The Fundamental Conflict Between Science And Religion

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 30 July 2011 - 07:44 PM, said:

Science is almost never completely right and always seems to be changing. Is that grounds for rejecting it or simply understanding it is distinct in that it speaks to the mechanics of how things are done versus the reasons why things exist.

I'm NOT speaking of "why things exist" but rather of what exists and can and is shown to exist. God's bodily existence is NOT a "why things exist" matter and neither are miracles.

God tells us why things exist, and if you aren't speaking of the "why" then you really don't want to talk about religion.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 30 July 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

People look for conflict sometimes. I worked on a farm and one day drove a tractor and wagon between fields. Someone in a mustang pulled up beside me and asked me how fast I can go. Well, you know tractors, if I could get 15 mph out of that old John Deere 720, I would have been amazed. I looked back and asked, how much hay can you haul in that trunk of yours?"

Both vehicles were useful, both served very different purposes, and both were desireable things to have. So is there a conflict between a Mustang and a Tractor? Not that I can see, unless of course tractors want to go street racing (some do), and Mustangs can haul tons of hay (none do to my knowledge).

So if a kid in a fast car challenges me to a race, is he aware of the different purposes? Or is he just looking for a fight? Perhaps it is beyond him to grasp the differences? Some people are that way.

You are totally missing the point, Jeff, and I explain why my other response to you and to others here.

You can tell when elguanteloko has been stymied, he falls to "you are totally missing the point" phrase, and then avoid explaining why. It is the norm for him. The fact is that I explained fairly well and the he may not understand. Though I supect he may instead be looking for a conflict. Why he chooses to conflate science with religion is beyond me. Maybe he confuses tractors with mustangs too?

[Deborah]

My point...is that there is a conflict in the methodology of science and that of religion. Not merely a difference but a conflict between them.

So?

From Of Heaven and Earth p. 71

It is essential to differentiate between the approach to the search for truth in religion and the search for truth in science by distinguishing between the nature of scientific truths and religious truths. Each sphere of truth has its own validity, its own goals and objectives, and its own means or methods of searching for truth. (Wilford R. Gardner)

From page 153 ...

it is inappropriate, and often dangerous, to attempt a premature reconciliation of conflicting ideas where there is a lack of complete knowledge. (B. Kent Harrison)

The point of this last statement is that neither science nor religion have all the answers and sometimes we can reconcile the two and sometimes we can't. That doesn't mean one or the other is wrong, only that something is missing somewhere because LDS believe in the end there is no conflict.

[LeSellers]

There is much talk about the possible conflict between science and mormonism lately here and I wanted to contribute to it.

To the talk or to the conflict?

ARRRRRGH!! You asked!!!

Lehi

[elguanteloko]

Definition of PROOF

1

a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

Why must we go down this path? Are you implying by your question that I am not capable of using the English language. Are you implying that you can read my mind and know for sure what I am thinking and I can't express myself? Your higher than thou comment is duly noted.

I'm sorry that you took it like that. I just wanted to make the distinction because science very seldom uses proofs. Proofs are for logic and mathematics but not for the empirical sciences. If you find material that supports your theory you find evidence for it, not proof. I'm speaking formal usage here (which matters), not folk usage. I just wanted to make that distinction clear. I'm sure you can write better than I can since English isn't my first language.

This is silly. A billion people saying they have a personal witness means nothing?

it clearly means something but what that "something" is needs better methods than that "billion people" saying it is what they think it is.

But a small group of guys writing a science book is considered the reference?

science is the best we've got to understand the physical world and, as such, is the reference NOT because it is correct or "the unmovable truth" but because it's just the best we've got. If you have a better method please bring it up! The world is waiting for your revolution.

You must be kidding. It is beyond reasonable to accept that billions of people are wrong and a self proclaimed group of naturalist with a self defined and limited rule set is correct.

That billions of people are wrong can be very reasonable, brother. About science, it seldom says "this is correct" in the sense that it has arrived at the "Truth" but rather because it is the best we have in explaining, predicting, and manipulating the physical world while using very reasonable methods. With all due respect, Frank, please take the time to understand what science is first. It really isn't that hard. I recommend this book by it's brevity and clarity: http://www.amazon.co...2136944&sr=1-23

And just what gives this group of people the authority to declare that they are correct?

They don't do such a thing. Science is based on the best theories around, NOT in the correct theories. The "correct theory" is a goal science has but is unidentifiable since we can't say an explanation is 'the correct one' other than by its usefulness. The problem is that a very-close-to-the-correct-theory can be very useful, too, so there is no way to identify the "correct theory".

A constantly moving set of theories?

That's what honest seekers do.

The whole of science is built on swamp land. It is at best circular reasoning.

Your poor version of science is what is built on swamp land. You need to understand what it is first, brother.

If it is based on a solid foundation then tell me why the electron has one charge and not another? Why is the mass of a proton what it is? Why do we have a zero point energy? These are foundational questions. But science has no answers at all. What we get is the same old junk "in time we should know".

let's say we will NEVER know the answer to those questions. So? How does this make religion better than science as a tool for understanding the physical world?

I will tell you there is more proof of God then there is of a solid foundation in science. Science is more faith based than religion. Please prove me wrong.

I'm not surprised you think this when you don't even seem to understand either religion or science.

Yes, let us keep the discussion at a high level.

I wish you would have read and tried to understand what you were responding here: "Just because you don't proclaim an explanation doesn't mean others are correct or even worthy of serious consideration or exploration."

Edited July 31, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

My faith is not blind faith, it's based on the evidences of claims. I'm for example a mormon, and not in any other religion originally because mormonism was the only religion that actually fit the Biblical pattern of organization, doctrines, prophets, witnesses, scripture, etc., just like the New Testament Church was established. If that's not evidence and scientific methodology, then nothing is.

Here's the thing. Science does NOT work by finding evidence for your theory only. You have to make risky empirical predictions that are falsifiable and your explanation must be parsimonious also.

For example, I see a car moving down the streets with its windows tainted at night (so I don't see who is inside) and we want to find explanations for why the car is moving. There are, literally, an infinite amount of explanations that can fit the data (the data being "the car is moving". One can be that a dog learned to drive and took his owner's car. Another one can be that a person is under the influence of Neptune's power and is driving it while in a state of trance. Another one can be that a robber just stole the car. Another one....... etc, etc. This is a well known idea in the philosophy of science. Then, which of those explanations is the most reasonable one to accept? The answer is that it must make predictable and falsifiable empirical claims and it must make the least number of new assumptions (parsimony).

That you have "evidence" in the sense that you are using that word, is useless. You have to show that your explanation is the most likely to be the case among the MANY explanations one can give to a certain event or facts. If you think the best explanation for grandma's cancer getting cured is that God did it, then you are not getting it. If you think the best explanation for the Mormon Church having some similarities to the early church is that a superpowerful physical person that we don't see made a whole lot of things to restore the early church today... then you are not getting the point either.

Before you respond further, ldsfaqs, I have to ask you to please actually put an effort now to understanding what science really is. Seriously, there is MUCH more to it than you understand here. Do you know why verfiability through deduction is a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent"? Do you know how falsifiability corrects this problem and shows you can't deductively "prove" any scientific theory true? If not, and I suspect you don't, please refrain from posting here and read more about it and then come back.

[elguanteloko]

So?

From Of Heaven and Earth p. 71

So? So it means the quote you just posted is wrong.

From page 153 ...

...which is always since we never have a "complete knowledge".

The point of this last statement is that neither science nor religion have all the answers and sometimes we can reconcile the two and sometimes we can't. That doesn't mean one or the other is wrong, only that something is missing somewhere because LDS believe in the end there is no conflict.

Again, I'm NOT saying the fundamental conflict is that between the CONCLUSIONS of science and those of religion AT ALL. I'm saying the methods are completely antithetical to one another and that's why religion appears as a bunch of premature conclusions for any rational individual. That we don't have "all the answers" is irrelevant here since the point is NOT finding "all the answers" but the best answers among the answers offered. I don't need to have 'all the answers' to be justified in thinking your answers don't work and that there are better ones.

[elguanteloko]

I'm not convinced that there is a conflict, as you say. The fact that you can't use the religious method in science doesn't, in itself, mean these methods are in conflict. Conflict arises only when the outcomes of these respective methods contradict eachother. Then you must take a stand for faith or reason. Or not - as I get older, I increasingly enjoy ambiguity and not having the final definitive answer to everything.

Ariarates, I just explained through several posts what the conflict is. I'll brief it for you here again:

In science it isn't permitted to jump to a conclusion and be accepted as in religion. That isn't merely a difference but a conflict.

There you go.

[elguanteloko]

Pure and True Science is the exact same thing as Pure and True Religion

The reason there are apparant conflicts between religion and science is because typically one or both do not have the full truth.

Even in the Mormon religion, we do not know ALL truths. We are told that we are not ready for more truth, because we can barely handle the truth we have. Science is definately full of false truths. They keep changing every day.

In both cases, humans have to be ready to accept the truth no matter what the consequences. (Lose Job, Lose government contracts, Lose friends, Peer pressure etc)

At this time most people are not ready to accept the full truth.

and you know the something is "the truth"... how, exactly?

[Ariarates]

Ariarates, I just explained through several posts what the conflict is. I'll brief it for you here again:

In science it isn't permitted to jump to a conclusion and be accepted as in religion. That isn't merely a difference but a conflict.

That's your explanation? Merely repeating your statement? Listen, if you can't be bothered, that's fine too, no hard feelings mate.

[Nenahnezad]

Science is nothing more than man discovering the "rules" of his perceived surroundings, and defining them in terms he can understand.

Notice this quote:

As far as we can tell so far, out of all the thousands of planets, earth is the only one in the universe that supports life.

There was a time when science believed our planet was the only one that existed and the center of all. Now there's evidence of other planets around other stars.

No. No religion had anything to say about that before that was discovered.

There's was a time when inhaling tobacco smoke was considered healthy and imbibing strengthening. No more.

No. No religion had anything to say about that before that was discovered.

Witnesses, 11, who saw gold plates, 3 who saw an angel, are not accepted by science.

Neither the Book from those plates which testify of the existence of God.

But a single scientist can testify in court as an expert witness.

I would like to see science, or man, prove the existence of God, who by definition is Omniscience and Omnipotent.

Maybe man can sneak up on God and take his picture when God isn't looking.

Of course, that would make man more powerful than God.

Therefore, if science ever declared they discovered God, science would be a liar.

The only way science can discover God is for God to reveal himself.

But no. No religion has anything to say about revelation from God.

[Jeff K.]

So if you have a tractor that is useful for on set of endeavors, and a mustang that is useful for an distinct set of endeavors, is there a conflict?

Both may more or less go down the same path, yet they have different responsibilities on that path.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Jeff K.

[Deborah]

I'm saying the methods are completely antithetical to one another

Again, so? You are stating the obvious, though I don't think they are quite as antithetical as you seem to spout. For example I can use the same basic principles:

Ask a Question: Which church is right?

Do Background Research: Study the scriptures, read the Book of Mormon, pray

Construct a Hypothesis: Based on what I've read and the spiritual testimony I believe the church is true.

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Even the Lord says to test him

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion: The LDS church is true, the BOM is divinely inspired

Communicate Your Results: Bear testimony

why religion appears as a bunch of premature conclusions for any rational individual

"Appears" being the correct word. It's also rather insulting to insinuate that those who are religious are not rational, particularly when you have so many religious scientists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc.

[Jeff K.]

You cannot teach the color yellow to a blind man.

[Franktalk]

So is it also nonsense to say that God has always been here?

Not sure what you mean about the universe being designed to support life. As far as we can tell so far, out of all the thousands of planets, earth is the only one in the universe that supports life.

Read about the anthropic principle.

[Franktalk]

I'm sorry that you took it like that. I just wanted to make the distinction because science very seldom uses proofs. Proofs are for logic and mathematics but not for the empirical sciences. If you find material that supports your theory you find evidence for it, not proof. I'm speaking formal usage here (which matters), not folk usage. I just wanted to make that distinction clear. I'm sure you can write better than I can since English isn't my first language.

Where science offers no proof and as you say science does not say it does, religion does say that there is proof. But as I pointed out it is a personal proof. Where evidence is in such a form that there can be no doubt. This is the point where we can talk proof. Actually a proof in trig is similar to the personal proof of God. Where one known thing leads to another we can make conclusions. Our internal awareness of self knows if a separate being is talking to our spirit.

I am sorry if I came across as critical of your language. That was not my intention. I am critical of some ideas. With some it is a game of definitions and little can be discussed. I will assume that your usage of words is in context of what you say and I would hope that you do the same with me. I hate rabbit holes.

I made a statement that science is based more on faith than religions. Normally this gets a comment or two. Any thoughts on the idea?

[elguanteloko]

That's your explanation? Merely repeating your statement? Listen, if you can't be bothered, that's fine too, no hard feelings mate.

I said I was giving a briefing and that the explanation was in the other comments.

What is it you don't get about it?

[Jeff K.]

Your explanation is not in the other comments, I suggest you elaborate and conclude.

[elguanteloko]

So if you have a tractor that is useful for on set of endeavors, and a mustang that is useful for an distinct set of endeavors, is there a conflict?

Both may more or less go down the same path, yet they have different responsibilities on that path.

Once again, here's the conflict: Science uses parsimony and falsifiability to choose explanations, religion doesn't. Religion doesn't need to justify its claims, science does. They may or may not go in the same direction, that is NOT where the conflict is (as the OP and several comments of mine explained already). I'm not talking about different "endeavors" here as you mentioned but about the SAME claims. Again, take the "God exists" or "God has a body" claim. Religion arrives at that conclusion neither through rational methods nor through empirical evidence... there simply is no reason to believe that while science must use reason and empirical evidence.

I'm NOT talking about claims about what is best in life, about what is moral, about what is good for your soul, etc. I'm talking about claims about things that are said to exist. Every time you say, Jeff, that "they are different as a mustang and a truck are for different things", you are missing the point of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about things that are said to exist.

[elguanteloko]

Where science offers no proof and as you say science does not say it does, religion does say that there is proof.

again, evidence is what you're talking about. we aren't speaking of mathematics or formal logic. "Evidence that X causes cancer", "evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun", evidence that...

Those are not "proofs", that's what I wanted you to get. The empirical sciences don't offer "proofs" because they can't by the very logic of its workings. The following is a logical fallacy:

If p then q

q

Therefore, p

That you test your theory and you get as a result always the result you expected, to conclude that it was because of "p" or your theory is a logical fallacy in deduction. Science works with what seems to work but it can NEVER conclude it was "p".

But as I pointed out it is a personal proof. Where evidence is in such a form that there can be no doubt. This is the point where we can talk proof. Actually a proof in trig is similar to the personal proof of God. Where one known thing leads to another we can make conclusions. Our internal awareness of self knows if a separate being is talking to our spirit.

Here's why that is a bad idea. Whatever experience you have is not what is the problem. the problem is when we talk about what CAUSED that experience. No one can dispute that you felt what seemed like"the Spirit" but what is in question is that such a spirit did cause what you felt. Do you see the difference? That you saw your dead relative in a dream is not something anyone of us can dispute but when you start speculating what caused that dream then we can discriminate between better (or more plausible or probable) explanations and worst explanations.

I am sorry if I came across as critical of your language. That was not my intention. I am critical of some ideas. With some it is a game of definitions and little can be discussed. I will assume that your usage of words is in context of what you say and I would hope that you do the same with me. I hate rabbit holes.

I explained why I talked about evidence, not proofs very clearly, Frank.

I made a statement that science is based more on faith than religions. Normally this gets a comment or two. Any thoughts on the idea?

One needs not faith to choose between what seems to work and what doesn't seem to work. Those that claim science is based on faith don't understand how science works at all.

[elguanteloko]

Again, so? You are stating the obvious, though I don't think they are quite as antithetical as you seem to spout. For example I can use the same basic principles:

Ask a Question: Which church is right?

Do Background Research: Study the scriptures, read the Book of Mormon, pray

Construct a Hypothesis: Based on what I've read and the spiritual testimony I believe the church is true.

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Even the Lord says to test him

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion: The LDS church is true, the BOM is divinely inspired

Communicate Your Results: Bear testimony

LOL There are countless problems with what you just said. Let me amplify them so you notice some:

Ask a Question: Which power, Neptune's or Jupiter's, caused grandma's cancer to disappear?

Do Background Research: Study Neptune's prophets and Jupiter's prophets and pray.

Construct a Hypothesis: Based on my spiritual testimony, I believe Neptune's power did it.

Test your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: Even Neptune says to test it.

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion: Neptune's power is true, Neptune's scriptures are inspired.

Communicate your Results: Repeat your conclusions to others and trust them not when questioning your silly method.

I think you can see this isn't science.

"Appears" being the correct word. It's also rather insulting to insinuate that those who are religious are not rational, particularly when you have so many religious scientists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc.

Any conclusion you arrive at will be what "appears" to be. Isn't what you identify as true what "appears" to be true to you? I'm not saying people who are religious can't be rational in other things but I'm not talking about those other things.

Edited July 31, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Deborah]

I'm not saying people who are religious can't be rational in other things but I'm not talking about those other things.

I find the LDS faith to be very rational.

Having said that I still don't know what the point is of bringing up these threads on the difference between science and religion. You don't find any conclusions a religious person makes rational and I find your thinking very limited by not allowing for something more than what men and their limited senses can come up with.

[elguanteloko]

I find the LDS faith to be very rational.

I don't care when you consistently bring up inconsistent and silly reasons.

Having said that I still don't know what the point is of bringing up these threads on the difference between science and religion.

Because there isn't only a mere difference like there is a difference between flowers and mountains but a CONFLICT. why can't you get that?

You don't find any conclusions a religious person makes rational

OK, where in the world do you get that from? ANY conclusions religious people make are irrational for me? Come on, Deborah, get real and stop presenting me like a stubborn fool. I present my reasons and if you can't understand them or address them properly, please leave. Ridiculous caricatures are not welcomed in this thread. Knock it off or leave.

and I find your thinking very limited by not allowing for something more than what men and their limited senses can come up with.

I actually do allow for that but until you bring arguments I won't do it. Sorry.

Edited July 31, 2011 by elguanteloko

[ldsfaqs]

Here's the thing. Science does NOT work by finding evidence for your theory only.

I didn't say it did. But when it comes to religion Mormonism is the only one that scientifically verifiable and quantifiable to any reasonable degree.

All other religions fall short in multiple respects. I don't expect you to read my mind, I'm simply telling you I've done it. And I've done it twice. The first time was simply being a part of different religions having nor organized or constructive parameters for testing, but the second time I had formed parameters based on experience, observation and knowledge, and I then tested each religion, and each religion could only go so far until I had eliminated all others from being potentially true, I then tested mormonism, and it passed all the parameters.

You're I'm sure familiar with the 13 Points of the True Church test? While, that test has it's own issues, and may or may not even be a legit test or story, I did a similar thing. I took various important keys of scripture, of various ideology's in and out of scripture, quality points of religions and things outside of religion, and then proceeded to compare and contrast to see what religion if any fit all the various parameters. Mormonism was the only one that fully qualified, far surpassing all others.

You have to make risky empirical predictions that are falsifiable and your explanation must be parsimonious also.

I structured testing so there would be the least amount of falsifiability as possible, and exhibiting the most economy and simplicity. I compared hard data as well as witness and testimony data.

For example, I see a car moving down the streets with its windows tainted at night (so I don't see who is inside) and we want to find explanations for why the car is moving. There are, literally, an infinite amount of explanations that can fit the data (the data being "the car is moving". One can be that a dog learned to drive and took his owner's car. Another one can be that a person is under the influence of Neptune's power and is driving it while in a state of trance. Another one can be that a robber just stole the car. Another one....... etc, etc. This is a well known idea in the philosophy of science. Then, which of those explanations is the most reasonable one to accept? The answer is that it must make predictable and falsifiable empirical claims and it must make the least number of new assumptions (parsimony).

Yes, I'm well aware. Every religion has it's various claims, and each has it's own level of reliability, accuracy, truthfulness, etc.

As to your question, if someone saw someone get into the car and drive it before you saw it, then a reasonable and reliable conclusion can be made. Obviously, that person could have gotten out of the car, and been replaced by a robot, and thus your conclusion would end up wrong. However, that's what counter testing of other similar situations, events, testimony's, witnesses, etc. is for. Science isn't about testing one thing in a box, it's about accumulating all available data on a thing, testing it against the data, and making the most reasonable conclusion, and then when you throw in other related subjects, you then have a more accurate and verifiable picture or "truth".

That you have "evidence" in the sense that you are using that word, is useless. You have to show that your explanation is the most likely to be the case among the MANY explanations one can give to a certain event or facts. If you think the best explanation for grandma's cancer getting cured is that God did it, then you are not getting it. If you think the best explanation for the Mormon Church having some similarities to the early church is that a superpowerful physical person that we don't see made a whole lot of things to restore the early church today... then you are not getting the point either.

Did you ever consider that it's a combination of things and factors? That Grandma getting cured was both God and the natural healing process, that he was the one who opened those energy healing pathways, that it wasn't simply chance? Did you also ever think that the latter day Church having similarities to the early church wasn't simply due to a God, but was due to a combination of both, the knowledge and experience of the individuals involved AND a God? Take the fact that not a single early LDS that was involved in the Restoration was a Catholic but where Protestants/Evangelicals, yet, we are almost identical to the Catholic Church in structure, practices and theology. What's the likelihood of that? Obviously, this alone means little, but when you take 1,000's of these kinds of things and other more solid concrete things, you get a pattern beyond chance, beyond a simple man who wanted lust and power as you would claim.

Before you respond further, ldsfaqs, I have to ask you to please actually put an effort now to understanding what science really is. Seriously, there is MUCH more to it than you understand here. Do you know why verfiability through deduction is a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent"? Do you know how falsifiability corrects this problem and shows you can't deductively "prove" any scientific theory true? If not, and I suspect you don't, please refrain from posting here and read more about it and then come back.

Spare me the condensation. I have eyes, ears and a mind, and can see and judge for myself and is and isn't, what evidences there are, and what they show and don't show.

I'm not interested in your pet theory's. If a dog is before me, and I know what a dog is compared to other animals, then it's a dog, a provable fact. I'm not interested in your relativistic philosophy that says a dog is not really a dog because it's just not really provable. Get in reality friend.

[webbles]

I've been thinking about this post today and I think there I partially agree with what you say. If I recovered from cancer after a prayer and then say that the prayer saved me, that is not in keeping with the scientific method because it could have been anything. But, the fact about God seems to actually be inline with the scientific method. Let me try and explain it:

I've never personally determined the speed of light. I trust other scientists who say that they have determined the speed of light. They publish their experiments and I know that I can duplicate them and determine the speed of light for myself. Some of the experiments require tools that are not easily obtainable, but I can do it. So, even though I've not determined the speed of light myself doesn't negate the fact that light has a specific speed.

I've never personally seen God. I trust other prophets who say that they've seen God. They publish their visions and what is needed to be able to have a vision, and I know that I can duplicate it and see God myself. It requires changes in my lifestyle that are difficult but I am capable of doing it. So, even though I've never seen God, that doesn't negate the fact that He exists.