Why can't religon and science be friends?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by science man, Feb 27, 2010.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Huh?
    The rules don't apply because that's the claim.
    If the rules were applied then the "supernatural" would be seen to not exist. The only way that claims of the supernatural and god can be sustained is by claiming "the rules don't apply".

    And as I have shown people don't continue when they have a fixed belief in god. How far will science be pursued in Iran? I can tell you exactly: until science comes into conflict with belief. If science is applied then all that will be left will be a god of the gaps and claims of (as above) "Well the rules don't apply to god, so what science says here doesn't count".

    E.g. the theists will stop.
    Or give up being theists.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    One would consider 'cloning' to be that position where someone with belief would stop- Iran has cloned as well... I think you're asserting your opinion about what the theists would do in the future when it comes to science...

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I think many will justify and rationalize a way to merge their beliefs with that which they cannot deny.

    A few will deny that which they cannot deny.

    A few will reach the conclusion that the fairy tales they heard growing up were just myths, after-all.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Great....

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Nope: cloning is a physical (scientific process).

    Hardly, since an acceptance of the supernatural is contrary to the scientific view. So holding both is more than slightly contrary. One would either have to be a hypocrite* or surrender one or the other viewpoints.

    * And I'm keeping my fingers crossed that there are limits to hypocrisy...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (Probably unjustified).
     
  9. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I don't agree... Science has absolutely no business in saying anything about the supernatural- one doesn't need to accept one and not the other. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

    I know you do but that is your opinion, in my opinion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you ;0
     
  10. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Opinions are irrelevant when compared to very accurate models of reality.

    It is not that science has no business in saying anything about the supernatural, since believers place the supernatural in a place that science cannot test it or observe it-- It's that science doesn't need to bother with fairies and gnomes etc since the believer will always shift the goalposts in order to keep it untestable by science.

    But for a person to use scientific methods for modeling reality and applying critical thinking, entertaining notions of super-naturalism CAN be a possible hinderance.
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Since there is no evidence at all for the supernatural the only way that a belief in it can be justified is by statements such as yours. (And you've just given me an idea for a thread - I'll take some time to formulate the OP though).

    They are mutually exclusive since one of them relies on evidence and repeatability and the other relies on subjective experience and hearsay. The "supernatural" is delusion and survives only because it removes itself from having to provide evidence.
     
  12. ejderha Exhausted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    It's unbelievable that a title as "Why can't religion and science be friends?" has gone 13 pages!
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Ha!
    Wait for the next one: we'll always find something to argue about. At length.
     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Must be supernatural

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. ejderha Exhausted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    OK, I am suggesting a new simplification to the friendly looking equation then:

    Because, science doesn't get along well with bullshit.

    I know, it's still too long. But this is the best I have. Trying to be practical.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I nominate this equation as accurate and reasonable.
     
  17. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    seconded.
     
  18. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    You really have me confused.
    Weren't we arguing other day from where you seemed to have a fundamentalist viewpoint?
    I'm just asking for clarity and to reduce confusion...
     
  19. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I love the title, not tht i am religious but its got 'friends' in the title. The word 'science' is so overused though. Seems like everything we do is 'science'. 'Science this', 'science that', 'thats not science'...it a liitle absurd. imho.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2010
  20. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    meh, i cut my hand...'it's science? i pick up clumps of dirt and look at it 'it's science' i till the soil 'it's science. So what isnt science?
     
  21. Vic the Trader straight chillin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    87
    You never see such fervor for neutrality like you do with the old theistic v.s. atheistic argument.

    The practitioners of 'reason' have been getting sucked into the vacuum ever since they admitted to their selves that never ending uncertainty is a viable substitute for blind faith on either side of the argument.
     
  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I'd rather be a half wit than witless.

    God.
     

Share This Page