I just came across this video and it seems like there is a new campaign to make it look as if Science and religion don't disagree on anything.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_dxQmOWzv0[/youtube]

That the discussion is even being had demonstrates that there is conflict.

Is there a conflict between science and theism, perhaps not. Although a properly trained scientific mind might find theism an impossibility.

Is there a debate between science and religion, too fucking right there is, and as long as religious doctrine makes claims about reality there will always be.

While what they say about the Conflict Thesis may be true and early scientists were motivated to look for signs of god (which they thought they found on occasion as with Paley's design argument) it's a bit of a stretch to say there's no conflict when some of the main tenants of religion, for instance original sin, virgin birth and resurrection, are called into serious doubt by what we know about reality. Only by turning religion into allegory and putting god where it is exempt from scientific scrutiny - ie. into the abyss - while accepting scientific facts are the two compatible.

Yes, of course Christianity & Islam are incompatible with religious belief (when I talk about religion, I always mean Christianity and/or Islam, and not some more obscure belief system). The two things are actually polar opposites.

Religion claims that everything can be known as absolute 100% fact & truth simply by a blind unquestioning belief in it's ancient religious books.

Whereas science entirely rejects that sort of unquestioning faith-based belief, on the basis that such belief has no logical, credible, evidential or educated basis whatsoever.

So far science has discovered and explained almost everything in the known universe, in the most astonishing detail. And not one of those millions of explanations is compatible with religious belief in any way at all.

So that is a very stark contrast and a fundamental and absolute disagreement between science and religion.

And finally - science can prove that it's answers genuinely work and genuinely explain things. Whereas every time a religious claim is examined by science, it turns out the religious claim is completely wrong and untrue.

There is no conflict between religion and "science".
There is just conflict where some conclusions claimed to be from the scientific method, and so a great method of investigation and confidence thereof, say this or that about Christian ideas etc are wrong.
Thats the problem.

In fact it all comes down to the merits of the case.
Are the conclusions that oppose God or Genesis ben down with a higher or any solid standard of investigation.
Creationism(s) say no.
Thus the dust-up.

Robert Byers wrote:There is no conflict between religion and "science".
There is just conflict where some conclusions claimed to be from the scientific method, and so a great method of investigation and confidence thereof, say this or that about Christian ideas etc are wrong.Thats the problem.

My bold.



Can I paraphrase?
"When the scientific method leads to conclusions being drawn that contradict Christian claims, then there's a problem."

So perhaps we're in agreement, then? Because a shitload of conclusions drawn from scientific methods of inquiry contradict Christian claims, therefore there is a conflict. (I believe "shitload" is the official quantifier here? Someone may need to correct me on my terminology.)

Robert Byers wrote:There is no conflict between religion and "science".

Total crap once again, Byers. Want an example of where religion erects horseshit assertions that science flushes down the toilet? It's that part of mythology that happens to be your favourite part, Byers, the fairytale known as Genesis. Which asserts that it's possible to change the genomes of living organisms on a grand scale, simply by having the parent organisms shag alongside different coloured sticks. This assertion by your favourite collection of bad fairy tales is total horseshit, Byers, and we know it's total horseshit, because an Austrian monk performed some real scientific experiments to determine the nature of inheritance, and via those experiments, determined that once again, REALITY says that your favourite collection of fairy tales is horseshit.

Robert Byers wrote:There is just conflict where some conclusions claimed to be from the scientific method

Oh, you're erecting this tiresome bullshit again, Byers? Namely, the known and manifest creationist lie that because scientific experiments happen to produce results that don't genuflect before Bronze Age wankery, those experiments are purportedly "wrong"? Arch-charlatan and pathological liar for doctrine Henry Morris used to peddle this lie.

Robert Byers wrote:and so a great method of investigation and confidence thereof, say this or that about Christian ideas etc are wrong.

Guess what, Byers? REALITY says that your book of myths is wrong. See that part above about your book of myths claiming that it's possible to change the genomes of living organisms by having the parents shag alongside different coloured sticks? That is PLAIN, FLAT, WRONG, Byers, and can be DEMONSTRATED BY EXPERIMENT TO BE PLAIN, FLAT, WRONG. Which means that REALITY IS IN CONFLICT WITH YOUR BOOK OF MYTHS, Byers.

Robert Byers wrote:Thats the problem.

Yes, REALITY BEING IN CONFLICT WITH YOUR BOOK OF MYTHS IS THE PROBLEM, BYERS.

Robert Byers wrote:In fact it all comes down to the merits of the case.

And when HARD EVIDENCE FROM THE REAL WORLD says that your book of myths is horseshit, Byers, then your book of myths LOSES.

Robert Byers wrote:Are the conclusions that oppose God or Genesis ben down with a higher or any solid standard of investigation.

Byers, how many millions of breeding experiments do I have to shove under your nose, before you wake up to the fact that your book of myths is WRONG about this? The only way you'll change the genomes of living organisms with coloured sticks, is if those coloured sticks are made out of weapons grade plutonium, and painted with paints made from mutagenic toxins.

Robert Byers wrote:Creationism(s) say no.

Then creationism is talking out of its fucking arse as per usual. Because once again, Byers, your book of myths says it's possible to change the genomes of living organisms wholesale, simply by having the parents shag alongside different coloured sticks. Funny how NONE of the millions of tropical fish that were produced for the aquarium trade were produced using this method, or the dozens of different livestock breeds ranging from different breeds of sheep, pigs, cattle etc., nor any of the dog breeds, nor any of the cat breeds. Instead, they were produced by selecting appropriate mutations and breeding from them. Do I have to smack you about the head with the Double Tail mutation in Betta splendens yet again, Byers? Oh, and don't bother erecting your fatuous "innate triggers" or "instant adaptation" excrement, Byers, because those pieces of suppuratingly bubotic cortical faeces of yours ARE excrement, and we have the experiments to establish this.

Robert Byers wrote:Thus the dust-up.

Yes, because uppity fantasists, who think that piss-stained Bronze Age retards knew more about physics, chemistry and biology than actual scientists, keep whingeing because the rest of us won't let them force their fantasies upon our children.

Tell me, Byers, how many millions of breeding experiments do I have to shove under your nose, in order to establish that you can't change the genomes of living organisms with coloured sticks, and that as a consequence, YOUR BOOK OF MYTHS IS WRONG ABOUT BIODIVERSITY?

My post above contains an obvious "typo" ... of course I meant to say the following (the difference is only the strike-through, in red) -

IanS wrote:Yes, of course Christianity & Islam are incompatible with religious belief science (when I talk about religion, I always mean Christianity and/or Islam, and not some more obscure belief system). The two things are actually polar opposites.

Religion claims that everything can be known as absolute 100% fact & truth simply by a blind unquestioning belief in it's ancient religious books.

Whereas science entirely rejects that sort of unquestioning faith-based belief, on the basis that such belief has no logical, credible, evidential or educated basis whatsoever.

So far science has discovered and explained almost everything in the known universe, in the most astonishing detail. And not one of those millions of explanations is compatible with religious belief in any way at all.

So that is a very stark contrast and a fundamental and absolute disagreement between science and religion.

And finally - science can prove that it's answers genuinely work and genuinely explain things. Whereas every time a religious claim is examined by science, it turns out the religious claim is completely wrong and untrue.

hackenslash wrote:That the discussion is even being had demonstrates that there is conflict.

Not a good argument. It´s too similar to the whole "teach the controversy" stuff. One can´t argue that the discovery institute being around provides an argument that evolution is on shaky grounds and in the same way, that people think there is a conflict, does not show that there is a conflict (after all, they might be wrong).

On the topic: Of course there is no conflict. At least if we are discussing well defined religions. The only positions that take the mantle of religion and are at conflict with science are also at conflict with themselves, i.e. they are absurd and lead to explosion. Somebody who believes those must logically believe everything and anything, including that they are biotech constructs produced by fusing the genomes of Jesus and Buddha. Or that Pi equals 68.

susu.exp wrote:On the topic: Of course there is no conflict. At least if we are discussing well defined religions. The only positions that take the mantle of religion and are at conflict with science are also at conflict with themselves, i.e. they are absurd and lead to explosion. Somebody who believes those must logically believe everything and anything, including that they are biotech constructs produced by fusing the genomes of Jesus and Buddha. Or that Pi equals 68.

Interesting post. Can you give some examples of such 'well-defined' religions?

stijndeloose wrote:Interesting post. Can you give some examples of such 'well-defined' religions?

I keep using the same candidates: Catholicism, Eastern orthodoxy. Both based on dogmatic premises, which are internally consistent (as far as I can tell) and make no empirical claims. Both deliberately constructed to be consistent and avoid simple pitfalls. The criteria arn´t all that different than for maths. From that standpoint, creationism isn´t really different from people who claim that the decimal representation 0.999... isn´t equal to 1 in the reals...

susu.exp wrote:

hackenslash wrote:That the discussion is even being had demonstrates that there is conflict.

Not a good argument. It´s too similar to the whole "teach the controversy" stuff. One can´t argue that the discovery institute being around provides an argument that evolution is on shaky grounds and in the same way, that people think there is a conflict, does not show that there is a conflict (after all, they might be wrong).

You are correct, but your point is poorly argued, which is something in itself!

There certainly is a controversy regarding the veracity of evolution, but this doesnt actually speak to the veracity of evolution. The controversy is entirely rooted in what people think, which has no bearing on whether or not evolution is true. There is also conflict in this discussion, and the 'teach the controversy' crowd are indicative of that. That the point is argued demonstrates that there is a conflict, because that's the definition of conflict! This was the thrust of my point, and thus far it stands.

On the topic: Of course there is no conflict. At least if we are discussing well defined religions. The only positions that take the mantle of religion and are at conflict with science are also at conflict with themselves, i.e. they are absurd and lead to explosion. Somebody who believes those must logically believe everything and anything, including that they are biotech constructs produced by fusing the genomes of Jesus and Buddha. Or that Pi equals 68.

Whoah, dude! Who said anything about religions being well-defined? Certainly, and as you have argued eloquently and with erudition that is difficult to argue against, there is such a thing as a well-defined religion, but high definition does not a religion make. Indeed, the majority of religion is anything but well-defined. I agree that Catholicism is reasonably (although not entirely) well-defined, but the Bishop of Rome and his antecedents have had a long time to work on it. The majority of religions are so ill-defined that the tenets of faith can't be defined consistently between one believer and another. The same would be true of Catholicism (and indeed it probably is at a personal level) if it were not for the structure of the edifice.

More importantly, what has logic got to do with it? You have seen the posts of the credulous here and elsewhere. Can you look at a post by Robert Byers and tell me that what he believes is driven by logic? Suspense of logic is the core of this idiocy, and this is nowhere more apparent than in their ability to apply one principle to one belief and a different principle to another. How many times have we come across the argument that god is not equivalent to the FSM?

I'll be interested in seeing if you can actually defend this post, because I don't see how it can be done, and when you are posting, I don't usually harbour such doubts. I will keep my apology on hold in case I need it, and I look forward to your response.

hackenslash wrote:Whoah, dude! Who said anything about religions being well-defined? Certainly, and as you have argued eloquently and with erudition that is difficult to argue against, there is such a thing as a well-defined religion, but high definition does not a religion make. Indeed, the majority of religion is anything but well-defined. I agree that Catholicism is reasonably (although not entirely) well-defined, but the Bishop of Rome and his antecedents have had a long time to work on it. The majority of religions are so ill-defined that the tenets of faith can't be defined consistently between one believer and another. The same would be true of Catholicism (and indeed it probably is at a personal level) if it were not for the structure of the edifice.

But if a religion is ill-defined and thus reduces to absurdity, then it is no different from any other ill-defined thing that reduces to absurdity. All absurdities are one and the same, there´s no difference between them, because absurdity always entails all possible statements. This in turn means that we can not distinguish an ill-defined religion from an all-defined concept of limits. Hence the Abyss - no matter where you misstep, you always end up in the same hole.

hackenslash wrote:More importantly, what has logic got to do with it? You have seen the posts of the credulous here and elsewhere. Can you look at a post by Robert Byers and tell me that what he believes is driven by logic?

Sure. Absurd logic and thus trivial. But that´s no different from other absurd positions, from the 0.99... isn´t equal to 1 absurdity to the Nazis wage policy (the stated policy was that wages would have to increase. And that wages would have to decrease), or. Byers believes everything. Heck, Byers even believes that earth is 4.5 billion years old, if only by accident, as he believes it´s 6,000 years old, and 283,000 years old, and 32.4 million years old and -137.235 years old and 391i minutes old as well. Put any number in front of a time unit and Byers believes it´s the age of the earth. And the age of Cher (probably logically justifiable in the case of Cher). He also believes that he had sex with Pope Pius II on Mars in the future and this led to Lindsay Lohan giving birth to mathematician Leonard Euler in Las Vegas. Of course Byers will deny believing these things (or maybe not, the polar bear thing was crazy enough). That´s because Byers doesn´t even know what he believes. But, and this is crucial, it´s not any different from anybody whose views have collapsed to absurdity for other reasons. I´m sure there´s the occassional "atheist" who hands over a patent application for a perpetuum mobile of the first kind. And I´m putting "atheist" in parantheses for the same reason I´d have to put "theist" in parantheses when discussing Byers. Because Byers believes that god does not exist. He believes that the bible is full of lies. While our absurd "atheists" believes that Jesus appears on slices of toast to speak to people and that Krishna cures arthritis. If you enter absurdity, you have to believe everything. Literally.
I have hard time calling this religion because the same hold if you introduce a number a=0/0, or think you can build a machine that creates energy.

There is a conflict between science and absurdity. But since absurdity is absurdity, there´s no special class of absurdity that´s religious.

See, that's why you're susu.exp, while I'm merely hackenslash.




(although I still maintain that religion has a class of absurdity all its own, if only for its sheer bloody-minded adeherence to absurdity; point well taken, though.)

IanS wrote:Yes, of course Christianity & Islam are incompatible with science

A baseless generalization. You assume that every tenet/doctrine of Christianity and Islam are incompatible with science. The correct terminology would be improbable with science. For example, a Christian who believes in a literal resurrection of Jesus is not contradicting science. Just the chances of life returning 3 days after death is scientifically improbable. That is not to say that science could not have been involved or perhaps science was not involved but rather another force that as humans we cannot fully comprehend.

(when I talk about religion, I always mean Christianity and/or Islam, and not some more obscure belief system).

Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism are obscure? Why limit yourself with defining religion? Religion is the practice of worshiping a deity(s). The belief of the God's may be obscure but the religion is not.

The two things are actually polar opposites.

No they are not. Too be polar opposites they would actually never contradict each other. They would both make statements about different matters. This is what advocates of NOMA teach, that religion and science do not contradict each other because they deal with complete opposite functions.

But we know they are not opposites because religion and science agree in certain things. What is being debated is the differences in which the issues overlap and religion says one thing while science says the other.

Religion claims that everything can be known as absolute 100% fact & truth simply by a blind unquestioning belief in it's ancient religious books.

Evidence for this assertion? Or are you going to rely on broad sweeping generalization to make a point? I may believe in a God, but I am aware that I do not know with 100% absolute certainty that God does exist. I have faith in hope that there is a God, and the faith in the promises of the Bible, but it is not 100% and I do not hold to the falsity of reality vs doctrine. If reality says one thing and my doctrine says the other, than it is the doctrine that is faulty.

Whereas science entirely rejects that sort of unquestioning faith-based belief

True, but I know many people who treat science like this. Instead of the rigorous self-testing, self-correct, constant questioning that is science, many people believe that science is absolute. Thus you get people who say that a theory is 100% accurate. Whilst it would be more correct to say it is 99.9% accurate. Science always has room for error and correction.

But so does religious doctrine. I used to be a creationist, then I was an intelligent design/old earth creationist, then I was a day-age gap theorist with some evolutionary concepts, then I finally understood what evolution was and then I became an evolutionist. But did this affect the way I viewed God? Nope. It made me more appreciative for the world I live in, that my part in this world is but a shadow of the age of the Earth.

, on the basis that such belief has no logical

Every action stems from logic in the subjective lens. Perhaps the belief is a crutch which helps a person cope with life. Perhaps the belief stems from a sense of humility and a fragility that comes from "believing" in a God. Regardless, too the individual the belief has some logical basis. If we are to look at things in a objective lens, I can start naming illogical things. Monogamous relationships, love, government, money, thinking/philosophizing, and many more. These things in an objective lens are illogical, and yet they exist.

, credible,

That is true only if the person is attempting to persuade you to the believe in his or her belief. Otherwise any credibility is subjective to the person. What credible evidence do I have that makes me believe my neighbor truly loves his wife? His actions could be delusional or a facade. But to him, he has the credible evidence in which he knows he loves his wife.

evidential

Unless the person is making a claim, evidential only refers to the objective outlook on the religion. If the person made the statement the earth is 6000 years old, then evidence can be brought forth to support or refute the claim. If the person believes in a god, there is no evidence to confirm or deny that belief. As much as I hate to use the quote that cretinists love to use, "There is no evidence against God."

or educated basis whatsoever.

I wonder if you have ever talked to a real theologian, or a Pastor who has been through seminaries and theological training? If you really want to know, many pastors do not have seminary training and many pastors are not fully ordained ministers. Many get the basic theological requirements and degrees, find a church and start preaching. This is also true for many mega-church pastors.

Regardless, you'd be surprised just how much about religion you do not know. There are things I learn about Christianity every day, from interpretation of a certain passage to word play in a verse which gives it multiple meanings which are all viable. Theology is not an uneducated study nor is it full of uneducated people.

So far science has discovered and explained almost everything in the known universe, in the most astonishing detail.

This claim is baseless and shows a misinformed stance on science. Too be honest, we do not know how much there is too know. Next, science has created possible explanations into why and how things are in the Universe but as I said above it is only a 99.9% certainty. Science is not in the absolute business.

And not one of those millions of explanations is compatible with religious belief in any way at all.

So if my religious belief said that God created modern life through evolution that is incompatible with science which says modern life evolved over millions of years? The only difference is the religious belief makes the claim of a god where as science does not because it cannot, unless of course the God was a natural force.

So that is a very stark contrast and a fundamental and absolute disagreement between science and religion.

A person who respects science making an absolute claim? An absolute claim that I have just shown is incorrect. Some religious claims are incompatible with science. Others are, and unless the god is a naturally occurring being(Greek/Egyptian/etc. pantheon) than science cannot observe or make any tests concerning the existence of said God.

And finally - science can prove that it's answers genuinely work and genuinely explain things.

Okay.

Whereas every time a religious claim is examined by science, it turns out the religious claim is completely wrong and untrue.

Another baseless, sweeping generalization. My religion claims that humans possess souls. That is a spiritual, supernatural claim that cannot be validated or denied by science. That is for a philosophical evaluation, not scientific.

willhud9 wrote:Another baseless, sweeping generalization. My religion claims that humans possess souls. That is a spiritual, supernatural claim that cannot be validated or denied by science. That is for a philosophical evaluation, not scientific.

While I agree with you that some statements may have been made too easily, I think the above statement falls in exactly the same category. It is your assumption that a supernatural claim cannot be validated or denied by science. E.g. if yagolah were only to appear (and preferably cooperate a bit), that is exactly what science can do to distinguish it from a prank. And if he resurrects a specific person on request, that would qualify as bona fide divine powers.

And of course science can investigate souls, in particular the properties thereof. If they exist, souls can be kept frozen indefinitely, for example. Assuming that a soul is present in a fertilized egg, we can keep it in liquid nitrogen for ages.

To continue with the frozen soul, if the fertilized egg divides, we can separate the two cells and get two individuals. Either one will have the soul, and the other can live without one. Or both have souls. In that case, they could both have a half soul. Regeneration is a possibility, then. What happens if we transfer cell contents. (How does the soul know to move or not to move with the cell contents? If I brush my knee, do I lose part of my soul? If a future technology allows some of the cells lost to regenerate into a human, does he have a soul or not? If I get very ill, and that counterpart dies in a car crash and I get all his organs, will I have his soul, a mixed soul? You may want to localize the soul in the brain. But then the fertilized egg doesn't have a soul.

[Added] What about conjoined twins. Once soul or two? If there is only one head?

Dare to think about it? I have to admit I didn't finish the exercise with all its possibilities and ramification. I just decided this soul idea is baseless crap; a mythical explanation by people who didn't have a clue as to why a dying person is alive one moment and dead a second later. The body is there, why doesn't it work? "His soul has left him".

Bert
That was true for my pet too, then?

Genesis 30:38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink,
Genesis 30:40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals.
Genesis 30:42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob.
New International Version ©198

This reads as if some form of trick was being played to get the flocks to breed, as it later says the weak and strong animals were separated.

One of the basics of animal husbandry has always been behavioural stuff and attempting to get stronger animals.

OF COURSE there is no conflict between science and religion!

---Just as long as science does not disagree with dogma . Galileo and poor barbecued Gordiano Bruno spring to mind,not to mention stem cell researchers and IMVF doctors currently.

Being a scientist could be quite a dangerous occupation at certain times in history. Still is in parts of the Middle East and the US, where in some places people like to blow up abortion clinics and murder their personnel..

willhud9 wrote:Another baseless, sweeping generalization. My religion claims that humans possess souls. That is a spiritual, supernatural claim that cannot be validated or denied by science. That is for a philosophical evaluation, not scientific.

Do you possess a soul or does a soul possess you?

Of course spiritual, supernatural claims can't be affected by such physical phenomena as blunt force trauma, so changes in personality as a consequence have nothing to do with the soul right? Or would that be a baseless, sweeping generalisation?

Exactly what does the soul do?