Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Does it matter?

Boru

[ignoramus]

Absolutely. It just makes them scientists with active imaginations.

[chimp3]

Does it matter?

Boru

Of course. The topic is religion vs. science. Not religious people vs. scientific people.

[SteveII]

It's a false dichotomy. It is not one or the other. Nothing incoherent about both being true.

When you cite specific religions beliefs, it could be that those specific beliefs are wrong. To apply specific beliefs to the whole concept of religion and then to say it is incompatible is a fallacy of composition.

[I_am_not_mafia]

They usually posit some version of Gould's NOMA. Not that I can see how it really helps.

Just googled it. Gould's just gone down massively in my estimation.

[Little Rik]

A question just popped in my head, that I think is worth sharing.

I was telling somebody today that horoscopes and astrology make no sense. (And that's why astrology (myths) and astronomy (actual science) were separated way back when - "Evidence: Wikipedia Astronomy and Astrology")

This question goes especially to any religious scientist here.

Question is: If science and religion supposedly didn't oppose each other, then why was science separated from religion?

Two teams playing thinking that they and only they will be the winner but the result will always be 0 to 0.
None of them can win.

None of them can reach a positive result.
Simple.

Religions are based on invented stories so it is obvious that these stories sooner or later will have to be exposed and unmasked and therefore religions will getting nowhere.

Science on the other hand give the false impression that she is winning to be proven wrong time after time.
Thousand and thousand of years ago those who discovered the fire thought that they find the real McCoy
only to be found wrong once some other source of energy was discovered.

Today fools think in the same way.
Science here science there but diseases and all sort of problems pop up day after day with no end in sight.

There is no permanent solution to material-physical problems.
That is why also science can not win.

The winning team is elsewhere guys but that will be a future challenge for fools that think that science can be the winner.  

[I_am_not_mafia]

It's a false dichotomy. It is not one or the other. Nothing incoherent about both being true.

If you are wanting to investigate, describe and explain something about reality that you don't already know and then make use of what you discover, then only an evidence based approach works. A faith based approach does not work. So no, they can't both be true. This is because there are an infinite ideas that you can have faith in with no ability to discern which is the correct one unless you use evidence.

You can argue that you can have some evidence and some faith but the faith does not achieve anything other than to make you feel like you are more correct. Unless you have the evidence you can't know that.

[SteveII]

It's a false dichotomy. It is not one or the other. Nothing incoherent about both being true.

If you are wanting to investigate, describe and explain something about reality that you don't already know and then make use of what you discover, then only an evidence based approach works. A faith based approach does not work. So no, they can't both be true. This is because there are an infinite ideas that you can have faith in with no ability to discern which is the correct one unless you use evidence.

You can argue that you can have some evidence and some faith but the faith does not achieve anything other than to make you feel like you are more correct. Unless you have the evidence you can't know that.

Science cannot "investigate, describe and explain" everything about reality. There are realities beyond what we can scientifically explain: numbers and math, logic, ethics, aesthetics, human consciousness, scientific laws (ironically governing the science that is trying to explain everything) and metaphysical truths.

So, in the areas where science can help, sure, science is king. The problem is not understanding its limits--that is cannot comment on vast stretches of human knowledge.

[Neo-Scholastic]

[I_am_not_mafia]

Science cannot "investigate, describe and explain" everything about reality. 

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

There are realities beyond what we can scientifically explain: numbers and math, logic, ethics, aesthetics, human consciousness, scientific laws (ironically governing the science that is trying to explain everything)

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.

and metaphysical truths.

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