The Fundamental Conflict Between Science And Religion

[elguanteloko]

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.

Well, "own idiosyncratic interpretation of those experiences" is where the unjustification lies. You know you can call ALL attempts of justification as "idiosyncratic interpretations" of events but thinking, for example, that there is a conspiracy to make you believe the earth is not flat is not justified. "Justification" doesn't mean that you make whatever reasons to support your ideas; anyone can do that. The point is to present proper reasons through proper reasoning. By the best methods we can discern, to decide a being like God exists (and all the bunch of dogma from a specific religion is accurate) through mere 'personal experience' isn't a good method to justify it.

[Jeff K.]

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.

I invite science to test all it it can, to study all it can, and to delve into as much knowledge as it can. God gave us science to do just that.

No act of science has ever made men better than they were, religion does that. It can also make the use of science beneficial rather than destructive. Religion does more to guide society to do good than science has ever done. There is no conflict because both sides fulfill the very important and distinct needs in man.

Elguanteloko is upset because he cannot empirically measure religions benefits to man, nor can he empirically measure God's inspiration of man. He cannot measure it so he rejects it. I am reminded of the phrase "He who knows the price of everything knows the value of nothing.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Jeff K.

[elguanteloko]

I invite science to test all it it can, to study all it can, and to delve into as much knowledge as it can. God gave us science to do just that.

No act of science has ever made men better than they were, religion does that. It can also make the use of science beneficial rather than destructive. Religion does more to guide society to do good than science has ever done. There is no conflict because both sides fulfill the very important and distinct needs in man.

I'm not talking about the "what makes you a better person" contributions of religion or of science. You keep again and again making this mistake. I am talking about the claims of religion about things that exist physically and have influence upon the physical, again, NOT about "what makes you a better person" or "what is best for society" or "what's moral".

Elguanteloko is upset because he cannot empirically measure religions benefits to man, nor can he empirically measure God's inspiration of man. He cannot measure it so he rejects it. I am reminded of the phrase "He who knows the price of everything knows the value of nothing.

....once again, I never even implied to be speaking of the "religious benefits to man". Dude, this is basic and you keep on missing it.

Edited August 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

You always use the same words when you find yourself in error elg. I suggest you consider the fact that you are basically wrong in your assessment and start learning the difference between value and price. There are values you cannot measure. God is one of them.

To quote you...

Dude, this is basic and you keep on missing it.

[Jeff K.]

I'm not talking about the "what makes you a better person" contributions of religion or of science. You keep again and again making this mistake. I am talking about the claims of religion about things that exist physically and have influence upon the physical, again, NOT about "what makes you a better person" or "what is best for society" or "what's moral".

God does influence things physically, but you cannot measure inspiration, or faith, or the ability to for a man to change himself and the world around them. You seem to lack the ability to understand that.

Dude, this is basic and you keep on missing it.

[elguanteloko]

My inability to share my experience does not take away my experience.

Of course an inability to share an experience doesn't take away your 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.

I'm not saying you are a fool and I have no desire in calling you a fool anymore than I want my parents who I love to be called fools (all my family is LDS). I'm also NOT saying this is what happened AT ALL. All I'm saying is that this explanation is a much more likely explanation to be the case than "God did it". That's all I'm saying to you here.

So you will continue to try and show me I am wrong by using your logic of man's knowledge.

Frank, please understand what I'm saying here. I'm not saying you are wrong at all in accepting that God did so and so. I'm simply saying your "God" explanation isn't the most likely to be the case by any means and I think you can easily see that. You could be correct and God may exist after all, that's not a problem for what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it isn't the most likely thing to be the case.

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.

Friend, I'm not trying to convince you that there is no God at all here. I'm just trying to show that the God explanation isn't the best one and to explain the fundamental problem between science and religion which lies in their methodologies, not in their conclusions. Science as it is today will always conflict with religion as it is today because one jumps to conclusions it can't support while the other one is antithetical to such hasty conclusions.

Are you happy with the way you see things?

I'm quite happy (actually, I was also quite happy when I was a believer, too). This is irrelevant, however, when trying to understand. Even if I wanted with all my heart that there was a God, it would be dishonest for me to accept such a belief just because I wanted it to be correct and not because it was the most accurate one.

[elguanteloko]

God does influence things physically, but you cannot measure inspiration, or faith, or the ability to for a man to change himself and the world around them. You seem to lack the ability to understand that.

Once again, I'm not speaking of "inspiration" or "faith" or "the ability of a man to change himself". Those are most of the times unfalsifiable and unidentifiable.. even for theists (this is a topic for another thread, though). I'm speaking of miracles (grandma's cancer vanishing, etc), physical bodies existing, powers to create universes, the efficacy of prayer, etc. Those are claims that can be checked scientifically. (to see how they can be tested google "efficacy of prayer" and follow the research. there are also a whole lot of research on many claims made by mystics and religious people with no better results and this alone should set a red alert off) If those claims can't be tested, there's absolutely no reason to accept them; any rational being should reject them NOT as being false, but as another unnecessary explanation.

Now, I have to admit that this is only a collateral part of my criticism. The main issue is that such explanations as the ones you are offering ("God did it" explanations) are not the most likely explanations to be the case and, thusly, they should not be accepted. In other words, it doesn't matter than science can't identify or measure God and his influence... the point is that if you accept scientific methodology to approach the universe, to jump and say "God did it" is COMPLETELY antithetical to it (to scientific methodology). I don't need to 'disprove' that Neptune didn't cause my grandma's cancer to disappear in order for me to reject that explanation. It is simply isn't the best explanation by all best accounts.

[wenglund]

"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.

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.

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

Excellent. I am getting closer to nailing down your seemingly moving target here. I now understand you to say that lack of falsifiability and parsimony is not sufficient grounds to deem something as in conflict with science. It also requires that the something make not just make claims, but make empirical claims, and those empirical claims must be about itself. In other words, to the extent that something, like religion, doesn't make empirical claims about itself, it isn't contrary to science even though it may lack falsifiability and parsimony. Right?

In other words, if it can be shown that religious methodologies make no more empirical claims about themselves than does the scientific method, then according to your criteria, those methods ought not be viewed as contrary to science. Right?

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?

Fine. Let's start with the most obvious--i.e. the religious belief in the existence of God. To your way of thinking, does this key belief constitute an empirical claim which the religion is making about itself? And, if not (how could it be?), then by your own reasoning, it isn't in conflict with science. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[HeatherAnn]

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

Question: What do they call alternative medicine that works?

Answer: "Medicine"

Yeah... just pop a pill & it will be alright (at least it will seem alright)!

(I always wanted to use that smiley!! lol)

Tim Hawkins - Products & Meds...

This mentality may explain why Utah is #1 in the nation for anti-depressant use & #7 for pain-killer meds.

Edited August 1, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[elguanteloko]

wenglund:

Methodologies to discover physical things that exist with no regard to falsifiability and parsimony are in conflict with scientific methodology. Since religion has no regard for falsifiability and parsimony when trying to discover physical things, then it is in conflict with scientific methodology.

The reason why falsifiability and parsimony are not in conflict with THEMSELVES is because they make no claims about themselves. I was speaking of conflict with THEMSELVES, not that they were immune to conflict with other things outside themselves. That's what you are getting wrong.

Edited August 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[subgenius]

Hi, folks.

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

"possible" conflict is correct, though it is highly improbable. Any apparent conflict would be constructed.

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.

this statement is incoherent, please explain. i can agree with the statement about religion is not scientifically testable, but to be accurate science is not spiritually testable either.....nor can i use my nose to test poetry.

Example: God exists.

example of what?

This claim is never empirically justified (few times even attempted) and still accepted while science just can't do that.

so what? are you claiming that "empirical justification" is the singular definition of what is "real" or what is true" or what is "good" or what is "useful"?

Really, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

i have seen no empirical justification for this statement

and religion offers very little in this respect.

clarification: it offers very little test tube evidence, but it easily offers evidence.

Again, this does not mean God doesn't exist or that prayer doesn't work but it does mean those claims are simply unjustified.

correction: scientifically justified to a level of certainty you have yet to describe. The claims are otherwise mostly justified in some manner or another.

Why say "God exists" when all we have are feelings and not trustworthy evidence?

since when are feelings not "trustworthy"? i would propose that many advances in science were founded on "feelings", most advances demand it !

Why say "God did this" when that isn't the best explanation for things?

what do you mean by "best"? my best or your best?

The fundamental "conflict" is a shadow on the cave wall.

[elguanteloko]

"possible" conflict is correct, though it is highly improbable. Any apparent conflict would be constructed.

this statement is incoherent, please explain. i can agree with the statement about religion is not scientifically testable, but to be accurate science is not spiritually testable either.....nor can i use my nose to test poetry.

I'm speaking of certain religious claims, not about all religious claims. Please check other comments I've written here where I explain further. Don't make me explain it all over again!

example of what?

amm "God exists"

so what? are you claiming that "empirical justification" is the singular definition of what is "real" or what is true" or what is "good" or what is "useful"?

(Please realize first that I'm speaking more about the methodologies and NOT about claims themselves. I use claims to explain the point but my point is about methods, not claims) No, but I am saying that while the methodology of science excludes us from accepting explanations with no regard to parsimony and falsifiability, religion doesn't. I'm saying this produces not only a difference but a conflict.

i have seen no empirical justification for this statement

I'm not a logical positivist and I'm not saying that claim is empirically justified (because that claim doesn't speak about all claims but about empirical claims).

clarification: it offers very little test tube evidence, but it easily offers evidence.

That's fine but that's not what I'm saying. Please read further posts. I'm NOT talking about "test tube evidence"... not even about evidence, really. That's not the main point.

correction: scientifically justified to a level of certainty you have yet to describe. The claims are otherwise mostly justified in some manner or another.

Once again, I'm speaking of a part of science that includes parsimony and falsifiability, NOT about physical methods exactly.

since when are feelings not "trustworthy"? i would propose that many advances in science were founded on "feelings", most advances demand it !

They are not enough to establish that a physical God exists. That's what I'm saying.

what do you mean by "best"? my best or your best?

(when asked what is 2+2 equals to and shown that 4 is the answer)

"What do you mean by 4? Your 4 or my 4?"

The best any rational being would recognize.

The fundamental "conflict" is a shadow on the cave wall.

...

Edited August 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[ldsfaqs]

double

Edited August 1, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[ldsfaqs]

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

Verifiability is not simply and only finding evidence for a particular theory, it can also be used to COMPARE theory's, and then select the one through analysis that is actually accurate, true, verifiable, etc., as well as IF there is even a theroy that meets the necessary parameters. In other words, if a "true Church" wasn't on the earth, then no religion would fit the parameters of the test.

Thus, you're wrong again.

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.

You are never going to see and learn anything different or true unless you get rid of the attitude and actually try to understand what people are trying to tell you.

Take the example above. You completely misrepresented my point, and ignored another important factor which proves your point false.

Your intellectual "elitism" will not help you, you are learned and think you are wise, when you aren't.

[wenglund]

wenglund:

Methodologies to discover physical things that exist with no regard to falsifiability and parsimony are in conflict with scientific methodology. Since religion has no regard for falsifiability and parsimony when trying to discover physical things, then it is in conflict with scientific methodology.

The reason why falsifiability and parsimony are not in conflict with THEMSELVES is because they make no claims about themselves. I was speaking of conflict with THEMSELVES, not that they were immune to conflict with other things outside themselves. That's what you are getting wrong.

Sorry, this doesn't engage my comments and questions. It simply recycles your nonsense made evident by my comments and questions. Oh well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[elguanteloko]

Sorry, this doesn't engage my comments and questions. It simply recycles your nonsense made evident by my comments and questions. Oh well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I know it doesn't because your questions are based on a misunderstanding of what I said. All the "itself" stuff started because you asked about falsifiability and I answered that it isn't in conflict with itself because it makes no claims about itself. That does NOT mean falsifiability couldn't be in conflict with something else (with religion, for example). Same with parsimony. You said that for something to not be in conflict with science it must make empirical claims about itself and that is just totally wrong.

you said that, "to the extent that something, like religion, doesn't make empirical claims about itself, it isn't contrary to science" and that's just wrong. I can spend the rest of my life never claiming anything empirical about myself but I may go against science by saying YOU are made of cheese or something.

Edited August 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Franktalk]

I'm not saying you are a fool and I have no desire in calling you a fool anymore than I want my parents who I love to be called fools (all my family is LDS). I'm also NOT saying this is what happened AT ALL. All I'm saying is that this explanation is a much more likely explanation to be the case than "God did it". That's all I'm saying to you here.

Frank, please understand what I'm saying here. I'm not saying you are wrong at all in accepting that God did so and so. I'm simply saying your "God" explanation isn't the most likely to be the case by any means and I think you can easily see that. You could be correct and God may exist after all, that's not a problem for what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it isn't the most likely thing to be the case.

I do not agree with you at all. Your argument comes from a set of rules which is designed for a predetermined outcome. For some reason which you only know you have accepted that there is but one logical path to truth. I reject that idea. Maybe if I explain we can at least see some common ground. We know that the force of gravity varies as the square of the distance between two bodies of mass. You may say this is true. I do not. I see it as an observation of a choice. God could have just as easily made mass respond with R to the 1.85 power instead of 2. So for me these are not truths. In a similar way many of the things which man has observed are just numbers and not truths. But many men see these things as truths. Then using these "truths" they build a logic around these observations. For me the logic is arbitrary and man made but some feel that the logic is absolute and has great worth. What I have just described is perception. Where a man of science can tell me with absolute certainty what he has observed over and over he can not tell me why. He says that it is natural law. I reject natural law. What you may see as natural law I see as a design choice for God. Where you have become accustomed to seeing a natural order to things I see a design. Where you may use the natural order to give credibility to your rule set I reject your rule set. Since natural to me is arbitrary as determined by God why should I give the creation any power? It is just a thing. I can tell you that I love studying the Creation and I have a great deal of knowledge of science. But I look at it differently than some.

So from your perspective of limited senses and absolutes of natural truths it may seem reasonable to say to me that it is more likely that I have self generated a link with God and in reality I am having a chat with myself. I accept that this is your perspective. What happens next is you reject that I know myself. You say I am wrong about my relationship with God. You say that it is more likely that deep inside of me a have a need for a god and I made it up to satisfy some basic human need. But I say that people who do not talk to God do not do so because of pride. They value what they think they know so highly that they are not willing to let go. Now I do not know what is in your heart so I can't say for sure why your life is the way it is. I know not and I judge not. Yet you have judged me because you say the communication I have with God is more likely generated internal and I am fooling myself.

A day is coming shortly in which many people who reject God will all say that the world would be better off if the religious were not here. A leader will come who will share this idea and will provide the power to carry out mass murder for the good of all. In the name of peace many will die. If you are alive in this day I want you to remember what I have said. Then join the ranks of those who will be killed in the name of Jesus even if you don't believe. It will still count for you.

[elguanteloko]

I do not agree with you at all. Your argument comes from a set of rules which is designed for a predetermined outcome. For some reason which you only know you have accepted that there is but one logical path to truth.

For Pete's sake, Frank, stop putting ideas in my head I don't hold! "This is what seems to make more sense and works best" and going with it is NOT saying "This is the ONLY way to 'The Truth' ". That is just silly.

Anyways, if you are not going to understand that I am NOT saying you are wrong but that "it is more probable that you are wrong than not"... then you and I have nothing else to talk about here.

[Franktalk]

For Pete's sake, Frank, stop putting ideas in my head I don't hold! "This is what seems to make more sense and works best" and going with it is NOT saying "This is the ONLY way to 'The Truth' ". That is just silly.

Many people of science accept the rule set of science. I am sure you accept this. One of the rules is that observations of processes are repeatable. Anything that is once only or personal so as not being able to be observed is not considered in the set of things science deals with. But science does not stop there. Science holds the opinion that things not observable and repeatable are not real and therefore are not part of nature or reality. This is the box I have described that science lives in. Anything outside of the box is rejected not due to it being real or not, it is rejected because it does not play by the rule set made by science. But science has made exceptions to these rules. It was found some years ago that under identical settings that some reactions of small particles did not do the same thing twice. It was found that chance played a part in the outcome. But here science embraced the idea of chance.

If I am a physicist and I observe chance reactions I am still accepted by science as an observer. But if I say as an observer that I have an internal communication with a second party that no one else can detect I am told that in all likelihood I am wrong. Do you not see the connection? Can you not see my communication with God to be a chance event? Why would you accept chance events for particles and reject chance events for an observer? What I am pointing out to you is that the logic you think you hold is not valid. Your own rules have been violated and exceptions granted. But it appears to me that some group has set guidelines to what will be accepted and what will be rejected. This is an agenda and should not be embraced by science yet it is.

[elguanteloko]

Frank, you need to study what science is better. Science isn't a hard block as your caricature presents it to be. Sorry.

When you wrap your mind around the concept of "What seems to work best" you will understand science more competently.That concept never talks about "Truth" or anything of the sort. The only people who think science is a dogma are dogmatists who don't accept science because they don't understand it.

Edited August 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Franktalk]

Frank, you need to study what science is better. Science isn't a hard block as your caricature presents it to be. Sorry.

When you wrap your mind around the concept of "What seems to work best" you will understand science more competently.That concept never talks about "Truth" or anything of the sort. The only people who think science is a dogma are dogmatists who don't accept science because they don't understand it.

If as you say science does not deal with truth and has no absolute answers then why would anyone use it? In my search for answers I found God, along with God came truth and absolutes. Funny how that worked out.

[wenglund]

I know it doesn't because your questions are based on a misunderstanding of what I said. All the "itself" stuff started because you asked about falsifiability and I answered that it isn't in conflict with itself because it makes no claims about itself. That does NOT mean falsifiability couldn't be in conflict with something else (with religion, for example). Same with parsimony. You said that for something to not be in conflict with science it must make empirical claims about itself and that is just totally wrong.

you said that, "to the extent that something, like religion, doesn't make empirical claims about itself, it isn't contrary to science" and that's just wrong. I can spend the rest of my life never claiming anything empirical about myself but I may go against science by saying YOU are made of cheese or something.

The problem here, my friend, is you evidently don't have a clear understanding of what you are arguing. Your criteria for what conflicts with science has evolved from non-falsifiable and non-parsimonious claims, to empirical claims, to empirical claims made about itself, to now empirical claims that "go against science." How about you take some time and figure out what firm argument you wish to make, and then make it, and we will respond. If it is of any help, you might want to go with your latest incarnation criteria and abandon the former since it is appears that the former criteria can't stand the light of day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[elguanteloko]

If as you say science does not deal with truth and has no absolute answers then why would anyone use it?

If you are ill and I offer you (or so I say) the TRUTH about your illness and offer to give you chlorine gas to cure it, will you accept it? (chlorine gas is extremely poisonous)

I hope you wouldn't. Saying you have "the truth" is useless when your justifications for why you do have it are lame. Anyone can say that and believe that. Dogmatic positions is a horrible thing in ideas, not something positive as you think.

Another point is that "the truth" is completely unidentifiable since there is no way to distinguish between "what is" and "what seems to be". Whatever God says and whatever you think is the case will always be "what seems to be" to you and to God. How will you ever know what you have is "the truth" other than "it looks like truth"?... but to say that you must already know how "truth" looks like in order to know you have it in your hands. Please read this several times because it is off topic and I don't want to have to repeat it here and derail the thread.

In my search for answers I found God, along with God came truth and absolutes. Funny how that worked out.

I don't care what you think you found, personally, when you offer no reasons for them. If this is all you are going to keep on doing and you won't address the issues with reason, then don't post here anymore, please.

[elguanteloko]

The problem here, my friend, is you evidently don't have a clear understanding of what you are arguing. Your criteria for what conflicts with science has evolved from non-falsifiable and non-parsimonious claims,

Science can conflict WITH ITSELF (not other things with it, that's a separate issue) if it makes claims about its own methods. Since it doesn't do that, then there's no conflict at least at that level. Simple.

to empirical claims,

This is FROM OUTSIDE science. If scientific DISCOVERY (not the methods themselves) indicate that we come from other primates, then to say we don't conflicts with science in a sense in which I'm NOT speaking of here (IOW, I'm NOT addressing the "results of science" conflict in this thread).

to empirical claims made about itself,

once again, science doesn't make claims about itself and if it did they (the claims) would NOT be claims about the empirical only because SCIENCE ISN'T EMPIRICAL ITSELF. (Ideas are not empirical, brother, and science is an idea or a method) I mean... do I really need to tell you this, man? Geez!

to now empirical claims that "go against science."

I was simply pointing out what I was NOT talking about but can still conflict with scientific conclusions. Again, I'm NOT speaking of the conclusions science arrives at though that is another aspect in which religion may or may not conflict with.

How about you take some time and figure out what firm argument you wish to make, and then make it, and we will respond. If it is of any help, you might want to go with your latest incarnation criteria and abandon the former since it is appears that the former criteria can't stand the light of day.

Please, man, next time read carefully what I'm saying because you are getting nothing. Think about what you're reading and don't make me connect the dots for you when it's so simple you can do it if you make the effort.

Edited August 2, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Jeff K.]

I don't care what you think you found, personally, when you offer no reasons for them. If this is all you are going to keep on doing and you won't address the issues with reason, then don't post here anymore, please

It seems you don't offer valid reasons either. Will you follow your own advice and stop posting here?