Truth : Science Vs. Religion

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by entropy13

lolwut?

i don't know, i thought you were saying it would be nice if all the
people posting here were in GN instead/also. I was saying there
are not that many people posting here. there have been 4 i think, plus you.

Originally Posted by digibucc

oh i make the distinction, but i also make the one
that you don't look down on them as much as you look down on me.

if you had to choose between those who are still kinda like you, but not entirely - or me,
you would choose them. it's human nature, and that's the way it has always been.

Irrelevant and off topic. I'm an agnostic by the way.

My point is that religion can be abused. But that goes as much for science. There is all sorts of quackery and pseudo science posing as real science. Do I get to use those idiots as counter examples? No of course not. So as long as I can't use pseudo science to impugn the value of science, you can't use religious extremists to validate your arguments and impugn the value of religion. I think that's more than fair.

[digibucc]

yes but as i said, science is made with a mechansim to filter that out.
if you have a basic understanding of the scientific method, all that
pseudo-science is obviously fake.

it's when you give the super-natural such power, and you don't
have a filter to weed out fake crap, that it becomes dangerous.

and science gives you that filter, religion counts on your not
developing it.

are you agnostic about unicorns? the tooth fairy?
just because you can't prove it false, doesn't mean they're equally likely to exist as not.

Originally Posted by digibucc

yes but as i said, science is made with a mechansim to filter that out.
if you have a basic understanding of the scientific method, all that
pseudo-science is obviously fake.

it's when you give the super-natural such power, and you don't
have a filter to weed out fake crap, that it becomes dangerous.

and science gives you that filter, religion counts on your not
developing it.

and your point would be? What exactly. Because religion isn't self correcting it is therefore invalid? Really? Why don't you try to make that argument in a little more detail.

[digibucc]

um, i already did. you have basically had me repeat it.

i said earlier, more than once.

you can't KNOW, obviously it's POSSIBLE, but i will put my trust
in the system that is verifiable, and is built on open-ness and testing.
rather than the one that is built on faith, and the very crux of the ides
is that it CANNOT be verified. that's just a no go for me.

seriously though, you've been a bit of an ass this whole time. i'd
appreciate it if you'd stop being so antagonistic.

[gumpty]

Originally Posted by twilyth

Because religion isn't self correcting it is therefore invalid? Really?

Just to throw my 2c in.

I wouldn't call it 'invalid', but I would call it 'of no use' for improving our condition.

Originally Posted by digibucc

um, i already did. you have basically had me repeat it.

i said earlier, more than once.

you can't KNOW, obviously it's POSSIBLE, but i will put my trust
in the system that is verifiable, and is built on open-ness and testing.
rather than the one that is built on faith, and the very crux of the ides
is that it CANNOT be verified. that's just a no go for me.

And that my friend is your personal choice. Do you know what that proves? Absolutely NOTHING.

Originally Posted by gumpty

Just to throw my 2c in.

I wouldn't call it 'invalid', but I would call it 'of no use' for improving our condition.

And likewise, that is a perfectly valid personal choice but one which has no bearing on this debate.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by digibucc

i don't know, i thought you were saying it would be nice if all the
people posting here were in GN instead/also. I was saying there
are not that many people posting here. there have been 4 i think, plus you.

By my count there have been at least 8 people (Mr. MCC, ndmk, bostonbuddy, theoneandonlydub, you, the thread starter, LAN, Witcher, etc.) who posted in this thread, plus 5-6 more who are active in GN.

[digibucc]

most were yesterday, i meant now.
i didn't know it was in GN as well.

Originally Posted by twilyth

And that my friend is your personal choice. Do you know what that proves? Absolutely NOTHING.

and what does your personal choice prove? oh... NOTHING? ok.

just so we're on the same page.

[gumpty]

Originally Posted by twilyth

And likewise, that is a perfectly valid personal choice but one which has no bearing on this debate.

Personal choice?

It's not personal choice, it's a reality due to the nature of the philosophical systems behind each position.

It's reality that religion cannot demonstrate whether one answer is more correct than another - because it deals in things that are supernatural (outside reality - unable to be tested). Whereas science is strictly within the natural world (things that can be tested), so objective analysis can be made as to which answer is more likely to be true.

It is these restrictions that give each position their utility in the reality we live in. Some, like mailman (I think), claim that religion gets it's utility from the ... ahem ... spiritual comfort that 'faith' provides. I feel that that is more innate in us due to our brain chemistry and structure, which brings it back into the realm of science.

(footnote for general consumption: note that science does not deal with absolute truth - it is always about what is more likely to be true)

Originally Posted by gumpty

Personal choice?

It's not personal choice, it's a reality due to the nature of the philosophical systems behind each position.

It's reality that religion cannot demonstrate whether one answer is more correct than another - because it deals in things that are supernatural (outside reality - unable to be tested). Whereas science is strictly within the natural world (things that can be tested), so objective analysis can be made as to which answer is more likely to be true.

It is these restrictions that give each position their utility in the reality we live in. Some, like mailman (I think), claim that religion gets it's utility from the ... ahem ... spiritual comfort that 'faith' provides. I feel that that is more innate in us due to our brain chemistry and structure, which brings it back into the realm of science.

(footnote for general consumption: note that science does not deal with absolute truth - it is always about what is more likely to be true)

I think I agree with all of that and you have made precisely the point I have tried to make. Science deals in what is empirically discoverable. Religion deals with the realm beyond the physical world - beyond logic and reason.

Historically, that statement was not true. But as to virtually all mainstream denominations of all religions, it is today. Well, let's say Western religions, since the nature of reality in Eastern religions is much more pliable.

In any event, the type of truth that each discipline seeks is completely different. As you say, scientific truth is about what is reasonably certain. It does not deal in absolutes. Religion does. So asking whether religious truth is better than scientific truth is pointless since they have nothing in common.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by digibucc

oh i make the distinction, but i also make the one
that you don't look down on them as much as you look down on me.

Nice inferiority complex.

Anyway junk science is used as an excuse just as much as religion. So should I paint all scientists as pencil pushing kooks? No. I look at everyone as an individual and treat them how they treat me. The Bible told me so

[digibucc]

they have plenty in common in that those truths - absolute or probable - affect how we live
our lives. that alone is enough to take stock and see what value they hold.

the problem i see is that from all the knowledge we have gained, the ONE thing we know
"for certain" is that NOTHING is absolute. so immediately, when anything says it has the
absolute answer for something - you should be skeptical.

just because you and many others have minimized religion to be almost ... meaningless
doesn't take away the fact of what it is at it' core.

you can't jsut say what extremists and popes say don't matter, because they are part
of it. you can't just separate what you see as the good from the bad and say "this is
religion, that is humanity" it's all part of the same construct. they are all human inventions,
and as such interact with each other regularly.

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Nice inferiority complex.

Anyway junk science is used as an excuse just as much as religion. So should I paint all scientists as pencil pushing kooks? No. I look at everyone as an individual and treat them how they treat me. The Bible told me so

again, junk science is meaningless. real science shows you what is junk and not, and
it's still within the body of science.

religion has no such mechanic. whether you hold something to be true is not based on
whether it IS true, or LIKELY to be true, but simply what you want to believe.

if einstein were an ass to you and lied about stealing your lunch money, you'd be inclined
to not believe anything he had to say. religion doesn't encourage but let
s it slide, science would completely ignore your personal feelings.

yes they matter, but they don't help in determining the objective truth. they're always
a part of us, but to think we can't be logical or rational with training and effort is simply
false. we can't all of the time, but we can at any time.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by digibucc

they have plenty in common in that those truths - absolute or probable - affect how we live
our lives. that alone is enough to take stock and see what value they hold.

the problem i see is that from all the knowledge we have gained, the ONE thing we know
"for certain" is that NOTHING is absolute. so immediately, when anything says it has the
absolute answer for something - you should be skeptical.

just because you and many others have minimized religion to be almost ... meaningless
doesn't take away the fact of what it is at it' core.

you can't jsut say what extremists and popes say don't matter, because they are part
of it. you can't just separate what you see as the good from the bad and say "this is
religion, that is humanity" it's all part of the same construct. they are all human inventions,
and as such interact with each other regularly.



again, junk science is meaningless. real science shows you what is junk and not, and
it's still within the body of science.

religion has no such mechanic. whether you hold something to be true is not based on
whether it IS true, or LIKELY to be true, but simply what you want to believe.

How do you know the difference between junk science and real science? So much junk science was "fact" for so many years only to be disprove later or worse used for political gain? Same with religion. You have real faith and junk faith. But I refuse to pigeon hole ether with such a broad brush. That goes against the fundamentals of both science and religion (If you know how to read).

As I said before. Absolute science is a nice concept in theory. Not in practice. Same with religion. Balance between the too and man will move forward. To much of ether and we will fail as a species.

[digibucc]

you tell junk science by using real science. you test it, and when it fails to meet
the test you no longer regard it as real science.

how do you distinguish between real and junk faith? how do you know chirstianity
is real and not islam, or homeopathy for that matter?

between the two the system that give us answers that mean anything in the real
world is science. religion soothes our hearts but does not help us progress as a
species.

Originally Posted by digibucc

they have plenty in common in that those truths - absolute or probable - affect how we live
our lives. that alone is enough to take stock and see what value they hold.

the problem i see is that from all the knowledge we have gained, the ONE thing we know
"for certain" is that NOTHING is absolute. so immediately, when anything says it has the
absolute answer for something - you should be skeptical.

just because you and many others have minimized religion to be almost ... meaningless
doesn't take away the fact of what it is at it' core.

you can't jsut say what extremists and popes say don't matter, because they are part
of it. you can't just separate what you see as the good from the bad and say "this is
religion, that is humanity" it's all part of the same construct. they are all human inventions,
and as such interact with each other regularly.



again, junk science is meaningless. real science shows you what is junk and not, and
it's still within the body of science.

religion has no such mechanic. whether you hold something to be true is not based on
whether it IS true, or LIKELY to be true, but simply what you want to believe.

I've tried to draw a sharp distinction for the sake of clarity. If you want me to concede that even mainstream groups see god's hand in world events and even in their daily lives, then sure, you win. That is part of the religious experience. But the distinction is still valid. Even religious people don't consult their pastor to find out what the weather will be or if they win the lottery or if their favorite show will be renewed for another season. So to try to go to the opposite extreme and say there is no difference, or no significant difference is obviously bogus. Even you have to be able to see that.

You talked about what is at the core of religion. The answer is simple. The core of religion, or any belief system, is a belief in something beyond the physical world, beyond the realm of our senses. That is it's distinguishing characteristic. You can try to obfuscate the importance of this, but this is the core and this is why religion has nothing to do with empiricism - not always and everywhere for all people, but virtually so.

The fact that science and religion are human inventions has no significance of any kind. They arose for different purposes and to meet different needs. But their genesis isn't the issue here, their substance is. What makes each unique and makes each the polar opposite of the other is.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by digibucc

you tell junk science by using real science. you test it, and when it fails to meet
the test you no longer regard it as real science.

how do you distinguish between real and junk faith? how do you know chirstianity
is real and not islam, or homeopathy for that matter?

between the two the system that give us answers that mean anything in the real
world is science. religion soothes our hearts but does not help us progress as a
species.

Think of a world with absolute science. Think of what would happen without the balance of faith. What do you think would happen?

[digibucc]

even i have to be able to see that? as though i am being unreasonable and blind?

mailman calls it inferiority but you have been talking down to me since we started, only
to have conceded my point.

you said they were completely separate, they are not. regardless of how little, they
interact. that means any rational being should evaluate what they mean, individually
and compared to each other. even you have to see that.

then what good is religion, if it's immaterial? it's beyond the realm of our senses,
therefore it exists in our minds. we have a word for that.

it's relegated to making people feel comfortable about the fear that science seems
to create. but if it is not true, then what good does that do us? i say we are better
off learning to handle that fear rationally, rather than resorting to supernatural beliefs
that by their very nature, cannot be grasped in any way other than in our minds.

[Wrigleyvillain]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Think of a world with absolute science. Think of what would happen without the balance of faith. What do you think would happen?

A fucking enlightened utopian paradise. Provided faith = organized religion as we know it today and not spirituality in general.

Originally Posted by digibucc

even i have to be able to see that? as though i am being unreasonable and blind?

mailman calls it inferiority but you have been talking down to me since we started, only
to have conceded my point.

you said they were completely separate, they are not. regardless of how little, they
interact. that means any rational being should evaluate what they mean, individually
and compared to each other. even you have to see that.

then what good is religion, if it's immaterial? it's beyond the realm of our senses,
therefore it exists in our minds. we have a word for that.

it's relegated to making people feel comfortable about the fear that science seems
to create. but if it is not true, then what good does that do us? i say we are better
off learning to handle that fear rationally, rather than resorting to supernatural beliefs
that by their very nature, cannot be grasped in any way other than in our minds.

I'm not going to deal with trivial points you think are significant. If you want to believe I made some major concession, knock yourself out.

The questions you pose are biased and designed to imply that there is only one conclusion - yours - whatever that happens to be. If you want to pretend to not understand anything I've said - or rather, to have "understood" it as meaning precisely the opposite, then there is no point in talking to you. Consider this the victory you were after and go celebrate. I'll even knock back a cold one for you.

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by TheMailMan78

Think of a world with absolute science. Think of what would happen without the balance of faith. What do you think would happen?

in the beginning, it might be chaos. i do think we would eventually get past this, as
i believe most of us already are without admitting it.

are you trying to say , you personally, if there were no god - would go out
and rape and murder either because you think it doesn't matter anymore or
simply out of crazed fear? i don't think so. i think less people would do that than
you think.

and regardless, that's a utilitarian argument, which says nothing about whether
religion has any basis in reality.

if your doctor knew you had cancer, and were going to die in 2 days - do you think
it ok that he doesn't tell you? so as not to frighten you? to keep you comfortable?

i don't think so. i think no matter how bad the news we should meet it head on and
assess the situation based on reality, not stories in our head.


@twilyth - you are REALLY good. if you want to pretend that every point i have
made is out of place or wrong, you can do that. i have NOT done that to you, but
i am used to it.

[razaron]

Originally Posted by digibucc

you tell junk science by using real science. you test it, and when it fails to meet
the test you no longer regard it as real science.

how do you distinguish between real and junk faith? how do you know chirstianity
is real and not islam, or homeopathy for that matter?

between the two the system that give us answers that mean anything in the real
world is science. religion soothes our hearts but does not help us progress as a
species.

This comes back to science being based on fact (rather the pursuit of fact but meh) which can be right or wrong and religion being based on faith, which is an opinion and therefore cannot be right or wrong. Science being the physical and religion being the metaphysical. Science being the rock song and religion being the omelette. They cannot be compared.

[digibucc]

which would be fine in theory, but that's not how we work.

some ideas take more of a hold than others in our minds. we
can theorize about them being separate all we want, but at the
end of the day they offer different ways to see the world:

science says take what you see and make it make sense, religion
says make it make sense even if you have to add stuff you can't
see.

they are both about making sense of the world and our existence.
physical or spiritual - they are both mental constructs that affect
our thinking. in that way they cannot be completely separate.

[razaron]

Omelette's and rock songs can't be completely separate because they both consist of matter-energy.
Wait a minute i think i just had an epiphany. Based on my first sentence we're all arguing semantics.

Also you can't have a world based on pure science for the same reason their is no such thing as pure logic (stupid vulcans...). You need a goal (which is a bias) to apply the logic to. Think yin-yang.