Hawking Says "There is no God. Heaven is a fairy tale."

[GuineaPig]

The thing is, unless you're a deist, there's always a certain amount of retconning to be done.

[El JoNNo]

I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science. Science by its definition is coherent across its various disciplines so it's fair to take it as a whole, whereas different religions regularly contradict each other. So, some religions will be able to jive with science, some won't.

rumborak

I would go so far as to say by definition, religion is incompatible with science.

I am not religious myself, but I dont see how at least some religions arent compatible.
What definitions are you using that make them incompatible?

Science observes the universe, makes predictions based on those observations and comes to conclusions/theories. If those conclusions and theories are proven wrong or in error, they are adjusted or disposed in light of the new evidence. Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence. People can live with both in their lives but the two are exclusive.

[eric42434224]

I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science. Science by its definition is coherent across its various disciplines so it's fair to take it as a whole, whereas different religions regularly contradict each other. So, some religions will be able to jive with science, some won't.

rumborak

I would go so far as to say by definition, religion is incompatible with science.

I am not religious myself, but I dont see how at least some religions arent compatible.
What definitions are you using that make them incompatible?

Science observes the universe, makes predictions based on those observations and comes to conclusions/theories. If those conclusions and theories are proven wrong or in error, they are adjusted or disposed in light of the new evidence. Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence. People can live with both in their lives but the two are exclusive.

I dont see how they are mutually exclusive.  Religion can be having faith in something that science is not able to observe and prove.  Some religions may make assertions that fly directly in the face of proven science, but a basic belief in god is not one of them, right?

[El JoNNo]

[I dont see how they are mutually exclusive.  Religion can be having faith in something that science is not able to observe and prove.  Some religions may make assertions that fly directly in the face of proven science, but a basic belief in god is not one of them, right?

If we are talking about what religion is and what science is, they are opposites. As I said many people live with the knowledge of science and the belief of religion. However at there base components they are not compatible. Regarding a god(s), since there is no evidence of the universe being created by an intelligent being it is a baseless assertion. Science philosophically will not make this assertion without evidence. If someone will look at everything with a scientific mind, they cannot also do so with a religious mind. They are not compatible as philosophies.

That being said; the human brain is very modular. One can be very skeptical with every faucet of their life save one or more. People do this with many thing ie Children; a parent may find something their child does acceptable but abhor when another child does the same thing.  More-less an a-skeptical/illogical favourtism.

Even the deist position is not a valid position based on the science philosophy. There is no reason to assume a supernatural being was responsible for something that appears to be natural.

[bosk1]

I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science.

Personally, I've never seen religion and science dance together.  Honestly, I can't even picture what that would look like.  However, both can definitely jibe when placed in their proper context.

[rumborak]

I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science.

Personally, I've never seen religion and science dance together.  Honestly, I can't even picture what that would look like.  However, both can definitely jibe when placed in their proper context.

Really, you've never seen it? They dance to ... wait for it ... Dance of Eternity!!

rumborak

[El JoNNo]

I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science.

Personally, I've never seen religion and science dance together.  Honestly, I can't even picture what that would look like.  However, both can definitely jibe when placed in their proper context.

Really, you've never seen it? They dance to ... wait for it ... Dance of Eternity!!

rumborak

Bazzinga

[bosk1]

I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science.

Personally, I've never seen religion and science dance together.  Honestly, I can't even picture what that would look like.  However, both can definitely jibe when placed in their proper context.

Really, you've never seen it? They dance to ... wait for it ... Dance of Eternity!!

rumborak

You are amazing. 

[hefdaddy42]

Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.

I don't think this is necessarily true.  This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.

[Bombardana]

Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.

I don't think this is necessarily true.  This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.

It is true in many cases. E.g. Creationists.

[bosk1]

Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.

I don't think this is necessarily true.  This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.

It is true in many cases. E.g. Creationists.

Hef is right.  This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.

[El JoNNo]

Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.

I don't think this is necessarily true.  This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.

It will adjust based on societal pressure in light of evidence, but not evidence.

[eric42434224]

What is science's position on what/who created the universe?  What is the position on the soul and the afterlife?

Religion can give answers to things we have zero evidence for, but are extremely important to us, that one can accept on faith.

I dont see why they are mutually exclusive unless you are dealing with a specific teaching from a specific religion that contradicts accepted scientific facts.

A belief in god, to me, certainly does not contradict anything scientifically.

[El JoNNo]

What is science's position on what/who created the universe?

Not known.

[eric42434224]

What is science's position on what/who created the universe?

Not known.

So where is the conflict then?

[rumborak]

The claim of most religions that the divine intersects and interacts with the worldly.

rumborak

[El JoNNo]

What is science's position on what/who created the universe?

Not known.

So where is the conflict then?

Creator religions is an assertion of knowledge/fact on something we do not know.

Edit:  or know to be false.

[eric42434224]

Perhaps I am not expressing my position adequately.  I know that religion asserts knowledge where there is no direct evidence.  I also know that religion can assert knowledge that flies directly in the face of accepted scientific knowledge.

I am coming from a position that is not talking about any specific religion.  Not any specific doctrine, nor saying that a person has to accept an entire religions teachings.
I am talking about a generic belief in a super natural being, and maybe some generic stuff like the afterlife and the creation of the universe.

I dont see how believeing 100% in science, and having beliefs like a god exists and it created the universe, are in any sort of conflict.  I was arguing more along the lines of a belief in god and a belief in science arent mutually exclusive.  Not specific teachings of religion.

[El JoNNo]

Perhaps I am not expressing my position adequately.  I know that religion asserts knowledge where there is no direct evidence.  I also know that religion can assert knowledge that flies directly in the face of accepted scientific knowledge.

I am coming from a position that is not talking about any specific religion.  Not any specific doctrine, nor saying that a person has to accept an entire religions teachings.
I am talking about a generic belief in a super natural being, and maybe some generic stuff like the afterlife and the creation of the universe.

I dont see how believeing 100% in science, and having beliefs like a god exists and it created the universe, are in any sort of conflict.  I was arguing more along the lines of a belief in god and a belief in science arent mutually exclusive.  Not specific teachings of religion.

Right; deism if looked at through the philosophy of science is illogical. It's ok to say I don't know but it is another to claim that there was in fact a creator. That is the conflict, that assertion. Regardless of whether it is a god, an afterlife etc. It is a claim that is not warranted.

[eric42434224]

Perhaps I am not expressing my position adequately.  I know that religion asserts knowledge where there is no direct evidence.  I also know that religion can assert knowledge that flies directly in the face of accepted scientific knowledge.

I am coming from a position that is not talking about any specific religion.  Not any specific doctrine, nor saying that a person has to accept an entire religions teachings.
I am talking about a generic belief in a super natural being, and maybe some generic stuff like the afterlife and the creation of the universe.

I dont see how believeing 100% in science, and having beliefs like a god exists and it created the universe, are in any sort of conflict.  I was arguing more along the lines of a belief in god and a belief in science arent mutually exclusive.  Not specific teachings of religion.

Right; deism if looked at through the philosophy of science is illogical. It's ok to say I don't know but it is another to claim that there was in fact a creator. That is the conflict, that assertion. Regardless of whether it is a god, an afterlife etc. It is a claim that is not warranted.

I guess that is where our disconnect was.  I say a BELIEF in god and science are not mutually exclusive.  You were saying that an assertion of FACT that there is a god and science are mutually exclusive.
Is that about right?

In that case, I tend to agree.

[El JoNNo]

Perhaps I am not expressing my position adequately.  I know that religion asserts knowledge where there is no direct evidence.  I also know that religion can assert knowledge that flies directly in the face of accepted scientific knowledge.

I am coming from a position that is not talking about any specific religion.  Not any specific doctrine, nor saying that a person has to accept an entire religions teachings.
I am talking about a generic belief in a super natural being, and maybe some generic stuff like the afterlife and the creation of the universe.

I dont see how believeing 100% in science, and having beliefs like a god exists and it created the universe, are in any sort of conflict.  I was arguing more along the lines of a belief in god and a belief in science arent mutually exclusive.  Not specific teachings of religion.

Right; deism if looked at through the philosophy of science is illogical. It's ok to say I don't know but it is another to claim that there was in fact a creator. That is the conflict, that assertion. Regardless of whether it is a god, an afterlife etc. It is a claim that is not warranted.

I guess that is where our disconnect was.  I say a BELIEF in god and science are not mutually exclusive.  You were saying that an assertion of FACT that there is a god and science are mutually exclusive.
Is that about right?

In that case, I tend to agree.

Yes.

I guess you are more referring to agnostic theism.

[eric42434224]

Well yeah...I only referred a belief in god...not religion.  Not sure why religion was injected in the conversation.

[El JoNNo]

Well yeah...I only referred a belief in god...not religion.  Not sure why religion was injected in the conversation.

Regardless the belief in a deist god is still a nonsensical one. No evidence to suggest the universe was "created" and the belief gets you no where. It is still unscientific.

[eric42434224]

Well yeah...I only referred a belief in god...not religion.  Not sure why religion was injected in the conversation.

Regardless the belief in a deist god is still a nonsensical one. No evidence to suggest the universe was "created" and the belief gets you no where. It is still unscientific.

So?  It may not be scientific, but it isnt in conflict.  People NEED that belief.
Science CANT explain it, so the human mind tries to come up with an explanation.
If science had an explanation differing from a deist one, then THAT would be conflict.
Science cant fully explain/predict human emotion...but most people believe in love.
It isnt scientific, but people need it.  There really isnt a conflict.

[El JoNNo]

Well yeah...I only referred a belief in god...not religion.  Not sure why religion was injected in the conversation.

Regardless the belief in a deist god is still a nonsensical one. No evidence to suggest the universe was "created" and the belief gets you no where. It is still unscientific.

So?  It may not be scientific, but it isnt in conflict.  People NEED that belief.
Science CANT explain it, so the human mind tries to come up with an explanation.
If science had an explanation differing from a deist one, then THAT would be conflict.
Science cant fully explain/predict human emotion...but most people believe in love.
It isnt scientific, but people need it.  There really isnt a conflict.

It is a presupposition, which is in conflict with the scientific method. Love is testable in a lab environment and much of it can be explained, a creator cannot.

[Bombardana]

Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.

I don't think this is necessarily true.  This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.

It is true in many cases. E.g. Creationists.

Hef is right.  This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.

How is Creationism not a perfect example of asserting knowledge without evidence, or failing to adjust based on evidence? My viewpoint has nothing to do with it.

[gmillerdrake]

It is a presupposition, which is in conflict with the scientific method. Love is testable in a lab environment and much of it can be explained, a creator cannot.

Human emotion Can not be tested or proven. That is false. If you are referring to some sort of brain activity or blood pressure rise/fall, those type of PHYSICAL reactions....they are not emotions. However we try to correlate them to emotions the fact of the matter is...it is impossible to detect/test/prove human emotion. Can't do it.
 

[bosk1]

Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.

I don't think this is necessarily true.  This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.

It is true in many cases. E.g. Creationists.

Hef is right.  This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.

How is Creationism not a perfect example of asserting knowledge without evidence, or failing to adjust based on evidence? My viewpoint has nothing to do with it.

Because many "creationists" arrive at their conclusions based on evidence.

[Bombardana]

Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence.

I don't think this is necessarily true.  This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.

It is true in many cases. E.g. Creationists.

Hef is right.  This says more about your view of religion than religion itself.

How is Creationism not a perfect example of asserting knowledge without evidence, or failing to adjust based on evidence? My viewpoint has nothing to do with it.

Because many "creationists" arrive at their conclusions based on evidence.

hah hah hah

[bosk1]

Are you trying to get banned from P/R (or the boards in general)?  Because that sort of response is a quick ticket if that's where you're looking to go.

[William Wallace]

I think it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say all religion can jive with science. Science by its definition is coherent across its various disciplines so it's fair to take it as a whole, whereas different religions regularly contradict each other. So, some religions will be able to jive with science, some won't.

rumborak

I would go so far as to say by definition, religion is incompatible with science.

I am not religious myself, but I dont see how at least some religions arent compatible.
What definitions are you using that make them incompatible?

Science observes the universe, makes predictions based on those observations and comes to conclusions/theories. If those conclusions and theories are proven wrong or in error, they are adjusted or disposed in light of the new evidence. Religion asserts knowledge without evidence and does not adjust based on evidence. People can live with both in their lives but the two are exclusive.

Nonsense. Christians are supposed to base their beliefs on reason.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD...

Explain how these verses fit into the dichotomy you have contrived.  Seriously, how anyone can believe critical thinking belongs only to one world view is beyond me.

[bosk1]

Easier to shoot down your opponents' arguments without ever really dealing with them if you first set up a false paradigm that their reasoning is inferior (or nonexistent).

[William Wallace]

Easier to shoot down your opponents' arguments without ever really dealing with them if you first set up a false paradigm that their reasoning is inferior (or nonexistent).

It's annoying. They're so certain religion is unfounded but they know next to nothing about it.

[GuineaPig]

I don't see how that is much different then you being certain in your disbelief in 99% of the other religions that exist in the world.

[El JoNNo]

It is a presupposition, which is in conflict with the scientific method. Love is testable in a lab environment and much of it can be explained, a creator cannot.

Human emotion Can not be tested or proven. That is false. If you are referring to some sort of brain activity or blood pressure rise/fall, those type of PHYSICAL reactions....they are not emotions. However we try to correlate them to emotions the fact of the matter is...it is impossible to detect/test/prove human emotion. Can't do it.
 

Ummm neurobiology would like to have a word with you.