# Science v. Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243 "2005-02-28T03:45:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/141 "2005-03-09T16:42:48Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Cosmosdan, did you read what I recommended to you? Yes great article. I saved it for future reference. The point I’ve been trying to make in this thread is expressed so well by Popper. "At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all ? or very nearly all ? scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles’ theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides’ myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein’s block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or “metaphysical” (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or “meaningless,” or “nonsensical.”[4 \<#note4\>] But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense ? although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the “result of observation.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/142 "2005-03-09T17:15:52Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You’re really not sure, or is this just an arguement technique? Actually, it’s a little of both. I’m using “Socratic Irony” as a means to explore your beliefs, which I mostly (but not entirely) understand. > [@](#): > > The point is that it is nessecary for someone to believe in a theory in the face of skepticism in order to gain knowledge. I’d have to counter that knowledge is gained when theories are proven, regardless of the existence of skepticism. As an example, a person trapped alone on an island could gradually gain knowledge through experimentation of how to build shelter and gather food. There is no skeptic present, thus skepticism is not necessary to gain knowledge. > [@](#): > > There is a valid arguement that Da Vinci’s sketches of flying machines were useless or meaningless because he couldn’t present evidence. There is also a valid arguement that it was nessecary for the concept to exist in order for the historic event to eventually take place. Well, his sketches were _interesting_ (a worthy result in and of itself) but they were in fact meaningless to the concept of human flight until experimental models could be built. Da Vinci did conduct some experiments in aerodynamics, which suggested his ideas had merit, though the necessary materials to build a proto-helicopter unfortunately didn’t exist. The _concept_ of flight, or even human flight, did not originate with Da Vinci, though. I should also point out that Da Vinci’s blueprints would have made grossly inefficient flying machines. Without the means to conduct full-blown experiments, he had no way of refining his ideas. > [@](#): > > Sigh!! Of course not. Neither is the careful progress of spiritual truth. You see no progress now or in the future because you are the skeptic of this theory. > OKay. At some point we will know if your skepticism was warrented. Actually, I have more than just stubborn skepticism to support the notion that spiritual truth is stagnant. You’ve quoted passages from the Book of Matthew, and I’ll assume you believe the New International edition is a reasonably accurate translation of what was actually said some 2000 years ago. Doesn’t this suggest that the ideas in the Bible are to be viewed as fixed and final, with no refinement necessary? This is contrary to the notion of progress. Science, by defininion, is a process that recognizes no final authorities. The works of Darwin and Newton have been subject to refinement, as will be the works of Gould and Einstein. There was a time when the Catholic Church tried to _make_ Aristotle the final scientific authority, with the result that when a scientist found a flaw and was able to demonstrate it using instruments, that scientist was persecuted and put under house arrest for the later years of his life. I’d argue that spritual beliefs are, if anything, highly _re_gressive, in that myths and misconceptions gradually sneak into the belief system, suplementing and sometimes replacing the original concepts. For example, was the fruit of the tree of knowledge really an apple? It’s not described as such in the Book of Genesis. Further, many of the beliefs currently held by many Christians regarding Hell actually spring from the wrtings of Milton and Dante, rather than the Bible. > [@](#): > > You don’t have to repeat every scientists experiments in order to accept the results do you? I could, if I wanted to invest the time. More easily, I can enjoy the results of the experiments, i.e. I don’t need to re-prove Einstein’s Nobel Prize-winning work on the photoelectric effect in order to watch television, though television would not exist without that effect. > [@](#): > > Why is it that you trust what is written in the scientific journals you mentioned? Because the alternative (a huge and watertight conspiracy among scientists to promote falshehoods) is highly improbable. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/143 "2005-03-09T17:16:29Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > Just to throw in my two cents, I can take an article in a scientif journal in “faith”, or the option exists for me to carry out the exact same steps proposed by article. I see no such ability to do so with “miracles” You have your reasons why you believe what you do. The areas where your faith tends to accept or resist. If you choose to engage in a study of the spiritual you can decide decide which steps others have reported about that you would like to try and repeat. I understand several people in these threads have done that. You also get to choose when to stop searching in the spiritual area in the same way a scientist might decide to stop pursueing an avenue of study. Your choice to stop says nothing good or bad, about someone elses choice to continue. Do you think they’re wasteing their time? OKay. Think away. > [@](#): > > Re: my proposed experiment, I’m confused. I responded to Bryan’s proposed experiment. What are you refering to? > [@](#): > > That is what I understood the following to mean, and what I answered.: > 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. I’m not sure what your answer was. The comment about faith and Carls invisable dragon? I concede one more time that my energy field is unfalsifiable by current scientific standards. PLease read Poppers comments in my response to Liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/144 "2005-03-09T17:43:50Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I responded to Bryan’s proposed experiment. What are you refering to? I’m confused, too. I was under the impression that Bryan’s comment was refering to my comment, which was in tern in responce to the claim that miracles can happen with enough faith, as per an earlier post/quote fro the bible. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what your answer was. The comment about faith and Carl’s invisable dragon? I was bring up a well know illestration of the fact that if it is impossible to dissprove or prove somethings existance, than it is pointless to claim it exists. Google it. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Only my opinion, but I find Scotts sarcastic ridicule of Fessie’s post at least as offensive as her self censored insult. Oh, and I see that the following is sarcasm, but I see no problem with it, inasmuch as it show a serious problem with the concept of miraculous cures… > [@Me](#): > > Indubitably god chose to heal her. > > And not anyone of the other terminal patients. > > Indubitably. > \ > P.S. Fessie, I am not saying she is a “moron”. I am just saying that I have not seen a rigorus scientific investigation into her cure, proving that it is unexplained, and that even if it is, than the fact that god failed to save many other lives is suspicous. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/145 "2005-03-09T18:09:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Hmmm My point is we wouldn’t have much of the scientific knowledge we have if those who had faith in their area of reaserch had given up when they were dissed by others BECAUSE they had no verifiable evidence. I think there has been a gradual exspansion of knowledge in the spiritual quest. {Granted, by looking at certain religions you’d wouldn’t think so} Science has assisted by helping east meet west and giving seekers access to more information and concepts. It is a slow process. Didn’t certain areas of science remain unchanged for hundreds of years while one bit of knowledge was gained from the last? Aren’t there areas still in their infancy? No, that’s not how science works. A scientist might have “faith” in a hypothesis without verifiable evidence, but the scientist shuts up about it until the evidence is found. I’m not sure faith is the right word here, and by shut up I mean he doesn’t publish it. If he tried to publish it, it would get rejected. If his search for verifiable evidence fails, he gives up, or maybe publishs something about the failed experiment - though those don’t get accepted if I understand correctly. If he is a big star, he might publish a speculative article, but it is clearly marked as an opinion, not a paper, and it cannot be cited as evidence of anything except an opinion. I edit an opinion column in a journal, and my standards are a lot more lax than for the actual articles. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/146 "2005-03-09T19:54:15Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Scott\_plaid](#): > > I’m confused, too. I was under the impression that Bryan’s comment was refering to my comment, which was in tern in responce to the claim that miracles can happen with enough faith, as per an earlier post/quote fro the bible. LOL was that an attempt to clarify?? Moving on. > [@](#): > > I was bring up a well know illestration of the fact that if it is impossible to dissprove or prove somethings existance, than it is pointless to claim it exists. Google it. I understand the illustration. I don’t agree that the claim that God exists is pointless. If I believe that God is the source of truth and love and they have the potential to heal all of whats wrong with mankind then I would be morally remiss if I didn’t pursue that belief. That would include making that claim. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/147 "2005-03-09T20:19:42Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > No, that’s not how science works. A scientist might have “faith” in a hypothesis without verifiable evidence, but the scientist shuts up about it until the evidence is found. I’m not sure faith is the right word here, and by shut up I mean he doesn’t publish it. If he tried to publish it, it would get rejected. If his search for verifiable evidence fails, he gives up, or maybe publishs something about the failed experiment - though those don’t get accepted if I understand correctly. > If he is a big star, he might publish a speculative article, but it is clearly marked as an opinion, not a paper, and it cannot be cited as evidence of anything except an opinion. > I edit an opinion column in a journal, and my standards are a lot more lax than for the actual articles. I understand the problem of demarcation. I’m saying that belief must exist and persist in order to get there. You make a good point. In religion one of the huge problems I see is that so many {not all} religions can’t tell the difference between their spiritual theory and a foundational belief. Their beliefs might be more tolerable {not reasonable} if they didn’t promote them as universal truth that everybody is required to accept. The search for truth, scientific and spiritual are both hindered by pesky human traits like ego, money, subconscious desires, and stuff like that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/148 "2005-03-09T20:39:10Z")
Regarding the apparant confusion, I believe it went something like this: dan: [quotes Matthew, re: a mustard seed’s worth of faith is sufficient to move a mountain] Bryan: Okay, let’s see you move a mountain. Scott: What if we raised a child to have _perfect_ faith? Bryan: That apparantly isn’t necessary; the proposed standard is a mere mustard seed’s worth of faith, which I’m assuming is very little. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > The search for truth, scientific and spiritual are both hindered by pesky human traits like ego, money, subconscious desires, and stuff like that. Actually, that’s completely incorrect, as far as science goes. Ego, money and desires (subconscious or otherwise) are the major driving forces behind scientific inquiry and not hinderances in the least. There may be some scientific pursuits done purely out of curiosity, or as a casual hobby, or discoveries made completely by accident, but in the labs and universities of the world, getting famous and rich are prime incentives to keep experimenting until you can prove an interesting and useful hypothesis. As for the search for spiritual truth, claiming vague hinderances has often been a crutch for explaining away negative results, i.e. “the spiritual healing didn’t work because the patient subconsciously believed it wouldn’t”, or “I’m unable to contact the spirit world today because the cosmic balance in the room is misaligned, possibly because of the presence of a skeptic.” ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/149 "2005-03-09T20:42:49Z")
**fessie** > [@](#): > > You bozos asked for an example. I gave you one. [Moderator Hat ON] Fessie, cool it or take it to the Pit. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/150 "2005-03-09T20:56:27Z")
Nice summary, Bryan Ekers. I was going to post quotes explaining the line of reasoning, but it had been going on for so long, that I got lost. Yours was much better than mine ever was. Per cosmosdan’s conception of scientists, it seems to me to be that either he has confused the thread [Mad Scientist Curriculum-What courses? Are You On The Faculty Yet?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304591) with what happens most of the time, or he is trying to say that the fact that a scientist can get overemotional and bitch at a coworker, is the same thing as a pope getting pissy about a rival pope, back in medieval times and seizing power through force. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/151 "2005-03-09T21:08:11Z")
> [@](#): > > a scientist can get overemotional and bitch at a coworker, is the same thing as a pope getting pissy about a rival pope, back in medieval times and seizing power through force. Aaahh! You _are_ a high school sophomore and not a college sophomore. You have obviously never witnessed the internecine warfare among college researchers and the exrtreme efforts to which some have gone to deny others research funds or tenure based on little more than getting “overemotional.” (Mind you, that is not good science, but then your example was not good religion (and your example happened rather less frequently).) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/152 "2005-03-09T21:16:02Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You have obviously never witnessed the internecine warfare among college researchers… Well, okay, I’ll modify my earlier statement and concede that ego can _sometimes_ be a hinderance, if it leads to destructive competition. But I’ll stand by my statement that a desire for personal fame is as often a driving force in favour of scientific research. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/153 "2005-03-09T21:28:34Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Actually, it’s a little of both. I’m using “Socratic Irony” as a means to explore your beliefs, . I see, Gosh…it’s fun. > [@](#): > > I’d have to counter that knowledge is gained when theories are proven, regardless of the existence of skepticism. As an example, a person trapped alone on an island could gradually gain knowledge through experimentation of how to build shelter and gather food. There is no skeptic present, thus skepticism is not necessary to gain knowledge. I didn’t say skepticism is nessecary. I said belief without scientific facts is nessecary to gain knowledge. “in the face of skepticism” was not a requirement. > [@](#): > > Well, his sketches were _interesting_ (a worthy result in and of itself) but they were in fact meaningless to the concept of human flight until experimental models could be built. Da Vinci did conduct some experiments in aerodynamics, which suggested his ideas had merit, though the necessary materials to build a proto-helicopter unfortunately didn’t exist. The _concept_ of flight, or even human flight, did not originate with Da Vinci, though. > > I should also point out that Da Vinci’s blueprints would have made grossly inefficient flying machines. Without the means to conduct full-blown experiments, he had no way of refining his ideas. And if the idea did not persist through the years we wouldn’t be flying now. The process that leads to what you call knowledge begins with the idea and belief > [@](#): > > Actually, I have more than just stubborn skepticism to support the notion that spiritual truth is stagnant. You’ve quoted passages from the Book of Matthew, and I’ll assume you believe the New International edition is a reasonably accurate translation of what was actually said some 2000 years ago. Doesn’t this suggest that the ideas in the Bible are to be viewed as fixed and final, with no refinement necessary? This is contrary to the notion of progress. You assume incorrectly. Refinement of spiritual beliefs is a lot of what the journey is about. Not everybody who says they believe in God understands that. > [@](#): > > Science, by defininion, is a process that recognizes no final authorities. I suppose. Wouldn’t you say that the final authority is the truth? > [@](#): > > I’d argue that spritual beliefs are, if anything, highly _re_gressive, in that myths and misconceptions gradually sneak into the belief system, suplementing and sometimes replacing the original concepts. For example, was the fruit of the tree of knowledge really an apple? It’s not described as such in the Book of Genesis. Further, many of the beliefs currently held by many Christians regarding Hell actually spring from the wrtings of Milton and Dante, rather than the Bible. There are certain beliefs that hinder spiritual progress. I would argue that it is a nessecary part of the search for knowledge and truth. . > [@](#): > > Because the alternative (a huge and watertight conspiracy among scientists to promote falshehoods) is highly improbable. I’m sure you see that is not the only alternative. I didn’t suggest that in any way. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/154 "2005-03-09T21:43:40Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers Actually, that’s completely incorrect, as far as science goes. Ego, money and desires (subconscious or otherwise) are the major driving forces behind scientific inquiry and not hinderances in the least. There may be some scientific pursuits done purely out of curiosity, or as a casual hobby, or discoveries made completely by accident, but in the labs and universities of the world, getting famous and rich are prime incentives to keep experimenting until you can prove an interesting and useful hypothesis. "[/QUOTE] Your application of Ego, Money, and desires are not the only ones available. The lack of money might be a hinderence to science. The desire to have more money might influnce a scientists {or drug companies} test results. The desire for success or peer acclaim might influence a scientists to skew his findings. That would hinder science. I’m getting the feeling that your arguements are more to entertain yourself with the process of argueing rather than a accurate representation of what you really think and believe. Am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/155 "2005-03-09T22:31:14Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > And if the idea did not persist through the years we wouldn’t be flying now. The process that leads to what you call knowledge begins with the idea and belief And… we wouldn’t be flying now unless those ideas and beliefs could be eventually put to practical use. It wasn’t enough that Da Vinci simply had the idea and belief. That idea and belief was built on by George Cayley, Otto Lilienthal, Samuel P. Langley, Octave Chanute and the Wright brothers, among others. > [@](#): > > You assume incorrectly. Refinement of spiritual beliefs is a lot of what the journey is about. Not everybody who says they believe in God understands that. Can you give me an example of a biblical passage which has been subject to refinement and one that has not, and why? > [@](#): > > I suppose. Wouldn’t you say that the final authority is the truth? I suppose, if I wanted to sound cryptic. By “authority”, I meant a human being and the body of work produced by that human being. > [@](#): > > I’m sure you see that is not the only alternative. I didn’t suggest that in any way. As far as I can tell, you didn’t suggest an alternative at _all_. When you asked “Why is it that you trust what is written in the scientific journals you mentioned?”, did you have a reason why we _shouldn’t_ in mind? > [@](#): > > The desire for success or peer acclaim might influence a scientists to skew his findings. That would hinder science. Indeed it would, but as soon as a scientist publishes his findings, he’s subject to peer review. If another scientist disagrees with the results, he can publish counter-evidence, as well as question the methodology of the oroiginal study. Science would be briefly hindered, but this self-correcting mechanism will set it straight. Now contrast this to a purely hypothetical spritual claim: a New Age-y belief that purple crystals align the soul centre and orange crystals renew the soul’s energies. Then a practitioner comes along and publishes a book claming that this is reversed; that purple is the renewer and orange the re-aligner. Since neither claim can be evaluated in any objective way, is New Age mysticism hindered or advanced by this type of research? > [@](#): > > I’m getting the feeling that your arguements are more to entertain yourself with the process of argueing rather than a accurate representation of what you really think and believe. Am I wrong? **All** my postings on this message board have the primary goal of entertaining myself, but you’re wrong if you think anything I’ve said in this particular thread is at odds with what I really think and believe (though my first post, #115, was a clearly sarcastic comment on your writing style). If you have any specific questions regarding my beliefs, feel free. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/156 "2005-03-10T14:40:56Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > And… we wouldn’t be flying now unless those ideas and beliefs could be eventually put to practical use. It wasn’t enough that Da Vinci simply had the idea and belief. That idea and belief was built on by George Cayley, Otto Lilienthal, Samuel P. Langley, Octave Chanute and the Wright brothers, among others. Agreed. It seems to be belief plus effort based on that belief that eventually leads to discovery and progess. Without effort belief yields nothing. There have been posts suggesting that belief is meaningless. My position is that belief is a nessecary link in the chain. > [@](#): > > Can you give me an example of a biblical passage which has been subject to refinement and one that has not, and why? Spiritual beliefs are not limited to biblical passages however the essentials are contained in the words of Jesus. "The truth will set you free " is one that science and the spiritual quest have in common and is being refined in both arenas as we speak. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is one being explored in certain fields of science without much progress. Certain drugs have had success in helping individuals deal with anger anxiety and depression to name a few. I believe only the spiritual quest has the ability to transform us in a way science can’t. > [@](#): > > I suppose, if I wanted to sound cryptic. By “authority”, I meant a human being and the body of work produced by that human being. Under that definition I submit there is no final authority in the spiritual quest as well. > [@](#): > > As far as I can tell, you didn’t suggest an alternative at _all_. When you asked “Why is it that you trust what is written in the scientific journals you mentioned?”, did you have a reason why we _shouldn’t_ in mind? That right I didn’t. I was getting to a point about belief. Your reply about “the” alternative, which suggests one only, or that was my inference, when you knew that wasn’t the case, was disingenuous and in fact NOT what you actually thought or believed. The same can be said about your assumption about my beliefs concerning the bible, or your comments about skepticism not being nessecary. > [@](#): > > Indeed it would, but as soon as a scientist publishes his findings, he’s subject to peer review. If another scientist disagrees with the results, he can publish counter-evidence, as well as question the methodology of the oroiginal study. Science would be briefly hindered, but this self-correcting mechanism will set it straight. My statement was about science being hindered. not what follows. Here again you purposely dealt with one aspect of ego, money, and desires and said I was completely incorrect , when I believe you knew I wasn’t. To hinder is to slow progress not stop it. If you believe spiritual beliefs are stagnent ot regressive that is a different matter. The nature of the spiritual quest is more individualistic. The same thing doesn’t work for everybody so progress is hard {if not impossible} to measure in scientific terms. The comparison might be the drugs I mentioned that are used to deal with emotional instability. They don’t work exactly the same way for everybody. Sometimes not at all. Still value is seen and the research continues. > [@](#): > > **All** my postings on this message board have the primary goal of entertaining myself, but you’re wrong if you think anything I’ve said in this particular thread is at odds with what I really think and believe From the evidence before me, I don’t agree. I can see you are intelligent and articulate and I respect that. Your style may be a perfectly acceptable and legitimate technique of argueing. It doesn’t appeal to me. Argueing from an assumptin you know know may or may not be true seems too time consuming. Making me defend a postion and clarify a position that you already understand is much the same. Example: > [@](#): > > "Science would be briefly hindered, but this self-correcting mechanism will set it straight. ``` This is more direct and a more accurate representation of of what you believe, rather than the "you are completly incorrect" post. Yet it took several posts to get here. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/157 "2005-03-10T17:10:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > There have been posts suggesting that belief is meaningless. I think this stems from varying definitions of the word “meaning”. > [@](#): > > Spiritual beliefs are not limited to biblical passages however the essentials are contained in the words of Jesus. "The truth will set you free " is one that science and the spiritual quest have in common and is being refined in both arenas as we speak. I see no indication Jesus had scientific inquiry in mind when he made that statement. It so happens that freedom of thought is useful (if not essential) for scientific inquiry, but that idea predates Jesus by a considerable margin, and numerous acts taken by the religion formed in Jesus’s name have stifled (and in some radical sects, still seek to stifle) free scientific inquiry. > [@](#): > > “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is one being explored in certain fields of science without much progress. Certain drugs have had success in helping individuals deal with anger anxiety and depression to name a few. I believe only the spiritual quest has the ability to transform us in a way science can’t. Well, “science” consists of more than just pharmacology. Psychology can also have the effect of treating anger, anxiety and depression. I don’t understand the point of the comparison. > [@](#): > > I was getting to a point about belief. > Your reply about “the” alternative, which suggests one only, or that was my inference, when you knew that wasn’t the case, was disingenuous and in fact NOT what you actually thought or believed. Well, you’re wrong. I actually think and believe that suggesting scientific journals shouldn’t be trusted suggests that scientists are attempting to trick the public, and that strikes me as improbable. I suppose I could entertain even _more_ improbable ideas like alien intervention, but why should I? Can you suggest a viable alternative instead? I’ll admit, though, that Socratic irony and disingenuousness are closer than I’d considered. If I may suggest a difference relevant to Great Debates, one uses Socratic irony as a means to draw out an opponents belief’s and expose the contraditions and lack of foundation within, while disingeniuty is stubbornly pretending to not understand an opponent’s point because doing so would compromise one’s own position. > [@](#): > > The same can be said about your assumption about my beliefs concerning the bible, or your comments about skepticism not being nessecary. I’ve asked you to clarify your beliefs concerning the bible (i.e. which passages have been modified in the precess of spritual progress). As for skepticism not being necessary, have you found a flaw in my “person trapped on an island” thought experiment? > [@](#): > > My statement was about science being hindered. not what follows. Here again you purposely dealt with one aspect of ego, money, and desires and said I was completely incorrect , when I believe you knew I wasn’t. Actually, you said: > [@you](#): > > The search for truth, scientific and spiritual **are** both hindered by pesky human traits like ego, money, subconscious desires, and stuff like that. Emphasis added. **Are** hindered, not “sometimes hindered” or “often hindered” or “occasionally hindered”, but **are** hindered. When I said this was completely wrong, I believed it. After that, tomndebb pointed out the destructive competition that can occur in an academic setting. Having never worked in such a setting myself, this potential ego-driven hinderance to science had not occured to me. The way I see it now is that you were _massively_ (not completely) wrong, but won’t admit it, while I was _slightly_ wrong, and have. In any case, my petty nitpicking of your use of a three-letter word (“are”) no more advances the discussion than your petty nitpicking of my use of a three-letter word (“the”), so I won’t be doing so again. > [@](#): > > The nature of the spiritual quest is more individualistic. The same thing doesn’t work for everybody so progress is hard {if not impossible} to measure in scientific terms. With this in mind, I’d prefer that you stop trying to equate spirituality and science, in the interest of accuracy. Science (by definition) can _only_ measure things that can be measured in scientific terms. > [@](#): > > Making me defend a postion and clarify a position that you already understand is much the same. I’m not _making_ you do anything. I acknowledge that “completely” was overstating my objection, but my objection still stands. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/158 "2005-03-10T17:28:56Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I understand the problem of demarcation. I’m saying that belief must exist and persist in order to get there. You are correct. The big difference between science and theology is not belief, which is true in both cases, but the point at which you stop believing. Faith is all about refusing to stop believing no matter the evidence against. Science is all about looking at the results of experiments, and, if appropriate, discarding your belief in the hypothesis. If you keep belief despite evidence in religion, you become a saint. If you do this in science, people laugh at you, ala Fred Hoyle for Steady State, and the cold fusion guys. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2005, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/159 "2005-03-10T17:50:51Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Aaahh! You _are_ a high school sophomore and not a college sophomore. You have obviously never witnessed the internecine warfare among college researchers and the exrtreme efforts to which some have gone to deny others research funds or tenure based on little more than getting “overemotional.” > > (Mind you, that is not good science, but then your example was not good religion (and your example happened rather less frequently).) Feuds do happen, and are destructive (especially to grad students caught in them) but on the other hand my observation is that the better the department or research group, the more tension there is. Aggressively challenging other ideas and just as aggressively defending them gets you status. When I managed a research group, with several real topnotch people, I worked really hard at letting the discussion go just so far and no further - kind of like what a good mod does, come to think of it. Conference papers that elicit no questions are not the best/ ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2005, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243/160 "2005-03-11T03:05:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You are correct. The big difference between science and theology is not belief, which is true in both cases, but the point at which you stop believing. Faith is all about refusing to stop believing no matter the evidence against. Science is all about looking at the results of experiments, and, if appropriate, discarding your belief in the hypothesis. > > If you keep belief despite evidence in religion, you become a saint. If you do this in science, people laugh at you, ala Fred Hoyle for Steady State, and the cold fusion guys. Excellent point. I would qualify it a liitle by saying that is not ALL that faith is about nor is ALL faith like that. I do wonder why so many intelligent and otherwise reasonable people cling to beliefs that don’t stand up to honest examination and the real evidence available.Then again, some people feel that way about my beliefs. I do see things getting better as beliefs are refined. I think a committment to the truth means you include scientific evidence in your spiritual beliefs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-v-religion/292243.md?page=9)