Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24
Like Tree4Likes
  • 2 Post By SkinWalker
  • 1 Post By SkinWalker
  • 1 Post By SkinWalker

Thread: should science and religon work together??

  1. #1 should science and religon work together?? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    what if sience works with religon? this may not be as crazy as you may think.
    for instance, a certain indo-europian religion in britian, said that if somthing is animated then it is Alive, and therefore everything is alive.
    scientificly speaking particals are always vibrating therefore they are always animated. and through purticular quantum theories, we can possibly say that all things are alive. this is just one example upon many.

    discuss.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    No, simply no. Science is a "fact, theory, evidence, proof, observation" system, whilst religion is a faith based system. The two have never, do not and will never work together successfully. Leave the science to the scientists, I don't want religious beliefs coming into any fields of science.


    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman Beard Baron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by x(x-y)
    No, simply no. Science is a "fact, theory, evidence, proof, observation" system, whilst religion is a faith based system. The two have never, do not and will never work together successfully. Leave the science to the scientists, I don't want religious beliefs coming into any fields of science.
    I agree wholeheartedly.

    In response to that 'Everything is alive because all particles are animated' bit; if we were to adopt this idea, then we'd need to alter the definition of 'life' into something closer to the definition of 'existence'. Clearly, this is not reasonable. That sort of mentality belongs more in a circle of hippies than the scientific community.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Living in both worlds (and keeping them comfortably separate), I see religion as the belief of the unknown (mostly as it regards what is called the human "soul") and science as the understanding of the known (obviously). Plenty of religious people habitually depend upon and use science, and you'll also see some of them "cherry pick" science to try to validate their beliefs. So, believers accept some science, but I don't see why scientists would accept beliefs (and if they did, which one(s) out of the numerous, or perhaps thousands, of beliefs?).

    As to your animated = alive postulate, the word animated strongly suggests motion, which means kinetic energy. So, if alive means energized, then yes, animated = energized, and everything has kinetic energy of some sort (because nothing ever reaches absolute zero).
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    I understand what your all saying. i took the animated thing from a developing theory. but that aside, perhaps sience could be copnsidered a religon of faith.
    as science is a faith, in the sientific proof. this proof at one point did happen, and in another did not. for instance, we know that all things are created by particals which vibrated due to electromagnitism, so some have argued that we can't be actually be here. i forget the name, but the guy who discovered particals actually went insane becouse of this.
    sientists are very dogmatic, in saying that religion is very dogmatic, and trying to oppress it. this can lead to the ignorence on both sides, but i know of religous people, who have discovered particular things, which they sientificly explained, and started on a religious basis. perhaps we should start looking at things 3dimensionaly? as for the cherry picking,sience cherry picks things on religion too. look up these things. peice them together and you will find, as i did that ths is notas rediculous as it may seem.
    and to the hippie comment, your wrong. i was not high hhen i said this.
    lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    perhaps sience could be copnsidered a religon of faith.
    It can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    as science is a faith,
    It's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    sientists are very dogmatic,
    They're generally not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    peice them together and you will find, as i did that ths is notas rediculous as it may seem.
    Actually, it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    everone has an oppinion. your arogant in saying that religion might not have any connections to sience. you yourself are dogmatic.[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    your arogant in saying that religion might not have any connections to sience.
    Except, I never said that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    you yourself are dogmatic.
    In what way?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    elifs of a religion are actually quite simillar, and sientists who have acccepted religion to help them, don't go with a perticullar religon. more often than not, they pick bits of a reigon, such as:
    A) a supreme being/s
    B) multiple worrlds or realities
    C) somthing that could be considered supernatural.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    Lewis Pratt wrote:
    you yourself are dogmatic.

    In what way?
    becouse you wrote answers to my statments, attempting to disproove them, without (oviously) looking anything up or attempting to solve this. i asked a question, and i will say it again, if looked at correctly, it is not as rediculous as it may seem. it takes reasearch, but i put this thread up for one reason. i am both religous, and i believe in science. i am constantly put down, and being told that it is one or the other. it seems that i get the same here. few people look at the whole picture in many different ways, and though you will get rediculous answers, and even more questions, you will find that the two are closley related.
    religion is the belif of things that extend behond our world/universe/dimension
    • (ect.) quantum physics among other things, also work in the same feild. they look at things like dimensions and the multiverse and parralel universes ect.
      sience is the measurements of this world. (earth, space, dimensions, multiverse)
      i see that the only difference is science is proven, yet to religous people, they have experienced there religion, so they belive it to be prooven. there are small differences between the two, but large differences in the waypeople see them.

    So no this is not rediculous at all. you just need to look at it from all angles and all points of veiw.
    this is my last time i post on this thread, though i may read it. if you wish to say anything else, PM me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    i see that the only difference is science is proven, yet to religous people, they have experienced there religion, so they belive it to be prooven. there are small differences between the two
    That's an enormous difference, not a small one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Lyn
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    i see that the only difference is science is proven, yet to religous people, they have experienced there religion, so they belive it to be prooven. there are small differences between the two
    That's an enormous difference, not a small one.
    That's exactly what I was thinking.
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    becouse you wrote answers to my statments, attempting to disproove them, without (oviously) looking anything up or attempting to solve this.
    You have no idea what I've read, what I haven't read, what I've looked up, or what I've explored.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    i am both religous, and i believe in science.
    And I understand how difficult it can be to reconcile the two. I suspect that you are feeling a tension on this, and that is part of the reason you made the post you did.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    religion is the belif of things that extend behond our world/universe/dimension
    Perhaps to you, but not everyone shares this definition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    i see that the only difference is science is proven,
    I know what you are trying to say, but your statement here shows that you have much more to learn and understand about how science works, and the methodology it follows. Science is never "proven." It is an approach to refining and improving our understanding of the world around us, and is always being updated. If something is shown false, it is rejected.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    yet to religous people, they have experienced there religion, so they belive it to be prooven.
    Which makes it useless, really. There are countless religions in our world, and they all "believe" them to be true. That doesn't mean they are.


    Yes, one can be religious and practice science, but they will always struggle or have to compartmentalize their minds to do so since the two are not compatible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Religions in the world attempt to appease supernatural beings... beings that don't, for all intents and purposes, genuinely exist. Science has little reason to want or need to work with such ways of thinking except as an object of study.

    But when we study religion, what we're really studying is humanity. Without humanity, religion would not exist on this planet. We, and we alone make shit like that up.

    Science invalidates religion. Religion interferes with science. The two are generally incompatible. Even those who are gifted in science that embrace religious views are handicapped by their beliefs. They're forced to compartmentalize and justify their doctrines -to make concessions in one direction or another- in order to conduct science. As great a scientist as Francis Collins is, he must encounter some level of cognitive dissonance. As brilliant a biologist as Kenneth Miller is -a stalwart defender of evolution- he is, at the very core, a creationist. He simply puts creation back further than his opponents.

    No, science is best conducted without the biases and dogmatic baggage that comes with religious indoctrination. Of course, dilettantes will argue that "science is just as dogmatic as religion, man!", but I've yet to see a single one of them demonstrate it to be so. They'll always cite some change, some revision, that reluctantly occurred in science (often Wegener and his rejected hypothesis of continental drift is cited) but is now heralded as "gospel." These same dilettantes always seem to fail to recognize that, however difficult laborious the change was, it did happen. The same cannot be said for religion -they're still believing in 2 thousand year old campfire stories.

    Religion is a human affliction that should be studied, not a method of studying the universe around us. It utterly fails in the latter function.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Religions in the world attempt to appease supernatural beings... beings that don't, for all intents and purposes, genuinely exist. Science has little reason to want or need to work with such ways of thinking except as an object of study.

    But when we study religion, what we're really studying is humanity. Without humanity, religion would not exist on this planet. We, and we alone make shit like that up.

    Science invalidates religion. Religion interferes with science. The two are generally incompatible. Even those who are gifted in science that embrace religious views are handicapped by their beliefs. They're forced to compartmentalize and justify their doctrines -to make concessions in one direction or another- in order to conduct science. As great a scientist as Francis Collins is, he must encounter some level of cognitive dissonance. As brilliant a biologist as Kenneth Miller is -a stalwart defender of evolution- he is, at the very core, a creationist. He simply puts creation back further than his opponents.

    No, science is best conducted without the biases and dogmatic baggage that comes with religious indoctrination. Of course, dilettantes will argue that "science is just as dogmatic as religion, man!", but I've yet to see a single one of them demonstrate it to be so. They'll always cite some change, some revision, that reluctantly occurred in science (often Wegener and his rejected hypothesis of continental drift is cited) but is now heralded as "gospel." These same dilettantes always seem to fail to recognize that, however difficult laborious the change was, it did happen. The same cannot be said for religion -they're still believing in 2 thousand year old campfire stories.

    Religion is a human affliction that should be studied, not a method of studying the universe around us. It utterly fails in the latter function.
    I couldn't agree more, very well put.
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    50
    Comedy gold mine. Also, you might learn to spell before posting on a science forum.

    Also, SkinWalker -> RAH!

    I love coming here because I never have to say a thing, it's like I have clones.

    You could also view it from the perspective of "what does religion have to offer science" - basically, nothing.
    Last edited by jjmounes; July 28th, 2011 at 08:49 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nebraska, the Heartland!
    Posts
    129
    Skinwalker:
    Religions in the world attempt to appease supernatural beings...
    Pagan religions perhaps. The statement is incorrect in regards to both Christianity and Judaism; both groups feature a Creator God who has already done all that is needed for 'reconciliation'.


    Science invalidates religion. Religion interferes with science.
    Nothing in science has ever 'invalidated' Christianity or Judaism. I will stipulate some views attributed to Christianity seems to interfere with science; those are your personal opposite numbers who don't know anything about the other side.

    One might note the contributions of Copernicus, Galileo, Gregor Mendelson, Issac Newton, Roger Bacon, Descartes and some others.
    The universe is a real place. However, you can't see it, you have to imagine it. Like it or not, God designed, built and sustains the Universe. Deal with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Archie View Post
    Skinwalker:
    Religions in the world attempt to appease supernatural beings...
    Pagan religions perhaps. The statement is incorrect in regards to both Christianity and Judaism; both groups feature a Creator God who has already done all that is needed for 'reconciliation'.
    So you're saying that the christian and jewish superstitions don't have supernatural beings? And that followers of these superstitions don't make attempt to appease them? Yahweh is a supernatural being. Jesus is a supernatural being. These are deities in jewish and christian mythology that exhibit magical powers.

    My definition stands.
    Last edited by SkinWalker; August 2nd, 2011 at 12:45 AM.
    ylooshi likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Science is a method, religion is a teaching. The question 'should science and religion work together?' is not meaningful. It is more meaningful to ask 'Should biologist and christian work together?'

    Well, if the topic is 'malaria infection reduction' they can probably work together; the biologist provides the method (e.g. insect-repellent mosquito net) and the christian provides the delivery (e.g. the missionaries distribute the net to the villager).

    How does that sound?
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Unfortunately, it doesn't sound very good. Christian missionaries have a long history of bartering their "humanitarian aid" for acceptance of their cult teachings. Not all missionaries, but probably the vast majority of them.

    Accept my Jesus and you can have this bit of technology or this resource to get by in this war-ravaged land with your four fatherless children. Come get my malaria pills and learn how to get clean water for consumption at my church services.

    Cults propagate themselves according to their doctrines rather than according to the needs of humanity.

    Doubtless, someone will defend Christian missionaries by pointing out some well-known, selfless example where acceptance of doctrine wasn't a requirement for humanitarian aid, but I'd argue that these examples are few and still benefit the cult by giving the appearance of caring for humanity more than the supernatural. But, in the end, it's still the supernatural (i.e. the non-existent) that has a priority over humanity. And that's just fouled up beyond belief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    81
    -_- You guys are theophobic. I like to be open minded about possibilities. I think science should explain the one true religion, which probably exists... 1 in 10^40 chance of dna forming naturally... someone had to have been responsible for existence somewhere along the line, whether this universe is a direct creation or a bubble of self-contained spacetime surface tension in something bigger. I believe firmly in the ideal cooperation of religion and science, since the two compliment each other in perfect conditions, which we all strive for.

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~Einstein
    Suck on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Pomegranate Cameron View Post
    I think science should explain the one true religion, which probably exists.
    Which one do you consider the one true religion? And how should science try to accommodate adherents of other religions who consider theirs to be the one true religion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    716
    Every sentence that Pomegranate C. wrote is either questionable or plain wrong.

    -_- You guys are theophobic.
    They are atheist.
    I like to be open minded about possibilities.
    I do too, but don't treat every possibility as being equally likely to happen.
    I think science should explain the one true religion, which probably exists... 1 in 10^40 chance of dna forming naturally...
    That is a very low probability indeed.
    someone had to have been responsible for existence somewhere along the line, whether this universe is a direct creation or a bubble of self-contained spacetime surface tension in something bigger.
    Why is there a need to have someone responsible?
    I believe firmly in the ideal cooperation of religion and science, since the two compliment each other in perfect conditions, which we all strive for.
    "You still don't get it, do you?" Galileo would have said it, if he were alive today.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •