"Science v Religion"

[Gabriel Syme]

[Gabriel Syme]

[ManMachine]

For example I believe in seven literal days in Gen 1; but does it contradict with evolution? No, because if we believe in God we could believe that he was able (and did, according the bible) make beasts, insects, fish and birds without being forced to first make a blob/slime/single cell, etc...

Noooooo...

Science is a tool, not a belief system. One can believe in many things, and still accept science as a method by which we can deepen our understanding of the world around us. Nobody has a belief in science; one can accept the findings of science or not, but doing so does not make one dogmatic toward science, or ascribing to the values of science, because science does not propose any.

Firstly, I am slightly remiss in not pointing out that the word 'science' is so poorly defined in the context of the OP as to be rendered useless.

It seems to encompass so many different things including, technology, scientific method, theory, not to mention all the social constructs that these things inform.

Let's 'brush over' all that and settle on the broad acceptance of 'science' as a generic term for all of it (although this will be problematic if we decide to dig deeper).

Scientific theory is built on two fundamental assumptions;

1. The existence of an objective reality
2. Scientific 'laws' (really there are no such things but again, let's be generous) are invariant in the future

There is no way to prove either of these, they are assumed to be correct, so much so that when challenged most people don't recognise them as assumptions, especially those with a vested interest in 'science'.

I should point out that this does not negate the technology we develop using science as a tool to explore our world. I am just as pleased with my PC as I am with my car and my phone and my CD collection, etc. as I am with improved crop yields and medicine (to name but two). But these things are temporary easements, we are still all subject to the evolutionary forces that will one day extinct our species.

'One can accept the findings of science or not.' Of course, I can accept the findings of science to be reasonable (that is to say I find they can be easily reasoned) but this doesn't negate the fact they require a leap of faith to get over those fundamental assumptions.

A belief in scientific endeavour and theory does not mean I find them unreasonable nor that I reject the technology they give rise to, or that I am being contradictory, far from it.

We can agree to accept reality as objective as a common experience but there is no evidence of it. Equally we fail to recognise that because we observe the world acting in a certain way does not automatically mean the theories we develop into 'laws' are invariant in the future, there is not a scrap of evidence to support this. It is curious that the one principle that underpins so many peoples' scientific belief is ignored when it comes to the two fundamental assumptions scientific theory is built on. That is a contradiction.

We live in a world that is easier to understand if we ignore these assumptions, much like religious people ignore the glaring assumptions that underpin their systems of belief.

I would also add that anyone who believes scientific endeavour is disinterested is sorely mistaken.

Let's use climate change as an on-going example of science imposing values on us. We all know there is a debate raging about how much humanity is causing the change in climate, if at all. We are all probably aware of the IPCC;

"Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects."

I am inclined to believe humanity has affected the climate. For arguments sake let's say this is stone cold fact accepted by everyone. What we do with this information has nothing to do with science, we are not the guardians of this planet and we are not responsible for its upkeep. There is not a shred of scientific evidence to support the proposed solution, it's purely a value judgement built on a moral viewpoint. And yet the IPCC have decided unilaterally to mitigate these effects, this purely unscientific value is forced on us by a scientific committee.

If we make no response this ultimately means the extinction of humanity. This is how evolution works, a perfectly natural process. I find it stunning that a scientific committee should propose a course of action that is not only an unscientific value but is contrary to what scientific evidence tells us about evolution. Furthermore, what the 'scientific' committee is proposing is only designed to perpetuate the conditions optimal for human survival. An unscientific, species-centric value being imposed on us by a scientific committee and it is virtually unchallenged - Astounding!

Don't be blinded by the dream of pure disinterested science, it's a pernitious myth. Now this is begining to sound more and more like another social institution we are all very familiar with...

Science = Religion

Inquisition anyone?


MM

---

That's an interesting comment - how is science a source of moral authority?

Surely science is coldly impassive and tells us nothing of morality, only how things work?

Cheers!
GS

See my above post (the last bit on climate change).

MM

[jstrodel]

Science works irrespective of your "belief"

What science does not give you is surety..... because we live in a changing universe.

---

Ultimately our understanding will improve and destroy our previous hypotheses. Science is not bound by dogma.

IF you NEED religion to be a "good " person then you must be a horrible individual to "need" such instruction.

Science is a bunch of people talking about what they believe in complicated language.

[pocaracas]

Science is a bunch of people talking about what they believe in complicated language.

Why do you say things like this?
This only sets you up as a troll and you know what happens to trolls on an online forum, don't you?
Try a bit harder not to troll, next time, ok?

[Something completely different]

[jap23]

[Esquilax]

Okay, i didn't think I had to (EDIT: i.e. refer to an evolutionary article), but here it is then: click here, and this is pretty much what I was taught anyway (I chose the link because it is answering our exact question in every-day language). So I'll put what I said in another way: the extrapolations are based on reasonable evidence- and can be traced back to common ancestors, etc... but IF (note the 'if') God exists, then whatever the extrapolations would give for the 6,000 year mark is the animals that God would have created. Do you see what I'm saying? God would have the created the exact animals that evolution would give for 6,000 years ago.
when you step off a cliff, you know you're going to fall; it's based on heaps of observed evidence. This is like evolution. you might ask the next question- 'where is the ground' (i.e. when did life start?). BUT Whether or not you reach terminal velocity before hit the ground- you know that gravity exists!!!
This is like what I was suggesting- just as we will probably fall when we step off a cliff, creatures (including us) are probably evolving. But just because you didn't reach terminal velocity doesn't mean that gravity has been disproved! Likewise, just because God started it all 6,000 years ago doesn't mean that he is contradictory with evolution!

Oh, I know what you meant. The problem with it is that we can trace the lineages back further than six thousand years.

Oh, and that evolution works at a much, much longer timescale than thousands of years, that's a problem with your theory too. The differences on animals if the totality of life was created a few thousand years ago would be drops in the bucket, nothing compared to the diversity the actual fossil record shows.

[KichigaiNeko]

Ummm

6000? A LOT of Australian Aboriginals will be a bit upset about THAT assumption.

[jap23]

Oh, I know what you meant. The problem with it is that we can trace the lineages back further than six thousand years.

Oh, and that evolution works at a much, much longer timescale than thousands of years, that's a problem with your theory too. The differences on animals if the totality of life was created a few thousand years ago would be drops in the bucket, nothing compared to the diversity the actual fossil record shows.

Oh, it appears that I didn't acknowledge that there wouldn't be much difference... I had it in a previous draft!! Oh well, yes, I realise that. I don't see why these were problems? (other than the fossils, carbon dating etc.- but I'll get to that)- that's why I specially used the analogy of terminal velocity, we know that something can be capable of reaching a point, but that's only IF it was permitted to.

So, fossils, carbon dating, and aborigines: It also appears that there may have been a creation before this one, if you look at the creation account, we see that there was already water, there was already earth underneath, etc. (I said it in my previous post). There's more biblical evidence than this, but that also comes with a lot of explaining- so I'll just leave it out.
Carbon 14 dating also supports this- and provides some harmony between ancient finds and the idea of a pre-creation; as I believe that Carbon 14 decay is generally not affected by external influences? That's why I said in my original post that science can help us to understand God (or lead us to an alternative truth- which can only be good for us to make the most of our lives). I guess they would have had a different plan, a different means of redemption etc. but we just aren't told much about it- but that's probably how the angels came about. (keep in mind, angel's were often mistaken for men!)