The Fundamental Conflict Between Science And Religion

[Jeff K.]

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.

A tractor uses diesel, a car uses gas, both come from the same source but provide different characteristics.

You aren't actually presuming that science cannot follow false leads are you? There is ample evidence that it has.. Or so says my friend the piltdown man.

What claim does religion make that counters science? Or do you presume what is unproven is the equivalent of a negative?

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.

Then you aren't talking about religion at all. Once again, no conflict.

It seems I am not missing the point, but you are straining mightily to make a point where non exists. How very unscientific.

[elguanteloko]

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.

dude, verifiability is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! Verifiability is just "finding evidence for your theory"!

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.

Oh, my! you can't even distinguish between theory and fact! ..and you call the philosophy of science "relativistic"!!!

please, just don't post anymore in this thread. Go. Be happy.

Edited August 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

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.

Excellent, webbles! Finally someone gets this basic basic idea.

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.

Why? Why would you ever trust those guys? Would you trust me if I said I saw in a vision that Mormonism is false and JS lied?

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.

You aren't getting the point. The point is that the God explanation is not the most likely explanation of ALL the explanations possible. Is it more probable that a few people lied, hallucinated, or that a super-powerful physical guy that was killed 2000 years ago and resurrected exists and continues to communicate with people? Seriously, take the time to think about this. You are continuing to bring up the God explanation as if that was the most parsimonious one when it isn't. Why accept it? Because people said they believed what they saw actually corresponded to a resurrected guy? Come on, man.

When you are confronted with a miracle think about this: is a superpowerful being doing it the most likely explanation for the events? I think you can easily come up yourself with many more likely explanations. Why accept one that is so careless about rationality in its methods?

Edited August 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[wenglund]

Is the scientific method, itself, falsifiable?

If not, then according to your reasoning is science in conflict with the scientific method?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[HeatherAnn]

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

Yes, and the language that describes everything, including religion, is like science, in that it breaks down & categorizes that which isn't separate to give us a sense of understanding.

When religious parables are interpretted literally, they conflict with science.

When religious parables are interpreted as spiritual (emotional) motivation, there is no conflict.

In fact, spirituality (emotional drive) & science (intellectual drive) can make more progress together, than separately.

Edited August 1, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[Franktalk]

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.

No, I don't accept that logic at all. You are attempting to tell me that a group of people know what is going on in my head more than I do. That is of course pretty silly. My personal experiences are real even if they are just for me. When the prophets were taken in the spirit to observe the future they wrote down what they saw. So outside of that personal experience we have testable information. But God does give us proof for the masses. So prophecy will always have a little wiggle room so those not in the faith will not see the prophecy carried out in the future. But those in the faith will see the prophecy carried out. You see that the natural man is not what God desires. It is the spiritual man. So someone who has attached them self to this world will never see what I see. They will always see the world reflect back at them. Whereas the spiritual man has spiritual eyes. You may say that since we can't examine that under a microscope it can't exist but you would be wrong. You see that you have placed yourself in a box and have declared that anything outside of the box is not real. Your science has defined the rules of observation to be limited to just the natural world and the hard senses. We have a sense of being self aware which science can not measure. Are you ready to admit that science can't accept that we are self aware? We have a sense of moral direction. Do you accept that science says that morals are relative and have no basis in any absolute ranking of good and evil? So when you start to go down the path of science and ignore what is most valuable in our life you short change yourself not me. I know that I love many people. Your science denies love and describes it as a learned response in some social structure. What science does say is that we are just animals with no worth what so ever. They say that a dolphin has just as many rights as I have. I feel sorry for the people who accept the ideas of science. What a lousy meaningless existence. What is the most sad thing I have come across is that many Christians try and keep one foot in the science camp and one foot in the spiritual camp. As they straddle that fence they get splinters in the worst place.

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.

Really, then answer the questions I gave earlier. Electron charge, proton mass, ZPE, why are they here and why these quantities and not another? I hope you are not implying that because man can make a TV that God does not exist?

[cinepro]

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.

Well, hopefully you haven't spent the last 5,000 years telling everyone that your tractor is the fastest vehicle that will ever be made.

[cinepro]

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?

To a religious person, that would make science better.

[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.

Well, hopefully you haven't spent the last 5,000 years telling everyone that your tractor is the fastest vehicle that will ever be made.

Well that is interesting. The conflict I believe does reside when one type of vehicle claims to be like the other. For many years, science and religion were indeed combined. It was a method by which much was created and predicted. It helped develop the foundations of society, which included crop surplus. Crop surplus led to specialization, which later (much later) let to innovation and the seperation of the philosophical sciences from the religious philosophies. So to say one was claiming to be the other would be incorrect since they were both "one" for the longest time. Separation came much later and that is when we have the gas mustang versus the diesel tractor. Now sometimes the good old tractor boys do indeed claim their tractor is fast, and using the time period when both were one, claim quite literally that the tractor is the one true measure by which the mustang must submit. Then we have a conflict. On the other hand, the mustang still cannot carry much hay because while the two were a clunky "one" for a long time, the mustang's focus was on a different set of priorities.

In the end, the 5000 year statement is relatively ambiguous since the fastest vehicle was a mixture of tractor and mustang, and it was the only game in town.

[webbles]

Why? Why would you ever trust those guys? Would you trust me if I said I saw in a vision that Mormonism is false and JS lied?

I thought you'd bring this up. A similar question is: why do I trust the scientists? Because other scientists say they accept them? Or because I can read their experiments and I know that I can duplicate it (if I have the equipment and time to do it)? So, why do I trust the prophets? Because I can read what they did and duplicate it and I believe the same thing can happen to me. That is one of the reasons why I believe in the LDS faith. I'm not just reading a 2000 year old book about people back then that had visions. I can listen to people who are alive now that have visions. I myself can have visions. Would I trust you if you said you had a vision? If you can tell me what I need to do to have the same thing, then I'd definitely listen. I would then have to weigh how much I trust you vs trusting the other prophets and make a decision. I'd also attempt to put your experiment to a test.

You aren't getting the point. The point is that the God explanation is not the most likely explanation of ALL the explanations possible. Is it more probable that a few people lied, hallucinated, or that a super-powerful physical guy that was killed 2000 years ago and resurrected exists and continues to communicate with people? Seriously, take the time to think about this. You are continuing to bring up the God explanation as if that was the most parsimonious one when it isn't. Why accept it? Because people said they believed what they saw actually corresponded to a resurrected guy? Come on, man.

Could it be possible that they lied, hallucinated, etc? Sure, why not. But how do I explain my own experiences? Am I lying to myself, hallucinating, brainwashed, or just having a bad dinner? Plus, there are a few mysterious in life that make me believe that there is something in a different "sphere"/dimension than we are (such as agency, karma, precognition, automatic writing, etc). Taking into account these mysteries and my own experiences, the LDS theology explains them in the simplest manner that doesn't cause me to doubt my own sanity.

When you are confronted with a miracle think about this: is a superpowerful being doing it the most likely explanation for the events? I think you can easily come up yourself with many more likely explanations.

What is a miracle? It is an event that is unexplainable with our current knowledge. When I read of the miracles in earlier times, I attempt to explain them with our current knowledge. When I read of miracles in our day, I attempt to explain them with our current knowledge as well. Most of the time, I can do it. I even expect all miracles to one day be explainable. That doesn't mean there isn't a God. It just means that He uses natural laws to bring about His actions. And I see no reason to not give thanks to Him (if you believe in Him) even if He didn't cause the miracle.

Why accept one that is so careless about rationality in its methods?

But how is it careless? In practice people will explain a miracle in many different ways. Take a sick patient who was healed. It could have been because of prayer, medicine, time, laughter, love, motivation, the hospital food, etc. We'll probably never know for that specific situation. What is wrong with expressing thanks to a figment of their imagination?

But that doesn't mean that the LDS theology is careless in its rationality. All of the doctrine has been revealed through a vision or revelation. We are ourselves capable of receiving visions or revelations. So, I am capable of verifying the doctrine. I don't just have to trust peoples' word. I can test it myself.

[Nenahnezad]

Yes, and the language that describes everything, including religion, is like science, in that it breaks down & categorizes that which isn't separate to give us a sense of understanding.

When religious parables are interpretted literally, they conflict with science.

When religious parables are interpreted as spiritual (emotional) motivation, there is no conflict.

In fact, spirituality (emotional drive) & science (intellectual drive) can make more progress together, than separately.

I agree religion and science together make progress. Religion is morality. Immorality creates scientific ogres (Mengele, Hitler, Stalin, PP).

But interpreted literally, they conflict? How so? When science proves what religion already knew? [sic] Word of Wisdom, other planets, light can be bent (visit of the angel to Joseph Smith), etc.

Unless you enjoy literally interpreting bad translations of religion (Bible). But then revealed religion corrects that as well.

Enjoy the Tractor/Ford comments. Maybe Ford should make tractors. God made scientists. [grin]

[blarsen]

Hi, folks.

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

The fundamental conflict between science and religion is that religion (Mormonism specifically) makes claims about things that exist that are not parsimonious and/or unfalsifiable (along with other less important problems). In other words, religion and religious explanations are not scientifically testable. This is NOT to say they are wrong but while Mormonism accepts things as correct without much justification, science can't do that.

Example: God exists.

This claim is never empirically justified (few times even attempted) and still accepted while science just can't do that. Really, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and religion offers very little in this respect. Again, this does not mean God doesn't exist or that prayer doesn't work but it does mean those claims are simply unjustified. Why say "God exists" when all we have are feelings and not trustworthy evidence? Why say "God did this" when that isn't the best explanation for things?

The fundamental difference between scientific and religious claims has to do with what others in this thread have described: religious claims and verification are ‘personal’. They really aren’t transferable and amenable to outside verification, except where other people may repeat the experience for themselves. But even then, outside observers would have no way of determining if this group of people really had the same experience, except by their testimony.

In this sense, religious experiences can’t be studied in the usual scientific way, except to maybe study physiological/neurological responses of the person having those kinds of experiences. Lots of luck on that, though.

The physical sciences are focused on determining causal relations between physical things, states of physical matter and explanations for physical phenomena in general. Scientists rely on physical measuring devices and their own 5 senses to verify each other’s observations and repeat their experiments. When a sufficient number of them have tested certain scientific assertions, then they build a consensus which becomes generally accepted by the public at large (by faith actually, unless they have individually gone through the verification process) as scientific ‘fact’. And yes, the best scientific hypotheses generally have to be falsifiable and parsimonious.

This process can’t deal with the God hypothesis or many other religious hypotheses and experiences for the simple reason that the religious experiences and hypotheses can’t be investigated using the normal 5 senses and with various measuring devices that may be employed that rely on the 5 senses. And I can’t even imagine how you could formulate the God hypothesis in a way that would allow falsification; except maybe by ongoing shrinkage of the ‘God of the Gaps’.

But what is the common ground for scientific investigation and religious experience? For me, the common ground could be described as the ‘plain of perception’ (the p plain) where I become aware of input from my 5 senses, OR input from what I may strongly feel is a spiritual source or at least from a source outside of my 5 senses and not amenable to a common sense or scientific explanation.

The latter kind of experience could be a voice in my head that is almost audible, a visual experience that could be described as a vision, or maybe a strong knowing or an idea forcefully presented to my mind, or a wonderful feeling totally outside my normal experience; and so on.

None of these things are amenable to general scientific verification including study, repeatability, etc. And in fact could easily be attributed to a hallucinatory state.

However, these kinds of experiences can be very compelling to the individual experiencing them, AND even scientific if they convey information that the individual couldn’t possibly know, but is verified later. For such an individual, this experience is proved in a scientific sense, but ONLY for that individual, unless he has conveyed his experience to someone else before verification.

Consider someone who out of the blue sees in his/her mind a scene of a friend maybe 8 thousand miles away, having a horrible accident. They see the scene as a visual mental video that just pops into their head, unbidden and when they hadn’t been thinking about their friend at all. Then, maybe a half hour later, they get a phone call about their friend having been in a terrible accident described exactly as they saw in their ‘vision’.

These types of things happen to many, many individuals, and suggests that we are our own sensory instrument for picking up ‘information’ not only through the 5 senses, but also from realms outside of normal perception that are still real. But the limitation, again, is that I can’t mind-meld my experiences to you; so it certainly isn’t open to normal scientific analysis. These experiences are individually taylored.

However, LDS (and I’m sure other religionists) believe that confirmation of some of these experiences can be shared with other tuned-in individuals through the ‘Spirit’ acting on their own individual ‘plains of perception’ to convey real information outside the normal 5 senses.

[elguanteloko]

Is the scientific method, itself, falsifiable?

Falsifiability sets a standard for explanations about the empirical, not for philosophy or non-empirical claims like mathematics or logic. So, no.

If not, then according to your reasoning is science in conflict with the scientific method?

No because, again, falsifiability is about empirical claims, not about what should guide explanations. An example is the principle of parsimony, a very important part of the method. Parsimony isn't falsifiable because it doesn't make claims about the empirical world.

[elguanteloko]

Yes, and the language that describes everything, including religion, is like science, in that it breaks down & categorizes that which isn't separate to give us a sense of understanding.

When religious parables are interpretted literally, they conflict with science.

When religious parables are interpreted as spiritual (emotional) motivation, there is no conflict.

In fact, spirituality (emotional drive) & science (intellectual drive) can make more progress together, than separately.

wow, I liked this!

[elguanteloko]

No, I don't accept that logic at all. You are attempting to tell me that a group of people know what is going on in my head more than I do. That is of course pretty silly.

I know... let's throw neuroscience to the flames!

My personal experiences are real even if they are just for me.

Propaganda coming from LDS talks that "you can't explain to someone the taste of salt" are all wrong, Frank. I say this because that is commonly the origin of this type of thinking.

NO ONE is questioning your personal experiences or what you say salt tastes like or how you perceive the color yellow. What is in question is WHAT CAUSED those experiences. Explanations are OUTSIDE the experience of the explained. I really want you to understand that because it is of extreme importance.

Really, then answer the questions I gave earlier. Electron charge, proton mass, ZPE, why are they here and why these quantities and not another? I hope you are not implying that because man can make a TV that God does not exist?

We don't know and we don't need to provide an explanation when we don't know. We can always suspend judgment and let empirical tests decide better.

Now, if your question is more like the famous, "why is there something rather than nothing?", then that question is a mystery... a mystery even for religious people, too, since WHATEVER exists (including God) falls inside the "something". Then, "why is there something rather than nothing?" can't possibly be answered by an appeal to "God did it".

Edited August 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

I thought you'd bring this up. A similar question is: why do I trust the scientists? Because other scientists say they accept them? Or because I can read their experiments and I know that I can duplicate it (if I have the equipment and time to do it)?

That's easy. I trust in scientists because their methods make sense (in principle, they may not follow them ALL the time in practice but that's why we think about them), and because they produce good results (the method works). On the other hand, I do NOT trust the General Authorities or prophets because their methods are fragile as it I can imagine, their logic (when they have) makes no sense, and they produce no evidence for their claims (or very easily questionable evidence.

So, why do I trust the prophets? Because I can read what they did and duplicate it and I believe the same thing can happen to me. That is one of the reasons why I believe in the LDS faith. I'm not just reading a 2000 year old book about people back then that had visions. I can listen to people who are alive now that have visions. I myself can have visions. Would I trust you if you said you had a vision? If you can tell me what I need to do to have the same thing, then I'd definitely listen. I would then have to weigh how much I trust you vs trusting the other prophets and make a decision. I'd also attempt to put your experiment to a test.

...you forget that you must have faith already. Google what confirmation bias is.

Could it be possible that they lied, hallucinated, etc? Sure, why not. But how do I explain my own experiences? Am I lying to myself, hallucinating, brainwashed, or just having a bad dinner? Plus, there are a few mysterious in life that make me believe that there is something in a different "sphere"/dimension than we are (such as agency, karma, precognition, automatic writing, etc). Taking into account these mysteries and my own experiences, the LDS theology explains them in the simplest manner that doesn't cause me to doubt my own sanity.

Take that you are insane. As unlikely as you think that explanation is (and it sounds quite unlikely), I think you can see that it is unmeasurable more unlikely to be the case than a supernatural human with great powers did it. Listen to yourself.

What is a miracle? It is an event that is unexplainable with our current knowledge. When I read of the miracles in earlier times, I attempt to explain them with our current knowledge. When I read of miracles in our day, I attempt to explain them with our current knowledge as well. Most of the time, I can do it. I even expect all miracles to one day be explainable. That doesn't mean there isn't a God. It just means that He uses natural laws to bring about His actions. And I see no reason to not give thanks to Him (if you believe in Him) even if He didn't cause the miracle.

...

But how is it careless? In practice people will explain a miracle in many different ways. Take a sick patient who was healed. It could have been because of prayer, medicine, time, laughter, love, motivation, the hospital food, etc. We'll probably never know for that specific situation. What is wrong with expressing thanks to a figment of their imagination?

you can express thanks to a figment of your imagine, I have no problem. To jump and say that figment is real, that's another thing.

But that doesn't mean that the LDS theology is careless in its rationality. All of the doctrine has been revealed through a vision or revelation. We are ourselves capable of receiving visions or revelations. So, I am capable of verifying the doctrine. I don't just have to trust peoples' word. I can test it myself.

We are all capable of hallucinating and fooling ourselves unintentionally, too. I think we should expect a little bit more credible evidence for ourselves. Humans are famous for getting things wrong but we can get progressively less wrong. As far as we can see and studies have been made, "personal revelation" isn't the best way to test claims about things that exists.

Edited August 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[HeatherAnn]

I agree religion and science together make progress. Religion is morality. Immorality creates scientific ogres (Mengele, Hitler, Stalin, PP).

But interpreted literally, they conflict? How so? When science proves what religion already knew? [sic] Word of Wisdom, other planets, light can be bent (visit of the angel to Joseph Smith), etc.

Unless you enjoy literally interpreting bad translations of religion (Bible). But then revealed religion corrects that as well.

Enjoy the Tractor/Ford comments. Maybe Ford should make tractors. God made scientists. [grin]

Yeah, I hadn't considered scientific ogres - but true.

Also, religious fanatics can take things to the opposite extreme.

Intellect & spiritual guidance both are needed.

Come on, you don't really need me to point out how scriptures taken literally conflict with science, do you?

There are obvious ones... like the donkey talking, Jonah in the whale for a few days & then being spit out alive,

And... Noah's Ark... Gotta love Bill Cosby's take on it...

Many other less obvious scriptures, take on deeper meaning, when "likened" to us, instead of taken literally as a history lesson.

Yesterday, I sat in Sunday School, with my jaw dropped, as I realized some of the deeper meaning, especially of Jesus' life...

Like why would Jesus want us to focus on his birth? ... Unless it's a lesson on being "born again & again"...

Many deeper meanings from scriptures - but maybe for another thread.

[HeatherAnn]

wow, I liked this!

Thanks!

[Franktalk]

NO ONE is questioning your personal experiences or what you say salt tastes like or how you perceive the color yellow. What is in question is WHAT CAUSED those experiences. Explanations are OUTSIDE the experience of the explained. I really want you to understand that because it is of extreme importance.

My inability to share my experience does not take away my experience. Your assumption that my personal experience is created by some internal process and is not from an external source assumes I am a fool. It does all boil down to this issue with science types. They can't accept that there is something beyond their own mind. They can't accept the fact there is something greater than they. The limits of science is a classic definition of new age "I am god" kind of thinking. By defining the box that science lives in they have set the stage for man being at the top. Of course those who by hard work and knowing all about science are on top of the top. Just look at the attitude of many scientist. They are a respecter of man's knowledge and not a respecter of man. I on the other hand am a respecter of man and I reject the knowledge of man as lame at best. So you will continue to try and show me I am wrong by using your logic of man's knowledge. And I will of course give no weight to those arguments because they have no intrinsic value. The only value is what we give it. You give them value and I don't. You see I am a spirit that happens to reside in a body of flesh right now. This body of flesh will one day die and I will move along. This I know to be true. Of course this may seem like nonsense to you. But it is my reality that I live in.

Are you happy with the way you see things? I mean do you accept that you are an accident and will cease to exist when you die? Does this seem right to you? I one day asked myself these very questions. Then I talked to God just to see if there was one. I am so glad I did. You may want to try it. If you do you may be shocked in finding out there is more than what we can see and hear.

[LeSellers]

Ford should make tractors. God made scientists.

Ford does make tractors. So does Lamborghini.

Lehi

Edited August 1, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

In your original post you clainmed that religion is not justified. That is incorrect. Religion is justified. However it is not testable by any known scientific method. The justification lies in the experiences of the individual, and their own idiosyncratic interpretation of those experiences.

[wenglund]

Falsifiability sets a standard for explanations about the empirical, not for philosophy or non-empirical claims like mathematics or logic. So, no.

No because, again, falsifiability is about empirical claims, not about what should guide explanations. An example is the principle of parsimony, a very important part of the method. Parsimony isn't falsifiable because it doesn't make claims about the empirical world.

If it can be shown that the scientific method does make claims (implicit or otherwise), then by your reasoning would it be in conflict with science?

Are the methodological aspects of religion in conflict with science?

Are the key religious claims empirical?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[elguanteloko]

If it can be shown that the scientific method does make claims (implicit or otherwise),

"implicit" claims? what in the world are you talking about now? Look, the 'method', broadly speaking, makes claims about how research should be done but it makes no claims about itself. Parsimony makes no claims about itself, falsifiability makes no claims about itself, either.

then by your reasoning would it be in conflict with science?

again, no because it doesn't make claims about itself. The method isn't a theory about the empirical world but about what should guide theories about the empirical world.

Are the methodological aspects of religion in conflict with science?

Yes, and I've said why several times here. Bother to read them, please.

Are the key religious claims empirical?"

You are going to have to get more specific here, friend. I don't want to be chasing your ideas around. There are many religions and there are many claims that could be considered "key". What are you talking about?

[cinepro]

You have it backwards. There is no conflict between science and religion at all because of the fact that there is no way to scientifically test religious beliefs.

As this thread shows, in a perfect world science would stick to science, and religion would stick to religion.

This would work except for one thing: we have no way of knowing what "science" will be able to examine and test in the future. It's easy for religionists to confine their comments to things which aren't currently testable now (see: General Conference), but the problem is that things which aren't testable now might become testable in the future. At which point the things said in the past can come into conflict with science.

If that happens, then religionists have to decide whether they are going to stick with the teachings from the past and reject the science, or go with the science and reject or redefine the teachings from the past in such a way that they no longer contradict the science (at risk of doing great violence to the original teaching).

So while it is true that there is no way to test religious "beliefs", it can be possible to test religious "claims". Sometimes the testing supports the claim, and everyone is happy. But sometimes thing work out less happily.

Based on what I've seen, when science and religion come into conflict over a claim, it's usually safer to always bet on science. Although it may take a few generations, religion usually comes around (if it wants to survive), and while you may appear to initially "lack faith", ultimately you'll look prescient and wise.

[cinepro]

This thread also reminds me of one of my favorite sayings:

Question: What do they call alternative medicine that works?

Answer: "Medicine"