Religion and Science... where to draw the line?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Religion and Science... where to draw the line? » Religion and Science... where to draw the line?

Religion and Science... where to draw the line?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

Religion and Science... where to draw the line?

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 536

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/12/07 - 06:34 PM: Subject: Religion and Science... where to draw the line?	#1
Science is our way of categorizing, analyzing, predicting and explaining observable natural phenoma. Since religion deals mostly with the super-natural, it seems as though these two disciplines should not mix. If these religious concepts are observable and can be tested, then they are subject to scientific analysis; however, if the claims being made are not observable, then these are not scientific claims. As such, they cannot be tested. Many people like Dawkins ( a complete moron ) seem to try and use science to disprove things which, by definition, are outside the realm of science. It is the same way in which Intelligent Design people try and merge science and religion. If these scientists are clear about when they are using science and when they are stating their own opinions or perhaps their own reasoning, then there is no harm. But if they persist in trying to integrate the unobservable into science, they are doing us all harm. Of course, we can all have our own view on things like religions and they can sometimes be harmful to others. But we should respect the borders of science and be clear about what is and what isn't scientific.
Do unto others.

Mr.Anonymous
Mr.Anonymous

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: The Internet
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 611

Posted 04/12/07 - 09:05 PM:	#2
1) I actually think a lot of the problem is this outright division of science and religion. It allows people to label one as the truth and the other as heresy. In the times of Darwin it was religion as the truth and science as heresy. Today it's science as the truth and religion as heresy. Granted, there should be a certain point where there should be a separation of aspects, but what is best is to have science and religion working together in peace to discover more about reality. For this to work, however, the world religions need to update or adjust to the given scientific facts, while the scientific community must learn to not shut their minds and be open to new possibilities. 2) Dawkins is not a moron, though his meme theory is rather absurd from my point of view. Further more, I wish people would stop quoting him. He has only been in the spot light for about a year or two from what I can see and already people are flocking to accept anything he says. Given enough time, someone is going to disprove his book. 3) What's wrong with Intelligent Design? People say it's another attempt to prove creationism, but all it does is that it shows that evolution is a design from a superior intelligence.
Hi.

RicDemianINXS
DecadentDillettante

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2007
Location: Vancouver
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 41

Posted 04/12/07 - 09:30 PM: Subject: Drawing the Line	#3
If Dawkins is a COMPLETE moron why don't you demonstrate your self-ascribed expertise on "incompleteness", Mr. Godelian, or is "Godelian" an Armenianization of "Godel" by a member of the diaspora? Godel's best known for his theorem of the incompleteness of arithmetic. And you want you be be known for the incompleteness of your understanding of the philosophies of science and religion and voidity of your aquaintance with "Darwin's Pitbull" and founder of the theory of memetic inheritance, Sir Richard Dawkins. Edited by RicDemianINXS on 04/14/07 - 03:44 PM. Reason: typo
We must claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

RicDemianINXS
DecadentDillettante

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2007
Location: Vancouver
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 41

Posted 04/12/07 - 10:04 PM: Subject: Intelligent Design	#4
Evolution does not explain everything. It explains speciations, chiefly. A lot of work remains to be done in science. I'm sure it will be. But it never would get done if scientists were content with a lazy default like "intelligent design 'theory'". Hell, if you don't how something works, credit it to an "intelligent designer"! EUREKA!
We must claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

philosophy
Sapiens

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2005
Location: Ivory Tower
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 283

Posted 04/12/07 - 10:59 PM:	#5
You should draw the line on science when (1) it starts pretending that its philosophical and metaphysical assumptions are instead conclusions (of scientific observations), and (2) when hypothesis is presented as theory or fact.
There is no more pleasant food for the soul than the knowledge of truth. - Lactantius

Wolfman
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 891

Posted 04/12/07 - 11:13 PM:	#6
Mr.Anonymous wrote: 3) What's wrong with Intelligent Design? People say it's another attempt to prove creationism, but all it does is that it shows that evolution is a design from a superior intelligence. Intelligent design has been advocated as an alternative explanation to the processes of evolution, namely natural selection. The main concepts of the theory of intelligent design, however, can not be established as fact, nor can any substantial evidence supporting its claims be found. Intelligent design is not a science, and can not be defined as such. Instead, it is a theory based on intuition. It puts forth several claims that can not be proved by the scientific method. It is an artificial conception created by man, and it lacks any discernible external permanency. It can not be proved to exist independent of the mind. Science, which concerns itself with conceptions of reality and physical truths, offers tangible evidence to support natural selection. The process of natural selection, unlike the theory of intelligent design, is also manifestly observable in nature, and thus exceeds mere conjecture. The main argument supporting intelligent design is effectively an appeal to ignorance. The crux of the intelligent design theory lies in the argument that there are a number of systems in nature that can not be explained by undirected natural forces; therefore, there must be a higher intelligence responsible for guiding them and creating a fine-tuned and orderly universe. This assertion, however, can not be accepted on any valid grounds of scientific induction because no causality can be established with any degree of certainty. It is evident that the argument is essentially fallacious in nature.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates "The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within." - Gandhi "Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck." - Kant "It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu

loveofsophia
Endeavor to Understand

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 604

Posted 04/13/07 - 12:26 AM:	#7
On Intelligent Design Would it be safe to say that it is a metaphysical/religious belief pretending scientific merit (which is of a higher currency these days) in order to deceive the self or, as they might be inclined to argue, combat what many note as the overwhelming discountability of absolute/objective/mystical claims. Well, independent of whether or not someone else would call it this, I would. Edited by loveofsophia on 04/13/07 - 12:58 AM
It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like. Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 536

Posted 04/13/07 - 02:11 AM:	#8
RicDemianINXS wrote: If Dawkins is a COMPLETE morom why don't you demonstrate your self-ascribed expertise on "incompleteness", Mr. Godelian, or is "Godelian" an Armenianization of "Godel" by a member of the diaspora? Godel's best known for his theorem of the incompleteness of arithmetic. And you want you be be known for the incompleteness of your understanding of the philosophies of science and religion and voidity of your aquaintance with "Darwin's Pitbull" and founder of the theory of memetic inheritance, Sir Richard Dawkins. I don't dispute that Dawkins may in fact be a great scientist and his work in evolutionary biology may in fact be fantastic. What I do object to is his militant atheism and his failure to make it clear when he is speaking as a scientist and when he is speaking as a person. This abstraction can lead people to believe in his words solely because of his status. The way in which he uses personal attacks to prove his point and how he labels as "child abusers" those who teach their children a certain religion is apalling. Science deals with observable events. If I need to explain an observable event, I will consult a scientist. As for God, science has absolutely nothing to say about God. God is not a testable theory. More harm is done by people like Dawkins who blur the line between faith and science because scientists are thought of as the keepers of knowledge. People of faith, when they say something like the world was created 6000 years ago, are thought of as religious fanatics and not taken seriously. Oh, and re: Godel's incompleteness theorem. His theorem proves that within any axiomatic system of a certain complexity (those which aren't touched by this theorem are boring), there will always be true statements that are unprovable. I compare this to our knowledge of the universe and of how we understand things. We have our axioms of science and try and prove things within these accepted principles. If too many inconsistencies pop up, we change our axioms. But I don't believe we'll ever come up with a perfect system, certainly not one that will answer the God question.
Do unto others.

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 536

Posted 04/13/07 - 02:14 AM:	#9
RicDemianINXS wrote: Evolution does not explain everything. It explains speciations, chiefly. A lot of work remains to be done in science. I'm sure it will be. But it never would get done if scientists were content with a lazy default like "intelligent design 'theory'". Hell, if you don't how something works, credit it to an "intelligent designer"! EUREKA! I agree with you that intelligent design has no place in science as it brings nothing to the table. Our failure to recognize it as science does not invalidate is as a personal belief.
Do unto others.

mrousseau
Godelian

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 536

Posted 04/13/07 - 02:26 AM:	#10
Mr.Anonymous wrote: 1) I actually think a lot of the problem is this outright division of science and religion. It allows people to label one as the truth and the other as heresy. In the times of Darwin it was religion as the truth and science as heresy. Today it's science as the truth and religion as heresy. Actually, if we draw the line properly, science and religion can coexist peacefully. Science is only the method we have come up with on explaining natural phenomena. Nothing more. Science is a very dry, very practical system and in no way does it have anything to do with God. I don't believe any harm is done by letting science answer all the questions it can because it can only lead to us better understanding the physical universe. Mr.Anonymous wrote: Granted, there should be a certain point where there should be a separation of aspects, but what is best is to have science and religion working together in peace to discover more about reality. For this to work, however, the world religions need to update or adjust to the given scientific facts, while the scientific community must learn to not shut their minds and be open to new possibilities. Science and religion can coexist but cannot be merged. By definition science requires testable hypotheses. Since the notion of a God is not properly testable, scientifically, we should just consider the two notions different. Science is our preferred method of explaining natural law, that is all. Mr.Anonymous wrote: 2) Dawkins is not a moron, though his meme theory is rather absurd from my point of view. Further more, I wish people would stop quoting him. He has only been in the spot light for about a year or two from what I can see and already people are flocking to accept anything he says. Given enough time, someone is going to disprove his book. He is not a moron, I was using unfairly strong language. He is, however, abusing his position as a scientist and making claims that have nothing to do with science. Mr.Anonymous wrote: 3) What's wrong with Intelligent Design? People say it's another attempt to prove creationism, but all it does is that it shows that evolution is a design from a superior intelligence. There is nothing wrong with intelligent design. I believe in God who created the world with the rules as they are now. These rules govern the physical but were set in place by God. But this is a religious belief and we should keep science and religion separate. The scientific method needs a hypothesis that is testable, intelligent design does not provide that. THerefore, we should just look at it as a way of looking at the facts that science comes up with. Atheists can look at it one way and believers another, neither one has the right to use science.
Do unto others.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.