Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Edwardo Piet]

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

Because it's unscientific bullshit.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

What I am reading sounds to me like question begging on a massive scale. The statements "People use mathematics to describe reality" and "Mathematical objects are not real" are incompatible statements.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, they're not, lol.

[Whateverist]

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

What I am reading sounds to me like question begging on a massive scale. The statements "People use mathematics to describe reality" and "Mathematical objects are not real" are incompatible statements.

Maybe they're real human constructs that map to the empirical world real well.  Those don't seem like mutually exclusive choices.

[SteveII]

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.

Why do you insert "absolute" into your sentence. That is not required. Science cannot tell us that it is wrong to randomly kill, that people should not be enslaved, or that a majestic mountainscape is more beautiful than a dump. These are truths that have been arrived at some other way.

Examples of philosophical truths? Language conveys meaning, questions of epistemology, what is freedom, what does it mean to be a person, are experiences real.

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?

Now you are pivoting away from "But there is nothing that the scientific method cannot ultimately explain given sufficient resources, except perhaps what happened before the Big Bang." and your statement that all the other categories of knowledge are "All explainable by science." --neither of which is true.

Language is necessary as a precondition for science (it certainly not discoverable through science). Otherwise you would not be able to store any truths as you move through the process. Math and logic are likewise presupposed by science (they are not discovered by any science): “If p implies q, and p, then q” or “1 + 1 = 2” are to all appearances necessary truths (could not have been otherwise). 

It would be good to forget scientism. It is an untenable position. As far the list of things I mentioned and your responses:

Numbers, Maths and logic are human inventions used to describe reality. Without humans they would not exist.
No, they are not. They would exist regardless of if humans came around. They were discovered, not invented.

Ethics are a product of society and evolved instincts.

Science did not aid in their discovery. Reasoning did. Something else discovered, not invented.

Human consciousness is a product of the brain.

Did we discover what the meaning of "I" is through science? Nope.

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

The laws require a foundation all addressed in some philosophy of science--not itself a scientific truth (next section)

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.

I am not arguing that there is anything wrong with the scientific method--only that it has it limits to questions that science can answer. To apply it outside the realm of science or to say that only science can give us truths is a mistake. 

You seem to think that faith and science are somehow incompatible. That is not necessarily the case. Both can provide truths in their respective spheres. Misapplying either leads to mistakes and confusion. 

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.

You are almost there. The scientific method is not the only way to investigate reality. It works in matters pertaining to the natural world. Reality consists of more than the natural world. 

Listen, most of this is probably a combination of imprecise language and a little bit of misunderstanding of what science is and is not. I enjoyed the discussion and if you want to zero in on something and keep going, that's fine with me.

[causal code]

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?

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.

Like the bible (and many holy texts), your sentence above is self-contradictory.
You ironically stated exactly why they oppose.

Okay, if they are supposedly not inherently opposite, where does science apply in the supposedly existent supernatural/spiritual world, and where does theology produce science?

[chimp3]

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.

If theology is the "study' of the supernatural/spiritual, then what has been discovered about the supernatural/spiritual in the last 500 years? Anything that is not simply repeating what someone claimed 2000 years ago?

Can a Catholic theologian dispute with any certainty the validity of Joseph Smith's claims about Mormonism?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Science cannot tell us that it is wrong to randomly kill, that people should not be enslaved, or that a majestic mountainscape is more beautiful than a dump. These are truths that have been arrived at some other way.

Why do you call them truths? What exactly is a truth? You're the one claiming that they exist without the presence of humans being required, so what  exactly are they?

Tell me how a truth that people should not be enslaved or that a mountainscape is beautiful could continue to exist if all humans were wiped out tomorrow. How does this truth work? How does it have an effect on the universe? How did it come about?

Like the concept of a god or a soul, it's a form of equivocation, something that people believe exists but don't even know what it could possibly be.

Examples of philosophical truths? Language conveys meaning, questions of epistemology, what is freedom, what does it mean to be a person, are experiences real.

All within the framework of human reasoning. Kill all humans and these 'truths' cease to be.

Language is necessary as a precondition for science (it certainly not discoverable through science). Otherwise you would not be able to store any truths as you move through the process. Math and logic are likewise presupposed by science (they are not discovered by any science): “If p implies q, and p, then q” or “1 + 1 = 2” are to all appearances necessary truths (could not have been otherwise). 

Again, within a framework that humans have created. i.e. Maths and a specific form of logic. Your statement does not exist in all forms of logic. There is even a form of logic where you do not have true or false for example (e,g. fuzzy logic).

Numbers, Maths and logic are human inventions used to describe reality. Without humans they would not exist.
No, they are not. They would exist regardless of if humans came around. They were discovered, not invented.

I can provide you with a paradox where two mutually exclusive statements are simultaneously both true. This would not happen if logic was discovered. If Maths and logic were discovered then why can't we decide if zero is a natural number, or what the result is if you raise it to the power of 1.

How can geometry, a form of Maths, have been discovered if there are no perfect circles, or even shapes, in nature? How can pi have been discovered if it's impossible to completely calculate? It does not exist in nature. How can an imaginary number exist without humans to use it?

You say "They would exist regardless of if humans came around", how would they exist? Explain exactly what form they would exist in without the presence of humans.

Ethics are a product of society and evolved instincts.

Science did not aid in their discovery. Reasoning did. Something else discovered, not invented.

Again explain what an ethic is and how it can have an effect on the universe if there are no humans. Where did it come from? How did it come about? What does it consist of? Where does it get its energy from?

Human consciousness is a product of the brain.

Did we discover what the meaning of "I" is through science? Nope.

Meaningless statement. Meaning is context specific and something needs to assign meaning to something else. Humans apply meaning to things. Meaning does not exist without something intelligent embodied in a specific context for that meaning. You can see this with most forms of artificial intelligence. They may seem intelligent but their inputs have no meaning to them because they are not embodied in the real world.

But we can demonstrate that consciousness is a product of the brain because physical changes to the brain either affect, stop or kill off consciousness, e.g. narcotics, anesthetic, brain damage or neuro-degenerative diseases. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that consciousness continues to exist after death. Nor is there is any example of complex patterns of energy continuing to exist without the use of matter anywhere in nature. So why assume that it happens with the brain?

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

The laws require a foundation all addressed in some philosophy of science--not itself a scientific truth (next section)

Why do they?

You are almost there. The scientific method is not the only way to investigate reality. It works in matters pertaining to the natural world. Reality consists of more than the natural world. 

So you're saying that reality also consists of the unnatural world? How do you define natural? Why can't this 'unnatural reality' be investigated using physical means? If you believe that your god can sense and act within the natural world (if not then your god is not relevant and does not need to be worshiped), or that demons exist, then why should it only work one way? That's special pleading. Why should the beings that you think exist in a 'spiritual' reality be able to sense and act within the natural world but natural things be unable to affect the spirit world?

Listen, most of this is probably a combination of imprecise language and a little bit of misunderstanding of what science is and is not. I enjoyed the discussion and if you want to zero in on something and keep going, that's fine with me.

I agree that much of the problem is that we both have very different usages of the same words, such as what a truth is etc.

[Little Rik]

Wrong again Mat.
Has already been proven that when a brain is destroyed the consciousness live on.
You can't destroy energy and consciousness.
They are the two sides of the same sheet.
NDEs already proved that.  

Provide peer reviewed publication of reproducible, falsifiable evidence obtained using lab conditions published in a reputable journal otherwise admit that you're wrong. Because if what you are saying really was correct and that proof of NDEs had been achieved then the above would be easy to obtain.

Consciousness is easy to destroy.

Let us start from the beginning Mat.

You are the one who said that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
Bring the evidence that what you say is true.
After that we can continue the conversation.
OK?  

And after that please bring also the evidence that.......the consciousness is easy to destroy.  

[SteveII]

Science cannot tell us that it is wrong to randomly kill, that people should not be enslaved, or that a majestic mountainscape is more beautiful than a dump. These are truths that have been arrived at some other way.

Why do you call them truths? What exactly is a truth? You're the one claiming that they exist without the presence of humans being required, so what  exactly are they?

Tell me how a truth that people should not be enslaved or that a mountainscape is beautiful could continue to exist if all humans were wiped out tomorrow. How does this truth work? How does it have an effect on the universe? How did it come about?

Like the concept of a god or a soul, it's a form of equivocation, something that people believe exists but don't even know what it could possibly be.

Truth = in accordance with fact or reality. 

I never said these truths were independent of humans. The only truths I said were independent (necessarily true--as in could not be otherwise) are math and logic. It is obvious that all truth is not scientific. Examples: it is morally wrong to murder someone. It is true that humans are affected by natural beauty. Freedom is better than slavery.

Numbers, Maths and logic are human inventions used to describe reality. Without humans they would not exist.
No, they are not. They would exist regardless of if humans came around. They were discovered, not invented.

I can provide you with a paradox where two mutually exclusive statements are simultaneously both true. This would not happen if logic was discovered. If Maths and logic were discovered then why can't we decide if zero is a natural number, or what the result is if you raise it to the power of 1.

How can geometry, a form of Maths, have been discovered if there are no perfect circles, or even shapes, in nature? How can pi have been discovered if it's impossible to completely calculate? It does not exist in nature. How can an imaginary number exist without humans to use it?

You say "They would exist regardless of if humans came around", how would they exist? Explain exactly what form they would exist in without the presence of humans.

If every human and every human record were erased, every one of the concepts you described would still exist. This is illustrated simply by the fact that if a new species evolved with the ability to reason, it would discover these very same things about reality (numbers, Pi ratios, logic, etc.). 

Ethics are a product of society and evolved instincts.

Science did not aid in their discovery. Reasoning did. Something else discovered, not invented.

Again explain what an ethic is and how it can have an effect on the universe if there are no humans. Where did it come from? How did it come about? What does it consist of? Where does it get its energy from?

Depends on your view. My view is that most ethical truths are intuited. Others say they are reasoned. Either way, they are still ethical truths. It is wrong to murder, lie and steal. Ethics requires humans. 

Human consciousness is a product of the brain.

Did we discover what the meaning of "I" is through science? Nope.

Meaningless statement. Meaning is context specific and something needs to assign meaning to something else. Humans apply meaning to things. Meaning does not exist without something intelligent embodied in a specific context for that meaning. You can see this with most forms of artificial intelligence. They may seem intelligent but their inputs have no meaning to them because they are not embodied in the real world.

But we can demonstrate that consciousness is a product of the brain because physical changes to the brain either affect, stop or kill off consciousness, e.g. narcotics, anesthetic, brain damage or neuro-degenerative diseases. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that consciousness continues to exist after death. Nor is there is any example of complex patterns of energy continuing to exist without the use of matter anywhere in nature. So why assume that it happens with the brain?

The first paragraph is all about philosophy. Science cannot provide meaning to anything! It only describes. 

It is a fact that the physical brain is not the same thing as consciousness. Consciousness is an epiphenomenon. 

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

The laws require a foundation all addressed in some philosophy of science--not itself a scientific truth (next section)

Why do they?

The goal of philosophy of science is not to answer scientific questions, but to answer questions about science. This means philosophers of science have spent a good bit of time trying to find the line between science and non-science, trying to figure out the logic with which scientific claims are grounded, working to understand the relation between theory and empirical data, and working out the common thread that unites many disparate scientific fields  (from this link)

You are almost there. The scientific method is not the only way to investigate reality. It works in matters pertaining to the natural world. Reality consists of more than the natural world. 

So you're saying that reality also consists of the unnatural world? How do you define natural? Why can't this 'unnatural reality' be investigated using physical means? If you believe that your god can sense and act within the natural world (if not then your god is not relevant and does not need to be worshiped), or that demons exist, then why should it only work one way? That's special pleading. Why should the beings that you think exist in a 'spiritual' reality be able to sense and act within the natural world but natural things be unable to affect the spirit world?  

The natural world is any physical thing that exists that is subject to our laws of nature. I believe that natural events can have supernatural causes (definition of a miracle). Science is by definition the study of the natural world. Supernatural causes are outside it's ability to investigate or comment on. It can examine the effect--just not the cause. That is not special pleading. You are attempting to apply science beyond its definition. Why would you say that natural things do not affect the supernatural world? How do you know? 

Listen, most of this is probably a combination of imprecise language and a little bit of misunderstanding of what science is and is not. I enjoyed the discussion and if you want to zero in on something and keep going, that's fine with me.

I agree that much of the problem is that we both have very different usages of the same words, such as what a truth is etc.

Yes. But we also disagree on some very critical issues related to the role and abilities of science.