Australian Politics Forum - Science vs. Religion

Amadd Gold Member Offline Mo Posts: 6217	Science vs. Religion Aug 9^th, 2018 at 7:29pm One of the most succinct arguments I've heard when comparing science to religion.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Aug 9^th, 2018 at 7:38pm by Amadd » IP Logged

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #1 - Aug 10^th, 2018 at 10:22pm

Yeah, its a good comparison, but i would not say that is one verses the other. The thing about theists is that they are all different, even when they say they are the same. The god concept is totally subjective. No one knows what another envisages. They try to standardise the indescribable with scripture. Best to say you understand and believe or I will have you tortured and put to death.

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 40525 Gender:	Re: Science vs. Religion Reply #2 - Aug 11^th, 2018 at 7:01pm Amadd wrote on Aug 9^th, 2018 at 7:29pm: One of the most succinct arguments I've heard when comparing science to religion. This guy was funny in the Office because we thought he was not David Trent. But he is. This guy has remained cringe-worthy on every level ever since because he is David Trent in real life. .
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

Johnnie Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 12485 Gender:	Re: Science vs. Religion Reply #3 - Aug 11^th, 2018 at 7:03pm Its a good question though
Back to top	IP Logged

Johnnie Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 12485 Gender:	Re: Science vs. Religion Reply #4 - Aug 11^th, 2018 at 7:10pm Religion is a belief, science is not.
Back to top	IP Logged

Amadd Gold Member Offline Mo Posts: 6217	Re: Science vs. Religion Reply #5 - Aug 11^th, 2018 at 11:30pm Actually, science is a belief based on the best facts and experimentation possible in this present time. Religion is not. Religion is merely a usurper of truth and fact for personal gain. Call it a faith if you like, but you need to have a bloody big faith to believe that load of nonsense.
Back to top	IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #6 - Aug 12^th, 2018 at 12:13am

issuevoter wrote on Aug 10^th, 2018 at 10:22pm:

Yeah, its a good comparison, but i would not say that is one verses the other. The thing about theists is that they are all different, even when they say they are the same. The god concept is totally subjective. No one knows what another envisages. They try to standardise the indescribable with scripture. Best to say you understand and believe or I will have you tortured and put to death.

Well, I know that many people put it down to faith in the supernatural and stuff, but let's be serious...it's a belief. The religious believe in 000's of year old scriptures and stuff and the modern person tends to believe in what is tried and tested.

Yes I agree that theists often tend to choose some religion which agrees with their wants, there's 000's of channels of poo to choose from. If there's not a channel to their liking, then they try to invent another load of bs.

But the premise that I wanted to highlight is that if all of the scriptures were wiped out and all of the science books were wiped out also, the science books would return pretty much as they are today, scriptures would not.

Back to top

IP Logged

issuevoter

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9200
The Great State of Mind
Gender: male

Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #7 - Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:40am

Amadd wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 12:13am:

issuevoter wrote on Aug 10^th, 2018 at 10:22pm:

Yeah, its a good comparison, but i would not say that is one verses the other. The thing about theists is that they are all different, even when they say they are the same. The god concept is totally subjective. No one knows what another envisages. They try to standardise the indescribable with scripture. Best to say you understand and believe or I will have you tortured and put to death.

Well, I know that many people put it down to faith in the supernatural and stuff, but let's be serious...it's a belief. The religious believe in 000's of year old scriptures and stuff and the modern person tends to believe in what is tried and tested.

Yes I agree that theists often tend to choose some religion which agrees with their wants, there's 000's of channels of poo to choose from. If there's not a channel to their liking, then they try to invent another load of bs.

But the premise that I wanted to highlight is that if all of the scriptures were wiped out and all of the science books were wiped out also, the science books would return pretty much as they are today, scriptures would not.

Caveat: I use "religion" in the popular, God related way, when in fact, I am just as religious about cocktail hour.

Yes, its a good premise, and a fair bet. And I like points that are succinct. However, if we use history as an experiment, the result is unclear. Secularism, and the cause and effect perspective were definitely gaining ground against the various creation myths, in the 20th century. But religionists are now in the process of reinventing myths as it suits them. Which seems to indicate that even if all the copies of ancient scripture were destroyed, a significant number of people would be ready to embrace the notions of glassy eyed, charismatic, orators who claim to know something about reality and existence that they don't.

Back to top

No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 40525
Gender: male

Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #8 - Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:01pm

Johnnie wrote on Aug 11^th, 2018 at 7:10pm:

Religion is a belief, science is not.

Science is a hypothesis. There parameters of science are as man-made as religion's. What's the difference between belief and hypothesis? Provability or falsifiability.

On that level, there is no difference - faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.

An ancient Chinese encyclopædia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge divides all animals into 14 categories:

Those that belong to the emperor
Embalmed ones
Those that are trained
Suckling pigs
Mermaids (or Sirens)
Fabulous ones
Stray dogs
Those that are included in this classification
Those that tremble as if they were mad
Innumerable ones
Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
Et cetera
Those that have just broken the flower vase
Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

(trans. Franz Kuhn)

Disprove it.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Johnnie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 12485
Gender: male

Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #9 - Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:09pm

Frank wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:01pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 11^th, 2018 at 7:10pm:

Religion is a belief, science is not.

Science is a hypothesis. There parameters of science are as man-made as religion's. What's the difference between belief and hypothesis? Provability or falsifiability.

On that level, there is no difference - faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.

An ancient Chinese encyclopædia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge divides all animals into 14 categories:

Those that belong to the emperor
Embalmed ones
Those that are trained
Suckling pigs
Mermaids (or Sirens)
Fabulous ones
Stray dogs
Those that are included in this classification
Those that tremble as if they were mad
Innumerable ones
Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
Et cetera
Those that have just broken the flower vase
Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

(trans. Franz Kuhn)

Disprove it.

Are their any scientific facts you would like to dispute ?

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 40525
Gender: male

Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #10 - Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:23pm

Johnnie wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:09pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:01pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 11^th, 2018 at 7:10pm:

Religion is a belief, science is not.

Science is a hypothesis. There parameters of science are as man-made as religion's. What's the difference between belief and hypothesis? Provability or falsifiability.

On that level, there is no difference - faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.

An ancient Chinese encyclopædia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge divides all animals into 14 categories:

Those that belong to the emperor
Embalmed ones
Those that are trained
Suckling pigs
Mermaids (or Sirens)
Fabulous ones
Stray dogs
Those that are included in this classification
Those that tremble as if they were mad
Innumerable ones
Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
Et cetera
Those that have just broken the flower vase
Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

(trans. Franz Kuhn)

Disprove it.

Are their any scientific facts you would like to dispute ?

Plenty. And all of it in the spirit of science.

Science is not meant to be somthing you submit to but something you try to refute.

There are no settled scientific facts that must not ever be questioned. That would be a completely unscientific approach. There may be consensus, but consensus is not proof.

One reason is that we are bound (hemmed) by sense perception and by the limits of reason (ie the limits of the operation of human reasoning. See more in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason if you are really interested).

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Johnnie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 12485
Gender: male

Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #11 - Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:31pm

Frank wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:23pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:09pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:01pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 11^th, 2018 at 7:10pm:

Religion is a belief, science is not.

Science is a hypothesis. There parameters of science are as man-made as religion's. What's the difference between belief and hypothesis? Provability or falsifiability.

On that level, there is no difference - faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.

An ancient Chinese encyclopædia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge divides all animals into 14 categories:

Those that belong to the emperor
Embalmed ones
Those that are trained
Suckling pigs
Mermaids (or Sirens)
Fabulous ones
Stray dogs
Those that are included in this classification
Those that tremble as if they were mad
Innumerable ones
Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
Et cetera
Those that have just broken the flower vase
Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

(trans. Franz Kuhn)

Disprove it.

Are their any scientific facts you would like to dispute ?

Plenty. And all of it in the spirit of science.

Science is not meant to be somthing you submit to but something you try to refute.

There are no settled scientific facts that must not ever be questioned. That would be a completely unscientific approach. There may be consensus, but consensus is not proof.

One reason is that we are bound (hemmed) by sense perception and by the limits of reason (ie the limits of the operation of human reasoning. See more in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason if you are really interested).

Can you name one, science is always subject to scrutiny, if you got something present it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 40525
Gender: male

Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #12 - Aug 12^th, 2018 at 9:07pm

Johnnie wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:23pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:09pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 8:01pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 11^th, 2018 at 7:10pm:

Religion is a belief, science is not.

Science is a hypothesis. There parameters of science are as man-made as religion's. What's the difference between belief and hypothesis? Provability or falsifiability.

On that level, there is no difference - faith in god cannot be falsified. Agnosticism is applying scientific methods to religion. Atheism is totally unscientific as there is no disproving, only counter-hypothesising about god and religion.

An ancient Chinese encyclopædia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge divides all animals into 14 categories:

Those that belong to the emperor
Embalmed ones
Those that are trained
Suckling pigs
Mermaids (or Sirens)
Fabulous ones
Stray dogs
Those that are included in this classification
Those that tremble as if they were mad
Innumerable ones
Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
Et cetera
Those that have just broken the flower vase
Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

(trans. Franz Kuhn)

Disprove it.

Are their any scientific facts you would like to dispute ?

Plenty. And all of it in the spirit of science.

Science is not meant to be somthing you submit to but something you try to refute.

There are no settled scientific facts that must not ever be questioned. That would be a completely unscientific approach. There may be consensus, but consensus is not proof.

One reason is that we are bound (hemmed) by sense perception and by the limits of reason (ie the limits of the operation of human reasoning. See more in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason if you are really interested).

Can you name one, science is always subject to scrutiny, if you got something present it.

Climate science. Mind science. Medicine. Anything relating to/giving rise to technology,
.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20956
A cat with a view

Re: Science vs. Religion
Reply #13 - Aug 12^th, 2018 at 9:56pm

Reply #08
Reply #10

Frank,

Good posts, and good basis of counter argument.

Argument, showing how currently accepted firm [scientific] 'truths' or, any solid, current accepted scientific hypothesis [in any scientific field],
should not be viewed as being securely 'founded', just because that is what our best human knowledge [or reasoning], today, would tend to support.

Throughout recent human history, on so many occasions, our 'contemporary' human ['scientific'] knowledge has so often been exposed as being so, so wrong, and based in error!

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 95279 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Science vs. Religion Reply #14 - Aug 12^th, 2018 at 9:56pm The truth lies within the sword Excalibur.
Back to top	IP Logged