Science vs Religion - There is room for both.

Post Reply New Topic

Not really. I don't worship Einstein, and in subject matters outside of his discipline, his ideas aren't lauded so highly. I have no reason to take his ideas seriously.

I tend to doubt Einstein actually said that, it wouldn't be surprising to put words into someone famous mouth, I mean, there have been attempts to identify Einstein as agnostic, christian and atheist, to add support for each of these.

Einstein is obviously a faithful believer. Just look at the video documentation we have of him as a child.

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

He was even still a genius as a child, being able to cite the Augustinian theodicy at such a young age.

Not all of Einstein theories and opinions inside his discipline are lauder highly either. Einstein was human and like any other human was wrong about many things.

You mean his objection to quantum indeterminacy with the rhetorically loaded statement "God does not play dice"?

As well as the belief in a static universe and the rejection of black holes.

I don't believe in black holes either. They're racist.

well, I think they, along with white holes, show strong discrimination towards wormholes.

And I thought the terms would have changed to african-american holes and caucasian holes by now

That would enter the area of pornography and forbid open discussion.

There's no reduction whatsoever involved...if anything, the scope of the creation and its intricacy just increases every time we learn something new about its workings. Science, however, doesn't give us anything about morals or any nonquantifiables...that is left up to the individual to decide, and always will be. Science and rationality--that is, to accept that what we receive by our measurements of the external--is real is absolutely sensible. Of course, one cannot measure the value of an experience to the individual, nor any other form of subjective experience one might have, and to presume it does is to cross over the line of what its techniques will even allow and cross into philosophical ground for which science is absolutely unequipped. And just because it's unequipped for that question doesn't mean we shouldn't ask it and decide by other means.

On rare occasions I think there have been overrides of the natural, but I think these are not common. To my mind, it is no less of a miracle if a person is healed by means we track scientifically than in an unexplained manner. Explanability does not preclude miraculousness to my mind at all...because I understand and analyze something does not remove its significance on other levels.

In general one of the major splits between science and religion is that religion accepts magic and science does not. Ancient superstitions anthropomorphized most unknown phenomena so that various gods or spirits or some kind of supernatural being controlled everything and one had to plead or pray to satisfy the spirit to obtain results. Modern religions have agglutinated all these various different demons and spirits into one god who must be prayed to or begged in some way to get relief from miseries or to obtain rewards. Science totally dismisses this nonsense. The sacrifice of Christ is the outstanding plead of mankind for relief from the condemnation of a god and follows the ancient principle of satisfying a godly ego. There are still primitive religions today that kill chickens or goats in an appeal to imaginary supernatural forces. Science has none of that and its monumental successes testify to the validity of scientific discard of such nonsense. They simply don't mix.

Thank you. Out of most of the posts, you come the closest to understanding what I mean. The other side of the coin. The ability to view and be reasonable. If more people were able to be this objective, would things not be more peaceful, and less fanatic, in both science and religion?

Mics

There is no doubt that the term "miracle" indicates an event unexplainable by normal physical causes. It is clearly the religious term for magic executed by super-normal forces. The foundation for science is that all phenomena are ultimately explainable by physical laws. That some are yet unexplainable does not in any way denote they eventually will not be explained. That is a fundamental difficulty with science and religion.

To examine morality from a scientific viewpoint is to examine why people act the way they do socially. There is no reason that aspect of humanity is not a proper activity of logical reasoning and inspection of historical customs. Religion demands that social relationships be accepted as regulations handed down by supernatural entities. Science is under no obligation to accept that.

Actually, in regard to polar opposites keeping each other in check, I see it more as keeping each other accountable. If only one side of an argument is present, then that side tends to just get lazy and accepts almost anything as long as proper genuflection is done toward the most sacrosanct of teachings. But in the presence of opposition, with each pointing out the mistakes of the others (constructively, in preference alone), it allows for the flaws to be removed and the arguments to be refined each to their optimum. This is not to say that both sides are equal, but instead to say that having opposition allows for refinement of argumentation in contrast to just being surrounded by yes-men.

The disciplines of science and those of religion are totally alien to each other. A scientific mind holds all knowledge and perception under various levels of doubt that they might be assailed by contradictory new data and modified. Therefore all science has as its basic stance a flexibility of conception that not only is different from religion, it is strictly forbidden by religion to hold such doubts.There are condemnations of doubt labeled blasphemy which may not be held under the threat of eternal punishment. This is in violent and total contrast to a scientific attitude.

Science and Religion are quite different. The former is founded on observable fact, that latter on hopes and fancies. Both exist. Both are practiced by humans. Some humans practice both. Religions should not be forbidden but neither should they be confused with science.

ruveyn