Science as Religion and Vice Versa *debate*

[Edge]

Edge, the "answers" post doesn't deal with the origin of life or its meaning but evolution isn't going to change as it has been confirmed via numerous studies and foci (whether you believe it or not).

Well, gee.. bang goes your claim that science is based only on observation.

Unless you've personally witnessed a monkey transforming into a human?

All I ask of anyone doubting anything considered religious is to look at studies and try and understand the basic field from which it originates. Don't dismiss them because you don't like them, think they don't make particular sense to you, or because it can't be reconciled with scientific beliefs.

[Kinslaughterer]

Well, gee.. bang goes your claim that science is based only on observation.

Unless you've personally witnessed a monkey transforming into a human?

why do I bother?

I never stated science is based only on observation.
Evolution doesn't believe monkeys transform into humans. That was my whole point was for you in particular to not spout ignorant claims about evolution since you don't even know the fundamentals.
And the rest is very funny and ironic
but whatever I'm done with this argument. Funny thanks to science we can even have this discussion

[Edge]

Oh, my bad... Scientific 'evidence' of the 'fact' of evolutionism is based on 'proof of theories'.

E.g. the Piltdown Man...

And I'm still chuckling over 'evolution isn't going to change'. Good one!

"it has been confirmed via numerous studies and foci (whether you believe it or not)."

... um, yeah, my faith is weak... sorry.

[Fist and Faith]

Quote:
you are becoming more willing to skirt around issues, and split hairs in these recent conversations

I disagree but give me an example and I'll elaborate.

I'm talking about saying, "none of those things were ever declared fact." They were once declared to be facts by the scientific communities of various times. How can you deny that? Or is it that you deny there was science, or at least real science, at those times, and so nothing said needs to be taken seriously? Or possibly "true" scientists have never declared facts, so those doing so weren't truly part of the scientific community, and we can ignore them? Or is it that, since science now knows that it shouldn't declare absolutes ("remember a theory is something that has not been falsified despite numerous experimentations" is wonderfully said), we no longer count the times when it did? Any of these reasons look like attempts to rewrite history so that science is seen to have always been a certain way. But maybe you have a better reason.

I didn't suggest that science is going to make anybody happy that's not what its here for.

I didn't mean to imply that you were saying that. My point was that they have different jobs. Or at least they should.

My beef is with a religion that declares its past and truth as fact.

In most cases, I agree with you, although I'm not as concerned with whether or not they continue to declare and believe it.


On the other side of this issue, I'm still waiting for someone like Edge to answer the question I've asked three times in the last couple weeks.

[Kinslaughterer]

No Fist, my point is the same criteria for science is far more strict than it was even 50 years ago. It however has reached a point where it can't get more rigorious. Science isn't a monolith it is as good as the people who do the testing. I'm not suggesting that we rewrite history but comparing the scientific field today with it 100 years ago is comparing apples to oranges.

As for Edge, he won't answer anything just try to come up with a mildly witty retort. Even though his posts attempts at defending creationism or attacking evolution just reveal his ignorance.

[Fist and Faith]

But you still maintain that those things were never declared facts.

[Kinslaughterer]

I have no idea about the mice and wool or maggots and meat, but I do know about neanderthals and the entrance to North America. In no case were they stated as fact only the best explanation at the time. The earlier too are just psuedo-science from the 19th century. You can't call modern and Victorian science the same thing.

[dennisrwood]

Kin: can you give a full list of what science is real and when it became real? and how do we know that this science of today is real and won't be replaced by an even more better science?

[[Syl]]

"Me fail English? That's unpossible."

All science will be replaced by a better science, as that's its goal - to continually increase our understanding of the universe. Barring things like the possibility that the laws of science as we understand them might be different in different parts of the universe (a possibility that most scientists will admit, infinitessimal as it may be), however, there are certain things that won't change. the intensity of a wave will always be equal to the inverse square of its distance, light will always travel at C, etc. I believe Kins is referring to "hard science" vs "soft science."

[Plissken]

Everything evolves, Kins.

Exactly. Christianity has evolved in its 2000 year history. That is undeniable.

[/quote]Unless you're trying to get a Fundie to admit that God's Word has changed in the last 2000 years...

[dennisrwood]

Sylvanus : "even more better science?"
it was sarcastic.

Plissken: again, please give a reference.

[Plissken]

Well, let's see - off the top of my head:

There's the Holiness of the Sabbath, which has been changed.

There's the proscription against graven images "of any thing which is in Heaven or on the Earth," which has been ignored.

There's the dietary laws, which have been ignored.

I can keep going, but you get the idea.

[[Syl]]

I figured as much, Dennis, but that's just my favorite Ralphie quote, so...

[Myste]

Just a couple of points.

1) Without Victorian quasi-science there would be no modern science. The Victorian age was a huge one in terms of scientific discoveries and explanations--look at Charles Darwin, et. al. Sir Arthur Evans did amazing work in Crete, even though his methods were an appalling and (by current standards) completely unscientific mix of Tomb Raider and Freudian wish-fulfillment. Point: Old-fashioned scientists did the best they could with the tools at their disposal, and without their work, modern scientists would still think that eating Spleenworts will cure diseases of the spleen, and dried mouse-ear tea will cure migraines. (Ref: Honey, Mud, Maggots, and Other Medical Marvels: The Science Behind Folk Remedies and Old Wives' Tales by Robert Root-Bernstein)

2) I'll state right off the bat that I'm not an anthropologist. But it's my understanding that different cultures create different religions to deal with the needs of their particular society. For example (and my conclusion could be wrong, but I'm trying to reason it out), cannibalism could have developed as a quasi-religious or spiritual practice around New Guinea because, since resources of living space and food there are obviously limited by the size of the islands, they needed to practice some form of population control. However, it is my understanding that ritual cannibalism has to a considerable extent ceased to exist as a religious/spiritual practice. To me, that sounds like the evolution of a religion.

I guess (I'm thinking out loud here), it's possible that because Christian missionaries were sent to convert the cannibals, it could be argued that their native religion didn't evolve, but was supplanted by a different one. In that case, it could be counter-argued that even the replacement of one set of religious practices by another is an instance of evolution: the stronger/more persuasive set of practices replaced the weaker. This is just a kind of natural selection at work.

Anyway, the point: if religion is (as many social scientists claim) a cultural/societal construct, then presumably it evolves along with culture/society. If a particular relgion does not appear to be evolving, is it the due to the religion itself? Or is it due to the culture or society that supposedly constructed it?

[Fist and Faith]

If a particular relgion does not appear to be evolving, is it the due to the religion itself? Or is it due to the culture or society that supposedly constructed it?

I assume it's because its adherents believe they are supposed to follow the ancient teachings, whether or not it inconveniences anyone, even (possibly especially) themselves. dennis is a good example. Maybe he'd agree that life would be a whole lot easier for him if he ignored certain rules that the Catholic Church follows. But when he faces God, what's his explanation going to be?

Others, of course, believe certain things God said can be ignored now; that they were said to specific people at specific times, because the people had no other way of dealing with things. For example, God couldn't say, "Cook pork at a X degrees for Y minutes, so you won't get food poisoning," because cooking that way wasn't easy to do, and there would have been mistakes every day. So "Don't eat pork" was God's way of keeping us safe. Now that we can cook accurately, we don't face that particular danger. Since our safety is no longer an issue, they don't think God cares with whether or not we eat pork.

[Lady Revel]

Religion can help some people people live with peace and happiness in ways that science can't.

Ermm....please tell that to the Irish Catholics and Protestants, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Muslims and the Jews. Maybe they will listen. *snort*

[Kinslaughterer]

Anyway, the point: if religion is (as many social scientists claim) a cultural/societal construct, then presumably it evolves along with culture/society. If a particular relgion does not appear to be evolving, is it the due to the religion itself? Or is it due to the culture or society that supposedly constructed it?

Quite right, as Mhoram said Christianity has evolved along with the cultures that accept it but they seek to be "pure" and keep to the ancient writings as the words of god. As long as one takes a fundamental look at religion and ignores or is unaware of its context then it fact you seek to return to the 2nd century in both religion and culture.

And Victorian era science is very important to science today but their methods, criteria, and burden of proof, not to mention accesability to the public are worlds apart.

If you don't know what I mean in regards to the hard science vs. soft science that Syl referred to than its really to big to start explaining in a forum so I suggest you take a physical science class at your local college or university.

[Myste]

I assume it's because its adherents believe they are supposed to follow the ancient teachings, whether or not it inconveniences anyone, even (possibly especially) themselves. dennis is a good example. Maybe he'd agree that life would be a whole lot easier for him if he ignored certain rules that the Catholic Church follows. But when he faces God, what's his explanation going to be?

Others, of course, believe certain things God said can be ignored now; that they were said to specific people at specific times, because the people had no other way of dealing with things. For example, God couldn't say, "Cook pork at a X degrees for Y minutes, so you won't get food poisoning," because cooking that way wasn't easy to do, and there would have been mistakes every day. So "Don't eat pork" was God's way of keeping us safe. Now that we can cook accurately, we don't face that particular danger. Since our safety is no longer an issue, they don't think God cares with whether or not we eat pork.

I think you're probably right, Fist. The examples you give are good ones. The eating of pork and shellfish has become safer because we know more about them now, so prohibitions against them are no longer necessary--to that degree, Christianity has evolved. The Articles of Faith embraced by the Catholic Church (and to greater or lesser extents by other churches) are non-negotiable. They don't change, because their unchangingness is built into the practice of the religion. Whether one embraces them or not, though, it must be admitted that those Articles reflect the culture in which they were originally outlined. (And I have nothing but respect for dennis's beliefs, even if I don't personally share them. My question was just meant as a question, that's all. )

[Plissken]

The Articles of Faith embraced by the Catholic Church (and to greater or lesser extents by other churches) are non-negotiable. They don't change, because their unchangingness is built into the practice of the religion.

Huh. Somebody better go over to the House o' Paganism and warn Kym about that whole unchanging, non-negotiable "Suffer not a witch to live" bit.

Of course, there's quite a few of us that spill our "seed upon the ground" that might want to start lacing our track shoes as well...

[Fist and Faith]

Religion can help some people people live with peace and happiness in ways that science can't.

Ermm....please tell that to the Irish Catholics and Protestants, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Muslims and the Jews. Maybe they will listen. *snort*

I said "some." Are you suggesting that there are no Irish Catholics and Protestants, Hindus and Muslims, or Muslims and Jews who are not peaceful and happy because of their beliefs? Do you think Furls Fire would be the person she is if her faith was shattered? There are beautiful, loving people of extreme faith out there.