Truth : Science Vs. Religion

[Wrigleyvillain]

Fixed.

So is bad science. The only thing they have in common is mans arrogance.

Yes ok I'll accept that because we are talking about organized religion not "spirituality" and things above and beyond our relatively puny consciousness and cognition.

What exactly is "bad" science anyway? And note I'm not talking about any kind of fraud or deliberate lies to fit a particular agenda. In this case, apparently a mistake was made re. the reliability of carbon dating and such. I don't know if I'd call that "bad science". Apply what has been learned and adjust what's necessary and move on.

 

[digibucc]

Yes ok I'll accept that because we are talking about organized religion not "spirituality" and things above and beyond our relatively puny consciousness and cognition.

What exactly is "bad" science anyway? And note I'm not talking about any kind of fraud or deliberate lies to fit a particular agenda.

bad science is really anybody who uses the name of science but doesn't follow
the scientific principles.

for example, having a desired outcome and having tunnel-vision only seeing facts
that point to that outcome.

as i said though, at least science has a good side. all religion imo fits the above description.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Again, the reason science works so well is partly that built-in errorcorrecting
machinery. There are no forbidden questions in science,
no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths.
That openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical
scrutiny of all ideas, sifts the wheat from the chaff. It makes no difference
how smart, august, or beloved you are. You must prove your
case in the face of determined, expert criticism. Diversity and debate
are valued. Opinions are encouraged to contend — substantively and
in depth.

--Carl Sagan

 

[The Witcher]

you're free to believe what you want witcher, but i disagree . not in your sentiment,
but in your analysis of the situation. being paralyzed by fear of the unknown is the
only reason to stay neutral.

though there is no definite answer either way, there is enough information to take a side.
you can be open minded while at the same time not giving more credence than deserved
to faulty ideals.

i mean, do you believe "god did it" is as good an answer as the theory of gravity, or general relativity?

atomic clocks are not worthless, they just aren't as infallible as we thought.

I see many voids in both parties that's why I'm still neutral. It's like when one party is putting an argument there is an opposite argument from the other which might strong enough.

From the way I see it Religion do depend on unanswered question but in the same time I see scientists who became too radical in their beliefs of certain theories and made them as facts which in a way reminds me of fanatic religious figures, scientists who spread their ideas thru books and journals and many people do believe in most of these ideas because let's be honest the general public have a hard time resisting scientific ideas because simply they are not familiar or are not deep enough in these subjects to put an argument.

I forgot what I wanted to say..anyway I know that the way I think is not "efficient or effective" because like I said above I'm extremely skeptic about everything. I always try to think outside the box.

Just take it easy on me

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

Ok but-and I thought I covered this-I'd venture to say that those are bad scientists. It's not science itself that is at fault in these situations. Unlike religion which is BS from the get go, imo.

 

[digibucc]

as mailman has been ... alluding to, look at the theories and not the men behind them.

which system of belief do you think has more in place to at least attempt to make it even,
and open? do you really see the scientific method and "intelligent design" to be on
equal footing, forgetting the people associated?

as i said, "do you believe "god did it" is as good an answer as the theory of gravity, or
general relativity?"

you talk about being open minded. forget individual scientists, that's what SCIENCE is
ALL ABOUT! do you see christianity, islam, and judaism as being open minded?

 

[W1zzard]

as i said, "do you believe "god did it" is as good an answer as the theory of gravity, or
general relativity?"

you are asking invalid questions. it's like asking an artist "what's the sum of those paintings?" or "whats the square root of a lady gaga song?"

 

[digibucc]

you are asking invalid questions. it's like asking an artist "what's the sum of those paintings?"

in the specific context of which more attempts to find the verifiable truth.

@ford

i guess i generally place more importance on these matters, practical for every day or not.

 

[W1zzard]

to find the verifiable truth

by definition there is no prove to religion
by definition science has no answers that cant be verified

 

[digibucc]

by definition there is no prove to religion
by definition science has no answers that cant be verified

and that's my point.
science is designed to be tested, religion avoids that entirely.

in my mind, that makes science the more trustworthy, when there
is confusion.

 

[W1zzard]

and that's my point.
science is designed to be tested, religion avoids that entirely.

in my mind, that makes science the more trustworthy.

trust is a diffuse concept that varies from person to person and you're comparing apples to oranges a space station

 

[digibucc]

but there is also an objective truth, that can be shared and verified between people.

although i find inner truth important, i think it is only valuable when compared to
the more pure imo, truth that everyone can see and test.

they both attempt to answer the questions we hold important as a species:
why are we here, where did we come from, where are we going?

in my mind, that makes them competing ideals.

and by trust i simply mean it makes me more willing to say "this set of ideals is
more likely to find me some sort of verifiable truth"

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

Why isn't this religion vs science thing being discussed on General Nonsense instead of here?

Good question, actually, but at least here at TPU we can apparently have a civil, non-reactionary discussion about these matters which is pretty much the opposite of all the other forums with which I'm familiar. XS had to specifically ban all religious and political talk from Wamps outright. And I supported that decision as it was aggravating.

trust is a diffuse concept that varies from person to person and you're comparing apples to oranges a space station

Trust? Yes. Truth? No.

Note I do not claim to know this truth, either. Just to question and wonder.

 

[Kreij]

New thread for this discussion so the radioactive decay thread can go back on-topic.

 

[DannibusX]

Religion and Science go hand in hand. They're essentially the same thing.

 

[CDdude55]

Religion and Science go hand in hand. They're essentially the same thing.

Can you explain that?(unless it's a joke lol)

 

[Captain.Abrecan]

I told a girl at work the other day (who was upset about this): "You came from a monkey, or a rib. Choose wisely." LOL

 

[DannibusX]

Fanatics are abound in both disciplines. I take an outside view of both. I am neither religiously inclined or scientifically abled.

It's like this. Religion tells us that a god, or gods created the Earth and the heavens. Science tells us that the heavens are actually the cosmos, the universe and it all started with a massive explosion billions of years ago. Can you prove either?

If you wanted to get right down to it, you could say that god snapped his fingers and the universe exploded into being. That's as good as explanation as any I've ever heard.

 

[The Witcher]

Fanatics are abound in both disciplines. I take an outside view of both. I am neither religiously inclined or scientifically abled.

It's like this. Religion tells us that a god, or gods created the Earth and the heavens. Science tells us that the heavens are actually the cosmos, the universe and it all started with a massive explosion billions of years ago. Can you prove either?

If you wanted to get right down to it, you could say that god snapped his fingers and the universe exploded into being. That's as good as explanation as any I've ever heard.

The Church Of The Snapped Fingers

 

[Damn_Smooth]

My opinion on this matter is this: Organised religion since it's inception has done far more harm than good. It has caused the most irrational acts of violence known to history, and even in today's society, where you think we would have learned some sort of lesson from the past, it is still causing wars and violence worldwide.

On the other hand, science has enabled more and more destruction in the hands of what in most occasions, is a religious purveyor of their own delusional justice.

In the end, they are working hand in hand to destroy everything.

If their truly is a god, there would be no reason for it to do anything but sit back and watch. Seriously, why would it get involved in punishing us when we are doing an amazing job of doing that ourselves, and why intervene when we have collectively spit in it's face every opportunity we've been given to do so?

To summarize: Neither science nor religion are a good thing when put in the hands of the people that have somehow found themselves in control of them, and the endless debate about which is correct is pointless when they are joined together in unholy matrimony.

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

Wha? Wait a minute what the hell happened here? LOL

Mmm that's some creative moderating...

 

[Red_Machine]

You know why Britain entered into the Catholic church? Because the king at the time wanted more power over his subjects. That says it all.

 

[W1zzard]

Wha? Wait a minute what the hell happened here? LOL

Mmm that's some creative moderating...

we split the religion debate out of the original thread and made this thread so you can keep going

 

[Athlon2K15]

i dont mean to get to much off topic but this thread is giving me a huge boner

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

I don't get it. We know so much about the real and rather mundane historical origins of all religions now that it's no longer a defensible view point to have. So why would anyone continue to have religious beliefs? A) They need them for comfort. The idea of not existing and constantly having to worry about not existing at some point can be quite debilitating. Most likely why religious beliefs are an evolutionary necessity for any advanced race in the early days before they have a legacy of knowledge to build upon. Otherwise you'd spend too much time pondering why this or why that and being terrified of death. B) It's entrenched from childhood, and resistance to having the foundation of your beliefs removed is incredibly high. C) It's just much easier to be pig headed than to go research something with the intent of proving yourself wrong.