Another 'What if'? .....

[John C]

It rarely ever succeeds, actually, which is why bias correction has to applied statistically after-the-fact when constructing a decent experiment. But that's leaving out completely the agenda-driven nature of "science" as practice (not to be confused with the scientific method, as a concept), particularly regarding the funding of research and publishing of data, which was what I specifically referenced. The point was that ideological conflicts exist within science that are every bit as political and divisive as those within religion, although they certainly tend to manifest themselves differently. It's every bit as much a human endeavor, and every bit as much plagued by human failings. The smugness with which someone with such idealistic enthusiasm for the institution of science would castigate a religious person as stupid or naive is ironic, in my opinion.

I was really referring to science as a process. IE in the context of your original post.

More importantly as an ongoing, self evaluating process whos evolution goes beyond something like the lifetime of a single person or regime.
A scientific discovery such as the earth being a sphere (almost) has outlived the regime in which it was revealed and this knowledge still assists us to this day.
Newer scientific theories to which you are referring, I would say are still work in progress as long as there are rational arguments on both sides.

Of course religion has also undergone evolution. The bible was re written multiple times to suit the changing agendas of the time. Id bet the Qur'an was too. The modern age has seen religion downgrade a lot of its theories to metaphors. Because they didnt align with plain scientific fact.

The difference here is that science has built in validation which favours the truth and accepts the answer 'I dont know yet' as a possibility.

The old testament (sorry to keep picking on the bible, its what I was 'brought up on') is supposedly the word of god. It wouldnt be so convincing if it had massive gaps in its explanations.
No point in me going into more detail here without repeating what has been posted already.

The Israel/Palestinian conflict is based on religion? I thought it was an ethnic and political thing that dates back millenia. But then I'm no Dawkins.

Actually Im not really sure. I try to ignore all that stuff.
All I know is they keep banging on about the holy land and both sides wear different funny hats.
Hats are very divisive garments you know.

Do make sure to let the thousands of "nuts crazy" ethicists and philosophers that have debated the topic of abortion and infanticide since Aristotle know when science "just gets on with it" - it'll be nice to have the clarity

Is philosophy a science? Many would argue its not.
Is Science a philosophy? Is religion a philosophy?

Now your the one with the benefit of simplistic clarity

I accept that its not moral. Thats the point really, morality is not objective.
Considering people like Aristotle influenced popular religion in so many ways, I wouldnt condemn him or his peers for 'thought crime'.

The freedom to ponder and debate is kinda cool IMO.

When proselytizing for the tolerant, peaceful, esoteric nature of your cause, resorting to petty schoolyard name calling is a good way to lose credibility.

Completely bad taste jokes aside:

The institutionalised rape and cover up of minors happened within the catholic church.
It happened for years, decades, maybe more.
It happened because ordinary people were falsely attributed with holy status. When in fact they are just as potentially fallible, selfish and corruptable by power as everyone else.

The Aztecs ripped the still beating hearts out of people and offered them to the sun gods.

God or gods, if they exist have a lot to answer for.
Science, for its imperfections has given us so much useful knowledge.

That alone convinces me, science and religion are not equal as you initially claimed.

 

[tshaka zulu]

That was a scientific conflict?
I thought WW2 was more of a political ideological thing.
But Im no Buddha.

Meh, I was just making an observation. Not trying to analyze the cause of the conflict though Hitler sure made a pretty solid run at things based on a supposed genetic superiority of the master race.

Thats a science versus religion debate.

These usually play out with the religious side going nuts crazy while the science side just gets on with it.

This one deserves a new thread in itself. But all I will say is perhaps the Cathoilic church should embrace rubber jonnies and butsecks.
And no I dont mean in the vestry with the Choir boys.

Actually it isn't directly a science v religion debate. Politically it has become that, but at the heart of this is the inability of the scientific community to make a determination on this. I'm not blaming them because the whole issue wreaks of proper philosophical and ontological paradigms.

Survival of the fittest is attributed to Charles Darwin but he didnt coin the phrase. Nor did he mean it in the literal sense.

In any case im pretty sure imperialism was around before Darwinism.
Unless the Romans knew more than they were letting on.

Imperialism definitely was, but it was still based in an age of enlightenment mentality and the belief that the Romans were superior to all the barbarians/savages.

Im glad you noticed that.
So we are agreed. Humans Bad science good.

Therein lies your biggest problem here.....science is neutral. It is neither good or bad, it just "is."

Thanks for that but your arguing against a point I never made

Maybe I will rebut the point you never made about god being a giant 'sponge bob square pants' floating around the Kuiper belt.
Come on. Dont be so naive to think that? I reckon we'd have picked him up on a telescope by now.

You didn't have to make the point directly. You did quite a nice job of inferring it. I speak multiple languages and subtext is one I'm quite fluent in. Just look at your earlier point about "Humans bad science good." Even that right there further qualifies the point I was making. And you can argue for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or jolly old Sponge Bob anytime...I'd enjoy reading it.


Thanks for the debate guys....haven't done this dance in a minute. I'm finding that I'm a little rusty. Lol.

 

[dr.strangelove]

Of course religion has also undergone evolution. The bible was re written multiple times to suit the changing agendas of the time. Id bet the Qur'an was too. The modern age has seen religion downgrade a lot of its theories to metaphors. Because they didnt align with plain scientific fact.

I would think that you would respect changing theory in light of new data - that's more open-minded than you give religion credit for

science has built in validation which favours the truth and accepts the answer 'I dont know yet' as a possibility.

Well, yes, absolutely science by design is intended to find correct answers to questions about how nature works and functions. I would never propose relying on religion or philosophy to provide correct answers to those sort of questions. I just don't think religion is necessarily evil or irrelevant, which seems to be the consensus. I like to think that you don't have to despise religion and religious people in order to accept and appreciate science.

The old testament (sorry to keep picking on the bible, its what I was 'brought up on') is supposedly the word of god. It wouldnt be so convincing if it had massive gaps in its explanations.
No point in me going into more detail here without repeating what has been posted already.

From a scientific perspective, of course the Old Testament is of little or no value - it's not a scientific text. That was basically what I was getting at. I don't go to the Bible or religious documents for answers to scientific questions - no one should. I wouldn't go to philosophical texts from the same time period for scientific answers (or even scientific texts from the same time period for that matter). It's hardly a perfect analogy, but if I had a large company, I wouldn't consult my marketing department to research and design a new drug or microprocessor. But that doesn't mean I'd fire my marketing department because their work is non-scientific.

Is philosophy a science? Many would argue its not.
Is Science a philosophy? Is religion a philosophy?

Of course it's not, that was the point. I was trying to point out that religious and non-religious people alike have spent literally thousands of years debating the issue and it's insultingly arrogant to brush it off as a triviality that science will solve with complete clarity.

Considering people like Aristotle influenced popular religion in so many ways, I wouldnt condemn him or his peers for 'thought crime'.

Neither would I, and that was precisely the point!

The freedom to ponder and debate is kinda cool IMO.

Here were are in radical agreement. I certainly hope that I didn't give off the impression that I thought religion should supplant science and debate should be silenced. Quite the opposite: I was merely trying to point out that religion shouldn't necessarily be squelched either. They aren't the same, and they aren't supposed to be. But I think there's value to both. They shouldn't necessarily be mutually exclusive.

The institutionalised rape and cover up of minors happened within the catholic church.
It happened for years, decades, maybe more.
It happened because ordinary people were falsely attributed with holy status. When in fact they are just as potentially fallible, selfish and corruptable by power as everyone else.

You'll get no argument from me. I'm not a Catholic and have very few points of agreement with the church. What I fear is that this same sort of infallible holiness is being ascribed to science and its practitioners, and equally undeservedly. Science is a wonderful tool, but the reverence for it by some people seems a little overly optimistic and zealous, IMO. It's nearly as ardent as many of the religious people that the very same people would excoriate as rubes. That was really all I was trying to convey.

God or gods, if they exist have a lot to answer for.

Well, I'd say human beings have a lot to answer for. The greatest atrocities of the last century have mostly been committed by the irreligious. We don't seem to need the excuse of a god to do unspeakable things. Coincidence does not equal causation, as they say.

That alone convinces me, science and religion are not equal as you initially claimed.

I never said they were equal, I said they suffered from the same types of imperfection and ruminated that this is probably the case because of their common source - being human institutions.

Therein lies your biggest problem here.....science is neutral. It is neither good or bad, it just "is."

This is really the point I have been laboring to make, nicely summed up in one succinct sentence. I would also add that the same goes for religion, in my opinion. There's really no objective comparison.

 

[John C]

Too busy to read the replies but would like to throw this one out there...

The pope protects paedophiles from justice! Is that Gods will?

 

[chrizwheatley]

So does Islam, is that justice? 60 Year old men can marry legally 9 year old children and all they do is 'request' they do not have sex with them.