The utterly false dichotomy of Religion Vs. Science

[Pirlo]

I stand with SCIENCE!

[Gillipig]

Yes, religion is compatible with science. That's why I believe in Thor.
All hail THOR!!

[crispybits]

This depends on how broad your definition of science is (as in would the printing press count? I mean we needed to do science, though we didnt call it that back then I guess, to experiment with melting ores and producing metals, and to make the engineering of the machine work, etc).

Technology=/=Science. Science may lead to new technologies and practices, but the two are different. Are the Archeulian hand axes of H. erectus science? No, just a technology that was discovered by some individual and later set into widespread practice.

-TG

But isn't technology just applied/practical science?

I mean, look at superconductors. Ten or twenty years ago or however long it was (not long) they were the reserve of physicists playing around in labs trying to find a way to supercool a specific material enough that it had close to zero electrical resistance. Before that they were just theoretical. There was a point when they were science. Now they've been worked out and brought into more widespread use they're technology, and indeed not just for electrical circuits but groups are doing work on their interactions with magnets (quantum locking) for very low friction/anti-gravity devices. This quantum locking stuff is science right now, but in 50 years once it's been figured out and applications have been found to do amazing new things with it, then it'll just be technology...

The science I suppose could be said to be the precursor and the technology is something different, but even then if you're saying "what would X look like without science" it seems pretty disingenuous to me to allow the things we only got because of science now that they fall into a different category. If you can't get to technology without science, then you can't include technology in a non-scientific context either surely?

[crispybits]

A quick related word on the matter from Carl Sagan

[Gillipig]

Carl Sagan is such a noob. He doesn't understand the first thing about science, just because he died recently everyone worship him.

[tzor]

I think you made a typo in your post.

Yes, religion is compatible with science. That's why I believe in Tzor.
All hail TZOR!!

There ... fixed it for you.

[tzor]

A quick related word on the matter from Carl Sagan

I generally agree with most of the things Carl said although some of the specifics I might disagree with slightly on. I think it is very important to listen to his remarks in context and not to pull out more from it than was stated.

I should point out that officially every astronomer is supposed to hate Carl because everyone just assumed that there was a commandment "Thou shall not make gobs of money off of astronomy" and when he got famous for his "Cosmos" series they realized they never actually wrote it down. At least that was the official attitude of all the Radio Astronomers in R.P.I. back in the early 80's.

I also disagree with the idea of abolishing the technology thing. I'm not in congress, I have no intention of going to Congress, and I have no chance of getting into Congress. I do know if I had a science question, I would rather contact an authority in the subject than a committee. I would rather contact people who deal with the technology. Congress isn't as stupid as people think; there are a considerable number of doctors of medicine in it; they just generally act that way.

[crispybits]

The point of the Sagan clip (at least the bit I thought was relevant to this discussion) is that in a technologically advanced society such as ours, we need to retain the education and the skepticism to be able to question things instead of just accepting them. This goes for things like evolution (though the creationists really need to start actually listening to the answers instead of making up a bunch of stuff) AND things like religion. How religions adapt to an open, skeptical society (relative to previous times when information and education was limited to the ruling classes for the most part and the vast majority of the population of the planet has a very narrow focus on what mattered in life - i.e. getting the next lot of crops grown so they had food) is key - if they deny science they also deny technology, and if they do that where does it leave us?

[tzor]

The point of the Sagan clip (at least the bit I thought was relevant to this discussion) is that in a technologically advanced society such as ours, we need to retain the education and the skepticism to be able to question things instead of just accepting them.

Yes, but people have been saying this since the Age of Enlightenment ... actually earlier than that ... there was a point when people suddenly realized, "hey, perhaps the Greeks were wrong in some things after all." Prior to that, Greek science was considered as sacred as the scriptures and not to ever be questioned.

This goes for things like evolution (though the creationists really need to start actually listening to the answers instead of making up a bunch of stuff) AND things like religion.

I'm going to throw a flag here for linking a specific (evolution) to a vague general (religion). In general, only creationists argue against evolution, and I would also argue that they have as much faulty understanding of religion as they have of science.

But remember for every creationist there exists a believer in "global warming." Indeed it's been one of the problem with science in general, too many fruits in the cake.

Once again, we need to have the knowledge and the skepticism to question things instead of just accepting what others claim is true.

[crispybits]

OK I think we're mostly agreeing here - skepticism is a good thing (in the context of either science OR religion).

So back to the OP and the conflict between the two in the political arena with particular focus on the US and creationism today. Which system, science or religion, within that context, is also of the opinion that skepticism is good? Which thrives on constant questioning and which holds fast to some unquestionable dogmas?

[Artimis]

The thing is, even the majority of Religions are against 'Blind Faith/Willful Ignorance', as I suspect that they would want their followers to be able to spot false practices. So people who are willfully ignorant are actually more dangerous than the just plain ignorant, because the latter group will at least take the opportunity(if presented to them) to dispel their own ignorance. Whereas the former will reject outright, without even the slightest attempt at analysis, anything that contradicts their strongly held belief. That's how come we still have The Flat Earth Society even today. This is not a joke, they really believe this shit!

Anyway, whilst we all acknowledge that 100% unwavering faith is only to our detriment, we can't have 100% doubt either, otherwise none of us would ever get out of bed in the morning to say nothing of society as it is today would just completely fail without any trust/faith.

We need both Faith and Critical Thinking, one without the other will always fail, full stop.

OK I think we're mostly agreeing here - skepticism is a good thing (in the context of either science OR religion).

So back to the OP and the conflict between the two in the political arena with particular focus on the US and creationism today. Which system, science or religion, within that context, is also of the opinion that skepticism is good? Which thrives on constant questioning and which holds fast to some unquestionable dogmas?

I don't think the creationists really understand what skepticism really is(I'm reminded of the lack of understanding on Evolution here also), or that if you're going to express skepticism at points of view which differ from your own then you should have the grace to at least apply the same level of skepticism to your own views as well. If for no other reason than to simply make sure your reasoning is sound.

[tzor]

So back to the OP and the conflict between the two in the political arena with particular focus on the US and creationism today. Which system, science or religion, within that context, is also of the opinion that skepticism is good? Which thrives on constant questioning and which holds fast to some unquestionable dogmas?

It's hard to say. "Skepticism" is only way of looking at the scientific method. The other one is "openness." The later is more of making observations and going where ever the observations lead you. Sometimes they lead you towards the idea and sometimes away from it. While the former is more towards trying to disprove the idea by finding the one counter example. Personally I think the later is superior to the former because sometimes the answer is literally stranger than you think. Atoms are a good example of this. We can easily provide experiments that prove particles such as electrons and protons exist and do so within something we call an atom.

Electromagnetic theory (which in turn can be proved) also demands that atoms cannot exist; that any attempt to keep opposing particles from collapsing into each other would generate angular momentum which would cause radiation, decay and eventual collapse.

You need to use quantum mechanics to explain that, and that was too much for even Einstein to contemplate.

This can also be applied to religion. One doesn't question for the sake of questioning (although that is sometimes a good exercise in and of itself) but one remains "open" to the observations that one makes. We don't throw things out simply because we were told about them (oh that Einstein fellow ...) by others, but on the same token one does not ignore observations because of those statements.

So it doesn't make sense to question the color of George Washington's white horse. Since I cannot directly observe his horse I will take it at the word of others until evidence points otherwise. I will not mock the statements of others, such as perhaps John Adams who testified that George Washington's white horse was white. I will understand that some people may wish to remain agnostic on the color of the horse, but baring observations otherwise I will go with what has been passed down. (Now we also have people who have testified that the whole cherry tree thing was made up, and we can observe the actual material of his teeth, which were made from animal bone and not wood. By the way, he never could actually use those teeth for eating, they were only for show.)

Religion should be given the same courtesy.

[crispybits]

The colour of George Washington's horse is an irrelevance though. I'm more than happy if you wanna claim it was white, grey, brown or black - if we're playing a pub quiz I might care a tiny bit if your answer conforms to the generally accepted one, but I couldn't give two hoots about whether either your answer or the accepted one is actual truth.

The origin of the universe and the nature of reality are not irrelevant, neither are the origin of life or the mechanism of evolution. There are many different ways in which these things could have a real impact on how we understand the universe and new technologies we can design to make life materially better for the human race. On these issues I'm not willing to give courtesy to any old ideas just because they've been passe down for a long time or are written in some book. Because I'm not competent to examine the science behind these ideas myself then I do have to have a form of faith in the scientific community, but I have that faith because of the skepticism and open-ness of the scientific method, because I know that whatever the accepted truth is at any given time there are people working towards disproving it, to coming up with alternative ideas, because that's how you really make a name for yourself in science.

I don't think anyone would claim that science now has all the answers, that's not the point of it, the point of it (apart from creating new technologies and increasing understanding) is mainly to show which answers are not true. It's essentially an idea destroying mechanism, and the ideas it cannot destroy we tend to accept as having validity (up to the point where someone comes along who can destroy that idea). Tim Minchin makes the point based in song:



It's basically already destroyed the supernatural. Witches, wizards, magic etc are all things we generally don't think are really real - but we're wired in such a way that God is a very stubborn idea in our heads. I don't think we'll ever get rid of it, but the sooner we can stop humans speaking on behalf of God and imposing their perception of what he wants onto anyone else ever anywhere the better. I'm more than happy for you to believe in God, that's cool, but when you start telling me what God does and doesn't want or like or command then you're offficially a nutjob and should be locked away for the good of society as a whole...

[tzor]

It seems that your only beef with religion is creationism. I don't particularly like it either.

The origin of the universe and the nature of reality are not irrelevant, neither are the origin of life or the mechanism of evolution. There are many different ways in which these things could have a real impact on how we understand the universe and new technologies we can design to make life materially better for the human race.

Probably not at the moment, given our current level of technology. The various versions of the early universe don't really have any impact on any current technology. The "origin of life" is still mostly speculation.

On these issues I'm not willing to give courtesy to any old ideas just because they've been passe down for a long time or are written in some book.

Nor do I, especially when I know that was never the point of the book. A lot of the events in the first book of the Bible are stories. Ironically they are almost identical to the same stories that were told by all their neighbors, only in critical areas they were different. Those differences are important not the details. They tell moral (not scientific) truths, because that was how moral truths were told in those days.

I don't think anyone would claim that science now has all the answers, that's not the point of it, the point of it (apart from creating new technologies and increasing understanding) is mainly to show which answers are not true. It's essentially an idea destroying mechanism, and the ideas it cannot destroy we tend to accept as having validity (up to the point where someone comes along who can destroy that idea).

I'll raise you on this point; science isn't the quest for answers; it is the quest for more detailed questions.