I have noticed in the religion forum that many people and many websites use science and scientific facts to proof the validity of their religion.
I am curious about the logic behind this since they also refute the authority of science on the nature of truth. If science cannot define The Truth how can you use science at the same time to validate the truth of a religious text or concept.

It doen't make much sense to me. Maybe someone can enlighten on the nature of the thoughtprocess behind this phenomenum?

That is, indeed, an unusual tendency I have noted about various pious persons with whom I have become aquainted. They often attempt to distort science to verify the existence of a deity or some-such divine thingummy. This is peculiar and disconcerting as I have always regarded religion as predicated solely on faith, not a donnish or pragmatic understanding of reality through meticulous,scientific analysis.

I have failed to formulate or discover a plausible reason for this bizarre behavior; it seems as though they would know better, being believers in a greater truth and such (along the same banal, trite lines concerning God's benevolence and love).

Science doesn't make any assumptions or draw any conclusions about truth, it merely limits itself to one method of enquiring after truth(empiricism, test tubes shirt pockets with many pens in etc.). Any statement about the nature of truth would not be scientific, therefore science must remain silent on what the nature of truth is. How could science investigate transcendentalist means of finding the truth, for eg.?

Some times religion strays into the material world and makes statements that can be empirically verified (It has no business doing this, but religion never listens). Then science can prove or disprove certain aspects of that religion.

I have figured out that peoples' beliefs dont matter to me, but their actions do.

As to why they use science, who knows. Maybe they are insecure, and they need to find refuge in a "fact." As long as they are wholesome people and not bent on destruction, just let it be.

faith is the belief in something that you can not prove. Would having proof eliminate faith?

Would having proof eliminate faith?

In a word: yes, but there are many twists to this.

Every scientific fact has always had some kind of opposition. So, faith would still hold some ground. If there was damning evidence of a God, I would bow down. We talked about this in my philosophy class.

Faith would change. It would no longer be a faith of some higher power, but it would change into a faith regarding the just actions of this higher being.

My religious background and I had a lot of it being taught by catholic nuns lead to little room for vagaries and as such all my catholics teachings were coupled with other epistemological certainties in arithmetic and semantics and the physical world
.
If it was raining outside the time they were preaching Jesus to you then they are quick to remind you it is raining just to prove they are telling you the truth. If they keep coupling every day truths like the state of the weather or the facts of life then we may take them to be more sincere.

However if they relied entirely on religion I do not think they would get anywhere near as far. This is why I think so many religious people take science on board because there is a gold mine of empirical truths that can be proven in it that they "use" as a foundation for an untruth that cannot be proven.

Yes . . . it is my experience that many faithful individuals expound upon only the convenient categories of science. They do this, I suppose, since science, when regarded in its full and general form, is the collection and attempted explanation of only palpable evidence, dependable observations or tangible items.

Ergo, science basically discards the concept of a divine or omnipotent entity, as the existence of such cannot be ascertained through any known process.

I believe that those who frequently rely upon reason and analysis to promote their religion are in the wrong. Endeavoring to validate or encourage "faithfulness" in the spiritual should not include the use of data that would normally be treated indifferently and pragmatically.

I mean to say that it simply isn't reasonable; religion is established upon one's usual reticence to trust in the unseen or seemingly tenuous. It exhorts persons to suppress their fear and depend on something orchestrated by a greater power than themselves. It's FAITH! Those who espouse otherwise merely contradict the tenets of their own doctrine.

Please notice that I used the verb, "discard," not the more controversial verb, "ridicule" or the even worse one, "condemn."

It's not that rationally thinking specialists and scholars actually discredit religion in some perverse and secretive passion of spite and impiety.
They simply relegate it to the . . . "back-burner" . . . as it is established on unverifiable platitudewhich no man may presume to be fraudulent or genuine.

To the objective, empirical eyes of science, religious "truths" are but insipid and flimsy speculation. They are equivocal and specious, quite precarious when thrown into the realm of science, as I insist they should not be.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
If science cannot define The Truth how can you use science at the same time to validate the truth of a religious text or concept. If "a religious text or concept" makes a statement about the natural world, what else should be used?

Science should never be used when one deals with religion. To do so it to be flippant, unproductive, presumtuous, boorish, offensive, and sacreligious. Propriety forbids it.

Religion should never be associated with or forced upon science to any extent. To do so would negate the originally impassionate aims of empirical analysis and retard the process itself. Logic enjoins this.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Science should never be used when one deals with religion. To do so it to be flippant, unproductive, presumtuous, boorish, offensive, and sacreligious. Propriety forbids it. Bullshit.

You are being astoundingly and unacceptably crass and brusque when you tell a fervent Christian to his or her pious little face that God cannot exist since logic indicates that omnpotence is a contradiction unto itself (which it most certainly is . . . ). You aren't being cordial or reasonable when you do something that inconsiderate . . . and attempting to apply science to God is frivolous and wasteful.

God cannot be scrutinized as if he were something of more substance than erroneous yet sacred pretense.

Also, one knows oneself to be a rude little bastard when one is irreverent enough to vociferate logical objections to religion. When one does so, one simply proves how futile and cursory such attempts are.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
... God cannot exist since logic indicates that omnpotence is a contradiction unto itself (which it most certainly is . . . ). As I said before ...

However, just because god is utterly fictitious and basically implausible doesn't imply that one can go about condemning others' religions. That isn't equitable conduct; in fact, I would call it licentious and deplorable.

Doubting the existence of god after deducing his impossbility is one thing . . . raucously and brutally "enlightening" others is another.

Science and religion are disparate, far-removed elements potentially disastrous when entwined. Only useless disputes and full-blown fatuity arise from these unnecessary involvements.

hei redoubt,

did you purchase a thesaurus lately? ;)

anyhoo



Originally posted by Redoubtable
Science and religion are disparate, far-removed elements potentially disastrous when entwined. Only useless disputes and full-blown fatuity arise from these unnecessary involvements.

it is not so much that religion and science can't go together, because they were close buddies in the past. The problem is that they use the authority of science at random to add to the authority of religion, but deny the authority of science regarding topics that disagree with their faith. Can you really have it both ways?

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
hei redoubt,

did you purchase a thesaurus lately? ;)

lmao

No, I have not. I take umbrage at your not so subtle denigration.


No, they can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it at the same time . . . or something along those lines . . .

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Redoubtable
... God cannot exist since logic indicates that omnpotence is a contradiction unto itself (which it most certainly is . . . ). Pompous poppycock. :rolleyes:

Omnipotence is a contradiction, comrade . . .

The greatest wizard in the world exclaimed, "I am surely omnipotent; there is no conceivable or inconceivable feat beyond my superb ability!"

The mundane serf cried, "Then a test!"

The self-absorbed wizard agreed and inquired, "What shall it be then?"

The lowly cur replied, "Two tasks, illustrious sir! First, make a rock so monolithic, so tremendous and cumbersome that it cannot be lifted from its place by any force."

The wizard articulated unintelligible words of mystic power accentuated by several flamboyant gestures, and a colossal stone of the aforementioned qualities appeared suddenly.

The peasant was silent for a moment, impressed and then cogitating over the wizard's phenomenal deed.

He perked up abruptly and then curty demanded, "Now omnipotent conjurer, lift the stone."

Originally posted by Redoubtable
The peasant was silent for a moment, impressed and then cogitating over the wizard's phenomenal deed.
He perked up abruptly and then curty demanded, "Now omnipotent conjurer, lift the stone." The God smiled, and with that smile transformed the stone into a tiny pebble which She lightly bounced off the peasant's head.

Back at the Forum, She conveyed the incident to Her fellow Gods, ending with a sardonic chuckle and noting: All in all, I find it both sad and silly that our pedantic peasant should be so impressed by the clearly worthless and affected act of creating something big and useless.The 3rd God from her left agreed, adding: Sad and silly, but clearly not unexpected. After all, he attempts precisely the same thing with sentences.The Gods then resurrected a previous discussion dealing with the onset of the mating season in the Daoine Sidhe. It seems that Godly intervention was, once again, being requested to deal with some particularly horny unicorns, and ...

Meanwhile, our pedantic peasant had picked up the pebble and, upon close examination, noticed the words "THE ROCK THAT CANNOT BE LIFTED" (http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/rock.html). He thought about investigating further, but decided not to because the the words were far too common to be of interest.

You complete dunder-head! I did NOT posit that the said wizard was actually omnipotent. I merely described his claim that he was omnipotent. Of course, no claim is necessarily true.

Consequently, I never presumed that he was truly omnipotent. I never once attested to him being anything more than a formidable and narcissistic sorcerer.

Ergo, we did not begin the tale with a being that was automatically considered omnipotent. I did not type "GOD." I typed "greatest wizard." Therefore, I did not deny the possbility of omnipotence until the culmination of the story.

Additionally, the story still proves that there is one task that a supposedly omnipotent being could not fulfill, thus proving himself not to be omnipotent: Negate his or her own power.

An omnipotent being would supposedly have infinite power and strength. Knowing this, we can conclude that no other power within or without of the cosomos could overcome the omnipotent being, not even his or her very own power.

Thus, he or she is incapable of nullifying his or her own works.
. . . then how might the being in question have been omnipotent in the first place?

Example:
The supposedly omnipotent being causes itself to become immune to the incapacitating and detrimental effects of extreme cold.
However, once the being has caused this resistence to cold to function, it cannot freeze itself . . .

Better Example:

The supposedly omnipotent is, being omnipotent, capable of utterly destroying itself.
Right.
The omnipotent being is, being omnipotent, capable of recovering from any destructive act.
Right . . .
So if the omnipotent being destroys itself . . . will it recover?

Originally posted by Redoubtable
You complete dunder-head! ! I did NOT posit that the said wizard was actually omnipotent. I merely described his claim that he was omnipotent. Of course, no claim are is necessarily true.
Oh, my! :D

What? You know I didn't mean to insult.:rolleyes: :D

Whoops . . . I typed "are is" . . . I meant to do that . . .

the first law of omniscience states:

A omnipotent being may not injure itself or, through inaction, allow itself to come to harm.

Then how is it omnipotent in the first place?

Omnipotence is the condition of being all-powerful, correct?

So self-destruction should be possible to an omnipotent entity . . .

and yet, an omnipotent being could never be vanquished my any sort of calamity or occurrence . . . :confused:

Conclusion: the concept of omnipotence is illogical and most subsequently nonexistent

:D

cant it be tweaked to iron out any contradictions?

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Then how is it omnipotent in the first place? According to folks such as Thomas Aquinas, by defining omnipotence as the power to do all things logically possible, thereby excluding, e.g., the power to create a square circle.

Even so, why would an omnipotent creature be limited to only those things possible logically?
:bugeye:

it would be limited by our imagination? logic be damned?

??

the first law of omniscience states:

A omnipotent being may not injure itself or, bring about an impossible state of affairs.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Even so, why would an omnipotent creature be limited to only those things possible logically? Don't ask me. I leave it to the theists to make claims about their favorite God(s). Let Thomas Aquinas have his due. For me, an atheist, to assign attributes to YHWH only to argue against them would be, at the very least, disingenuous.

Parenthetically, the claim of omniwhatever for deities is relatively modern. In the good old days, simple immortality was adequate to distinguish the Gods from common folk, and even a man like Jacob could wrestle with God and win.

Well, imagine the degree of power the word "omnipotent" truly conveys . . . power over all things, regardless of the current rules of physics or logic or nature.

Let's take the idea of "free will" for example. Theists frequently state that we'd be like mindless, autonomous robots without it, and god only grants it to us so that we can love and worship him voluntarily.

However, is this a flawed assertion, seeing that god could bend reality itself and cause robotic, perfunctory worship to sate his desires just as genuine, impassioned piety does. It is he who first determined what "love" truly was. Why can he not change it so we might enjoy a less chaotic and desultory existence, always having to deal with our irksome "free volition?"

He is supposedly omnipotent! He could mold reality, the COSMOS, to provide both us mundane mortals and himself with an efficient, less despondent and burdensome system of existence.

He could do all this, and yet he refrains from doing so. There are only three plausible explanations:

1) We are not the crux of the matter as we imagine. We are not god's sole cynosure, as we have assumed for all these years. We are merely a curious anomoly in the story of the universe, to be noted and then disregarded by God, who is truly indifferent to our miseries and struggles.

2) God does not exist. He is a fallicious dellusion, a misconception contrived by early peoples and cultivated by those who fear death avidly.

3) God has a bizarre and brutish sense of humor. God exists and he is quite well-entwined in our daily existence and all the plights and pleasures thereof. In fact, he finds amusement in our intermittent agonies and deluges of catastrophic progress and frightening revelation. God is an inclement, inexorable "sonofabitch."

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Well, imagine the degree of power the word "omnipotent" truly conveys . . . power over all things, regardless of the current rules of physics or logic or nature. Why? The map is not the territory, and what it conveys to you may have no correspondence to what it conveys to me or conveyed to Thomas Aquinas.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
We are not god's sole cynosure, as we have assumed for all these years. Sole cynosure? Is there any other kind? How many centers of attention can there be?

Explain to me why one cannot have more than one area of intense interest?

cy·no·sure Pronunciation Key (sn-shr, sn-)
n.

1. An object that serves as a focal point of attention and admiration.
2. Something that serves to guide.


None of the above indicates that a given person may not have more than one simultaneously.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Why? The map is not the territory, and what it conveys to you may have no correspondence to what it conveys to me or conveyed to Thomas Aquinas.


This is because we aren't discussing something subjective or inconsistent; we are considering the definition of omnipotence, which is "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful"(Dictionary.com). Omnipotence is a lucid, fundamental, and incontestible idea, something one shouldn't be able to taint or distort with one's experiences or opinions.

One cannot simply decide that omnipotence is not complete becuase one feels it must not be. Omnipotence, by its very defintion, MUST be complete. It MUST convey absolute power over all things whether or not it seems realistic or imaginable for it to have power over such things.

Omnipotence is something very specific. It is power over all things, "universal authority." Not simply the power to manipulate those things we deem logically possible.

Logic cannot apply to omnipotence, seeing that omnipotence itself defies logic, and an omnipotent being is not constrained to only the logical or plausible.

An omnipotent being should be able to tranform all the spheres of the universe into crescents and cause all sentient creatures to believe that it had always been that way. In fact, they could change the very idea of a sphere into that of a crescent, thus causing the crescent to replace the sphere totally.
None of that has the least bit of logic in it. To be sure, it's utter stupidity and an absolute impossbility.

However, since the idea of doing so is "something", it is viable to the power of an omnipotent being, and an omnipotent being could most certainly pull it off.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey

it is not so much that religion and science can't go together, because they were close buddies in the past. The problem is that they use the authority of science at random to add to the authority of religion, but deny the authority of science regarding topics that disagree with their faith. Can you really have it both ways?

I will act as my own moderator in this thread and will try to bring it back on track:

so are there any christians out there that would like to clarify why they think that science can be used as a dirty washcloth to promote religion?

You wring the washcloth out and squeeze a bit of dirty science out. Let it drip on the the stinking pile of dirty dishes, otherwise known as faith, and subsequently hope that there was enough diluted soap left in the dirty washcloth to give your dirty dishes an appearance of shine.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
So are there any christians out there that would like to clarify why they think that science can be used as a dirty washcloth to promote religion? And when did you stop beating your wife? :rolleyes:

i think we overemphasize our dominance on this planet and the whole picture we receive from our media, our text books, our teachers, and our leaders has become so skewed that we've become very blind to the truth. but finding truth is about accepting the facts, taking things for what they are instead of trying to make them out to be something they are not. simple, but true, isn't it? i mean, isn't that what science is?

so i see the dilemma of associating science with religion and vice versa. but we're all after the same thing, right? the truth? maybe some people don't want the truth. maybe they want something else and they just shape the reality of the weaker people on the planet to suit their needs. i don't think that is so hard to accept as a theory. in fact, humans are always after something greater, it seems. so if there's anyone who's enlightened enough about "the truth", whatever that may be, wouldn't they have conquered that area of life and moved on? it relates to the whole theory of there being a God or not. because it's not something you can prove or disprove, it remains a concept that humans have used to describe something in life. therefore, there is no science to God in the material reality, but in a non-material, metaphysical or spiritual reality, God might exist.

this is how i justify why it's really hard to use science to prove something metaphysical. but it's also what i use to justify why what is metaphysical is worth discussing, because it's just so neat. :eek:

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
And when did you stop beating your wife? :rolleyes:

i didn't marry my girlfriend yet, but will start as soon as the papers are signed

I, personally, don't say that science is wrong. What I say is that science looks at something but simply does not see all the layers. Science still cannot explain the nature of conscience, for example. Science cannot explain life itself, and cannot know what happens after death with 100% of assurance (in the maximum, 50%: different existance or non-existance).

Logic is used to limit science. The use of logic is to regulate what we can discern between true or false. However, logic is imperfect because it also limits itself. Logic limits what we can understand in the universe.

God cannot act against His own nature.

ok, well now you brought God into it as if you know he exists, so i don't know what to make of that. but i do agree with you about science not being able to explain everything. i think scientists tend to limit their curiosity where science is limited, and therefore they tend to be extremely close minded.

zechaeriah,


ok, well now you brought God into it as if you know he exists
Maybe that's because I DO know He exists...:p

right on, Truthseeker!

Posted by pumpkinsaren'torange:
right on, Truthseeker!
Oh... someone agreeing with me. I don't even know what to say...:o:p:D

Thanks... I guess... :)

As far as I'm concerned, Kant, with out a doubt, proved that a god of sorts exists.

Even so, the writings of of a brilliant philospher, however convincing, do not justify the employment of scientific studies as a basis for the fervent diatribes of "witnesses."

i'm not saying god DOESN'T exist, just skeptical about it.

it would make a lot of sense, but then who is God's ruler?

then again, are we talking a creator of humanity or an almighty supreme being?

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Science still cannot explain the nature of conscience, for example.Still, and after all this time! Those neurobiologists are such a lazy bunch.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)Sometimes the honest answer is: "We don't know yet." Meanwhile, "God did it" is not an answer but, at the very best, a misleading placeholder marking the need for one.

The scientist says, "I don't know, but I'm sure science will figure it out someday." The religious says, "I don't know, but God does." Are the two really that different?

Originally posted by Dana D
The scientist says, "I don't know, but I'm sure science will figure it out someday." The religious says, "I don't know, but God does." Are the two really that different?

yes...the scientist is trying to figure it out, the religious person is satisfied with the answer that god knows and leaves it with that.

Originally posted by Dana D
Are the two really that different?[/COLOR] Yes.

So one is active and one is at rest.

One is searching and one has given up.

One is grasping - one has let go.

Neither sounds inherently ... wrong. Just different strokes ...

both science and religion:

1 - follow doctorine
2 - are skeptical of anything outside their doctorines
3 - create a lot of conceit & righteousness in their followers
4 - believe in a creator (science has nature, religion has God)
5 - cause a lot of needless grief

why not just be open to all that you can experience? as far as you know right this minute, you only have one chance to live, may as well live it up and stop shutting out everything that doesn't fit your model universe.

1 - follow doctorine

They differ in goals.

2 - are skeptical of anything outside their doctorines

Science is skeptical of itself as well.

3 - create a lot of conceit & righteousness in their followers

We're all human.

4 - believe in a creator (science has nature, religion has God)

Not necessarily for science, the subject is still up for debate.

5 - cause a lot of needless grief

Science is highly more productive in its revelations. I'm sure some theists will type on their keyboards that science gave them that this isn't so, but...

Jaxom -

1. In your opinion, what are the goals?

2. Agree. They each have their own denominations, adherents to opposing theories.

3. All too true.

4. Agree.

5. Perhaps. Depends on productive of what. Technology, culture, philosophy, etc.

Something just occurred to me. Check me on this -

Most wars (pogroms, jihads) have their basis on religious animosities (including the most recent tensions). Science has provided the tools to wage those wars. Without the 757, toxic chemicals, microbiology, gunpowder, steel, fire - we would just be limited to throwing rocks. Seems to me both are implicated in the horrors at hand.

Man's greatest evil and greatest glory find their source in our heart.

Originally posted by Dana D

Neither sounds inherently ... wrong. Just different strokes ...



yes, i agree...none of them is inherently wrong, but both can be used in the wrong way. There are some other threads dealing with this specific topic so I am not going into that here in detail. But personally I think it is easier to abuse religion than science.

Originally posted by Dana D
Jaxom -

Most wars (pogroms, jihads) have their basis on religious animosities (including the most recent tensions). Science has provided the tools to wage those wars. Without the 757, toxic chemicals, microbiology, gunpowder, steel, fire - we would just be limited to throwing rocks. Seems to me both are implicated in the horrors at hand.


you are referring to technology and not science. And it is still possible to slaughter a huge amount of people with primitive technology. And it did happen, just look at the history of mankind. Technology just made it more efficient.

1. In your opinion, what are the goals?

Actually, I have to agree that one goal, that of answering the question, why, is shared by science and religion. But aside from that, I think science's goal is to clarify that answer as much as possible, while religion dictates why, and that's the final verdict. Some religions splinter due to this rigidity, but the resulting shards are still rigid in their agreed answers.

I can also take religion's goals another direction, that of control. There's no doubt it's been used as such, regardless of whether or not it was created for that purpose.

2. Agree. They each have their own denominations, adherents to opposing theories.

"Science has provided the tools to wage those wars."

You said it...science is a tool, technology is the utilization of that tool, from a stone knife on up. It's up to society to use that tool appropriately.

Religion is a tool as well, and I suppose one could say it can be used constructively. However, if it restricts questioning of itself, its usefulness has ceased.

Originally posted by Jaxom


You said it...science is a tool, technology is the utilization of that tool, from a stone knife on up. It's up to society to use that tool appropriately.

.

i couldn't have said that because i believe that there is a big difference between technology and science.

Just a small point of definition, Jaxom - as monkey pointed out, science is the belief system (mental) that produces the tools (material).


It's up to society to use that tool appropriately.
Exactly!


The structure that religion provides is beneficial to many. "The Rock upon which to build a life." It is can be very constructive. However, you did touch on what I see as the most common problem with many, not all, religious. Rigidity, not allowing questions or change.


if it restricts questioning of itself
The structure can add strength to a person, but become too rigid and one becomes fragile. Unable to adapt. Events occur that we either adjust our matrix to or deny. If a strong event occurs that doesn't fit our matrix, that we are too rigid to adjust to and is too big to deny, we shatter.

Originally posted by Dana D
Just a small point of definition, Jaxom - as monkey pointed out, science is the belief system (mental) that produces the tools (material).


[/COLOR]

may i point out that i think that science produces papers and not tools, not material. thank you

Books, texts and such? Humm ... religion does that almost exclusively also, does it not?

Am I coming across as argumentative or am I making arguable points?

Tool was a bad term to use there...

Science is the findng of knowledge, tech is the usage of that knowledge.

So was the original question the usefulness of either? I read bad a bit, wasn't sure what direction we're going. If so, science is a lot more useful, and if you count only modern methodical science (scientific method and such) it's much younger than religion, but has done so much more. The knowledge has been used for good and bad, but the role of science again is not how to use it, but finding it in the first place.

So where does the discussion go from here? :)

there is a relationship between science and technology, but science doesn't automatocally lead to technology and technology is not automatically based on science. Both can be fully separate and still exist. Sometimes they overlap, but there surely isn't always a direct relationship as some people might think.

Agreement is reached.

So, what dead horse do we beat now? :D

i like beating physics and math

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
there is a relationship between science and technology, but science doesn't automatocally lead to technology and technology is not automatically based on science. In what sense is "technology is not automatically based on science"? Could you suply some examples?

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
In what sense is "technology is not automatically based on science"? Could you suply some examples?

I'm surprised you can't yourself.

'trial and error...'

for instance they made these huge rocket engines for the apollo mission. The theory said that you needed a certain combustion chamber. Practice said. fuck it doesn't work. Then they just made 'random' changes until it worked.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
I'm surprised you can't yourself. 'trial and error...' I'm sorry that you find yourself surprised. Perhaps it's because you conflate method and theory, and, unlike Popper and others, disassociate 'trial and error' from science. Furthermore, if you think the changes were truly 'random', one can only hope that you never end up working for the space program.

i suspect a new thread should be started about this, but here is my 2 cents on the matter...

is it safe to say that tech could be discovered by accident by a random schmoe and that science is more about reaching conclusions by running experiments in a lab?

yep...i think it is safe to say that no scientist ever invented the wheel (or airplane)

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I'm sorry that you find yourself surprised. Perhaps it's because you conflate method and theory, and, unlike Popper and others, disassociate 'trial and error' from science. Furthermore, if you think the changes were truly 'random', one can only hope that you never end up working for the space program.

I think you referred in another thread to following a college degree level course in theology if you really want to understand the topic. I can recommend reading some books about technology and science in this case.
And as a matter of fact i did not follow a course on this subject, but if this may compensate matters, i did actually do some actual research on the relationship between applied science and pure science at the end of the 19th century.

anyhoo...who cares

To return to the earlier theme- The omnipotence of God is usually and perfectly rationally assumed to exclude the ability to perform contradictions - such as lifting unliftable stones. For instance I am not aware of any thinker who believes God can both exist and not-exist at the same time. As you rightly point out omnipotence has its limits - but these are usually unspoken because taken for granted.

The dichotomy of science and religion must be one of the greatest red herrings of all time. There is nothing to stop scientists seeking certain aspects of the truth in religion or vice versa, although SOME scientific and religious positions are mutually incompatible not many are completely so.

One reason for this is that many 'scientific' beliefs are just articles as faith as shaky as any 'religious' belief. The belief that matter is all that exists (materialism, physicalism etc) may be the most relevant example here.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
I think you referred in another thread to following a college degree level course in theology if you really want to understand the topic. I believe you'll find that you've misread that comment.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
I can recommend reading some books about technology and science in this case. I have a mild preference for Popper and Strahler but, after some 25 years of engineering, I could probably use some new suggestions. Please feel free.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I believe you'll find that you've misread that comment.
I have a mild preference for Popper and Strahler but, after some 25 years of engineering, I could probably use some new suggestions. Please feel free.

so what science did you produce during all those years of engineering?

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
so what science did you produce during all those years of engineering?

I always considered engineering to be applied science. Do you define science in some unusual way?

not really...the goal of science is to discover the nature of the universe, of life.


the goal of engineering is to make a purposeful human contruction


so science might actually have more in common with art than engineering.

I see what you mean. However your definition of science is very narrow. When an engineer measures the load on a beam is that not science? Or is it only science if he calculates it and predicts the load? Similarly is it science to work out how to build an atom bomb but not science to actually build it? Presumably it is science to predict the damage it might do and then drop it to check that prediction.

I agree with you that the main theoretical purpose of science is to find out about existence. However it also has many (in fact mostly) sub-purposes by which it funds itself, most of which are highly commercial and practical and which I would think includes a big part of engineering.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
If science cannot define The Truth how can you use science at the same time to validate the truth of a religious text or concept. As I asked previously: If "a religious text or concept" makes statements about the natural world, what else should be used?