Religion and Science

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Want to know something funny? This first structure that ball of cells decides to form is the anus. Well, where the anus will go anyways.

Well that sounds like an intelligent design...better have an outlet before you start in-taking!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well that sounds like an intelligent design...better have an outlet before you start in-taking!

I always say it is why so much crap comes out of us and why there are so many people that take to being buttholes so easily

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry, missed this. I think this is spelled out decently in the OP

No, it's not. The OP merely said this:

if you assume that religion and science complement one another

"if you assume...." My question is: why would you assume that? On what grounds? What makes you think it's a reasonable assumption?

Also, doesn't the assumption by itself require one to also assume religion has any bearing on reality at all? It seems to me that you actually require additional assumptions (not stated in the OP) to even only assume that which I just quoted...

What parts are questionable to you?

I'm just wondering on what basis you would make the assumption that you suggest in the OP. How would you justify the assumption? Is it a reasonable assumption? How?

 

[Received]

No, it's not. The OP merely said this:

[/I]

"if you assume...." My question is: why would you assume that? On what grounds? What makes you think it's a reasonable assumption?

Because it's up to the person claiming that religion and science contradict one another to make a reasonable case, which I haven't seen?

Also, doesn't the assumption by itself require one to also assume religion has any bearing on reality at all? It seems to me that you actually require additional assumptions (not stated in the OP) to even only assume that which I just quoted...

Not necessarily. It just means assuming that religion and science complement one another; it doesn't necessarily say if religion is true or not.

I'm just wondering on what basis you would make the assumption that you suggest in the OP. How would you justify the assumption? Is it a reasonable assumption? How?

I justify the assumption by not having any convincing rational argumentation by people who claim religion and science can't work together.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because it's up to the person claiming that religion and science contradict one another to make a reasonable case, which I haven't seen?

Not necessarily. It just means assuming that religion and science complement one another; it doesn't necessarily say if religion is true or not.

I justify the assumption by not having any convincing rational argumentation by people who claim religion and science can't work together.

1. All that assumes that the "null hypothesis" is that religion is a valid model of reality.

2. Religion and science don't mix and match by definition. One is faith based, the other evidence based.

3. good luck with the assumption that science is complementary to the undetectable 7-headed dragon. I'm guessing you do not have any convincing rational argument that these two can't work together either, amirite?

 

[bhsmte]

Because it's up to the person claiming that religion and science contradict one another to make a reasonable case, which I haven't seen?



Not necessarily. It just means assuming that religion and science complement one another; it doesn't necessarily say if religion is true or not.



I justify the assumption by not having any convincing rational argumentation by people who claim religion and science can't work together.

Can you give examples of religion and science actually complimenting one another?

As I stated in a previous post, I believe religion and science can coexist, but one would have to have adjustable and unique interpretations of theology for them to compliment one another.

For example; how many people agreed with the TOE 50 years ago compared to today? There was ample evidence available in regards to the TOE 50 years ago, but far fewer agreed with it. The difference has been, education and acquired knowledge, that makes refusing to acknowledge certain findings of science untenable to some. With fundamentalists, we see them hold onto their belief, by flat out rejecting science, because they have no choice. With most others, they adjust their theology to accommodate science and this is how they make them compatible.

50 years ago, most Christians stated; God created man in it's present form. Today, most acknowledge the TOE and just say; this is how God did it. The adjustment comes in this; when science discoveries become compelling, the theist just says; well, that is how God did it.

 

[Received]

Can you give examples of religion and science actually complimenting one another?

As I stated in a previous post, I believe religion and science can coexist, but one would have to have adjustable and unique interpretations of theology for them to compliment one another.

For example; how many people agreed with the TOE 50 years ago compared to today? There was ample evidence available in regards to the TOE 50 years ago, but far fewer agreed with it. The difference has been, education and acquired knowledge, that makes refusing to acknowledge certain findings of science untenable to some. With fundamentalists, we see them hold onto their belief, by flat out rejecting science, because they have no choice. With most others, they adjust their theology to accommodate science and this is how they make them compatible.

50 years ago, most Christians stated; God created man in it's present form. Today, most acknowledge the TOE and just say; this is how God did it. The adjustment comes in this; when science discoveries become compelling, the theist just says; well, that is how God did it.

I think in the sense articulated in the OP science and religion can complement each other. Religion isn't inherently falsifiable, but when it's paired with science (which is falsifiable), then you can negatively know what God isn't when science reveals that X belief about God can't scientifically be the case. Take creationism: that can't be true (negatively know) because of the fossil record, speciation, etc.

 

[bhsmte]

I think in the sense articulated in the OP science and religion can complement each other. Religion isn't inherently falsifiable, but when it's paired with science (which is falsifiable), then you can negatively know what God isn't when science reveals that X belief about God can't scientifically be the case. Take creationism: that can't be true (negatively know) because of the fossil record, speciation, etc.

Well, it just shows how wrong many people were in regards to their specific theological beliefs and some still are. The one's that accept science, just adjust, the one's that can not adjust, just deny.

Science has never had to adapt to religion to do it's work, but religion has certainly had to adapt, to science. I would imagine, this will continue.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think in the sense articulated in the OP science and religion can complement each other. Religion isn't inherently falsifiable, but when it's paired with science (which is falsifiable), then you can negatively know what God isn't when science reveals that X belief about God can't scientifically be the case. Take creationism: that can't be true (negatively know) because of the fossil record, speciation, etc.

By the same reasoning, any unfalsifiable idea your imagination can produce can "complement" science. Seems useless.

Also, you seem to be saying it's fine to believe it until science proves you wrong. Is that right?

 

[KCfromNC]

Science has never had to adapt to religion to do it's work

Ignoring cases where religion had the political power to stifle scientific research, of course. But that's just another example to contradict the idea that they are complementary rather than adversarial.