Science and Religion

[Tortino]

I think one of the biggest myths is that religion / Theism is at odds with science. That is, the more we discover, the more it "buries" God.
This post typically looks at how "naïve" ancient religious were and that they did not have an understanding of the world, and the more we discover the world, it highlights how ignorant people were back then.

Science and religion answer DIFFERENT questions and attempt to gain different knowledge about the world.

Let me use an analogy.

Suppose we are in the late 17th century (the year the first motor vehicle) was built.

Lets suppose you are walking down a country track by yourself and you see this motor vehicle parked and their is no one around it. Lets also assume, you don't know what you are seeing, you never knew anything about a motor vehicle, you don't know its purpose. Basically, you see a chunk of metal in front of you.

You go up to it and look with amazement, you kick the wheel softly and you go inside and you think "what is this"?. Then slowly, slowly you turn the steering wheel and you realise the wheel turns etc etc. You turn on the engine etc etc and you begin to realise that this is a transporter. It transports you from location to location. It has a purpose. You are happy, ecstatic. You look around you and their is no one around The designer is not around, no one. No one knew anything about it. Days go past and you realise this is the best thing. You are happy. It is taking you from place to place. What a difference it has made to your life. Logically, it is reasonable to expect that this thing Is designed with the intent of transporting you. All at the same time, you are IGNORANT of the mechanics of how the thing works, ie, mechanics, combustion etc etc. You have no idea how it works. However, everyday, you are praising everyday in your mind the creator of this great machinery. "What a great designer, how smart is he etc etc". This person in my example is like the Theist. Based on what he sees, he is reasonable to conclude that this piece of machinery is designed, even though he has never seen the designer, never had any "a priori' knowledge of cars etc etc.

Now, as time goes along, other people see this car and they investigate it, observe it, test it and find out how it works. In my example, this is like scientists. They are working out how things work, gaining knowledge etc etc.

Now, aren't BOTH parties correct and rational? The person who found the car, even though he was ignorant on how it worked, he just praised the designer he never saw and basically said "someone did this".....and the mechanics who figured out how it works? Aren't BOTH views correct?

Science is the study of the natural world, how things work, ie, thunder, lightning, weather, oceans etc etc etc. Theology is the study of the designer ete etc.

I don't see the conflict. They both attempt to answer different questions and attempt to gain different knowledge.

[max-greece]

In your example both are correct but lets look at another example:



This is the Giants causeway. Your hapless discoverer finds it and it amazed. He then goes off and is told of the legend of the causeway:

---

"Irish Giant, Finn MacCool, whose most fearsome enemies were the Scottish giants. Finn was so angry, and determined to get at them, that he built a whole causeway from Ulster across the sea to Scotland. He built it of unusual six-sided cobblestones, so they would fit neatly together like a honeycomb, and they made a very pretty pavement indeed!

One day he shouted a challenge to the Scottish giant Benandonner, The Red Man, to cross the causeway and fight him. But as soon as he saw the Scot getting closer and closer on the causeway, he realised Benandonner was much, much bigger than he had imagined! Finn skidaddled back home to the Fort-of-Allen in County Kildare, and told his wife he’d picked a fight but had thought better of it now.

Finn heard the stamping feet of Benandonner from Kilcock, and when those feet got to Robertstown, Finn had to stuff five pounds of moss into each ear. Red Man’s spear was as tall and thick as a Round-Tower, and he used it to knock on the door of the Fort-of-Allen. Finn would not answer the door, so his wife shoved him in the great bath with a couple of sheets over him.

Finn’s wife, Oonagh, thought quickly. She opened the door to Benandonner saying,
“Sure it’s a pity but Finn is away hunting deer in County Kerry. Would you like to come in anyway and wait? I’ll show you into the Great Hall to sit down after your journey.”
Oonagh invited Red Man to look around the room, and showed him what she said were some of Finn’s possessions.

“Would you like to put your spear down? Just there next to Finn’s” - It was a huge fir tree with a pointed stone at the top.
“Over there is Finn’s shield.” - It was a block of building-oak as big as four chariot-wheels.
“Finn’s late for his meal. Will you eat it if I cook his favourite?”

Oonagh cooked a cake of griddle-bread – baked with the iron griddle pressed inside it. Red Man bit it hungrily, and broke three front teeth. The meat was a strip of hard fat nailed to a block of red timber; two back teeth cracked. He was given a five-gallon bucket of honey-beer to drink.
“Would you like to say hello to the baby? Wait! - I’ll have to feed her first!”

Oonagh threw a loaf of bread to the huge baby in the bath-cradle and, peeping out from a huge sheet-like dress and bonnet was Finn MacCool himself, contentedly sucking his thumb. Benandonner said he wasn’t much good with babies. The honey-beer made him feel woozy, and he asked to go outside to clear his head.

Oonagh showed Red Man out, where the gardens were scattered about with boulders as tall as the giant.
“Finn and his friends play catch with these rocks. Finn practises by throwing one over the Fort, then running round to catch it before it falls.”

Of course Red Man tried, but it was so heavy he could only just lift it above his head before dropping it. The blow only ricked his neck - luckily the Scotsman’s head was very hard. But it was also full of good sense. He thanked Oonagh for her hospitality and said he would wait no longer, but return to Scotland before the tide came in.

Finn leapt from the cradle, thanked Oonagh for her shrewdness, and chased Benandonner out of Ireland. Passing Portadown, County Antrim, Finn scooped a huge clod of earth out of the ground to fling at the retreating Scot. The hole filled up with water and became the biggest Lough in Ireland – Lough Neagh! The clod he flung missed its target and landed in the middle of the Irish Sea – it became The Isle of Man!!

And both giants tore up the Giant’s Causeway, just leaving the ragged ends at the two shores! And if you go to the North coast of Ulster, or to Staffa, the nearest isle of Scotland, you may visit them today – the ends of the beautiful causeway that is, not the giants – those giants are long since in their graves!"

---

Then scientists come along and explain the causeway but your guy won't accept it because it conflicts with his story.

[paulpablo]

I think one of the biggest myths is that religion / Theism is at odds with science. That is, the more we discover, the more it "buries" God.
This post typically looks at how "naïve" ancient religious were and that they did not have an understanding of the world, and the more we discover the world, it highlights how ignorant people were back then.

Science and religion answer DIFFERENT questions and attempt to gain different knowledge about the world.

Let me use an analogy.

Suppose we are in the late 17th century (the year the first motor vehicle) was built.

Lets suppose you are walking down a country track by yourself and you see this motor vehicle parked and their is no one around it. Lets also assume, you don't know what you are seeing, you never knew anything about a motor vehicle, you don't know its purpose. Basically, you see a chunk of metal in front of you.

You go up to it and look with amazement, you kick the wheel softly and you go inside and you think "what is this"?. Then slowly, slowly you turn the steering wheel and you realise the wheel turns etc etc. You turn on the engine etc etc and you begin to realise that this is a transporter. It transports you from location to location. It has a purpose. You are happy, ecstatic. You look around you and their is no one around The designer is not around, no one. No one knew anything about it. Days go past and you realise this is the best thing. You are happy. It is taking you from place to place. What a difference it has made to your life. Logically, it is reasonable to expect that this thing Is designed with the intent of transporting you. All at the same time, you are IGNORANT of the mechanics of how the thing works, ie, mechanics, combustion etc etc. You have no idea how it works. However, everyday, you are praising everyday in your mind the creator of this great machinery. "What a great designer, how smart is he etc etc". This person in my example is like the Theist. Based on what he sees, he is reasonable to conclude that this piece of machinery is designed, even though he has never seen the designer, never had any "a priori' knowledge of cars etc etc.

Now, as time goes along, other people see this car and they investigate it, observe it, test it and find out how it works. In my example, this is like scientists. They are working out how things work, gaining knowledge etc etc.

Now, aren't BOTH parties correct and rational? The person who found the car, even though he was ignorant on how it worked, he just praised the designer he never saw and basically said "someone did this".....and the mechanics who figured out how it works? Aren't BOTH views correct?

Science is the study of the natural world, how things work, ie, thunder, lightning, weather, oceans etc etc etc. Theology is the study of the designer ete etc.

I don't see the conflict. They both attempt to answer different questions and attempt to gain different knowledge.

There definitely is conflict you would have to be blind to not see it.

Lets continue to use your analogy, now imagine the man who found the car insisted the steering wheel was made in a certain way in a certain factory and anyone who said he was wrong was going to be punished in excruciating pain forever.

The people investigating the car actually find out the man was wrong and it wasn't made in the way he thought or in the place he thought, but the first man who found the car still insists the investigators are wrong.

[Tortino]

In your example both are correct but lets look at another example:



This is the Giants causeway. Your hapless discoverer finds it and it amazed. He then goes off and is told of the legend of the causeway:

---

"Irish Giant, Finn MacCool, whose most fearsome enemies were the Scottish giants. Finn was so angry, and determined to get at them, that he built a whole causeway from Ulster across the sea to Scotland. He built it of unusual six-sided cobblestones, so they would fit neatly together like a honeycomb, and they made a very pretty pavement indeed!

One day he shouted a challenge to the Scottish giant Benandonner, The Red Man, to cross the causeway and fight him. But as soon as he saw the Scot getting closer and closer on the causeway, he realised Benandonner was much, much bigger than he had imagined! Finn skidaddled back home to the Fort-of-Allen in County Kildare, and told his wife he’d picked a fight but had thought better of it now.

Finn heard the stamping feet of Benandonner from Kilcock, and when those feet got to Robertstown, Finn had to stuff five pounds of moss into each ear. Red Man’s spear was as tall and thick as a Round-Tower, and he used it to knock on the door of the Fort-of-Allen. Finn would not answer the door, so his wife shoved him in the great bath with a couple of sheets over him.

Finn’s wife, Oonagh, thought quickly. She opened the door to Benandonner saying,
“Sure it’s a pity but Finn is away hunting deer in County Kerry. Would you like to come in anyway and wait? I’ll show you into the Great Hall to sit down after your journey.”
Oonagh invited Red Man to look around the room, and showed him what she said were some of Finn’s possessions.

“Would you like to put your spear down? Just there next to Finn’s” - It was a huge fir tree with a pointed stone at the top.
“Over there is Finn’s shield.” - It was a block of building-oak as big as four chariot-wheels.
“Finn’s late for his meal. Will you eat it if I cook his favourite?”

Oonagh cooked a cake of griddle-bread – baked with the iron griddle pressed inside it. Red Man bit it hungrily, and broke three front teeth. The meat was a strip of hard fat nailed to a block of red timber; two back teeth cracked. He was given a five-gallon bucket of honey-beer to drink.
“Would you like to say hello to the baby? Wait! - I’ll have to feed her first!”

Oonagh threw a loaf of bread to the huge baby in the bath-cradle and, peeping out from a huge sheet-like dress and bonnet was Finn MacCool himself, contentedly sucking his thumb. Benandonner said he wasn’t much good with babies. The honey-beer made him feel woozy, and he asked to go outside to clear his head.

Oonagh showed Red Man out, where the gardens were scattered about with boulders as tall as the giant.
“Finn and his friends play catch with these rocks. Finn practises by throwing one over the Fort, then running round to catch it before it falls.”

Of course Red Man tried, but it was so heavy he could only just lift it above his head before dropping it. The blow only ricked his neck - luckily the Scotsman’s head was very hard. But it was also full of good sense. He thanked Oonagh for her hospitality and said he would wait no longer, but return to Scotland before the tide came in.

Finn leapt from the cradle, thanked Oonagh for her shrewdness, and chased Benandonner out of Ireland. Passing Portadown, County Antrim, Finn scooped a huge clod of earth out of the ground to fling at the retreating Scot. The hole filled up with water and became the biggest Lough in Ireland – Lough Neagh! The clod he flung missed its target and landed in the middle of the Irish Sea – it became The Isle of Man!!

And both giants tore up the Giant’s Causeway, just leaving the ragged ends at the two shores! And if you go to the North coast of Ulster, or to Staffa, the nearest isle of Scotland, you may visit them today – the ends of the beautiful causeway that is, not the giants – those giants are long since in their graves!"

---

Then scientists come along and explain the causeway but your guy won't accept it because it conflicts with his story.

Sure, but can you really compare that to the extreme complexity of a single human cell? Let alone the human body?

[max-greece]

We are discussing why religion and science are actually at odds.

What has "Sure, but can you really compare that to the extreme complexity of a single human cell? Let alone the human body?" got to do with it?

[Tortino]

I think one of the biggest myths is that religion / Theism is at odds with science. That is, the more we discover, the more it "buries" God.
This post typically looks at how "naïve" ancient religious were and that they did not have an understanding of the world, and the more we discover the world, it highlights how ignorant people were back then.

Science and religion answer DIFFERENT questions and attempt to gain different knowledge about the world.

Let me use an analogy.

Suppose we are in the late 17th century (the year the first motor vehicle) was built.

Lets suppose you are walking down a country track by yourself and you see this motor vehicle parked and their is no one around it. Lets also assume, you don't know what you are seeing, you never knew anything about a motor vehicle, you don't know its purpose. Basically, you see a chunk of metal in front of you.

You go up to it and look with amazement, you kick the wheel softly and you go inside and you think "what is this"?. Then slowly, slowly you turn the steering wheel and you realise the wheel turns etc etc. You turn on the engine etc etc and you begin to realise that this is a transporter. It transports you from location to location. It has a purpose. You are happy, ecstatic. You look around you and their is no one around The designer is not around, no one. No one knew anything about it. Days go past and you realise this is the best thing. You are happy. It is taking you from place to place. What a difference it has made to your life. Logically, it is reasonable to expect that this thing Is designed with the intent of transporting you. All at the same time, you are IGNORANT of the mechanics of how the thing works, ie, mechanics, combustion etc etc. You have no idea how it works. However, everyday, you are praising everyday in your mind the creator of this great machinery. "What a great designer, how smart is he etc etc". This person in my example is like the Theist. Based on what he sees, he is reasonable to conclude that this piece of machinery is designed, even though he has never seen the designer, never had any "a priori' knowledge of cars etc etc.

Now, as time goes along, other people see this car and they investigate it, observe it, test it and find out how it works. In my example, this is like scientists. They are working out how things work, gaining knowledge etc etc.

Now, aren't BOTH parties correct and rational? The person who found the car, even though he was ignorant on how it worked, he just praised the designer he never saw and basically said "someone did this".....and the mechanics who figured out how it works? Aren't BOTH views correct?

Science is the study of the natural world, how things work, ie, thunder, lightning, weather, oceans etc etc etc. Theology is the study of the designer ete etc.

I don't see the conflict. They both attempt to answer different questions and attempt to gain different knowledge.

There definitely is conflict you would have to be blind to not see it.

Lets continue to use your analogy, now imagine the man who found the car insisted the steering wheel was made in a certain way in a certain factory and anyone who said he was wrong was going to be punished in excruciating pain forever.

I am not sure how this is relevant to my argument.

The people investigating the car actually find out the man was wrong and it wasn't made in the way he thought or in the place he thought, but the first man who found the car still insists the investigators are wrong.

This becomes a different question. Not a question of was it designed? As you notice in my analogy, he has never seen a car before, never had any concept on one...So how can he think it would be different if he never had any concept on one?

---

We are discussing why religion and science are actually at odds.

What has "Sure, but can you really compare that to the extreme complexity of a single human cell? Let alone the human body?" got to do with it?

Would you agree that as a general rule of thumb, the more complex something appears, the more likely it is designed?

Compare that rock formation you showed to if you saw written on the beach "I love you sandy"?

[Bad Writer]

Your analogy falls flat, as the others have pointed out, because driving a car invented by demonstrable designers in no way compares to how someone interacts with religion.

---

By the way, the first motor vehicle was built two whole centuries following the 17th century.

[Tortino]

Your analogy falls flat, as the others have pointed out, because driving a car invented by demonstrable designers in no way compares to how someone interacts with religion.

What? If you had read it properly, you would realise that the person saw a "chunk of metal" and had no "a-priori" knowledge of what it was.

The person based on his logic concluded the car was designed, but was completely ignorant as to how the car works mechanically. He praised the designer.

Then as time went, people found out how the car worked, ie, combustion etc etc.

People don't say, "well, we now know how the car works mechanically, you are an idiot for thinking it was designed".

This is a classic example of the 2 parties talking past each other.

[Brian37]

There definitely is conflict you would have to be blind to not see it.

Lets continue to use your analogy, now imagine the man who found the car insisted the steering wheel was made in a certain way in a certain factory and anyone who said he was wrong was going to be punished in excruciating pain forever.

I am not sure how this is relevant to my argument.

The people investigating the car actually find out the man was wrong and it wasn't made in the way he thought or in the place he thought, but the first man who found the car still insists the investigators are wrong.

This becomes a different question. Not a question of was it designed? As you notice in my analogy, he has never seen a car before, never had any concept on one...So how can he think it would be different if he never had any concept on one?

---

We are discussing why religion and science are actually at odds.

What has "Sure, but can you really compare that to the extreme complexity of a single human cell? Let alone the human body?" got to do with it?

Would you agree that as a general rule of thumb, the more complex something appears, the more likely it is designed?

Compare that rock formation you showed to if you saw written on the beach "I love you sandy"?

No. Compared to a hurricane, a single cloud is less complex, a hurricane is more complex, but you are not stupid enough to think the ocean god Posiden exists and caused that complex hurricane because of the complexity of a hurricane.

If you can accept that Thor does not make lightening, surely you can see the absurdity of your own pet god claim.

"I love you Sandy" wow, ok what if the rocks said "FUCK YOU"

See you focus on the "pretty things" ignoring the nasty shit in nature. Childhood cancer(cancer is complex). Ecoli(complex bacteria).

Why do cockroaches outnumber humans? Why do eagles have better eyesight than humans? Why do men have nipples?

You do know that a giraffe has a useless nerve that goes from one ear, all the way down the neck, then back up to the other ear. Isn't the fastest path a straight line?

Oh and my personal fave comes from Christopher Hitchens on the issue of "design ". "He put an entertainment system(our sex organs) in the middle of a sewage system".

Not to mention in his perfect "design" we breath and eat through the same tube which means we can choke to death if our breathing tube gets blocked. Yet dolphins and whales don't have that problem.

[max-greece]

You seem to now want to discuss something outside of your original post.

Originally you asked why religion and science were perceived to be at odds. Now you are pushing design.

And that is why religion and science are at odds.

""Would you agree that as a general rule of thumb, the more complex something appears, the more likely it is designed?"

No. All the most complex things we see are living life-forms and they show no signs of design.