6 ms·

It sounds like you feel there is an inherent conflict between science and religion (or am I misreading). I see no reason why this needs to be the case. Once y

It sounds like you feel there is an inherent conflict between science and religion (or am I misreading). I see no reason why this needs to be the case. Once you move beyond explanations for things that can make testable predictions, then you are out outside of science you have moved in to philosophy. At that point all explanations that don't contradict what is observed become equally valid/invalid. Take for example the question more general question of whether or not there is a creator behind the universe. There is no real way to prove, or at least no one has come up with a way to do so, whether or not this is the case. As a result, either answer is equally valid/invalid.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
akiselev 13y ago
Science is far more than "testable predictions" and covers an entire method that we have found to be the best and only way to understand reality with timid certainty. Science itself is basically a subfield of epistemology and it ties together both WHAT we know and WHY we actually know it instead of simply believe it. Science is dedicated to finding out what reality is (as best as mathematics or other abstract structures can describe it at least) and that sets up a class of rigor for certainty which religion can simply not touch. Also, built into science is a feedback loop that constantly reevaluates what it means to be certain and tries to tie that certainty to the real world through engineering, which, again, religion cannot even begin to attempt. What we call science today is a formalization of what humans have been doing for tens of thousands of years: looking for patterns and relationships in cause and effect. The very act of making the first wheel, paper out of papyrus thousands of years before the lumber industry, or a calendar by looking at the stars is an act of scientific exploration that probes not just the natural world, but how we discover what the natural world really is. Over time that methodology has included into our cultural knowledge things like gravity and horticulture while excluding things like rain dances and homeopathic medicine. In the end, you either accept the rigor and structure on knowledge and certainty developed by science and the scientific method (which, by the way, created modern civilization as you see it today) or you don't. If you accept it, religion by its very definition (supernatural and all that) conflicts with science. If you don't, then there is a basic difference in core assumptions and there really is no argument.
- eeperson 13y ago
  I agree completely with your first two paragraphs. I'll even buy the first sentence of your last paragraph. However, I fail to see why religion inherently conflicts with science. It is in no way clear that the scientific method can be applied to everything. Religion, or one of many other arbitrary philosophies, can fill in the parts that science does not cover. If you start with the hypothesis that the universe was constructed by a conscious creator, how do you address that scientifically? As far as I can tell, the answer is, you can't.
  - akiselev 13y ago
    You can't start with the hypothesis that "the universe was constructed by a conscious creator" until you have some clear evidence that such a hypothesis is warranted. This is where science conflicts with religion. If you're going to say something exists, or that a certain event or entity caused an effect, you have to prove it. Just because we do not yet understand multiverses (or whatever is out there) and what happened before the big bang, just because we do not yet have sensors to see beyond the scope of space-time, does not let any self proclaimed philosopher fill in the gaps with whatever they happen to read from the nearest religious text. It doesn't matter whether you call yourself a theologian, philosopher, or scientist, if you're going to make an assertion or assumption, you have to back it up. If you don't, you operate outside of the human body of knowledge that can be confirmed as true, or even remotely accurate.
    - eeperson 13y ago
      That doesn't make sense. Once you have clear evidence of something, it is no longer a hypothesis. You can start with any hypothesis you want. Of course if you expect something to be treated as scientific fact you need clear evidence. Until you get clear evidence, it is a matter of philosophy, and you can fill it with anything that doesn't contradict the known facts.
      - akiselev 13y ago
        I didn't say evidence of the hypothesis, I said "evidence that the hypothesis is WARRANTED" which is a very big difference. If apples don't fall from trees and matter is not attracted to other matter then the gravity hypothesis has no evidence for it to even be considered! We see apples fall and planets orbit and matter attracting other matter and so we think, there must be something there! So we investigate and only after much testing do we say that the hypothesis is scientific fact within the bounds it was tested. >> Until you get clear evidence, it is a matter of philosophy, and you can fill it with anything that doesn't contradict the known facts. NO YOU CAN'T. Why? Because the nonsense ("philosophy") you fill it with STILL REQUIRES EVIDENCE when you claim that something positively certainly EXISTS such as a creator of the universe. You can claim you HYPOTHESIZE that there exists a creator, but it is on YOU to prove that a creator exists, not on anyone else to disprove it, especially when the scientific body of knowledge, both theoretical and experimental, shows no evidence and no sign of a creator outside of humans projecting their own desires.
Perseids 13y ago
Yes, but as a scientist I see no reason to believe in some specific unprovable concept over any other. I find Christian believe as arbitrary as Muslim believe as arbitrary as anything else I can come up with. So how could I believe in any of them?
- eeperson 13y ago
  Yes, it is arbitrary. Believing that there is no creator to the universe is also arbitrary. That is because, science, as it currently stands, has nothing to say about the matter. Picking/not picking any religion is a matter of philosophy, not science.
  - tensor 13y ago
    Talking about creation is one thing, but these religions bring a whole host of other things into play as well that you cannot ignore. There is no evidence for any of the rest of it, no evidence of interference by gods, no evidence of any real communications either. So saying you think the universe was created by [a conscious entity?] a god is entirely different than saying that you believe in a particular religion and all its narratives and usually inherent contradictions.
    - eeperson 13y ago
      I agree that for many people belief in a particular religion can bring in a bunch of associated dogma that is at odds with science. My point is that it doesn't have to. Dismissing all religions just because some people do feel that way is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not every christian is a young earth creationist.
Houshalter 13y ago
>As a result, either answer is equally valid/invalid. I posted a similar comment above, but this completely misunderstands probability theory. If you can't prove something 100% true or 0% true there is still an inbetween more than "equally valid or invald." Something could have a 0.00001% chance of being true or a 99% chance of being true. In the space of all possible explanations, the chance of religion being the correct one is exceedingly small. Especially if you consider Occam's Razor that simpler explanations are more likely to be correct. Religion is a very over-complicated explanation.
- eeperson 13y ago
  Wait, how does probability factor in to this. What is meaning of a 30% valid argument in this context? If you can't prove something, it doesn't mean that the answer is probabilistic. I'm not interested in if any particular religion makes sense or doesn't make sense to you. My point is that the the debate over different religions is at its core a philosophical argument not a scientific one. A point you confirmed by making a philosophical argument against religion rather than a scientific one.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    Probability applies to everything. I'm not going to buy stock in some company just because I can't "prove" it won't go up by 5,000% tomorrow. The scientific method is just a special case of probabilistic reasoning where you try to get so much evidence that your probability estimate is very very close to 100% or 0% (but it's still never completely certain. The evidence could have been faked or just a coincidence, or there could be a better theory out there that also explains the evidence, etc.) All beliefs are just probability estimates of how certain you are that they are true. If you are very certain of something then you must have a high probability estimate that it is true. If you aren't certain then it must be lower. If you say "I'm 90% sure this will happen." Then you should expect to be right about 90% of the time you say that. If what I'm saying isn't intuitively obvious or if you just want to learn more, read this: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ In any case the idea that religion isn't disprovable is completely false: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprova...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

akiselev 13y ago

Science is far more than "testable predictions" and covers an entire method that we have found to be the best and only way to understand reality with timid certainty. Science itself is basically a subfield of epistemology and it ties together both WHAT we know and WHY we actually know it instead of simply believe it. Science is dedicated to finding out what reality is (as best as mathematics or other abstract structures can describe it at least) and that sets up a class of rigor for certainty which religion can simply not touch. Also, built into science is a feedback loop that constantly reevaluates what it means to be certain and tries to tie that certainty to the real world through engineering, which, again, religion cannot even begin to attempt. What we call science today is a formalization of what humans have been doing for tens of thousands of years: looking for patterns and relationships in cause and effect. The very act of making the first wheel, paper out of papyrus thousands of years before the lumber industry, or a calendar by looking at the stars is an act of scientific exploration that probes not just the natural world, but how we discover what the natural world really is. Over time that methodology has included into our cultural knowledge things like gravity and horticulture while excluding things like rain dances and homeopathic medicine. In the end, you either accept the rigor and structure on knowledge and certainty developed by science and the scientific method (which, by the way, created modern civilization as you see it today) or you don't. If you accept it, religion by its very definition (supernatural and all that) conflicts with science. If you don't, then there is a basic difference in core assumptions and there really is no argument.

eeperson 13y ago
I agree completely with your first two paragraphs. I'll even buy the first sentence of your last paragraph. However, I fail to see why religion inherently conflicts with science. It is in no way clear that the scientific method can be applied to everything. Religion, or one of many other arbitrary philosophies, can fill in the parts that science does not cover. If you start with the hypothesis that the universe was constructed by a conscious creator, how do you address that scientifically? As far as I can tell, the answer is, you can't.
- akiselev 13y ago
  You can't start with the hypothesis that "the universe was constructed by a conscious creator" until you have some clear evidence that such a hypothesis is warranted. This is where science conflicts with religion. If you're going to say something exists, or that a certain event or entity caused an effect, you have to prove it. Just because we do not yet understand multiverses (or whatever is out there) and what happened before the big bang, just because we do not yet have sensors to see beyond the scope of space-time, does not let any self proclaimed philosopher fill in the gaps with whatever they happen to read from the nearest religious text. It doesn't matter whether you call yourself a theologian, philosopher, or scientist, if you're going to make an assertion or assumption, you have to back it up. If you don't, you operate outside of the human body of knowledge that can be confirmed as true, or even remotely accurate.
  - eeperson 13y ago
    That doesn't make sense. Once you have clear evidence of something, it is no longer a hypothesis. You can start with any hypothesis you want. Of course if you expect something to be treated as scientific fact you need clear evidence. Until you get clear evidence, it is a matter of philosophy, and you can fill it with anything that doesn't contradict the known facts.
    - akiselev 13y ago
      I didn't say evidence of the hypothesis, I said "evidence that the hypothesis is WARRANTED" which is a very big difference. If apples don't fall from trees and matter is not attracted to other matter then the gravity hypothesis has no evidence for it to even be considered! We see apples fall and planets orbit and matter attracting other matter and so we think, there must be something there! So we investigate and only after much testing do we say that the hypothesis is scientific fact within the bounds it was tested. >> Until you get clear evidence, it is a matter of philosophy, and you can fill it with anything that doesn't contradict the known facts. NO YOU CAN'T. Why? Because the nonsense ("philosophy") you fill it with STILL REQUIRES EVIDENCE when you claim that something positively certainly EXISTS such as a creator of the universe. You can claim you HYPOTHESIZE that there exists a creator, but it is on YOU to prove that a creator exists, not on anyone else to disprove it, especially when the scientific body of knowledge, both theoretical and experimental, shows no evidence and no sign of a creator outside of humans projecting their own desires.

Perseids 13y ago

Yes, but as a scientist I see no reason to believe in some specific unprovable concept over any other. I find Christian believe as arbitrary as Muslim believe as arbitrary as anything else I can come up with. So how could I believe in any of them?

eeperson 13y ago
Yes, it is arbitrary. Believing that there is no creator to the universe is also arbitrary. That is because, science, as it currently stands, has nothing to say about the matter. Picking/not picking any religion is a matter of philosophy, not science.
- tensor 13y ago
  Talking about creation is one thing, but these religions bring a whole host of other things into play as well that you cannot ignore. There is no evidence for any of the rest of it, no evidence of interference by gods, no evidence of any real communications either. So saying you think the universe was created by [a conscious entity?] a god is entirely different than saying that you believe in a particular religion and all its narratives and usually inherent contradictions.
  - eeperson 13y ago
    I agree that for many people belief in a particular religion can bring in a bunch of associated dogma that is at odds with science. My point is that it doesn't have to. Dismissing all religions just because some people do feel that way is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not every christian is a young earth creationist.

Houshalter 13y ago

>As a result, either answer is equally valid/invalid. I posted a similar comment above, but this completely misunderstands probability theory. If you can't prove something 100% true or 0% true there is still an inbetween more than "equally valid or invald." Something could have a 0.00001% chance of being true or a 99% chance of being true. In the space of all possible explanations, the chance of religion being the correct one is exceedingly small. Especially if you consider Occam's Razor that simpler explanations are more likely to be correct. Religion is a very over-complicated explanation.

eeperson 13y ago
Wait, how does probability factor in to this. What is meaning of a 30% valid argument in this context? If you can't prove something, it doesn't mean that the answer is probabilistic. I'm not interested in if any particular religion makes sense or doesn't make sense to you. My point is that the the debate over different religions is at its core a philosophical argument not a scientific one. A point you confirmed by making a philosophical argument against religion rather than a scientific one.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Probability applies to everything. I'm not going to buy stock in some company just because I can't "prove" it won't go up by 5,000% tomorrow. The scientific method is just a special case of probabilistic reasoning where you try to get so much evidence that your probability estimate is very very close to 100% or 0% (but it's still never completely certain. The evidence could have been faked or just a coincidence, or there could be a better theory out there that also explains the evidence, etc.) All beliefs are just probability estimates of how certain you are that they are true. If you are very certain of something then you must have a high probability estimate that it is true. If you aren't certain then it must be lower. If you say "I'm 90% sure this will happen." Then you should expect to be right about 90% of the time you say that. If what I'm saying isn't intuitively obvious or if you just want to learn more, read this: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ In any case the idea that religion isn't disprovable is completely false: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprovable/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprova...