Why Religion and Science are opposed to eachother

[Adicted2aa]

Liquid Truth, You didn't answer my question. What is relgion? Is this thread an attack on organized relgion? The theory of a higher power? The practice of a group of people who have similar views on the world, following the same rules, and speaking the same words as they try to convert everyone they can find to thier belief? Cause that last example is exactly what you are all doing. The conversion to the religion of science is done with words and logic as opposed to swords and guns. But then so was Buddhism. And melt is not the worlds authority on Buddhism. It is both a philosphy and a relgion. Zen Buddhism is a very strict relgion in fact. I realize this is very poorly organized, so let me try to break up my points.

The initial post. I'm still confused as to how it disprooves religion. I understood it to say that if god revealed himself to us we would have proof, but since he hasn't we don't have proof. But thats the same type of flawed logic used to say there are no extra-terrestrails. Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

The Flow chart. Here is a list of religions that have recognized flaws in thier design and fixed them or are entirely based on logic. Start the list with of course Buddhism. Judaism. Catholism.(eventually reversed its stance on the earth being the center of the universe) Taoism. Confusinism. I'm fairly sure hinduism would count too, but not too positive. Thats just off the top of my head. Also not every scientist follows those steps the way they are supposed to. Fugding the numbers happens alot for political and monetary reasons. The drug debate, Global Warming, Ciggarettes. Just a few examples. So while the flow chart is a nice generalization it has a few flaws. Pretty funny though, props to whoever made it.

Crap I forgot my next point. Ah yes the turning of science into religion. See the problem mainly comes with people with a much worse grasp of how science works than those arguing for it here. As people come to terms with the fact that most preachers are probably flat out lying they turn for some other safety net. When they find science they are relieved that here they have found a place where people can tell them how the world works and they can know that that is in fact how the world works. Sadly thats exactly the oppisite of science. Science tells us that we don't know how the world works and we need to figure it out(including this god part). So priests are relaced with scientists, which is an improvement, but has the same flaw as any other religion. Willful ignorance. Need more? Well the way atheists attack the notion of God, when they themselves are just as ignorant to the nature of God.(Remember thats putting forth the notion that THERE IS NO GOD even though the word no is there its still a positive statement, and still requires proof.) Thats sounds exactly like the major problem with some religions. Saything that things do opperate one way, can't opperate any opperate any other way, and theres no proof. So, we have Blind Followers, False prophets, Converters, what else can we find? How about a set of rules that have to be followed, but is often ignored?(I want to note that this is not a critism of anyone here, and that most of you are actually pretty reasonable)Like for example, the Scietific Method. There are other parrelles but the point is basically this
Relgion is not the problem. Organize religion isn't even the problem. The problem is people who don't bother to learn about thier belief and take it as given the world exists the way they were told it does. This applies to science as well. If people just nod and say yes, it doesn't matter even if the scientists are right. I have more on this, but I really need to organize my thoughts on it better. I apoligize, its a concept I haven't toyed with enough.

Shit lost my place again. TOo Much AK.

[Liquidtruth]

@Adicted2aa - I am going to let someone else answer your post. His name is Richard Dawkins. I think this covers most of it. I would take the time to write up my own response, but on this topic I have said my bit many times. If it helps any, I used to believe (back when I was "religious") that science was a religion. I could not quite explain why beyond some weird interpretations of what science is and does, it was mainly used as an attack to discredit the idea of science. "You say religion is bad yet you follow one, everything you say is wrong". It was, and is, a strawman.

[web]http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html[/web]

I just wanted to clarify one tiny point.

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

And melt is not the worlds authority on Buddhism.

I never claimed that he was, I was simply suggesting the possibility that MelT, as a Buddhist, could better answer your question than I, as his understanding of the subject, it most likely superior to my own.

[Mr.GoodStuff]

Originally Posted by richard dawkins

You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.

Unless you have some faith, and see the reasoning behind it through faith. Faith is the only evidence of the value of faith, it is it's own reward.

If he sees faith as a wall he should have no trouble with people seeing evidence as the same exact wall.

Openmindedness is key- understanding without agreeing. Tolerance. Smoke a d00b or somethin, callin faith a disease... Get outta hear with that BS LOL It's radicals that are the problem.

My imagination isn't hurting anybody, my thought process involves peace- not radical conversion tactics. Let people believe what they want, let us be tolerant of each other's beliefs.

[Adicted2aa]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

@Adicted2aa - I am going to let someone else answer your post. His name is Richard Dawkins. I think this covers most of it. I would take the time to write up my own response, but on this topic I have said my bit many times. If it helps any, I used to believe (back when I was "religious") that science was a religion. I could not quite explain why beyond some weird interpretations of what science is and does, it was mainly used as an attack to discredit the idea of science. "You say religion is bad yet you follow one, everything you say is wrong". It was, and is, a strawman.

[web]http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html[/web]

I just wanted to clarify one tiny point.

I never claimed that he was, I was simply suggesting the possibility that MelT, as a Buddhist, could better answer your question than I, as his understanding of the subject, it most likely superior to my own.

I got a few paragraphs into the article before I ran into this.
Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence. However, the fact that this sometimes happens doesn't alter the principle that, when they do so, they do it with shame and not with pride. The method of science is so designed that it usually finds them out in the end.

See that was my point. The times science fails are when the practionars change the rules. Most religions opperate in the same way. Christ's main tennats? Do no harm, forgive, and love thy nieghbor. Now that sounds nothing like the christianity I hear about in the news. The problem isn't the system. Its the followers. And even a system thats designed spefically to get around human nature, fails. Religion and science aren't opposites. It shouldn't replace it, because if it does, you'll have people worshiping atomic energy when they don't know how it works. I'm not saying science is a religion. I'm saying if we aren't careful it could become one.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

See that was my point. The times science fails are when the practionars change the rules. Most religions opperate in the same way. Christ's main tennats? Do no harm, forgive, and love thy nieghbor. Now that sounds nothing like the christianity I hear about in the news. The problem isn't the system. Its the followers. And even a system thats designed spefically to get around human nature, fails. Religion and science aren't opposites. It shouldn't replace it, because if it does, you'll have people worshiping atomic energy when they don't know how it works. I'm not saying science is a religion. I'm saying if we aren't careful it could become one.

Of course, any time you get humans involved they can go against the rules and laws they set up for themselves. That is true for all things that involve humans. So? Science says nothing about worshiping anything, science is not religion. If it is, than a company is a religion, so is a government, so is a club, a gang, a work crew, a band, and a team, or an army. If you equate this one similarity to them being the same, then it applies to everything.

[Adicted2aa]

Again you miss my point. Science isn't a religion. It could become one. The same way a government, company philosphy or any idea that could. To claim the absoluteness of science is almost as foolish as claiming the absoluteness of religion. There are checks in science, but not all religions demand things that are contradictory of science or the even things that science can't proof. Not too mention they are based on almost completely different concepts. Religion does try to explain the world and the universe, but in mainly deals with morals and how people should act in society. Science is practically useless in that regard. They aren't even that closely related, until people in religions start demanding that the world must work acording to some stupid book that was written thousands of years ago, or until people demand that all religion be done away with, because they don't have enough empirical evidence. Any person who claims a conflict between religion and science doesn't have a full undertanding of one or both. I'm done with this argument.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

Again you miss my point. Science isn't a religion. It could become one. The same way a government, company philosophy or any idea that could.

I see what you mean, but I must disagree. Though, some might be able to make a religion based on science, that does not mean the scientific method has lead to this. So while their religion might be based off of certain scientific principles, science would not be a religion. Unless it was completely changed so it could. So, if your point is people can use things and turn it into anything they wish, without logical reasons for doing so, than yes, that is obvious. I was never arguing against that.

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

To claim the absoluteness of science is almost as foolish as claiming the absoluteness of religion.

No one is claiming the absoluteness of science. Science is simply a method to arrive at the truth, the more evidence we have the more of the truth we understand. Obviously it is open to new data and new discoveries, no one disputes that, no one disputes our understanding on things cannot be drastically altered.

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

There are checks in science, but not all religions demand things that are contradictory of science or the even things that science can't proof.

Some people cut apart their holy book so they can fit it into their world view. This is why there are so many denominations, some people think one thing is acceptable and another group disagrees, even if the holy book would seem to support one position over another. It does not matter if they accept fact and truth, non-think is still dangerous. It is still illogical to believe there is a god for certain. It is still illogical to believe you know who this god is and what it wants for not only you, but everyone else.

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

Not too mention they are based on almost completely different concepts. Religion does try to explain the world and the universe, but in mainly deals with morals and how people should act in society.

Yes, some religion does that exactly. Ever read a creation story? They are trying to explain the world and the universe, they just say "god did it/does it" and that is the end of it. If they did not use logic and reason to arrive at those morals, what good are they? Of course, there is truth in everything, even truths in religion, that does not validate the whole argument or the whole process.

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

Science is practically useless in that regard.

No, not really man. Science uncovered evolution so now we understand certain behaviors and their evolutionary purposes, with that knowledge we can certainly figure out a lot about ourselves, including our morals and why we may have some, and why we may ignore others.

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

They aren't even that closely related, until people in religions start demanding that the world must work acording to some stupid book that was written thousands of years ago, or until people demand that all religion be done away with, because they don't have enough empirical evidence.

You are correct, science and religion are not closely related. Organized religion is very dangerous, when people do those things, and that is what people use religion for. The moderates help hold up the fundamentalists and make the nonsense, and sometimes even hate, they preach have some level of justification, even though it is impossible for them to know what it is they are talking about. If you are speaking of spirituality (no organized belief in anything specific with special commandments that set up judgments against others with no logical basis), then sure, there is not much wrong with that. Not until you start claiming I have to live my life a certain way because some god supposedly wants me too, or that reality behaves in a certain way. We are not really in disagreement man, just on some points.

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

Any person who claims a conflict between religion and science doesn't have a full undertanding of one or both. I'm done with this argument.

There is a conflict, as you mentioned above, when religion tries to say reality works in a certain way, when they do no tests or anything to show it. So are we in agreement or not?

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

Unless you have some faith, and see the reasoning behind it through faith. Faith is the only evidence of the value of faith, it is it's own reward.

So it's a self-deluding idea? I concur!

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

If he sees faith as a wall he should have no trouble with people seeing evidence as the same exact wall.

Only if they admit they're not trusting the material world's discoveries which would qualify for them to live in a cave in the middle of no where. Have fun without science.

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

callin faith a disease...

Faith is most certainly a mental illness. It blocks people's ability to ration and think logically. It's probably the number one enemy of intelligence. Without proof we have no way of being certain about anything.

My imagination isn't hurting anybody, my thought process involves peace- not radical conversion tactics. Let people believe what they want, let us be tolerant of each other's beliefs.[/quote]
Well the two are in contradiction of eachother so only one can be correct. One side has a multitude of evidence. The other has no proof at all, just a really big hunch.

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

Religion does try to explain the world and the universe, but in mainly deals with morals and how people should act in society.

As LT said, check out a creation story.

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

Science is practically useless in that regard.

I have an idea. How about people live the way they would like to live! Do you really need an old guy in fancy robes to tell you this shit?

[Zylark]

Let's just get over this lie that religion is somehow more moral than being a non-belief.

Which is implied in the argument that religion is a moral guidance.

It is not. As is evident by the abundant picking and choosing of what to, and what to not believe is true in the bible, that every christian do. Which lead us to why the christian faith is such a wonderful diorama of religion gone wrong. They can't agree on anything, besides what they personally believe is true. No outside reference, nothing that can be measured, and told to be objective. Good luck on that project reaching a common understanding.

Science though, corrects itself continuously. Some researchers might be bad, some might even cheat. But through the method of science, that is always checking the evidence, those cheats are found out, and science correct itself.

As when new evidence is found also. Science is honest. It says we do not know, but would very much want to learn. Adapting as we do. Religion is opposite, it is dishonest, it says we know it all, god did it. Based on no evidence. And it pretends to be an authority. Worst part really.