Science v. Religion

[Nightingale 0]

You can't prove.

You can draw a conclusion based on the data that the current hypothesis is not disprovable at this time. that's about it.

[Nightingale 0]

thought this was interesting...



With the advent of probability theory especially vis a vis Werner Heisenberg and the mathematics and logic that followed, it became apparent that proof is not possible. The reason being, and I"m stating this as simply as possible, we cannot know if and when something else will come along to disprove that which we thought we knew...

The Uncertainty Principle of quantam mechanics is such that we cannot ever know with absolute certainty that a relationship exists which we think exists, at least not in any absolute form...

Karl Popper demonstrated that although we cannot absolutely prove anything, we CAN absolutely disprove relationships in the world... Science then realized that if we are at least capable of disproving, we can disprove the opposite of that which we think is true, and although we cannot conclude that anything is absolutely true or relational, if we can at least disprove the opposite, we can conclude that a relationship is highly *credible*...

This is science today my friend. My undergraduates have a hell of time believing this when I first tell them...they're like "You mean you don't directly PROVE in science?" Nope, sorry...can't do that...can only disprove.

-Tracy Keating

[masher 1]

Just a note.

In mathematics, absolute proof is accessible.

In the experimental sciences, absolute proof is not possible. As Nightingale has pointed out, you can only "prove" something until a better idea comes along.

That said, science is based upon falsefible hypotheses. That is, I make a statement that can be proved to be wrong. Religion doesn't make such statements.

eg: The area of a circle is equal to 5 times its circumference. That is is falsefible.
When you die, you go to [Heaven][Paradise][Nirvana] etc. How can you falsify that statement?

--
Arching is overrated - Marlies

[Erroll 49]

If one even wants to attempt a debate on this subject, one has to define the word 'Religion' and that already presents major problems. Ron L. Hubbard's definition is going to be very different from that of the local sangoma (witchdoctor). As we have seen earlier (being able to prove or disprove, hypotheses etc) things quickly deteriorate into semantics.

If the discussion is about Science vs Christianity or Science vs The Bible then I think Bill summed it up very accurately and succinctly :

"It's not that the "young earth" theory can coexist with the fossil, geological and astronomical dating that leads us to a ~5 billion year old planet, it's more that the theory that the earth was created in seven days is not legitimate outside its moral and religious lessons."

[Ron 7]

Quote

It’s also possible that it was all created in 6 days depending on how long 6 days is to God. Maybe Relativity comes into play where time could be changed depending on which way you’re looking at it. I can’t explain it the way it should but I saw a NOVA special on the topic one day and they were trying to explain this. They said something to the effect that, depending on whether you were looking at the Big Bang from it’s origin or from where we are now, time would appear very different.

Theory of Relativity?

Your understanding of the timing of the event depends on your relationship to the location of the event....But I don't think the duration of the event is effected.

It could be that the event happened but the results of that event took time to reach you..However, the duration of the event would be the same.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kjarv 0]

Reading Assignment:
"The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan.

[Nightingale 0]

"If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness."

-Sagan

[pajarito 0]

*** RON ***

Quote

Theory of Relativity?

Your understanding of the timing of the event depends on your relationship to the location of the event....But I don't think the duration of the event is effected.

It could be that the event happened but the results of that event took time to reach you..However, the duration of the event would be the same.

I'll go with that. My limited knowledge of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics comes only from a Stephen Hawking book I read (mostly), "A Brief History of Time." Not from school. I'm not claiming at all to have a good grasp on it. I had to re-read several chapters. I'm just not that smart. What you say makes sense to me. I also saw that special on NOVA (I wish I could remember its name; it was several years ago) and thought it was very interesting. I'm not saying at all that I understand how it all happened. I'm not sure if the description in "days" was literal or figurative. I personally, however, believe in a God who created the universe and has no limits. I don't believe that he is bound by our laws of physics and has the capacity to make things happen or appear to happen as he wishes. Whatever you believe started the whole process of creation is obviously not bound by time (or our laws for time) unless you believe the timeline is in fact infinite (if there is such a thing) and that it continued backward into the negative realm past the beginning of the Big Bang (forever). The creator might then also be bound to operate within it as well. But then again, what set the rules and parameters for the thing called time to begin with? Some will say that I'm taking the easy way out on this one and I guess maybe I am. I can't prove it. That particular argument doesn't really affect my belief either way. I believe that we aren't meant to understand everything at this point and maybe never will. I'm not arrogant enough to state that, if just given time, we'll eventually figure it out scientifically. That doesn’t mean that I’m saying we aught not seek knowledge or try.

*** masher ***

Quote

In mathematics, absolute proof is accessible.

I'm NO mathematician by any means and this is just (maybe an unintelligent) viewpoint/question. I apologize up front.

I agree that certain things in mathematics can be proven (i.e. 1 + 1 = 2). However, many other things are based on estimations (i.e. value as it approaches zero). Also, what we measure and deem to be true in our little bubble of knowledge (our set of physics for our only possible measurable reality) may not hold true throughout. That's way out there but what I'm trying to say is this. We don't know everything and I don't think we can. There was a person (Jesus) who came and did things we would consider impossible within our given reality to prove who he was to us in a way that we could understand. Paul teaches us to seek knowledge but Jesus teaches that we have to accept some things on faith. There’s no way around that and that is a stumbling block for many people. It was for me for a very long time.

[metalslug 31]

Quote

eg: The area of a circle is equal to 5 times its circumference. That is is falsefible.

Not a good example; it's beyond falsifiable, it's a plainly ludicrous statement... because circumference and area use different units of measurement. That is undisputed mathematical fact.

Quote

When you die, you go to [Heaven][Paradise][Nirvana] etc. How can you falsify that statement?

When I die, my 'soul' will enter masher's mind and influence his thoughts and actions till his last days.
Utterly improbable, even disturbingly silly, but can he disprove my claim ?

We cant conclusively 'prove' that we love someone, because the actions and gestures of love can be faked. We feel and believe our love for another as a truth within ourselves because it feels so right that it has to be true.
Faith, or lack of faith, may be like love.
Whether reasoned by endorphins, logic, scientific fact, wisdom or divine epiphany;
I think faith (or lack thereof) is as real as we, as individuals, choose it to be.
And yet... love is often blind.

However, religious texts and scriptures will always be a debatable issue for me. I dont buy the "open to varied and figurative interpretation" argument. It's not logical for a divine entity to guide the creation of ambigious scriptures. IMO, a God is perfect, and therefore His written message should be perfect, and all those who have influence over that message throughout time and space should be perfectly directed by His will, without ambiguity.

I'm still waiting for that God's revelation.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I had to re-read several chapters. I'm just not that smart.

Im STILL re-reading some of the chapters...Just when you think you got it...Poof it's gone.

Who is to say what a day was before the creation of time? And I know of several other planets that have really long days.

So the definition of a day is subject to what the rotation of the body you are on is. It could be a few min to a thousand years.

I never got caught up on the who day thing...Like I said who is to say what God's day is like?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Just a note.

In mathematics, absolute proof is accessible.

Quote

WRONG! Look up the work of Kurt Godel.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6del's_incompleteness_theorem

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Nightingale 0]

I was waiting for you to jump in. I knew he was wrong, I just couldn't explain why.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Theory of Relativity?

Your understanding of the timing of the event depends on your relationship to the location of the event....But I don't think the duration of the event is effected.

Quote

The observed duration of an event is affected by the relative velocities of the observers. The first experimental evidence of this was that certain mesons created by cosmic ray bombardment of the upper atmosphere should have decayed before they reach the Earth's surface (based on ground based measurements of decay times) but in their own time frame, their lives are longer so they do in fact reach the surface and can be detected.

The atomic clocks on GPS satellites also have to be corrected for this source of timing error!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[vonSanta 0]

Quote

> Dawkins and Gould have had some interesting debates as to
>whether science can coexist with the Bible. Gould came off worse
> (arguing it can) . . .

I'm not sure that he pushed their coexistence. His position was not that the competing theories within science and religion can coexist, it was that they are simply not valid outside their areas of expertise (their "magisterium" in his terms.) It's not that the "young earth" theory can coexist with the fossil, geological and astronomical dating that leads us to a ~5 billion year old planet, it's more that the theory that the earth was created in seven days is not legitimate outside its moral and religious lessons.

Right, and as Dawkins pointed out, very religious people take it outside this realm and say "this is how it is! This is how it was done! Our holy text says so, and it is right by default!".

The thing is, Gould says that the two fields are only valid inside "their own field of domain" so to speak - and Dawkins disagreed, pointing out how biblical claims are downright physically impossible (to the best of our knowledge). How they violate known and well supported scientific theories ( and I ain't talking about the ressurection or anything like that - am talking the biblical "science" if you will, such as its definition of the number PI).

Gould is a lot smarter than me. So's Dawkins. I'm siding with the latter

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[billvon 2,400]

>pointing out how biblical claims are downright physically impossible
>(to the best of our knowledge) . . . .

Yes, but again, that's not the point. If a thermo book says that a device that can convert 70% of the energy content of its fuel into energy is a good design, you could claim "That's absurd! Thermonuclear weapons have efficiencies like that and are NOT good things."

But if you did that, you'd be making the same mistake that the people you mention are making. You'd be looking at a science book as a moral document, using it to make value judgements on what good and bad is. That's not its purpose, any more than the bible is a science book. The bible is a document handed down through the ages that contains the moral and historical basis for many religions. It's good at that, and simply not even competent when it comes to defining how gravity works, or how flaming chariots fly.

Now, the stack of manuals that describe how to fly and maintain an F-14 _are_ a good reference on how flaming chariots fly, but are a terrible moral reference. The trick is knowing which is which.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

There was a person (Jesus) who came and did things we would consider impossible within our given reality to prove who he was to us in a way that we could understand.

So does david blaine.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

mmmmmmmmmmm............ok......

[jakee 1,255]

Seriously, Blaine goes up to some guy on the street, throws a card through a window and the guy is amazed, doesn't have a clue how it's done. To the guy on the street he's just seen something that he can't explain by his scientific reality.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Is this really going to turn into a discussion comparing David Blaine with Jesus Christ? I thought this was a serious discussion.

[jakee 1,255]

There are a lot of people out there who are willing to believe that the tricks of any magician are actually real. There are even more people that think that the appearance of a new planet/ kuiper belt object will have serious influence on their lives (even though it's been there all along). All these people are willing to disregard what they have been taught about physics, chemistry, biology because they have faith in this other stuff.
To me that has a legitimate place in a theological discussion and does bare comparison to your comment about jesus.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Hundreds of people saw the miracles performed by Jesus both educated and uneducated (by their standards, of course). The educated ones surely would have tried to figure out how he did it. Hundreds saw him killed by the Romans and then resurrected three days later with the wounds to show for it. He even predicted that it would be done. Thomas actually inspected one of the wounds with his finger. Do you honestly think someone would intentionally put themselves through all of that just to trick everybody? Roman crucifixion? Do you think the Romans were in on it?

[jakee 1,255]

Back to the sillyness for this reply.
Didn't the first bloke to see him have to be told who he was? Besides, a few hours of pain followed by a relaxing weekend away in the highest spot in heaven doesn't sound all that bad to me.

Seriously though, look at the source material you've got. A action witnessed, told to someone, retold a few more times, translated, translated from the translation, lost, found, copied in triplicate etc.
How exaggerated are most stories you hear in the bar after the fifth round of drinks have been sunk?

edit: i wonder how many that witnessed the crucifiction remained jewish.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

The reliability of the Bible is another thread. It's a large one. I personally believe that it is the inspired written word of God and is accurate.

[masher 1]

Quote

Quote

eg: The area of a circle is equal to 5 times its circumference. That is is falsefible.

Not a good example; it's beyond falsifiable, it's a plainly ludicrous statement... because circumference and area use different units of measurement. That is undisputed mathematical fact.

Quote

When you die, you go to [Heaven][Paradise][Nirvana] etc. How can you falsify that statement?

When I die, my 'soul' will enter masher's mind and influence his thoughts and actions till his last days.
Utterly improbable, even disturbingly silly, but can he disprove my claim ?

Re my first example. I made a statement. You falsified it by stating that area is measured in square units, not linear units. This shows that my formula is wrong. That is science. Maybe it seemed to work on my first circle because I measured it wrong...

Re your second example. No I can't disprove your claim. Therefore you claim isn't scientific.


.


Back to pajarito re absolute proof in mathematics.

In a given axiomatic set, there exist proofs that are right, and cannot be changed. You can't observe the numbers closer and come up with a better proof/theory. eg, there is an infinite amount of prime numbers, root 2 is an irrational number...

You can't come up with a theory that discounts those. That is maths.

However in science. Newton did some calculations and came up with his theory of gravitation. Worked pretty good, still does. Then observational astronomy got better. They discovered that the apogee of Mercury's orbit precess a couple of arcminutes an orbit. They couldn't explain that. Then Einstein came along with his gravitational theory. For the most part, it is the same as Newton's, but there a a few bits that are different, -> it can explain Mercur's precession. That is how science works.


with your example about approaching zero and things. That is called a limit. There is a mathematical framework to obtain those values, we don't just put in numbers close to the value and guess, we go through the works of calculating them, even if the value itself doesn't exist.

eg lim(x->0) sin(x)/x = 1

As x gets closer to 0, the value of sin(x)/x goes to one. But the function doesn't exist at
x=0. Just an example of limits.


.

Note: I'm not trying to be condescending in any of my replies, I'm trying to put my viewpoint forward....

--
Arching is overrated - Marlies

[yourmomma 0]

Faith allows a person to view the world for what they wish it to be. To be sure, this is an coveted position but and unsatisfactory one for those who desire reason with their acceptance of reality.

1. Why are there clouds in the sky?

"The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet" (Nahum 1:3).

2. Why are some people blind, deaf, dumb or handicapped in some other way?

"And the Lord said unto [Moses], Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord ?" (Exodus 4:11). "And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season" (Luke 1:20).
3. What causes thunder and lightning?

"Hear attentively the noise of his voice, and the sound that goeth out of his mouth. He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth" (Job 37:2-3).

4. Why do we sometimes see rainbows?

"I do set my bow in the cloud; and it shall be a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between you and me and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh" (Genesis 9:13-15).

5. What causes tornadoes to form?

"Behold, the whirlwind of the Lord goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked" (Jeremiah 30:23). "Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble" (Isaiah 40:24).

6. Why are some women unable to have children?

"But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife. . . . For the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife" (Genesis 20:3, 18)." "And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Penninah had children, but Hannah had no children. . . .But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the Lord had shut up her womb" (1 Samuel 1:2, 5).

7. What causes earthquakes?

"Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger" (Isaiah 13:13). "Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth" (Psalms 18:7).

8. Why do rivers and springs sometimes dry up?

"He turneth the rivers into a wilderness, and the watersprings into dry ground; A fruitful land into barrenness, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein" (Psalms 107:33-34). "Though he be fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the wind of the Lord shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and his foundation shall be dried up: he shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels" (Hosea 13:15).

9. Why do certain areas of the world experience drought?

"The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. The Lord shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed" (Deuteronomy 28:22-24).

10. Why are some men afflicted with hemorrhoids?

"The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed" (Deuteronomy 28:27). "But the hand of the Lord was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof" (1 Samuel 5:6).