Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » What science actually is, and what religion actually is.

What science actually is, and what religion actually is.

3 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Science represents one method for arriving at conclusions.
Religion represents another method for arriving at conclusions.

It really is that simple and it really can be reduced to those terms.

The religious method is to accept the claims of others simply because we want those claims to be true.
If we wish to believe there's a "being" in a "heaven" who will give us "everlasting life" and give us a set of divine rules to live by, then we will adopt the religious method for arriving at this conclusion. That's because the religious method requires no actual evidence of this, only ancient writings in ancient books which claim it to be true. We replace any need for evidence with the concept called "faith".

The science method, however, was conceived because many were not satisfied with reaching conclusions based only on claims and faith. That's because, up until that point, far too many claims had been made which had proven not to be true.
So over time we created an alternative methodology which was designed to weed out all the bias and hearsay and require that any claim be substantiated and supported with actual evidence, not simply faith.






boards of FL

boards of FL

Science is the search of knowledge, truth, and reality.

Religion is the opposite of that.  Willful ignorance.

You're not really "arriving at conclusions" when you practice religion. You're blindly accepting the guesses made by people who lived thousands of years ago when they had absolutely no way of explaining natural phenomenon like the rising and setting sun, or the tide coming in and going out.

Some still to this day don't understand how that stuff works, and still attribute supernatural explanations to that.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:

You're not really "arriving at conclusions" when you practice religion.  

You're blindly accepting the guesses made by people who lived thousands of years ago when they had absolutely no way of explaining natural phenomenon like the rising and setting sun, or the tide coming in and going out.  


Of course you are. What is mentioned in your second sentence ARE their conclusions.

I'm glad you wrote your reply that way because it brings up something we need to discuss. If we're ever going to have successful communication about anything we discuss here, it would be very helpful if we can all agree on the accepted definitions of English words.
As I've said so often, that's the problem with the widespread usage of the words "liberal" and "conservative". Both those words are now defined by all of us in so many ways, and often contradictory ways, that it's often impossible to even establish any real communication when using them.

But the English word "conclusion" is not like that. It has an accepted definition which we can all agree to (at least I hope we can).

A "conclusion" is defined as "a final decision or judgement". And it applies to the conclusions arrived at by using religion as well as the conclusions arrived at by using science.

boards of FL

boards of FL

What is the religious "method for arriving at conclusions"?  You make it sound as if people on different parts of the planet speaking different languages can apply some sort of "religious method" and then independently arrive that the same "conclusion".


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Let's say there is a book sitting on a table and someone says to you "There are two methods of determining what this book is about.  Method 1:  Read the book.  Method 2:  Guess."

That is basically the way that you have framed this.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:What is the religious "method for arriving at conclusions"?

I stated that in the first post. But I'll restate it.

The religious method for arriving at conclusions is to accept the claims of others when we want those claims to be true. We conclude that those claims are true because we wish them to be true.

If religion is claiming there is an afterlife in "heaven", then we arrive at the conclusion that religious claims of afterlife and heaven are true BECAUSE we wish them to be true.



Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:Let's say there is a book sitting on a table and someone says to you "There are two methods of determining what this book is about.  Method 1:  Read the book.  Method 2:  Guess."

That is basically the way that you have framed this.

With all due respect to you and Seaoat both, I advise both of you to keep your day jobs whatever they might be. Don't try to get jobs that require a talent for creating analogies. lol



Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:Let's say there is a book sitting on a table and someone says to you "There are two methods of determining what this book is about.  Method 1:  Read the book.  Method 2:  Guess."


No, if that was analogous to what I wrote in my first post, then it would come down to this.
A Bible is sitting on the table. There are two methods for concluding what is written in that Bible.
1. To read the Bible
2. To guess what's written in the Bible

And of course I said nothing of the kind.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:Let's say there is a book sitting on a table and someone says to you "There are two methods of determining what this book is about.  Method 1:  Read the book.  Method 2:  Guess."

That is basically the way that you have framed this.

With all due respect to you and Seaoat both,  I advise both of you to keep your day jobs whatever they might be.  Don't try to get jobs that require a talent for creating analogies.  lol






I'll interpret that last one for you.   The book on the table represents our universe.  Reading the book represents learning about our universe through empirical examination.  Guessing about the what the book says represents subscribing to a religion.

And that was an easy one.

The difference between science and religion is that you either take the time and put in the effort to truthfully understand the reality that we live in....or you don't.  Reading the book leaves the reader with a better understanding of what the book is actually about than guessing would.   Likewise, learning about our universe through empirical examination leaves one with a better understanding of reality than simply reading an ancient manuscript.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:The religious method for arriving at conclusions is to accept the claims of others when we want those claims to be true.  We conclude that those claims are true because we wish them to be true.


Fair enough.  Being that the case, you could have framed things a bit more accurately by saying science searches for reality and truth whereas religion seeks to ignore it.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

"I'll interpret that last one for you.   The book on the table represents our universe.  Reading the book represents learning about our universe through empirical examination.  Guessing about the what the book says represents subscribing to a religion."

Okay,  after you clarified that I can understand (barely) the analogy you're attempting to make.

But it is so thoughtless to ever try to describe or characterize "science" or the "scientific method" as "reading what's in a book".
Why?  Because the act of "reading what's in a book" and accepting that has always been the perview of religion.  And what brought about the need for a "scientific method".

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:

Fair enough.  Being that the case, you could have framed things a bit more accurately by saying science searches for reality and truth whereas religion seeks to ignore it.

That's definitely not correct. Religion does not "seek to ignore truth".
Both science and religion are seeking truth. All that differs is how each goes about it.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:But it is so thoughtless to ever try to describe or characterize "science" or the "scientific method" as "reading what's in a book".


Not it isn't.

Book = universe

Reading = Empirical investigation via scientific method

Are you familiar with what an analogy actually is, Bob?

You come to understand a book by reading it. You come to understand the universe via empirical investigation.

The analogy is about as sound as they get.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:That's definitely not correct.  Religion does not "seek to ignore truth".


Didn't you just say that the "religious method" is essentially choosing to believe that which you want to believe merely on the basis that you want it to be true?  Isn't that counter to the act of investigation and then believing in whatever the evidence leads you to believe?

If someone applies the "religious method" and then says "I choose to believe that Mitt Romney won the election in 2008" and then someone shows them undeniable proof that Mitt Romney did not win the election in 2008, can't we then say that the religious person is "seeking to ignore reality"? They certainly aren't "seeking reality", are they?


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote: 

Book = universe

Reading = Empirical investigation via scientific method

Are you familiar with what an analogy actually is, Bob?

You come to understand a book by reading it.  You come to understand the universe via empirical investigation.

The analogy is about as sound as they get.

Yes I am very familiar with what an analogy is.

When you conceive an analogy, it's definitely not "as sound as they get" in this case.
Because, I repeat, you have now analogized "reading a book" to what science is. When the whole concept of religion (not science) derives from "reading what's in a book".

In your first attempt at analogy, you equated religion with "guessing what's in a book". And science as "reading what's in the book".
That was a horrible analogy because religion definitely does READ what's in a fucking book. They aint guessing at it. And because they did read what's in a book is the whole basis for both the Christian and Islamic versions of religion.

Yes I get the point you're trying to make. But only after you kept clarifying what it is. Definitely not because your analogy was "as good as it gets". lol




boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:When you conceive an analogy,  it's definitely not "as sound as they get" in this case.
Because,  I repeat,  you have now analogized "reading a book" to what science is.  When the whole concept of religion (not science) derives from "reading what's in a book".

In your first attempt at analogy,  you equated religion with "guessing what's in a book".  And science as "reading what's in the book".
That was a horrible analogy because religion definitely does READ what's in a fucking book.  They aint guessing at it.  And because they did read what's in a book is the whole basis for both the Christian and Islamic versions of religion.



Bob, religion does not "read the book".  When someone reads a book, they are engaging in the act of examining the words written on the pages of the book, comprehending them, and then ultimately arriving at some understanding of what the book says or is about.  They are letting the actual contents of the book dictate their understanding of the book.  When I made the analogy that reading a book is the equivalent of science in the sense that the book is the universe and the act of reading is the act of conducting empirical investigation of the universe...well...that is a sound analogy.  It is an analogy.  That means that you don't take it literally and then say "But religious people do in fact read books!"

When you chime in and say "But religious people do in fact read books!", you're no longer talking about the analogy anymore.  At that point, you're talking about some specific religious text and the act of reading that.   I'm starting to have flash backs of trying explain the difference between "fiscal policy" and "the economy" to you.  

Religion, as applied to the universe, is the opposite of reading the book.  Religion is simply guessing at what the book actually says (aka, the nature of the universe), or it is the act of inventing what you want it to say.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:That's definitely not correct.  Religion does not "seek to ignore truth".


Didn't you just say that the "religious method" is essentially choosing to believe that which you want to believe merely on the basis that you want it to be true?  Isn't that counter to the act of investigation and then believing in whatever the evidence leads you to believe?

If someone applies the "religious method" and then says "I choose to believe that Mitt Romney won the election in 2008" and then someone shows them undeniable proof that Mitt Romney did not win the election in 2008, can't we then say that the religious person is "seeking to ignore reality"?  They certainly aren't "seeking reality", are they?

I have no argument with any of this until you say: "...can't we then say that the religious person is 'seeking to ignore reality'? They certainly aren't "seeking reality", are they?"

They are NOT "seeking to ignore reality". They just arrive at a different reality.

Of course you would also maintain that republicans and conservatives are "not seeking reality". But again, that would also not be correct.

With all this, you're doing exactly what religionists do. You're letting your own biases assign motives to others.

I've never heard of anyone who is seeking "lies". We all think what we're seeking is "truth".

boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:That's definitely not correct.  Religion does not "seek to ignore truth".


Didn't you just say that the "religious method" is essentially choosing to believe that which you want to believe merely on the basis that you want it to be true?  Isn't that counter to the act of investigation and then believing in whatever the evidence leads you to believe?

If someone applies the "religious method" and then says "I choose to believe that Mitt Romney won the election in 2008" and then someone shows them undeniable proof that Mitt Romney did not win the election in 2008, can't we then say that the religious person is "seeking to ignore reality"?  They certainly aren't "seeking reality", are they?

I have no argument with any of this until you say: "...can't we then say that the religious person is 'seeking to ignore reality'?  They certainly aren't "seeking reality", are they?"

They are NOT "seeking to ignore reality".  They just arrive at a different reality.

Of course you would also maintain that republicans and conservatives are "not seeking reality".  But again,  that would also not be correct.

With all this,  you're doing exactly what religionists do.  You're letting your own biases assign motives to others.

I've never heard of anyone who is seeking "lies".  We all think what we're seeking is "truth".



In the context of the 2008 presidential election, there is only one reality. Obama won the election. That is objective reality. One does not "arrive at a different reality" by choosing to believe that Mitt Romney won the election. If one chooses to believe that Mitt Romney won the 2008 election after being shown undeniable proof that that idea is false, that person is then ignoring reality.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Okay if anyone believes after the election that Mitt Romney won and Barack Obama lost then they are not "seeking truth or seeking reality". I'll concede that point.

But a determination of who won an election after the election is over with, is not comparable at all to an understanding of the difference between religion and science.

Because what's at issue is absolutely not the same. What's at issue is what I've already expounded upon in two different current threads.
It's those questions I posed. So let's go over those questions again.
The question IS NOT how our concept of a "universe" is structured.
The questions are (at least some of them)...

Why does everything exist?
How did the existence of everything originate?
What was in existence before that existed?
What is outside of that existence?
Why is there life and how did all life originate?
Is there a continued existence for human beings after death?
And the list of unanswered (and possibly unanswerable) questions goes on and on and on.

That is not the same as concluding who won an election after we all know the results.
There ARE NO answers to those questions. Not with religion, not with science, and not with anything else that derives from human intellect.
Not the same as the election result. Not even in the ballpark. Not even close.











Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:  I'm starting to have flash backs of trying explain the difference between "fiscal policy" and "the economy" to you.  

Religion, as applied to the universe, is the opposite of reading the book.

No those are two distinctly different things we find ourselves arguing about. Your first sentence I quoted above I mean.

In the first instance, you kept wanting to explain a difference to me when I already understood that difference and kept telling you that. And kept pointing out that I was not conflating the two different concepts as you kept suggesting. I was only RELATING one concept to another.
When I reduce my level of personal spending (alter my fiscal policy) BECAUSE of a change in my economic situation, I'm not making the two things be synonymous. I'm describing a relationship of one to the other.

This time you are attempting to analogize "reading a book" to an understanding of the universe as a way of describing the difference between science and religion.
I realize that you can analogize anything to anything else and I understand your intent. It's just that "reading a book" was a very poor example of trying to analogize what science IS and what religion IS NOT. Simply because the phrase "reading a book" is so closely associated with the gist of what religion is and not what science is.
But yes I get it. I also get jokes even when they're not good jokes too.









boards of FL

boards of FL

Bob wrote:Okay if anyone believes after the election that Mitt Romney won and Barack Obama lost then they are not "seeking truth or seeking reality".  I'll concede that point.

But a determination of who won an election after the election is over with,  is not comparable at all to an understanding of the difference between religion and science.

Because what's at issue is absolutely not the same.  What's at issue is what I've already expounded upon in two different current threads.
It's those questions I posed.  So let's go over those questions again.
The question IS NOT how our concept of a "universe" is structured.
The questions are (at least some of them)...


Fair enough.  Bad example.  

Scientific research shows us that homosexual behavior is exhibited in almost every mammalian species.  It is simply a naturally occurring phenomena spanning many species.

Ancient texts, however, tell us that this is an unnatural, human "sin", or a "moral decision" that is being made in defiance of some sort of supernatural power.

If one continues to believe that homosexual behavior is a "moral decision" or "sin", in spite of the fact that we can observe that phenomena across most mammalian species...well...is that person "seeking reality"?

We could apply the same logic to the age of the earth, the idea of coming back to life after death, whether or not snakes can talk, etc. etc.


_________________
I approve this message.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

boards of FL wrote:

If one continues to believe that homosexual behavior is a "moral decision" or "sin", in spite of the fact that we can observe that phenomena across most mammalian species...well...is that person "seeking reality"?

I've listened to that ilk all my life.  And the part you left out is the vast majority of them don't even have a clue that homosexuality is commonplace in the animal world.  They've never even given it a thought.  And the ones who have just dismiss any significance of it because they believe all other creatures were put here by God to serve the only species that counts,  the one that was made in His image.  The rest were just an afterthought.

With the exception to that being Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone who was very religious and lived 900 years ago.  He is now known better as Francis of Assisi.
But the evangelicals of today don't even believe the Roman Catholic Church is Christian.  They think it's a cult.  I was told that night before last by one of them.  

Their reality is far different from yours and mine.  But regardless if it's insane to me and you,  it is their reality and they cling to it.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Let me point out that reality isn't what one perceives because he WANTS too.


Two and Two are only four and nothing, absolutely nothing else.


That's science.


Two and Two became loaves that fed four nations and turned buttermilk into swine, is bullshit.


Reality isn't a perception -- it's reality.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Wordslinger wrote:Let me point out that reality isn't what one perceives because he WANTS too.


Two and Two are only four and nothing, absolutely nothing else.


That's science.


Two and Two became loaves that fed four nations and turned buttermilk into swine, is bullshit.


Reality isn't a perception -- it's reality.

Well actually, long before the advent of science, 2 plus 2 equalling four was universally known to everyone (including the earliest Popes). If one owned two goats and purchased two more, he knew he then possessed four goats.
Numbers and counting is widely thought to have originated with the Sumerians in 4000 BC.
But yes I get your point. It was science and not religion which has advanced our knowledge and understanding of the physical world.

The beef you and bds have with me is really just semantics.
When I turn on WEBY talk radio, and I listen to Brother Carl and the two Brother Mikes (the local on-air personalities) and when I listen to virtually all of the fundamentalist evangelical Christians who call in to those radio shows, what I'm listening to I deem to be their "reality".
The word reality derives from the word real. And to Brother Carl and the rest, the concept of their god and their religious dogma is very REAL to them. Yes it is far different from the reality of you and me and bds, but it is THEIR reality. And it will remain to be their reality regardless if they know the reality provided us by science contradicts it.

It's just semantics. You and bds believe it's incorrect for me to apply the term "reality" in such a manner. For you and bds, the use of the term reality can only be used to describe the knowledge obtained with science.
I get that.








Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Bob wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Let me point out that reality isn't what one perceives because he WANTS too.


Two and Two are only four and nothing, absolutely nothing else.


That's science.


Two and Two became loaves that fed four nations and turned buttermilk into swine, is bullshit.


Reality isn't a perception -- it's reality.

Well actually,  long before the advent of science,  2 plus 2 equalling four was universally known to everyone (including the earliest Popes).  If one owned two goats and purchased two more,  he knew he then possessed four goats.
Numbers and counting is widely thought to have originated with the Sumerians in 4000 BC.  
But yes I get your point.  It was science and not religion which has advanced our knowledge and understanding of the physical world.

The beef you and bds have with me is really just semantics.
When I turn on WEBY talk radio,  and I listen to Brother Carl and the two Brother Mikes (the local on-air personalities) and when I listen to virtually all of the fundamentalist evangelical Christians who call in to those radio shows,  what I'm listening to I deem to be their "reality".
The word reality derives from the word real.  And to Brother Carl and the rest,  the concept of their god and their religious dogma is very REAL to them.  Yes it is far different from the reality of you and me and bds,  but it is THEIR reality.  And it will remain to be their reality regardless if they know the reality provided us by science contradicts it.

It's just semantics.  You and bds believe it's incorrect for me to apply the term "reality" in such a manner.  For you and bds,  the use of the term reality can only be used to describe the knowledge obtained with science.
I get that.








Considering that their reality may be around for some time and clearly drives them, I have a proposition for you and Boards:  Let's open a drive-thru automated Soul-Wash in Jay.  You can get both your pick-up and your spirit cleansed and all sparkly shiny for just ten dollars ...

Are you guys in?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » What science actually is, and what religion actually is.

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum