Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Neo-Scholastic]

Matilda, you are so ignorant and misguided I don't even know where to begin. So I guess if I had to to choose just one example of your idiocy it would be mathematics as a human invention. Are you saying that the value of pi is not an objective fact that is independent of any sentient being's knowledge of it? That strains credulity.

Your credulity perhaps, but yes I am saying that.

Pi is a concept. It does not exist in reality. It cannot because there is no such thing as a perfect circle in existence, so how can pi exist? You cannot have a perfect circle because if you look at what you thought was one at a small enough scale you will find imperfections, even if you drew a circle with pixels of the planck length. If you could go smaller than this, you can't, then you'd be chasing infinity.

But let's look at the value of pi 3.14159 ...

A value that needs to be calculated to infinite precision otherwise it's not actually pi. But let's just take the most significant digit 3.

3 is also a concept, like all other integers. It is humans that are deciding that there can be one of something. I could show you an apple, but it would be you deciding that it's one apple. I could just as easily argue that it's not an apple at all but a small part of a tree or an even smaller part of an ecosystem. This is because nothing in this universe exists in isolation. Everything is part of a larger environment. But it's more convenient to ask for an apple than a small part of a tree so we use labels.

The concept of zero hasn't always existed and zero is considered a number. Like all Maths it was invented because there was a need for it. Like imaginary numbers for example, or Einstein tensors. There are different branches of Mathematics and new Maths is still being invented today. And sometimes arbitrary decisions have needed to be made to get the system to work. For example, what is the value of zero to the power of zero?

Theists talk about logic existing without the presence of humans but they don't say which form of logic. Do they mean first order predicate calculus? Propositional logic? Syllogistic logic? Modal logic? Computational logic?

It may be difficult for theists to understand because they tend to suffer from binary religious thinking, but true and false are also concepts. Not all forms of logic even use these concepts, e.g. fuzzy logic. If something being singular and integer values are only human concepts then there cannot be an absolute true or false value. Show me something that is absolutely true or false and I will point out where human made concepts relying on those values are being used.

The word "Apple"  wouldn't exist were it not for humans. It's part of a greater language. Maths and logic are also languages used to describe things and to reason about them.

You do realize, don't you, that you are arguing against the intelligibility of reality and the efficacy of reason? Would the principle of noncontradiction be true even if no sentient being existed to express it symbolically?

[Whateverist]

Science is the study of the natural, physical world. Theology deals with the supernatural/spiritual. They are simply 2 seperate fields, not inherently opposing fields.

-and the study of what happens in it.  The very moment that the "supernatural" world presents itself in the natural world...as every adherent of every religion insists has happened so very many times...they are no longer separate.

This, assuming, that they're both fields at all, rather than one being the rationalizations for your silly beliefs.

Yeah, the main point being that we are all aware of a natural world.  No one alive knows -except perhaps by faith (whatever that means)- what 'supernatural' means.  That is simply hypothetical for all intents and purposes.  

So science is the study of the empirical world and theology is the study of a system of beliefs with an alleged connection to a hypothetical and entirely undiscoverable separate realm.  That's more than apples and oranges.  That's apples and Smurfs.

---

Your credulity perhaps, but yes I am saying that.

Pi is a concept. It does not exist in reality. It cannot because there is no such thing as a perfect circle in existence, so how can pi exist? You cannot have a perfect circle because if you look at what you thought was one at a small enough scale you will find imperfections, even if you drew a circle with pixels of the planck length. If you could go smaller than this, you can't, then you'd be chasing infinity.

But let's look at the value of pi 3.14159 ...

A value that needs to be calculated to infinite precision otherwise it's not actually pi. But let's just take the most significant digit 3.

3 is also a concept, like all other integers. It is humans that are deciding that there can be one of something. I could show you an apple, but it would be you deciding that it's one apple. I could just as easily argue that it's not an apple at all but a small part of a tree or an even smaller part of an ecosystem. This is because nothing in this universe exists in isolation. Everything is part of a larger environment. But it's more convenient to ask for an apple than a small part of a tree so we use labels.

The concept of zero hasn't always existed and zero is considered a number. Like all Maths it was invented because there was a need for it. Like imaginary numbers for example, or Einstein tensors. There are different branches of Mathematics and new Maths is still being invented today. And sometimes arbitrary decisions have needed to be made to get the system to work. For example, what is the value of zero to the power of zero?

Theists talk about logic existing without the presence of humans but they don't say which form of logic. Do they mean first order predicate calculus? Propositional logic? Syllogistic logic? Modal logic? Computational logic?

It may be difficult for theists to understand because they tend to suffer from binary religious thinking, but true and false are also concepts. Not all forms of logic even use these concepts, e.g. fuzzy logic. If something being singular and integer values are only human concepts then there cannot be an absolute true or false value. Show me something that is absolutely true or false and I will point out where human made concepts relying on those values are being used.

The word "Apple"  wouldn't exist were it not for humans. It's part of a greater language. Maths and logic are also languages used to describe things and to reason about them.

You do realize, don't  you, that you are arguing against the intelligibility of reality and the efficacy of reason? Would the principle of noncontradiction be true even if no sentient being existed to express it symbolically?

You do realize you are pointing to a logical inconsistency arising in the way we use language to describe the world, and then throwing up your hands and asking what else could account for that apart from something 'supernatural'?

[SteveII]

But there is nothing that the scientific method cannot ultimately explain given sufficient resources, except perhaps what happened before the Big Bang.


All explainable by science.

Numbers, Maths and logic are human inventions used to describe reality. Without humans they would not exist.

Ethics are a product of society and evolved instincts.

Human consciousness is a product of the brain.

We don't know that scientific laws cannot be explained using the scientific method.


If it's part of physical reality then it's amenable to the scientific method, otherwise it doesn't actually exist.

Wow. As Neo said, there is a lot wrong with this.

You might want to look up Scientism (which is what you are espousing).

Logical Positivism (or Scientism) is the view that all real knowledge is scientific (empirical) knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. At least three main problems:

1. Scientism is too restrictive a theory of knowledge. If science is the only path to truth, then there are no moral truths, no aesthetic truths, no philosophical truths (like human rights). Mathematics and logic are not scientific--they are presupposed as true *before* science even begins--how does is work that the only path to truth relies on other truths to get off the ground!?!?

2. Further regarding philosophy of science, scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.

3. The claim that positivism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific or empirical methods. That science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. So, it is self-refuting philosophy.

[TheBeardedDude]

Wow. As Neo said, there is a lot wrong with this.

You might want to look up Scientism (which is what you are espousing).

Logical Positivism (or Scientism) is the view that all real knowledge is scientific (empirical) knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. At least three main problems:

1. Scientism is too restrictive a theory of knowledge. If science is the only path to truth, then there are no moral truths, no aesthetic truths, no philosophical truths (like human rights). Mathematics and logic are not scientific--they are presupposed as true *before* science even begins--how does is work that the only path to truth relies on other truths to get off the ground!?!?

2. Further regarding philosophy of science, scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.

3. The claim that positivism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific or empirical methods. That science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. So, it is self-refuting philosophy.

"1. Scientism is too restrictive a theory of knowledge. If science is the only path to truth, then there are no moral truths, no aesthetic truths, no philosophical truths (like human rights). Mathematics and logic are not scientific--they are presupposed as true *before* science even begins--how does is work that the only path to truth relies on other truths to get off the ground!?!?"

Well, there are no moral truths. 

Aesthetics is subjective. 

Philosophy alone can't lead you to truth. 

Math and logic aren't scientific? Do what? Math and logic are tools created by humans, as is science. One uses math and logic in science, no one ever claimed that they alone are "scientific" because that doesn't make any damn sense.

"2. Further regarding philosophy of science, scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle."

You do realize that science isn't alone in accepting these axioms about reality, right? You also rely upon the reality of an objective world external to your own brain. The difference is that the philosophy of science tests whether or not that is true. (hint: it is)

"3. The claim that positivism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific or empirical methods. That science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. So, it is self-refuting philosophy."

Ah, nothing like a good old straw man. 

[The Grand Nudger]

-and the study of what happens in it.  The very moment that the "supernatural" world presents itself in the natural world...as every adherent of every religion insists has happened so very many times...they are no longer separate.

This, assuming, that they're both fields at all, rather than one being the rationalizations for your silly beliefs.

Yeah, the main point being that we are all aware of a natural world.  No one alive knows -except perhaps by faith (whatever that means)- what 'supernatural' means.  That is simply hypothetical for all intents and purposes.  

So science is the study of the empirical world and theology is the study of a system of beliefs with an alleged connection to a hypothetical and entirely undiscoverable separate realm.  That's more than apples and oranges.  That's apples and Smurfs.

We hear alot about the supernatural for something purported to be an undiscoverable.  Most of what we hear are all the ways that it isn't separate at all.  In trying to paint the supernatural assertion and it's insistence that it not be held to any standard in a supportive light you are no longer discussing the supernatural assertion.

You've have begun to discuss apologetics.  A thing that human beings do in the natural world when their supernatural assertions regarding the natural world tank.

Apples to apples.

[Whateverist]

Yeah, the main point being that we are all aware of a natural world.  No one alive knows -except perhaps by faith (whatever that means)- what 'supernatural' means.  That is simply hypothetical for all intents and purposes.  

So science is the study of the empirical world and theology is the study of a system of beliefs with an alleged connection to a hypothetical and entirely undiscoverable separate realm.  That's more than apples and oranges.  That's apples and Smurfs.

We hear alot about the supernatural for something purported to be an undiscoverable.  Most of what we hear are all the ways that it isn't separate at all.  In trying to paint the supernatural assertion and it's insistence that it not be held to any standard in a supportive light you are no longer discussing the supernatural assertion.

You've have begun to discuss apologetics.  A thing that human beings do in the natural world when their supernatural assertions regarding the natural world tank.

Apples to apples.

Yeah.  God only knows what if anything applies to Smurfs.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Logical Positivism (or Scientism) is the view that all real knowledge is scientific (empirical) knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. At least three main problems:

1. Scientism is too restrictive a theory of knowledge. If science is the only path to truth, then there are no moral truths, no aesthetic truths, no philosophical truths (like human rights).

Why do you presuppose that there are any absolute aesthetic truths or moral truths? What does that even mean? You are equivocating. Nor do I know what you mean by philosophical truths and the only example you gave is a moral one. There are things that people generally agree on because of history, the way our society is currently structured and human instinct that has evolved, but not everyone.

Mathematics and logic are not scientific--they are presupposed as true *before* science even begins--how does is work that the only path to truth relies on other truths to get off the ground!?!?

If you read what I said then you will see that I do not presuppose Mathematics and logic as true before science even begins. To me that's like saying that language is true before science even begins. It's a nonsensical statement. You are making a strawman argument here. First accusing me of scientism and in explaining what it is, accusing me of saying something that I am not. So by your definition I am not espousing Scientism.

So let's forget this Scientism nonsense and say which if any of those examples I explained away as being amenable to the scientific method do you disagree with?

2. Further regarding philosophy of science, scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.

Well it's worked so far and it's worked better than any other approach. So the evidence is that yes, the world is an objective world external to the minds of scientists governed by causal regularities and that they can be accurately described. That is up to a point. The jury is still out on quantum mechanics but even so, the fact that there is even a field of quantum mechanics shows that it can be adequately described even if not (yet) properly understood. So your argument about presuppositions invalidating the scientific method either does not apply or does not hold.

The scientific method is a method. It's not a Truth. It's a self correcting evidence based method of investigation. It works. However much you care to argue about the underlying assumptions (using technology developed as a result of the scientific method) does not change the fact that it has proven itself to be useful.

Which is more than can be said of any faith based method.

3. The claim that positivism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific or empirical methods. That science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. So, it is self-refuting philosophy.

No one has said that we can use the scientific method for everything, but the discussion is about determining truth. The only truth is reality. Arguing otherwise is to claim something that is not real is a truth. The scientific method is the best method that we have for investigating and understanding reality. It's not a method for figuring out what we should do, although it can and does help in that regard.

[Neo-Scholastic]

-and the study of what happens in it.  The very moment that the "supernatural" world presents itself in the natural world...as every adherent of every religion insists has happened so very many times...they are no longer separate.

This, assuming, that they're both fields at all, rather than one being the rationalizations for your silly beliefs.

Yeah, the main point being that we are all aware of a natural world.  No one alive knows -except perhaps by faith (whatever that means)- what 'supernatural' means.  That is simply hypothetical for all intents and purposes.  

So science is the study of the empirical world and theology is the study of a system of beliefs with an alleged connection to a hypothetical and entirely undiscoverable separate realm.  That's more than apples and oranges.  That's apples and Smurfs.

---

You do realize, don't  you, that you are arguing against the intelligibility of reality and the efficacy of reason? Would the principle of noncontradiction be true even if no sentient being existed to express it symbolically?

You do realize you are pointing to a logical inconsistency arising in the way we use language to describe the world, and then throwing up your hands and asking what else could account for that apart from something 'supernatural'?

What I am doing is challenging you to accept that either the symbolic expression of the PNC refers to something objectively true about the world or it doesn't. There are inevitable logical consequences to either position.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Yeah.  God only knows what if anything applies to Smurfs.

Anything if you dip them in glue first.

[brewer]

But there is nothing that the scientific method cannot ultimately explain given sufficient resources, except perhaps what happened before the Big Bang.



All explainable by science.

Numbers, Maths and logic are human inventions used to describe reality. Without humans they would not exist.

Ethics are a product of society and evolved instincts.

Human consciousness is a product of the brain.

We don't know that scientific laws cannot be explained using the scientific method.


If it's part of physical reality then it's amenable to the scientific method, otherwise it doesn't actually exist.

Matilda, you are so ignorant and misguided I don't even know where to begin. So I guess if I had to to choose just one example of your idiocy it would be mathematics as a human invention. Are you saying that the value of pi is not an objective fact that is independent of any sentient being's knowledge of it? That strains credulity.

JFC Neo, can't you read? Math (human math) describes the reality, not creates it. 

Tell you what, please describe the significance of pi without math. 

Then tell me the significance of pi without human application.

---

Science is the study of the natural, physical world. Theology deals with the supernatural/spiritual. They are simply 2 seperate fields, not inherently opposing fields.

Except when a supernatural cause is claimed for a natural event/action. Religion has been making these claims for millenia. More frequently than not, in error.