Religion Versus Science

[Brother Kaman]

I doesn't really matter. Physics - gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, etc. all function without belief.

[cuchulain]

That is the marvelous thing, is it not? Doesn't matter if I believe the world is flat, you can still sail around it. Just like my belief in some supernatural elements doesn't interfere with the laws of thermodynamics in any way, shape or form...that is very appreciable.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I doesn't really matter. Physics - gravity, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, etc. all function without belief.

True enough. It is the mind at risk from poor education. Not physics or external reality.

[panpareil]

I don't know. I see very little space between science and religion these days. There are a growing number of pseudo sciences that are little more than politico-religious movements. I wonder how scientific giants from the past would react to today's "consensus" and "settled science" environment.

[Brother Kaman]

I don't know. I see very little space between science and religion these days. There are a growing number of pseudo sciences that are little more than politico-religious movements. I wonder how scientific giants from the past would react to today's "consensus" and "settled science" environment.

Science and pseudo science are not the same. Nor is medicine and quackery.

[panpareil]

And yet they are still seen most, including the authorities, to be science. Just as when the earth was ruled by fiat to be the center of the universe, despite the informed skepticism that it was not.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

And yet they are still seen most, including the authorities, to be science. Just as when the earth was ruled by fiat to be the center of the universe, despite the informed skepticism that it was not.

Reality is not a popularity contest. Truth does emerge. Sometimes, it takes a while.

[panpareil]

One can always hope.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

It is the arc of history. However slight, it bends towards the true and the real.

[Seeker]

I see them as perfectly compatible. Both are a search for truth. Science seeks in areas where repetition and measurement are possible. Religion looks beyond, into the unknown. Both have their place. The problems arise when they stray from their respective areas.

[Key]

I see them as perfectly compatible. Both are a search for truth. Science seeks in areas where repetition and measurement are possible. Religion looks beyond, into the unknown. Both have their place. The problems arise when they stray from their respective areas.

That's also a problem. There is no defined area for each. They are ever expanding. Science can be found to study everything. Religion can also cover everything. Only thing in common is faith in the results.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

That's also a problem. There is no defined area for each. They are ever expanding. Science can be found to study everything. Religion can also cover everything. Only thing in common is faith in the results.

Science is not about "faith." Science is about evidence and proof -- all subject to revision, depending on new evidence.

I ask you. Is religion ready to change it's views -- depending on new evidence?

[Dan56]

Science can be as speculative as religion. The origin of the universe, the age of the earth, evolution, etc, are all scientific hypothesis or theory, all of which require as much "faith" to believe as the biblical record of creation. Religion is not ready to change its views because of the absence of new evidence, there's just no scientific proof (facts) that disprove what I've chosen to believe, with the exception of biblical miracles, which have no explanation, e.g: Jesus walking on water, etc.

[Key]

Science is not about "faith." Science is about evidence and proof -- all subject to revision, depending on new evidence.

I ask you. Is religion ready to change it's views -- depending on new evidence?

Alas, science has to require "faith" that theories are correct depending on proven variables, but still unknown without proof of results for specifics. Science thinks it understands black holes, yet has no real proof on how they actually work.

If a religion isn't willing to change it's views despite, or in spite of "new evidence", it's followers just might and it will lose it's relevance.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Alas, science has to require "faith" that theories are correct depending on proven variables, but still unknown without proof of results for specifics. Science thinks it understands black holes, yet has no real proof on how they actually work.

If a religion isn't willing to change it's views despite, or in spite of "new evidence", it's followers just might and it will lose it's relevance.

1. What "faith?"

2. What "proof" do you find lacking?

3. Do you mean like Creationism? Or Creationists? Relevance to whom? Not to me. Relevant to them.

[Brother Kaman]

Religions evolve, although at a glacial pace. If not we would still burn witches and heretics. When I was but a young lad, the Assembly of God church in my home town (I was of such an age I had no choice but to attend) preached that the wearing of make up and pierced ears was a sin and those women that did such things were harlots. No more, no more. Some of the most heavily made up women I have ever seen are Pentecostal (non-denominational as in Assembly of God and others). It was considered a sin (both non-denominational and Missionary Baptist) for men to swim in close proximity to women. As soon as a sin becomes unpopular enough for a church to loose members, it is magically a sin no more. Many churches believe, though they do not openly preach it, that it is ok to kill abortion doctors because the doctors's sin is greater than that of their murderers.

Ok, now I am ready to take the flack that I know will be coming.

[Key]

1. What "faith?"

2. What "proof" do you find lacking?

3. Do you mean like Creationism? Or Creationists? Relevance to whom? Not to me. Relevant to them.

1. Perhaps you prefer logical conclusion based on partial knowledge? Still seems like faith to me without being definite on the results.

2. Theories would not be just that if there were proof. Black hole physics may be accurate based on all the laws of science, but we have yet to gather data from an actual black hole to know for certain. I question how we could if a black hole is supposed to suck everything in without possibility of escape. If light can't get out of it, as is suppose to be the case, then how can data from a probe do it?

3. Relevance of the church or religion to its followers. Based on what the believers may glean as truth versus what the church doctrine tells them.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1. Perhaps you prefer logical conclusion based on partial knowledge? Still seems like faith to me without being definite on the results.

2. Theories would not be just that if there were proof. Black hole physics may be accurate based on all the laws of science, but we have yet to gather data from an actual black hole to know for certain. I question how we could if a black hole is supposed to suck everything in without possibility of escape. If light can't get out of it, as is suppose to be the case, then how can data from a probe do it?

3. Relevance of the church or religion to its followers. Based on what the believers may glean as truth versus what the church doctrine tells them.

1. It is religion which pretends to know everything. Of course, science works with "partial knowledge." It is an on-going process.

2. Based on what Cosmologists knew about black holes; it was possible to make predictions about escaping radiation. They then used these predictions to find that radiation -- which is now known as Hawking radiation. When prediction lines up with discovery, knowledge is advanced. It is one of the tools of science. Other things about black holes have been learned in other ways. The gravity of black holes has been measured, by using the gravity to measure the distortion of light. Yes, partial knowledge. Black holes are still being studied and results are being examined for further study.

What science does not do is -- "We don't know yet, so -- God."

3. Creationists might be relevant to each other. They are not relevant to those of us who care about facts, proof or external reality.

[Key]

1. It is religion which pretends to know everything. Of course, science works with "partial knowledge." It is an on-going process.

2. Based on what Cosmologists knew about black holes; it was possible to make predictions about escaping radiation. They then used these predictions to find that radiation -- which is now known as Hawking radiation. When prediction lines up with discovery, knowledge is advanced. It is one of the tools of science. Other things about black holes have been learned in other ways. The gravity of black holes has been measured, by using the gravity to measure the distortion of light. Yes, partial knowledge. Black holes are still being studied and results are being examined for further study.

What science does not do is -- "We don't know yet, so -- God."

3. Creationists might be relevant to each other. They are not relevant to those of us who care about facts, proof or external reality.

1. We agree.

2. Same as above.

3. Wasn't talking specifically about creationism, but okay. We still agree. Which also proves my point about followers being lost due to relevance.

Would you continue to follow doctrine if facts prove against it? Just saying.

[mererdog]

Science is not about "faith." Science is about evidence and proof -- all subject to revision, depending on new evidence.

I ask you. Is religion ready to change it's views -- depending on new evidence?

I think the religious views of a young man are more likely to change than the scientific views of an old man. And I think some science teachers have a curriculum more set in stone than the dogma of most priests. I also think the scientific professions are every bit as insular as the clergy, often going to great lengths protecting themselves from the embarrassment of admitting error.