Why Religion and Science are opposed to eachother

[mrblonde77]

Often people say that science and religion are separate and can both co-exist. I disagree and Richard Dawkins calls it like it is. From his essay
"Why There Almost Certainly is No God"

Chamberlainites are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' — 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.

This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis — by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.

This for me closes the argument. I don't see how it can be any other way. Anyone want to offer up an argument?

[Adicted2aa]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

Often people say that science and religion are separate and can both co-exist. I disagree and Richard Dawkins calls it like it is. From his essay
"Why There Almost Certainly is No God"



[/size][/font]


This for me closes the argument. I don't see how it can be any other way. Anyone want to offer up an argument?

I'm not sure how this proves your point

[Mr.GoodStuff]

An arguement for what? Against his opinion that he really, really, really doesn't think it exists?

Sorry, what can I say? I think God exists because of personal experiences?

Uh, what has been asserted that I can refute I guess would be a better question?

[Zylark]

The fundamental difference between science and religion is method.

Science observe and measure, weigh evidence and then reach a conclusion.

Religion is a foregone conclusion, asserted by personal revelation and tradition.

To lift a flowchart from the humour section (which I in all modesty used about half a year or so ago, just glad to see it used again by someone else )

[Mr.GoodStuff]

Oh ya, that ridiculous piece is going to help people understand Zylark, really

By making fun of people's beliefs you think it's going to teach anybody anything??? I think it's extremely arrogant.

I wonder if they are trying to teach or just trying to make themselves feel better that they don't believe in some higher power like so many others.

[CaliCoast]

"Be skeptical about everything. Ask questions. Because once you stop asking questions it becomes a religion."

-Bill Maher

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

Oh ya, that ridiculous piece is going to help people understand Zylark, really

By making fun of people's beliefs you think it's going to teach anybody anything??? I think it's extremely arrogant.

Explain how that is not what religion does? Are you saying the people who wrote the Bible, or the Quran, or any other religious book had evidence to base their positions off of? If so, why do they not mention it and why do we not have it?

[FeelinMyself420]

I believe there could possibly be some greater force of the universe but it is 100% illogical to believe theres a man in the sky watching everything everyone does. And this supposedly all loving god continues to let massive genocides occur quite often and let people starve to death everyday in Africa.

[Mr.GoodStuff]

2 wrongs don't make a right. I stand in the middle because of how radical the sides can be.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

2 wrongs don't make a right. I stand in the middle because of how radical the sides can be.

lol, I have no idea what you mean at all. What are the two wrongs?

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by Mr.GoodStuff

Oh ya, that ridiculous piece is going to help people understand Zylark, really

By making fun of people's beliefs you think it's going to teach anybody anything??? I think it's extremely arrogant.

I wonder if they are trying to teach or just trying to make themselves feel better that they don't believe in some higher power like so many others.

Oh please, instead of going ad-hominem on my ass, try to argue the points made. Find a flaw in my reasoning, then point them out.

And FYI, I was not making fun of anything. The argument stands, and it is serious. That you do not like the comparison do not make the argument less valid.

Though I will admit than when put side to side like that, the difference, contrast, between religion and science do stand out. And it may very well produce a chuckle or two.

As was intended in all it's seriousness.

So again, point to flaws in my reasoning, do not attack me personally.

[Azimuthal]

I do not see any argument presented that would indicate a non-existence of god.

Science is based on causal reasoning, which imposes many obvious limits to what it can express. You'd be crazy, at any point, to say that science has observed all there is to observe.

I decree that religion and science are both alive, and coexistent.

[illinisbII]

science is all about proving hypothesis' through repeated observations.

religion (god) cannot be proven or disproven.

this is why science and religion oppose each other imo

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by Azimuthal

I do not see any argument presented that would indicate a non-existence of god.

That might be because that is not argumented

It is merely argumenting the difference between science and religion, and how (and here I agree with the religious fundamentalists) science deems any deity highly unprobable, to the degree that the notion can be dismissed.

Proving a negative is as we know, quite impossible, so one have to work from probability.

But to put things a bit on it's head, exactly what indication is there that there is a god. And since that is a positive claim (god exist), what is the evidence?

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

I'm not sure how this proves your point

It proves my point because it states that if god existed, the universe would be completely different. It is not different that what it is and it infallibly adheres to the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. If god existed, it would not.

Originally Posted by Azimuthal

I do not see any argument presented that would indicate a non-existence of god.

The argument is that his existence is highly improbable.

Originally Posted by Azimuthal

I decree that religion and science are both alive, and coexistent.

Indeed they currently are, but religion is gradually dieing out, and we are expanding our field of knowledge. I bet you could come up with some sort of inverse proportion graph showing that the more we discover through the science, the less religious people are. Religion is dieing out and will eventually be extinct. Natural selection will take it's course. It just sucks that natural selection takes so fucking long compared to the average human life span.

Originally Posted by FeelinMyself420

I believe there could possibly be some greater force of the universe but it is 100% illogical to believe theres a man in the sky watching everything everyone does. And this supposedly all loving god continues to let massive genocides occur quite often and let people starve to death everyday in Africa.

"Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?" -Epicurus