Science and Religion are Not Compatible

[Dav]

Another good bumper sticker.

But given enough time, science will explain everything.

No, it never will. There is too much out there, more than you could possibly hope to imagine. It is infintely naive to believe that one day we will know everything. We never will, not in a billion years.

 

[Oftencold]

OK, I'll try again.

How many of, say, the principles of organic chemistry have you yourself learned through experimentation, versus those you have read about in a book or had a learned elder describe to you and then accepted, based on your faith in the source?

How about Geology? Advanced Physics? Astronomy? Anatomy? Paricle Physics? Immunology? Genetics?

I thoroughly understand the Scientific Method, thank you so very much. But most of the "Scientific Information" in your head did not get there via that method -- you took it on faith.

Of course there is "True Science." but very little of anyone's knowledge comes from that source. Even the greatest living scientific minds gained most of their learning through acceptance of material from sources in which they had faith.

I would go so far as to posit that an MRI, PET Scan or similar technology couldn't be used to differentiate between brains studying religious texts and scientific texts, especially if the subjects had similar levels of enthusiasm for each topic.

 

[Tashah]

But given enough time, science will explain everything.

Is science prophetic? How do you propose that science peer beyond the Planck scale where time and physics cease to exist? Mirroring religion, your faith in science is unconditional. Please, be kind enough to explain to me this unbounded miracle you propose above.

 

[Jerry]

Good try, but man made achievements are hardly examples of divine intervention.

The Babylonians had figured out pi hundreds of years earlier, and across the world early mathmeticians from China to greece were using geometry to do everything from plot the stars to note musical octaves.

The pyramids were large but fairly simple structures using normal math. Any normal man learning how to make geometric shapes would almost certainly lead to them drawing and building squares, triangles, squares, cones, etc.

Give me a third-grader with a ruler, paper and tape, and I will have him make you a variety of equal-sided objects, no magic needed.

How did that people know the circumference of the earth and the median land elevation, for example? (yes, those are 2 pieces of knowledge evident in the shape and dimension of the Great Pyramid).

You can't discover that with only basic math and a stick in the sand. You have to travel and take a ****-ton of measurements, centuries before Marco Polo.

So, how did they gain this knowledge if not by extraordinary means?

 

[Joe1991]

How did that people know the circumference of the earth and the median land elevation, for example? (yes, those are 2 pieces of knowledge evident in the shape and dimension of the Great Pyramid).

You can't discover that with only basic math and a stick in the sand. You have to travel and take a ****-ton of measurements, centuries before Marco Polo.

So, how did they gain this knowledge if not by extraordinary means?

Actually that's exactly what they did. I'll go look up a link and add it to this post, but I recall reading that the ancient mathmaticians not only knew the earth was round, but using a simple measuring stick placed in different locatons at different times of the day they came extremely close to getting the exact circumference of the earth.

 

[Joe1991]

Is science prophetic? How do you propose that science peer beyond the Planck scale where time and physics cease to exist? Mirroring religion, your faith in science is unconditional. Please, be kind enough to explain to me this unbounded miracle you propose above.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Seriously though, science is simply figuring out what makes things tick.
It doesn't need to be prophetic, snd it certainly doesn't require belief in mythical beings.

A hundred years ago the incandescent bulb and land-line phone were technological marvels, and now we have super colliders and space telescopes. A better question would be why wouldn't science eventually be able to explain the universe?

 

[Jerry]

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Seriously though, science is simply figuring out what makes things tick.
It doesn't need to be prophetic, snd it certainly doesn't require belief in mythical beings.

A hundred years ago the incandescent bulb and land-line phone were technological marvels, and now we have super colliders and space telescopes. A better question would be why wouldn't science eventually be able to explain the universe?

You didn't answer her question.

 

[Joe1991]

You didn't answer her question.

To the best of my poor ability, I did.

 

[nkgupta80]

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Seriously though, science is simply figuring out what makes things tick.
It doesn't need to be prophetic, snd it certainly doesn't require belief in mythical beings.

A hundred years ago the incandescent bulb and land-line phone were technological marvels, and now we have super colliders and space telescopes. A better question would be why wouldn't science eventually be able to explain the universe?

Well one argument is that you would reach an infinite regression. You keep asking yourself what came before etc. etc.

Then you might counter by saying that we want to just explain what is observable, and what is observable is limited/finite. But that's exactly the problem. Our explanations will eventually become limited and unsatisfactory.

 

[Joe1991]

Actually that's exactly what they did. I'll go look up a link and add it to this post, but I recall reading that the ancient mathmaticians not only knew the earth was round, but using a simple measuring stick placed in different locatons at different times of the day they came extremely close to getting the exact circumference of the earth.

Who took away my edit button?

I don't see on any reputable site that the circumference of the earth was needed to build the pyramids, so if you want to show a link where it was, I'll dig deeper.

Anyway there's a lot of info out there that they could guestimate very close, but Eratosthenes gets the credit:

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/erat.htm

...Just that single observation, plus his knowledge of geometry and his own active brain, told him how to determine the distance around the earth. He did it by means of a shadow and some remarkably shrewd deductions.

Eratosthenes simply took the known distance between Syene and Alexandria, due north-as reported by camel caravans and professional "step- counters" -and then measured a single angle at the right place and the right time.


... his measurement was around 25,000 miles-very close to the actual circumference of the earth, as it was measured in later centuries. Eratosthenes' estimate was the most accurate in ancient times, and the climactic feat of the ancient practical art of geometry, or earth measurement.

 

[Tashah]

A better question would be why wouldn't science eventually be able to explain the universe?

Simple answer? Because science terminates well before the singularity of genesis can be approached. At this quantum juncture, our cosmic space-time (3:1) and its underlying principles do not yet exist. This is akin to the reason why science can never explain precisely what transpires within the singularity of a black hole.

 

[Joe1991]

Well one argument is that you would reach an infinite regression. You keep asking yourself what came before etc. etc.

Then you might counter by saying that we want to just explain what is observable, and what is observable is limited/finite. But that's exactly the problem. Our explanations will eventually become limited and unsatisfactory.

I understand where you're going, but still, given our rate of knowledge expansion over just this past century, and the fact that I put an infinate time limit on scientific progress, I'll stick by my statement.

 

[Joe1991]

Simple answer? Because science terminates well before the singularity of genesis can be approached. At this quantum juncture, our cosmic space-time (3:1) and its underlying principles do not yet exist. This is akin to the reason why science can never explain precisely what transpires within the singularity of a black hole.

If you will translate that into english, I will be glad to attempt to debate you.

Added:
Do you believe that if there is a God, he could explain the mysteries of the universe to us?
I say if we have to capacity to understand it, we have the capacity to figure it out without a supreme being.

 

[nkgupta80]

I understand where you're going, but still, given our rate of knowledge expansion over just this past century, and the fact that I put an infinate time limit on scientific progress, I'll stick by my statement.

what does putting an infinite time limit on scientific progress mean exactly?. Scientific progress is not one line of movement. Each field, each question presents a new avenue of movement.
Philosophically, there is a limit to explanation anyways. The fact that we can adequately describe the physical world with a special language (mathematics and various terminologies), does not mean we have explained it all. For example if I were to ask why there is momentum, there would be no explanation. Certain avenues of thought are restricted.

 

[celticlord]

I understand where you're going, but still, given our rate of knowledge expansion over just this past century, and the fact that I put an infinate time limit on scientific progress, I'll stick by my statement.

Infinite time on progress is irrelevant.

Until you can describe what precedes the origin, science is bounded in its ability to articulate.

Science can and likely will describe all that is within the universe--it can describe all that is.

Science cannot even postulate what is beyond the universe--it cannot describe what was and what will be.

 

[Jerry]

If you will translate that into english, I will be glad to attempt to debate you.

Added:
Do you believe that if there is a God, he could explain the mysteries of the universe to us?
I say if we have to capacity to understand it, we have the capacity to figure it out without a supreme being.

Tashah's explanation was pretty clear to this lay-man.

 

[Joe1991]

Tashah's explanation was pretty clear to this lay-man.

I don't blame you for giving up your poor debate and hitching your wagon to Tashahs.

 

[Jerry]

I don't blame you for giving up your poor debate and hitching your wagon to Tashahs.

That bait is too weak.

I'll have time to make better posts after I drop my kids off later.

 

[Joe1991]

That bait is too weak.

I'll have time to make better posts after I drop my kids off later.

I'll sharpen my crayons. :2razz:

 

[obvious Child]

Nice bumper sticker, but I say there is only one jurisdiction, truth.

And how does science explain things outside its jurisdiction?

Myths and fairy tales are obstructions to truths, not the paths.

Science as a method does not produce moral stories and ethical guidelines.

 

[Joe1991]

Science as a method does not produce moral stories and ethical guidelines.

Well if we're sticking to Science vs. Religion, I'd have to say religion has done a piss-poor job in that department.

We can easily observe in modern societies the use of science is much more beneficial than religion.

IE; taking a sick child to a doctor is 100% more effective than taking him to any religious leader.

 

[nkgupta80]

Well if we're sticking to Science vs. Religion, I'd have to say religion has done a piss-poor job in that department.

We can easily observe in modern societies the use of science is much more beneficial than religion.

IE; taking a sick child to a doctor is 100% more effective than taking him to any religious leader.

there are other questions of morality that science cannot prove one way or the other. With any hypothesis that is claimed, observables can be found that disprove it.

Even if laws could be found that drive human behavior, the normative analysis that morality requires has little place for science. What should be and what shouldn't lies largely with the goals established by a set of individuals.

 

[Mach]

Infinite time on progress is irrelevant.
Until you can describe what precedes the origin, science is bounded in its ability to articulate.

Not true. You can't even discuss origin and "precede origin" without making contradictions, so science is not involved at all at this point. Until you form a question consistent with reality, we can't investigate it in reality.

The concept of "origin", is conceived from within the system itself. Presupposing "before the system", with concepts implicitly presupposing WITHIN the system, is contradictory. It may have always been, and always will be, in which case you're looking for the starting point, on a circle. In these cases your idea of "origin", even if accepted as coherent (it's not), could still be false.

Science is silent on singularity (and if before makes sense) because there are no coherent questions being asked.

Science cannot even postulate what is beyond the universe--it cannot describe what was and what will be.

Science doesn't postulate, humans do.
Until someone asks a coherent question, science cannot be used to invesitage it. Hardly a limitation of science.

 

[nkgupta80]

Not true. You can't even discuss origin and "precede origin" without making contradictions, so science is not involved at all at this point. Until you form a question consistent with reality, we can't investigate it in reality.

The concept of "origin", is conceived from within the system itself. Presupposing "before the system", with concepts implicitly presupposing WITHIN the system, is contradictory. It may have always been, and always will be, in which case you're looking for the starting point, on a circle. In these cases your idea of "origin", even if accepted as coherent (it's not), could still be false.

Science is silent on singularity (and if before makes sense) because there are no coherent questions being asked.


Science doesn't postulate, humans do.
Until someone asks a coherent question, science cannot be used to invesitage it. Hardly a limitation of science.

Yes but there are coherent questions that science cannot really give definite answers to, like questions of morality.

 

[Joe1991]

Yes but there are coherent questions that science cannot really give definite answers to, like questions of morality.

Well again, if we are sticking to the original topic, Science and Religion, I believe philosophy and ethics are a branch of science, I'd have to say philosophy has affected society at least as much as theology.

And of course there are still a few societies that have never been touched by either, and I'll bet their rates of violence towards each other are lower than many modern societies.

Science is also the equivelent to "common sense" in many ways, in that: if you do x you get y. IE; heavy use of some activities may lead to cancer, etc.

Where common sense is based on your observations and perceptions, the scientific method will give you the accurate statistics of certain activities.