[Luis Dias]

There you go again with the "true" and the "real"... your language is filled with metaphysics!


I don't need statistics. I just have to remind you that the vatican is still partially creationistic (they couldn't be otherwise, or they would implode in their own theology). That should be a damned good indication of what a billion people living in rather well educated part of the world believes in. Now imagine the uneducated part.

Take for instance, this quotation from the current pope:

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.

Focus on the last two sentences. What is the gist of this barrier? Dualism. Evolution may have won the day of material evolution, he is saying, but surely it cannot comment on the issues of spirituality and "what it means to be human", etc.

Except that it clearly can. And yet, here we have Ratzinger, denying this possibility, as if we should have his holy permission to study these more intriguing questions within science and not within religion. How is this compatible with science?

Notice a pattern though. The less a particular religion is worried about securing the tradition of its own meaning, the less problematic it is with science. But this means that the less incompatible religion with science is, the more liberal, vague and meaningless it becomes (with people sprouting meaningless new-age uncommited feel good placebos like you have been here).

[Luis Dias]

Evolution flies in the face of almost every religion in the world. The Vatican is inherently creationist, and proudly so.

And even if that wasn't true, the lack of inconsistencies between religious truths and scientific findings would only prove that they were lucky, not that they are compatible processes. Which they aren't.

You seem to have a fixation upon religion as an institution, which isn't always accurate.  Some may be heavily institutionalized, such as the Catholic Church, but others are not.  The ones that focus upon the church rather than all the things Battuta has talked about tend to struggle with science, and that is why the Vatican usually seems to be stuck in the past. 

However, some churches focus more on things like the desire to understand God or what role God wants people to play in the universe.  People who follow this pattern of belief aren't inherently at odds with science.  For these people, if a book written thousands of years ago is proven wrong by science, it doesn't really matter, since their belief in God was not dependent on that book.

And who are we to say that the latter are the "Real" believers, like Battuta is saying, and not the former? For me, they are both believers.

Look, my point is, religion clings to something, always. It always asserts it knows something special about the universe. Some religions are more minimalistic than others, but they *all* assert they know *something more* than what "meets the eye" about the universe.

So some religions cling literally to a holy book, others not so much. The more liberal a religion, the vaguer and meaningless it becomes, until it becomes a feel good new age placebo. A sort of homeopathic philosophy.

The fact that the less religious a person is, the less struggle he has with science, is evidence for what I've been saying.

That may be true, but I don't think that's the point.  You're trying to say that all religion is incompatible w/ science.

Philosophically speaking. Not materially nor psychologically, etc.

Clearly, there are good scientists who have deep faith. I'm not disputing that.

I believe it is. The problem seems to be that some cannot fathom the concept that one can maintain faith in concepts and principles held by a set of beliefs whilst simultaneously striving to understand the natural universe and that which abides therein.

This is not even about religion, we are all like that, so I think you're bringing a strawman here.

[General Battuta]

I don't need statistics.

Of course you do; you made a statistical claim.

Of course, you are cherry picking a very tiny proportion of people with faith out there.

I just have to remind you that the vatican is still partially creationisic (they couldn't be otherwise, or they would implode in their own theology). That should be a damned good indication of what a billion people living in rather well educated part of the world believes in. Now imagine the uneducated part.

What does the Vatican have to do with faith? How does the position of the Vatican speak to the absolute ability of a man of faith to use the tools of science?

But this means that the less incompatible religion with science is, the more liberal, vague and meaningless it becomes (with people sprouting meaningless new-age uncommited feel good placebos like you have been here).

Interesting. You seem to legitimize the very types of faith you're arguing against while disregarding the history of many others. Faith is not a liberal, vague, and meaningless thing; it is something open to individual human experience, rather than something ordinated. Perhaps this has something to do with the context of religion we were raised with?

The fact that the scientific method as we know it apparently came from Islamic scientist-theologians suggests the two worldviews are not, after all, fundamentally incompatible.

Clearly, there are good scientists who have deep faith. I'm not disputing that.

I think you have been; but it's good to see this point conceded.

Humans are wired for belief. There will always be belief in something. We need to be careful not to compromise science by turning it into another religion, rather than a set of tools.

[Delta_V]

I don't need statistics. I just have to remind you that the vatican is still partially creationistic

The Vatican may be, but it is not representative of Christianity as a whole, much less all of religion.  I've met plenty of Christians who, while they believe in God, think the Vatican's clinging to a book written thousands of years ago as absolute truth is completely ridiculous.

And who are we to say that the latter are the "Real" believers, like Battuta is saying, and not the former? For me, they are both believers.

One believes in God just as much as the other, you can't point at one and say they are more religious.

[Luis Dias]

I don't need statistics.

Of course you do; you made a statistical claim.

Of course, you are cherry picking a very tiny proportion of people with faith out there.

So are you claiming that theistic scientists aren't a very tiny proportion of living people?

Do you need quotations on that?

What does the Vatican have to do with faith? How does the position of the Vatican speak to the absolute ability of a man of faith to use the tools of science?

Did you read the quotation I have given you by Ratzinger? Did you even bothered to read what I said about it?

But this means that the less incompatible religion with science is, the more liberal, vague and meaningless it becomes (with people sprouting meaningless new-age uncommited feel good placebos like you have been here).

Interesting. You seem to legitimize the very types of faith you're arguing against while disregarding the history of many others. Faith is not a liberal, vague, and meaningless thing; it is something open to individual human experience, rather than something ordinated. Perhaps this has something to do with the context of religion we were raised with?

Religion can be many things, and while I agree that it would be great for it to be confined to a "personal experience", alas it is not. It's a social powerful institution as well.

The fact that the scientific method as we know it apparently came from Islamic scientist-theologians suggests the two worldviews are not, after all, fundamentally incompatible.

I have answered to this non-sequitur quite well. What happens when a fervent creationist society goes embracing empirical reality in order to find God and then finding out about what really happened to the species in the Earth? How could such a person making this particular finding not lose his faith? Why is it the case that this is what precisely happened?

Clearly, there are good scientists who have deep faith. I'm not disputing that.

I think you have been; but it's good to see this point conceded.

I've even warned that I wasn't disputing that in the beggining of this discussion. I'll quote myself for your entertainment:

Of course not. To have them both you only require an inconsistent mind. And alas, we are humans, so that's a given.

More.

This does not mean that a scientist cannot be religious. He just cannot be both at the same time.

More.

This is psychology, and I fully agree with that. As I said, we are inconsistent mammals, and we seem to get along just fine with a lot of crazy stuff between our ears, while doing our jobs perfectly well and competently. Just ask Newton.

How many more times do you need people to repeat things until you actually acknowledge them?

Humans are wired for belief. There will always be belief in something. We need to be careful not to compromise science by turning it into another religion, rather than a set of tools.

There is a subtle relativism permeating this last sentence of yours, as if religion is okay, since science can't replace it, and even despite the fact that they are usually sprouting unverifiable nonsense, it's better than science taking over the discussion, because of the dangers of scientism or what have you.

Personally I don't see the problem of leaving superstition behind us and start talking about things in a rational, empirical way, even if such a task seems more daunting and unnervingly novel, specially when we get to talk about morality and agency. I can't understand what exactly is that religion brings to the table other than a "gut feeling" of moral righteousness or just dogmatic traditions.

You can perfectly have a spiritual and loving conversation in a post-religious society, and I just can't understand where this fear of "Science!" comes from, apart from some sci-fi retro movie or game where scientists are german nazis, etc.

I don't need statistics. I just have to remind you that the vatican is still partially creationistic

The Vatican may be, but it is not representative of Christianity as a whole, much less all of religion.  I've met plenty of Christians who, while they believe in God, think the Vatican's clinging to a book written thousands of years ago as absolute truth is completely ridiculous.

And they are both 1) right and 2) less christians than they think they are. Simple as that.

But there's always a good litmus test. Ask them where they think the human soul comes from.

And who are we to say that the latter are the "Real" believers, like Battuta is saying, and not the former? For me, they are both believers.

One believes in God just as much as the other, you can't point at one and say they are more religious.

Exactly, thank you

[General Battuta]

I have answered to this non-sequitur quite well. What happens when a fervent creationist society goes embracing empirical reality in order to find God and then finding out about what really happened to the species in the Earth? How could such a person making this particular finding not lose his faith? Why is it the case that this is what precisely happened?

If 'what precisely happened' was nothing at all, I'm not sure I see the point here. If a society that believes that to know creation is to know God discovers the truth of creation, they rejoice.

Religion can be many things, and while I agree that it would be great for it to be confined to a "personal experience", alas it is not. It's a social powerful institution as well.

Certainly, but that's irrelevant to the point in contention: whether a scientist can hold faith.

This does not mean that a scientist cannot be religious. He just cannot be both at the same time.

This is the point in contention; have you or have you not conceded it?

There is a subtle relativism permeating this last sentence of yours, as if religion is okay, since science can't replace it, and even despite the fact that they are usually sprouting unverifiable nonsense, it's better than science taking over the discussion, because of the dangers of scientism or what have you.

Fabricated; no such statement was presented. I think your mistake here is believing that by belief I meant religion. The human brain is hardwired for belief. Scientific methodologies require that we not deploy belief heuristics. Ergo, we must not come to believe in science.

[quote
Personally I don't see the problem of leaving superstition behind us and start talking about things in a rational, empirical way, even if such a task seems more daunting and unnervingly novel, specially when we get to talk about morality and agency. I can't understand what exactly is that religion brings to the table other than a "gut feeling" of moral righteousness or just dogmatic traditions.[/quote]

Exactly why it is critical that we not put science in the place of religion; to do so would annihilate science and all its works.

You can perfectly have a spiritual and loving conversation in a post-religious society, and I just can't understand where this fear of "Science!" comes from, apart from some sci-fi retro movie or game where scientists are german nazis, etc.

Where was any fear of science suggested or invoked? How has this entered the conversation?

[Luis Dias]

I have answered to this non-sequitur quite well. What happens when a fervent creationist society goes embracing empirical reality in order to find God and then finding out about what really happened to the species in the Earth? How could such a person making this particular finding not lose his faith? Why is it the case that this is what precisely happened?

If 'what precisely happened' was nothing at all, I'm not sure I see the point here. If a society that believes that to know creation is to know God discovers the truth of creation, they rejoice.

Like both Darwin and his wife, in their particular way, did?

Religion can be many things, and while I agree that it would be great for it to be confined to a "personal experience", alas it is not. It's a social powerful institution as well.

Certainly, but that's irrelevant to the point in contention: whether a scientist can hold faith.

To state that a scientist can hold faith is as corageous as observing that Isaac Newton was an alchemist and believed in so much woo.

The point is not whether if mammals can hold incompatible beliefs, which they prove time and time again that they can. And live well while doing so. The point is whether if those beliefs are incompatible with each other or not. This is the nth time I repeat this and you still don't get it.

This does not mean that a scientist cannot be religious. He just cannot be both at the same time.

This is the point in contention; have you or have you not conceded it?

No. A scientist cannot be competently skeptical of a particular position to which he is faithful to.

As I said previously (sigh), when he is confronted empirically with something that goes against his religious beliefs, he cannot logically ignore this point of contention. He has two choices.

Either he abandons his particular religious belief, to which he must, at least temporarily, abandon the very faith he was clinging on, or he dismisses empirical evidence.

In this particular moment, he cannot be both a scientist and a faithful person.

Iff* the empirical observations are not in conflict with the religious beliefs, there is obviously (and by definition) no incompatibility.

But we have historical observations of innumerous cases that such conflicts did, in fact, arise, and did in fact, create this schism.

Fabricated; no such statement was presented. I think your mistake here is believing that by belief I meant religion. The human brain is hardwired for belief. Scientific methodologies require that we not deploy belief heuristics. Ergo, we must not come to believe in science.

Well, ironically, you thougth wrong. I understand perfectly fine when you mention "belief". Scientific methodologies do imply belief in certain core aspects of it, but they are empirically justified beliefs.

Exactly why it is critical that we not put science in the place of religion; to do so would annihilate science and all its works.

I don't want to place anything in the place of religion. It's a void that is merely apparent. It needs no filling.

[General Battuta]

The point is not whether if mammals can hold incompatible beliefs, which they prove time and time again that they can. And live well while doing so. The point is whether if those beliefs are incompatible with each other or not. This is the nth time I repeat this and you still don't get it.

Oh, this point hasn't even been in contention. Of course belief in God and science are compatible. Belief in God is compatible with everything because God is omnipotent; he can alter the outcome of any experiment. God stands outside all scientific knowledge.

The question we've been debating is whether a scientist can hold religious belief and still be an effective scientist. You don't seem to dispute that?

No. A scientist cannot be competently skeptical of a particular position to which he is faithful to.

As I said previously (sigh), when he is confronted empirically with something that goes against his religious beliefs, he cannot logically ignore this point of contention. He has two choices.

Either he abandons his particular religious belief, to which he must, at least temporarily, abandon the very faith he was clinging on, or he dismisses empirical evidence.

And as I said previously, this is a false choice. If he believes in God the omnipotent creator, he rejoices that he has come closer to knowing the mind of God, as the devout Muslim would. His science only adds to his faith.

I don't want to place anything in the place of religion. It's a void that is merely apparent. It needs no filling.

Until the human brain is fundamentally rewired, there will always be belief. You believe in something; so do I. We all have our own religions, whether they are ourselves, opinions we hold, sports teams or political causes. The same wiring is invoked.

[Thaeris]

There you go again with the "true" and the "real"... your language is filled with metaphysics!


I don't need statistics. I just have to remind you that the vatican is still partially creationistic (they couldn't be otherwise, or they would implode in their own theology). That should be a damned good indication of what a billion people living in rather well educated part of the world believes in. Now imagine the uneducated part.

Take for instance, this quotation from the current pope:

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.

Focus on the last two sentences. What is the gist of this barrier? Dualism. Evolution may have won the day of material evolution, he is saying, but surely it cannot comment on the issues of spirituality and "what it means to be human", etc.

Except that it clearly can. And yet, here we have Ratzinger, denying this possibility, as if we should have his holy permission to study these more intriguing questions within science and not within religion. How is this compatible with science?

Notice a pattern though. The less a particular religion is worried about securing the tradition of its own meaning, the less problematic it is with science. But this means that the less incompatible religion with science is, the more liberal, vague and meaningless it becomes (with people sprouting meaningless new-age uncommited feel good placebos like you have been here).

OH. GOOD. GREIF. And yes, this is a late post. But seeing as the conversation really hasn't gone anywhere...

Let's think about the Bible for an instant, a text which in some form or other has endured for THOUSANDS of years. And it was written by people THOUSANDS of years ago. Such people would not have had any concept of the intricate, lengthy processes by which the universe operates, whether it be by breaking down or building up. The ultimate function of Genesis is to relate that there is a form of functional order by which life as we know it came to exist. This also happens to include God, whom the reader today should understand IS NOT bound to a physical universe or plane of existance as we know it (if you care to consider that God exists, of course).

What you're arguing here is official doctrines and beleif statements, which may vary considerably in ANY broad religious group. Note how even general scientific understanding operates in this fashion, especially in regards to the "bleeding edge" of science. And just like a set of flawed data within a scientific community, if a religious group (which is NOT stagnant) finds their understanding or doctrine to be inaccurate, they will re-analyze their beliefs and make a (hopefully positive) change.

Now, regarding the Pope's statement - ultimately understand that he holds to the belief that a God exists. As you noted, this can not be proved or disproved within the scope of the physical universe. Given that he also holds to the belief that human beings are accountable to this God, and that this being has an affect on thier lives, he remains as an important element within their being. So actually, no, there's really not a problem with his statement, considering that this is based around the concept that there exists a being which is not bound to the physical world, yet has an impact on human existance at some level.

What you seem to be exercising more than anything else is your own personal doctrine, which seems to be one of literalism with regards to beliefs which were never bound to science to begin with. This, you argue, makes religion invalid. However, you fail to understand that religion IS NOT science, but rather a set of principals by which you exist within the world. Many, many accounts in a religious text are situational, written for a specific time and place, when a particular understanding endured. And they serve their purposes accordingly. Because you will not allow yourself to understand this, your misunderstanding of the point that religion and science continues. Science serves to further our understanding of the universe, while religion serves (ideally) to enrich our existance within the universe. The two are not incompatible.

[Luis Dias]

The point is not whether if mammals can hold incompatible beliefs, which they prove time and time again that they can. And live well while doing so. The point is whether if those beliefs are incompatible with each other or not. This is the nth time I repeat this and you still don't get it.

Oh, this point hasn't even been in contention. Of course belief in God and science are compatible. Belief in God is compatible with everything because God is omnipotent; he can alter the outcome of any experiment. God stands outside all scientific knowledge.

It is precisely due to this point that science is incompatible with religion. God "can do whatever he wants", and thus "infinitely fool us", thus scientifically we must dismiss any metaphysics in order to carry on doing science. We must pretend that he or it or her never existed in philosophy and just focus on the facts of the matter. Else we are stuck with the arbitrariness of god's whims.

The question we've been debating is whether a scientist can hold religious belief and still be an effective scientist. You don't seem to dispute that?

Depends if whether there is an incompatibility between the beliefs of the scientist and the field he's actually working on. An astrophysicist is not a good astrophysicist if he's a creationist. But a creationist could be a good computer theorist, for example.

No. A scientist cannot be competently skeptical of a particular position to which he is faithful to.

As I said previously (sigh), when he is confronted empirically with something that goes against his religious beliefs, he cannot logically ignore this point of contention. He has two choices.

Either he abandons his particular religious belief, to which he must, at least temporarily, abandon the very faith he was clinging on, or he dismisses empirical evidence.

And as I said previously, this is a false choice. If he believes in God the omnipotent creator, he rejoices that he has come closer to knowing the mind of God, as the devout Muslim would. His science only adds to his faith.

So when a particular belief of his faith is shattered due to the evidence, this is further evidence of the awesomeness of his own god, thus science is compatible with religion?

If that were true, it would only show how gullible people really are. No, in fact, it's the other way around, and that's basic Bayes.

Until the human brain is fundamentally rewired, there will always be belief. You believe in something; so do I. We all have our own religions, whether they are ourselves, opinions we hold, sports teams or political causes. The same wiring is invoked.

We have beliefs. To call them religions is offensive and I deny it wholeheartedly. I am stubburn, I am vile, I am many things, and I'm specially irritated when someone tells me that I'm more religious than the allegedly religious people. No, what happens is you're using the word wrong.

[MP-Ryan]

We have beliefs. To call them religions is offensive and I deny it wholeheartedly. I am stubburn, I am vile, I am many things, and I'm specially irritated when someone tells me that I'm more religious than the allegedly religious people. No, what happens is you're using the word wrong.

Uh, religion is merely codified belief.  And before you argue, the Oxford English dictionary would be considered the pre-eminent authority on the subject, which says:

religion

Pronunciation:/rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
noun
[mass noun]

    the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion
    [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:the world's great religions
    [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion

[General Battuta]

It is precisely due to this point that science is incompatible with religion. God "can do whatever he wants", and thus "infinitely fool us", thus scientifically we must dismiss any metaphysics in order to carry on doing science. We must pretend that he or it or her never existed in philosophy and just focus on the facts of the matter. Else we are stuck with the arbitrariness of god's whims.

Disregard, not disbelief. That's all that's required. Don't allow the religious belief to get caught in the workings of empiricism; view, instead, the empiricism as a tool to get closer to God, a form of prayer.

Depends if whether there is an incompatibility between the beliefs of the scientist and the field he's actually working on. An astrophysicist is not a good astrophysicist if he's a creationist.

Of course not. But the fact that a creationist - who allows religious belief to interfere with empiricism - is not a good empiricist does not preclude other religious people from being so.

So when a particular belief of his faith is shattered due to the evidence, this is further evidence of the awesomeness of his own god, thus science is compatible with religion?

How many religions have ever collapsed due to scientific discovery?

Doctrines and passages of scripture are not the heart of a faith. They can change. They do change.

We have beliefs. To call them religions is offensive and I deny it wholeheartedly. I am stubburn, I am vile, I am many things, and I'm specially irritated when someone tells me that I'm more religious than the allegedly religious people. No, what happens is you're using the word wrong.

They use the same neural wiring. They are the same things. I would describe my love for my partner, for example, as religious. Perhaps you're confusing religion with the sociopolitical structures of some organized religions?

[Shivan Hunter]

*steps in in the middle of the conversation*

Luis Dias, you seem to be conflating belief in an omnipotent creator with a certain individual aspect of a given religion. Back in Galileo's time, the curch believed that the earth was the center of the universe. Galileo observed that it was not. This observation was in conflict with the popular belief of geocentrism, not the belief in an omnipotent creator.

The same is true of evolution; someone can observe that evolution happens and still believe that it is the way god designed the universe.

This tangent about god messing with experiments- well, results happen consistently. If I drop a pencil and it falls to the floor, that's what I was expecting, since it has happened every time the pencil-drop experiment was performed. I *believe* it will continue to happen the same way since I have no reason so believe it will change. In much the same vein, if the result of the exoeriment is the result of god trolling us all, I might as well believe he will continue to do so consistently, and thus we have learned as much about the universe as if gof is not part of the equation at all.

if GlaDOS messes with experiments, though, then I have no idea what will happen.

[Luis Dias]

OH. GOOD. GREIF.

Oh come on it's fun! Don't be mad!

Let's think about the Bible for an instant, a text which in some form or other has endured for THOUSANDS of years. And it was written by people THOUSANDS of years ago. Such people would not have had any concept of the intricate, lengthy processes by which the universe operates, whether it be by breaking down or building up. The ultimate function of Genesis is to relate that there is a form of functional order by which life as we know it came to exist.

So far so good...

This also happens to include God, whom the reader today should understand IS NOT bound to a physical universe or plane of existance as we know it (if you care to consider that God exists, of course).

And how exactly do you know this, other than by revelation?

This is exactly what I meant by special knowledge of the universe beyond "what meets the eye". How can you even know these things?

What you're arguing here is official doctrines and beleif statements, which may vary considerably in ANY broad religious group. Note how even general scientific understanding operates in this fashion, especially in regards to the "bleeding edge" of science. And just like a set of flawed data within a scientific community, if a religious group (which is NOT stagnant) finds their understanding or doctrine to be inaccurate, they will re-analyze their beliefs and make a (hopefully positive) change.

Any religion *has* a bunch of unverifiable unempirical statements about the world preached on faith. As I said previously, they can be more or less minimal about it. But like the above problem I've pointed to you about how do you know god is not bound to this universe, bla bla bla, they all have it.

Any relationship with "bleeding edge" science is flawed, since no theoretical physicist will preach their own version of the cosmos without labeling it with glaring red letters "CALCULATED AND JUSTIFIED SPECULATION", and not write any holy book about it.

Now, regarding the Pope's statement - ultimately understand that he holds to the belief that a God exists. As you noted, this can not be proved or disproved within the scope of the physical universe. Given that he also holds to the belief that human beings are accountable to this God, and that this being has an affect on thier lives, he remains as an important element within their being. So actually, no, there's really not a problem with his statement, considering that this is based around the concept that there exists a being which is not bound to the physical world, yet has an impact on human existance at some level.

He believes in "God", so far so good. He also believes that humans are accountable to him. I have no problems with it. He could believe he's Elvis. I would still have no problems with it. What is problematic in that quotation is not his beliefs on how the world is (for I couldn't care less about that), but his arbitrary ruling that X and Y are out of scope of the empirical domain because they are "Special", they are "souly", they have this extra-special metaphysical sauce(tm) that is, by the pope's definition, out of the domains of science. If this is what he preaches to people, then yes I have a problem with it and I consider it to be against science. Many young people will listen to this and will close their minds to any kind of research to these questions, because they deemed them to be "out of scope of science".

What you seem to be exercising more than anything else is your own personal doctrine,

Not doctrine, opinion. Yes, ghastly, I am opinionated .

...which seems to be one of literalism with regards to beliefs which were never bound to science to begin with. This, you argue, makes religion invalid.

No, my point is that *every* religion *lives by* a set of unfounded and unverifiable claims, and that these are mostly incompatible with the scientific attitude.

However, you fail to understand that religion IS NOT science, but rather a set of principals by which you exist within the world. Many, many accounts in a religious text are situational, written for a specific time and place, when a particular understanding endured. And they serve their purposes accordingly. Because you will not allow yourself to understand this, your misunderstanding of the point that religion and science continues. Science serves to further our understanding of the universe, while religion serves (ideally) to enrich our existance within the universe. The two are not incompatible.

Not only did I assert that religion is the traditional attempt to surpass the humean is-ought problem a page or two ago, but I also find it quite ironically sad that you yourself describe religion as "situational". That's the kind of adjectives we use in Portugal to define opportunistic politics, and that is not, incidentally, a coincidence.

Of course religion is "situational", you see it every day, everywhere. You see this kind of thinking in alternative medicine, for example, where this "living thing" (using Battuta's adjective) adapted and fitted to 21st century language, and thus we are bombarded with "Quantum Healings" and "Magnetic Rings" and sciencey-looking stuff. The point is that it doesn't matter what it does (mostly nothing), but what it makes people feel it does, kickstarting the placebo effect.

It's the exact same phenomena with religion, with the plus bonus that with religion you get to say to most people that X and Y are "wrong" because "God said so, so there", and that ends the conversation, minimizing any danger of moral degradation, etc. People remember these things and the (unchallenged) authority that comes along with it, and so it's a powerful tool to do just that.

But one just has to look to what many theocratic countries think that their "god" tells them what is the "right" thing to do to a rational person cringe at this line of argument for religion.

[Luis Dias]

We have beliefs. To call them religions is offensive and I deny it wholeheartedly. I am stubburn, I am vile, I am many things, and I'm specially irritated when someone tells me that I'm more religious than the allegedly religious people. No, what happens is you're using the word wrong.

Uh, religion is merely codified belief.  And before you argue, the Oxford English dictionary would be considered the pre-eminent authority on the subject, which says:

religion

Pronunciation:/rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
noun
[mass noun]

    the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion
    [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:the world's great religions
    [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion

So you basically quoted a dictionary that falsified your assertion that religion is "merely" coded belief. So what? 

Disregard, not disbelief. That's all that's required. Don't allow the religious belief to get caught in the workings of empiricism; view, instead, the empiricism as a tool to get closer to God, a form of prayer.

Isn't that a form of turning science into religion?

Either way, I can see that kind of religion too. The problem is that there's nothing in "religiosity" that prevents anyone to see it exactly the other way around, that the curiosity of "god's creation" is as unholy as it gets. And lo and behold, the world is filled with that objection too.

So you say "what if we create a super-cool religion?", well I'd say it would be much better than 99.9% of all of what is out there, for sure, but it would still be religion. Why do you need it so much? Can't you just say that you are fascinated by the universe? Why this nauseating self-serving egomaniacal obsession for an imaginary friend that, gasp, happens to be the full blown creator of the world?

Seems too self-centered to be desirable.

Of course not. But the fact that a creationist - who allows religious belief to interfere with empiricism - is not a good empiricist does not preclude other religious people from being so.

As I said, if you have a set of people whose beliefs do not interfere with their field of science, then there is, by definition, not a problem, at least pragmatically.

So when a particular belief of his faith is shattered due to the evidence, this is further evidence of the awesomeness of his own god, thus science is compatible with religion?

How many religions have ever collapsed due to scientific discovery?

Christianity. Go read the percentage of europeans who are believers.

Doctrines and passages of scripture are not the heart of a faith. They can change. They do change.

Doctrines are at the heart of faith. Strip a religion of the entirety of them, and you have destroyed a religion. You'll find no religion which has done this.

They use the same neural wiring. They are the same things. I would describe my love for my partner, for example, as religious. Perhaps you're confusing religion with the sociopolitical structures of some organized religions?

No, perhaps you are confusing the words you use one with another. You love your partner, that's great. You say that's your reliigion, but what you are doing is poetry. That's not religion. If your strategy of conversation here is to muddle the words in a Clintonian way, we should just end the conversation. English is a stupid *****y language that gives credit to this type of ambiguity, and if you want to discuss things in a rational way, you should not get distracted by its total disregard for clarity and combat it. Otherwise, everything is just everything and words become meaningless.

[General Battuta]

Isn't that a form of turning science into religion?

Nope, the results you get will be just as good by those from an atheist investigator. The beauty of science is replication should work for anyone with good methodology.

Either way, I can see that kind of religion too. The problem is that there's nothing in "religiosity" that prevents anyone to see it exactly the other way around, that the curiosity of "god's creation" is as unholy as it gets. And lo and behold, the world is filled with that objection too.

Sure, but this isn't an argument about that; it's about whether it's possible for a scientist with faith to hold his faith and his scientific conduct together and still be a good scientist.

So you say "what if we create a super-cool religion?", well I'd say it would be much better than 99.9% of all of what is out there, for sure, but it would still be religion. Why do you need it so much? Can't you just say that you are fascinated by the universe? Why this nauseating self-serving egomaniacal obsession for an imaginary friend that, gasp, happens to be the full blown creator of the world?

That's a historical a question. Religion arose for some reason; it propagated for some reason. I'm not particularly interested in that question at the moment; again, it's orthogonal.

As I said, if you have a set of people whose beliefs do not interfere with their field of science, then there is, by definition, not a problem, at least pragmatically.

All it takes is one.

Christianity. Go read the percentage of europeans who are believers.

Christianity remains the largest religion in the world. It has hardly collapsed.

Doctrines are at the heart of faith. Strip a religion of the entirety of them, and you have destroyed a religion. You'll find no religion which has done this.

Exactly so - no religion has enough of its doctrines tied up in matters sensitive to scientific discovery for it to matter.

No, perhaps you are confusing the words you use one with another. You love your partner, that's great. You say that's your reliigion, but what you are doing is poetry. That's not religion. If your strategy of conversation here is to muddle the words in a Clintonian way, we should just end the conversation. English is a stupid *****y language that gives credit to this type of ambiguity, and if you want to discuss things in a rational way, you should not get distracted by its total disregard for clarity and combat it. Otherwise, everything is just everything and words become meaningless.

It's not poetry at all. Biologically and cognitively, the thoughts we hold and attitudes we maintain literally employ the same heuristics as religion. You use the same cognitions to think about your favorite sports team as you do to confirm your faith.

The human mind is hard-wired for belief. You're a believer. We all are. None of us can help it. The disease is in us, the biases, the cognitive shortcuts.

[Shivan Hunter]

We have beliefs. To call them religions is offensive and I deny it wholeheartedly. I am stubburn, I am vile, I am many things, and I'm specially irritated when someone tells me that I'm more religious than the allegedly religious people. No, what happens is you're using the word wrong.

Uh, religion is merely codified belief.  And before you argue, the Oxford English dictionary would be considered the pre-eminent authority on the subject, which says:

religion

Pronunciation:/rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
noun
[mass noun]

    the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion
    [count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:the world's great religions
    [count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion

So you basically quoted a dictionary that falsified your assertion that religion is "merely" coded belief. So what? 

Um no

"a particular system of faith and worship"
"a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion"

Disregard, not disbelief. That's all that's required. Don't allow the religious belief to get caught in the workings of empiricism; view, instead, the empiricism as a tool to get closer to God, a form of prayer.

Isn't that a form of turning science into religion?

Either way, I can see that kind of religion too. The problem is that there's nothing in "religiosity" that prevents anyone to see it exactly the other way around, that the curiosity of "god's creation" is as unholy as it gets. And lo and behold, the world is filled with that objection too.

So you say "what if we create a super-cool religion?", well I'd say it would be much better than 99.9% of all of what is out there, for sure, but it would still be religion. Why do you need it so much? Can't you just say that you are fascinated by the universe? Why this nauseating self-serving egomaniacal obsession for an imaginary friend that, gasp, happens to be the full blown creator of the world?

Seems too self-centered to be desirable.

Wait so are you still defending the claim that religion in and of itself is incompatible with science? You say there's nothing that prevents a religious person from being dogmatic, but you don't even imply that there's anything to enforce it.

Why would someone need this hypothetical pro-science religion? Well, I dunno, being pretty atheist myself, but some people like to think there's some entity in charge of the universe which gives it "meaning", or something.

Of course not. But the fact that a creationist - who allows religious belief to interfere with empiricism - is not a good empiricist does not preclude other religious people from being so.

As I said, if you have a set of people whose beliefs do not interfere with their field of science, then there is, by definition, not a problem, at least pragmatically.

Again conflating belief in a particular aspect with an entire religion or a person's religiosity. If someone believes in creationism, and they encounter evidence of evolution, then their belief is in conflict with the evidence.

A good scientist accepts the evidence of evolution.

A faithful person does not allow the evidence to deter his belief in god. Not belief in creationism, but belief in god.

A good scientist and faithful person can do both, updating his view of the universe while still accepting that it is the work of a creator.

A stupid person ignores the evidence and retains his belief in creationism. This is the kind of person I'd like to think would drive god crazy.

So when a particular belief of his faith is shattered due to the evidence, this is further evidence of the awesomeness of his own god, thus science is compatible with religion?

How many religions have ever collapsed due to scientific discovery?

Christianity. Go read the percentage of europeans who are believers.

No, how about you cite some specifics instead of telling us to look for them. You're the one making the claim.

[Luis Dias]

Isn't that a form of turning science into religion?

Nope, the results you get will be just as good by those from an atheist investigator. The beauty of science is replication should work for anyone with good methodology.

Either way, I can see that kind of religion too. The problem is that there's nothing in "religiosity" that prevents anyone to see it exactly the other way around, that the curiosity of "god's creation" is as unholy as it gets. And lo and behold, the world is filled with that objection too.

Sure, but this isn't an argument about that; it's about whether it's possible for a scientist with faith to hold his faith and his scientific conduct together and still be a good scientist.

No it wasn't about that. It was about the inherent incompatibility between science and religion. I never negated that it is *possible* for a scientist to have faith and still be a good scientist, just as I will never negate that it is *possible* for a scientist to believe in any ludicrous claim, just as long as it doesn't interfere with his job.

It could, as your example showed, "help him" in his job. It wouldn't make it desirable, nor compatible with science at its core, at its philosophical underpinnings.

All it takes is one.

Let's take Newton for an example. He believed that the Pope was the Antichrist. Now, we cannot say that this belief "undermined" his theory of gravity (although De Grasse Tyson has a different take on this matter: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbqxyv_newton-and-the-philosophy-of-ignora_webcam), but we cannot in any way state that his scientific attitude towards the motions of planets was "compatible" with his religious paranoia.

Christianity remains the largest religion in the world. It has hardly collapsed.

It is collapsing. I see empty churches everywhere. Europe is post-religious by majority, and it will only get "worse" once the older generations die.

Exactly so - no religion has enough of its doctrines tied up in matters sensitive to scientific discovery for it to matter.

Not anymore. And less and less it will have.

It's not poetry at all. Biologically and cognitively, the thoughts we hold and attitudes we maintain literally employ the same heuristics as religion. You use the same cognitions to think about your favorite sports team as you do to confirm your faith.

The human mind is hard-wired for belief. You're a believer. We all are. None of us can help it. The disease is in us, the biases, the cognitive shortcuts.

A causes B, C, D and E.

This does not prove that B is the same as C. Only that they were caused by the same A.

[General Battuta]

Isn't that a form of turning science into religion?

Nope, the results you get will be just as good by those from an atheist investigator. The beauty of science is replication should work for anyone with good methodology.

Either way, I can see that kind of religion too. The problem is that there's nothing in "religiosity" that prevents anyone to see it exactly the other way around, that the curiosity of "god's creation" is as unholy as it gets. And lo and behold, the world is filled with that objection too.

Sure, but this isn't an argument about that; it's about whether it's possible for a scientist with faith to hold his faith and his scientific conduct together and still be a good scientist.

No it wasn't about that. It was about the inherent incompatibility between science and religion.

And we have established that there is no such incompatibility. I rest my case. Dismissed!

[Shivan Hunter]

Sure, but this isn't an argument about that; it's about whether it's possible for a scientist with faith to hold his faith and his scientific conduct together and still be a good scientist.

No it wasn't about that. It was about the inherent incompatibility between science and religion. I never negated that it is *possible* for a scientist to have faith and still be a good scientist, just as I will never negate that it is *possible* for a scientist to believe in any ludicrous claim, just as long as it doesn't interfere with his job.

If science and religion are inherently incompatible, they will come into conflict. If they come into conflict, a scientist must choose between one and the other.

science and creationism are inherently incompatible. science and geocentrism are inherently incompatible.

science and the belief in an omnipotent creator are not incompatible at all.