(November 11, 2012 at 8:39 am)Daniel Wrote: No, it leads to PREDICTABILITY, not answers.

Really? The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the luminiferous aether, which scientists up to then had insisted must be a pervading medium throughout the Universe in order to propogate light, does not exist. As a result, the relevant and concomitant scientific fields were able to flourish once that stumbling block was removed and no sane person now believes in the aether's existence. I'd call that an answer.

"Does the luminiferous aether exist?"
"Let's have a look."
[performs experiment]
"No."

(November 11, 2012 at 8:39 am)Daniel Wrote: No, it leads to PREDICTABILITY, not answers.

Predictable answers are answers.

I have a less rosy and positivistic view of science. However, to me, the conflict is not between science and faith, or religion, but between sets of epistemologies and epistemological assumptions. There is some inconsistency and incoherence of both, that in science and that in religion, yet the epistemologies represented in science have a much lower profile — the epistemologies and epistemological assumptions of religion and faith are tearing her apart without and in the absence of any real input from science. Inconsistencies such as that between an epistemic based on texts and authorities and the obvious relativism of a cafeteria approach to belief and ethics is but one example. And more than the specific truths of science, the superior performance of its philosophy and epistemology to deliver the goods is giving believers and belief a well deserved inferiority complex.

This is not so much the doing of science as the undoing of religion by itself, and I don't know how you unring that bell.

(November 11, 2012 at 8:39 am)Daniel Wrote: No, it leads to PREDICTABILITY, not answers.

But religion leads to fairy tales, not answers.

Do you really think a dead jew came back to life for your "sins?"

Time to grow up. Santa is not real, either.

Science is willing to change its positions when new evidence comes in. Religion is dogma that is declared to be absolute and forever correct (God can't get it wrong right?). So how can these co-exist? How can religion which depends on faith line up with science which requires years of study, tests and ever evolving hypotheses? Will religious ideas be put up for peer review? Uh-huh. What I thought.

(November 11, 2012 at 10:31 am)Stimbo Wrote: Really? The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the luminiferous aether, which scientists up to then had insisted must be a pervading medium throughout the Universe in order to propogate light, does not exist.

Have you heard of Ignaz Semmelweis? Of course you have, and what happened when he did something that he didn't have a sufficient scientific explanation for? That's right, he was "creatively fired"! Okay, so we now know his theory about cadaverous poisoning was hogwash, but really the theory didn't matter as much as the observation did it? He was laughed at because he didn't have a sufficient theory, but he had clear and certain observable evidence.

And what mistake did they make? That's right - expecting to have answers from science. Semmelweis had a prediction for the behavioural chance that was consistent with observation, it didn't matter whether or not he had the answer or whether or not he contracted the scientific consensus at the time, regardless he was right wasn't he?

I'm sure we can fling scientists back and forth at each other 'til the cows come home; or until your superjew comes back, whichever's the longer. You yourself are sitting in front of a graphic example of the scientific method providing answers. That one answer opens up two more questions is a good thing.

(November 12, 2012 at 6:23 am)Daniel Wrote: Have you heard of Ignaz Semmelweis? Of course you have, and what happened when he did something that he didn't have a sufficient scientific explanation for? That's right, he was "creatively fired"! Okay, so we now know his theory about cadaverous poisoning was hogwash, but really the theory didn't matter as much as the observation did it? He was laughed at because he didn't have a sufficient theory, but he had clear and certain observable evidence.

And what mistake did they make? That's right - expecting to have answers from science. Semmelweis had a prediction for the behavioural chance that was consistent with observation, it didn't matter whether or not he had the answer or whether or not he contracted the scientific consensus at the time, regardless he was right wasn't he?

You should understand that even if every scientific theory humans have ever made turns out to be completely incorrect, the credibility of religion is in no way enhanced by this?

Scientific methodologies may fail disastrously, and frequently have. Religion has failed completely to give an accurate picture of the natural world. The reason science is the right course and religion is the wrong course is because scientists can admit that an approach has failed and will attempt others. The religious cannot accept the idea that their scripture got something wrong and will ignore reality.

(November 12, 2012 at 3:05 pm)Ryantology Wrote: You should understand that even if every scientific theory humans have ever made turns out to be completely incorrect, the credibility of religion is in no way enhanced by this?

Scientific methodologies may fail disastrously, and frequently have. Religion has failed completely to give an accurate picture of the natural world. The reason science is the right course and religion is the wrong course is because scientists can admit that an approach has failed and will attempt others. The religious cannot accept the idea that their scripture got something wrong and will ignore reality.

You are right up to a point, that point is when the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of the scientific view point that it can't possibly be ignored. At which point religions go, "well that's what we meant all the time...."

(November 12, 2012 at 3:10 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You are right up to a point, that point is when the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of the scientific view point that it can't possibly be ignored. At which point religions go, "well that's what we meant all the time...."

But, those are people whose faith is weak. Even when you open a Creation Museum and show Adam and Eve living alongside dinosaurs, you are weak in your faith. A true believer insists that Satan planted fossils in the ground to weaken the faithful, and would point to the previous example as proof.