@DampeS8N The difference is, science goes "Here's the evidence we've gathered, what conclusions does it lead to?" where ID/religious pseudo-science goes "Here's the conclusion we already have, what evidence can we find to support it? (and what evidence against it do we need to discredit/ignore?)"

@Adeptus At the end of that much-publicised Evolution vs Creationism debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, the owner of a creationist museum, there were some audience questions fielded. One was: in one word, what would make you change your mind? Ken Ham answered "Nothing." Bill Nye answered "Evidence." I think that's one of the briefest, most impactful questions to demonstrate the major difference between the two stances.

At the end of the day, I think the whole thing stems from a confusion (present in some on both sides) about the role of science and religion respectively in our lives. Science cannot replace religion because the fundamental purpose of religion is to offer moral, ethical guidance: something science cannot offer. Likewise religion cannot use the tools of science because at its core religion is based on faith in the unprovable.

They're both working toward the same goal (understanding the world and ourselves, for the betterment of all), and they work best in tandem, with religion giving scientists insight into how to apply their work and with science giving the faithful insight into those elements of existence which scripture doesn't cover. Neither can replace the other, nor use its tools independently of that discipline's framework.

I suppose so - and that there comes a problem when one tries to do the other's job.

Exactly. And on both sides of the evolution/creation thing, there are people who think that their discipline is inherently superior and therefore can encompass the other.

Which is kind of like saying that the d6 is better than the d20, and should replace the d20 in all games.

well,.. I do like D6's better myself

(For the record, I'm a religious person who believes science is the best tool for understanding the physical process of evolution, while religion gives us insight into the process's spiritual purpose and implications.)

but in any case. I personally respect religion and science

I personally believe in God in some form at the very least, even though I wouldn't claim any existing denomination, for several reasons

but I also believe in science, it is a facinating subject that also happens to improve peoples lives in many ways

and both things have produced good and bad things. even producing arguments between people who believe more in one than the other, or disbelieve and or hate one aspect of one or the other

And now I have to go buy some science; need a new water filter.

lol

in any case, both religion and science can be used in proper good ways, and both can be used in inappropriate ways. my personal opinion is that neither should be discounted entirely just for the non positive aspects that they can have

I am an agnostic atheist myself. (I'm not "an agnostic", because that's ambiguous: agnosticism vs gnosticism is a totally separate axis to atheism vs theism.) I appreciate the role of spirituality and religion. I do not appreciate the role organised dogmatic religion tends to play in the world: historically, it winds up hurting an awful lot of people for a while (prior, at least, to revolutionary change being made).

@doppelgreener this is one reason I don't prescribe to any actual denomination

but I do still feel comforted by the thought of God, for lack of any other name

I do not think there is anything like a god, but I also do not think such a thing is knowable. If indisputable gods revealed themselves, I would probably cease to be atheistic.

@trogdor yes, this is more or less how I think religion should be

I have read/studied a little bit about religion being used in negative ways

in a general way, it has the common thread of being used as a reason or excuse to oppress or hurt people

but at the end of the day, this could be applied to anything

@trogdor yes, this is what bothers me about it

and indeed it can, though certain factors help a lot

e.g. theoretically you could kill a person with anything, but guns really help a lot with that

I don't think religion should ever be used that way, but neither should anything else, calling religion inherently evil, or inherently good even, is the same to me as calling an inanimate object inherently good or evil

yeah

@doppelgreener this was an example I would have used

this side of his study in theology in tertiary education, my Christian father dislikes how the Church tends to handle things - he thinks Christianity should be an open conversation between people to provide guidance and growth and learning, and there isn't really a Correct view of it, but Christianity dogmatically enforces a lot of unnecessary stuff: an authority/control structure and hierarchy, that certain things are totally correct, etc etc

you can use a fork to kill someone too, though most people would use it to eat and not get their hands covered in what they are eating, and a fork isn't the best tool for that job, especially considering things like guns exist XD.

i.e. no one person or group of people should be considered to own Christianity; it's just a conversation between people like how nobody owns the idea of what a really good kind of cake is

yeah

Christianity is a good example

many people have used it for many things

including, but not limited to, forcing the way they see things on other people in various ways.

I also don't agree with everything I have read in the Bible

I do agree with some of it, I don't with others, and a third bit is stuff I don't even claim to fully understand

though the third bit might also just automatically fall under the second category just for that reason

@trogdor I'd say so, since to not agree is to simply have an absence of agreement, but there might be a category of stuff you actively object to

true

@trogdor and yes it is this, and the way it's currently dominating the USA (Christians demanding their laws be the standard) and the UK (generally pretty secular, but there's been strife because some Muslims are demanding their laws be the standard).

@doppelgreener this was part of my intention for the second category, which I would say ranges from, ok fine but I don't agree with you to, no you are wrong that isn't ok with me

and, y'know, persecution of LGBT people, etc etc. Pope Francis has basically told off the USA Catholic population for making such a big deal about it, because it's hurting people and destroying Catholicism. So a few individuals in the USA have called Pope Francis un-Catholic. :P

(Let that sink in for a moment.)

@doppelgreener this is one of many things that I would say is wrong with Christianity in particular. not to say it means every christian is a bad person, believes this, or is even ok with it. but it is a problem in the USA at the very least

@doppelgreener I actually have not had much personal respect for the Catholic Church for most of my life. knowing some of their history, and from (secondhand) acounts from people I have known in Catholic schools, how they do sort of gloss over certain undesire-able parts of their history does not sit well with me

that being said

it does not mean I hate Catholics, or even the Church itself, but I definitely don't like it's past, and personally don't entirely agree with it's beliefs

I do respect the fact that Pope Francis seems to be trying to change things in a direction I can more readily agree with

one of my main problems with religion as a whole is it's tendency to hold on to even the ideas that have become unpopular.

(or even in more cases than should exist, ideas that never should have been popular)

but I also like the existence of the good ideas that last

I'm not religious, but my wife is. We go to Uniting church (Christian, if you didn't know). They are much more accepting than some denominations. And the Minister has straight out said in a sermon, that the creation story in Genesis should not be taken literally (actually, there's 2 versions of the creation story in different chapters that slightly contradict each other, so you really can't take it literally)

@trogdor Australia and the UK are very secular, and it is rare for a religious individual of any religion to expect others to share their beliefs. Religion in the USA is a very unique beast.

Canada is half and half and it can get quite problematic.

yeah, I don't claim much current kowledge of religion in other countries

I live in a very secular province and when the religious provinces have a lot of political influence well...

There's quite a few of my rights I'm very afraid to lose.

I do know some things about certain old religions in other countries though, some of which I have discovered more abuse being built in than others

@mbriand and hopefully that doesn't ever happen

@trogdor yes, Pope Francis has a lot of my respect. I remember during the previous pope's reign, I was discussing the pope's riches with my Dad: the fact he had embroided golden clothes, a golden staff, an amazing throne, etc. I did not think they should be indulging in keeping such things, and should sell them to help people. My Dad quite reasonably suggested that most of this stuff was gifts, and that over history, they have received many gifts, and these are just the few they've kept.

I thought that was pretty reasonable and accepted that. Then Pope Francis came along and ditched all the golden stuff, haha.

lol

the problem is, some of the gifts the Catholic Church recieved were during times when they had way more power than I believe was healthy

@trogdor it was evidently unhealthy, if we go by some of what they did with it

@doppelgreener Pope Francis and John Paul 2 in particular have done away with quite a few superstitions that hurt christians and the people around them and I respect them a great deal for that reason.

@Adeptus I never even knew there were two versions. That's a pretty cool Minister.

some "gifts" may well have been simply coerced from people

@doppelgreener Yeah. One of the first times we met him, he quoted The Devil Went Down To Georgia to us :)

@Adeptus I just read the lyrics to that song for the first time, they're marvellous :D

@trogdor yes, i suppose so, or liberated during e.g. the crusades and presented to the Papalcy, or etc

yeah

not to say they for sure didn't get any gifts given completely freely given by beilievers (that had not been stolen)

but it's also to say I would have an insanely hard time believing all the Catholic Churches gifts have all been the above either

@Adeptus I think if you were on the side of ID, you'd say the exact same thing about mainstream science. My point is that someone with no background in science is not equipped to pick between the two positions. And on a deeper level, I'm not sure anyone is.

I don't personally believe that there is a scientific way to prove or disprove any strictly intangible religious beliefs

which a lot of religious beliefs are, though not necessarily all.

@trogdor Seems to me like most religious belief are very tangible... It's true though that the ones outside our reality cannot be proven or disproven.

many religions deal extremely highly with spirits

@trogdor There sort of is, though not completely. When we did not understand how gravity worked, gods explained gravity. When we did not understand how life developed, gods explained the biosphere. When we did not understand tectonic movements or the history of our planet, gods explained the shape of the land. And so on.

The more science discovers and soundly explains the physical world around us, the less gods need to be invoked to explain it.

So it will steadily recede into the realm of personal spiritual guidance, which is probably a realm not needing proof, just consideration as to what is healthy and worthwhile and workable to believe, and what is not.

this is true

I think that's incomplete; because religion is the foundation of "personal spiritual guidance," as you put it, and that's basically "ethics and morality," spirituality will always have a role in civilisation as a whole, as well as for its individual members.

In order to have just laws and moral societal values, ethics and morality have to stay in the picture.

I never really understood what that is supposed to mean. You seem to be saying there can be no morals without religion...

In a sense, yes, although phrased that way it implies things I don't mean to imply.

I don't want to put words in your mouth of course...

It's tied to my beliefs about the difference between religion and spirituality, the purpose and nature of religion, and the nature of human existence.

@BESW Yeah, that's true. That's the realm where proving or disproving religion is not really possible or an important factor.

But it is possible to effectively push religion out of its staked territory in explaining the physical world.

@doppelgreener And it's where science really can't come in, because science doesn't make value judgements.

@BESW Absolutely.

@doppelgreener Right; the Bahá'í Faith makes little attempt to explain things, though when asked point-blank Bahá'ú'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá would give short statements about things like life on other planets, or evolution, before saying "and science will discover more!"

@BESW Isn't ethics science? Kantian ethics for example is a typical scientific approach to a value system.

There's actually people that work as ethicists with philosophy degrees.

@mbriand No, it's philosophy, specifically an attempt to apply scientific rigour to value judgements.

At the end of the day it's an experiment to see whether the tools of science can be used to objectify subjective topics.

Well philosophy is science kinda sorta. It's the origin of science

Again, both science and religion are seeking the same goals--understanding the world and action based on that understanding. Their history is intertwined, and it should be.

Philosophy is important, I don't mean to dismiss it out of hand, but it is not science in the rigorous "gaining understanding of the universe from evidence" sense. It starts and ends in different places, despite using similar processes in the middle.

But the whole thing gets really muddled up because most people (including myself) have very deep assumptions about the nature of things and what is and isn't objective or subjective, and we don't usually make those explicit to each other in casual conversation.

Yes this usually ends up being the origin of the misunderstandings I think.

For example, I believe that all major religions are derived from a singular Divine Source, and their purpose is to provide guidance and insight to humanity so that it can advance both materially and spiritually, individually and as a civilisation. Being human, we manage to add our own fallible ideas onto a religion until its purpose is obscured, but by then we've advanced to the point where the next Divine Teacher can not only renew the Message but also build on it.

Among other things, this means I believe there is only one Truth, but it's so massively enormous that there are an infinite number of equally-accurate ways to approach it; imagine a sphere with Truth at its centre and our interpretations of it on the surface. The goal shouldn't be the move around the surface, but to move inward so we all get closer to the one Truth--and thus to each others' notions of it.

Which--to bring this back to the original topic-- makes the entire "choose a side" thing with creationism vs evolution just seem silly and tangential.

You were talking about America's unique attitude toward religion earlier; I think in part it's indicative of a wider problem with the kind of thought associated with American attitudes: everything must be reduced to either/or, yes/no, for/against, whether this introduces false dichotomies or not.

We see it in our game shows and our political parties, our religion and our choice of beverage.

← 110 messages moved from RPG General Chat

← 1 message moved from RPG General Chat

@BESW Hrngh. And in attitudes like "you're either with us or against us"; "you're either part of the solution or part of the problem"; "if it ain't broke don't fix it"

all three of which are terrible ideas

because they exclude an enormous spectrum of possibilities.

Aye.

The kids I work with on service training were totally blown away by the idea that they don't have to choose between furthering their education and being of service to their communities; it was touching.

@Adeptus I think you've missed my point. But I also don't think you want to catch it. Ask yourself how someone who is born into Evangelical Christianity, goes through Christian school through college, respects creationist leaders, listens to Christian radio, reads Christian newspapers and is told by the people they respect that it is acceptable, even logical, to begin with the assumption of God. Ask yourself how that person could tell the difference between the two positions.

@DampeS8N If someone is brainwashed conditioned into believing something, then it is hard to convince them otherwise. Yet, some people who grow up in those conditions do end up rejecting them. As to "how to tell the difference"... which can be verified through independent research? (given, it's hard to independently research evolution in particular, but easier for other fields of science)

@Adeptus You're hinting at my conclusion. The more complex and multidisciplinary a field is, the more likely it is for alternative and misguided versions to pop up. ID, and the insular alternate society that supports it, is one of these. Your answer is the same answer I come to, only independent research escapes the trap, and so people who can't do that research or for fields where that research must bridge over many different people, you must trust an authority of some kind.

As soon as you are allowing that trust, you are allowing a chance to mistrust. All people suck at science, that's why we have the machinery of peer review and experimental replication. But if the peer group is tainted and the experiments flawed, the conclusions will be flawed and not a single person involved may know.

If you put stock in the wrong set of machinery (a religious school over a secular one) you'll reach opposite conclusions and/or submit your papers to opposite aligned peer review machinery.

(And let's not forget that the farther you get from evolutionary sciences the more crossover there is between these two opposite sets of machinery.)