{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Mad Max:
7/30/2013 3:10:14 AM
219
Are science and religion compatible?
Personally, I find the idea of simultaneous support for both religion and science wholly incompatible. Here's my thought process:
- Scientists support the [url=http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/overview_scientific_method2.gif]scientific method[/url].
- Faith-based religion conflicts with the scientific method, as religion skips/ignores steps in the scientific method.
- One cannot support the scientific method while simultaneously supporting faith-based religion.
One cannot truly support both science and religion; you're compromising your support in one or the other.
Thoughts? Explain your position.
-
7 RepliesGod created science, problem solved.
-
Of course. Look at Kenneth Miller Freeman Dyson George Coyne.....the list goes on.
-
14 RepliesAwfully strange that Arrogant Bastard has stopped posting and Mad Max has started posting again, isn't it?
-
God is supposedly perfect (of the main monotheistic 3). Whereas, gods of the other religions (HIndu, Buddhism, Norse, Greek, etc...) seem to display human faults or characteristics. Assuming we are talking about the former (Which this forum always does when referring to religion disregarding the Eastern ones), if God is perfect and math is supposedly perfect (and math is a core pillar of many sciences), why can't God have created math or why can't God be math or why can't math be God or why can't math be a manifestation of God or why can't math be the rules to the universe as deemed by God? Who knows? Humans be silly trying to work out the mindset of God/gods (if there are one) or trying to find the answer for everything. Silly humans.
-
18 RepliesEdited by Ouch: 7/30/2013 3:35:13 AM"Faith-based religion" is redundant, as religion is not religion without the element of faith. Rather, religion without faith is philosophy (atheistic Buddhism, for instance, but it would have to include lack of belief in the devas). Anyway, I've always found this question to be rather pointless and it has been created for the sole purpose of giving the religious atheist a way to evangelize. One might believe by faith that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy by some in government and have little to no proof for it - this hardly means that the individual is incapable of being rational about things, and for that matter, would discard his belief in the JFK conspiracy given convincing evidence that undermined it. Mind you, if at any point a religious doctrine contradicts formal logic and by extension, science, then the latter always objectively takes precedence. In short, believing in creationism is incompatible with science; believing in god(s) is not, because the latter is not a scientific claim.
-
Edited by Elrond Hubbard: 7/30/2013 3:25:26 AMMy biggest problem with religion, summed up in one jpeg. Religion requires leaps of faith, science requires empirical evidence. They are not compatible.
-
I believe they can. Im approaching the scenario that "religion" here means that a being created all.
-
I think to a certain degree, yeah.
-
you explained my position for me. thanks.
-
-
20 RepliesThis discussing, particularly between Harlow and Max, raises an important philosophical point: can one simultaneously belief in two different epistemic methods? I would say 'no', for the reason that they may conflict. Harlow admits that in the case of science/empiricism conflicting with faith, then the former wins. If this is the case, however, how can any belief which is based solely on faith be rightfully considered 'knowledge'? We have no idea if this belief will be confirmed or denied by science, and since the possibility remains that it will be denied by science, we cannot be certain of any belief which we arrived at by faith. Such a belief would have the same epistemic status as any other evidence-less belief supported only by faith.
-
2 RepliesTo be fair, you don't need to use the scientific method in every part of your life even if you're a scientist. That's exactly why scientists use the scientific method and document every bit of their work, so that it doesn't get clouded by things like personal beliefs. For example, my dad's archaeology company had an employee who was a young Earth creationist. It didn't matter because the work she did had nothing to do with her personal beliefs.
-
Edited by A Metroid: 7/30/2013 3:57:13 AMIt really depends what you believe and your own interpretation of the religion you believe in.
-
Neither want to get together but they both know eventually living in the same house hold one of them is going to get seen naked by the other... In other words in the future something will have to be done wether one is exterminated, they join, or the finally learn to avoid each other.
-
2 RepliesOf course.
-
Edited by Seggi: 7/30/2013 3:36:25 AMI don't think any religion can make a reasonable claim to having verified its teachings empirically.
-
4 RepliesEdited by Inyaccurate: 7/30/2013 3:31:01 AMYes. It's just religious extremists or uptight Catholics that say otherwise.
-
No, they're not. And I don't mean that religion and science cannot "coexist" either in the real world, or in somebody's mind. However, if a religious person were to argue that they found the scientific method the supreme way of understanding, for lack of a better term, "stuff," they would be subject to cognitive dissonance. Most religions, in order to be a "believing" member, require fundamentally unscientific things to be accepted as truth.
-
2 RepliesI think it depends on the definition of religion. If it requires faith, then I would say no.
