Are Religion and Science two sides of the same coin?

Richard Dawkins said: “There is a certain kind of mind that is so dyed-in-the-wool wedded to a scriptural version of the world that they admit in advance that, no matter what the evidence comes, they refuse to budge”.

Don’t secularists have a certain kind of mind that is so dyed-in-the-wool wedded to a scientific version of the world that they also admit in advance that, no matter what the reasoned argument comes, they refuse to budge?

Science by definition is reasoned arguments, so your question doesn’t make sense

It depends on how you look at it. Both are attempts to explain the world around us, so they’re remotely similar in that respect. But that’s not what you’re saying.

This is actually a common argument I’ve seen a ton of times (and yes, it is an argument, not just a question). It is an attempt to put science and religion on the same ground as equals. But they are not equals. They are not even remotely similar except in that one very superficial way. In most ways they are exact opposites. The purpose of religion is to decide what the answer is and then make your view of the world fit that answer. You have to “reinterpret” what you see to make it fit and invent new ways of (wrong) thinking, such as circular logic, to shoehorn reality into your preconceived beliefs, which you are unwilling to change.

The purpose of science, on the other hand, is to look at the world and come up with an answer that fits what you actually see, not what you want to be true. In science making up your mind and then looking at the evidence simply doesn’t work. You cannot invent new and creative ways of thinking to “make it work” because you’re not trying to make anything work. You’re simply looking at the data and letting it take you where it will instead of trying to force the data to say what you want it to say.

Now you could have a point with certain atheistic mindsets. Nobody can know with any certainty that there are no gods, yet some atheists (but not most, I would think) say just that. And one could argue that they would not change their minds no matter what evidence was presented, but you couldn’t actually prove that because there has never been any compelling, empirical evidence for the existence of magic of any sort. So at best a portion of your “question” would be speculation until you came up with some compelling, empirical evidence to support a magical belief.

A lot of new members lately all using very similar argument styles. All “negative arguments”, to one degree or another. This particular argument is not quite on the level of some of the others as it attempts, not to show science as wrong directly, but to present religion and science as equals. However, since it is impossible to elevate religion to being “as good” as science as a method of discovery, this argument tries to “tear down” science to be at the level of religion, making it technically a type of negative argument.

The difference between the two is as plain as day. Jesus feeding the masses with bread and fish is a story for which there is no evidence. Genetic science is actually feeding the masses today.

The difference between the two is as plain as day. Jesus feeding the masses with bread and fish is a story for which there is no evidence. Genetic science is actually feeding the masses today.
Oh man, that's quotable. I like to say, what is it that has helped the lame to walk and the blind to see (Matthew 11:5)? Science, literally has done what was once only considered a miracle in a story.

Hi Lausten, scientific arguments are reasonable as long as you accept the premise upon which they are based. Dawkins won’t accept scriptural premise. Will you?

Hi Widdershin, Jesus stories are not different from stories of science about how the universe began and how humans evolved. They all provide appealing explanations to those who need them.

Actually the stories are quite different. From Science you can get information about the world that can help you do things never done before, and that can help you make new things, for the good of humanity, and that can help you make predictions that will help you adjust to the future. From Jesus stories you get some religious knowledge that is declared to be God’s Truth. Really, two different kinds of stories.

Please explain this scriptural premise

Hi Tim, scientific stories are useful to those invested in a complex material world. Going to Mars has appeal to some while going to Heaven is essential for others.

There are many scriptural writings. Dawkins seems to reject all of them outright. There is more to religion than Jesus Christ.

I don’t think you know what a premise is Shree

Here’s a religious oriented site talking about science. The premises of science are loosely defined, and you can question them. Actually that is a premise of science, that you can question anything. What about your scripture can be questioned?

Science has the premise that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the universe and through time. However, there are circumstances where that doesn’t hold, like the beginning of the universe, or in extremely small scales. Even time can be violated by quantum particles.

Science does not rely on authority. It relies on data (see step 4 in the link). What happens when you question scriptual authority?

Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers. It’s not the best for figuring out how we should feel about things. Dawkins will tell you that. I’m not sure what you heard him say to give you the opinion you have.

I don’t know what a premise is and you do? Well, Lausten, why don’t you give me your opinion of what a premise is?

This definition is lifted from the internet:

Logic
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
“if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true”

Do you accept this rule upon which to conduct our debate?

 

 

 

 

 

Lausten said: “Science has the premise that the laws of nature are consistent throughout the universe and through time.”

I get the impression that Lausten and those, including Dawkins, who share his mindset, regard “Science” in the same manner the way theists revere the word “God”. Such words have the ring of sacred, inviolable authority.

Science does not have authority? It was Wallace Thornhill, a physicist, who said that a heretic has no career in academia. In that regard, the scientific community is not different from the Roman Catholic Church.

What happens when you question scriptural authority is exactly the same as when you question scientific authority. In the former case, you get ex-communicated and in the latter, you are shunned by your peers.

The bottom line is this, Lausten. It’s all about people and their beliefs in science and religion.

Lausten said: “Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers. It’s not the best for figuring out how we should feel about things. Dawkins will tell you that. I’m not sure what you heard him say to give you the opinion you have.”

Of course, science does not have all the answers. After all, it’s modus operandus is to seek. The problem with science lies in what it has found: that body of knowledge that instructs us about what we are and the nature of our world. While scripture gives us the whole human story in one fell swoop, science concocts the fantasy one bit at a time.

Sree said,

Logic
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
“if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true”

Do you accept this rule upon which to conduct our debate?


I don’t. Logic cannot prove anything, it may be founded on a false premise. Logic can only yield a valid conclusion IF the premise is true.

OTOH, mathematical properties are testable as true or false premises, whereupon logic may be used to infer subsequent valid conclusions .

The premise of the existence of the Higgs boson was logically inferred from a mathematical calculation and the truth of the mathematical premise was proven at Cern and may be used to support the logical conclusion that the Higgs boson is instrumental in the acquisition of mass.

The existence of a God can be logically inferred but in the absence of mathematical proofs, there is no way to test the premise that God exist and remains purely speculative. Moreover, in view of the commonly “assigned” mystical super-natural properties, it is highly doubtful that any logical conclusion can be drawn at all.

The premise of a god shall always be a circular argument. The concept has no testable properties of any kind other than as a psychological mind-set.

The scriptural narrative failed me. I find some good stories, but overall it is confused and deliberately obscure.

Www.milepost100.com

If it provides this swooping whatever, you should be able to describe that.

Do you accept this rule upon which to conduct our debate?
Of course I accept a published definition of a word. I'm glad you looked that up. And I include Write4's additional nuance for the definition. Arguments must be both valid and sound. I'm not that good defining those terms, but you can look them up.
Such words have the ring of sacred, inviolable authority.
I’ve addressed that and you are absolutely wrong about that.
the scientific community is not different from the Roman Catholic Church.
Wrong again
What happens when you question scriptural authority is exactly the same as when you question scientific authority.
I was hoping you were aware of the history of people burned at the stake. I think the last one was sometime in the 17th century. When you question scientific authority, if you have the evidence, you win a Nobel Prize. If your evidence is shown to be wrong, and you refuse to listen to reason, then you aren’t doing science anymore.
It’s all about people and their beliefs
If you “believe” in science, you aren’t doing science. Science is about being convinced by evidence, logic and reason.

Lausten said: “If you “believe” in science, you aren’t doing science. Science is about being convinced by evidence, logic and reason.”

Dawkins believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. What evidence convinced Dawkins that the brain, from which he materializes to use logic and reason to examine Darwin’s theory, evolved over time? (I assume Dawkins believe that human consciousness comes from the brain.)