Why can't science and religion just get along?

[Amaris]

A "scientific fundamentalist" is kinda contradictory in itself. What would he do that makes him a fundamentalist?

I think what he's getting at is that when you get extreme, on either side, you stop searching for facts and answers, and instead start insulating yourself in your knowledge.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It's also what I was talking abut too, how there are those who use science as though it could tell us about ethics--or as though the fact that the material and observable can be deduced experimentally, but values cannot, then there must not BE any values or anything beyond the material realm.

 

[Goliath]

A "scientific fundamentalist" is kinda contradictory in itself. What would he do that makes him a fundamentalist?

I think what he's getting at is that when you get extreme, on either side, you stop searching for facts and answers, and instead start insulating yourself in your knowledge.

Actually, it's an Orwellian attempt to change a word's meaning, for purely political reasons.

Some people like to use the term "scientific priesthood" to achieve the same rhetorical effect.

Both work by fraudulently associating science with something negative and religious. The intention behind "scientific fundamentalist" is fairly obvious. "Scientific priesthood" is actually more interesting, since it appeals to the residual anti-Catholicism in English-speaking North American society.

One creationist on amazon.com has even entitled a review "There is no god but evolution, and Darwin is its prophet" in an attempt to associate science with Islamism, and to tap into anti-Muslim prejudice.

All of these phrases are inaccurate and dishonest attempts to blur the distinction between science and religion. And that's exactly why people use them.

 

[Amaris]

It's also what I was talking abut too, how there are those who use science as though it could tell us about ethics--or as though the fact that the material and observable can be deduced experimentally, but values cannot, then there must not BE any values or anything beyond the material realm.

Exactly. Just like the Christians I mentioned who believe that anyone who isn't Christian can't possibly raise ethical and moral children.

A "scientific fundamentalist" is kinda contradictory in itself. What would he do that makes him a fundamentalist?

I think what he's getting at is that when you get extreme, on either side, you stop searching for facts and answers, and instead start insulating yourself in your knowledge.

Actually, it's an Orwellian attempt to change a word's meaning, for purely political reasons.

Some people like to use the term "scientific priesthood" to achieve the same rhetorical effect.

Both work by fraudulently associating science with something negative and religious. The intention behind "scientific fundamentalist" is fairly obvious. "Scientific priesthood" is actually more interesting, since it appeals to the residual anti-Catholicism in English-speaking North American society.

One creationist on amazon.com has even entitled a review "There is no god but evolution, and Darwin is its prophet" in an attempt to associate science with Islamism, and to tap into anti-Muslim prejudice.

All of these phrases are inaccurate and dishonest attempts to blur the distinction between science and religion. And that's exactly why people use them.

I chalk it up to intent when it comes to matters such as that. If one intends to purposely distort the language, then yes, the deception is wrong. If, however, the person uses it with intent to merely describe in metaphor what they are seeing as a form of fundamentalism, then I see no issue with it's use.

 

[TIN_MAN]

A "scientific fundamentalist" is kinda contradictory in itself. What would he do that makes him a fundamentalist?

I think what he's getting at is that when you get extreme, on either side, you stop searching for facts and answers, and instead start insulating yourself in your knowledge.

Actually, it's an Orwellian attempt to change a word's meaning, for purely political reasons.

Some people like to use the term "scientific priesthood" to achieve the same rhetorical effect.

Both work by fraudulently associating science with something negative and religious. The intention behind "scientific fundamentalist" is fairly obvious. "Scientific priesthood" is actually more interesting, since it appeals to the residual anti-Catholicism in English-speaking North American society.

One creationist on amazon.com has even entitled a review "There is no god but evolution, and Darwin is its prophet" in an attempt to associate science with Islamism, and to tap into anti-Muslim prejudice.

All of these phrases are inaccurate and dishonest attempts to blur the distinction between science and religion. And that's exactly why people use them.

Not at all. I said what I meant and I meant what I said!
If I had wanted to say "Scientific priesthood" or say that science is a religion, I certainly would have no qualms in doing so. For what reason would I have to be vague?

Sarek of Vulcan is correct in the last several posts on the matter, Some scientists and/or skeptics still hold to the fundemental belief of nineteenth century mechanistic view that matter/materiality is a fundemental constituant of our reality. This is an unproven philosophical position, and no, it's not religion, but niether is it science! Yet on these feet of clay, spiritual experiances and realities are rejected on the basis of what has been called "the myth of the given".

I'm not knocking science or the scientific method, just the fundemental paradigms of certain of its practitioners.

I could go on, but let me stop here and only add that the knee-jerk reaction that only religion can suffer from degmatic fundementalism and that science is somehow perfectly immune just by virtue of being "SCIENCE" just goes to show how blind people can be when the pot calls the kettle black!
Or, to put it another way, science (or religion) is only as good as the people that practice it. And as long as either is practiced by flawed human beings, both will be flawed.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

You're wrong. Science and the scientific method are the best and most consistently reliable ways of assessing reality, and they are also self-correcting (at at least willing to be). Any flaws in the matter are only associated with the people who practice them

 

[JarodRussell]

The thing is: God/Nature/Manitou/Chuck Norris gave us the universal language: mathematics. This is what physics are based on.

Science tests, measures, observes, and then constructs theories out of these observations and measurements by using mathematics, then makes predictions, tests, measures, observes again, and so forth... in an ongoing, possibly never ending cycle.

Spiritual experiences cannot be measured or observed, they cannot be tested, they cannot be repeated, and they cannot be described by the mathematical language. Hence they are completely irrelevant to science. Science doesn't care if they exist or not, because they have no influence on what science tries to describe.

This is an unproven philosophical position

Which is again a statement that is contradictory in itself. Philosophical positions can never be proven, otherwise they would not be philosophical.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Spiritual experiences cannot be measured or observed, they cannot be tested, they cannot be repeated, and they cannot be described by the mathematical language. Hence they are completely irrelevant to science. Science doesn't care if they exist or not, because they have no influence on what science tries to describe.

But can you demonstrate that anything spiritual exists? If you can I'd like see/hear/read it.

More likely, I think it is one of those words that people use to be as ambiguous as possible, a word that purposefully evades a real definition, a word that allows different people to read it differently. It's kind of like God himself. In the old days of polytheistic cultures, people used gods to explain the world. One God causes lightning. Another drags the sun and so on, but as science started discovering how things actually work, polytheism dwindled, and you'd think that the whole god thing would leave human culture altogether. But because people fear death and the unknown, people instead created monotheistic cultures and their God became a "god of the gaps", or some kind of more and more nebulous god that would explain everything but, in actuality, it would explain nothing, and people use words like spirituality in order to get away with this tripe.

 

[JarodRussell]

More likely, I think it is one of those words that people use to be as ambiguous as possible, a word that purposefully evades a real definition, a word that allows different people to read it differently. It's kind of like God himself. In the old days of polytheistic cultures, people used gods to explain the world. One God causes lightning. Another drags the sun and so on, but as science started discovering how things actually work, polytheism dwindled, and you'd think that the whole god thing would leave human culture altogether. But because people fear death and the unknown, people instead created monotheistic cultures and their God became a "god of the gaps", or some kind of more and more nebulous god that would explain everything but, in actuality, it would explain nothing, and people use words like spirituality in order to get away with this tripe.

Though the interesting thing is that the polytheistic cultures were far better developed than the monotheistic ones. Science and polytheism seemed to work better than science and monotheism.

But can you demonstrate that anything spiritual exists? If you can I'd like see/hear/read it.

Yeah, well, no, you can't. You can probably find a psychological reason for visions for example, but then it's not a spiritual experience anymore. Spirituality has by definition nothing to do with the observable world. It's metaphysics.

 

[Amaris]

You're wrong. Science and the scientific method are the best and most consistently reliable ways of assessing reality, and they are also self-correcting (at at least willing to be). Any flaws in the matter are only associated with the people who practice them

No, he's right. While the scientific method itself is consistent and reliable, human beings can be another matter entirely. There are people who, on a fundamental level, cling so tightly to their ideas of just what science and the scientific method represent, that everyone else is a fool/an idiot/a moron/just plain ignorant. It's a deeply flawed way of looking at things, and for some, it affects their judgment.

 

[TIN_MAN]

You're wrong. Science and the scientific method are the best and most consistently reliable ways of assessing reality, and they are also self-correcting (at at least willing to be). Any flaws in the matter are only associated with the people who practice them

I never said "Science and the scientific method" were not "the best and most consistently reliable ways of assessing reality" It's just that sometimes scientists reject phenomena as "a priori" and not worthy of investigation, so in order for the scientific method to do its thing, it has to be applied, evenly and fairly, across the board of human experiance.

The Ideal of a self correcting science, and how willing or able any given scientist, or group thereof, is to re-evaluate fundemental assumptions is precisely the point, they are two seperate things.

"Any flaws in the matter are only associated with the people who practice them" bingo! Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[JarodRussell]

You're wrong. Science and the scientific method are the best and most consistently reliable ways of assessing reality, and they are also self-correcting (at at least willing to be). Any flaws in the matter are only associated with the people who practice them

I never said "Science and the scientific method" were not "the best and most consistently reliable ways of assessing reality" It's just that sometimes scientists reject phenomena as "a priori" and not worthy of investigation, so in order for the scientific method to do its thing, it has to be applied, evenly and fairly, across the board of human experiance.

The Ideal of a self correcting science, and how willing or able any given scientist, or group thereof, is to re-evaluate fundemental assumptions is precisely the point, they are two seperate things.

"Any flaws in the matter are only associated with the people who practice them" bingo! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Yeah, sure thing, there are "idiots" on both sides. But science is a tool, religion is more like a view.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

You're wrong. Science and the scientific method are the best and most consistently reliable ways of assessing reality, and they are also self-correcting (at at least willing to be). Any flaws in the matter are only associated with the people who practice them

No, he's right. While the scientific method itself is consistent and reliable, human beings can be another matter entirely.

actually that what I was trying to say the first part anyway

 

[TIN_MAN]

The thing is: God/Nature/Manitou/Chuck Norris gave us the universal language: mathematics. This is what physics are based on.

Science tests, measures, observes, and then constructs theories out of these observations and measurements by using mathematics, then makes predictions, tests, measures, observes again, and so forth... in an ongoing, possibly never ending cycle.

Spiritual experiences cannot be measured or observed, they cannot be tested, they cannot be repeated, and they cannot be described by the mathematical language. Hence they are completely irrelevant to science. Science doesn't care if they exist or not, because they have no influence on what science tries to describe.

This is an unproven philosophical position

Which is again a statement that is contradictory in itself. Philosophical positions can never be proven, otherwise they would not be philosophical.

"Spiritual experiences cannot be measured or observed, they cannot be tested, they cannot be repeated, and they cannot be described by the mathematical language."

There's plenty of litrature and math out there to contradict this position, if you're willing to look at it. this is just the mantra repeated by fundementalist scientists who "refuse to look through the telescope" so to speak.

"Which is again a statement that is contradictory in itself. Philosophical positions can never be proven, otherwise they would not be philosophical."

Err, that's precisely my point! It is fundemental "scientists" who base their view of science on contradictory Philosophical positions that can never be proven!!!

 

[JarodRussell]

There's plenty of litrature and math out there to contradict this position, if you're willing to look at it.

I am willing, but I haven't seen any. Maybe you can point me to some, especially about the mathematical aspect.

 

[TIN_MAN]

I am willing, but I haven't seen any. Maybe you can point me to some, especially about the mathematical aspect.

Well off the top of my head, here's a small example. It's not religion per se, but is related to spiritual and esoteric stuff in general. Keep in mind, I don't buy into everything this guy says, but this piece is interesting food for thought, as far as it goes? Nor is this the sum total of whats out there, or the sole source of my information on the matter, far from it.

So with out further ado...
http://montalk.net/notes/astral-physics

I thought it was pretty interesting, YMMV of course.

 

[StarryEyed]

It is fundamental "scientists" who base their view of science on contradictory Philosophical positions that can never be proven!!!

Someone earlier mentioned scientists rejecting things outside the realm of science simply because they ARE outside the realm of science. The "fundamentalist" label might fit there but not for someone who bases claims on philosophical principles. That's simply a bad scientist.

Ironically, one of the greatest scientists in history succumbed to such bad thinking: Albert Einstein. Einstein had philosophical prejudgments that led him to initially reject the expansion of the universe and quantum mechanics. He later called it the greatest mistake of his life. But even Einstein was corrected by his peers.

 

[JarodRussell]

I am willing, but I haven't seen any. Maybe you can point me to some, especially about the mathematical aspect.

Well off the top of my head, here's a small example. It's not religion per se, but is related to spiritual and esoteric stuff in general. Keep in mind, I don't buy into everything this guy says, but this piece is interesting food for thought, as far as it goes? Nor is this the sum total of whats out there, or the sole source of my information on the matter, far from it.

So with out further ado...
http://montalk.net/notes/astral-physics

I thought it was pretty interesting, YMMV of course.

The thing is, you can do exactly the same thing as the writer of this article did, by assuming there's a world made of cheese.

Whoever wrote this makes unsupported assumptions out of thin air, and then uses a sort of weird interpretation of physics to draw conclusions. That's what you call pseudoscience.

Since the physical body resides in a physical environment, the etheric body must reside in an etheric environment.
[...]
And just as a physical body can exist without an etheric (as is the case with a corpse) so can the etheric exist without the physical.

First of all he would have to find data that supports this claim. Then he could go on to draw further conclusions.

For beginners this requires entering a trance state in between sleeping and waking, where the mind is decoupled from linear time and mechanized thoughts. [...]
In this state, one can observe etheric lifeforms, the etheric field around living things, and also etheric thoughtforms which are produced by mental/emotional energy cast off by people throughout the day that continue in the ether like eddies in water until running out of energy and fading.

That should be talked over with a psychologist. Again, this is an entirely unsupported claim.

It is also known that alien / hyper-dimensional entities can hang around in the etheric, not fully materializing into the physical, in order to quietly observe.

It is KNOWN?! We don't even know that alien and hyper-dimensional entities exist, but it is known they hang around in the etheric?

From a quantum viewpoint, the etheric state appears to involve partial delocalization of the wave function, as will be discussed below.

That's where he begins using his weird interpretation of physics.

To illustrate this, if you are given five choices then you have five probable futures all sending their influences back in time and intersecting you in the present.

So time travel is just simply accepted in this context, and of course, the assumption is made that probable realities send information back in time.

In addition to being mere psychology, habit also has an etheric basis because repeated behaviors set up a type of momentum in the etheric that biases probability toward continuation of that behavior.

I'd really like to see the data sets on that one.


See, the thing is, by assuming things that cannot be supported, you can draw the wildest conclusions, and even spread a few formulas around to make it look like there was any substance to it.

After he made all these wild claims, flavored with a few goof looking formulas here and there, he of course can say:

All the above points to the etheric having a relationship with the physical what imaginary numbers have with the real numbers.

Seriously, be careful with pseudoscience. This article is just as valid as Bob Orci's article on Red Matter and Alternate Universes.