Happy New Year! The January Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species. Discuss it now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.)

Religion and Science Unification

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
Skakos
Posts: 452
Joined: November 17th, 2012, 12:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Shestov
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Religion and Science Unification

Post by Skakos » November 17th, 2012, 1:01 pm

Some time ago I wrote an article about the philosophy of religion and science (see "Religion and Science unification - Towards religional science"). What I would like to do is discuss here about the main points of my beliefs which are:
  • Exact science is good for many things, mainly things which are measurable and can be experimentally tested.
  • Exact science has limits. There are many things which cannot be measured or written down using mathematics. And these things are the most important things in life.
  • Intuition is as much as good a tool for learning about "reality" (if such thing even exists), as is logic. And there are many great scientific theories that have come out of the blue based on instinct.
  • The logic of many people (including many great mathematicians) tell them that a First Cause exists. The fact that the logic of other people does not lead to the same conclusion, does not negate the logic of the abovementioned people. Religion should learn its limitations and scope, but so must Science...
And Science should stop from being dogmatic as it is now. Everything in science is based on axioms. And axioms are based on instinct and change constantly (see what happened with Eucledian Geometry). Stating that ideas like "materialism" are "scientifically correct" is pure and crude DOGMATISM.

If you think "logic" is the way to go and that logic is against God, think twice. Aristotle (the founder of Logic) and Godel (the second greatest logician after Aristotle) had logical arguments IN FAVOR of God...

Science and Religion are both tools to reach the "truth" (if such thing even exists) and should be used together to understand the cosmos.


I would love to hear comments or your opinions.

User avatar
Rederic
Posts: 585
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 8:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: South coast of England

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by Rederic » November 17th, 2012, 2:15 pm

Exact science is good for many things, mainly things which are measurable and can be experimentally tested.
You forgot things that can be observed & things that can be predicted.
And Science should stop from being dogmatic as it is now. Everything in science is based on axioms. And axioms are based on instinct and change constantly (see what happened with Eucledian Geometry). Stating that ideas like "materialism" are "scientifically correct" is pure and crude DOGMATISM.
Wrong. Everything in science is based on evidence.
Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves.
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else.
Archibald Macleish.

User avatar
Skakos
Posts: 452
Joined: November 17th, 2012, 12:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Shestov
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by Skakos » November 17th, 2012, 2:32 pm

Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You forgot things that can be observed & things that can be predicted.
Science tries to predict things by creating models. That is correct.

Have you observed a black hole?

-- Updated November 17th, 2012, 1:35 pm to add the following --
Rederic wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)


Wrong. Everything in science is based on evidence.
You forget the definition of an "Axiom".

What evidence is there for the Axiom of Parallels for example?

User avatar
Newglobalstrategy
Posts: 44
Joined: October 21st, 2012, 5:38 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Einstein
Location: orbitting planet earth
Contact:

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by Newglobalstrategy » November 17th, 2012, 4:04 pm

I think the point is that science is now reaching the tipping point - eg Laurence Krauss and a Universe from Nothing. It seems that science is now providing credible evidence that the starting point for everything was actually 0. If nothing is unstable and spends some if it's time as +1 and -1 then you really do have a credible theory for everything. At that point the appropriate scope of religion diminishes significantly. However we could readily replace it with some true moral and behavioural guidance. I think the only way to significantly improve the world is to shift the standards of behaviour so it is unacceptable to be a billionaire while so many others starve. We are reaching the point where modern medicine may be able to massively extend life and building heaven on earth is actually all achievable if we could just agree that's what we wanted to do.

User avatar
Rederic
Posts: 585
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 8:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: South coast of England

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by Rederic » November 17th, 2012, 5:25 pm

Have you observed a black hole?
No, but it's long been predicted what would happen to matter that's close to a black hole & this has now been observed = evidence.
You forget the definition of an "Axiom".
An axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true, but isn't proved.
Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves.
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else.
Archibald Macleish.

User avatar
Skakos
Posts: 452
Joined: November 17th, 2012, 12:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Shestov
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by Skakos » November 17th, 2012, 6:14 pm

Newglobalstrategy wrote:I think the point is that science is now reaching the tipping point - eg Laurence Krauss and a Universe from Nothing. It seems that science is now providing credible evidence that the starting point for everything was actually 0. If nothing is unstable and spends some if it's time as +1 and -1 then you really do have a credible theory for everything. At that point the appropriate scope of religion diminishes significantly. However we could readily replace it with some true moral and behavioural guidance. I think the only way to significantly improve the world is to shift the standards of behaviour so it is unacceptable to be a billionaire while so many others starve. We are reaching the point where modern medicine may be able to massively extend life and building heaven on earth is actually all achievable if we could just agree that's what we wanted to do.
What kind of "nothing" does "spends some of its time as +1 and -1"?

-- Updated November 17th, 2012, 5:17 pm to add the following --
Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


No, but it's long been predicted what would happen to matter that's close to a black hole & this has now been observed = evidence.


(Nested quote removed.)


An axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true, but isn't proved.
So we agree that NOT everything in Science is based on evidence, since Axioms cannot certainly be based on evidence, correct?

PS. What kind of "evidence" are you referring to? Is it mass heading towards a specific spot on the sky? Could that be attributed to Dark Matter?

User avatar
DeeElf
Posts: 157
Joined: August 21st, 2012, 2:23 am
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by DeeElf » November 17th, 2012, 7:08 pm

Science just means "knowledge" and it's just a philosophy.

-- Updated November 17th, 2012, 4:11 pm to add the following --
Skakos wrote:So we agree that NOT everything in Science is based on evidence, since Axioms cannot certainly be based on evidence, correct?

PS. What kind of "evidence" are you referring to? Is it mass heading towards a specific spot on the sky? Could that be attributed to Dark Matter?
What evidence did Galileo use to disprove Aristotle's doctrine of motion? What observations did he make? What predictions did he make based upon such evidence and observations?

And on how earth did he do it before the debate about who invented "the scientific method" or who coined the term "the scientific method" had even started? The debate continues to grow and an answer seems farther away than ever.
"Arguments seldom make converts in matters philosophical." -W. James, Principles, Vol. 1, p. 468

"Argument is propaganda for one observer, the essence of human discourse for another." -Feyerabend, Against Method, p. 236 (2010)

User avatar
Rederic
Posts: 585
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 8:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: South coast of England

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by Rederic » November 17th, 2012, 7:42 pm

So we agree that NOT everything in Science is based on evidence, since Axioms cannot certainly be based on evidence, correct?
I don't think axioms are used in science. You may perhaps be thinking of theories. A scientific theory isn't the same thing as an axiom. A scientific theory, is a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.
Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves.
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else.
Archibald Macleish.

User avatar
DeeElf
Posts: 157
Joined: August 21st, 2012, 2:23 am
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by DeeElf » November 17th, 2012, 11:17 pm

Rederic wrote:...the scientific method...
What do you think "the scientific method" is? And by "the" do you mean there's only one method?
"Arguments seldom make converts in matters philosophical." -W. James, Principles, Vol. 1, p. 468

"Argument is propaganda for one observer, the essence of human discourse for another." -Feyerabend, Against Method, p. 236 (2010)

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by Spectrum » November 17th, 2012, 11:19 pm

Skakos wrote:Science and Religion are both tools to reach the "truth" (if such thing even exists) and should be used together to understand the cosmos.
I would love to hear comments or your opinions.

Science and Religion are both tools to facilitate survival.

Religion as a tool is targetted at the gross and crudest form of survival. Religion (especially the Abrahamics) is for a drowning man grabing at straws trying to survival at all costs. That is why the word 'saved' is often associated with religion.
The focus of being 'saved' is confined to the individual and thus religion is in a sense 'selfish'. Religion is in essence/substance a tool for the the 'salvation' of the individual from eternal hell or sufferings, of which both are fundamentally related to the cognitive dissonance of mortality. The rest of the other activities of religions are merely their forms.

Science (to know) is a general tool to seek knowledge to facilitate the survival of the specie. The difference between Science and Religion is, science is an accumulation of a scientific knowledge database for mankind sake, rather than on for any individual's interest. As such, Science is targetted at the survival of the specie via individual.

Btw, both Religion and Science has their pros and cons which are relative and imo, time and situational bound.

Religions (especially the Abrahamics) are based on IMMUTABLE holy books and worse, some verses are laced with violent elements.
Science is on the other hand is open source and flexible.
Reality is dynamic where change is the only constant.

From the above, it follows that it is not effective to unite Religions (esp Abrahamics) with Science. Since reality is dynamic with time, while the Abrahamics are based on immutability, the Abrahamics must be weaned off in time and the other other religions to follow suit.

Instead of uniting Science with Religion, Science should be united strongly with Philosophy-proper to enable humanity to deal with the reality of 'reality'.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
DeeElf
Posts: 157
Joined: August 21st, 2012, 2:23 am
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by DeeElf » November 17th, 2012, 11:25 pm

Spectrum wrote:Instead of uniting Science with Religion, Science should be united strongly with Philosophy-proper to enable humanity to deal with the reality of 'reality'.
:shock:

Science was invented by philosophers proper, and philosophers have historically been very religious. So this sentence makes absolutely no sense (not to mention the tautological, and therefore irrelevant, nature of statements like, "the reality of 'reality'").
"Arguments seldom make converts in matters philosophical." -W. James, Principles, Vol. 1, p. 468

"Argument is propaganda for one observer, the essence of human discourse for another." -Feyerabend, Against Method, p. 236 (2010)

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by Spectrum » November 18th, 2012, 12:14 am

Spectrum wrote:Instead of uniting Science with Religion, Science should be united strongly with Philosophy-proper to enable humanity to deal with the reality of 'reality'.

DeeElf wrote:
:shock:
Science was invented by philosophers proper, and philosophers have historicallybeen very religious. So this sentence makes absolutely no sense (not to mention the tautological, and therefore irrelevant, nature of statements like, "the reality of 'reality'").
You are shocked :shock: by your own self-created illusions.
Note the points in blue are in the past and gone and you don't seem to be aware of that.
What I am talking about is the now, present and the future.

This is where 'scientism' is relevant.
Scientism asserts that scientific knowledge is the ONLY reliable knowledge for mankind and the rest of knowledge are "bullsh!t" including 'philosophy' (proper and otherwise).
Thus there is need to resist 'scientism' and facilitate the reconciliation (not unification re combining but rather co-operation) between Science and Philosophy-proper.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Skakos
Posts: 452
Joined: November 17th, 2012, 12:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Shestov
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by Skakos » November 18th, 2012, 4:06 am

Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I don't think axioms are used in science. You may perhaps be thinking of theories. A scientific theory isn't the same thing as an axiom. A scientific theory, is a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.
But all theories DO start from somewhere, don't they?

User avatar
Rederic
Posts: 585
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 8:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: South coast of England

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by Rederic » November 18th, 2012, 5:26 am

But all theories DO start from somewhere, don't they?
Yes, but they're not assumed to be correct until they've been examined & tested by scientists over many years. Such a theory is evolution.

-- Updated November 18th, 2012, 5:30 am to add the following --
DeeElf wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

What do you think "the scientific method" is? And by "the" do you mean there's only one method?

The Oxford English Dictionary says that the scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Wikipedia
Religion is at its best when it makes us ask hard questions of ourselves.
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else.
Archibald Macleish.

User avatar
Skakos
Posts: 452
Joined: November 17th, 2012, 12:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Shestov
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Re: Religion and Science Unification

Post by Skakos » November 18th, 2012, 7:34 am

Spectrum wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Science and Religion are both tools to facilitate survival.

Religion as a tool is targetted at the gross and crudest form of survival. Religion (especially the Abrahamics) is for a drowning man grabing at straws trying to survival at all costs. That is why the word 'saved' is often associated with religion.
The focus of being 'saved' is confined to the individual and thus religion is in a sense 'selfish'. Religion is in essence/substance a tool for the the 'salvation' of the individual from eternal hell or sufferings, of which both are fundamentally related to the cognitive dissonance of mortality. The rest of the other activities of religions are merely their forms.

Science (to know) is a general tool to seek knowledge to facilitate the survival of the specie. The difference between Science and Religion is, science is an accumulation of a scientific knowledge database for mankind sake, rather than on for any individual's interest. As such, Science is targetted at the survival of the specie via individual.

Btw, both Religion and Science has their pros and cons which are relative and imo, time and situational bound.

Religions (especially the Abrahamics) are based on IMMUTABLE holy books and worse, some verses are laced with violent elements.
Science is on the other hand is open source and flexible.
Reality is dynamic where change is the only constant.

From the above, it follows that it is not effective to unite Religions (esp Abrahamics) with Science. Since reality is dynamic with time, while the Abrahamics are based on immutability, the Abrahamics must be weaned off in time and the other other religions to follow suit.

Instead of uniting Science with Religion, Science should be united strongly with Philosophy-proper to enable humanity to deal with the reality of 'reality'.
I think it is unfair to categorize religion and science as "tools for survival". Religion makes people understand that life is not all there is. How can it be a tool for survival when its main premise is that our life on this planet is not everything we have to worry wbout? And in any case when you talk about "survival" you imply that you accept some philosophical dogmas, correct? Do you think this is the ultimate purpose of man?

-- Updated November 18th, 2012, 6:36 am to add the following --
Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Yes, but they're not assumed to be correct until they've been examined & tested by scientists over many years. Such a theory is evolution.

-- Updated November 18th, 2012, 5:30 am to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)



The Oxford English Dictionary says that the scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Wikipedia
But it does not matter how much you "test". You will always find things which can be found based on the AXIOMS you started from! If you change axioms, then you will be able to "find" new things and test them as well!

It sound spooky, but it is as simple as that.

Unless you think that some axioms (and their derived theories) are more "true" than others...

-- Updated November 18th, 2012, 6:46 am to add the following --
DeeElf wrote:Science just means "knowledge" and it's just a philosophy.

-- Updated November 17th, 2012, 4:11 pm to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)

What evidence did Galileo use to disprove Aristotle's doctrine of motion? What observations did he make? What predictions did he make based upon such evidence and observations?

And on how earth did he do it before the debate about who invented "the scientific method" or who coined the term "the scientific method" had even started? The debate continues to grow and an answer seems farther away than ever.
Indeed.

The models created by science are not "true" or "false".

And you cannot say that one is "better" than the "other" easily as one might think.

A motion can be described in many ways. You can change the observation point or the reference system and result in an equally "true" model.

Post Reply