Do religion and science attempt to show the same thing?

[DogmaHunter]

dms1972 said: ↑
Would you care to give an example of each sort of question?



Well there are reasons for asking questions other than winning an argument.

The discussion is only for clarity.

So, you bring something up and when asked to clarify, you refuse?
What's that about?

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

What makes you think that that is not a question that science can address?

I don't know if those are good examples but there they are.

You don't know but.....you know?

:-S

Also its seems to me that if there is a God, He is involved.

Right, right... and if there are graviton fairies, they are involved as well.

Science generally assumed in its early days that there was.

No. People did.
Science is a methodology.

As regard the big questions like evolution versus intelligent design - all I can say is I don't know the answers. Both have some explanatory power.

No. ID has zero explanatory power.
ID is nothing but an argument from ignorance, using a priori religious beliefs that are unsupported.

Whats the question we are talking about most on these forums "is God, the christian God?"

Really?

What a loaded question!

How about: "is there a god?"
Let's first settle that question and only move on to yours once the answer to that question can be answered with "yes".



Now, about your "why"....
What you really mean here is the "why" in the sense of "purpose". Those too, are loaded questions. Because by asking what the purpose of something is, you actually assume that there IS a purpose to begin with. Which again is something that wasn't demonstrated.

For example, you can ask "why are there mountains?".
That would be answered with a geological explanation. Tectonic activity and whatnot.
You could then reply with "yes, but what is the purpose of mountains"?
That is a silly question. The reason the mountains are there is because of tectonic activity pushing the land up. By being there, these mountains can have an effect by there mere presence. But that's not the same as a "purpose".

"Purpose" implies a priori intent and planning.

So, the "why" question - as you use it - is a loaded question, akin to "why do you hit your wife?".


To conclude, these "questions" you claim science can't answer... aren't actually valid questions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don't know that there is not a God

And you don't know that are no graviton fairies.

 

[Davian]

And you don't know that are no graviton fairies.

But if it were not for the graviton fairies, would not everything on Earth spin off into space?

 

[dms1972]

So, you bring something up and when asked to clarify, you refuse?
What's that about?

I did clarify, I first asked the other user if he would give me an example to see how he used the terms himself. Whats the problem? ANd what makes you think you need to intervene, are you an unofficial moderator, debate faciliator, or what exactly?

Some of us are not concerned about winning a debate so much as clarity about what we are talking about and understanding each other.

You are so defensive that you can't tell a thread that is a debate from one that is merely trying to clarify an issue, and ask a question.

 

[dms1972]

Merely by asking "why" one is assuming that an answer for "why" exists. That isn't necessarily the case.

That you can't answer, or don't like the answers doesn't mean there isn't an answer.

There is nothing wrong with asking. Its those that try to stop people asking or ridicule those who do as some atheists do who are the dogmatists and brainwashers. Atheists who are against dogma should begin by stamping out the psuedo-dogmas in their own circles.

 

[golgotha61]

This!

To me, religion starts with an assumed answer and then works hard to justify that answer.

Science, examines the physical evidence over and over and then comes up with theories to explain the observations.

Very, very different in their approach and likely why; science encourages critical analysis and religion, tends to shy away from critical analysis.

It appears that you have given a positive slant in defining the purpose of science but you have defined religion in negative terms. Perhaps we can reach agreement midway. Let’s accept your definition of the purpose of science “Science, examines the physical evidence over and over and then comes up with theories to explain the observations. Very, very different in their approach and likely why; science encourages critical analysis …” Now let’s add the purpose of religion in relation to what science has done. Once science has investigated and explained a certain event or phenomena, it is done but religion then helps us determine if such an event is good or evil. Religion defines the morality of what science has explained.

 

[dms1972]

Another exercise in grasping at straws.

This is incredible, either you are here to debate and acknowledge what results say or you just want to find a line or sentence. The article said three of the most rigourous studies lent support to the efficacy of prayer.

And to quote the actual study, rather than the wikipedia article.


Practitioners who adhere to Division 12 criteria have
little basis for using intercessory prayer, in spite of
a meta-analysis indicating small, but significant, effect
sizes for the use of intercessory prayer. Most practition-
ers, however, are likely to affirm the broader under-
standing of evidence-based practice articulated in the
APA’s Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based
Practice (2006). Such practitioners may believe that the
best available evidence currently supports the use of
intercessory prayer as an intervention.
Thus, at this junction in time, the results might be
considered inconclusive. Indeed, perhaps the most cer-
tain result stemming from this study is the following:
The findings are unlikely to satisfy either proponents or
opponents of intercessory prayer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It appears that you have given a positive slant in defining the purpose of science but you have defined religion in negative terms. Perhaps we can reach agreement midway. Let’s accept your definition of the purpose of science “Science, examines the physical evidence over and over and then comes up with theories to explain the observations. Very, very different in their approach and likely why; science encourages critical analysis …” Now let’s add the purpose of religion in relation to what science has done. Once science has investigated and explained a certain event or phenomena, it is done but religion then helps us determine if such an event is good or evil. Religion defines the morality of what science has explained.

What's the method religion uses to determine morality? It appears to be very inconsistent at best....non-existent at worst.

 

[dms1972]

Religion has the answers, without the evidence.

You may be misunderstanding what evidence is

 

[golgotha61]

What's the method religion uses to determine morality? It appears to be very inconsistent at best....non-existent at worst.

In Christianity, it is the ontic referent who is God. It is His laws and character that determines what a moral standard consists of.

 

[bhsmte]

It appears that you have given a positive slant in defining the purpose of science but you have defined religion in negative terms. Perhaps we can reach agreement midway. Let’s accept your definition of the purpose of science “Science, examines the physical evidence over and over and then comes up with theories to explain the observations. Very, very different in their approach and likely why; science encourages critical analysis …” Now let’s add the purpose of religion in relation to what science has done. Once science has investigated and explained a certain event or phenomena, it is done but religion then helps us determine if such an event is good or evil. Religion defines the morality of what science has explained.

Morality is subjective and open to interpretation.

If it helps you personally to say religion determines what is moral, by all means, do so.

 

[bhsmte]

You may be misunderstanding what evidence is

Clarify for us.

What type of evidence (specifically), do you have for your personal religious beliefs.

 

[dms1972]

Testimony (the Old and New Testaments) - and the world around me. Genesis speaks of creation according to kind, and that is what I observe, see around me - plants, birds, insects, fish, mammals, humans. Nothing in the creation account is contradicted by what I see.

You on your own admission say you believed for forty years so what evidence convinced you to cease - other than the influence of non-believers and what evidence did they put up.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In Christianity, it is the ontic referent who is God. It is His laws and character that determines what a moral standard consists of.

Sure...and let's say that he reveals these moral standards in a clear way that everyone understands (because that's what you need if you're going to ask people to follow these standards). What about the gods of other religions that reveal different morals? How does someone determine which set of moral standards is true?

 

[golgotha61]

Morality is subjective and open to interpretation.

If it helps you personally to say religion determines what is moral, by all means, do so.

It has nothing to do with personal preference. This is the answer to the OP's question as defined by a member of a religion. I speak only for Christianity which defines morality as objectively defined by God. In fact the example that I used was a rough paraphrase by Richard Dawkins. He is the one who suggests that science explains and religion defines good and evil (morality). By definition, morality is the determinate between right and wrong, good and evil. To state a standard of good and evil, it requires a law giver and for the Christian's worldview, the law giver is God. If one denies that there is a God to determine good from evil then one denies that there is such a thing as good and evil.

 

[golgotha61]

Sure...and let's say that he reveals these moral standards in a clear way that everyone understands (because that's what you need if you're going to ask people to follow these standards). What about the gods of other religions that reveal different morals? How does someone determine which set of moral standards is true?

There is one thing that all religions have in common and that is, each one claims to contain truth. For the Christian, Christ is truth and the claim of who He is and the truthfulness of His claims is authenticated by His defeat of death. Christ provides authenticity of His truth statements by His resurrection. Without the resurrection, Christianity is no more valuable or truthful than any other religion.

 

[dms1972]

Morality is subjective and open to interpretation.

by its very definition "morality" is not, its not subjective. One might live moral, or immorally (I don't think anyone is consistently moral), but immorality is not a morality.

You'll find variations between cultures but not total differences - you'll not find a culture where it is morally good to steal, and everyone goes around stealing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is one thing that all religions have in common and that is, each one claims to contain truth. For the Christian, Christ is truth and the claim of who He is and the truthfulness of His claims is authenticated by His defeat of death. Christ provides authenticity of His truth statements by His resurrection. Without the resurrection, Christianity is no more valuable or truthful than any other religion.

Ok...

To be fair though, you don't know if Jesus was resurrected anymore than a buddhist knows buddha achieved nirvana/total enlightenment, or anymore than muslims know Mohammed spoke with god.

So basically, you're just assuming that you have the truth in Christ and basing your morality on that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

by its very definition "morality" is not, its not subjective.

I disagree...I think it's entirely subjective.