Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

From lyrics one of Tim Minchin's songs - it actually sums up why today we have people not understanding why their so called 'view' of history and science is wrong and ignorant...

Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

In my opinion, those 2 sentences sums it up and covers why our view at world will never match. Even some religious organizations, like catholic church are trying to make changes to adjust its view toward science, it is still based on preservation of belief as its solid ground.

In my opinion, this is one of reasons recent poll shows decline of religion even among Americans...

a reply to: SuperFrog

If you think science is so incompatible with God, then you should probably take a look at Newton, Einstein and Pascal.

Seems like none of them had trouble considering the possibility that there exists a greater intelligence than human beings.

“God does not play dice with the universe”. - Albert Einstein

Newton's conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)

Pascal's Wager

a reply to: swanne

Appeal to authority fallacy. Just because scientists of the past held those beliefs doesn't make them correct.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Bad choice of argument - using your own argument, the same can be demonstrated about the OP:

Just because Tim Minchin's songs says so doesn't mean he's right.

Yes, oranized religion is hardly scientific. But organized religions cannot hope to understand God if he exists. It will be like a sparrow trying to understand general relativity. If a higher intelligence than human does exists, then we have probably no way to comprehend most of it. But it is just as irrational to ignore the possibility of its existence too; for if it does exist, then there are strong chances that its existence influences our very experiences, just like the existence of general relativity influences the sparrow's experience.

People love to be on teams, to practice the comfort of groupthink, and to have an enemy to rally against.

Meanwhile, science has become something that is used like a club by atheists to beat the religious up with, choosing to make fun of them and belittle their beliefs.

Obviously, the result of this will be religious people withdrawing into groupthink and rallying against their attackers.

a reply to: swanne

I didn't say he was right.

a reply to: SuperFrog

I am responding to the title.

No, science and religion go together just fine. It is ignorance and religion that don't mix, but then, I cannot think of anything ignorance mixes with, so there is that.

Since God's word is a book of how to live, and not a book of science, the two are able to exist in one mind without fear of incompatibility.

a reply to: swanne

Firstly, just imagine more discoveries Newton would make if he did not settle for God to adjust planetary orbits in what he saw as unstable?! Later Pierre-Simon Laplace proved that there was no need for God to make adjustments and there was sort of urban legend in his exchange with Napoleon, but this was never proven true.

As for Einstein, seriously??

On 22 March 1954 Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[9]

In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[10] Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt"[11] to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."[12][13][14]

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Please note, I was talking about religion, general term, not scientist or religious people.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
People love to be on teams, to practice the comfort of groupthink, and to have an enemy to rally against.

Meanwhile, science has become something that is used like a club by atheists to beat the religious up with, choosing to make fun of them and belittle their beliefs.

Obviously, the result of this will be religious people withdrawing into groupthink and rallying against their attackers.

Hey, religion has team for thousands of years now?! Why do you think this is an attack at religion - it is simple fact. I think you are way off of current positions...

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: SuperFrog

I am responding to the title.

No, science and religion go together just fine. It is ignorance and religion that don't mix, but then, I cannot think of anything ignorance mixes with, so there is that.

Since God's word is a book of how to live, and not a book of science, the two are able to exist in one mind without fear of incompatibility.

Really??? Have you read ATS lately??

Simple fix of your statement:

It is ignorance of religion that don't mix with science, but then, I cannot think of anything ignorance mixes with, so there is that.

How do you explain this if not as ignorance and misrepresentation of facts in order to infect science with false 'belief'?! - www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Bad choice of argument - using your own argument, the same can be demonstrated about the OP:

Just because Tim Minchin's songs says so doesn't mean he's right.

The OP didn't use the lyrics as substantive proof of correctness, but as a vehicle to help convey his views on the subject. You tried to use the personal opinions of dead scientists to try a prove your argument.

That's the difference.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Despite being present everywhere, the existence of the Higgs field has so far been unprovable by scientists. Scientists and Engineers have built the CERN Large Hadron Collider, in the hope of proving it's existence once and for all.

and have no doubt folks, we are very close to proving its existence.

Much preferred (by majority scientists) to be called the Higgs Boston or Higgs particle, it also has another name - named so because it is everywhere yet unprovable to show that it even exists, but scientists have faith in their observations and calculations, time is needed to bring it to it's full measure.

It's also called, and recorded in the history books as such......as The God particle.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
People love to be on teams, to practice the comfort of groupthink, and to have an enemy to rally against.

Meanwhile, science has become something that is used like a club by atheists to beat the religious up with, choosing to make fun of them and belittle their beliefs.

Obviously, the result of this will be religious people withdrawing into groupthink and rallying against their attackers.

Granted. But it has been the polar opposite for centuries, BFFT. Is it really any surprise to see the tables turned on those who have historically, been the aggressors?

a reply to: SuperFrog

What is the point of this thread, exactly? Just one of your usual rants against religious people? Fuel the divisions?

Because anyone with more than two neurones knows that there is no need to confine their mind to little boxes ("white and black"). That ignoring the possibility of the existence of a higher intelligence than humans is plain dumb. I am not religious, yet I am not that arrogant to claim with absolute certainty that Man is the ultimate intelligence of the Universe.

originally posted by: swanne

humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)

Pascal's Wager

Pascal's wager is dumb because it assumes that there are only two options for belief: Christianity or atheism.

This is from your wiki link.

Since there have been many religions throughout history, and therefore many conceptions of God (or gods), some assert that all of them need to be factored into the wager, in an argument known as the argument from inconsistent revelations. This, its proponents argue, would lead to a high probability of believing in "the wrong god", which, they claim, eliminates the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed with his Wager. Denis Diderot, a contemporary of Voltaire, concisely expressed this opinion when asked about the wager, saying "an Imam could reason the same way".[16] J. L. Mackie notes that "the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not necessarily the Church of Rome, but perhaps that of the Anabaptists or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshipers of Kali or of Odin."[17]

Another version of this objection argues that for every religion that promulgates rules, there exists another religion that has rules of the opposite kind. If a certain action leads one closer to salvation in the former religion, it leads one further away from it in the latter. Therefore, the expected value of following a certain religion could be negative. Or, one could also argue that there are an infinite number of mutually exclusive religions (which is a subset of the set of all possible religions), and that the probability of any one of them being true is zero; therefore, the expected value of following a certain religion is zero.

Pascal couldn't even be bothered to take that criticism seriously.

As Pascal scholars observe, Pascal regarded the many-religions objection as a rhetorical ploy, a "trap"[22] that he had no intention of falling into. If, however, any who raised it were sincere, they would want to examine the matter "in detail". In that case, they could get some pointers by turning to his chapter on "other religions".

That's clear proof that Pascal suffered from confirmation bias when it came to religion.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: SuperFrog

I am responding to the title.

No, science and religion go together just fine. It is ignorance and religion that don't mix, but then, I cannot think of anything ignorance mixes with, so there is that.

Since God's word is a book of how to live, and not a book of science, the two are able to exist in one mind without fear of incompatibility.

They are perfectly compatible--many scientists were religious. As long as one treats religion as something that considers the philosophical question of "why" and leaves science to consider the practical quesitons of "how" one can have both.

a reply to: NavyDoc

which is what I expressed in my post..

Star for you, for understanding.

originally posted by: swanne
What is the point of this thread, exactly? Just one of your usual rants against religious people? Fuel the divisions?

Was not I clear in title what was intention of thread - to show simple reason why science and religious belief system are not compatible. In my opinion, it shows in simple words why today religious institutions are in decline, and I even pointed that some are trying to fix and adjust, like example with Catholic church.

originally posted by: swanne
Because any minds with more than two neurones knows that ignoring the possibility of the existence of a higher intelligence than humans is plain dumb. I am not religious, yet I am not that arrogant to claim with absolute certainty that Man is the ultimate intelligence of the Universe.

Where did I claim there is NO possibility for higher intelligence?! No, there is always that probability, no matter how small it is. But, ask anyone religious if there is possibility that this higher intelligence does not exist and let me know what will they tell ya.

Let me give you another verse from Minchin's song, that actually I fully agree with....

If you show me
That, say, homoeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I will spin on a f***** dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
Its a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!

Same goes for Religion, horoscope, talk with dead...


a reply to: NavyDoc
Topic is about religion and science, not about scientist or religious folks.
Even small percent of top scientist (7% as of 1998 poll) believe in personal God, this by no mean means that science and religion mix well.

a reply to: swanne

Because any minds with more than two neurones knows that ignoring the possibility of the existence of a higher intelligence than humans is plain dumb. I am not religious, yet I am not that arrogant to claim with absolute certainty that Man is the ultimate intelligence of the Universe.

Agreed. But does that necessarily and automatically translate to deity(god)?

originally posted by: Klassified

Agreed. But does that necessarily and automatically translate to deity(god)?

Magic is simply science which more primitive minds cannot understand. By extrapolation, the "gods" of the ancients may very well simply be being(s) which have evolved further than us.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: swanne
What is the point of this thread, exactly? Just one of your usual rants against religious people? Fuel the divisions?

Was not I clear in title what was intention of thread - to show simple reason why science and religious belief system are not compatible. In my opinion, it shows in simple words why today religious institutions are in decline, and I even pointed that some are trying to fix and adjust, like example with Catholic church.

originally posted by: swanne
Because any minds with more than two neurones knows that ignoring the possibility of the existence of a higher intelligence than humans is plain dumb. I am not religious, yet I am not that arrogant to claim with absolute certainty that Man is the ultimate intelligence of the Universe.

Where did I claim there is NO possibility for higher intelligence?! No, there is always that probability, no matter how small it is. But, ask anyone religious if there is possibility that this higher intelligence does not exist and let me know what will they tell ya.

Let me give you another verse from Minchin's song, that actually I fully agree with....

If you show me
That, say, homoeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I will spin on a f***** dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
Its a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!

Same goes for Religion, horoscope, talk with dead...


a reply to: NavyDoc
Topic is about religion and science, not about scientist or religious folks.
Even small percent of top scientist (7% as of 1998 poll) believe in personal God, this by no mean means that science and religion mix well.

Neither is it reason why, or evidence that, they don't mix well.

If one can separate philosophy/spirituality from scientific endevour, they are perfectly compatible. The incompatibility comes when some people, usually the evangelical types, try to REPLACE science with religion.

The Catholic Church supports science and agrees with the concept of evolution, so the decline of that Church is really not indicative of the science vs religion debate. It is more likely due to the recent and well publicized sexual scandals that probably has more to do with their decline.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: SuperFrog

Despite being present everywhere, the existence of the Higgs field has so far been unprovable by scientists. Scientists and Engineers have built the CERN Large Hadron Collider, in the hope of proving it's existence once and for all.

and have no doubt folks, we are very close to proving its existence.

Much preferred (by majority scientists) to be called the Higgs Boston or Higgs particle, it also has another name - named so because it is everywhere yet unprovable to show that it even exists, but scientists have faith in their observations and calculations, time is needed to bring it to it's full measure.

It's also called, and recorded in the history books as such......as The God particle.

O boy, you think because it's called 'the god particle', it has to do with proof if God is real?!

The name "God Particle" was coined by a physicist who wanted to convey that it was both very important and very elusive. The name was a joke, and it's been taken far, far too seriously. It isn't "God" in any sense of the word. The announcement of its near-confirmation, due tomorrow as I write this, is going to land with a giant thud among everybody except other particle physicists.

What it actually does, as Malcolm Sargeant says, is that it's a "force carrier" particle, like the photon. It's the particle that arises from a "Higgs field" that exists everywhere in space and which interacts with other force carriers called W and Z. According to the theory, they don't have any mass of their own, but experiment shows that they do. So they postulate an extra thing to give them mass, the Higgs boson. It's taken a long time to find it, but here it is.

Yay. Thrilled yet? I really don't think anybody would have much cared were it not for the dubious "god particle" name. I'm sure the physicists are glad to have people paying attention to physics, but as my cats have observed, there's not always a clear line between good attention and bad attention.

The term was originated by the former director of Fermilab and Nobel laureate Leon Lederman in his book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?. [1]

Lederman gave this name to the particle because he felt it is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname ..." [2]

Lederman actually wanted to name the particle that "goddamn particle" but his editor wouldn't let him. [3]]

* Source: www.quora.com...

You should have used Google before posting this...