How do you deal with the 'science is a religion' crap?

[PingOfPong]

Excellent. You can demonstrate to us, therefore, how religion explains the cosmic microwave background. Thanks.

God did it.

 

[Tubbythin]

I think it is you that "lack understanding". All you can tell from lensing studies and galaxy rotation patterns is that there is "missing mass". You have no evidence at all that any of that missing mass is contained in exotic forms of matter that have not been seen here on Earth.

Lensing tell us that the missing mass cannot be largely in the form of massive objects,
"We" have overwhelming evidence you continue to ignore and pretend doesn't exist. Anybody can see that from the other thread you appear to have run away from.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I could call myself a giraffe and a penguin. I couldn't be both. She acknowledges herself that the two religions have incompatible beliefs and that she can't reconcile them.

Biblical literalism and evolutionism have incompatible beliefs as well.
Again, your second argument just doesn't work.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Excellent. You can demonstrate to us, therefore, how religion explains the cosmic microwave background. Thanks.

Sure.....

In the beginning God said "let there be light" and he breathed "Godflation" what you call "inflation" into the "near singularity" and everything began to expand. The surface of last scattering is what we see of that original creation event.

 

[PingOfPong]

Aha! So you admit then that inflation explains the microwave background. I don't see why you see the need to add new entities like God on top of that.

 

[Gaspode]

Keep the thread on-topic please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Dr Adequate]

Biblical literalism and evolutionism have incompatible beliefs as well.

And there would also be a conflict between a cult that believed that two twos were five and the multiplication table. But there would still be nothing about the "religion" of the multiplication table which would necessarily exclude actual religious belief per se --- though it would preclude membership in that particular cult.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are many different ethical systems which each provide different answers to the question 'what should we ought to do?' I'm unaware if any have been shown to give the right answer, which is dependent on the values we have.

Science can help us achieve our goals and predict the outcome of our actions, but it doesn't say if are goals or actions are morally right or wrong, good or bad.

This discussion has matured so that I will adjust my answer here.

How does the 'religion answer' differ from the real source, 'people's answers'? What distinguishes religion? Religion is people, it isn't anything else like science is. Science is a process. Religion is whatever people who made it up say it is.

And look at this timely Science Blog entry related to my point:

Creating God in one's own image

For many religious people, the popular question "What would Jesus do?" is essentially the same as "What would I do?" That's the message from an intriguing and controversial new study by Nicholas Epley from the University of Chicago. Through a combination of surveys, psychological manipulation and brain-scanning, he has found that when religious Americans try to infer the will of God, they mainly draw on their own personal beliefs.

Just what I've been trying to say all spelled out succinctly for us there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Deleted, after seeing the not on topic notice.

 

[athon]

How does the 'religion answer' differ from the real source, 'people's answers'? What distinguishes religion? Religion is people, it isn't anything else like science is. Science is a process. Religion is whatever people who made it up say it is.

I disagree.

Science is no more or less a process than religion is. Or rather, neither is a single method or process to defining reality, but rather is a set of values against which processes are evaluated.

In many ways, both are similar. They both tend to respect members of the community who are viewed as having special knowledge. They both attempt to reconcile observations with a greater unknown system. And both appreciate processes one can go through in order to arrive at a conclusion that attempts to describe this system.

However, from there they tend to part.

In science, logic and internal consistency are paramount, while in animistic systems they are of less importance. Animistic systems place dogma in high regard, while science places it in low regard. Note, that doesn't mean it is absent in science, but rather there is a cultural expectation to avoid it. In science, a history of evolving ideas is respected. In religion, it is resisted.

Being humans, there will be a lot of crossover in how two people will attempt to describe reality. The ideals and values in how we do this are what distinguish them. Yet there is nothing to stop those ideals and values mixing, blurring the lines for individuals and leading many to be rather religious in their scientific thinking and others to be rather scientific in their religious thinking.

Athon

 

[Tubbythin]

Sure.....

In the beginning God said "let there be light" and he breathed "Godflation" what you call "inflation" into the "near singularity" and everything began to expand. The surface of last scattering is what we see of that original creation event.

Right. But none of this is falsifiable. Unlike LCDM. Which nicely illustrates the difference between science (eg the LCDM) and religion (your mutterings) and hopefully gets us back on topic.

So in answer to the original question, you cask the proponent of the "science is a religion crap" what falsifiable predictions their religion of choice makes. And also what kind of evidence would convince them their religion is "wrong".

 

[Perpetual Student]

Right. But none of this is falsifiable. Unlike LCDM. Which nicely illustrates the difference between science (eg the LCDM) and religion (your mutterings) and hopefully gets us back on topic.

So in answer to the original question, you cask the proponent of the "science is a religion crap" what falsifiable predictions their religion of choice makes. And also what kind of evidence would convince them their religion is "wrong".

Excellent! Everything in science is potentially falsifiable. Consequently the history of science is one of change and expansion while the history of religion is one of stagnation and retrenchment. Science is open to new evidence (although sometimes it takes a generation for change to set in); religion hides from evidence and core beliefs can never be falsified (e.g.: the existence of an omnipotent deity).

 

[Dancing David]

Keep the thread on-topic please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

It wasn't me, instead of report I am IGNORING MM.

Sorry Michael you are spewing your same empty phrases.

You should take note to not just take your only topic and post it in threads.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I disagree.

Science is no more or less a process than religion is. Or rather, neither is a single method or process to defining reality, but rather is a set of values against which processes are evaluated.

In many ways, both are similar. They both tend to respect members of the community who are viewed as having special knowledge. They both attempt to reconcile observations with a greater unknown system. And both appreciate processes one can go through in order to arrive at a conclusion that attempts to describe this system.

However, from there they tend to part.

In science, logic and internal consistency are paramount, while in animistic systems they are of less importance. Animistic systems place dogma in high regard, while science places it in low regard. Note, that doesn't mean it is absent in science, but rather there is a cultural expectation to avoid it. In science, a history of evolving ideas is respected. In religion, it is resisted.

Being humans, there will be a lot of crossover in how two people will attempt to describe reality. The ideals and values in how we do this are what distinguish them. Yet there is nothing to stop those ideals and values mixing, blurring the lines for individuals and leading many to be rather religious in their scientific thinking and others to be rather scientific in their religious thinking.

Athon

I agree with why you disagree.

Focusing only on the differences between science and religion would ignore the similarities between the two that a person claiming they are the same has correctly raised (either by chance or observation), which is fundamentalist-type behaviour, further confirming to the person science is like a religion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I disagree.

Science is no more or less a process than religion is. Or rather, neither is a single method or process to defining reality, but rather is a set of values against which processes are evaluated.

In many ways, both are similar. They both tend to respect members of the community who are viewed as having special knowledge. They both attempt to reconcile observations with a greater unknown system. And both appreciate processes one can go through in order to arrive at a conclusion that attempts to describe this system.

However, from there they tend to part.

In science, logic and internal consistency are paramount, while in animistic systems they are of less importance. Animistic systems place dogma in high regard, while science places it in low regard. Note, that doesn't mean it is absent in science, but rather there is a cultural expectation to avoid it. In science, a history of evolving ideas is respected. In religion, it is resisted.

Being humans, there will be a lot of crossover in how two people will attempt to describe reality. The ideals and values in how we do this are what distinguish them. Yet there is nothing to stop those ideals and values mixing, blurring the lines for individuals and leading many to be rather religious in their scientific thinking and others to be rather scientific in their religious thinking.

Athon

Science: I believe [x] because there is supporting rational* evidence.

Irrational** theist: I believe [x] because there is supporting irrational evidence.

Irrational atheist: I believe [x] because there is supporting irrational evidence.

*Rational evidence being evidence that would be consistent with the scientific process. **Irrational would be evidence that was just made up.

My point is religion and god beliefs are not a special irrational means of coming to a conclusion. In one sense you may pick your religious dogma to arbitrarily follow. Or you can draw your irrational conclusions from an astrology chart, or you can make them up and not even question why you decided to believe [x] it just makes sense to you (which I think is the majority of the cases of irrational beliefs). Our brains have an inborn method of seeking relationships, for example, that lead people to draw any number of false conclusions based on coincidental events.

 

[athon]

*Rational evidence being evidence that would be consistent with the scientific process. **Irrational would be evidence that was just made up.

To risk being repetitive, there is no 'the' scientific process. As I said, it isn't a single approach, but a set of values which form the basis of a methodology for evaluating methods. Many people try to contain science into boundaries such as stating it is always falsifiable or always subscribes to a method. Yet history shows such constraints are pretty useless when it comes to creating a neat box for science to sit in.

Being rational might have connotations of using logic, which is more of a scientific value than a religious one. Yet it has nothing to do with whether a belief subscribes to a scientific process or not.

As for 'evidence that is made up', all evidence is 'made up'. Evidence is the personal weight of confidence we place in the relationship between observations. We can't ever see that - we have to speculate it, and then evaluate that speculation against a methodology.

Athon

 

[athon]

Excellent! Everything in science is potentially falsifiable.

No more than in religion. There have been many instances of claims being made which would be commonly thought as 'scientific' yet have no presented a means of being falsified. Especially with regards to modern physics.

Now, you could simply say it isn't science because it isn't falsifiable, but you would just be committing a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Popper's attempt at creating a strict boundary for science has been incredibly useful, yet there is far from a universal acceptance in it defining what is and what is not science. (Personally I quite like Lakatos's interpretation of his work, which reconciles it with Kuhn's social paradigms). After all, a large amount of useful science would never progress to the light of day if it was disregarded as unscientific merely because nobody could falsify it.

There is a real danger in using a single qualifier like that as a means of solving the demarcation problem. Even Popper had softened his position significantly in the end, conceding many of the views of his students.

Athon

 

[Tubbythin]

After all, a large amount of useful science would never progress to the light of day if it was disregarded as unscientific merely because nobody could falsify it.

Such as?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To risk being repetitive, there is no 'the' scientific process. As I said, it isn't a single approach, but a set of values which form the basis of a methodology for evaluating methods. Many people try to contain science into boundaries such as stating it is always falsifiable or always subscribes to a method. Yet history shows such constraints are pretty useless when it comes to creating a neat box for science to sit in.

How can you say there is no scientific process just because some people might quibble over the best methodology?

As for 'evidence that is made up', all evidence is 'made up'. Evidence is the personal weight of confidence we place in the relationship between observations. We can't ever see that - we have to speculate it, and then evaluate that speculation against a methodology.

Athon

I didn't realize you don't recognize the difference between religion and science or rational world vs irrational and so on.

Let's start there. Science successfully provides descriptions of the Universe. Religion, superstition, god beliefs and so on consistently fail to describe the Universe. Thus, for example, medical science finds cures for disease where prayers do not. There is a huge demonstrable difference.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Now, you could simply say it isn't science because it isn't falsifiable, but you would just be committing a no true Scotsman fallacy.

People have been seriously overusing this. Every disputed counterexample is not automatically a "no true Scotsman fallacy".
If I gave an example of a Scotsman someone who was born in, lived in, and identified with, Ireland, it's perfectly reasonable for you to refute the example by saying that he's not a Scotsman. It's accurate to say that no true Scotsman is a man who has nothing to do with Scotland.
Similarly, when debating about what qualifies as science, it's entirely reasonable to demand falsifiability as a requirement for scientific theories, and as a consequence, to reject any theory that isn't falsifiable as outside the realm of science.