Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 10. (Read 6488 times)
Faith, Science, and Truth
1. Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. (Pope John-Paul II)
2. Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein)
3. Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes. (Georges Lemaitre)
4. The truth cannot contradict the truth. (Pope John-Paul II, quoting Pope Leo XIII)
5. A little knowledge leads away from God, but much knowledge leads towards him. (Isaac Newton)
6. Who set the planets in motion? (Isaac Newton)
7. God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth. (Pope John-Paul II)
8. Reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way. (Pope John-Paul II)
9. We are not a lost atom in a random universe. We are not the result of necessity or chance, but have been willed into existence. (Fr Chris Hayden)
10. Faith is not an irrational leap in the dark; it is the reasonable response to the real…. Faith is no more than honesty before reality. (John Waters)
11. Either God made the world or He did not make the world. There are no other possibilities. If I decide He did not make the world, I have to come up with a better explanation, and this has for millenia taxed more practised minds than mine. (John Waters)
12. Science is a very successful way of knowing, but not the only way. We acquire knowledge in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. A scientific view of the world is hopelessly incomplete….
13. Once science has had its say, there remain questions of value, purpose, and meaning that are forever beyond science’s domain, but belong in the realm of philosophical reflection and religious experience. (Francisco J. Ayala)
14. Technology has remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human beings. (Pope Francis)
15. Our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience. (Pope Francis)
2. Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein)
3. Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes. (Georges Lemaitre)
4. The truth cannot contradict the truth. (Pope John-Paul II, quoting Pope Leo XIII)
5. A little knowledge leads away from God, but much knowledge leads towards him. (Isaac Newton)
6. Who set the planets in motion? (Isaac Newton)
7. God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth. (Pope John-Paul II)
8. Reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way. (Pope John-Paul II)
9. We are not a lost atom in a random universe. We are not the result of necessity or chance, but have been willed into existence. (Fr Chris Hayden)
10. Faith is not an irrational leap in the dark; it is the reasonable response to the real…. Faith is no more than honesty before reality. (John Waters)
11. Either God made the world or He did not make the world. There are no other possibilities. If I decide He did not make the world, I have to come up with a better explanation, and this has for millenia taxed more practised minds than mine. (John Waters)
12. Science is a very successful way of knowing, but not the only way. We acquire knowledge in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. A scientific view of the world is hopelessly incomplete….
13. Once science has had its say, there remain questions of value, purpose, and meaning that are forever beyond science’s domain, but belong in the realm of philosophical reflection and religious experience. (Francisco J. Ayala)
14. Technology has remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human beings. (Pope Francis)
15. Our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience. (Pope Francis)
3 scientists just won a Nobel Prize for using evolution in chemisty!
https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf
Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate
Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?
https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf
Quote
A (r)evolution in chemistry
The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold.
(...)
For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.
After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.
In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.
With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.
The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.
(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)
The power of evolution is revealed through the diversity of life. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter for the way they have taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind. Enzymes developed through directed evolution are now used to produce biofuels and pharmaceuticals, among other things. Antibodies evolved using a method called phage display can combat autoimmune diseases and, in some cases, cure metastatic cancer.
(...)
This process has now come so far that it has given rise to three individuals so complex they have managed to master evolution themselves. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 is awarded to Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith and Sir Gregory P. Winter, because they have revolutionized both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution. Let’s begin with the star of enzyme engineering: Frances Arnold.
(...)
For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then introduced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.
After this, the challenge was to find out which of all these variants worked best in the organic solvent. In evolution, we talk about survival of the fittest; in directed evolution this stage is called selection.
Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.
In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.
With this, Frances Arnold demonstrated the power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes. This was the first and most decisive step towards the revolution we are now witnessing.
The next important step was taken by Willem P. C. Stemmer, a Dutch researcher and entrepreneur who died in 2013. He introduced yet another dimension to the directed evolution of enzymes: mating in a test tube.
(continued at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/10/popular-chemistryprize2018.pdf)
Nobel prize for science involving evolution = Checkmate
Now where is BADLogic's Nobel Prize?
Science is when the scientist calmly figures out scientific answers.
Religion is when the scientist's answers have been proven wrong and his feelings are hurt.
Religion is when the scientist's answers have been proven wrong and his feelings are hurt.
Furthermore, religion, at its base, wants to fix / "preserve" people-groups at a terrible cost: omission of the truth; to the degree that written-in-stone falsities are upheld at all cost, as truth - whilst constantly and persistently siphoning off valuable time and labor of the community members the religion is supposed to serve, all the time in an all to important effort to maintain status quo, but disrupting, disrespecting, and disowning those who dare to oppose said falsities, banishing any single individual who dares to ask a serious question pertaining to actual truth.
Science, on the other hand, seeks truth openmindedly and wholeheartedly. It restores / rewards valuable time and labor efforts to its community members, especially whose who question known ideas vigorously and boldly, kind of like the exact opposite of religion.
I found this on the interwebs
The important difference between science and religion is that religion comes with ABSOLUTE statements, that neither can be proved or disproved, and science evolves from relative truths and statements, that can be testified and proven false (which means: science has to develop, in order to replace (partly) untrue theories, and replace them with better ones). Science does not claim it has absolute knowledge on anything. Religion claims it has.
All scientific theories are in principle disprovable, and in the end all theories will be disproven (at least it can be shown there is a limiting case in which the theory does not work).
Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute either to it's proof. It is also unprovable.
If something is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is useless.
It can only have value to people who prefer to be ignorant, and don't want to get into complicated knowledge, and prefer to believe in something that is disprovable.
Science is for people that realize that in order to acquire knowledge, some work (sometimes a LOT) has to be done! And even despite you put in a LOT of work, someone else my disproof all (or part) of your work! That is : you have to try even harder!
Religion is for people who claim to know EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY ("God created the world", for instance ) without having done any work to get to that opinion, and for which nobody can give any disproof. So it is a very safe position. You don't have to do WORK for entitling yourself an opinion on matters that seem important, and nobody can force you to do some work for finding a better opinion, cause there lacks the ability to disproof you.
What a comfortable position!
All scientific theories are in principle disprovable, and in the end all theories will be disproven (at least it can be shown there is a limiting case in which the theory does not work).
Religion can in principle not be disproven. Which does not contribute either to it's proof. It is also unprovable.
If something is neither provable nor disprovable, then it is useless.
It can only have value to people who prefer to be ignorant, and don't want to get into complicated knowledge, and prefer to believe in something that is disprovable.
Science is for people that realize that in order to acquire knowledge, some work (sometimes a LOT) has to be done! And even despite you put in a LOT of work, someone else my disproof all (or part) of your work! That is : you have to try even harder!
Religion is for people who claim to know EVERYTHING ABSOLUTELY ("God created the world", for instance ) without having done any work to get to that opinion, and for which nobody can give any disproof. So it is a very safe position. You don't have to do WORK for entitling yourself an opinion on matters that seem important, and nobody can force you to do some work for finding a better opinion, cause there lacks the ability to disproof you.
What a comfortable position!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s
This section of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate sums it up perfectly.
"What, if anything, would ever change your mind."
Religious answer - nothing.
Scientific answer - evidence.
This section of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate sums it up perfectly.
"What, if anything, would ever change your mind."
Religious answer - nothing.
Scientific answer - evidence.
Human nature plays a huge role into it, and pride, in fact so much so, most people don't want to realize they base their beliefs in false stuff. Imagine that god turned out existing. People would still deny his existence, we see it all the time specially in today's social climate with social media and stuff, look at how many anti vaxxers have appeared! And this is people that is being manipulated. Some of these religious folks say they wouldn't change their views but it's just because science doesn't cater to their interests.
So it is a difficult thing to deal with. But not impossible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyvYMgdDej0&feature=youtu.be&t=2h4m7s
This section of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate sums it up perfectly.
"What, if anything, would ever change your mind."
Religious answer - nothing.
Scientific answer - evidence.
This section of the Bill Nye - Ken Ham debate sums it up perfectly.
"What, if anything, would ever change your mind."
Religious answer - nothing.
Scientific answer - evidence.
I agree. I think that one of the biggest differences between science and religion is that science is very evidence-based, whereas religion heavily relies on faith. This is why the two always clash. Add to this the existence of technology, with science, new and advanced technology such as AI can be accepted with sufficient evidence, but religion may disregard it completely simply because it goes against their faith.
...
My point was that sometimes we work ourselves into a thinking knot as you put it. Instead you should look at what is known and supported by evidence.
...
The world does look like it was fine tuned, but that is probably just an illusion.
My point was that sometimes we work ourselves into a thinking knot as you put it. Instead you should look at what is known and supported by evidence.
...
The world does look like it was fine tuned, but that is probably just an illusion.
Indeed we certainly can tie ourselves into thinking knots. To avoid this we must deeply scrutinize our assumptions for these are the foundation our structures of thought rest upon.
We must identify and look at each a priori belief and genuinely consider the possibility and that the assumption is untrue. Not a trivial rejection but a full exploration of a foundational shift on ones entirely structure of thought. This is actually extremely difficult to do because our basic assumptions deeply shape our very patterns of thoughts. Everything rests on them.
Perhaps one of us has tied ourselves into such a thinking knot. Are you absolutely certain that I am the one tangled up?
Which of us has adopted a set of beliefs that has been shown in basically every study to be correlated with lower health, lower fertility, and reduced well-being?
Which of us has adopted beliefs that appear to, limit possible cooperation over time?
The world does indeed look like it was fine tuned. Maybe that's not an illusion but a simple observation of reality.
I will leave that for you to decide.
Time constraints force me to bow out of this conversation. The final word is yours.
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
In this also you are mistaken.
What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html
Saying that something can be expressed in Math does not mean you actually can. We don't know anything about how the space time behaves when the length is less than the Planck's length or express events in less than Planck's time. How can you say you can express these in the Math equation if you don't know what you need to express or simulate on the computer? Ask any of the guys you listed above.
Don't take it personally, I actually enjoy talking to you. My hope is you'll start thinking for yourself rather than just read what others said.
You know, I still think you are delusional but I engage all kinds of people on this forum.
You are entertaining af_newbie. First you argue my claim is ridiculous and that I will not be able to find a single scientist that supports my view.
Then when I show you not one but several highly regarded scientist who take this idea very seriously you argue that I should stop reading scientist's books and think for myself?
Just so you know I wrote my Argument for God a few months before I stumbled across professor Tegmark's excellent book:
Mathematical Universe
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div
Why are you twisting yourself up into such rhetorical knots. It is not necessary.
All you need to say is that you are not convinced that the universe is logical and mathematical thus you reject my first claim. You could also correctly point out that the idea of a logical and mathematical universe as outlined by professor Tegmark is not universally accepted among scientists.
By going beyond that and turning to personal attack calling me delusional and implying that I am "far gone" presumably into insanity you only expose you own bias and weaken your arguments.
In regards to your other comments the Planck length is a certain combination of the three physical constants fundamental to general relativity and to quantum theory. As we currently lack a unified physical theory that incorporates all three of these constants we do not fully understand the physical meaning and significance of the Planck length.
Such an understanding would require a physical theory that subsumes both quantum theory and general relativity. Should such a theory be discovered we cannot even be certain it would continue to ascribe a fundamental status to the three constants from which the Planck length is derived.
If the universe is logical and mathematical then the answers to these questions exist and simply wait to be discovered.
It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.
In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.
Both have truths and both have lies.
Got a link to a source of scientists lying? Got any facts to back up your bullshit claim?
Scientists can be wrong, but they don't intentionally lie... science that is not repeatable is not science, so who would lie when they KNOW they would get caught as soon as someone repeated their experiment?
It just doesn't make any sense that a scientist would lie, there is no upside, and you'd lose your job as a scientist... religion is beneficial for liars, not science
Sorry, not sorry
Every serious evolution scientist is a liar. How? Because all of them know that cause and effect operate in everything. Yet they almost totally ignore C&E with regard to evolution, because it shows that evolution theory doesn't fit reality. How doesn't it fit reality? By the fact that there is no random mutation. Everything is set to operate exactly as C&E dictates.
Is that lying? Perhaps not directly. But the result is the same. Intentionally ignoring C&E, which is possibly the most bottom-line foundation of all science, is so close to lying that there really isn't much difference.
As far as losing your job for lying... It's exactly the opposite. When you are financed by a university, you toe the university line, no matter what it is, if you want to keep your job. It's the political direction of the universities that determines what is scientifically stated as truth. And it is all based on threatening the scientists that work for them with loss of job.
It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.
In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.
Both have truths and both have lies.
Got a link to a source of scientists lying? Got any facts to back up your bullshit claim?
Scientists can be wrong, but they don't intentionally lie... science that is not repeatable is not science, so who would lie when they KNOW they would get caught as soon as someone repeated their experiment?
It just doesn't make any sense that a scientist would lie, there is no upside, and you'd lose your job as a scientist... religion is beneficial for liars, not science
Sorry, not sorry
Science investigates the natural world, while religion deals with the spiritual and supernatural — hence, the two can be complementary. Many religious organizations have issued statements declaring that there need not be any conflict between religious faith and the scientific perspective on evolution.
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims
If science wants to ignore such things as spirit, soul, supernatural, it isn't really science. Rather, it is a religion of limited investigation.
There is no data; no science can be done on the subject of spirits, souls, and supernatural.
They do not exist.
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
In this also you are mistaken.
What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientist
https://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.html
Congrats you found one to confirm your bias.
Thanks but credit for that initial logic goes to Perry Marshall who's background was in electrical engineering before he went on to make his money in IT. My own educational background was in biochemistry before I went on to a doctorate in medicine so your "bet" was really not a wise one. Perhaps having been shown incorrect in one area you should reexamine other axioms?
Regardless if you are interested in further exploration Professor Tegmark wrote an entire book on this topic.
Mathematical Universe
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div
Here are some reviews of that book also by scientists.
Brian Greene, physicist, author of The Elegant Universe and The Hidden Reality
“Our Mathematical Universe boldly confronts one of the deepest questions at the fertile interface of physics and philosophy: why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos? Through lively writing and wonderfully accessible explanations, Max Tegmark—one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists—guides the reader to a possible answer, and reveals how, if it’s right, our understanding of reality itself would be radically altered.”
Michio Kaku, author of Physics of the Future
“Daring, Radical. Innovative. A game changer. If Dr. Tegmark is correct, this represents a paradigm shift in the relationship between physics and mathematics, forcing us to rewrite our textbooks. A must read for anyone deeply concerned about our universe.”
Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near
“Tegmark offers a fresh and fascinating perspective on the fabric of physical reality and life itself. He helps us see ourselves in a cosmic context that highlights the grand opportunities for the future of life in our universe.”
Prof. Edward Witten, physicist, Fields Medalist & Milner Laureate
“Readers of varied backgrounds will enjoy this book. Almost anyone will find something to learn here, much to ponder, and perhaps something to disagree with.”
Prof. Andrei Linde, physicist, Gruber & Milner Laureate for development of inflationary cosmology
“This inspirational book written by a true expert presents an explosive mixture of physics, mathematics and philosophy which may alter your views on reality.”
Prof. Mario Livio, astrophysicist, author of Brilliant Blunders and Is God a Mathematician?
“Galileo famously said that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. Now Max Tegmark says that the universe IS mathematics. You don’t have to necessarily agree, to enjoy this fascinating journey into the nature of reality.”
Prof. Julian Barbour, physicist, author of The End of Time
“Scientists and lay aficionados alike will find Tegmark’s book packed with information and very thought provoking. You may recoil from his thesis, but nearly every page will make you wish you could debate the issues face-to-face with him.”
Prof. Seth Lloyd, Professor of quantum mechanical engineering, MIT, author of Programming the Universe
“In Our Mathematical Universe, renowned cosmologist Max Tegmark takes us on a whirlwind tour of the universe, past, present—and other. With lucid language and clear examples, Tegmark provides us with the master measure of not only of our cosmos, but of all possible universes. The universe may be lonely, but it is not alone.”
Prof. David Deutsch, physicist, Dirac Laureate for pioneering quantum computing
“A lucid, engaging account of the various many-universes theories of fundamental physics that are currently being considered, from the multiverse of quantum theory to Tegmark’s own grand vision.”
It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.
In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.
Both have truths and both have lies.
The difference is that past religion was science of that day. And it is still holding out past truths an fallacies.
Today's science has become one of the major religions of today in believing the fallacy that it provides... that science theories are fact.
It is quite obvious, as it should be, to me, that one is illogical, the other logical, one well reasoned, the other a conjecture of loosely associated fairy tales, one sound and well-thought-out, the other ill conceived, mental and a mess, one sensible, understandable and predictable, the other sense less, incongruent and completely unpredictable.
In short, one is Truth, the other Fake.
Jump to: