Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[Alex K]

That's a meaningless statement.

Certainly not because the words don't have meaning. Why?

Yes, "natural order" is not defined.

[SteveII]

No, I said that the belief should be discarded if it was in conflict with a scientific fact.

Right....so, when we discuss the supernatural we...

A supernatural cause is not in conflict with scientific fact.

...create an exemption in favor of our beliefs? 

I am sorry if you did not anticipate this and took my three sentences to be the sum total of all thoughts on the matter.

How much good has all the posturing done you?  What's been accomplished?

No posturing. Correcting. There is no end to the stupid mis-characterizations of science and religion on this forum and this one interested me for a few moments.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, I'm sure, but what does that have to do with the inconsistent propositions you've offered, that you just quoted me in regards to, again?

[madog]

You've discarded your exortation that we discard contradictory narratives.  Instead, you've manufactured an exemption in favor of your beliefs.

You're certainly free to do so.  There's simply no sense in pretending that we should, and implying that you -have-, discarded contradictory narratives when the very next thing you grace us with is an example of precisely how you -didn't-.

I'm sorry this is out of order from my last post to you. 

No, I said that the belief should be discarded if it was in conflict with a scientific fact. A supernatural cause is not in conflict with scientific fact. I am sorry if you did not anticipate this and took my three sentences to be the sum total of all thoughts on the matter.

As I have explained, made up stuff is not in conflict with science, its fiction .... When you claim made up stuff is fact, it is then in conflict with science. Again science isn't in conflict with with myths and Woo it doesn't even recognize it.

If any one wants to offer myths and woo as fact its for the claimant to offer empirical evidence before its even considered .... there is zero proof for any supernatural event .... deal with that first 

[SteveII]

I'm sorry this is out of order from my last post to you. 

No, I said that the belief should be discarded if it was in conflict with a scientific fact. A supernatural cause is not in conflict with scientific fact. I am sorry if you did not anticipate this and took my three sentences to be the sum total of all thoughts on the matter.

As I have explained, made up stuff is not in conflict with science, its fiction .... When you claim made up stuff is fact, it is then in conflict with science. Again science isn't in conflict with with myths and Woo it doesn't even recognize it.

If any one wants to offer myths and woo as fact its for the claimant to offer empirical evidence before its even considered .... there is zero proof for any supernatural event .... deal with that first 

For the last time, evidence is not what is being discussed. Philosophy is the topic. Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Religion.

[madog]

Are you being serious?  Are you saying science can't scientifically prove that birth, at our present evolutionary stage, can't produce the birth of a human child without sperm? or that a man dead for three days can't rise and come alive?

I would say that it would be stretching it to say that science, can "prove" any such thing.  

I am curious.... are you claiming that which is non-living, cannot become alive?

Don't start again with your reading what you want into what I say to turn it into something you think you have an argument for 

And note I was clear "at our present evolutionary stage" " produce the birth of a human child without sperm"

[Homeless Nutter]

That is not a conclusion you can make because you are comparing apples and oranges. Even if you don't believe religion is true, it certainly has had an effect and purpose over the millennia. 

Apples and oranges? In terms of effectiveness - sure (although it's more like apples and goat-sh*t, really). But when it comes to claims and promises - religion has been making all sorts of those, most of which it never delivered on, retracting them, as science progressed, and started solving problems spiritualist frauds were obviously incapable of dealing with.

Religions used to - and many still do - promise to explain our origin, history, inner workings of human mind and body. Did they? Did they f*ck... Everything we reliably know about those things comes from scientific pursuit, not religious dogma.

Religion promised, that sacrifice, prayer and following dumb and arbitrary religious rules could bring wealth, safety, health and peace. Does it? Does it f*ck... Science, technology, modern medicine, social care and education offer solutions to famine, natural disasters, disease and war.

Religion promised to make people more moral and enlightened. Did it? Did it f*ck... Again - that would be education and higher standards of living, afforded by science and technology, which allows us to have modern, tolerant, multicultural society.

And so on. Religion has now been reduced to basically a hobby, for people who want to believe in magic, while reaping the rewards of rationality. Which is fine - just as long as you keep it in church and don't pretend you're doing anything useful. And f*cking tax it already. All other recreational activities are taxed.

What contradictions are there between science and religion? [...]

Are you even serious? At the very core, science is based on an assumption, that there isn't an omnipotent being, that can bend the laws of physics according to its whim. If there was a god - you could NEVER be certain, that he did not affect any experiment, or measurement. Or do you have some kind of magic spell, a "God, please stay the f*ck away from this beaker, Amen" prayer?

If it's possible for someone, or something to bring a decomposing human corpse back to life, or miraculously cure physical ailments - pretty much everything we know about biology and medicine is bullsh*t. If it's possible for supernatural entities to "possess" humans - psychology and psychiatry aren't worth sh*t. If water can turn into wine, if wine can turn into blood - then chemistry goes out the window. If donkeys can talk... I think (hope?) you get the point.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing can impugn a supernatural claim, apparently.

[madog]

As I have explained, made up stuff is not in conflict with science, its fiction .... When you claim made up stuff is fact, it is then in conflict with science. Again science isn't in conflict with with myths and Woo it doesn't even recognize it.

If any one wants to offer myths and woo as fact its for the claimant to offer empirical evidence before its even considered .... there is zero proof for any supernatural event .... deal with that first 

For the last time, evidence is not what is being discussed. Philosophy is the topic. Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Religion.

Look at the thread title again ... "Scientists"  .... "Preachers"  .... stop tap dancing 

[SteveII]

Oh, I'm sure, but what does that have to do with the inconsistent propositions you've offered, that you just quoted me in regards to, again?

I will clarify since this has become disjointed.

1. If a religious belief conflicts with a scientific fact, it should be discarded. Scientific fact can disprove a religious claim if the religious claim is making statements about the natural world--how the world is. (for example: world is center of the universe, sickness is a judgement from God, the earth is 6000 years old, and other traditional god-of-the-gaps beliefs that have been dismissed). 
2. Scientific facts have no bearing on the possibility of supernatural causes because claims of supernatural causes do not make claims about the natural world. In fact, when weighing whether a supernatural event happened, we rely on science to tell us if a natural cause is possible/probable.