Science and religion

I have heard it put that science and religion do not mix
Maybe you guys have hashed this one out b4 but i'd just like to know-
Do not science AND religion have a role to play in our understanding of the greater ****?
(This topic can get messy however a lot of good points can be gleened from this line of inquiry)

it depends, someone may take the exact same data which supports a scientific theory and interpret it in an entirely different way.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I have heard it put that science and religion do not mix
Maybe you guys have hashed this one out b4 but i'd just like to know-
Do not science AND religion have a role to play in our understanding of the greater ****?
(This topic can get messy however a lot of good points can be gleened from this line of inquiry)

'Having a role to play' is a very vague concept.

For example, it could be said that it is almost certain that dogma (in any form, religious or not) will have a role to play in our understanding of the great ****.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I have heard it put that science and religion do not mix
Maybe you guys have hashed this one out b4 but i'd just like to know-
Do not science AND religion have a role to play in our understanding of the greater ****?
(This topic can get messy however a lot of good points can be gleened from this line of inquiry)

I'll quote MLK,

"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary."

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it depends, someone may take the exact same data which supports a scientific theory and interpret it in an entirely different way.

how would that relate to religion?

Originally posted by generalissimo
I'll quote MLK,

"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary."

…Science investigates; religion interprets.
…

religion interprets what? -the data?😛 -oh, please don’t tell me this statement is supposed to mean “religion interprets the scriptures“? -if that is the case then that statement appears to confirm the two have little relevance to each other.

Originally posted by Palynka
'Having a role to play' is a very vague concept.

For example, it could be said that it is almost certain that dogma (in any form, religious or not) will have a role to play in our understanding of the great ****.

What is this “great ****” you and karoly speak of?
-I mean, what four-letter word is “****” and why not just say it?
-I mean, is “****” a rude f-word or a secret or something too personal to air in public or do you just don’t want to "go there" or what?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What is this “great ****” you and karoly speak of?
-I mean, what four-letter word is “****” and why not just say it?
-I mean, is “****” a rude f-word or a secret or something too personal to air in public or do you just don’t want to "go there" or what?

It's not me it's robomod who does it. I don't know why it obscures ****.

I usually say that religion and science never mix.

This doesn't mean that religion is crap and science explains everything. I just mean that religion plays in its own domain, and science play in the science domain.

Is there anything where science and religion share the same domain? Here I say no. Whenever you try to treat religion scientifically or try to treat science religiously, then you are on a very thin ice.

Science works with the laws of nature. Religion works outside the laws. A very distinkt example is miracles. It contradicts the laws, therefore they are miracles. If miracles operate within the laws of nature, then it would not be miracles, but very well explainable by science.

We can never pray god for a specific result in a physical experiment.
We can never prove afterlife, or existance of god scientifically.
When we can, then I am wrong. Until then I feel very confident that I'm right:
Religion and science cannot ever mix.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
how would that relate to religion?

its quite simple, take for example a simple religious idea, that Fabian mentioned above, miracles. In scripture, they are always almost matter of fact, especially the miracles of Christ, there is no sensationalism, nothing, he simply states, pick up your bed and walk, and the recipient picks up his bed and walks away healed. Now the argument is, that miracles are out with the natural laws of nature, therefore if it can be demonstrated scientifically that 'unusual things may be observed when elements are subject to unusual circumstances', then it can be established that there is a basis that this same theory, may be "interpreted" to apply to the phenomena of miracles themselves, for they may also have been subject to unusual or peculiar circumstances, thus if we can establish that no one can assume or insist that the familiar laws of nature hold true everywhere and at all times then this also establishes a basis for miracles 🙂

for example scientists are willing to speculate on whether, instead of the familiar three dimensions of length, breadth, and height, there may be many additional dimensions in the universe. They theorize on the existence of black holes, huge stars that collapse in on themselves until their density is virtually infinite. In their vicinity the fabric of space is said to be so distorted that time itself stands still. also many have even debated whether, under certain conditions, time would run backward instead of forward!

Even the illustrious Stephen W. Hawking, said: “In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics would break down.” So again no one can state that simply because something is contrary to the natural laws of nature it can never happen. In unusual conditions, unusual things may happen. All anyone can state with any certainty, that there is a probability.

thus we can see how scientific theories may be interpreted into the realm of spirituality, of course it proves nothing, but it weaves like a kind of fabric, a tapestry if you like, that when taken together with other sources, contributes to an individuals faith.

even the data itself as in the case of actual experiments may be interpreted in this way, but i have said enough and don't want to bore you excessively.

Science and religion are both human activities, they have some things in common and some major differences.

I don't agree with Gould's notion of NOMA (non overlapping magisteria) and nor do I agree with those who seek to draw simplistic distinctions like 'science deals with how questions and religion with why questions'.

NOMA might work if there were the slightest chance that either human activity could resist the urge to trespass, but they haven't managed it yet.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What is this “great ****” you and karoly speak of?
-I mean, what four-letter word is “****” and why not just say it?
-I mean, is “****” a rude f-word or a secret or something too personal to air in public or do you just don’t want to "go there" or what?

I'll go there.
When I typed **** I simply meant the 'nameless void' which we all spring from and to which we all return one way or another.
It has no name or label yet is definatly 'something'
To give it a name would be to classify it as a noun, which isn't strictly true.
I think r.e.m. had a song called 'the great beyond'. This title hints at what i'm trying to say however words seem to miss the mark and always lead to trouble...(beyond,heaven,God,etc.)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its quite simple, take for example a simple religious idea, that Fabian mentioned above, miracles. In scripture, they are always almost matter of fact, especially the miracles of Christ, there is no sensationalism, nothing, he simply states, pick up your bed and walk, and the recipient picks up his bed and walks away healed. Now the argument is, th be interpreted in this way, but i have said enough and don't want to bore you excessively.

…therefore if it can be demonstrated scientifically that 'UNUSUAL THINGS may be observed when elements are subject to UNUSUAL circumstances', THEN it can be established that there is a basis that this SAME THEORY, may be "interpreted" to apply to the phenomena of miracles themselves,
… (my emphasis)

The extremely vague terms “UNUSUAL THINGS” and, more simply, “UNUSUAL” have no formal scientific meaning whatsoever thus it can NEVER be “demonstrated scientifically that 'UNUSUAL THINGS may be observed when elements are subject to UNUSUAL circumstances'” as you said. Therefore, your rather dubious ‘deduction’ you made above doesn’t even have a sound premise.

…thus IF we can establish that no one can assume or insist that the FAMILIAR laws of nature hold true everywhere and at all times THEN...
..…(my emphasis)

...THEN that confirms that there may exist "UNFAMILIAR” (to us) laws of nature -nothing about the “supernatural” nor “miracles” implied there!

…. this also establishes a basis for miracles
…

Err, no. this establishes there may exist "UNFAMILIAR” (to us) laws of nature.
How would:

1, there exists miracles

logically follow from

2, "UNFAMILIAR” (to us) laws of nature exist

…also many have even debated whether, under certain conditions, time would run backward instead of forward!
…

-and if that is the case it would be no “miracle” because it would occur as a result of NATURAL law and NOT “SUPERNATURAL” law.

….Even the illustrious Stephen W. Hawking, said: “In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the KNOWN laws of physics would break down.” SO again no one can state that simply because something is contrary to the NATURAL LAWS of nature it can never happen.
. … (my emphasis)

Why wouldn’t the “NATURAL LAWS” of nature not only include all the “KNOWN” laws of physics but also any “UNKNOWN” laws of physics?

Point: contrary to what you stated above, it doesn’t logically follow from:

1, Under certain conditions, all the KNOWN laws of physics break down.

That:

2, something is contrary to the NATURAL LAWS of nature can happen

-because if the KNOWN laws of physics break down then that would just mean some UNKNOWN laws of physics can assert itself and thus THAT UNKNOWN laws of physics would not “break down” there and thus nothing contrary to the NATURAL LAWS of nature would happen there because those “NATURAL LAWS” would include those “UNKNOWN laws”.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'll go there.
When I typed **** I simply meant the 'nameless void' which we all spring from and to which we all return one way or another.
It has no name or label yet is definatly 'something'
To give it a name would be to classify it as a noun, which isn't strictly true.
I think r.e.m. had a song called 'the great beyond'. This title hints at ...[text shortened]... wever words seem to miss the mark and always lead to trouble...(beyond,heaven,God,etc.)

…the 'nameless void' which we ALL spring from
… (my emphasis)

-and I thought I came from egg and sperm.