The conflict between science and religion is primarily philosophical and irreconcilable. Those who believe otherwise either do not know science or do not know religion or do not know either. In science, nothing is immune to question, no answer is final, an emotion is irrelevant data, and the dissenter should never be assaulted; in religion, much is immune to question, many answers are final, emotion is often the decisive evidence, and most dissenters must be punished.

The Smiling Cynic


[a current thread on FB tearful testifiers of the BoM brought this quote to mind. Specifically, "emotion is often the decisive evidence".]

NOT liberal religion.

Good quote (or are you the Smiling Cynic?).

In the real world, science isn't always done like the ideal above on a case-by-case basis (especially "the dissenter should never be assaulted"), but the ideal wins out overall.

And in the real world, some "liberal" religions overlook some of the stuff above, from time to time, but the case above wins out overall.

:)

Don't know who "The Smiling Cynic" is. Google didn't even help

I was going to post a clarification on "the dissenter should never be assaulted", noting that there have been some at least verbal knock-down drag-outs among scientists, and even science sometimes advances one funeral at a time. I decided that the word "should" in "should never be assaulted" provided cover, but that is a rather fine parsing of the statement.

oops. submit button spasm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2018 08:47PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> there have been some at least verbal knock-down
> drag-outs among scientists, and even science
> sometimes advances one funeral at a time.

I've been witness to many "knock-down drag-outs" by scientists.
It was always about the topic and never about the person.

Besides the divide created by emotion there is also that of faith.

Those who put their money and minds on science saying that faith and emotion are not reliable are often shot down big time by the religious declaring that they are lacking what God requires most and He is soooo disappointed in us.

Well, so say you.....and show me your proof that a God said this and that he/she/they/it exists.

Whatever the details or disclaimers some wish to add, I think you have gotten to the barebones of the irreconcilable differences between religion and science. Couldn't be worded better for me. Still, I prefer the soup du jour to this. :)

Maybe in a black and white world. Generally speaking, science is about measurement and religion is about dogma. But religion evolves over time and scientists have their dogmas. So there’s some gray. They don’t necessarily conflict, except where fundamentalists are concerned. Then you have Mormons gerrymandering their minds to the point they’re tied up in knots.

There’s no need for conflict because the scopes don’t intersect.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But religion evolves over time

Indeed it does and isn't this fascinating? Take creationists.

The original creationists were left hanging in the ropes by the theory of evolution, which debunked creationism entirely.
It looked as if every christian would accept the evidence and start to see Genesis as metaphorical.
But some creationists survived. They learned to adapt to the new environment, conjuring up theories about a "god of the gaps" and "intelligent design" which was better suited to carve out its niche to thrive in.

I like to call this the evolution of creationism.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There’s no need for conflict because the scopes
> don’t intersect.

Yeah, I've never bought into the "non-overlapping magisteria" thing. It's largely promoted by the religious who don't want science investigating their claims, and by some scientists who are afraid that if they look "hostile" to religion, they won't get public funding.

Science *uses* measurement, but that's not what it's "about." Science is a method for gaining verifiable knowledge. About anything and everything. And it's the best, most reliable method for doing so we humans have ever come up with.

Religion was an "early" attempt to gain knowledge. Trouble is, its methods rely on emotion, speculation, ignorance, and flat-out making stuff up. None of those methods are reliable ways to gain knowledge.

Yeah, I've never bought into the "non-overlapping magisteria" thing. It's largely promoted by the religious who don't want science investigating their claims, and by some scientists who are afraid that if they look "hostile" to religion, they won't get public funding.

COMMENT: I generally agree with this statement, especially as applied to Stephen Jay Gould's rather impoverished argument regarding "magisteria." However, I think it is helpful to view this as a two-circled Venn diagram where you have areas of problematic overlap, while leaving at least some areas independent. After all, one can engage in science without confronting religion, and religion without confronting science. The question then becomes, what is the source of the overlap and the nature of the problems associated with such overlap. I think it is clear that the overlap occurs when (1) the metaphysics of religion contradicts the findings of science; and (2) when science delves into metaphysical areas which press against religious beliefs. (for example the idea of multiple universes as an explanation for the anthropic principle; i.e. why the laws of the universe are "fine-tuned" to support life)

____________________________________________________

Science *uses* measurement, but that's not what it's "about." Science is a method for gaining verifiable knowledge. About anything and everything. And it's the best, most reliable method for doing so we humans have ever come up with.

COMMENT: I would change your third sentence to say, "About anything and everything *that is conducive to that method.*" This change highlights the obvious fact that scientific methodology has limitations with respect to the knowledge it can hope to uncover. Such methodological limitations include limitations imposed by scale factors and experimental access to both micro and macro reality. Substantively, metaphysical knowledge, including the existence of God, is outside the realm (circle) of scientific methodology and knowledge.
__________________________________________________

Religion was an "early" attempt to gain knowledge. Trouble is, its methods rely on emotion, speculation, ignorance, and flat-out making stuff up. None of those methods are reliable ways to gain knowledge.

COMMENT: Well, religion still represents to some extent an attempt to gain knowledge. So, it still is a "methodology" for acquiring knowledge, however one views the legitimacy of the methodology or its results. Moreover, I do not think it is entirely fair to exclude rational deliberation from your list. In perhaps its kindest characterization, religion is an attempt find personal meaning in the universe (certainly a rational motivation) through attempted interaction with and speculations about metaphysical reality. There is a great deal of rational discourse by theologians as part of this enterprise, whether one thinks such arguments are sound or not. Regarding reliability, your point is well-taken. However, we must ask "reliability for what?" As objective knowledge of the nature of the world the reliability is suspect to be sure. But as a source for a cogent cognitive belief system that produces some sense of personal meaning as to one's place in the universe, the methodology might well be quite reliable.

Appreciate the response, Henry.

I'll just point out that "metaphysical knowledge" is an oxymoron...:)

Following the Holy Ghost is completely non-scientific. Does it give you answers science can’t? I think sometimes it does.

What we have in religion is stories whose factual content is ancillary to the story. We know there was no literal Adam and Eve, but that doesn’t mean there was no fall. Otherwise, why are our normal minds non-psychedelic? People as a general case want some kind of spiritual access. Barring guys like Hoffman and Shulgin, science can’t provide that. Prayer and meditation can.

So the Mormons are partially correct when they say it doesn’t matter that their scriptures are made up. But the kind of thinking required to have it both ways is horrendous. Self denial is a house of mirrors you don’t want to get lost in. The cost of Mormon belief is too high.

Belief itself does have benefits, such as the ability to leverage spirituality to deal with life’s problems. The ridiculousness of Mormonism nukes belief to the point where nothing will grow for a long time afterwards.

"Science" revolves around questioning and is a method.
Religion despises questioning.

I think both science and religion have their place.

Science is more honest about its shortcomings. There are questions that simply cannot be answered by science that are important to humans generally, which leaves room for religion. However, the scientific body of knowledge is growing exponentially, and a mix-shift of human attention from religion to science continues.

Religion tends to react like a threatened animal in the wake of this mix-shift. Too many questions that used to be answered solely by religion are now more adequately addressed through science. The relevance of religion continues to diminish. Still, religion will always stand in the shadow of science's ignorance, however small that shadow becomes over time.

Will humanity ever transcend religion? Unlikely. By the time our descendants get over their religious inclinations they'll probably be unrecognizable to us as human.

In the meantime, science is interesting. And if you don't agree, you can F off!

Sillyrabbit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Will humanity ever transcend religion? Unlikely.
> By the time our descendants get over their
> religious inclinations they'll probably be
> unrecognizable to us as human.

Hmm, I don't know about that part.

Myself and 2 of my kids left religion (and its inclinations) completely behind already.
And I'm pretty sure I'm still recognizably human...:)