Atheistforums.com

Extraordinary Claims => Religion General Discussion => Topic started by: Mike Cl on December 13, 2020, 11:37:07 PM

Title: Science vs religion
Post by: Mike Cl on December 13, 2020, 11:37:07 PM
Yes, there is a war between science and religion

https://www.yahoo.com/news/yes-war-between-science-religion-013715813.html

"As the West becomes more and more secular, and the discoveries of evolutionary biology and cosmology shrink the boundaries of faith, the claims that science and religion are compatible grow louder. If you’re a believer who doesn’t want to seem anti-science, what can you do? You must argue that your faith – or any faith – is perfectly compatible with science.

And so one sees claim after claim from believers, religious scientists, prestigious science organizations and even atheists asserting not only that science and religion are compatible, but also that they can actually help each other. This claim is called “accommodationism.”

But I argue that this is misguided: that science and religion are not only in conflict – even at “war” – but also represent incompatible ways of viewing the world."

Yes, yes, yes, to the ending of the article. 

"In the end, it’s irrational to decide what’s true in your daily life using empirical evidence, but then rely on wishful-thinking and ancient superstitions to judge the “truths” undergirding your faith. This leads to a mind (no matter how scientifically renowned) at war with itself, producing the cognitive dissonance that prompts accommodationism. If you decide to have good reasons for holding any beliefs, then you must choose between faith and reason. And as facts become increasingly important for the welfare of our species and our planet, people should see faith for what it is: not a virtue but a defect."

I had forgotten this part of the bible:

1 Corinthians 15
King James Version
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Even the bible tells us jesus is a fiction.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Hydra009 on December 14, 2020, 12:56:03 AM
Religion always has to cede ground to science, otherwise it's simply a falsified belief.  For example, if I were to say that Jews migrated to North America prior to European colonists, that's simply a historical falsehood.

Believers necessarily have to accept the scientific theories of the day, because the alternative is to lag far behind knowledge to the point of coming across as knuckledraggers.  Imagine a religious community that doesn't accept germ theory or heliocentrism or evolution.

The most successful religions are non-falsifiable.  For example, let's say that every living thing has some sort of spirit and thus animals can "speak" to humans through non-verbal means.  A crow's call, for example.  Or let's say that some being outside our universe set off the Big Bang and then sat around for billions of years to watch the show.  Did I mention that this being is invisible from our perspective, outside of our space-time?  Utterly non-falsifiable.

But then non-falsifiable religions run into a different problem: they're inherently unjustifiable.  A nonbeliever asks for something that would convince him of the truth of the religion.  A believer takes him out into nature and they hear a crow's call together.  The believer says, "Don't you find that convincing?" and the non-believer replies "Do I find what convincing?"
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: SGOS on December 14, 2020, 04:22:23 AM
Science comes to tentative conclusions using a process.  Religion comes to unalterable conclusions without any process.  Science can't function without process.  It  can coexist with religion and obviously it does, but there doesn't have to be a war.  Science does not hold any animosity toward faith.  It has no intention of destroying religion.  However, religion often doesn't accept scientific theory and wants science to support ideas of faith.  And there is the rub!

As close as we can get to compatibility is when religion goes its separate way and lets science proceed.  But religion can't prove science is correct.  It doesn't want to.  It does want science to prove religion correct, however.  But science can't, and that bothers the pious.

When I mentioned unalterable truths of religion, what I meant was unalterable until it become altered, wherein the alteration becomes the new unalterable truth.  Religion does evolve, but not much faster than biological evolution.  Two hundred years from now, religion will still be here, but slightly different than it is today.

I have two very good friends.  They are my best friends where I live now.  Great people, but died in the wool fundamentalists.  They hold evolution in contempt.  Their response is, "I don't believe it!"  And this is stated with a venom uncharacteristic of their behavior in any other situation.  There is no explanation for their disbelief.  The issue is not up for discussion, and I have no intention of wasting my time explaining it.  They have constructed an impenetrable wall that excludes understanding.  My guess is that even trying to understand evolution buys them a one way ticket to the eternal flame.  I really like them, however.  I hold no animosity toward them.  We hike in the woods together.  I guess this is my idea of compatibility.  I don't teach evolution, and they don't try to save my soul.  We are compatible in that we don't try to change each other, and that's the only way religion and science can coexist.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 14, 2020, 06:56:48 AM
No, there isn't a war between Science and Religion. There has never been. It's an invalid explanation of the situation the world lived/lives in. The idea itself is 'religious' in nature and is a result of the usual divisive policies applied everywhere around the world. Because we really haven't moved out from the 'imperial' era yet. The modern state is based on religions; nationalisms first. The nationalism got invented by the new standards -industrialisation, national army, the so called universal education, national language, railways, newspapers...mass media, the invention of the classes etc.- and organised religions have adopted and learned to feed on a made up conflicts between these because after all it's what they are for. That's how they survive.

These concepts are not even in the same league, let alone be in conflict. If there was a war between science and religion, religous people would live like the Amish with no 'out' options. The thing is, as Hydra said, they can't, not just that they won't. So the scenario gets expanded and expanded with teh little material in hand doesn't matter how thin everything in it gets... Like star wars or super hero movies. There are always new generations to watch them and watch them over and over again as childhood nostalgia and defend them as good movies doesn't matter what you feel about the first original ones and why in an artistic-cinematographic or script level.

The basic reason for this invalid versus between Science and Religion on people level is that first it is a thing aside from the real world and aside from that real world when people think/talk and share opinions on it, they do it in the largest contexts. Ontological last questions. Who are we? Where do we come from? What is this universe? What happens when we die? Blah blah...

Religions have evolved to 'answer' these big questions to provide a primitve set of laws and rules, alienated from nature and reality -that's how they have become organised religions- while Science's only objective is to define and explain nature; real world with facts. 'Faith' is the ingredient made up along the way like the soul, spritiualism as a glue. Exactly like the ancient understanding of justice as some divine concept which is just the sum of high standards available for as many people as possible. That's what civilisation is. Nothing more or nothing less.

Religion is the invention of lying; politics to do real things. It's going to the village square and shout to gather men to attack the other village behind the hill because their god is blonde and yours is a brunette and they called yours a fagot, they are all stupid anyway while the real reason is the resources avilable there. Your people are the best people, they should know that and their god is the best god, they should feel that to kill. You can't just go around explain this all and reason people to attack a village to get more resources. Because then the people of the village would do the same thing between them, then attack you and create new power zones. You can't have that. That's the caricature of the politics I have been talking about. The rest is reality. The 'resources' part. 

On the other hand, science does not care about your feelings regarding to your existance or your species' existance or its place in it. It does not rely on it, it does not need it to progress.(But it needs resources and power.) Those feelings are supposed to be the philosophical bullshit in this age but actually mostly melancholia because our ass is too comfortable.

Then religion does rely on your feelings and then some similar bullshit because as it is established by humans, humans know where humans are weak and can be manipulated.

[Whenever I go this way, I get given certain historical examples and the Galileo example I think is the best known among them. The fact that the Church attempted to kill or killed everyone who offered a key to some scientific progress, doesn't change a conceptually higher fact that this is actually all about power; policies and politics, money and making, constantly revising a set of laws and rules to secure that power while not obeying any of those laws or rules. The war for being THE power zone. And just to stay as one, just to catch up with where you are you have to constantly gain power. That is what power means.

Now when it comes to Galileo's case, although it is anachronistic and will look trivial to you, the thing is highly likley Galileo wouldn't have died in prison, if Medici had been as powerful as they had been in their golden era. Why? Is Medici secular? Not in the slightest, esp. worlds away from our norms needlessly to say. (Renaissance is not secular. They woldn't have understood the concept of secularism we have even if their life depended on it.) But they had something else. These are the people who invented/realised that you can transform every kind of culture and progress into political power, benefit and profit. (You could say that the Church and the Roman Empire did it before them, you'd be right in a way, but at the same time you'd need to negate Renaissance itself as a movement. Or support what Baudrillard said -that we keep living in/through the copies of the copies including the Renaissance all along- which is a completely different discussion and doesn't affect the versus presented here as far as I get.)

They've emulated a lost age which they deemed as 'superior' and they wanted to go forward; they idealised human, men, in their case. They wanted to learn and know and create. They saw themselves as gods of exploration. Does that remind you of something/some people today?

So this so called war is a delusion and the idea only feeds organised religions; the idea of faith more than beliefs themselves. Not to mention that you can't feed delusion by reality in this context. Religion can interrupt or even stop scientific progress but it cannot manipulate or affect Science while it, itself gets manipulated and affected by it all the time. Or it becomes obsolete as the means of power and politics. And in my opinion, organised religions can't actually keep up any more and that's why the batshit conspiracy theories are stronger than ever today, including/affecting secular and nonbeliever masses.

(But I still maintain that there must be a simple anthropological mechanism behind it. Namely, puritanism. Triggered by fear, people react via various shades of puritanism to the paranoias created by the mass media.) ]


Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: aitm on December 14, 2020, 08:20:50 AM
Meh, I think it’s quite easier than that. Religion requires no thinking...that thinkun shit be hard.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Cassia on December 14, 2020, 08:47:51 AM
Religion makes claims about the natural world, morality, and history and offers zero hard factual evidence or verification processes. Unfortunately humans are born helpless and must have faith in caretakers. Only with maturity can humans afford to validate claims and customs. Some mature considerably and begin to understand the difference between scientific methods and religious "methods" to determine what is likely to be true. Others never mature.

I liken a grown adult theist to a child. They refer to themselves as children of gods and god is their father. They even speak in "tongues" just like the goggly-goop heard from babies. They repeat the same phrases over and over as if repetition is some sort of verification. They have transferred their childish blind faith in caretakers to blind faith in a religion. They seek the empty solace of religion just like a parent telling a child that you are special and everything will be alright.  It takes some proverbial "balls" to be an atheist and every one of us deserves a fucking pat on the back for being a grown-up!!
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 14, 2020, 10:42:46 AM
I liken a grown adult theist to a child.

Agreed. But that also reminds me an experiment made by a few British primatologists I read about a while ago. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I have read it. I hope I remember it correctly. 

There are two dolls (Peter and Mary), a big marble, a box with a lid and a small basket at the size marble can fit on a table.

-They take 3 year old and tell her that they are going to play with Peter and Mary who are also friends with each other, and that the marble belongs to Mary which is visible in the basket at the beginning. After like 10 minutes into the game, Mary goes 'outside' and exists from the scene to do something else and they continue to play with Peter. During this part of the game the marble gets hid in the box somehow and the lid is shut. Then Mary comes from outside and the toddler gets asked questions around the hidden marble; where was Peter, where was Mary, where is she now, she came in and then what did she see'...etc. And then she gets asked it directly 'Where is the marble?' The toddler just jumps to the box saying 'I know where it is, it is here, in the box!'. Whatever happens, she doesn't naturally links events in order and say this and that happened. She is just interested in the marble in the box which she opens, takes out and shows it.

-They take a 5 year old and repeat the scenario. As soon as they arrive to the 'Mary comes back, what happens, what does she see' circling, he immediately says something like 'Mary would be surprised when she is back because she wouldn't be able to find her marble. And she doesn't know where it is because she didn't see where it was put'. Then asked directly where the marble is, he says 'I know where it is, it was put in the box'.

The 3 year old doesn't question anything. She doesn't care where the marble is or why and what does Mary or anyone have to do with it. The only thing is the marble and she knows where it is. It's like the marble exists out of all events, time and place. The 5 year old is aware of everything. and how does he know, because he puts himself on Mary's shoes and get that she would be surprised that her marble was gone as she didn't see where it was put. And alienate himself from the scene and say that I know where it is, it was put in the box'. 

According to primatologists, this tells what empathy actually is, and that is what makes us humans so intelligent and different than other primates.

What that tells me, a five year old human baby is equipped enough to kick religion's ass, any kind of dogmatic bullshit and bigotry, if not for the fucking brainwashing they are born into. (Which you and others have mentioned many times before.)
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Mike Cl on December 14, 2020, 11:23:18 AM
Maybe 'war' is the wrong word.  Conflict there is without a doubt.  Almost all religions want to make science into an ism.  That way, belief/faith is what scientists do and the religious can then treat science as simply another set of beliefs.  Religion and critical thinking and facts just don't get along.  Organized religion cannot and does not accept critical thinking or facts.  And religion is ready to kill to maintain it's hold on its followers.  Science does not operate that way.  The fact that religion does not abide facts and critical thinking makes it very difficult to change religious followers minds.  It acts as a huge ball and chain on society.  And its proclivity for violence doesn't help.  So, maybe 'war' is the wrong word, but the article does point out what a huge impediment religion is to society in general.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: SoldierofFortune on December 14, 2020, 12:16:51 PM
Science is to know, religion is to believe. That's that simple.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Mike Cl on December 14, 2020, 12:48:29 PM
Science is to know, religion is to believe. That's that simple.
It is that simple--but its not.  Why?  Because religion uses murder, torture, destruction and lies to support its hold on society.  Science just presents known facts and encourages others to support the data or to make changes when warranted. 
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 14, 2020, 01:43:23 PM
Meh, I think it%u2019s quite easier than that. Religion requires no thinking...that thinkun shit be hard.

Science is to know, religion is to believe. That's that simple.

Oh really? Wow, how convenient, brilliant and fahsionable is that? It fits so wonderfully, it makes us all the good and clever and whatnot -what's it nowadays remind me again please- minority in the whole fucking planet. Oh yeah...fap fap fap....mmmm.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: aitm on December 14, 2020, 02:28:38 PM

Oh really? Wow, how convenient, brilliant and fahsionable is that? It fits so wonderfully, it makes us all the good and clever and whatnot -what's it nowadays remind me again please- minority in the whole fucking planet. Oh yeah...fap fap fap....mmmm.
Careful getting off your horse...😁
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: GSOgymrat on December 14, 2020, 04:04:20 PM

"As the West becomes more and more secular, and the discoveries of evolutionary biology and cosmology shrink the boundaries of faith, the claims that science and religion are compatible grow louder. If you’re a believer who doesn’t want to seem anti-science, what can you do? You must argue that your faith – or any faith – is perfectly compatible with science.

And so one sees claim after claim from believers, religious scientists, prestigious science organizations and even atheists asserting not only that science and religion are compatible, but also that they can actually help each other. This claim is called “accommodationism.”
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/68/18/31/681831a002eee356d29857b736773cf6.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/80/b1/9a/80b19a0f3b94b5f1f2d6462a2321a0ec.jpg)
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: aitm on December 14, 2020, 04:36:09 PM
Really? What's that? Why do you think I would be embarassed by something you put forward? 
What I put forward, despite your objection, it quite simply, the obvious truth. Religionists, of all flavors, by the vast majority, are not familiar with their own book of “truth”. They accept what they are told as truth. They do not question it. But more importantly, and quite factually, they reject without thought any science that would question their beliefs. This is not a strange new theory, it is absolutely factual. Even now, in a completely detached movement, Trumpers will not even consider talk of anything that counters their imbedded, self serving, ego protecting beliefs that massive fraud was committed. It is too much for them to bear, the idea they may be wrong is insulated by their fear of it. Thus they reject out of hand, without listening, without caring, without thought that they are right. Like religionists, they do not care to learn, they only care that to themselves, they are right.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 14, 2020, 04:46:39 PM
Religion makes claims about the natural world, morality, and history and offers zero hard factual evidence or verification processes. Unfortunately humans are born helpless and must have faith in caretakers. Only with maturity can humans afford to validate claims and customs. Some mature considerably and begin to understand the difference between scientific methods and religious "methods" to determine what is likely to be true. Others never mature.

I liken a grown adult theist to a child. They refer to themselves as children of gods and god is their father. They even speak in "tongues" just like the goggly-goop heard from babies. They repeat the same phrases over and over as if repetition is some sort of verification. They have transferred their childish blind faith in caretakers to blind faith in a religion. They seek the empty solace of religion just like a parent telling a child that you are special and everything will be alright.  It takes some proverbial "balls" to be an atheist and every one of us deserves a fucking pat on the back for being a grown-up!!


Politics makes similar claims, and is vicious tribalism and confirmation bias.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: SGOS on December 14, 2020, 05:10:57 PM
Even now, in a completely detached movement, Trumpers will not even consider talk of anything that counters their imbedded, self serving, ego protecting beliefs that massive fraud was committed.
I was just thinking the other day about the nature of Trumpers being almost identical to religionists in he way they fail at processing information.  The similarity is uncanny and dangerously scary.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 14, 2020, 05:11:38 PM
Science is to know, religion is to believe. That's that simple.

Some things have to be seen to be believed (empirical evidence) other things have to be believed to be seen (the development of a loving relationship).  This is why perfunctory Christmas gifts are false, if you despise the person you are gifting to.

Back in the day, "scientia" meant knowledge in Latin (Logos in Greek aka Jesus in the Gospel of John).  That is how the Catholic Church still uses the word.  One can know the Church's official view of a particular saint or miracle .. that is knowledge in the old sense.  Since Galileo mostly, and this is where Galileo ran afoul of the Roman Inquisition .. claimed to have knowledge in the old sense concerning the Church that was outside of the official view.  In their terms, this was wrong.  He wasn't being an atheist, he was a better Catholic than the Pope!

But as a transition figure (he was a good Catholic), he was also using "scientia" in a Aristotle-corrected manner as for example the gravity experiment.  Galileo said that the idea that the Moon causes the tides is lunacy ;-)  He put, in his studies, the evidence of the senses is higher than the dogma of the Church regarding Aristotle as being the be-all-and-end-all of knowledge in the old sense.  Which is ironic, because earlier the Church had accepted neo-Platonic dogma and fought the introduction of Aristotle into the universities.

Copernicus revived the Sun-centric theory of Aristarchus, but in fact it had more epicycles than the Earth-centric theory of Ptolemy, it wasn't simpler.  Galileo agreed with Copernicus anyway, because it seemed to him to make more sense, because of the moons of Jupiter (evidence of the senses thanks to the telescope he invented).  Kepler's results weren't fully accepted until Newton.  Proof of the rotation of the spherical Earth (proven by the voyage of Magellan in 1522 and indirect evidence earlier) wasn't observed directly until the Foucault pendulum in 1851.

Newton came along later and showed indirectly, that gravity must exist on Earth and in the Heavens as the same thing, and that this validated the ellipses of Kepler.  But this required co-inventing Calculus and developing classical mechanics.  Kepler accepted the elliptical orbits for the same reason as Galileo accepted the gravity experiment ... observation trumped dogma regarding circles as being heavenly perfect.  This wasn't apparent in earlier inaccurate data.

Communist dogmatic "science" (Lysenko in biology) aka dialectical materialism, was just as wrong as the Catholic Church, because it dismissed empirical evidence to the contrary.  The Soviet Union propagandized abiogenic petroleum, expecting to pump oil on the Moon ;-)  The notion that scientists are naturally Leftist ... is intelligencia virtue signaling ;-)  Borrowing the authority of doctors of medicine with Covid but ignoring their political and commercial involvements is the same thing. 

"Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science." - Karl Marx.  He was no scientist or mathematician or logician.  His economics is based on unlimited free energy and unlimited natural resources on the one hand, and class warfare on the other.  With steam engine automation there would be no reason for anyone to work, everything would be free (see World Economic Forum today).  The first part is what all utopian sci fi is based on.  Class warfare is real though.  And naturally Leftists want to claim all educated people are part of their tribe (except for Pol Pot who really understood the intelligencia as useful idiots).
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 14, 2020, 05:13:08 PM
I was just thinking the other day about the nature of Trumpers being almost identical to religionists in he way they fail at processing information.  The similarity is uncanny and dangerously scary.

Exactly, logic, mathematics and science are all on the side of inevitable communist victory ;-)

@GSOgymrat .. Plank, Einstein and Schroedinger were early inventors of Quantum Mechanics.  And later in life rejected it as being not really scientific.

Hope y'all enjoy your 15 minutes hate of the Church, and love of dialectical materialist Big Brother.  A dead Jew is your Lord and Savior after all ;-))
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: aitm on December 14, 2020, 05:58:20 PM
Hope y'all enjoy your 15 minutes hate of the Church,
15? Hummmph. You don’t know us well you wascally wabbit.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Mike Cl on December 14, 2020, 06:40:46 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/68/18/31/681831a002eee356d29857b736773cf6.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/80/b1/9a/80b19a0f3b94b5f1f2d6462a2321a0ec.jpg)
So, what is the message you are sending me??
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 14, 2020, 07:51:02 PM
15? Hummmph. You don’t know us well you wascally wabbit.

If you hate yourself hating yourself do you disappear into a puff of contradiction?

People are complicated, not stereotypes.  Scientists aren't all card carrying Marxists .. in fact I would question Marxist scientists the same way I would question Nazi scientists.  There were German scientists who rejected Einstein's theories merely because he was Jewish.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Unbeliever on December 14, 2020, 08:47:09 PM
The Templeton prize ( I think it's called) is given to people who bridge science and religion. I think it's garbage.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: aitm on December 14, 2020, 09:09:25 PM
?

People are complicated, not stereotypes. 
And then you go off about scientists, who are not the “vast majority” I speak off. Stupid once was a considered a psychological term I believe derived to imply the refusal of reason or knowledge willingly. So yes, the vast majority of religionists have been, are, and will remain stupid.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: GSOgymrat on December 14, 2020, 09:10:21 PM
So, what is the message you are sending me??

Examples of what you were referring to-- the claim that scientific discovery supports faith in God.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Mike Cl on December 14, 2020, 09:33:14 PM
Examples of what you were referring to-- the claim that scientific discovery supports faith in God.
:))  That's what I was doing??
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Hydra009 on December 14, 2020, 09:57:22 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/68/18/31/681831a002eee356d29857b736773cf6.jpg)

Must we assume that?

P1) atoms exist
P2) atoms are held together by - you guessed it - atomic forces
C) God?
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Unbeliever on December 14, 2020, 10:28:20 PM
Planck knew nothing of the strong or weak nuclear forces, so he used an argument from ignorance.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 15, 2020, 01:10:49 AM
Careful getting off your horse...😁

OK sober note. That's what it feels like when people say this is stupid that is stupid for everything they don't like. That's how your response sounds like, not mine. Are you projecting or was that the easiest answer to come to mind as a one liner? 
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 15, 2020, 05:07:07 AM
Planck knew nothing of the strong or weak nuclear forces, so he used an argument from ignorance.

Yes, nuclear forces prove there is no god ;-)  A British scientist claimed in 1945 that the atom bomb proved their is no G-d.

"Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk. God made the integers, all the rest is the work of man." - Leopold Kronecker ... Mathematics shows otherwise ;-)

Yes, anyone who doesn't have an iPhone is an ignorant savage!
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 15, 2020, 05:07:58 AM
The Templeton prize ( I think it's called) is given to people who bridge science and religion. I think it's garbage.

Nobel Prize is garbage too.  Not so sure about the Fields Medal ... though the Leftists are trying to undermine math too.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 15, 2020, 05:08:37 AM
Examples of what you were referring to-- the claim that scientific discovery supports faith in God.

Scientists being human, may or may not support faith in G-d.  Galileo and Newton did.  But unlike posters here, they weren't BLM aka highly trained Marxists.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: aitm on December 15, 2020, 07:31:55 AM
OK sober note. That's what it feels like when people say this is stupid that is stupid for everything they don't like. That's how your response sounds like, not mine. Are you projecting or was that the easiest answer to come to mind as a one liner? 
It’s a simple reminder that we are still an atheist forum, we have been insulting and bashing religionists for my 14 odd years here but suddenly you’re on a high horse trying to suggest you are now the protector of civility. I was going to say, “get off your pony” but the metaphor may have confused you. 😘
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 15, 2020, 07:54:51 AM
It’s a simple reminder that we are still an atheist forum, we have been insulting and bashing religionists for my 14 odd years here but suddenly you’re on a high horse trying to suggest you are now the protector of civility. I was going to say, “get off your pony” but the metaphor may have confused you. 😘

Then you completely misunderstand me. I'm not being 'moral' or 'good', I'm being curious. 'Stupidity' is not a good answer for religious people because human behaviour is too complex. It's actually a stupid answer itself. It's like religous people calling anything they don't like 'evil' without even trying to understand it. Think how stupid that sounds.   

It's not sudden. I have said this exact thing many times before in years. We actually had this very conversation before because you write that very often. LOL :*
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: aitm on December 15, 2020, 08:41:04 AM
Yes human behavior is complex. Stupid it still stupid even if you put it on a float and call it a parade.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Mike Cl on December 15, 2020, 09:39:01 AM
Then you completely misunderstand me. I'm not being 'moral' or 'good', I'm being curious. 'Stupidity' is not a good answer for religious people because human behaviour is too complex. It's actually a stupid answer itself. It's like religous people calling anything they don't like 'evil' without even trying to understand it. Think how stupid that sounds.   

It's not sudden. I have said this exact thing many times before in years. We actually had this very conversation before because you write that very often. LOL :*
I use the word 'stupid' as defined by me.  To me, stupid means unable to learn.  Ignorant means without that particular set of facts, but willing to learn them when possible.  So, the religious are both ignorant (they are unaware of some information) and stupid, because even if aware of certain facts, they won't accept those facts and simply rely on their beliefs/faith.  The religious leaders are not stupid, they are much like trump in that they know what they are doing and why--fleecing the flock. 
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: SGOS on December 15, 2020, 10:17:00 AM
Examples of what you were referring to-- the claim that scientific discovery supports faith in God.

Must we assume that?

P1) atoms exist
P2) atoms are held together by - you guessed it - atomic forces
C) God?

Planck knew nothing of the strong or weak nuclear forces, so he used an argument from ignorance.

Science will never support the existence of a god because it cannot.  It does not deny a god, just as it does not support one.  Many scientists believe in a god, but that is not the same thing as "scientific discovery supports faith in God."  Planck took science as far as he could, until he ran into a problem that he could not explain, and there he drops any further scientific inquiry, and fills the gap with a god.  This is not a transition between science and god.  It's a lapse in logic that satisfies the believer.

I would ask Planck how his reasoning proves the existence of a god.  Any answer he came up with would be just another time worn apologetic.  There's no bridge there.  It's just a simple non sequitur.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 15, 2020, 10:56:07 AM
I use the word 'stupid' as defined by me.  To me, stupid means unable to learn.  Ignorant means without that particular set of facts, but willing to learn them when possible.  So, the religious are both ignorant (they are unaware of some information) and stupid, because even if aware of certain facts, they won't accept those facts and simply rely on their beliefs/faith.  The religious leaders are not stupid, they are much like trump in that they know what they are doing and why--fleecing the flock.

Ignorant -> Stupid -> Foolish .. not the same words ... different meanings.

Ignorant = lacking in knowledge (most people)
Stupid = unable to process knowledge (some people)
Foolish = not wise (everyone)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTRKCXC0JFg

Look who is Humpty-Dumpty now ;-)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

So you are The Master?  Good thing Dr Who isn't around ;-))
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 15, 2020, 10:58:54 AM
Science will never support the existence of a god because it cannot.  It does not deny a god, just as it does not support one.  Many scientists believe in a god, but that is not the same thing as "scientific discovery supports faith in God."  Planck took science as far as he could, until he ran into a problem that he could not explain, and there he drops any further scientific inquiry, and fills the gap with a god.  This is not a transition between science and god.  It's a lapse in logic that satisfies the believer.

I would ask Planck how his reasoning proves the existence of a god.  Any answer he came up with would be just another time worn apologetic.  There's no bridge there.  It's just a simple non sequitur.

There is no bridge from "is" to "ought" ... science is about "is".  Politics is about "ought".

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - Mao Tse Tung (not tea and crumpets at nice people's homes discussing natural law).

Of course legality, morality, ethics are all ... political topics.  This is why you can't keep religious people or people with integrity or conscience from interfering in the political reality of godlessness, corruption or sociopathy.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: GSOgymrat on December 15, 2020, 12:20:32 PM
There is no bridge from "is" to "ought" ... science is about "is".  Politics is about "ought".

Yes, religion encompasses more than science. Science tells me how to kill my neighbor, not whether I should kill my neighbor.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: SGOS on December 15, 2020, 12:56:01 PM
I remember some sage wannabe guy saying that science answers the how questions, but religion answers the why questions.  I was very young and thought it was quite profound, but I started thinking about this and decided it wasn't an accurate claim about science or religion, and that it wasn't even profound to begin with.  I think his tone of voice and the way he finished his claim with such authoritative finality made it sound profound.  I think he was trying to make a point that religion and science are separate but equal, because why is as important as how. 

I no longer see the value of questions like, "Why does God love us so much?" or "Why did God create the universe?"  I think those are stupid questions.  But some 'how' questions are stupid questions too like "How did God create the Universe?"

But one difference between religion and science is that religion is great at giving answers to really stupid questions.  Science is better at avoiding stupid questions, so it doesn't have as many answers.  Some would say that religion wins because it's methodology can answer more questions.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: GSOgymrat on December 15, 2020, 01:15:45 PM
Some would say that religion wins because it's methodology can answer more questions.

Does Christianity have a methodology beyond "Refer to manual"?
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: aitm on December 15, 2020, 02:37:58 PM
Does Christianity have a methodology beyond "Refer to manual"?
They all do....but the masses don’t read them. Too hard to read, much easier to pay a guy to tell you what it says.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Unbeliever on December 15, 2020, 03:45:25 PM
Science cannot accommodate religion because of science's default to metaphysical naturalism, which denies any sort of supernaturalism. For the same reason religion cannot accommodate science, so never the twain shall meet.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 15, 2020, 06:45:48 PM
Yes, religion encompasses more than science. Science tells me how to kill my neighbor, not whether I should kill my neighbor.

Religion encompasses more than science?  In religious cults maybe (see Scientology).  The Catholic Church doesn't still teach the flat Earth etc.  Science is practiced by humans, a species of negligible value.  Of course, like PC operating systems, scientists do dispute hotly the boundaries where it touches philosophy (say what lies behind quantum mechanics).  This is because politics is involved ... academic ranks etc.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 15, 2020, 06:47:28 PM
Does Christianity have a methodology beyond "Refer to manual"?

That is Protestant!  For Catholics/Orthodox it is "refer to priest" ;-)  They were quite correct to prevent the laity from reading the Bible, it only confused them ;-))
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 15, 2020, 06:49:39 PM
Science cannot accommodate religion because of science's default to metaphysical naturalism, which denies any sort of supernaturalism. For the same reason religion cannot accommodate science, so never the twain shall meet.

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy, same as any other woo.  You can't win any argument about philosophy, because the philosophy underlies the means of argumentation.  Only when people share enough of the same philosophy can they productively argue, because they already agree about most things.  Like two priests arguing about what the Pope meant.

The Catholic Church is fine with modern science.  They don't acknowledge metaphysical naturalism.  They prematurely latched onto Aristotelianism ... because they thought in 1300 that it was modern science, which at the time, it was.  Inability to change with the times, comes about because of being a vast bureaucracy ... similar to the Soviet Union.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 16, 2020, 05:48:57 AM
I use the word 'stupid' as defined by me.  To me, stupid means unable to learn.  Ignorant means without that particular set of facts, but willing to learn them when possible.  So, the religious are both ignorant (they are unaware of some information) and stupid, because even if aware of certain facts, they won't accept those facts and simply rely on their beliefs/faith.  The religious leaders are not stupid, they are much like trump in that they know what they are doing and why--fleecing the flock.

Yeah, stupid means unable to learn. But he doesn't know that. The thing is, stupidity is some sort of a mental handicap. When we genuinely think someone is stupid, we think they are not capable to understand what is going in their environment and so can't respond back accordingly. Ignorant is just lack of education and/or knowledge, information. Not being incapable of processing the simplest kind of information or knowledge.

However, willingness to be ignorant of something -in this case, willingness to refuse enlightenment- in order to maintain a situation, a position is not a sign of stupidity but a sign of having an agenda to your benefit/profit which is the opposite of stupidity. People choose to follow the easiest path to get the best rewards possible in life. Consciously or unconsciously, they make choices according to that circumstances.

In my opinion, most religious people are perfectly aware what is going on and they make a choice. And it is a simple choice considering we live in the 21st century and we don't need to rely on our wits to survive. I'm not just talking about organised religions either. 

Just to make my position clear on this. I find it dangerous for secular world to see them as stupid, I think it is this part you misunderstand. It's dangerous to look down on a highly adaptive organic phenomena that is built on professional play of natural human weaknesses. Because first, it is a great underestimation and underevalutaion of their position and secondly, this is the collective drive and psychology that provide them most of the power they have. Because the stupid is not responsible for his actions. He is stupid. That makes them untouchable in a way. It's putting this people at some white place in a black and white world; creates a toxic delusion of religion as a safe, uncomplicated, familiar, clean world in contrast to the real one. Creates a perception of a difficult, painful life out of religion. It paints the real world almost 'unnatural', an inhabitable place for humans.

When we look at the anti-vaccine people we say 'OK, moron. Go die and say hi to Darwin, who cares'. Because clearly these poeple are stupid? Yeah but most of them are not even religious. And there is a considerable amount of educated, secular people among them. Exactly like the Qanon group.

This has been bugging me for a long time. Since the last years of my twenties. I grew up in an anti-religous home and when I left that sheltered zone, I was surprised at the real world and real people. It was the university here, in that era. You have coincided people you normally wouldn't in your zone. (Not to mention the observations you can have on hundreds of students from every corner of the country -practically different dimension compared ot each other when you are full time RA. I sometimes think that was the real, unconsious reason why I wanted to do it, not for the field.)

Anyway, I have befriended people from very different backgrounds, far lower or higher than my chance has given me. I've watched some of them change dramatically in the last two decades.

In a nutshell, I didn't know religous people could live secular lives and make conscious choices to support that world vision. I didn't know how highly educated, high class secular people could make choices for themselves to support religous bigotry. I've known people for more than 20 years who came from the worst islamic ghettos and gone on to the extreme measures to defend the opposite world/lives while themselves stayed religious. I have seen quite a few friends shift from a secular sensible views to almost nazi like fascism against religous people. Eventually, I have moved from my starting point of 'stupidity' or even ignorance under certain circumstances. Because the world and the people in it are far more complicated than the 'the stupid vs the intelligent' point of view can include. Esp. when we all agree on that religion largely stands on brainwashing from childhood.

I don't have any answers. But on a funny note, I sometimes think one of the main reasons for the general difference in my opinions compared to the forum is the space between people you have in your country. We have to live on top of each other -not really, compared to yours- while you live far away from each other, as indiviudals, families or communities in big spaces, surrounded by huge spaces. That makes most of you more alienated to each other than we are to each other.

But on the other hand, we have speicfically visible differences and traits between the religous and the secular, while it would be far more difficult to observe these differences in the States.
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 16, 2020, 10:23:34 AM
Thank goodness we have giant headed aliens to lead humanity, since all humans are stupid monkeys ;-)  Nothing more irritating than a stupid monkey claiming they are a giant headed alien, when a simple look at them will show how simian they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4OoIlQOjrc
Title: Re: Science vs religion
Post by: Baruch on December 16, 2020, 08:01:28 PM
Science isn't done by disembodied brains in jars connected to supercomputers ... it is more like a medieval theology department than at first glance ...

“Every scientist is also influenced in how they see the world by who happens to be their teachers and students. So paradigms are the intellectual property of social groups whose rules and conventions are to be found, not just in their textbooks and theories, but also in the nature of funding bodies, research and educational institutions, the review boards for learned journals and so on.” - James Ladyman “Understanding Philosophy of Science”

Listed to a podcast recently with a physicist recounting his experience with his PhD committee circa 1980.  He simply wasn't interested in his assigned problem.  His PhD committee were control freaks who insisted that his personal preferences were irrelevant, only what the department wanted was relevant, and if he didn't like it, he could drop out of the PhD program.  He sought advice from a senior scientist at another university.  This advisor said, grit your teeth and finish your thesis, and I will hire you as a post-doc.  This was hard advice.  He finished his PhD thesis, and got passed by his PhD committee, but they wanted a few more typos corrected before he submitted the thesis to the university library for permanent storage.

He hated his thesis, never corrected the manuscript, never submitted that to the university library.  He took the post-doc position and lived with the nightmare that someone might find out he had his PhD, but never completed his thesis.  Ten years later the librarian from his old university called up, asking for a copy of his final manuscript, for binding with the others from that year.  He turned white, and BSed his way thru the crisis.  He shouted angrily at the librarian saying ... "How dare you lose your copy of my final thesis manuscript!".  This put the librarian off, and she spent time looking again for it.  Later she called back telling him they found it, and sorry to have bothered him.  How she bound a non-existent copy of a non-existent final manuscript is unknown ;-)