Quote:
|
Originally Posted by snarkophilus
I disagree very strongly. The basis of most religions is faith. Pure faith, the idea that you should believe something just because someone told you, is the exact opposite of science. So the very roots of the two things you use to understand everything else are contradictory.
|
I think we agree, actually. By science, I mean that which is constrained to the scientific method only. As you say, faith is the opposite of science, therefore, science, on this basis, is not directly influenced. Stating an idea based on faith will not add one jot or tiddle to science itself, unless it brings along measurable evidence. It could give direction, in rare cases, perhaps, but until a measurable result is found, it won't have any effect on the true science at hand.
Quote:
|
Perhaps there is exoscience, but it's not necessarily religion. It's (in part, at least) just the stuff that science hasn't gotten around to covering yet. It will fall into the domain of science once we get to it, if we ever get to it.
|
I doubt science, as defined by the scientific method, can ever become so omnipotent; religion, philosophy, politics, etc. will always be separate, and outside science (ignoring overlaps), hence the idea of exoscience. Pure science is a nicely constructed stadium field with specific rules for the game. What transpires off the field does not change the rules of the game, though the players may be more, or less, energetic [by their activity off the field].
Quote:
|
But to say that religion has little influence on science is wrong. Creationism, objections to stem cell research, faith healing, Plan B... all of these things get widespread media attention. All cast doubt on science. That affects funding. That affects the directions in which science can be pursued. Then there are laws which prohibit things like human cloning. There's a direct impact.
|
True, but I was not referring to the action of science, nor what effect science has on the community. I was limiting science such that Creationism and peoples feelings about stem cell research really doesn't change science itself. This is religion and philosophy that impact the rate and method, perhaps, true science is conducted. Eventually, science will demonstrate with repeatably accuracy just how genetics works. I should have clarified this in the post, sorry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenG
It has to do with what religion should be used for-- and interpreting scientific knowledge, like a model of the solar system, is not one of them. Basically, religion should never have been used to make a model of the solar system, that's not what religion is about.
|
Galileo and I agree with you (
), though it is easy to understand why it happened. This is a good example of how science impacted religion. As you know, Aristotle's Geocentricity was very appealing to religion, so it was adopted and chained to the wall of religion. When science demonstrated heliocentricity was the more truthful representation of the solar system, the wall came down only after pain and suffering. [Obviously, your view would have served everyone nicely back then.] The religious view that opposed it really had no impact on science itself (of course, it did on the scientists and culture). Pure science itself, the eventual model supported by evidence, emerged as it should. Religion may have slowed it down, but the truth became known. [Of course, there may be times when religion improves the rate science proceeds.] Nevertheless, Aristotle's model (strengthened by Ptolemy) presented a strong case for Geocentricity which, IMO, was an overlap issue.
I agree with your view until we encounter a literal religious view that is in direct conflict with highly supported scientific theory or finding. This is when I see turbulent waters for the religious who find themselves in this overlap. If a superior religious model emerges (revised interpretation), then they should be fine. Otherwise, the choices are allegory or demonstrating how science is false. Unfortunately, the latter, is, using your appropriate analogy, the "messy peanut butter".
Unfortunately,
Elyk, it is difficult to educate those already adamant about their position of faith. This bias and the level of education necessary to grasp the merits of any given theory make circumstances more difficult.