Science/Religion

[Hagoth]

I was trying to come up with the simplest possible definitions that describe the differences between the two modes of thought. Here's what I came up with:

Religion: a methodology for reassuring yourself that what you believe is true, which relieves you of the burden of seeking elsewhere for truth.

Science: a methodology for determining which of your beliefs are false, to help you define questions that will lead you closer to truth.

[Linked]

Interesting topic Hagoth. I would change the definition of religion, it's less of a methodology in my view. Something like:

Religion: A set of beliefs related to any or all of the following - morality, god(s), premortal/after-life, epistemology, the purpose of life, and more.

This is an extremely broad definition, basically any belief fits. Maybe that's too broad. It could be shrunken by changing it to "A rigid set of beliefs..." but I don't think that is really accurate; TBMs show a remarkable capacity to change their beliefs at the whim of church headquarters.

I think a distinction between a "Religion" and a "Religious Organization" needs to be made. A lot of the nasty stuff is more a product of religious organizations than the beliefs that people hold.

[Rob4Hope]

Religion: Start with the conclusion and constrain the facts to support the originally established conclusion.

Science: Start with the facts, and use those to arrive at a conclusion.

===========================

Examples that cross into both camps of Religion, from those who should espouse Science.

LDS Egyptology: The papyri Joseph Smith had contained the Book of Abraham. Facts don't support this so the catalyst theory was proposed and accepted by many to explain the originally established conclusion. The conclusion is what is important, and the facts are made to support it.

Non-LDS Egyptology: The Sphinx has been dated to about 5,000 years ago. The enclosure stones around the Sphinx show water weathering and a large number of Geologists conclude, from the evidence, that the Sphinx is much older than 5,000 years because back before that time, the plateau where the Sphinx is was tropical and had lots of running water.

Egyptology is threatened by this, so they resort to ad-hominem attacks to support their originally established conclusion. The facts, in this case, are brushed off as inconsequential or "wind weathering" (which no geologist supports BTW). Why brush off the facts?...because if they were listened to, the dating would have to be adjusted, and that would flush a lot of peer-review published papers down the drain, something Egyptologists are unwilling to do. So, rather than being scientists, they actually take a religious perspective on this one. Weird...

[dogbite]

Science: a methodology for determining which of your beliefs are false, to help you define questions that will lead you closer to truth.

Science can't determine truth meaningfully in a direct way. The hard sciences are about constructing MODELS of SYSTEMS based on observation. The universe as we observe it is described by the Standard Model. From these verified observations predictions for future observations (hypotheses) are constructed to refine what to try to observe. But it's still only a model.

We have no ability to directly apprehend reality. Even our minds only build models from what our senses feed into the system of ourselves. Given these kinds of limitations about our existence, what would truth even be?

The sphinx and water issue is not given credence generally..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_ ... hypothesis

[Ghost]

Here's my attempt:

Religion: A set of ideas and stories that primates accept to help them feel meaning and purpose.
Science: A methodology that helps primates comprehend and shape the world that they find themselves in.
Both: Distractions from the realization that consciousness is merely a survival mechanism for the bacteria that outnumber the body's cells.

(That last part is a joke.)







(Or is it?)

[Rob4Hope]

With regards to the Sphinx article discounting the water hypothesis, I see various “straw man” arguments as well as “appeal to authority” false argumentation, etc.

But I will address one “cherry picking” false logic statement made in the article by Kenneth Feder, which the Wikipedia writer quotes from extensively in relation to other quotes.

Feder and the author completely omit the Gobekli Tepe discovery that carbon dating places back in the time Feder says it cant.

Gobekli Tepe’s discovery and dating by archeologists undermines Feders whole argument IMHO.

That is a suspicious choice by this Wikipedia author to include Feders statement and omit recent discoveries and dating of Gobekli Tepe.

This actually supports my statement above and is a good response dogbite. It shows the extent that science people will go to defend their position.

I personally believe religion and science both can play dirty to win.

THAT is the point I want to make. We all know religion is fallible or I don’t know how many of us would be here.

But science is fallible to….and regardless of the issue at stake, when a persons credibility gets threatened, they will become defensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[alas]

With regards to the Sphinx article discounting the water hypothesis, I see various “straw man” arguments as well as “appeal to authority” false argumentation, etc.

But I will address one “cherry picking” false logic statement made in the article by Kenneth Feder, which the Wikipedia writer quotes from extensively in relation to other quotes.

Feder and the author completely omit the Gobekli Tepe discovery that carbon dating places back in the time Feder says it cant.

Gobekli Tepe’s discovery and dating by archeologists undermines Feders whole argument IMHO.

That is a suspicious choice by this Wikipedia author to include Feders statement and omit recent discoveries and dating of Gobekli Tepe.

This actually supports my statement above and is a good response dogbite. It shows the extent that science people will go to defend their position.

I personally believe religion and science both can play dirty to win.

THAT is the point I want to make. We all know religion is fallible or I don’t know how many of us would be here.

But science is fallible to….and regardless of the issue at stake, when a persons credibility gets threatened, they will become defensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This is a really good point. Scientists can bend over backwards defending a bad theory, or change a good and true theory because they don’t like it. In my own field of study, things are just barely recovering from Freud’s realization that if his first theory was correct, this his sister who had all the symptoms his other clients who were telling him horrible stories of their father raping them, might also have been sexually abused by his father. Well, THAT certainly could not be true. So, he made up a whole new theory, because he was just unwilling to admit to the posibility of what he saw in his sister. Thus, psychology got stuck with the Oedipal and Electra complex, his new and improved theory, that these stories are made up, and psychology believed it for some 50 years and is still undoing the problems in psychology that were all based on his Oedipal complex theory. Really did a lot of women a lot of harm because he didn’t like what he saw.

[Hagoth]

Egyptology is threatened by this, so they resort to ad-hominem attacks to support their originally established conclusion. The facts, in this case, are brushed off as inconsequential or "wind weathering" (which no geologist supports BTW). Why brush off the facts?...because if they were listened to, the dating would have to be adjusted, and that would flush a lot of peer-review published papers down the drain, something Egyptologists are unwilling to do. So, rather than being scientists, they actually take a religious perspective on this one. Weird...

Both sides become unscientific when the accuse the other of some sort of conspiracy, while a more scientific hypothesis would be that there was something there before the structure that we call the sphinx, as indicated by potential evidence of excavation around the base of the feature, while the figure that we see currently carved into that stone appears to be much younger (e.g. that that somewhere in between it was a lion with a correctly proportioned head that is now disproportionately small, after someone carved it into the shape of a Pharaoh's head). What was there before the putative lion? Neither side can answer that.

[Rob4Hope]

I also remember reading about a medical doctor forced to basically leave the profession by his colleagues because this doctor insisted that medical people should wash their hands before female medical exams…

It was 1846 I think….

“Semmelweis discovered that cases of puerperal fever, a form of septicemia, could be cut drastically if doctors washed their hands in a chlorine solution before gynaecological examinations. Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time.”

He was unsuccessful at convincing his medical colleagues to wash.

I guess they knew more since they were the experts….and boy were they wrong.

Both sides, science and religion, have something they need to keep in mind less they miss it bad and do horrible damage— a sense of humility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Hagoth]

I also remember reading about a medical doctor forced to basically leave the profession by his colleagues because this doctor insisted that medical people should wash their hands before female medical exams…

Both sides, science and religion, have something they need to keep in mind less they miss it bad and do horrible damage— a sense of humility.

Great points. The reason science wins, even when some its practitioners lack humility. is that scientific results can be duplicated anyone. We don't have to accept the opinion of one scientist who makes a claim without evidence. Your actually gave a great example of what I'm talking about. Although took a while for some doctors to be convinced about germ theory, that was relatively short lived. There are religious people, on the other hand, who still believe, after thousands of years, that illness is caused by evil spirits and lack of faith. Children die every year because parents reject medical solutions over unfounded faith claims.

Humility is especially difficult for religious people because they don't have an accepted method for changing their minds about their beliefs, except to abandon them and be outcast from their community. You cannot update the Bible by discovering new passages (unless you're Joseph Smith!).

And that brings me back to my original comparison. I should have not referred to it as definitions of religion and science, so much as purpose of the practice. The essential purpose of the practice of science is to replace old, bad understanding with new, better understanding. The essential purpose of the practice of religion is to maintain the status quo and deflect disruptive new ideas.

Here's a great example. I took college science classes in my 20s and then again in my 60s. If you want to be knocked over by the progress of science just compare the content of two Biology classes 40 years apart. Same with Astronomy. Then try the same experiment with Institute classes.

[alas]

I also remember reading about a medical doctor forced to basically leave the profession by his colleagues because this doctor insisted that medical people should wash their hands before female medical exams…

Both sides, science and religion, have something they need to keep in mind less they miss it bad and do horrible damage— a sense of humility.

Great points. The reason science wins, even when some its practitioners lack humility. is that scientific results can be duplicated anyone. We don't have to accept the opinion of one scientist who makes a claim without evidence. Your actually gave a great example of what I'm talking about. Although took a while for some doctors to be convinced about germ theory, that was relatively short lived. There are religious people, on the other hand, who still believe, after thousands of years, that illness is caused by evil spirits and lack of faith. Children die every year because parents reject medical solutions over unfounded faith claims.

Humility is especially difficult for religious people because they don't have an accepted method for changing their minds about their beliefs, except to abandon them and be outcast from their community. You cannot update the Bible by discovering new passages (unless you're Joseph Smith!).

And that brings me back to my original comparison. I should have not referred to it as definitions of religion and science, so much as purpose of the practice. The essential purpose of the practice of science is to replace old, bad understanding with new, better understanding. The essential purpose of the practice of religion is to maintain the status quo and deflect disruptive new ideas.

Here's a great example. I took college science classes in my 20s and then again in my 60s. If you want to be knocked over by the progress of science just compare the content of two Biology classes 40 years apart. Same with Astronomy. Then try the same experiment with Institute classes.

True. If science was not sort of self correcting this way, we would still believe there is no point in washing hands.

[Rob4Hope]

The essential purpose of the practice of science is to replace old, bad understanding with new, better understanding. The essential purpose of the practice of religion is to maintain the status quo and deflect disruptive new ideas.

I agree with this and will say that, IMHO, religion is more rigid than science. Science (sometimes) moves with the times and progresses. But it often, as is the case with religion, requires the "old guard" to actually die and eventually the new younger people will forward the practices.

"The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

------

The LDS church is weird in this whole regard. It seems like they use gas-lighting, almost as a policy tactic, to move things forward. Like the "Family Proclamation". That document, as RFM has said, "Creates revelation out of nothing at all." Meaning,....the concepts promoted in that document claim that earlier leaders had all taught the same doctrines; but after some pretty serious research, this was found to be a lie.

The example I'm most familiar with has to do with the claims of Spencer Kimball in "Miracle of Forgiveness". In that book, he STRONGLY condemned what he defined as sexual sin. He said that masturbation was a prohibited activity, condemned by all prior leadership. I spend some time looking to see if I could find a fallacious argument definition for this, and the closet I could find is this:

https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ ... lacies.htm. #125.
Star Power (also Testimonial, Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of Authority, Falacia ad Vericundiam; Eminence-based Practice)

But ultimately, what it comes down to is just a flat-out lie. Spencer is trying to add credence to his position by claiming false authority from prior leadership, claiming they said something clearly that they did not. Can't find a single statement from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young that masturbation is a sin. Maybe I haven't searched hard enough?

[Hagoth]

Can't find a single statement from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young that masturbation is a sin. Maybe I haven't searched hard enough?

Or Jesus, or Moses, or Paul, or Abraham, or any of the Book of Mormon prophets, or God himself in the Doctrine of Covenants - and this is a guy who cares about what time of year you eat meat, and how much specific individuals should invest in the Nauvoo hotel. Old Testament Jehovah is very concerned about how you should handle dead chickens, what fibers are OK in your clothes, which kinds of seafood are approved, and when you should blow a trumpet, but he somehow forgot to mention something that Spencer Kimball thought was one of the greatest sins. Somebody hire a secretary for Yahweh, he really needs somebody to get his priorities straight.

What was Spencer's problem anyway? Sheesh. And then he started an anti-masturbation coalition with Boyd Packer and Vaughn Featherstone.

Meanwhile, our friend science tells us masturbation is actually healthy and all of the scary health myths perpetuated by religious leaders since Victorian times turned out to be myths. Turns out it doesn't make you blind or emaciated, or turn you gay (one of Kimball's claims), or weak and effeminate (one of Packer's claims).

[Cnsl1]

I don't mean to beat a dead donkey or choke a dead chicken (pun intended) but let's not forget Mark E Peterson who suggested that boys could tie their hands to the bedpost at night, so just in case they woke up with a hankering horny feeling, they wouldn't be able to commit that horrible sin, or at least not right away, and by the time they untied themselves, hopefully they'd come to their senses.

I remember thinking... ok, but how am I gonna tie up BOTH hands.. also, I'm pretty good with my left.

I wonder if this is a reason that the #1 sexual fantasy of Mormon men of my generation is to be tied to the bedposts. Ha.

It's science. Classical conditioning.

Which brings me to the original topic.

I used to say that science and religion were both different methods for discovering and explaining truth. While I don't really think that anymore, I do believe that's what they both were to ME when I was a young adult trying to get educated and find my way in the world. One thing I really appreciated about the Mormon church that I grew up in is that I THOUGHT it really promoted and fostered a search for truth. So that's how I navigated myself within the church. How did I reconcile dumb ass stuff like tying your hands to the bedpost with truth? I just ignored stuff that didn't ring true with me.. or ignored it the best I could. There is something to say about blithely forgetting stuff that doesn't make my life happier..

Now I still see science as an ever growing body of knowledge, seeking to explain the universe and the people in it. Sometimes things we think are correct, based on science, turns out not to be at all. But we're seeking.. we keep at it. We're not afraid to discard what is shown to be erroneous. Individual scientists might, but not science as a whole.

And Alas, I have to disagree a bit about your assertion that Freud's whacky ideas took a long time for science to get over. Freud had some great ideas that have held up to later research and study, as well as some buzz words that have become part of our collective lexicon, AND certainly some misogynistic and pessimistic views on human nature, but based on his where and his when he was coming up with this stuff, it's kinda forgivable, IMO. Also, I've been professionally psychologing (i just made a new gerund) for over 20 years and I'm not seeing ANYONE in the profession who gives something like penis envy or the Oedipus complex any credence whatsoever. Heck before Freud even died, Karen Horney was already challenging his views with her idea of womb envy. Additionally, anyone would be hard pressed to find a true psychodynamic psychoanalytic therapist anymore. Freud's views were embraced enough to make it into the historical section of Psych 101 textbooks, and the good things he came up with are still widely known, but based on what I've seen and what I learned from the professors and supervising psychs who trained me, Freud's whacky bits were never seriously considered. Yeah, you gotta learn about it in psych 101, but then you rarely hear about it again.

But to the defense of your main point, there were a lot of whacky bits from the early scientists, who were just learning how to science efficiently and some who really didn't even employ the scientific method at all, like the Freud dude, so it's taken a while to filter through the mess and convince people that yes we do need to wash up, and gosh big macs will kill you if that's all you eat. Oh, and don't worry about the penis.

Well, unless you're a mormon boy.

(Being tied to the bedposts is really not the #1 fantasy of Mormon men in my generation. I know of no study since no one really cares what older Mormon men fantasize about, but if I had to guess, that is if you really pressed me on the matter, I would posit, and I would carefully add that this is not MY fantasy and I would additionally state that my wife will attest that I'm happily married but I will not continue to be if I say this fantasy reflects my own experience, but again if pressed, I would say that the average #1 sexual fantasy of all Mormon men is that their wife goes down on them. A close #2 is the doublemint twins and a bottle of baby oil. )

[Rob4Hope]

(Being tied to the bedposts is really not the #1 fantasy of Mormon men in my generation. I know of no study since no one really cares what older Mormon men fantasize about, but if I had to guess, that is if you really pressed me on the matter, I would posit, and I would carefully add that this is not MY fantasy and I would additionally state that my wife will attest that I'm happily married but I will not continue to be if I say this fantasy reflects my own experience, but again if pressed, I would say that the average #1 sexual fantasy of all Mormon men is that their wife goes down on them. A close #2 is the doublemint twins and a bottle of baby oil. )

Dude...I don't know who you are...but I laughed my ass off when I read this last part.

There are some gems of information, whit, and sh!t said on this board...and I love it all!