Are they enemies? Or do you think they are entirely seperate and don't conflict at all. Or from another standpoint, do they reinforce each other in some way? Discuss.

the world should revert to one or the other because theyre always trying to prove each other wrong

I think Science can be considered a religion itself.

Science isn't a religion. Science, religion and philosophy are three separate ways to find truth. Science uses the scientific method, philosophy uses logic and reason, and religion uses "divine revelation." Divine revelation can be further broken down into secondhand revelation and firsthand revelation. Secondhand revelation is usually religions teachings passed down from others, which includes dogma. Firsthand revelation is "spiritual," meaning it consists of emotional and paranormal stimuli. Some people use a mixture of science, philosophy, and/or religion in their beliefs. They are all just different ways of trying to find truth.

You said it yourself, they're all effectively trying to do the same thing.

Science can be thrown in with religion, though, because it is strictly taught and you do not go outside those boundaries. I forget who, but someone before said that no one would've had scientific revelations if they followed the way we teach them now.

Do you actually do all the experiments to find the truth for yourself? No, you just accept it. You can do experiments and find answers, but you can do that through other means as well. Just ask born-again Christians. Or Gnostics.

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

You said it yourself, they're all effectively trying to do the same thing.

Science can be thrown in with religion, though, because it is strictly taught and you do not go outside those boundaries. I forget who, but someone before said that no one would've had scientific revelations if they followed the way we teach them now.

Do you actually do all the experiments to find the truth for yourself? No, you just accept it. You can do experiments and find answers, but you can do that through other means as well. Just ask born-again Christians. Or Gnostics.

You understand that schools attempt to teach you the basics of scientific principles so that further discoveries can occur? Or do you think it's just coincidence that science still advances? We're not quite in Brave New World yet.

But only with religion can a tree fall on your car, and somehow the "devil" did it.

Science will win. I have no arguement.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

You understand that schools attempt to teach you the basics of scientific principles so that further discoveries can occur? Or do you think it's just coincidence that science still advances? We're not quite in Brave New World yet.

Sure. But I still believe that the way of teaching harnesses students and holds them back from their actual potential. Discoveries are made, but I believe more incredible ones would be made otherwise.

I think that there are exceptions to the science as a religion, too, so don't get me wrong. The thing is there are a multitude of people who will just accept and blindly believe science over a religion without even being involved in the field themselves.

AGAIN?

Ok, for all the retards who see science as a linear, dogmatic and stricly systematic, LET ME clarify something:

SCIENCE IS THE WAY OF FINDING TRUTH.

It is the application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is an indiputable (in terms of logic) method of finding out how the natural world works.

Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Basically, it means:

1) Come up with an idea.

2) Test it.

3) If test is positive, repeat. If test is negative, scrap idea.

It's that simple.

Philosophy is an airy-fairy way of disussing ethics, morals and a load of bullshit about 'God' and the 'supernatural'. Science, via de facto, disproves 'God'.

quote:SCIENCE IS THE WAY OF FINDING TRUTH.

For you.

quote:It is the application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is an indiputable (in terms of logic) method of finding out how the natural world works.

I know what the Scientific method is. I also know that there is more unknown than there is known. There are more theories accepted as truth than there are truths.

quote:Philosophy is an airy-fairy way of disussing ethics, morals and a load of bullshit about 'God' and the 'supernatural'. Science, via de facto, disproves 'God'.

I am not trying to convince you, I have no reason or motives for doing it. I have been revealed certain truths, so I will stick with them, thanks.

edit: ubb code.

[This message has been edited by malaria (edited 03-18-2005).]

Scientific 'truth' is always subject to change, if it is disproved by science itself. That is what makes it impossible to logically argue that science is worse than any other way of "finding" facts.

Philosophy is indisputably useless for finding out about the natural world. The ethics and morals side, however, is utile, because it positively influences people.

Science reveals Gods intentions and his amazing works.

I take all sicences and maths as A level subjects but I still know there is a Catholic/christian God. Physics and Biology just uncover more of Gods wonderous inventions.

Seeing the complexity of our universe really shows there must be a God or grater power of a sort.

There is no God, tard.

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

There is no God, tard.

Prove it, with science.

No evidence suggests that the correct theory is that there is no god. Science proves nothing to an absolute, except for one thing: something exists. Aside from that, every theory and law is subject to change. Hell, look at the theory of evolution...it's changed so much since it was formulated because that is what a theory does: it evolves to suit the evidence.

As i posted earlier science and religion are mutually exclusive. science explains "the how". ie, how things work, how our bodies use dna, how we evolve, etc...

religion explains the why. why are we here? why do atoms exist and form molecules, why do the numbers of the univeriverse like gravity = 9.8m/s^2 exist. if that number which is so crucial to maintaining our universe were to be changed by a decimal point physics as we not would not exist. So anyhow scince = how, religion = why

and on a side point it is terribly depressing to believe that we are here for no reason and that 'the why' question is inapplicable.

the whole "man evolved from apes" can be considered a religion but its claimed to be "science"

quote:Originally posted by Evo:

As i posted earlier science and religion are mutually exclusive. science explains "the how". ie, how things work, how our bodies use dna, how we evolve, etc...

religion explains the why. why are we here? why do atoms exist and form molecules, why do the numbers of the univeriverse like gravity = 9.8m/s^2 exist. if that number which is so crucial to maintaining our universe were to be changed by a decimal point physics as we not would not exist. So anyhow scince = how, religion = why

and on a side point it is terribly depressing to believe that we are here for no reason and that 'the why' question is inapplicable.



I'm sorry but you are mistaken. Do you know what "explanation" means? Religion explains nothing, and the "why" is also in the scientific field.

It's more depressing to believe you know the answer to the "why" question which was given to you without explanation. It's a sure way to never actually find the real answer. Your answer to every "why" is God. No explanation.

I am not bashing religion btw. I am just fed up with people who make religion be something it's not by definition. It's not a framework for explaining anything; it's a framework for moral guidance. How it fares in that framework is another topic however...

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

It's not a framework for explaining anything; it's a framework for moral guidance.

Just because you don't think religion explains things, it does not mean that that same way of thinking applies to everyone else. A lot of people do use religion and God to explain things, you obviously don't. Religion can explain phenomenas. Religion can explain the origin of the universe. You may not accept these explainations, but religion does explain things and it can provide a framework for explaining things.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Just because you don't think religion explains things, it does not mean that that same way of thinking applies to everyone else. A lot of people do use religion and God to explain things, you obviously don't. Religion can explain phenomenas. Religion can explain the origin of the universe. You may not accept these explainations, but religion does explain things and it can provide a framework for explaining things.

Yet with little to no physical evidence to back any of it up. But yes, saying something is true and believing that it is true can be used to explain everything. Personally, I like to believe that we were created by Barney the dinosaur and he has showm himself recently to guide us to a happier life.

Just make sure that you say that religion doesn't mean it is true.

quote:Originally posted by lao:

the whole "man evolved from apes" can be considered a religion but its claimed to be "science"

You're stupid enough that from now on I won't value your opinion. Not a single credible scientist would be stupid enough to say we evolved from apes; current evidence suggests that chimps and humans have a common ancestor...meaning we both evolved from the same species...which works quite well with how closely linked our DNA is.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Just because you don't think religion explains things, it does not mean that that same way of thinking applies to everyone else. A lot of people do use religion and God to explain things, you obviously don't. Religion can explain phenomenas. Religion can explain the origin of the universe. You may not accept these explainations, but religion does explain things and it can provide a framework for explaining things.



In my book, explanation means thorough understanding and concrete evidence. An explanation has merit if it has no rival explanations with better evidence. Currently, the only explanation religion can provide that cannot be overruled by science is that God created the universe. As science has no real evidence about the origins of the universe so far, that explanation can stand.



Don't you think it would be better if religion would concentrate on what it's really about? It can't challenge science without facing ridicule. But science doesn't have to be an enemy because it doesn't challenge religion's real territory. If religion would step out of science's territory it would have a measure of control over science.

What does religion do to better society? Does it oppose weapon research programs, governments that plan war, tv programs that spread racism and other million things that are wrong with the world? It is rather obsessed with abortion, stem cell research, cloning...things that can actually help people. This happens because religion gives more basis to its explanation framework instead of making LIVING people happier.

I know you can substitute "religion" with "christianity" easily in the above but it's probably the only religion that challenges science to such profound levels.

How the hell does modern christianity attack science? Mind you, I'm not talking about conservative christianity, because they are the minority, but modern christians. Christianity no longer challenges evolution. So how does christianity attack science?

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

AGAIN?

Ok, for all the retards who see science as a linear, dogmatic and stricly systematic, LET ME clarify something:

SCIENCE IS THE WAY OF FINDING TRUTH.

It is the application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is an indiputable (in terms of logic) method of finding out how the natural world works.

Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Basically, it means:

1) Come up with an idea.

2) Test it.

3) If test is positive, repeat. If test is negative, scrap idea.

It's that simple.

Philosophy is an airy-fairy way of disussing ethics, morals and a load of bullshit about 'God' and the 'supernatural'. Science, via de facto, disproves 'God'.

now that's some clearheadedness in a sea of woolly thinking.

the only way god comes into it is in "CHANCE" when you throw a dice it is completely random to you, but really it is "GOD" choosing which side it lands on.

meh, i stole that one from a documentary.

but yeah if you have half a brain you will see that science is unlike religion or philosophy, in that it deals ONLY with real facts, you can hypothesise but if there are no facts to back up your hypothesis or if a fact disproves your hypothesis then you have to bin it.

the most famous hypothesis that has been binned, is this one: there is a god.

i mean you have to ask yourself this question: what has god EVER done?

What has science done except make known to us the actions and will of god?

Atheism is logical.

Why?

Because lack of evidence is not evidence in itself, but is reason to believe that the inevidenced subject is false.



There is as much proof as for a god as for undetectable purple cows which fly behind clouds.

Now, by the false logic people use for believeing in a god, we could also believe in these cows.

Prove the cows don't exist, prove that god doesn't exist. Otherwise, by the logic of theists, the cows also exist. And by the logic of the agnostics, the cows might exist.





Anyway, for those who are religious, you cannot debate faith, as, by definition, it is not debatable.



i.e. If you believe in God because of the lack of evidence AGAINST God, then the undetectable purple cows which fly behind clouds also exis

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

How the hell does modern christianity attack science? Mind you, I'm not talking about conservative christianity, because they are the minority, but modern christians. Christianity no longer challenges evolution. So how does christianity attack science?

Minority or not, the mere existence of creationism is an attack from religion to science. It doesn't seem such a minority in this forum though...

I know of two creationists on this forum, who are the others?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I know of two creationists on this forum, who are the others?

I don't know, does it matter? A lot of discussions were dominated by this subject, at least since I was reading this. Anyway, even in the minority, it's still religion crossing its boundaries to clash with science. I do hope it's a small minority but I've heard they even teach creationism in schools in the USA...

They teach creationism here, too. Not as fact, albeit, but the RE curriculum is shit. They teach ONE scientific idea as to how the universe originated, and say "Yeah, that's the SCIENTIFIC creation theory.", despite the fact that only a very small minority of scientists really agree on any such theory.

I'm not against teaching religion in school, especially Christianity, but if they are going to, I want to know the history of the religion, it's origins, etc. Because if it influences over 2000 years of culture, it's definately important. I want lessons on the crusades, not on the Christian and Muslim views of divorce.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

I don't know, does it matter? A lot of discussions were dominated by this subject, at least since I was reading this. Anyway, even in the minority, it's still religion crossing its boundaries to clash with science. I do hope it's a small minority but I've heard they even teach creationism in schools in the USA...

Not straight from the bible, the world was created in seven days creationism. I go to a catholic school and even here that type of creationism isn't taught. They teach "divine origin", which besically states that a god is the creator of the world, and even then, that is only presented as an alternative to how the world was created. It isn't taught as fact.

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

Sure. But I still believe that the way of teaching harnesses students and holds them back from their actual potential.

In what way? What would you suggest as an alternative?

Without an understanding of fundamental principles, science becomes alchemy.

[This message has been edited by Tesseract (edited 03-21-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

AGAIN?

Ok, for all the retards who see science as a linear, dogmatic and stricly systematic, LET ME clarify something:

SCIENCE IS THE WAY OF FINDING TRUTH.

It is the application of THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is an indiputable (in terms of logic) method of finding out how the natural world works.

Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Basically, it means:

1) Come up with an idea.

2) Test it.

3) If test is positive, repeat. If test is negative, scrap idea.

It's that simple.

Philosophy is an airy-fairy way of disussing ethics, morals and a load of bullshit about 'God' and the 'supernatural'. Science, via de facto, disproves 'God'.



You've actually said some very silly things.

First, science is a method for finding truth. It is a very reliable one, but it only concerns physical phenomena. And it doesn't disprove God, where did you get that idea, it is incapable of addressing the matter of God, that's something very different. Whether or not God exists is not falsifiable, so it has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Philosophy isn't what you described, although it does deal with ethics and morals (though nobody really seems to understand moral philosophy, and I'm talking about professional philosophers). It's a method of determining the truth of propositions through logic. What you're thinking of is either speculative metaphysics, theology, or ancient Greek philosophy.

There are plenty of truths that science cannot address. For example, what happened before the big bang? The current "scientific" explanations such as brane theory sound an awful lot like the speculative metaphysics I mentioned earlier. There are no tests to prove or disprove it. Or another example, why is the universes expansion accelerating? Scientists are using guesswork and suggesting something about dark matter, but it's hardly using the scientific method. Hell, explain fucking gravity why don't you? Nope, no truths to be found there. Religious explanations for each of these things have as much validity as scientific ones, we just don't know either way.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:



There are plenty of truths that science cannot address. For example, what happened before the big bang? The current "scientific" explanations such as brane theory sound an awful lot like the speculative metaphysics I mentioned earlier. There are no tests to prove or disprove it. Or another example, why is the universes expansion accelerating? Scientists are using guesswork and suggesting something about dark matter, but it's hardly using the scientific method. Hell, explain fucking gravity why don't you? Nope, no truths to be found there. Religious explanations for each of these things have as much validity as scientific ones, we just don't know either way.

Um, no they don't. The guesswork is based somewhere (our current knowledge of how things work) and it is well within the scientific method. We are just dealing with subjects that are very hard to test with experiment but a lot of those experiments are already being planned for the future. For example, string theory predicts supersymmetry of particles which could be proven/disproven with better accelerators that are being built right now. You do seem happy because science can't yet explain some things...

Why do you need religion to explain these things anyway? This is science's territory. What science cannot do is tell you why murder is wrong. I think religion should quit challenging science and focus on what it's really about. Something that it is failing miserably to if you can see what the world's coming to.

Pure ownage, elfstone http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:



You've actually said some very silly things.

First, science is a method for finding truth. It is a very reliable one, but it only concerns physical phenomena.

What is there more to existance than physical phenomena?

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

And it doesn't disprove God, where did you get that idea, it is incapable of addressing the matter of God, that's something very different. Whether or not God exists is not falsifiable, so it has nothing to do with the scientific method.

By that logic science is incapable of adressing the existance of my undetectable purple cows :P

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Philosophy isn't what you described, although it does deal with ethics and morals (though nobody really seems to understand moral philosophy, and I'm talking about professional philosophers). It's a method of determining the truth of propositions through logic. What you're thinking of is either speculative metaphysics, theology, or ancient Greek philosophy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Philosophy

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Science

What can philosophy do without any form of empirical observation?

I want an example of a possible debate subject which has no association with science.



quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

There are plenty of truths that science cannot address. For example, what happened before the big bang? The current "scientific" explanations such as brane theory sound an awful lot like the speculative metaphysics I mentioned earlier. There are no tests to prove or disprove it. Or another example, why is the universes expansion accelerating? Scientists are using guesswork and suggesting something about dark matter, but it's hardly using the scientific method. Hell, explain fucking gravity why don't you? Nope, no truths to be found there. Religious explanations for each of these things have as much validity as scientific ones, we just don't know either way.

Basically as elfstone said, scientists start with our current proofs and speculate.

You want me to prove gravity for you?

Here's a test you can do for me:

1) Take an object with weight in your hand.

2) Release object near object of higher mass.

Religion = Guesswork

Science = Observation, speculation, testing of speculation, observation fits with testing, speculation becomes scientific fact untill disproven by alternate application of same system.

Personally I think religion is based on science. They said the world was built in 7 days, but back then a day could have been an entire geological era. Maybe, who knows actually. I think that they all have some sort of meeting ground, but we haven't found that yet.

If there is a meeting ground for the creationist theory:

http://www.intellectualwhores.com/sleepinggod.html

OK here we go, elfstone first:

I don't have a bone to pick with science, I consider it a method of finding truth just like any other. What I'm talking about are its limitations. As for string theory, it's a very interesting piece of intellectual work, but you must admit that it is very much a hypothetical idea to try and haphazardly patch together general relativity and quantum field theory. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it has as much firm foundation as any belief about god. 26 dimensions are necessary for it to hold true, now come on... it might as well be 26 angels, the theory doesn't actually make any predictions that can be verified, and since these dimensions are supposed to be "compacted" we can't even detect them. The possibility that it will be confirmed by experimental observation are in fact quite remote, if at all likely in the next few decades. Just as importantly, in order to incorporate quantum theory into a more generalised framework, the theory needs to also bring into play some other theory that is consistent with general relativity by existing outside spacetime. We're really getting onto thin ice here... Look none of this is an attack on you, I'm just trying to point out that science doesn't explain everything, and when it tries to it is sometimes requires leaps of faith exactly like religion does (I'm not taking sides on the religion vs. science title fight).



The_Reckoning:

What more is there to existence than physical phenomena? I'm not trying to dodge the question, but that is very subjective and will vary from person to person. For some people, spiritual truths are just as much a part of existence, if not more, than the gritty world of subatomic particles and strawberries.

About science and purple cows in relation to god, I'll repeat what Richard Dawkins said (author of The Selfish Gene etc, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, i.e. credentialed) about science's ability to talk about god. In fact I'll be honest, when he said this he was criticising agnostic beliefs, but what he says has the same logic that can be used to defend it. He said that "we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean the theory that there *is* a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn't." Within the framework of logical assumptions, then we can say it is less likely that god exists than that he does. But despite that we still can't state that he doesn't exist. And besides, if you are open minded you will at least admit the possibility that other peoples beliefs, decided according to different criteria, might just be right. If you're going to be close minded, then there is no point in even discussing this in the first place. And that would be a shame. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

About what philosophy can say without empirical observation, I would direct you to Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason". I won't embarrass myself by mangling his arguments by trying to paraphrase them, here is quite a good explanation of it: http://www.mun.ca/phil/codgito/vol3/v3doc1.html

Essentially the conclusion he reaches is that it is false to consider spiritual/moral and scientific ways of viewing the world as incompatible.

"The Critique of Pure Reason, then, moves God out of the realm of ontology and into that of epistemology. The concept of God is involved in cognition, but is merely an analogical image. From the standpoint of speculative reason, God has no objective reality. Yet Kant posits two types of reality, the cognitive and the moral. These two points of view are tied together by reason. The concept of sensation is not simply a negative boundary to stop us from bringing up: something that lies behind sensation. Kant wants us to leave this something completely unspecified in the realm of cognition. God is indeterminable in the sphere of understanding, determinable in the sphere of reason, and determinate in the sphere of moral experience. There are then two view points, the cognitive, which includes understanding and reason, and the realm of moral experience. Kant retains the reality and determinability of God in the sphere of moral experience. Only the reality of God makes morality possible. In terms of empirical cognition, however, we cannot go beyond the bounds of the a priori conditions. Only Kant's analysis of moral experience lets us go beyond the analogical level."

I won't say too much on this myself because the argument is too complicated for my lazy brain to take a shot at, just that he suggests knowledge of God is possible, but [b]not through rational analysis. If you want to give Kant a go you'll find him very rewarding, though it might fuck up your rigid "scientific" view of the world.

Finally, about gravity, I didn't ask you to prove it. Come on, that would be pretty stupid of me. I asked you to explain it. There is no current scientific explanation for how gravity works, there is just a very vague theory about a "graviton" particle that may or may not exist, with no framework to explain how it operates, and no idea about how to detect it (please don't quote string theory to me, I already addressed that).

Phew, hope anybody bothered to even read down this far. If so, thankee sirs, and for the rest of you, let the flames begin.

[edited spelling]



[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-11-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Clarphimous:

Science isn't a religion. Science, religion and philosophy are three separate ways to find truth. Science uses the scientific method, philosophy uses logic and reason, and religion uses "divine revelation." Divine revelation can be further broken down into secondhand revelation and firsthand revelation. Secondhand revelation is usually religions teachings passed down from others, which includes dogma. Firsthand revelation is "spiritual," meaning it consists of emotional and paranormal stimuli. Some people use a mixture of science, philosophy, and/or religion in their beliefs. They are all just different ways of trying to find truth.

Most religon just fills in gaps of human knowledge with "our god did it."

But that's mainly christians.

Everyone else I'm cool with.

imperfectcircle, I read the entire post http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) If you're going to bother typing it, I'm at least going to have the respect to read it.

I wasn't saying that there is definately no god. I'm just stating that the logical option is not to believe in one, for the same reasons as Dawkins' teapot and my cows. By the way, good job for reading up on Dawkins, brilliant author.

I can't really dispute most of what Kant says because to agree it necessitates the belief in free will. I'm an absolute derterminist. Don't become one, though, because it provokes suicidal tendencies. However, me saying that is futile, because whatever is going to happen has already been set in motion and...agh..... FUCK PREDETERMINISM AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

lol

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

imperfectcircle, I read the entire post http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) If you're going to bother typing it, I'm at least going to have the respect to read it.

I wasn't saying that there is definately no god. I'm just stating that the logical option is not to believe in one, for the same reasons as Dawkins' teapot and my cows. By the way, good job for reading up on Dawkins, brilliant author.

I can't really dispute most of what Kant says because to agree it necessitates the belief in free will. I'm an absolute derterminist. Don't become one, though, because it provokes suicidal tendencies. However, me saying that is futile, because whatever is going to happen has already been set in motion and...agh..... FUCK PREDETERMINISM AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

Buuuuuut Determinism is sooooooo 19th Century... live in the Quantum Era duude!

An electron can cause wave interfearance with itself for goodness sake... how wacked is that?

There really ARE random things in the building blocks of the universe, there are things that we CANNOT know, not because of our failures in accuracy, but because of the crazed principles of the universe.

I mean... radioactive decay... we can plot it up on graphs statistically, but it's impossible to figure out if or when a specific atom will decay... there's nothing to go on, nothing at all.

Basically, the way I see it is - Yep... I'm going to die... that'll be it, but between now and then, I really do have free will - the electrons that orbit the atoms in my brain aren't in any specific, REAL place, unless someone tries to actually find where they are, there's so much uncertainty everywhere, so much that simply can't be known, that is just s random and wacked out of fasion, that as a sort of "machine" that can then effect its own working processes itself, it really doesn't seem so hard to think that complete determinism can't be right.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

OK here we go, elfstone first:

I don't have a bone to pick with science, I consider it a method of finding truth just like any other. What I'm talking about are its limitations. As for string theory, it's a very interesting piece of intellectual work, but you must admit that it is very much a hypothetical idea to try and haphazardly patch together general relativity and quantum field theory. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it has as much firm foundation as any belief about god. 26 dimensions are necessary for it to hold true, now come on... it might as well be 26 angels, the theory doesn't actually make any predictions that can be verified, and since these dimensions are supposed to be "compacted" we can't even detect them. The possibility that it will be confirmed by experimental observation are in fact quite remote, if at all likely in the next few decades. Just as importantly, in order to incorporate quantum theory into a more generalised framework, the theory needs to also bring into play some other theory that is consistent with general relativity by existing outside spacetime. We're really getting onto thin ice here... Look none of this is an attack on you, I'm just trying to point out that science doesn't explain everything, and when it tries to it is sometimes requires leaps of faith exactly like religion does (I'm not taking sides on the religion vs. science title fight).



That's fine. I only brought up string theory as an example of a yet unproven theory. If it gets disproved, it's not the end of science, there are already theories that would rush to fill its gap. And of course a scientist would be the first to point out that there are a LOT of things we can't explain.

However, this shouldn't mean anything for religion; its field is a different one and science's victories or shortcomings are irrelevant to it. Religion's explanations are fixed, while science's change and become better. If in some issues both explanations require "leaps of faith", they will either be equal in merit or science will prevail in the future. But it is not explanations I expect from religion. I expect from both science and religion to make our lives better, one with technology, the other with morality. If I see in the world today that our lives are not better, who am I to blame? Is it science that has failed to come up with technology or is it religion that has failed to inspire moral values to people? It really bothers me that people would be troubled over who created the universe and not that war, starvation and racism are an everyday occurence. And I only have religion to blame for this.

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

Buuuuuut Determinism is sooooooo 19th Century... live in the Quantum Era duude!

An electron can cause wave interfearance with itself for goodness sake... how wacked is that?

There really ARE random things in the building blocks of the universe, there are things that we CANNOT know, not because of our failures in accuracy, but because of the crazed principles of the universe.

I mean... radioactive decay... we can plot it up on graphs statistically, but it's impossible to figure out if or when a specific atom will decay... there's nothing to go on, nothing at all.

Basically, the way I see it is - Yep... I'm going to die... that'll be it, but between now and then, I really do have free will - the electrons that orbit the atoms in my brain aren't in any specific, REAL place, unless someone tries to actually find where they are, there's so much uncertainty everywhere, so much that simply can't be known, that is just s random and wacked out of fasion, that as a sort of "machine" that can then effect its own working processes itself, it really doesn't seem so hard to think that complete determinism can't be right.

But... I played all the way up the tech tree in Alpha Centauri...



I think (if we don't destroy ourselves first) that eventually we will progress so far as to be able to predict things like that with dead accuracy.

quote:Originally posted by The_Reckoning:

Scientific 'truth' is always subject to change, if it is disproved by science itself. That is what makes it impossible to logically argue that science is worse than any other way of "finding" facts.

Philosophy is indisputably useless for finding out about the natural world. The ethics and morals side, however, is utile, because it positively influences people.

Its that that makes science better, science accepts it can make mistakes and then it fixes them.

religion will not ever accept it is wrong no matter what.

How can that lead to progress?

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:



You've actually said some very silly things.

First, science is a method for finding truth. It is a very reliable one, but it only concerns physical phenomena. And it doesn't disprove God, where did you get that idea, it is incapable of addressing the matter of God, that's something very different. Whether or not God exists is not falsifiable, so it has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Philosophy isn't what you described, although it does deal with ethics and morals (though nobody really seems to understand moral philosophy, and I'm talking about professional philosophers). It's a method of determining the truth of propositions through logic. What you're thinking of is either speculative metaphysics, theology, or ancient Greek philosophy.

There are plenty of truths that science cannot address. For example, what happened before the big bang? The current "scientific" explanations such as brane theory sound an awful lot like the speculative metaphysics I mentioned earlier. There are no tests to prove or disprove it. Or another example, why is the universes expansion accelerating? Scientists are using guesswork and suggesting something about dark matter, but it's hardly using the scientific method. Hell, explain fucking gravity why don't you? Nope, no truths to be found there. Religious explanations for each of these things have as much validity as scientific ones, we just don't know either way.

Firstly It is "the" truth.

As you can see by its definition

"Truth

1)conformity to fact

2)A statement proven to be true"

Notice the key words fact and proven, as religion gives no proof using fact you can't say it is a "truth".

Also you say science cant explain some things and use this as an argument to discredit science and make it equal to a religion.

Well surely you can not expect the entire universe to be fully understood in the blink of an eye that humans have been on the earth.

There are more stars in our universe than grains of sand on every beach on the planet but you still expect science to explain every one of them in such a minute amount of time?

quote:Originally posted by craig2005:

Firstly It is "the" truth.

As you can see by its definition

"Truth

1)conformity to fact

2)A statement proven to be true"

Notice the key words fact and proven, as religion gives no proof using fact you can't say it is a "truth".

Also you say science cant explain some things and use this as an argument to discredit science and make it equal to a religion.

Well surely you can not expect the entire universe to be fully understood in the blink of an eye that humans have been on the earth.

There are more stars in our universe than grains of sand on every beach on the planet but you still expect science to explain every one of them in such a minute amount of time?

Sigh... it is not THE truth, it's just a method. To give one example out of countless many, science used to tell us THE truth when it said that atoms were solid. Then it gave us THE truth when it said atoms were made up of protons and electrons. Then it gave us THE truth when it said the atom is made up of subatomic particles.

It can't have been giving THE single and only truth each time, or else we have contradictions. What we *can* say is that it was giving the best possible picture available to us each time, because science can only SUGGEST the truth, and each time it does that suggestion contains the possibility of being wrong (which is how the scientific method works). It can't be THE truth if it might be wrong, and is only a suggestion. People who say that science gives THE truth are exactly the same as Bible bashing fundamentalist religion nuts.

As for your argument about why science gives "the truth", it is incredibly weak, but more importantly deceptive. It sounds like you used the American Heritage Dictionary (first entry on http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=truth) and left out the parts that didn't support your argument. The full entry is:

truth Audio pronunciation of "truth" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)

n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.

2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

3. Sincerity; integrity.

4. Fidelity to an original or standard.

5.

1. Reality; actuality.

2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

Let's take the first entry to start with, conformity to fact or actuality (existence). When I talk about religious or spiritual truths, don't assume I'm talking about Christianity. If you don't know anything about what Buddhist and Hindu religions say about existence and the universe, go read up a little before you talk about them. Anyway, religious truths are in no way incompatible with this definition of truth. Explain to me how the Buddhist conception of change as illustrated with the yin-yang doesn't conform to existence, I dare you, because I can tell you how it applies to everything from the cycles of nature to the quantum entanglement of photons.

As for the second definition, proof isn't defined as the requisite for truth. It is also anything which is "accepted", you quietly cut that part out though, not a very honest thing to do. If you're going to use definitions to support your argument, you can't pick and choose the bits you like. "Notice the keys words facts and proven" my ass... In fact the second part of the fifth definition goes against your argument, as it talks about the "ultimate value and meaning of existence" - something science can't ever talk about, this falls squarely into the realm of religious/spiritual thought.

And what you said about my treatment of science isn't true either. First of all, I didn't discredit science, I was pointing out its limitations. That's why I said "there are plenty of truths science cannot address". And I didn't equate science and religion either, what I said was that when we talk about the things that science can't address, religious truths are as valid as scientific truths. If you think that isn't true, explain how science can be "more right" than religion about things that it is incapable of analysing.



[This message has been edited by imperfectcircle (edited 04-11-2005).]