science and religion

[RFNAPLES]

[purple]

I was saying GARY has every right to be skeptical of science. It's not infallible for many

[SquishypuffDave]

Here's how I understand it: As science is a device dedicated to the understanding of natural phenomena, it uses procedural naturalism (the idea that nature, ie. matter/energy are all there is). This isn't to say that those who use science must be naturalists, but that science operates under the axiom of naturalism and its conclusions are to be understood in that light. If there are truths that do not correspond to a naturalistic worldview, then science is the wrong device to use in apprehending and understanding them.

I think when understood in this light, there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. There are crossover points however, such as when a religious worldview makes a claim about natural phenomena or when science brings to light a scenario requiring a non-scientific explanation (eg. the origin of energy/matter).

When I refer to a non-scientific explanation, I'm not implying religion (although that is an option), just a different cognitive device such as philosophy/metaphysics.

[thomas697]

The conflict between Science and religion is that the answers Science seeks aren't with an ulterior motive. They didn't one day decide to go looking for evolution or transitional forms. They find the truth regardless of pre-conceived notions.

If science can't find the answer for something it doesn't mean it is wrong. Either the answer isn't tangible or the answer simply isn't important (In my view the latter is a conclusion I rarely accept)

The origin of matter/energy however is one of the times where I will say "The Answer Doesn't Matter" not because the question should be dodged, but because the answer is something that as you said, should be discussed solely in philosophy. The origin of matter is Abiogenesis, Something divorced from both religion and science to a certain extent. The way I see it, as there is no data at hand or definitive information given, the answer to the origin of the universe (at this point in time) does not matter. When the answer becomes something that shapes our lives and directly affects us then sure, my opinion on the answers necessity will change without hesitation.

Feel free to pick this apart. I do actually enjoy hearing your opinions on the matter from memory I think we had a short discussion about this earlier last year.
_________________
Having a family is the kind of thing that could be held against a person

[albummaster]

I don't think you can have a rational argument about creationism without separating religion from the concept of 'God'.

Myself, I'm not religious but it's easy to see that there are lots of things we do not know about the universe. We've barely been able to explore a small section of our own solar system. No man has ever set foot on a planet outside of Earth's gravity (the moon doesn't count and we haven't been there for nearly 40 years).

We've only had Hubble for about a decade and are only beginning to understand how infinitely vast our universe is and how infinitesimally small we are in comparison. Yes, man has invented some great technology for mass genocide and destroying our own planet. With that kind of intelligence, how are we even able to comprehend the science or intelligence that could be behind creating our universe?

I don't think we are even close.

[RaineyWins]

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed only transferred from one form to another"
Yeah right!

[purple]

speaking of telescopes, there's a new telescope that's supposed to be launched within the next decade, the James-Webb Telescope, that is able to 'see' farther than the Hubble. One of the exciting things it's supposed to see is solar systems still undergoing the accretion process

[albummaster]

Yes, it will be interesting to see other planets forming, but even then, these processes are so slow compared to our own human lifespans, what can we learn from just looking at a glimpse in time? I think we are only beginning to have any clue whatsoever about the vast amount of knowledge we do not know.

Donald Rumsfeld "There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."

I think there are a lot unknown unknowns waiting to be discovered...

[thomas697]

I don't think you have to think there are many unknowns. It's simply a fact that there are many unknowns. Many of which we'll never see or understand, which makes me envious of the coming generations
_________________
Having a family is the kind of thing that could be held against a person

[albummaster]

Me too!

There's so much waiting to be discovered by humanity and going back to the point of the thread, seeing all of this dumbed down into meaningless drivel by our politicians, schoolmasters and bishops annoys me. This isn't a religious battle, it's just a search for what the truth might be.