In their use as explanations for the natural world, what separates religion and science? I mean, both explain the world. So why choose one over the other? Not that you can't have both, but assume they were mutually exclusive.

In their use as explanations for the natural world, what separates religion and science? I mean, both explain the world. So why choose one over the other? Not that you can't have both, but assume they were mutually exclusive.

I've posted this before.

Why choose any one religion over another? Science is, for all intensive purposes, a religion in itself, the religion of solid fact.

accuracy, an ability to adapt to reality

Religion does not produce cars, fly us to the moon, save the lives and suffering of billions. Religion does not manipulate genes, understand eco systems and allow us to cover the world. Religion is stories, science is method and action.

accuracy, an ability to adapt to reality

Really?
Reality?

Which is reality; String Theory or Brane Theory?
Does Quantum Mechanics explain reality? How do you know?
Does time actually slow down and matter actually dilate when you approach C in reality?
How many times has the model of the atom changed? The model we have now is based on Bohr's ideas, is it not? Wasn;t it Bohr who claimed that what is happening is reality is meaningless, and all that matters is that the math works?

Does the Copehagen Interpretation accurately reflect reality?

I'd say that science should be focused on impirical data - the what and how.
Religion and Philosophy should be focused on the things that can not be proven one way or another.

Really?
Reality?

Which is reality; String Theory or Brane Theory?
Does Quantum Mechanics explain reality? How do you know?
Does time actually slow down and matter actually dilate when you approach C in reality?
How many times has the model of the atom changed? The model we have now is based on Bohr's ideas, is it not? Wasn;t it Bohr who claimed that what is happening is reality is meaningless, and all that matters is that the math works?

Does the Copehagen Interpretation accurately reflect reality?

I'd say that science should be focused on impirical data - the what and how.
Religion and Philosophy should be focused on the things that can not be proven one way or another.

~That was a nice compact little bundle of thoughts, You gave me something to ponder over, but thats for another thread.



In regards to the OP I think its kind of obvious what seperates them, but you can use one to study the other. Maybe even use religion to review science, and look at science to uncover religion.

peace.

You gave me something to ponder over

That is my goal in life.

That is my goal in life.


What do you think matters more personaly, knowing the truth, being happy, creating an impact in history/the world somehow, or giving hope to others and being a good person?.


peace.

Being happy knowing or not knowing the truth, while being a decent helpful person who creates a big impact?.

That aside, what would be of most important to least important on a scale/list of 1-4 etc.


pece.

Knowing the truth would be empty, being happy would be fulfilling, creating an impact is meaningless because it only matters when you die, giving hope to others for personal gain is selfish and hypocritical, being a good person is quite broad. Being happy is the clear choice for me, because I'm not sure what being a good person entails.

Funny, I think being happy would be empty and knowing the truth would be fulfilling.
making a difference in the world is also very important.

I think what is most important, by a long shot, is integrity and compassion.
If you have those two, the truth is important, helping others is important and happiness will result.

Knowing the truth would be empty, being happy would be fulfilling, creating an impact is meaningless because it only matters when you die, giving hope to others for personal gain is selfish and hypocritical, being a good person is quite broad. Being happy is the clear choice for me, because I'm not sure what being a good person entails.


I think knowing certain truths can be comforting others not so much, but the truth I would say is important. being happy is fulfilling, I disagree that having an impact is meaningless, many impacts have many meanings to many people. Impact can matter in your lifetime, you can change history in many ways on alot of levels, from the history of an individuals life and impact on peoples lives directly from your life encounters with them, the trickle down effect of actions sends ripples in every pool it touches that all have impacts and impressions tht last a varity of lengths according to the size of the impact on the lake. Baing a good person in ways is subjective, but generaly having compassion and good non selfish intentions is a sure start in my eyes for being a good person.




peace.

Funny, I think being happy would be empty and knowing the truth would be fulfilling.
making a difference in the world is also very important.

I think what is most important, by a long shot, is integrity and compassion.
If you have those two, the truth is important, helping others is important and happiness will result.


Surely being happy is not empty?, I see fullness on a happy childs face or person when they are truley content. The truth too is fulfilling, making a difference is important for good or for bad.

Integrity and compassion I will add alongside honour and respect are true virtues, if the intentions are just and pure. We get happiness from helping others for many reasons, one of those reasons is because we know it is good.


peace.

accuracy, an ability to adapt to reality

reality...........what is reality?

dont you mean illusion? we are living an illusion. reality is made up. we make our reality. reality is here because we imagine it here. right here in plain sight. we can see it, touch it, smell it, hear it, taste it. and its all for just the experience of it. all that we say in all that we do we do it Just Because We Can.

and what makes it all possible????????

Surely being happy is not empty?, I see fullness on a happy childs face or person when they are truley content.
No, not happiness in and of itself, but if you are giving a choice betwen happiness and truth, that's a different story.

Blissful ignorance is most certainly an empty joy for those who should know better - in my view at least.
Could I be happy moving off to an area that remains relatively untouched by the world's problems? Probably. Knowing what I know about the world, would that hiding place offer me fulfilling happiness? Certainly not.

A blissfully happy, truly ignorant child is fulfilled with his happiness.
On the other hand, ignorance, like innocence, is not something that can truly be reclaimed.

Anti-depressants don't make anything better, they just make you forget how important it is that everyting is so fucked up and complacent enough to not bother trying to change anything.


Integrity and compassion I will add alongside honour and respect are true virtues, if the intentions are just and pure.
If you have compassion, you couldn't be happy believing a lie and hiding from the scary world.

Really?
Reality?

Which is reality; String Theory or Brane Theory?
Does Quantum Mechanics explain reality? How do you know?
Does time actually slow down and matter actually dilate when you approach C in reality?
How many times has the model of the atom changed? The model we have now is based on Bohr's ideas, is it not? Wasn;t it Bohr who claimed that what is happening is reality is meaningless, and all that matters is that the math works?

Does the Copehagen Interpretation accurately reflect reality?

I'd say that science should be focused on impirical data - the what and how.
Religion and Philosophy should be focused on the things that can not be proven one way or another.


well said.....bravo!!!:o

just like the debate over Intelligent Design vs Exolution

i say evolution is intelligent design!!!!!

That is my goal in life.

if that is who u desire to be.........more power to yea:o

Funny, I think being happy would be empty and knowing the truth would be fulfilling.
making a difference in the world is also very important.

I think what is most important, by a long shot, is integrity and compassion.
If you have those two, the truth is important, helping others is important and happiness will result.

knowing the the truth is happiness that you can have both. truth and happiness. be true to yourself and youll be true to others and that makes everyone truly happy:D

No, not happiness in and of itself, but if you are giving a choice betwen happiness and truth, that's a different story.

Blissful ignorance is most certainly an empty joy for those who should know better - in my view at least.
Could I be happy moving off to an area that remains relatively untouched by the world's problems? Probably. Knowing what I know about the world, would that hiding place offer me fulfilling happiness? Certainly not..

No ignorance is not good, moving away from problems can be good for survival terms I guess. But happiness for me would not be found in not helping the problems, and running away.


A blissfully happy, truly ignorant child is fulfilled with his happiness.
On the other hand, ignorance, like innocence, is not something that can truly be reclaimed. It can be reclaimed with understanding and accepting that suffering is a part of life, but still trying to do good and help fight.


Anti-depressants don't make anything better, they just make you forget how important it is that everyting is so fucked up and complacent enough to not bother trying to change anything.

Thas true like with escapism also, I have never tken an anti-depressant to know, but It could be said with smoking weed that is simular, if not taken directly for the reason of forgetting troubles, still I see your point.




If you have compassion, you couldn't be happy believing a lie and hiding from the scary world

I don't think many people actualy believe in what they think are lies, pretending the world is ok when it's not is not good. But you need a degree of acceptence and tolerance, suffering will remain in many forms everybody has trials in life. Bad things happen things that we cannot control (yet?). We cannot at this point in time fix everything, people will always have problems in life, we must try to take time to enjoy and be happy and for atleast small periods of time not have the weight of the world and unniverse on our minds and shoulders. We need to try and work towards a better future for this world animals and people but at the same time not take life too seriously. For all you know this is a game we invented in heaven, and its called life. You only go into the game for a human lifespan where your memory is wiped and you get to try and figure out everything without any help, you can do anything you want until its game over and you go back to being bored for eternity. So don't take everything further than need be, don't let things ruin your harmony and balence, you can take action and care while being happy.


peace.

I think knowing certain truths can be comforting others not so much, but the truth I would say is important. being happy is fulfilling, I disagree that having an impact is meaningless, many impacts have many meanings to many people. Impact can matter in your lifetime, you can change history in many ways on alot of levels, from the history of an individuals life and impact on peoples lives directly from your life encounters with them, the trickle down effect of actions sends ripples in every pool it touches that all have impacts and impressions tht last a varity of lengths according to the size of the impact on the lake. Baing a good person in ways is subjective, but generaly having compassion and good non selfish intentions is a sure start in my eyes for being a good person.




peace.

yeah, what you said. very well put.

Impact can matter in your lifetime, you can change history in many ways on alot of levels, from the history of an individuals life and impact on peoples lives directly from your life encounters with them

You may think this is not an important distinction to make, but I think it is very important.
Saying you can "change history" (or "change the course of history") implies that things are pre-determined - and if you CAN change them, then they must not be pre-determined.
You can't "change" the present either, as it is happening now.
All you can do is live your life right now and make decisions of what to do in this moment.

One should always remain mindful of his potential impact - which can be staggering - and try to make decisions which align with one's ideals and goals.
In other words, act with integrity.

You may think this is not an important distinction to make, but I think it is very important.
Saying you can "change history" (or "change the course of history") implies that things are pre-determined - and if you CAN change them, then they must not be pre-determined.
You can't "change" the present either, as it is happening now.
All you can do is live your life right now and make decisions of what to do in this moment.


History is the future and the future is history, depending on the present. You can change many things, by helping somebody you can impact there future decisions, which become history maybe in the space of 1 hour or 10 years. The intricate web of past, present, future and cause and effect are elaborate and complex.

Things don't have to be pre deterined for you to change history, If I speak to some person they can take action based on my impact and impression, which happens in the future, which inturn becomes the past sometimes very quickly. Maybe even like a debate or conversation like this?.


peace.


One should always remain mindful of his potential impact - which can be staggering - and try to make decisions which align with one's ideals and goals.
In other words, act with integrity.

Yes and let your integrity be based on honour and just reason, we should always be mindful of our impression and impact left, not only on people but other things/matters.


peace again.

In their use as explanations for the natural world, what separates religion and science? I mean, both explain the world. So why choose one over the other? Not that you can't have both, but assume they were mutually exclusive.

Science seeks explanations that are true while religion seeks explanations that make you feel good.

History is the future and the future is history, depending on the present. You can change many things, by helping somebody you can impact there future decisions, which become history maybe in the space of 1 hour or 10 years. The intricate web of past, present, future and cause and effect are elaborate and complex.
I agree with all that, but...


Things don't have to be pre deterined for you to change history, If I speak to some person they can take action based on my impact and impression, which happens in the future, which inturn becomes the past sometimes very quickly. Maybe even like a debate or conversation like this?
...this is where I disagree.
For something to change it has to exist. You can certainly affect the future in many ways by the decisions you make in teh moment, but saying that furture was "changed" implies the future exists to BE changed - that it ias already determined.
The choices you make help determine the future - not change it.

Science tells us how, Religion/Philosophy tell us why. Why is Gravity? I know what it does, I somewhat understand the theories on what produces it, but I have no idea why Gravity is. Gravity was not required after the big bang, if that is your belief. Can we blame Gravity's existence on someone? Then we have religion. If we do not want to travel this route and seek a more tangible purpose for gravity, we set our feet down the path of philosophy. Once we learn to seperate the "why" questions from the "how" questions, we will be less likely to close our minds to possibilities. 2+2=4 Why is 2 added to 2 4? Perhaps a mathematician has an answer, but it seems a simple enough question. The answer can't be found by scientific means. How tall is freedom? Why did the big bang happen? Why did man evolve? Why am I sitting here typing all this in, and not invading a small third-world country?

In their use as explanations for the natural world, what separates religion and science? I mean, both explain the world. So why choose one over the other? Not that you can't have both, but assume they were mutually exclusive.

Well, for one, religion does not really explain the world. It gives a romantic little story of how the world came to be, but it isn't true. If you want to know how the world really came into being, then you pick science. Science has this neat thing called "evidence". It's really awesome. Anybody can get it.


Science tells us how, Religion/Philosophy tell us why.

For now. And science may never be able to tell us "why"...but that won't stop us from looking.

Seriously, faith is great and all that, but we have to stop assuming that religion is a viable alternative to science. It isn't. It's bronze-age myths that have no place in society.

Science tells us how, Religion/Philosophy tell us why. Why is Gravity? I know what it does, I somewhat understand the theories on what produces it, but I have no idea why Gravity is. Gravity was not required after the big bang, if that is your belief. Can we blame Gravity's existence on someone? Then we have religion. If we do not want to travel this route and seek a more tangible purpose for gravity, we set our feet down the path of philosophy. Once we learn to seperate the "why" questions from the "how" questions, we will be less likely to close our minds to possibilities. 2+2=4 Why is 2 added to 2 4? Perhaps a mathematician has an answer, but it seems a simple enough question. The answer can't be found by scientific means. How tall is freedom? Why did the big bang happen? Why did man evolve? Why am I sitting here typing all this in, and not invading a small third-world country?


The question of "Why" is misleading. Based on it's context it might just be another "how" question (ex. "Why is the sky blue?")... and that's right up science's alley. What "Why" also asks are questions of intent. When it is applied to life forms that have intent then it's a valid question. When it is applied to anything else then it is invalid.

Many of your examples are actually "how" questions and you are making an assumption that they are beyond science and can only be answered by religion / philosophy. That kind of notion is utterly backwards. To date religion / philosophy has never correctly answered a single objective "how" question while science always does.

So it comes down to values. Do you value having an answer more than truth? Then go for religion and philosophy.

In their use as explanations for the natural world, what separates religion and science? I mean, both explain the world. So why choose one over the other? Not that you can't have both, but assume they were mutually exclusive.

There's nothing wrong with having myth and superstitions, as long as they don't interfere with the pursuit of science, as they have in the past and are continuing to do today.

The short answer is that science checks its ideas against what is observed in the real world, while religion generally does not.

The question of "Why" is misleading. Based on it's context it might just be another "how" question (ex. "Why is the sky blue?")... and that's right up science's alley. What "Why" also asks are questions of intent. When it is applied to life forms that have intent then it's a valid question. When it is applied to anything else then it is invalid.

Many of your examples are actually "how" questions and you are making an assumption that they are beyond science and can only be answered by religion / philosophy. That kind of notion is utterly backwards. To date religion / philosophy has never correctly answered a single objective "how" question while science always does.

So it comes down to values. Do you value having an answer more than truth? Then go for religion and philosophy.

I agree with the fact that religion/philosophy cannot give answers to how questions. The questions one is asking is vital for determining whether to put it towards a scientific testing, or a religio/philosophical examination. Let's take your example-Why is the sky blue? Get your dictionary, find why, I'll wait... Now. answer the question. Why is the sky blue? Science will have more trouble than it thinks, as the question begs for a purpose, and science does not assign purpose. Science says"This works this way" Science starts to get kerfloozled on "This serves this purpose" I know that a copper cable will carry electric current from point a to point b. I have no idea why a copper cable will carry electric current from point a to point b. Pre-industrialism, copper cables would carry electric current from point a to point b, pre evolution, copper rocks would carry electric current from point a to point b. Why? Why does copper do that? Not how. Why. Do you see the difference now?

In their use as explanations for the natural world, what separates religion and science? I mean, both explain the world. So why choose one over the other? Not that you can't have both, but assume they were mutually exclusive.

Religion has no use as an explanation of the natural world. If you want to know what seperates them then try making predictions about the natural world that can be tested with religion.......I'm waiting.

Why is the sky blue? Get your dictionary, find why, I'll wait... Now. answer the question. Why is the sky blue? Science will have more trouble than it thinks, as the question begs for a purpose, and science does not assign purpose. Science says"This works this way" Science starts to get kerfloozled on "This serves this purpose"

And, the purpose of the sky being blue from a religious perspective is... ?


I know that a copper cable will carry electric current from point a to point b. I have no idea why a copper cable will carry electric current from point a to point b. Pre-industrialism, copper cables would carry electric current from point a to point b, pre evolution, copper rocks would carry electric current from point a to point b. Why? Why does copper do that? Not how. Why. Do you see the difference now?

The only difference I see is someone is attaching "purpose" to these phenomenon. So, it is the purpose we hope that someone will explain? Ham?

If you seek purpose, then science may be the wrong place to seek it, is all I'm saying. Religion/philosophy is good at one thing-feelgood hopefulness
Science is all about how stuff works
Why is the sky blue? God decreed it? Blue would be more indicative of our feelings? I dunno. Do you?

If you seek purpose, then science may be the wrong place to seek it, is all I'm saying. Religion/philosophy is good at one thing-feelgood hopefulness
Science is all about how stuff works
Why is the sky blue? God decreed it? Blue would be more indicative of our feelings? I dunno. Do you?

I don't see a purpose in the sky being blue at all. It's simply the result of Raleigh scattering.

Do we assign purpose to the many dawns and dusks when the sky turns a reddish hue? Isn't red symbolic of anger and rage, as far as feelings are concerned?

If we sat here assigning religious purpose to every single event or phenomenon that took place in the universe, don't you think we would run across a number of contradictions, compared to not assigning purpose? In other words, it makes more sense that we exist in a universe devoid of religious purpose.

The way we see colors is different from the way other creatures see them so who is to say for sure what color the sky really is?

Religion is what leads us into science and what regulates science. Science is merely a tool for "how stuff works"; religion is what ascribes motive and ethics to it.

religion is what ascribes motive and ethics to it.

People see what they want to see.

People see what they want to see.

To a man who has only a hammer, every problem is a nail

People see what they want to see.

Well done for spotting SAM's fallacy John - science is packed with motive and ethics - indeed the scientific method is almost entirely and expression and application of ethics and motive

I just want to be free.

Well done for spotting SAM's fallacy John - science is packed with motive and ethics - indeed the scientific method is almost entirely and expression and application of ethics and motive

It is? Strange, I had no idea the scientific method had motives and ethics.

I just want to be free.

you mean free as in free to never eat pork / never work on a saturday / never work on a sunday / never show your face in public / only have sex with prescribed partners etc etc otherwise you face enternal punishment kind of freedom - or was there some other kind of freedom your freedom loving OGBSD had in mind for you?

It is? Strange, I had no idea the scientific method had motives and ethics.

Really? thank goodness you arent a proper scientist then - I dread to think what would happen if you were let loose in a lab, or ever attempted to publish or review a peice of work

Really? thank goodness you arent a proper scientist then - I dread to think what would happen if you were let loose in a lab

Yea, imagine. :D

Luckily I'm familiar with the astika schools of thought. You nastikas keep fumbling along. :D

What is OGBSD?

Yea, imagine. :D

Luckily I'm familiar with the astika schools of thought. You nastikas keep fumbling along. :D

Seems like religion is better for some than it is for others. Wonder why?

You never lived in Afghanistan under the Taliban have you?

What is OGBSD?

Old Grey Bearded Sky Daddy

When you see him tell him i said hello.

Tell him i said that money changes everything. Tell him to do something about it.

You never lived in Afghanistan under the Taliban have you?

No - I merely cobbled together a short list of examples of the silly and arbitrary rules that our various collected gods impose upon us ( which suspiciously enough they never do directly but always through a self-appointed intermediary) - which are clear proof if his non-existence.

After all what self respecting supreme being - having pulled off a masterstroke with the creation of life the universe and everything - would concern himeslf with such pointless minutiae such as what kind of individuals another individual may insert his penis into.

Unless of course he wasn't in fact all that supreme and was instead just some shit we made up and added all of our silly human predjudices to.

It is? Strange, I had no idea the scientific method had motives and ethics.

"How much fraud is there in science?

The picture of scientists politely discussing theories, proposing new ones in view of new data, etc. appears to be completely devoid of any emotions. In fact this is far from the truth, the discussions are very human, even though the bulk of the scientific community will eventually accept a single theory based on it explaining the data and making a series of verified predictions. But before this is achieved, does it happen that researchers fake results or experiments for prestige and/or money? How frequent is this kind of scientific fraud?

In its simplest form this question is unanswerable, since undetected fraud is by definition unmeasurable. Of course there are many known cases of fraud in science. Some use this to argue that all scientific findings (especially those they dislike) are worthless.

This ignores the replication of results which is routinely undertaken by scientists. Any important result will be replicated many times by many different people. So an assertion that (for instance) scientists are lying about carbon-14 dating requires that a great many scientists are engaging in a conspiracy. In fact the existence of known and documented fraud is a good illustration of the self-correcting nature of science. It does not matter (for the progress of science) if a proportion of scientists are fraudsters because any important work they do will not be taken seriously without independent verification.

Also, most scientists are idealists. They perceive beauty in scientific truth and see its discovery as their vocation. Without this most would have gone into something more lucrative. These arguments suggest that undetected fraud in science is both rare and unimportant.

The above arguments are weaker in medical research, where companies frequently suppress or distort data in order to support their own products. Tobacco companies regularly produce reports ``proving'' that smoking is harmless, and drug companies have both faked and suppressed data related to the safety or effectiveness or major products. This type of fraud does not, of course, reflect on the validity of the scientific method."

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node11.html#SECTION02126000000000000000

sounds like a load of bunk.

No - I merely cobbled together a short list of examples of the silly and arbitrary rules that our various collected gods impose upon us ( which suspiciously enough they never do directly but always through a self-appointed intermediary) - which are clear proof if his non-existence.

After all what self respecting supreme being - having pulled off a masterstroke with the creation of life the universe and everything - would concern himeslf with such pointless minutiae such as what kind of individuals another individual may insert his penis into.

Unless of course he wasn't in fact all that supreme and was instead just some shit we made up and added all of our silly human predjudices to.

I guess some people never got that memo.:shrug: If you were inclined to believe in creation then i would say that god created everyone. I cannot see why any of this would matter.

I guess some people never got that memo.:shrug: If you were inclined to believe in creation then i would say that god created everyone. I cannot see why any of this would matter.

I got the memo - fortunately it came just at the right moment - I'd just run out of TP

sounds like a load of bunk.

:D They broke the mold with you.

I got the memo - fortunately it came just at the right moment - I'd just run out of TP

i was agreeing with you.:bugeye:

What I find most humorous is the apparent fear of the scientifically minded about saying "I don't know". It's ok. Why is blue is a purely religious/philosophical question. I don't ask a latin textbook to do calculus, perhaps asking this lot to consider that there may be a window in their world of doors was too much. I suspect that SAM can tell you, far better than I, exactly how science goes about answering how and fails at answering why.

i was agreeing with you.:bugeye:

I know - I was merely gratuitously labouring the point :)

What I find most humorous is the apparent fear of the scientifically minded about saying "I don't know". It's ok. Why is blue is a purely religious/philosophical question. I don't ask a latin textbook to do calculus, perhaps asking this lot to consider that there may be a window in their world of doors was too much. I suspect that SAM can tell you, far better than I, exactly how science goes about answering how and fails at answering why.

Don't take the dribblings of internet forum loons (myself included) as being necessarily representative of scientists, their views, and their behaviour in general.
Places like this are notorious for rogue egos gone wild - look at the behaviour of posters like Oilismastery for example and you'll get the idea, and probably laugh yourself silly in the process (in a slowing-down-to-rubberneck-at-a-messy-freeway-accident kind of way :eek: - that guy is a mental breakdown or a spree killer in the making ) .

You'll find that most people who are genuinely involved in working in scientific fields are only too willing to admit the shortcomings of both their own knowledge, and the limits of understanding within their field.

synth-what unexpected honesty. I can appreciate that.

SAM,


Religion is what leads us into science and what regulates science. Science is merely a tool for "how stuff works"; religion is what ascribes motive and ethics to it.No on every aspect.

Science is simply a disciplined approach to discovering how things work. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Religions assert with certainty they already know how things work – generally a god did it all. If religions were in any real control science would never exist. It is because religions have never discovered anything that leads people to use different approaches – e.g. science.

Science exists despite of religion and not because of it.

The only motive for science is to discover.

How scientists conduct their research can sometimes cross into controversial territory and there ethics standards are usually the primary governing influence. Such ethical considerations may sometimes coincidentally overlap with religious beliefs, but religions are not the driving influence. In the USA and Islamic countries politicized religion interferes more than the rest of the world.

Two examples here -

1. Experimentation on animals - conflcits with animal rights activists - religion is generally silent on that.

2. Stem cell research - religion in the USA attempts to control this becuase of an irrational notion that soul exists at conception. Islam has no such restriction since it teaches souls arrive later. Go figure all that total nonsense.

In general and throughout history, at least the history of relatively modern science, religions have tended to limit and restrict scientific discovery. That, I find, is totally reprehensible.

Cris you're right on that aspect of religion; remember, though, religion does more than offer explanations. It also deals with metaphorical and moral and philosophical things.

I suspect that SAM can tell you, far better than I, exactly how science goes about answering how and fails at answering why.

No, she can't. She hasn't a clue.

sounds like a load of bunk.

Perhaps this is more to your liking.

http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm

http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=NN7E3r_w09IC&dq=scientific+method&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=bhrAQloAak&sig=bLeiKNo1Sb3twKOquNcGqcKAbMo&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=25&ct=result

http://hist-phil.arts.unsw.edu.au/lib/staff/schuster_john/schuster_john_inthistsci_03_10.pdf

SAM,

No on every aspect.

Science is simply a disciplined approach to discovering how things work. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with science.

I suggest you look up the astika philosophies of India. Religion is the basis from which science and logic springs. Societies which do not have religion, do not develop, full stop. If you go back to how scientific thought develops in any society, it always goes back to religion.

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


:D They broke the mold with you.

You can generally tell right out when someone is actually working in a scientific field. They are usually beyond such gratuitous mental masturbation.


The only motive for science is to discover.

Thats not the motive of science. That MAY be A motive for A scientist. If he is not bothered by mundane stuff like tenure, job security and funding.

so SAM, what you are saying is that science denying religious influence is like the child who denies the parent?



The thought police are watching

so SAM, what you are saying is that science denying religious influence is like the child who denies the parent?

The thought police are watching

Science can't deny anything. Its not a live being. Science is a tool. It doesn't do anything. Its people using science who do stuff. Its like saying a hammer built the house.:mad:

(sigh) Ok. I'll try being more literal. What you are saying is that those who deny religious influence upon science may as well be saying that they do not have parents(In that religious study led to scientific study, not scientific study developing on its own)?

Must be literal day today.

The thought police are watching.

I suggest you look up the astika philosophies of India. Religion is the basis from which science and logic springs. Societies which do not have religion, do not develop, full stop. If you go back to how scientific thought develops in any society, it always goes back to religion.

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



You can generally tell right out when someone is actually working in a scientific field. They are usually beyond such gratuitous mental masturbation.



Thats not the motive of science. That MAY be A motive for A scientist. If he is not bothered by mundane stuff like tenure, job security and funding.


Religion is a primitive form of inquiry into the nature of life, but religion is fixed, and our understanding changes. Religion doesn't allow for updating based on newly revealed information.

(sigh) Ok. I'll try being more literal. What you are saying is that those who deny religious influence upon science may as well be saying that they do not have parents(In that religious study led to scientific study, not scientific study developing on its own)?

Must be literal day today.

The thought police are watching.

They like to ignore the fact that there has to-date been no successful and sustainable atheist society. Even the attempts in this century have been such miserable failures, they ultimately had to concede that religion was required. [And this was after trying so hard to make science all about atheism].

Actually stem cell research is limited for fear of abortions being performed specifically to get stem cells. I didn't know this was a religious issue.

Religion is a primitive form of inquiry into the nature of life, but religion is fixed, and our understanding changes. Religion doesn't allow for updating based on newly revealed information.

Wait! I could swear we had discussed this. Didn't everyone agree that one's religious understanding could change over time?

Religion is the basis from which science and logic springs.

http://z.about.com/d/inventors/1/0/W/L/galileo.jpg

http://www.historyguide.org/images/bruno.gif

They like to ignore the fact that there has to-date been no successful and sustainable atheist society. Even the attempts in this century have been such miserable failures, they ultimately had to concede that religion was required. [And this was after trying so hard to make science all about atheism].

I think freedom was required. The ability to create a unified, sustainable society is probably assisted by a shared ideology, however false that might be. It has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of atheism.

Wait! I could swear we had discussed this. Didn't everyone agree that one's religious understanding could change over time?

Then it's not Religion with a capital R, it's just religious feeling in general.

I think freedom was required. The ability to create a unified, sustainable society is probably assisted by a shared ideology, however false that might be. It has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of atheism.

Yeah, apparently even with all that devotion to atheism and science, they missed out on the ethics that come pre-packaged with that duet.:rolleyes:

I agree with the fact that religion/philosophy cannot give answers to how questions. The questions one is asking is vital for determining whether to put it towards a scientific testing, or a religio/philosophical examination. Let's take your example-Why is the sky blue? Get your dictionary, find why, I'll wait... Now. answer the question. Why is the sky blue? Science will have more trouble than it thinks, as the question begs for a purpose, and science does not assign purpose. Science says"This works this way" Science starts to get kerfloozled on "This serves this purpose" I know that a copper cable will carry electric current from point a to point b. I have no idea why a copper cable will carry electric current from point a to point b. Pre-industrialism, copper cables would carry electric current from point a to point b, pre evolution, copper rocks would carry electric current from point a to point b. Why? Why does copper do that? Not how. Why. Do you see the difference now?

The concept of 'purpose' requires sapient intent and some of the "Why" questions that are being asked above are questions of intent... which are simply not valid (i.e. mis-applied to non-sapient caused phenomena).

Some of your questions are questions of function. For example, Why does copper carry current from point A to B? The answer is that copper contains electric charges and applying current moves the charges (out with the old, in with the new).

Of course you could ask "whey does copper exist" and the answer would be somewhere in the properties of the universe. Then of course you might ask, "why do those properties exist" and the answer might be somewhere outside the univers... and the question chain can go on and on and on.

The trap that many people get themselves into is thinking that there is some magical "first cause" that turns "nothing" into "something". The reality is that there is no such thing as "nothing", which means that "something" always exists. That of course means that reality doesn't have a beginning or an end. It simply is and a question of "Why does it exist" doesn't apply under any interpretation of the word "Why".

Yeah, apparently even with all that devotion to atheism and science, they missed out on the ethics that come pre-packaged with that duet.:rolleyes:
*************
M*W: You are too thick-headed to understand. You keep spouting your lies about atheism. You are the liar who lacks ethics.

SAM,


I suggest you look up the astika philosophies of India. Religion is the basis from which science and logic springs. Societies which do not have religion, do not develop, full stop. If you go back to how scientific thought develops in any society, it always goes back to religion.You are very confused here. You are attempting to assign a cause to an effect where no such relationship exists.

People have always asked why? We have a natural curiosity about everything and it is that that has made us so successful as a species. In earlier times we had not developed the processes or had access to tools that allowed us to explore our universe very well and we have a fundamental need to have explanations to our questions. So even in earlier times we would speculate and so many things then seemed magical - and from that comes religious concepts that then would appear quite reasonable.

In essence - religions are born from ignorance.

Science, a method of disciplined investigation, is the result of the failure of religion.

Science is not the result of religious thought but its replacement as a method for obtaining knowledge.

The problem today is that many people do not see that religion answers no questions.

SAM,

You are very confused here. You are attempting to assign a cause to an effect where no such relationship exists.

People have always asked why? We have a natural curiosity about everything and it is that that has made us so successful as a species. In earlier times we had not developed the processes or had access to tools that allowed us to explore our universe very well and we have a fundamental need to have explanations to our questions. So even in earlier times we would speculate and so many things then seemed magical - and from that comes religious concepts that then would appear quite reasonable.

In essence - religions are born from ignorance.

Science, a method of disciplined investigation, is the result of the failure of religion.

Science is not the result of religious thought but its replacement as a method for obtaining knowledge.

The problem today is that many people do not see that religion answers no questions.
*************
M*W: Thanks, Cris. You summed it up nicely.

SAM,

You are very confused here. You are attempting to assign a cause to an effect where no such relationship exists.

People have always asked why? We have a natural curiosity about everything and it is that that has made us so successful as a species. In earlier times we had not developed the processes or had access to tools that allowed us to explore our universe very well and we have a fundamental need to have explanations to our questions. So even in earlier times we would speculate and so many things then seemed magical - and from that comes religious concepts that then would appear quite reasonable.

In essence - religions are born from ignorance.

Science, a method of disciplined investigation, is the result of the failure of religion.

Science is not the result of religious thought but its replacement as a method for obtaining knowledge.

The problem today is that many people do not see that religion answers no questions.

So tell me, in which part of the world did scientific thought and progress begin from a non-religious source?

In their use as explanations for the natural world, what separates religion and science?
They simply deal with two different mechanisms for explaining the natural world. One does so with philosophy and intuition (religion), and the other does so with empiricism and critical analysis (science). As such, they have different semantics, systems, and ideas employed to describe their discoveries.

I also think that it is impossible for you to post as many posts per day as you claim. I think there are others who have access to your username who post radical posts on sciforums. There is no possible way you could post all those posts yourself. What kind of game are you playing?This is an interesting claim. I just want to check out the realism of posting 48 posts per day. Not all necessarily one liners, but a mix of one liners and somewhat meatier posts. If you don't mind I am going to target all your posts for this purpose. (Actually I am going to do that whether you mind or not, which should help to simulate the SAM mode.)
Above this is a default post, the items below are new Time:7:27

*************
M*W: Thanks, Cris. You summed it up nicely.Are you in complete agreement with Cris's summary. Some of his points seemed to run counter to your usual position on these matters.