Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 16. (Read 6507 times)

Belonging to a social club, meditating and exercising all have the same effect, without a boogie man or Santa Claus.  Not sure what your point is.

I would not hire anyone who believes that Earth is 6000 years old, or believes that the religious scriptures are the "word of God", no matter how happy and social they are.

People who believe those things lack critical thinking skills and have poor judgement.

Actually the latest science says that a religious upbringing improves children's health into adulthood.

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.

Have you been living under a rock? Or you are just pretending to be an innocent, ignorant, religious buffoon?

To answer your question, it was during inquisition, there was an open hunting season on all scientists.

What they did to Giordano Bruno is mind boggling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Just google it if you want the names. 

They tried to silence science back then, now they are trying to push their narrative in science classrooms with their "biblical science" curriculum.

Science will advance forward and push religions out to become footprints in the history books. 

Teaching children that God created universe in 6 days, and that Earth 6000 years old is child abuse.  But I digress.

pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.

Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."

Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

I have been reading and thinking about the nature of science, and its definitions, for a long time - probably since I saw Bronowski's TV programme The Ascent of Man in 1972.

Any comprehensive definition must be minimal - in particular there is no characteristic scientific method, nor mode (i.e. Popper was wrong, although interesting and useful) - nor does science have any essential attribute of being self-correcting, nor is science necessarily observational or empirical.

And so on.

So what made the difference between science and what went before?

*

This is the idea: Science came from philosophy and philosophy from theology - by a process of specialization - a part coming off from the whole, and being pursued autonomously as a social system.

Theology is a social system that aims to discover the truth; and which puts the truths of divine revelation first and reason subordinate (if at all); philosophy aims to discover truth (or used to) but puts reason first - but remains (in its early phases) constrained by revelation.

Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation.

*

So science is a specialized social system, based on reason, but which excludes all reference to divine revelation.

But what is special about being a social system?

Mainly time and effort, in a co-operative sense (although the cooperation can be between just a few people).

So science is simply some people devoting time and effort to investigating the world using reason and excluding reference to divine revelation.

*

Naturally, since Science excludes divine revelation, science can have no formal impact on theology, nor can it have any formal impact on philosophy.

Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.

How did this perception arise?

1. Science as (until recently) been perceived as in enabling (somehow, indirectly) humans to increase power over nature (this perception may be subjective/ delusional, or false, as it often is now - or it can be all-but undeniable).

Yet science is (or rather was) successful mainly because a lot of smart people were putting a lot of effort into discovering truth.

(And now that people don't try to discover truth, they don't discover it - naturally not.)

2. Sheer habit. People trained and competent in the (wholly artificial) scientific way of thinking, which a priori excludes religious explanations, leads to human beings who habitually exclude divine explanations.

*

And it turns out that habit is very powerful as a socialization device.

Such that people trained in an artificial (hence difficult) and socially-approved specialized mode of thinking, eventually do not notice the exclusions of their mode of thought, and assume that their mode of thought is the whole thing; assume that that which was excluded a priori has instead been excluded because it was false.

A mistaken inference - but mainstream in modernity.

*

NOTE ADDED: in sum, to put it another way, progress in science was essentially a consequence of the quality and quantity of man-hours dedicated to the aim of discovering truth about the world using reason and excluding religious explanations.

When the most able truth-seeking people with leisure from subsistence increasingly shifted their interest, activity and effort away from theology into philosophy (from, say, the twelfth century onwards in the West) and then from philosophy into science (from, say, the seventeenth century) - this shifted achievement in the same direction.

And when the most able people with leisure from subsistence increasingly shifted their interest, activity and effort away from truth-seeking and into other things (especially careers) (from, say, the early-middle twentieth century) this shifted achievement into... well, bureaucracy and media distractions.

Exactly. Did you not read Genesis where it says:

He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And then He said "Let's hide amino acids on meteorites, that'll be a laugh". And His scribe asked "What are amino acids and meteorites, my Lord?" And God said "Shut up and just write it down".

All life on Earth may have come from clay according to new scientific research - just as the Bible, Koran and even Greek mythology have been suggesting for thousands of years.

The latest theory is that clay - which is at its most basic, a combination of minerals in the ground - acts as a breeding laboratory for tiny molecules and chemicals which it 'absorbs like a sponge'.

The process takes billions of years, during which the chemicals react to each other to form proteins, DNA and, eventually, living cells, scientists told the journal Scientific Reports.

Biological Engineers from Cornell University's department for Nanoscale Science in New York state believe clay 'might have been the birthplace of life on Earth'.

Religion tried to kill all the scientists? Where was that?

...

....
As for religions adapting, well, they don't have a choice.  They cannot kill all the scientists.  They tried, but failed.

Well, that's not exactly what I was thinking about. Here's an example. Catholics thought they'd have priests that didn't marry, but there were exceptions. Why? Because they had to make exceptions to get some groups to go with their plan.

Christianity had many opposed to "vivisection" in the 19th century and prior, but that's not an issue today.

Galileo, I think you know that story.

It's been noted regarding the American Indians, that those who had adaptable religions have survived, while those who had rigid precepts in their religions have not. Adaptable is of course a key to something surviving a variety of conditions for a long term.

Consider the following argument. If religion did not adapt, science would overshadow it and it would vanish. If it did adapt to new understandings, it would survive. That is assuming some innate human needs for services provided by religion of course.

I get your point, but only partly agree with it. Religion, as you detailed in your post, is impacted by 'local cultural practices'; for example, someone born in the Middle East is likely to be raised a Muslim, whereas someone born in Ireland is likely to be raised Catholic. This doesn't happen in science. What is true in Saudi Arabia is true in Ireland, or anywhere. Someone's religion is (99% of the time) directly linked to their place of birth, or at the very least, by those that raise them. This isn't true with science. So while I accept that religion has evolved, in some respects even diluted, it is only in how people choose to practice it or which 'almighty power' they worship.

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

Historically, it evolved from privative shamanistic gods-of-the-trees and rivers, to pantheism, and from there to monotheism. That in turn has obvious evolution, old to New Testament, those to Mormon stuff, or Muslim.

Indeed, the emergence of Martin Luther and protestant sects was a reaction to and an obvious evolution of the prior Catholicism. From there, you have the evangelical Christian stuff, which is a very recent development.

Religion also evolves in terms of how it adapts to and accepts science. In the past, religions were opposed to many medical and scientific practices, which today for the most part they are not opposed.

Religion also seems to adapt to local cultural practices in a number of ways.

Well, sorry to have to correct you, but religion seems to also evolve. Not necessarily in directions I/you/we would like.

I'm guessing you took the idea for this topic from watching Ricky Gervais, unless it was said by someone else previously - which I'm sure it has???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg

I am definitely on the side of science, as even though it is constantly proving itself wrong, it accepts that and continually evolves into an ever improving version. Religion (in general) tends to ignore any other possible 'explanations', basically sticking their fingers in their ears and mumbling incoherently whenever anyone dares to question it.

Did you even read what you quoted from wikipedia?

"a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

"a fact is an observation" (adjectives removed)

How is this not exactly what I said, and the opposite of what you keep saying?

Scientific Fact = objectively verifiable observation (repeatable experiments, et al)

I don't understand how you keep saying that facts are not observations, when your quote specifically says, "A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation"

What exactly do you not understand?

Actually, you are cherry picking the article in wikipedia to support your rather lame understanding of the matter. The article supports exactly what I said.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20]

Now we just need to wait on BADecker showing up to tell you why you didn't mean what you said, and that you actually meant what he wants you to mean, because an online dictionary says so.

Clear, obvious difference. Science = fact + evidence. Religion = fantasy + stupidity, gullibility, desperation.

All facts are observations... that's a fact, Jack

Science is based entirely on observations... repeatable, verifiable observations

"If you can't show it, you don't know it" -Aron Ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement"