Religion Hampering Science

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Smelnick, Mar 5, 2010.

  1. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    I noticed this being touched on in another thread, and it seems like a good thread idea.

    How do you think religion is hampering science? Do you think that there's any way that the two can go hand in hand?

    To some degree I think there can be some integration, but only if both the christian scientists, and the secular scientists involved are open minded. As in, the christian can't deny basic scientific facts, ei. photosynthesis, especially where it doesn't contradict their own beliefs. But on the other side of the spectrum, the sciententists should be willing to consider/research things from the christian point of view where valid. For example, the earth is only 6000 years old argument. IF God created the earth, he may have created it as an old earth, hence why everything dates to be older.

    Either way, I think it could only work if both parties are openminded and don't get all but hurt in the face of unshakeable evidence.

    Your thoughts?

  2. FutureTrackStar

    FutureTrackStar Registered Member

    - I have discussed this topic many times. Science and religion do not conflict. Some people may think they conflict, but that's because they don't have a good understanding of what science is.

    Generally speaking, science is two things: a specific body of knowledge and a method of acquiring said knowledge. The knowledge that science acquires is exactly how the world currently operates. The method for acquiring this knowledge is testing and observing. You can drop your pen as many times as you want and it will always fall at roughly 9.8 m/s^2. Each drop is a test, and you observe each result to be the same.

    Religion does not conflict with this knowledge or with these methods (at least, the Bible doesn't)! A conflict arises only when scientists try to formulate theories about (extremely ancient) history. Usually these conjectures are several thousand-fold to million-fold extrapolations! Yet, an honest scientist would never consider doing that with data pertaining to a present phenomenon! That would be like taking a mile-long string and violently vibrating it, and then only observing the last foot of the string and trying to extrapolate what's happening on the other end!

    Clearly this is not to say that science cannot determine the recent past with a fair degree of accuracy. But when you try to determine what happened 1 million years ago, or even 100,000 years ago, your making a huge leap of faith.
  3. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Religion and science go together like water and oil. Fire and gasoline if that paints a better picture for you. I believe they can coexist but when religion has a high authority over people, it tends to slow the progression of scientific thought. Proof and point: the dark ages.


    The problem is that conversation between the scientific community usually go like this:

    Or at least in a nutshell that's how most of scientific progress has happened. This leads to a division of the two, making it difficult for either side to coexist. Science is the idea of creating theories to create facts while religion is the idea of creating facts to create theories. Neither is wrong or right, it just depends on how you want to view the world. Spirituality can be a very good thing but when we're discussing issues that can save lives and enrich our own then religion needs to back off because they need to realize their rules don't apply to everyone, only themselves. Stem cells are a great example. We had a ban on them because the Christian right had this nightmare of fetal farmlands where babies are slaughtered and harvested when in reality, you can stem cells from anybody yet they banned it anyways. Obama loosened the ban and already we're hearing of amazing scientific breakthroughs and promising studies that have cured different forms of diabetes and even blindness.

    Religion needs to stay in the church as it is a personal choice of enirchment while science is the pursuit of understanding the truths of the world. "Belief" by its very definition requires that something have no evidence while science requires it to have some. This is why they're incompatible.

    Also. humor:

    YouTube - Family Guy - Alternate Universe without Christianity
  4. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    I don't think that's a fair way of putting it. So basically, everybody who has any religious beliefs has absolutely NO evidence to back them? There are tons of accounts of supernatural events all over the internet and throughout history. What the non-religious people tend to do is use science as a way to disprove the existence of God. From there they can automatically discount every supernatural event and say it was either a fluke or coincidence, because "after all, there is no God". They do exactly what you are accusing the religious crowd of doing. Instead of quoting Bible verses to disprove something they simply quote theories that rely largely on faith and the unknown.

    This all depends on if Christianity is true of course. Because if it is true then an alternate reality without it would consist of absolutely nothing.

    I can't believe you forced me to debate a Family Guy clip in MD. *sigh*
  5. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    No offense dude, that's because that's what a theory is. The only difference is a theory is testable. Faith is not. Faith requires that a person doesn't not test its validity, that they just believe in it. That's the definition of the word.

    It's perfectly fair though. There's no evidence of these 'supernatural events' being true and we all know people lie so the only value a personal experience has is to the person that experienced it! I could tell you that I had an experience where a strange old man in an orange suit told me that God doesn't exist and that life is a pointless coincidence of circumstance doomed to repeat itself for eternity. Are you going to immediately believe me? Of course not, you're going to doubt me! You don't really make any arguing points here, you seem to just repeat rhetoric found in most sunday Church pamphlets. You say "What the non-religious people tend to do is use science as a way to disprove the existence of God." This is flat out ignorant and unfounded and it's proof that religious people seem to think the point of scientific studies are to disprove God. Well, when you believe everything exists because of God and that everything is the way it is because of God then you're going to meet some resistance.

    Non-religious people (which just means 'atheist' or 'apathetic' technically) are not all out to disprove God. It's pretty common knowledge that you cannot prove or disprove God thus there's no point debating it. The hypothetical conversation I posted is very real and it's happened several times through the course of history. Even today you have Christians who believe God created evolution. That's the problem, like I said before. Religious people create facts and then make theories while science does the opposite.

    No, no it doesn't. Christianity exists, that's why the joke was made because Christianity is largely responsible for the gap in scientific progress during the dark ages. People were way too afraid of what would happen to them and instead spent their time praying to God and hoping he would fix things.

    Where do you think the modern mindset that God wants us to live our lives and not rely solely on him but to prove ourselves came from? It was a hard lesson learned.
  6. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Science is not a strictly deductive enterprise. To say that something could be wrong because P could be the case instead, where P is something of which there is no scientific basis for believing, is to treat science as if it were a deductive enterprise; to treat it as philosophy, basically. Science has made so much progress because that kind of stuff was thrown out the window. We could suggest that double-slit experiments are inaccurate because invisible gnomes are fucking with experimenters, for example, but there is no scientific reason to suspect any such thing is occurring.

    To use the skepticism religious fundamentalists employ against any scientific theory that contradicts their holy texts in a consistent manner, would kill science outright.
  7. FutureTrackStar

    FutureTrackStar Registered Member

    - I think what you mean to say is, "[when people distort Christianity in order to gain power and then abuse said power] it tends to slow the progression of scientific thought."

    - That's true for all religions except the religion that speaks the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (assuming there is one correct religion).

    - Religion only impedes scientific progress when it is 1) A false religion, or 2) A misunderstanding of the correct religion.

    - Really? Do you believe that all life evolved from a single ancestor? Don't cut the branches that you sit on lol.

Share This Page