Author Topic: Science vs religion  (Read 1673 times)

Science vs religion
« 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.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Online Hydra009

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #1 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?"
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 01:57:42 AM by Hydra009 »

Offline SGOS

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #2 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.

Offline drunkenshoe

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #3 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.) ]


« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 09:29:20 AM by drunkenshoe »
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Havelock Vetinari

Online aitm

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #4 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.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #5 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!!
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 09:04:13 AM by Cassia »

Offline drunkenshoe

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #6 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.)
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 10:55:24 AM by drunkenshoe »
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Havelock Vetinari

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #7 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.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2020, 12:16:51 PM »
Science is to know, religion is to believe. That's that simple.

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #9 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. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline drunkenshoe

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #10 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.
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Havelock Vetinari

Online aitm

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #11 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...😁
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #12 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.”

"Religions are like fireflies. They require darkness in order to shine." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Online aitm

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #13 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.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline Baruch

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #14 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.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2020, 05:12:27 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.