CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: The "Science -vs- Religion" debate...

[CathyInBlue]

You mean like how Newtonian physics "doesn't work" when it tries to predict the orbit of Mercury? So science and alchemy have that in common... they don't "work" in all circumstances?

Science always works. Newtonian physics works in a constrained domain. But science as a whole always works.

 

[steveh_131]

Science always works.

Can you elaborate on this statement? What exactly do you mean when you say it 'works'? And are you talking about science as a methodology, as in the scientific method?

 

[jamil]

Science always works. Newtonian physics works in a constrained domain. But science as a whole always works.

Because, global warming. Pragmatically speaking, "science" isn't just science. It's also the politics of science.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Global Warming is not science. It's a corruption of science, quite literally corrupting the scientific record. Unless you want to embrace the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades, as fundamentally religious in nature (which they all were). People can be corrupt. Corrupt people can corrupt the organizations of which they are a part. The process of science, when not corrupt, always works. I'm sure you'd like to divorce the charity and good works your religious organizations do from the sex and money scandals of those who are religious leaders of your various denominations, yes? Tit for tat. If I have to own Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Graph and the "adjustment" of NOAA temperature historic data, then you get to own Jim and Tammy Faye Baker and Ted Haggart.

 

[steveh_131]

Global Warming is not science. It's a corruption of science, quite literally corrupting the scientific record.

Does that corruption stop with Global Warming? What else could be corrupted? How do you know that the evidence for the 'big bang' hasn't been corrupted by people with an agenda?

 

[ATM]

An ever expanding pie.
the bigger the bite we take the more we realize how small our mouth is

We're still discovering pi.

 

[BugI02]

Man, I wish there was an agenda for this thread. It would keep people focused.

The chair invites a Motion to close discussion on topic #4.

(Except we don't HAVE any agenda, so we don't know what topic #4 is!)

Could it be - drumroll please - A HIDDEN AGENDA?

 

[BugI02]

I don't see it as faith, I see more like an inevitability to learn more than we would have otherwise, to through observation and inquiry. We didn't learn the knowledge required to put men on the moon through scripture or praying our way there. Learned scientists and engineers put their slide rules to work and figured it out. That said, science isn't the answer to everything. It's the most efficient way we've designed so far to learn more about what we didn't know before.

Ding,Ding, Ding!

 

[BugI02]

Can we not feel about science as we feel about capitalism - acknowledge each as the best and most efficient system to date to guide behavior in certain limited decision making spheres. None of us would turn to capitalism to guide us morally, why should we expect any more of science.

 

[mbills2223]

Science cannot "work" or not...I think I know what you're trying to say but phrasing it that way really doesn't fit the bill

 

[jamil]

Can we not feel about science as we feel about capitalism - acknowledge each as the best and most efficient system to date to guide behavior in certain limited decision making spheres. None of us would turn to capitalism to guide us morally, why should we expect any more of science.

Well, now you may not have heard a libertarian talk morals.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The Curious Case of Religion in Fullmetal Alchemist

Also of note, the 7 primary homunculi in FMA are named after the cardinal sins... Lust, Sloth, Greed, etc.

 

[T.Lex]

Putting this here. Partly because it is totally fascinating and because it is a saw(fish) that cuts both ways.

'Virgin-born' sawfish are a first in the wild - BBC News

There are many species, particularly invertebrates, that naturally reproduce alone; some types of whiptail lizard, meanwhile, are bizarrely all-female.
But for an animal that normally reproduces by mating, a virgin birth is an oddity.
And yet a number of captive animals have produced virgin births. This roster of surprise arrivals includes sharks, snakes, Komodo dragons and turkeys - all species that normally use sexual reproduction.
And in 2012 a US research group reported two pregnant pit vipers, caught in the wild, each gestating baby snakes (inside eggs) that appeared to be fatherless.
But the smalltooth sawfish, a strange-looking beast that grows up to four metres long, is the first sexually reproducing species whose virgin-born babies have been found roaming free and healthy in their native habitat.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It's truth until you or someone else proves that it's not the truth using the Scientific Method. The only alternative is to simply abandon science and the ability to make accurate predictions about the universe altogether and let religion and superstition reign.

Because, global warming. Pragmatically speaking, "science" isn't just science. It's also the politics of science.

Global Warming is not science. It's a corruption of science, quite literally corrupting the scientific record. Unless you want to embrace the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades, as fundamentally religious in nature (which they all were). People can be corrupt. Corrupt people can corrupt the organizations of which they are a part. The process of science, when not corrupt, always works. I'm sure you'd like to divorce the charity and good works your religious organizations do from the sex and money scandals of those who are religious leaders of your various denominations, yes? Tit for tat. If I have to own Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Graph and the "adjustment" of NOAA temperature historic data, then you get to own Jim and Tammy Faye Baker and Ted Haggart.

Does that corruption stop with Global Warming? What else could be corrupted? How do you know that the evidence for the 'big bang' hasn't been corrupted by people with an agenda?

Let's see...

While I understand what I believe to be Cathy's point, I have to disagree with what is actually written. Truth exists independently regardless of what anyone believes. I can understand the value of taking the results of the scientific method and holding them as correct unless further study effectively refutes them, but the issue at hand is that of establishing what we believe to be the truth, not what actually is the truth. The truth does not change unless the conditions to which it applies changes. Our belief of what constitutes truth, on the other hand, is very much subject to change.

The politics of science is much like the concept of what we believe to be truth (regardless of the correctness of that belief) aside from the error being deliberate in nature for the purpose of manipulation of others. I can agree with Cathy's argument regarding dishonest science and the Bakers and their ilk, but on the other hand we still see Global Warming presented as a science and a de facto religion with people who disagree (falsified 'evidence' notwithstanding) publicly excoriated as 'deniers' who are necessarily stupid, dangerous, and ignorant. By contrast, no one (with the possible exceptions of the friends and family of the aforementioned preachers) ever demonized the majority of people who were unwilling to accept the crooked preachers once they were exposed.

All said and done, we have two separate questions. First is that of whether or not any of us accept the validity of science. Second, do we accept the integrity of scientists, especially given that most are going to have an inclination toward finding the results that those providing their funding want found.

We're still discovering pi.

I would like to discover a slice of apple.

 

[jamil]

Let's see...

While I understand what I believe to be Cathy's point, I have to disagree with what is actually written. Truth exists independently regardless of what anyone believes. I can understand the value of taking the results of the scientific method and holding them as correct unless further study effectively refutes them, but the issue at hand is that of establishing what we believe to be the truth, not what actually is the truth. The truth does not change unless the conditions to which it applies changes. Our belief of what constitutes truth, on the other hand, is very much subject to change.

The politics of science is much like the concept of what we believe to be truth (regardless of the correctness of that belief) aside from the error being deliberate in nature for the purpose of manipulation of others. I can agree with Cathy's argument regarding dishonest science and the Bakers and their ilk, but on the other hand we still see Global Warming presented as a science and a de facto religion with people who disagree (falsified 'evidence' notwithstanding) publicly excoriated as 'deniers' who are necessarily stupid, dangerous, and ignorant. By contrast, no one (with the possible exceptions of the friends and family of the aforementioned preachers) ever demonized the majority of people who were unwilling to accept the crooked preachers once they were exposed.

All said and done, we have two separate questions. First is that of whether or not any of us accept the validity of science. Second, do we accept the integrity of scientists, especially given that most are going to have an inclination toward finding the results that those providing their funding want found.

This is kinda my point. Effectively speaking, 97% of scientists disagree with Cathy. It doesn't matter what the science actually says if the product of the scientific method is a lie to help further other goals. The effective knowledge gained from all that scientific process is that the earth is warming, it's all our fault, if we don't make life changing decisions now, we will doom future generations to calamity, and people who deny it should be ridiculed.

The thing that is wrong with "science" is really the same thing that is wrong with religion. Peer review notwithstanding, what everyone else gains from scientific knowledge or spiritual knowledge often depends on the ethos of the respective "experts". Is xyz drug actually effective and safe? Or is it "effective" and "safe" because the developers need it to be? Is this or that spiritual concept true, or do priests/preachers/imams/gurus need them to be true?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Have Some Physicists Abandoned the Empirical Method? - Slashdot

Scientists will not allow other scientists to abandon the Scientific Method without a fight.

 

[steveh_131]

Scientists will not allow other scientists to abandon the Scientific Method without a fight.

Nonsense. The ones who put up a fight are labeled 'Quacks' and have their careers destroyed by the followers of the religion of Psuedo-Skepticism.

 

[DadSmith]

ISRAEL365 EXCLUSIVE: Red Heifers arrive in Israel [WATCH]

The Temple Institute made a huge step towards reinstating the Temple service on Thursday when five red heifers landed at Ben Gurion International Airport.

www.israel365news.com

Interesting news.

 

[indyjohn]

ISRAEL365 EXCLUSIVE: Red Heifers arrive in Israel [WATCH]

The Temple Institute made a huge step towards reinstating the Temple service on Thursday when five red heifers landed at Ben Gurion International Airport.

www.israel365news.com

Interesting news.

Religious complexity beyond my scope. I'll show this to the OG.

 

[DadSmith]

Religious complexity beyond my scope. I'll show this to the OG.

It's actually very old Bible prophecy. That in the last days Israel would rebuild the temple and start sacrificing again. This to myself and many other Christians it is a step towards that prophecy being fulfilled.