magic horsey, to the 7 levels of heaven, plus hell, plus Jerusalem...surely his eyes didn't play tricks on him? Are we not honor-bound to believe?

 

[Elixir]

I prefer repeatable observations.

How do you get repeatable evidence of an event which only happened once?
.

That is probably the stupidest canard with which you have been provided by the creationist establishment.
Nothing happens twice, and information is a conserved quantity.
Every time a rock falls into water, ripples occur.

How can you know you got out of bed this morning?
You basically wish to take back everything you said when you pretended to agree that science is the most effective means of learning about creation, aka reality.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I prefer repeatable observations.

How do you get repeatable evidence

A very significant word substitution, there, Lion.
Do you not understand what scientists mean by repeated observations?

Hint: if you think it means we have to perform the experiment again in the lab, you should answer, "No, i do not."

 

[steve_bank]

I prefer repeatable observations.

How do you get repeatable evidence of an event which only happened once?

How do you get repeatable evidence for an event you can't control? The Big Bang. Whether or not yesterday actually happened.

A once only observed event is just that.

SETI had a once only event detracting what apeared to be a signal form outside the solar systems. Somebody wrote 'wow' on the paper printout of the spectrum and it became known as the wow event. It could not be repeated.

When running expedients or systems checks for an engineer like me a one time observed event would get logged in my notebook and maybe communicated to others, and that would be it if could not be recreated.

IThis is how scince works.

Back in the 90s a claim was made of achieving cold fusion was made. If true it could potentially solve the energy problems.

It went out over the net and within about 3 days no one around the world could repeat the results and the claim was rejected.

That is what a repeatable controlled experiment means.

An experiment that can not be controlled is just that. We can argue semantics, the first nuclear bomb was not controlled in the outcome, but it was a controlled experiment based on physics, and it was repeatable.

Claims of religious beliefs like visions and faith healing are nor subject to controlled repeatable experiment, as such can not be addressed by science.

Same with the paranormal. In the 80s and 90s multiple controlled experiments were set up to test for it, and they all failed.

The paranormal believers say 'that is not how it works'. If it does exist, it is outside the scope of science until it can be measured.

If people claim YEC, science using methods that have been tested can refute the claim.