Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
230 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [10] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Science and Religion/Spirituality, NOT incompatible... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/religion-and-scienc...

But then, many of us already knew all the above, but it is good to be reminded. That the idea that the more inured you become in science, that all "bunk" is by necessity and the pure force of "reason"explained away and flushed out...nonsense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, what the study says is that the majority of scientists don't think science and religion are always in conflict.

15% think it always is (which is plainly silly) and 70% think it sometimes is. 15% said they were never in conflict (which is even more plainly very silly).

This

Quote:
“Much of the public believes that as science becomes more prominent, secularization increases and religion decreases,” Ecklund said. “Findings like these among elite scientists, who many individuals believe are most likely to be secular in their beliefs, definitely call into question ideas about the relationship between secularization and science.”


Is a simply plain wrong conclusion. These findings show that a lack of a religion, and even a strong disrespect for religion, is more common among elite scientists than among the population in general. It might very well be true that science doesn't increase secularization, but that's very much not what this data says.

It's also a very vague question.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would also point out that some of the scientists worked in fields like political and sociology, non-hard sciences that are hardly likely to materially conflict with religion, as they do not have competing views of cosmology. Indeed I would be interested to see the break down as to which sciences said what.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Potter
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
Note also Ecklund's qualification in that article, indicating that while not all forms of spirituality necessarily conflict with science, some (he singles out evangelical Christianity ) absolutely do.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
potterama wrote:
Note also Ecklund's qualification in that article, indicating that while not all forms of spirituality necessarily conflict with science, some (he singles out evangelical Christianity ) absolutely do.


I'm such a terrible gamer dork, I had to click on the link to make sure that this thread wasn't referring to Phil Eklund, the designer of such wonderful games like High Frontier.

Yes, I'm sad.

Darilian
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
I would also point out that some of the scientists worked in fields like political and sociology, non-hard sciences that are hardly likely to materially conflict with religion, as they do not have competing views of cosmology. Indeed I would be interested to see the break down as to which sciences said what.


Sociology probably questions "deeper" truths of religion significantly more often than, say, chemistry. On the other hand, it's easier to ignore.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
I would also point out that some of the scientists worked in fields like political and sociology, non-hard sciences that are hardly likely to materially conflict with religion, as they do not have competing views of cosmology. Indeed I would be interested to see the break down as to which sciences said what.


Sociology probably questions "deeper" truths of religion significantly more often than, say, chemistry. On the other hand, it's easier to ignore.


True, but sociology is unlikely to 'prove' that (for example) a miracle is just a normal chemical reaction and not blood. This in a sense is what I mean. The 'hard' sciences tend to be the ones that question the 'physical' reality of god, whereas the soft 'sciences' tend to argue about the nature of god.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
slatersteven wrote:


True, but sociology is unlikely to 'prove' that (for example) a miracle is just a normal chemical reaction and not blood. This in a sense is what I mean. The 'hard' sciences tend to be the ones that question the 'physical' reality of god, whereas the soft 'sciences' tend to argue about the nature of god.


I disagree with that.

The soft sciences don't discuss the nature of God- thats for Theologians. The extent to which that the Soft sciences look at religion at all, its to examine the impact that the very concept of God has had upon culture and society in general.

But then, they also look at the impact of other concepts like 'race', 'gender', 'money', and even 'baseball'.

The atheist/theist arguments really don't cause that much angst in the Academy, contrary to all of the Sturm und Drang they create in the Interwebz.

Darilian
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
slatersteven wrote:


True, but sociology is unlikely to 'prove' that (for example) a miracle is just a normal chemical reaction and not blood. This in a sense is what I mean. The 'hard' sciences tend to be the ones that question the 'physical' reality of god, whereas the soft 'sciences' tend to argue about the nature of god.


I disagree with that.

The soft sciences don't discuss the nature of God- thats for Theologians. The extent to which that the Soft sciences look at religion at all, its to examine the impact that the very concept of God has had upon culture and society in general.

But then, they also look at the impact of other concepts like 'race', 'gender', 'money', and even 'baseball'.

The atheist/theist arguments really don't cause that much angst in the Academy, contrary to all of the Sturm und Drang they create in the Interwebz.

Darilian


OK I should have said the concept of god.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
slatersteven wrote:
Darilian wrote:
slatersteven wrote:


True, but sociology is unlikely to 'prove' that (for example) a miracle is just a normal chemical reaction and not blood. This in a sense is what I mean. The 'hard' sciences tend to be the ones that question the 'physical' reality of god, whereas the soft 'sciences' tend to argue about the nature of god.


I disagree with that.

The soft sciences don't discuss the nature of God- thats for Theologians. The extent to which that the Soft sciences look at religion at all, its to examine the impact that the very concept of God has had upon culture and society in general.

But then, they also look at the impact of other concepts like 'race', 'gender', 'money', and even 'baseball'.

The atheist/theist arguments really don't cause that much angst in the Academy, contrary to all of the Sturm und Drang they create in the Interwebz.

Darilian


OK I should have said the concept of god.


I also don't think that many physicists really spend that much time worrying about God either, for that matter.

You just can't critically examine God 'himself' at all- so other than the fact that you're bound to get a good rhetorical workout arguing this sort of stuff on the internet, no one is going to take it seriously as 'research'. Rather, your boss is MUCH more likely to tell you to get back to work....



The reason that belief in God is 'compatible' with being a scientist is that 99.99999999999999999999% of the time, the subject never comes up.

Darilian
6 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Darilian wrote:
slatersteven wrote:


True, but sociology is unlikely to 'prove' that (for example) a miracle is just a normal chemical reaction and not blood. This in a sense is what I mean. The 'hard' sciences tend to be the ones that question the 'physical' reality of god, whereas the soft 'sciences' tend to argue about the nature of god.


I disagree with that.

The soft sciences don't discuss the nature of God- thats for Theologians. The extent to which that the Soft sciences look at religion at all, its to examine the impact that the very concept of God has had upon culture and society in general.

But then, they also look at the impact of other concepts like 'race', 'gender', 'money', and even 'baseball'.

The atheist/theist arguments really don't cause that much angst in the Academy, contrary to all of the Sturm und Drang they create in the Interwebz.

Darilian


OK I should have said the concept of god.


I also don't think that many physicists really spend that much time worrying about God either, for that matter.

You just can't critically examine God 'himself' at all- so other than the fact that you're bound to get a good rhetorical workout arguing this sort of stuff on the internet, no one is going to take it seriously as 'research'. Rather, your boss is MUCH more likely to tell you to get back to work....

:p

The reason that belief in God is 'compatible' with being a scientist is that 99.99999999999999999999% of the time, the subject never comes up.

Darilian

True, but the difference that as (say) a sociologist you won't find 'evidence' that contradicts (for example) creationism, whereas as a geologist or biologist you might. You might find differences in religious practices and dogma, but that does not challenge your faith in the 'truth' you have chosen to believe. So a far more interesting question (and study) is what percentage of geneticists or biologists find religion and science incompatible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
slatersteven wrote:
Darilian wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Darilian wrote:
slatersteven wrote:


True, but sociology is unlikely to 'prove' that (for example) a miracle is just a normal chemical reaction and not blood. This in a sense is what I mean. The 'hard' sciences tend to be the ones that question the 'physical' reality of god, whereas the soft 'sciences' tend to argue about the nature of god.


I disagree with that.

The soft sciences don't discuss the nature of God- thats for Theologians. The extent to which that the Soft sciences look at religion at all, its to examine the impact that the very concept of God has had upon culture and society in general.

But then, they also look at the impact of other concepts like 'race', 'gender', 'money', and even 'baseball'.

The atheist/theist arguments really don't cause that much angst in the Academy, contrary to all of the Sturm und Drang they create in the Interwebz.

Darilian


OK I should have said the concept of god.


I also don't think that many physicists really spend that much time worrying about God either, for that matter.

You just can't critically examine God 'himself' at all- so other than the fact that you're bound to get a good rhetorical workout arguing this sort of stuff on the internet, no one is going to take it seriously as 'research'. Rather, your boss is MUCH more likely to tell you to get back to work....



The reason that belief in God is 'compatible' with being a scientist is that 99.99999999999999999999% of the time, the subject never comes up.

Darilian

True, but the difference that as (say) a sociologist you won't find 'evidence' that contradicts (for example) creationism, whereas as a geologist or biologist you might. You might find differences in religious practices and dogma, but that does not challenge your faith in the 'truth' you have chosen to believe. So a far more interesting question (and study) is what percentage of geneticists or biologists find religion and science incompatible.


Ahh...

Well, the problem is that Creationists are making a scientific argument, aren't they, when they say the world is 4000 years old?

So long as religion isn't making any claims about the nature of physical reality, there's no conflict. Science has nothing to say about the nature of Good and Evil.

Darilian
10 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
True, but the difference that as (say) a sociologist you won't find 'evidence' that contradicts (for example) creationism, whereas as a geologist or biologist you might.


True. But if you ask a sociologist "why are religions important/popular?" or "why do people join certain religions", or a religious studies person "what is important in religion X?" you are going to get very different answers than you would get from a person of that religion. And of course most religious that make some historical claim tend to have big problems with historians.

These kind of "incompatibilities" with the soft sciences and humanities are most common than creationist incompatibilities, and I would say are much more fundamental (a creationist might disagree of course).
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Darilian wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Darilian wrote:
slatersteven wrote:


True, but sociology is unlikely to 'prove' that (for example) a miracle is just a normal chemical reaction and not blood. This in a sense is what I mean. The 'hard' sciences tend to be the ones that question the 'physical' reality of god, whereas the soft 'sciences' tend to argue about the nature of god.


I disagree with that.

The soft sciences don't discuss the nature of God- thats for Theologians. The extent to which that the Soft sciences look at religion at all, its to examine the impact that the very concept of God has had upon culture and society in general.

But then, they also look at the impact of other concepts like 'race', 'gender', 'money', and even 'baseball'.

The atheist/theist arguments really don't cause that much angst in the Academy, contrary to all of the Sturm und Drang they create in the Interwebz.

Darilian


OK I should have said the concept of god.


I also don't think that many physicists really spend that much time worrying about God either, for that matter.

You just can't critically examine God 'himself' at all- so other than the fact that you're bound to get a good rhetorical workout arguing this sort of stuff on the internet, no one is going to take it seriously as 'research'. Rather, your boss is MUCH more likely to tell you to get back to work....

:p

The reason that belief in God is 'compatible' with being a scientist is that 99.99999999999999999999% of the time, the subject never comes up.

Darilian

True, but the difference that as (say) a sociologist you won't find 'evidence' that contradicts (for example) creationism, whereas as a geologist or biologist you might. You might find differences in religious practices and dogma, but that does not challenge your faith in the 'truth' you have chosen to believe. So a far more interesting question (and study) is what percentage of geneticists or biologists find religion and science incompatible.


Ahh...

Well, the problem is that Creationists are making a scientific argument, aren't they, when they say the world is 4000 years old?

So long as religion isn't making any claims about the nature of physical reality, there's no conflict. Science has nothing to say about the nature of Good and Evil.

Darilian


Very true.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
KissaTaikuri wrote:
Darilian wrote:
Science has nothing to say about the nature of Good and Evil.


Some science minded individuals have tried to tackle the question from an evolutionary perspective in the sense that whatever helps the species prosper is good and whatever leads to it's destruction is evil.



Sort of begs the question though, don't it- presupposing that our continued existence as a species is a moral good.

I would think that anyone aware of Evolutionary Biology would realize that Nature doesn't give a shit. Us, cockroaches, Bug-Eyed Aliens from Antares- we are just complicated chemical reactions. We find it cool to think that we're special and unique, but to the universe, we're just a blip.

If mere survival is what matters for a species to be morally good, then viruses are the most moral species on the planet. Except, of course, they don't give a shit.

To me, the argument that our survival is 'good'- and objectively so- ignores the key difference between us and viruses or cockroaches.

We ask these questions. We ask questions about the nature of Good and Evil, while cockroaches don't.

If one felt that eco-systems as a whole were the most important things in the universe, then they would see our continued survival on this planet as a moral evil. We're a blight. On the other hand, only other eco-systems would really think that the planet as a whole is more important than their own personal survival- and planets don't think. They don't give a shit.

We think that our continued survival is pretty nifty because, ultimately, when we say 'Human survival would be cool' we're really saying "MY survival would be cool".

Except, of course, we're going to die. All of us. And the cockroaches, and the viruses, and the Earth, and the Sun, and the universe itself.

Nature doesn't care. It just is.

And Being is the 'Ur' state that allows for discussions of Morality to even occur.

Which is a long, fancy, obscure and pretentious way of saying that that hypothesis doesn't really lead anywhere interesting in terms of ethical theory.

Darilian
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
KissaTaikuri wrote:


Except, of course, we're going to die. All of us. And the cockroaches, and the viruses, and the Earth, and the Sun, and the universe itself.
You're sounding a bit nihilistic there
\
Where I escape the trap of Nihilism is through Nietzsche-

I think that humans are capable of creating their own meaning.

Darilian
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tstone wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/21/religion-and-scienc...

But then, many of us already knew all the above, but it is good to be reminded. That the idea that the more inured you become in science, that all "bunk" is by necessity and the pure force of "reason"explained away and flushed out...nonsense.


That article is all about framing. It very easily could have argued the exact opposite- 50% of scientists don't identify with any religion, far higher than the average person. So, yes, the more scientific education you recieve, the more likely you are NOT going to identify as religious. Every study has shown this, including this one.

Further, fields like sociology, economics, and political science are not natural science fields, which provide evidence that is in direct conflict with the scientific claims of fundamentalist religions. So, the amount of conflict will go up if you take out the non-scientific fields.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Hague
United Kingdom
Bristol
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
RAWKET LAWNCHA!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
So long as religion isn't making any claims about the nature of physical reality, there's no conflict

Not to mention multiplying loaves & fishes, burning bushes that talk, parting seas, rising from the dead and virgin births. These are all claims about physical reality.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
AdrianPHague wrote:
Darilian wrote:
So long as religion isn't making any claims about the nature of physical reality, there's no conflict

Not to mention multiplying loaves & fishes, burning bushes that talk, parting seas, rising from the dead and virgin births. These are all claims about physical reality.


Not necessarily, if it is meant as metaphor.

Darilian
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
AdrianPHague wrote:
Darilian wrote:
So long as religion isn't making any claims about the nature of physical reality, there's no conflict

Not to mention multiplying loaves & fishes, burning bushes that talk, parting seas, rising from the dead and virgin births. These are all claims about physical reality.


Not necessarily, if it is meant as metaphor.

Darilian


Which are normaly kept in boxes.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Darilian wrote:
slatersteven wrote:


True, but sociology is unlikely to 'prove' that (for example) a miracle is just a normal chemical reaction and not blood. This in a sense is what I mean. The 'hard' sciences tend to be the ones that question the 'physical' reality of god, whereas the soft 'sciences' tend to argue about the nature of god.


I disagree with that.

The soft sciences don't discuss the nature of God- thats for Theologians. The extent to which that the Soft sciences look at religion at all, its to examine the impact that the very concept of God has had upon culture and society in general.

But then, they also look at the impact of other concepts like 'race', 'gender', 'money', and even 'baseball'.

The atheist/theist arguments really don't cause that much angst in the Academy, contrary to all of the Sturm und Drang they create in the Interwebz.

Darilian


OK I should have said the concept of god.


I also don't think that many physicists really spend that much time worrying about God either, for that matter.

You just can't critically examine God 'himself' at all- so other than the fact that you're bound to get a good rhetorical workout arguing this sort of stuff on the internet, no one is going to take it seriously as 'research'. Rather, your boss is MUCH more likely to tell you to get back to work....



The reason that belief in God is 'compatible' with being a scientist is that 99.99999999999999999999% of the time, the subject never comes up.

Darilian

+!
Bingo.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AdrianPHague wrote:
Darilian wrote:
So long as religion isn't making any claims about the nature of physical reality, there's no conflict

Not to mention multiplying loaves & fishes, burning bushes that talk, parting seas, rising from the dead and virgin births. These are all claims about physical reality.

Science is about studying reproducible events in terms of observed physical explanations. If you can reproduce anything on that list of yours then and only then would it constitute a claim about physical reality.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Science is about studying reproducible events in terms of observed physical explanations. If you can reproduce anything on that list of yours then and only then would it constitute a claim about physical reality.


Claims about physical reality aren't limited to reproducible events. For example, any given supernova is not a reproducible event, and it's both a claim about physical reality and something scientists study.

There are of course many other claims about physical reality that science couldn't study. Any history for example. But history generally consists of claims about physical reality.

And if taken literally, AdrianPHague's list consists of what would be considered historical claims, and hence claims about physical reality (unless we're talking about some form of history that happens on a spiritual plane?).

Any eyewitness report, for another example, is a claim about physical reality.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Holt
England
Rayleigh
Essex
flag msg tools
This is not the cat you're looking for - some other cat maybe?
badge
tout passe, tout lasse, tout casse
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:

Is a simply plain wrong conclusion. These findings show that a lack of a religion, and even a strong disrespect for religion, is more common among elite scientists than among the population in general. It might very well be true that science doesn't increase secularization, but that's very much not what this data says.


One should always be careful about confusing correlation with causation.

It could be, as suggested, that knowledge of science tends to decrease belief in (God, afterlife).

It could also be that it is a necessary foundation for science to believe that the Universe works by discoverable rules that are not changeable at the whim of some supreme being.

I suspect that one of the main flaws in Dawkins' writings is his failure to use this latter argument explicitly when it is clearly part of his philosophy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Holt
England
Rayleigh
Essex
flag msg tools
This is not the cat you're looking for - some other cat maybe?
badge
tout passe, tout lasse, tout casse
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:

Any eyewitness report, for another example, is a claim about physical reality.


... and many studies have shown how unreliable eyewitmess accounts can be.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [10] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.