I wish people got over the Science Vs. Religion set-up, really. It hasn't been relevant for decades, if not an entire century and a half. Sure, you will get the occasional extreme opinion one way or the other, but those represent a vocal minority who are unwilling to look at both phenomena with an insider's eye, without judgement. Creationists, as well as those atheists who are trying to disprove god's existance are both misunderstanding the meaning of these two seperate areas of life, and degrade to absurdity in their zeal.

I think the most fruitful way to look at the supposed controversy between science and religion is to understand they answer different things. Their premises are different, their methods are different, their purpose is different. You cannot evaluate either one by any external standard. A empiric scientist might say religion is false, because it doesn't conform to his methods. But just as well, a religious person with immediate personal experience of faith might say the scientist is wrong for trusting misleading sensory evidence when there is a much more convincing proof available in one's mind. Science cannot refute religion, and religion cannot refute science, because they speak a different language. Whichever side you take, you will end up in a circular argument: "science is correct, because it's scientific", or "religious doctrines are true because my faith convinces me." What can you tell to either one? Nothing, because there is no higher ground to judge from. You cannot step outside reason, emotion and immediate human experience to evaluate beliefs objectively, because we're entirely bound to our subjective perception.

Science and religion cannot discuss the same things and see eye to eye, because their premises are different, but they can both exist in human life: an existance that is not submissive to either outlook, but free to use them in synthesis and as irrationally as one wants, with no outside authority to judge that. Personally, I feel no pull of the supernatural, but I have no intention of letting that limit my scope of human experience. Some day, I might feel different, and no scientist, empirist, rationalist or dogmatist is going to tell me I cannot experience what I most evidently do experience.

Written by Guest on 04.06.2009 at 13:30

Written by tulkas on 01.06.2009 at 06:12

Written by Ph0eNiX on 31.05.2009 at 19:05

For me i just find that one really goes along with the other one. Like one doesn't really negate the other being part of it all. Like the only thing I noticed is that the whole "Science" being unable to proof God existing really is what I found to be the seperatinig point. Granted, science hasn't figured out ua "God-o-meter" at all but at the same time I also can't say that it doesn't mean God had nothing to do with it.

yep, got a point there where you say it's the science not being able to proof god's existence, and in a way i guess that fit into my saying of not being completley on the science side point of view

But you have to look at the fact there is absolutely no evidence of god. Science is about theories which lead to rules about how our world works and these are things we can actually test and see for ourselves, there are rules that the physical world follows and that is fact. Scientists come to these conclusions by actually testing their theories in REALITY. Evolution is fact, there is masses of evidence and you only need to watch one documentary on the subject to see that it is undeniable. That gets rid of the whole creationism thing, you'd have to be pretty ignonrant and plain stupid to deny evolution. Science is real, religion is just wild speculation and hope. The two are seperate. They can only become linked when we actually have some physical, real evidence of a god. Which we don't.

However, I do want to believe there are some supernatural beings out there, I guess it's a kind of romantic thing. I've said this before, but if there is something out there, we cannot even comprehend it, let alone have any knowledge of how it would like us to live out lives, never mind what it's called or what it looks like.

You also have to look at the fact that science is based around an entirely physical universe alone. That limit's it's scope and perception to the entirety of reality also.

Written by Ph0eNiX on 06.06.2009 at 04:05

You also have to look at the fact that science is based around an entirely physical universe alone. That limit's it's scope and perception to the entirety of reality also.

which in some (inverse, obviously) way would be the problem with religious beliefs denying scientific studies on the subject. it's always trying to proof things on the way each one thinks is the right way and refusing to see other points of view

Written by tulkas on 06.06.2009 at 07:27

Written by Ph0eNiX on 06.06.2009 at 04:05

You also have to look at the fact that science is based around an entirely physical universe alone. That limit's it's scope and perception to the entirety of reality also.

which in some (inverse, obviously) way would be the problem with religious beliefs denying scientific studies on the subject. it's always trying to proof things on the way each one thinks is the right way and refusing to see other points of view

Well it's the same thing on both ends. Religion has a deal of "this is the right way" at varrying degrees depending on the religion. Part of the problem with religion is that there's a huge deal of it causing "this is what God is".

With science it's the same thing.

It's two trains "bucking heads" holding the same course but from different angles.

The fun part of it all is that neither really explain anything for themselves or eachother. Science, it explains the obvious but in more indepth details so it can be catagorized. Religion, eats spirituality in order to explain "what should be obvious" in order to catagorize things. Science says "Real or not real", religion says "good or bad" based on thier versions of truths. Each are wrong for not allowing the other to share it's understanding.

The only thing people haven't tried is mixing both to find an answer. Personally, if you put it all together there is an answer to it all.

Written by Ph0eNiX on 06.06.2009 at 07:50

The only thing people haven't tried is mixing both to find an answer. Personally, if you put it all together there is an answer to it all.

Maybe, but the problem to get there is that neither a scientist is going to say to a religious person "oh, you're right", and the same the other way with a religious guy saying to a scientist "oh, you're right". changing, or at least trying to 'modify' points of view of the people, and even more so on such... intricate subjects as this, is reeeaaally hard. i guess that's the real problem there, though there may be a lot more to it than just that.
on the other hand, i would like to recall that in ancient times, deities were 'created' to explain natural phenomenons and objects, like lightning, thunder, rain, sun, moon, etc. so... i don't know, i just wanted to point that out

Written by tulkas on 06.06.2009 at 08:01

Written by Ph0eNiX on 06.06.2009 at 07:50

The only thing people haven't tried is mixing both to find an answer. Personally, if you put it all together there is an answer to it all.

Maybe, but the problem to get there is that neither a scientist is going to say to a religious person "oh, you're right", and the same the other way with a religious guy saying to a scientist "oh, you're right". changing, or at least trying to 'modify' points of view of the people, and even more so on such... intricate subjects as this, is reeeaaally hard. i guess that's the real problem there, though there may be a lot more to it than just that.
on the other hand, i would like to recall that in ancient times, deities were 'created' to explain natural phenomenons and objects, like lightning, thunder, rain, sun, moon, etc. so... i don't know, i just wanted to point that out

It's (for each side) all thier "dogma" telling them to say that. The whole understanding of "this is my belief so I have to say and think 'this' ".

One explains the physical reality, one explains the etheric side that exists within the reality. One doesn't really hurt the other. Saying the universe was created by god and having evolution don't really clash. Saying there's a deity presiding over thunder and havving lightning being electromagnertic energy discharge from the earth don't really clash. The only reason they don't clash is that each side seems to think that as soon as there's some kind of advancement/miracle they're one up on the other.

With the deity creation thing..... All deities were created (that's the gist of it all, they had to come from somewhere). Personally it's a bit wierd to explain but there's 2 ways they had been. Deities in themself come from God. Since God has created everything God created them too (Think of it like the feudal system meets the way way back chinese beurocratic system but with pantheons). Then there's a thing called a "construct". Now minds can create the reality for a construct (constructs come in the form of a phsical and an etheric, I'm just trying to cover the angles generally here), it's a programmed construction of will force (or will forces) coalessing into a formed being or individual existing under perameters. All in all, I can't say that some stuff wasn't created by people (The necronomicon based stuff) but I also can't say that there wasn't something to a deitific reality in regard to this one that was created by a being other than the ones down here.

@phoenix: umm, don't really know what to say. i do think you're right saying that it's not that they clash, but it's not that they live in... harmony i mean, they do have their differences, and specially the church (catholic) is very 'against' the scientific point fo view of things and imo they kinda feel threated by it, maybe because at some point they could prove them wrong or something?

btw, interesting way to see creationism

Everything get's created somehow, It's part of the fun like that.

I gave you a super rough version of that.

Catholocism proves itself wrong, they really don't need much else to do that.

I don't think religion or spirituality, in general, should be reduced to examples of some public institutions such as the Catholic church. I daresay the majority of people have no problems combining science and religion in their lives.

Neither science nor religion makes for a very fruitful outlook on all life, IMO. Science is limited to making and testing hypotheses on phenomena that can be observed. Think of it as a game with rules of how to play. Science must adopt methodological naturalism, that is, ignoring possible factors that exist outside the empiric evidence of the natural world (though you must remember that theories are abstract, not part of the natural world). It simply means science cannot say anything about the divine. Religion exists outside the rules of science. It is - in fact - unscientifical to adopt metaphysical naturalism as a supposed consequence of methodological naturalism. That is, you cannot deny the existance of the supernatural, the world of ideas or whatever, just because you refuse to let it affect scientific practice. Choosing to believe there is only the natural world we can observe and that the natural world is real, is just as much of a "leap of faith" as choosing to believe there is a God or that the world is made of ideas. Neither ideology is supported by anything outside of themselves.

Science must be understood as a game whose rules deny anything outside observable phenomena and logic to affect its theories. Science denies the supernatural within its boundaries, within the game. Science does not, and cannot deny it outside its own rules. That would be unscientifical. It's like playing cards: if the rules say you have to play with one deck, you play with one deck. It doesn't matter if there's a second deck available, because using that deck would change the game. But the game's rules can't say there is no other deck, and you may very will import that other deck. You will merely change the rules of the game, and it is no longer the same game - just like science is no longer science if you include the supernatural.

To sum up, the existance of the supernatural, the divine is irrelevant to the methods of science. A scientist can very welll practice science and believe in God, he simply must not let that belief affect the way he conducts experiments. Just like I can have two decks, and choose one or two based the game that I'm playing at the moment.


P.S. You might notice I left the criticism of an all-encompassing religious outlook to a minimum. It is not because I don't have anything to criticize (though I must admit to being sympathetic towards healthy spirituality, even if I have a hard time practicing it myself), it's simply because the entire thread is already full of that and I'm sure modern Western Internet-users need anyone to tell them what kind of problems a religious outlook can present.

I find it funny when someone religious makes a joke about scientology and then gets offended when someone makes a religious joke. What makes one belief more redicilous or far fetched then the other.

Human perspective is what makes something more ridicilous or far-fetched than something else. Those aren't objective attributes, after all, they describe human attitude. I think it's completely understandable, too: we must be allowed to judge from our own position, or we cannot judge at all. There is no objective moral ground or truth that humans can grasp, and therefore we should hold onto what we choose to believe. What makes religion more ridicilous than science? Both are based only on themselves.

Written by brapp32 on 08.06.2009 at 18:01

I find it funny when someone religious makes a joke about scientology and then gets offended when someone makes a religious joke.

Then the Church of Scientology sues them.

You know what really pissed me off today? I was asleep and some Jehovah's Witness dude came to my door and tried to give me a pamphlet...

Written by Guest on 09.06.2009 at 05:25

You know what really pissed me off today? I was asleep and some Jehovah's Witness dude came to my door and tried to give me a pamphlet...

LMAO!! thanks, dude. you made me laugh. but i do get and understand your anger. and from a more 'serious' point of view, i do hate when people go house by house "promoting" their religion as if it was some sort of product you should purchase. in a way that's like forcing religion into people, or at least trying to sell it, and if you ask me, i'd say that's just bullshit

Just answer the door naked with red paint on your face. Trust me they won't bother you anymore.

Written by brapp32 on 09.06.2009 at 12:47

Just answer the door naked with red paint on your face. Trust me they won't bother you anymore.

I usually answer the door in my black kilt with some Living Sacrifice playing in the background. Then I spend the next hour or so debating with them on their weak theological standpoints.

Or you could do that.

Written by Ph0eNiX on 06.06.2009 at 04:05

Written by Guest on 04.06.2009 at 13:30

Written by tulkas on 01.06.2009 at 06:12

Written by Ph0eNiX on 31.05.2009 at 19:05

For me i just find that one really goes along with the other one. Like one doesn't really negate the other being part of it all. Like the only thing I noticed is that the whole "Science" being unable to proof God existing really is what I found to be the seperatinig point. Granted, science hasn't figured out ua "God-o-meter" at all but at the same time I also can't say that it doesn't mean God had nothing to do with it.

yep, got a point there where you say it's the science not being able to proof god's existence, and in a way i guess that fit into my saying of not being completley on the science side point of view

But you have to look at the fact there is absolutely no evidence of god. Science is about theories which lead to rules about how our world works and these are things we can actually test and see for ourselves, there are rules that the physical world follows and that is fact. Scientists come to these conclusions by actually testing their theories in REALITY. Evolution is fact, there is masses of evidence and you only need to watch one documentary on the subject to see that it is undeniable. That gets rid of the whole creationism thing, you'd have to be pretty ignonrant and plain stupid to deny evolution. Science is real, religion is just wild speculation and hope. The two are seperate. They can only become linked when we actually have some physical, real evidence of a god. Which we don't.

However, I do want to believe there are some supernatural beings out there, I guess it's a kind of romantic thing. I've said this before, but if there is something out there, we cannot even comprehend it, let alone have any knowledge of how it would like us to live out lives, never mind what it's called or what it looks like.

You also have to look at the fact that science is based around an entirely physical universe alone. That limit's it's scope and perception to the entirety of reality also.

Not really. Reality is, well, what is real, physical. Science is about what is real, what is actually taking place around us. What use is a god who doesn't actually change things in our world, physical things that can affect our lives.

Real does not equal physical. In fact, you are extremely unscientific if you say the supernatural isn't real - science simply cannot know about such matters.

Science is about methodological naturalism: you exclude the possibility of the super-natural as an explanation. But that does not mean scientists should adopt metaphysical naturalism, that is, the belief that the natural (or physical) world is all there is.

It's quite bold to claim that a god cannot affect our lives. I can point to several people in the world, even in this very thread, who very authentically experience that the divine has had direct influence on their life. Whether or not it is "real" in the scientific sense, or even if it's objectively real for everyone supernaturally, is irrelevant. The experience is just as real, even if it is limited to one person.

Since you're here, I imagine you like music. Music isn't physical either. Certainly, there are physical phenomena that are related to music and make music possible, such as sound-waves. It does not become music until it is given form by an abstractly-thinking individual, and until another individual interprets it subjectively. Sound waves aren't music, the music is only created in your head when you interpret raw sensory data. And to take it even further, music holds many layers of meaning and connnotations that aren't physical or scientifically "real." Some music is raw, some is epic, some is touching, some is rather cheesy, and none of these are scientific facts of the natural world. They exist on a whole other level of reality.

The divine has not had a direct influence on anyone's life, it's peoples BELIEF in the divine that influences and affects their lives. If it was real then it would affect people like me who don't believe, but it doesn't. I don't deny that peoples EXPERIENCES are real, but there isn't actually something supernatural affecting them.

Music is sound waves with certain properties (frequencies etc.) in a certain order. I do understand what you mean, in reality it's just a bunch of sound waves that we as humans have named and attached meaning to... but nevertheless, it's real, it can be manipulated in a controlled manner to get the desired sound that makes it raw, epic etc. Although there is a completely different arguement there, concerning emotions and feelings and how our brains interpret certain things, which I think is very interesting, but not related to anything supernatural.

Written by Guest on 10.06.2009 at 17:18

The divine has not had a direct influence on anyone's life, it's peoples BELIEF in the divine that influences and affects their lives. If it was real then it would affect people like me who don't believe, but it doesn't. I don't deny that peoples EXPERIENCES are real, but there isn't actually something supernatural affecting them.

I'd disagree here. I have had several experiences with divine beings (Adonai, angles, demons) and they were very real. It was not my belief that miraculously healed me but the power of Jesus Christ.

Why would it have to affect you? How do you know on some small level something supernatural isn't affecting you? You refuse to believe it exists then all you have done is made yourself blind to the possibility of anything happening.

What were these experiences? What ailment did you have?

(I'm genuinely interested, this is not meant to be argumentative).

Written by Guest on 10.06.2009 at 19:43

What were these experiences? What ailment did you have?

Several years ago I was suffering from a terrible fever brought on by an infection. I was so ill one night that my friends were getting ready to rush my to the emergency room, as most of them left to go get the car and such two friends stayed in my room. They asked if I wanted them to pray over me and lay hands on me, and I said yes. So they did, and as they were praying and anointing my the fever broke, my temperature returned to normal and by the time the rest of the group had gotten back I was almost completely back to full health.

Genghis, I see your point but I think you fall victim to cirular logic. If you have no evidence of something's existance, you obviously cannot disprove its existance either. But what if you clearly have subjective evidence of something's existance? It is something that cannot be detected by others or tested with the scientific method, but you are convinced it's true. So yes, that is a belief, but no moreso than being convinced that you can grasp the real world through rationality and empirism is a belief. You believe that you can gain knowledge of reality with observation and logic, but it is no better supported an idea than that you can gain knowledge of the divine with your immediate experiences.

To portray the circular logic in both world views, I'll repeat the following statements:

"You must analyze sensory evidence rationally, because it's rational and the evidence support it:" There is nothing to support a rational world view but rationality itself, and you choose to trust your observations because further observations seem to verify them.

"I believe in God, because my faith convinces me:" Is that not the definition of faith, a tautology? It does not prove anything apart from your faith in God.

You can't really deny one view using the premises of the other. If your premise is that only objective observations can grant information on the world, you will not be convinced by inner, subjective certainty. On the other hand, if you experience something that convinces and affects you more than what the eye can see, how could you be proven wrong by an outsider referring to principles that don't grasp your experience?

Reality exists, basically, in our minds. Without human consciousness to interpret it, it would have no reason or rhyme. Not only is it impossible to descirbe the world as it is, exluding human interpretation, it's also pretty pointless. Even if there is an objective real world out there, we can never gain direct knowledge of its objects. We can never transcend our subjective ideas of the world and we can never leave our experiences behind. Any kind of philosophy or science that attempts to do this is contrary to human existance, IMO.

Written by akatana on 11.06.2009 at 09:45

The day that your story turns into: I lost my arm and then I prayed and it grew back, then I will believe in a god. That would be miraculous. Fever dropping is not a miraculous healing. I don't want to sound rude, but I see a real danger in this kind of attitude, namely that people think that praying can solve their medical problems(I am not talking about your situation, you were about to go to the emergency room). But a lot of people died this way, even more saddening is that a lot of innocent children also died because of the faith of their parents. On a more lighter note, whenever I hear of such a story, I think of an alternative interpretation of the whole god-intervenes-in-your-life-thingy: For me a church with a lightning-rod is the very definition of lack of faith

So how do you explain that my 104°F temperature dropping back to normal within a couple of minutes at the exact same time people laid hands on me and prayed?

Written by akatana on 12.06.2009 at 09:05

(... long post ...)

i agree with you, being a non-believer as well, though people praying to get better from illness or in life in general no longer bothers me. i didn't get to the point of seeing it like you do (i'm better because i'm important to god), but i did and still do see it as maybe not giving enough credit to oneself and the people around that helped the person succeed, in the case of celebrities or sportsmen that thank god for their good results or achievements. if people believe that they will get better by praying, then it's ok, i don't attack them or anything, even if i think it's BS (no offence).

and i'll refer to some earlier post by me, i think on this thread or one about religion too, that if indeed god helped the ill, and the not-so-fortunate-in-life, say, the african people you put as an example dying of hunger and diseases, then there wouldn't be so many people dying, right? having Him care about his creation, wouldn't he have intervened already, specially in times like these when the world is pretty fucked up with wars, diseases, environmental issues, etc...

So the virus just decided to up and leave my body?

Maybe.

If I only saw this happen once I sure could try to explain it away. Maybe a second healing I could still dismiss with "oh, science will find an answer one day" or something to that effect. But when I have seen healings over and over again, including the complete disappearance of cancer, and doctors have no explanation, the miraculous is a logical choice for me.

Oh, and I by no means think I am more important than anyone else. If anything, my healings are a humbling experience not an ego boost.

Written by Dane Train on 15.06.2009 at 02:04

So the virus just decided to up and leave my body?

Maybe.

If I only saw this happen once I sure could try to explain it away. Maybe a second healing I could still dismiss with "oh, science will find an answer one day" or something to that effect. But when I have seen healings over and over again, including the complete disappearance of cancer, and doctors have no explanation, the miraculous is a logical choice for me.

Oh, and I by no means think I am more important than anyone else. If anything, my healings are a humbling experience not an ego boost.

What I don't understand is not the belief in the miraculous, but that attribution of a miracle to such a specific entity without question. Its as though to say these events, if truly beyond the realm of science, can ONLY be attributed to a divine creature such as the Christian god. A capricious god-like being could be just as easily responsible, and it would account for all the people who are prayed for and never receive healing. An evil god might prefer to do a few small miracles now and then for various religions to keep conflict going between them. Imagine if (to put it in Christian terms) the devil's greatest trick was to convince us that he was a loving, benevolent god. One of the greatest possible sins in Christianity is to betray someone that loves you, so what better than to convince all of humanity to love you and then betray them? Hell, he doesn't even really need to be all that evil.

Another possibility is that the supernatural force responsible could also be of a non-omnipotent variety, such as good spirits, that operate anonymously. They wouldn't care about getting the credit for the miracles. It could also be a more random, completely impersonal and insentient phenomena.

The rules (if any) under which supernatural phenomena operate (under the assumption they exist), are completely unknown to us.

According to science our universe has a beginning (search at "age of the universe" on www.pnas.org) and time is purely physical. Therefore there can be no such thing as time external to the physical universe. Timespace has a beginning.

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo (since timespace has a beginning); i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace.

To conclude the above paragraphs:
Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.
Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator / Singularity).
Ergo: There is no universe.
Fact: There is a universe.
Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof).
(Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.)

Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator?Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderly?"not capricious," as Einstein put it?Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects?humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Tor?âh′ , see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor?âh′ ?which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Source and further reading of how to relate to the Creator:www.netzarim.co.il)

The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn't self-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator.

(The most common counter arguments are answered at http://bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter%20arguments)

Anders Branderud

Ever heard about the cyclic universe? There might've never been a beginning at all.
How about that?
Because we humans have such a limited view on things, on a astronomical scale everything will be too much.
We just think that there's a beginning because everything we know about in life has a beginning.
I didn't encounter you talking about something like this in your 'counter arguments'.