I compare them because there is a great political and philosophical drive to contrast them, here in the UK, but particularly in the US.

um that's because there is a difference between them. Did darwin study evolution with his bible.

My view is that whoever makes a physical claim, whether a scientist or a spiritualist should provide the data for others to independently examine. I

simple

sinequanon:


By 'truth', we often mean 'consistency' and, in searching for truth, we are searching for meaning consistent with what we already believe. There are many bodies of subjectively consistent ideas, of which science is just one. None, of course, is completely consistent; the search for 'knowledge' -- making new ideas fit -- continues. Consistency, itself, leads to self-reference because it is the specific dogmatic logic behind any system of ideas which determines its consistency.

I posit that, although science may claim to defer to some absolute truth, all it is doing is deferring to self-consistency -- in which dogma is inbuilt. Inconsistency leads to re-examination and rebalancing of ideas in a manner biased so as to preserve the core principles at practically any cost. The core principles are dogma in all but name.

"By truth, we often mean 'consistency'".    I am more cautious.  I would rather say that an essential characteristic of Truth is consistency.  Not Truth means consistency/Or Truth is consistency.  In the system of knowledge called modern science we explore facts in order to ensure the truth of our ideas.  The act of seeking to ensure truth suggests that the idea is not considered as surely absolute truth.

I mentioned on other threads that there is a distinction between Truth and Facts.  A fact is true under certain conditions.  Fact comes from latin factorum which means a 'done thing', past participle of To Do.  Facts occur in Time.  They have a point when they come into existence and a point when they pass out of existence.  Since facts are not ubiquitous and always in existence they cannot be absolute Truth but rather may be derived from the Truth.

Ultimately to be fully consistent, the Truth must be all the time and everywhere.  Not true in certain circumstances and untrue in other circumstance.  Truth is basically the very essence of being, or existence.  I'm getting lost for words and can't really articulate what I'm trying to say.  The emerald tablet says it a lot better.  

Newton's translation

One translation, by Isaac Newton, found among his alchemical papers as reported by B. J. Dobbs[4] in modern spelling:

1. Tis true without lying, certain most true.
2. That which is below is like that which is above that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of[b] one only thing.
3. And as all things have been arose from one by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation.[/b]
4. The Sun is its father, the moon its mother,
5. the wind hath carried it in its belly, the earth its nurse.
6. The father of all perfection in the whole world is here.
7. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into earth.
7a. Separate thou the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross sweetly with great industry.
8. It ascends from the earth to the heaven again it descends to the earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior.
9. By this means ye shall have the glory of the whole world thereby all obscurity shall fly from you.
10. Its force is above all force. for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing.
11a. So was the world created.
12. From this are and do come admirable adaptations whereof the means (Or process) is here in this.
13. Hence I am called Hermes Trismegist, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world.
14. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.

sinequanon:

1. Supernatural

This concept only exists relative to science. The word describes ideas which have not been accepted by science.

How so?

Pastor AIO:

This evidence of evidence chat kind of evokes that for me.  Also that nonsense about science starting from zero knowledge:
All thought is based on certain basic premises that in philosophy are called Axioms.  There is no such thing as starting from zero knowledge in any human science or thought.  What is an Axiom?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

It is impossible to build any body of knowledge without starting with some basic Axioms (and that's axiomatic  ).  

I've made this point repeatedly.  I touched on it when I talked about Authority and how our mental processes are based on a presumed authority.  I said that while it is not a proof of God, it certainly shows that it is impossible from mentation to occur without the presumption of an author(God?).  Those who claim otherwise are deceiving themselves, or just too daft to get it.  

That something is "self evident", IMO, does not make it an authority or an author, of a thought, or morals and so on and so forth, and there is nothing daft about that.

@ Topic.  I think "Truth" is tentative in science and evolves as more is experienced and observed. In the world's major religions, at least for fundamentalists, "Truth" is absolute and can be accessed mainly through Holy books, and in some cases the "spirit". . . .

Riff-Raff:

Religion is a Scam.
Science is an Eye Opeaner.

evolution is a scam.

Pastor AIO

Interesting points about 'evidence', 'facts' and 'truth'.

In regards fact being true under specific conditions, cannot one claim that the conditions are part and parcel of the statement of fact. One could assert that omission of an intrinsic condition renders the putative fact non-factual!

Beyond consistency with some philosophical or axiomatic basis, what means is there to assert truth? Scientific truth is the property that asserts consistency with a statistical model, is it not?

----------

I often hear the assertion that science is "evidence-based" and that this sets it apart. Like you, I have gone on to query the nature of evidence. There appears to be raw evidence relating directly to observation, and which falls directly under the rubric of statistical validity, and indirect evidence that relates to some hypothesis or theory with which it is merely "not inconsistent". At which point "not inconsistent with" becomes "positive evidence for" relies on some intuitive notion of coincidence -- an expection that a random test with some notional level of complexity is likely to betray some inconsistency with its subject of investigation.

sinequanon:

Thank you mazaje.

I would examine some of the terms you have used.

1. Supernatural

This concept only exists relative to science. The word describes ideas which have not been accepted by science.

Similarly, there are scientific ideas which have not been accepted by various religions, and religious ideas that have not been accepted by other religions. Science is no different in this respect. It is not wholly consistent with other bodies of belief.

2. Substantiate/measure

These words seems to be key to your assertion that science assesses the environment differently from religion. I see these words as self-referential. Implicitly, I think you are merely labelling qualitative assessment that happens to have used the scientific method. Like science, religions use their own means of assessment. It does not set any one of them apart in a fundamental way. Scientifically, an entity is deemed to have been measured (quantified) if it registers on some scientific scale. Equally, a religious entity is realised when it is religiously witnessed.

3. Invisible

Scientific entities can also be invisible. All sub-nuclear particles are 'invisible'. They are identified by their effect. Similarly, religious entities -- from ghosts to gods are known by their effect.

etc., etc., ,

There are more, but I think the differences you have described are superficial, semantic differences, not fundamental ones.

The fundamental difference between science and religion is that science tells people to accept a rational evidence based world view that does not exclude extrapolation and theories we cannot yet prove but religion tells people to accept a view that what they are told can be true for them and they believe it in the face of no evidence at all to support it. . . . .Science does its job. It creates a framework for understanding what goes on around us. It explains things in a common language so that anyone with some knowledge of how the process functions can digest what is being said and draw a reasonably common set of conclusions. Thats probably a gross over-simplification but that is not to under-estimate what science gives us. Science and religion on the scale of their "spirit", are completely incompatible. We may not know everything. We may not be able to know everything. But we can try, in good spirit, to know things; and "know" is still up for debate. Good (real) science is our best shot with all the avaliable information. Something could still be wrong, but that's the beaty of good (real) science. If something is wrongg, it is corrected when newer evidence is put forth. Honesty and integrityare a huge part of it. Good science censors nothing for any reason. Everything is fair game.

Religion on the other hand hmmmmmm. . . . .Well doesn't employ anything I've just mentioned. Religion may start off innocent like science with curious thought, but once you add in the you know, religion part it's all downhill from there. You can assert ANYTHING with religion for no reason. You can make up all kinds of fluffy b.u.l.l.Poo to justify this and that. In the end, you still only have the faith card. Which is a cop-out anyway because faith is not a way of "knowing" anything. It's just saying that you don't care to think about your position anymore and that's that. Which is inherently a very dangerous approach to various things in life and I am still shocked it is so popularly promoted.

Krayola

Can you define "supernatural" without reference to science or scientific terminology?

I assert that the natural/supernatural dichotomy is only an artefact of scientific limitation in scientific understanding.

mazaje:
religion tells people to accept a view that what they are told can be true for them and they believe it in the face of no evidence at all to support it. . . . .

Please can you cite some references for this so that I can look at it a little bit closer.  

We may not know everything. We may not be able to know everything. But we can try, in good spirit, to know things; and "know" is still up for debate.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a religion that claims to know everything.  Can you help me?

Religion and science are not the same thing but they have the same source and employ very similar but casually distinct methods.

Religion and Science are two highly skilled martial artists on a mission. They were trained under the same master using the same techniques but their martial assimilation is different, and it reflects in their aspects of attack and defense. Each one only answers to the master and has been trained to eliminate or dismiss distractions at short notice, even if the other guy is the distraction. They were sent together on the mission to complement one another, and not to have petty fights.

The difference is that one of them believes that the master already told him that he would win and be the one fulfilling the quest, while the other goes on the quest whether he wins or not.

mazaje:

The fundamental difference between science and religion is that science tells people to accept a rational evidence based world view that does not exclude extrapolation and theories we cannot yet prove but religion tells people to accept a view that what they are told can be true for them and they believe it in the face of no evidence at all to support it. . . . .Science does its job.

Your terminology is still not neutral, imo. Define "rational" and "proof" without reference to scientific method. And to whom do you refer with the word, "we"?

imo, you don't seem to be arguing that science stands apart from religion, but that it is has inconsistencies with other bodies of belief. This does not set science apart. Religions have inconsistencies with each other. If you put religion X to test against the teachings of religion Y -- which is similar to what you are doing against science -- you will find inconsistencies.

Pastor AIO:

Please can you cite some references for this so that I can look at it a little bit closer.

Do I need to cite any reference to this? Christianity tells people that there is a God called Jesus who is 3 in one who is presently sitting at the rght hand of himself and preparing a wonderful place for those that accept the christian story to go and reside in when they die. . . . Do people accept this story based on any evidence at all or only because they have been indoctinated to believe in it? Islam tells people that there is this unknown and undescribable entity called allah that will give them uncountable virgins to have nimdless intimacy with when they die amidst rivers of wine that flow endlessly if they bow down and follow its teachings. . . .Do muslims believe in this because they have any evidence for it or because they have been indoctrinated?

I'm having a hard time thinking of a religion that claims to know everything. Can you help me?

Most religions at least the ones I am familiar with and practiced claim to know how the earth and the universe came about, how it will end, what wil happen to humans when they die and they position themselves as the "ultimate truth" unless if you want to deny the obvious. . . . .

sinequanon:

Your terminology is still not neutral, imo. Define "rational" and "proof" without reference to scientific method. And to whom do you refer with the word, "we"?

imo, you don't seem to be arguing that science stands apart from religion, but that it is has inconsistencies with other bodies of belief. This does not set science apart. Religions have inconsistencies with each other. If you put religion X to test against the teachings of religion Y -- which is similar to what you are doing against science -- you will find inconsistencies.

Science is questions to things that need answers. Religion is answers to things that need to be questioned.

Traugott:

Religion and science are not the same thing but they have the same source and employ very similar but casually distinct methods.

Religion and Science are two highly skilled martial artists on a mission. They were trained under the same master using the same techniques but their martial assimilation is different, and it reflects in their aspects of attack and defense. Each one only answers to the master and has been trained to eliminate or dismiss distractions at short notice, even if the other guy is the distraction. They were sent together on the mission to complement one another, and not to have petty fights.

The difference is that one of them believes that the master already told him that he would win and be the one fulfilling the quest, while the other goes on the quest whether he wins or not.

Nice. But which is which? Which one do you think is really prepared to 'lose'?

Pastor AIO, truly we cant know everything. Whether via science or via religion.

Once again, they are like two entrances to a labyrinth. You may have to crawl in through one and use your sense of smell while you walk through the other and follow the path of least resistance by which the water flows.

Both science and religion lead one to God ultimately if one is honest and consistent, but science often by accident while evaluating the previous or next steps of an"evidence" but religion sets out to do that from scratch, trying to skip the steps and rather evaluating the source and destination of an evidence.

@SINEQUANON: Science almost never attempts to answer the final extents of its purposes, its always about the next step. So I think science does not care about the ultimate win.

mazaje:

Science is questions to things that need answers. Religion is answers to things that need to be questioned.

OK. It's back to soundbites.

mazaje:



Do I need to cite any reference to this? Christianity tells people that there is a God called Jesus who is 3 in one who is presently sitting at the rght hand of himself and preparing a wonderful place for those that accept the christian story to go and reside in when they die. . . . Do people accept this story based on any evidence at all or only because they have been indoctinated to believe in it?

How does a layman know if he has been indoctrinated?

Do you believe in bosons? Have you ever witnessed any bosons or have you simply accepted what you have been told?

Do you believe in Fermat's last theorem? Can you "prove" it, or do you simply accept it on faith?

Traugott:

@SINEQUANON: Science almost never attempts to answer the final extents of its purposes, its always about the next step. So I think science does not care about the ultimate win.

Are you suggesting that a religion attempts to "answer the final extents of its purposes"? If so, could you give some examples?

Sinequanon, religions discuss the afterlife or lack thereof, and man's role in it with respect to the present life.

m_nwankwo:

Thus a claim of healing brain tumor by prayer should provide the evidence of absence of tumor both at the morphological and biochemical level. My view is that whoever makes a physical claim, whether a scientist or a spiritualist should provide the data for others to independently examine. I am of the view that if all claims are investigated, both science and spirituality will be better for it as charlatans in both fields will be found and shamed. Best Wishes.

How do you measure prayer and faith? Would you agree that they are more than utterance of words?

Traugott, that was not a direct answer to my question. Nonetheless,

I think you may find that science, after much taboo and ridicule, is also beginning to discuss the issue of consciousness existing outside the body.

bawomolo:

um that's because there is a difference between them. Did darwin study evolution with his bible.

The thread is about fundamental difference.

Darwin did not study evolution with a bible.

The Pope does not study ordination of women bishops with quantum theory.

Each has a frame of reference.

So what is your point?

sinequanon:

Krayola

Can you define "supernatural" without reference to science or scientific terminology?

I assert that the natural/supernatural dichotomy is only an artefact of scientific limitation in scientific understanding.

I know u do. . that was what my question was about.

I was hoping for an explanation, not a repeat 

su⋅per⋅nat⋅u⋅ral  [soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl]
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
–noun
5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
8. the supernatural,
a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.

please don't ask me to define nature and natural too cause I'll just copy and post them from some online dictionary again  . . .

Krayola:

I know u do. . that was what my question was about.

I was hoping for an explanation, not a repeat 

It is for you to explain the difference, no?

If I were to say that two coins are the same and you were to say they are different, does it not make more sense for you to demonstrate the difference rather than for me to attempt to guess and eliminate all the differences you may be assuming?

Krayola:
please don't ask me to define nature and natural too cause I'll just copy and post them from some online dictionary again  . . .

Please define natural. 

sinequanon:

It is for you to explain the difference, no?

If I were to say that two coins were the same and you were to say they were different, does it not make more sense for you to demonstrate the difference rather than for me to attempt to guess and eliminate all the differences you may be assuming?

Well, as far as the concept of the "supernatural" is concerned, I have not said much, if anything, bar the definition i quoted.  So, IMO, I have pretty much no explaining to do as far as that is concerned. You made a statement and I asked for an explanation. If you choose not to give one that is fine.

1. Supernatural

This concept only exists relative to science. The word describes ideas which have not been accepted by science.

I repeat, how so? You may just ignore the question this time.   

sinequanon:

How do you measure prayer and faith? Would you agree that they are more than utterance of words?

In reality, prayer and faith are not words but words can be used to give expression to faith and prayer. As I have posted on other threads, only the spirit can pray and have faith. In otherwords the faculties to pray and have faith reside in the spirit. You cannot physically measure faith or prayer but you can measure what is claimed to be the physical effects of prayer or faith. If a faith healer claims to cure prostate cancer for instance, you cannot physically measure the prayer but you can determine whether or not the patient still has prostrate cancer following faith healing intervention. Best wishes.

Krayola:

Well, as far as the concept of the "supernatural" is concerned, I have not said much,

Exactly. You have used the word to differentiate between science and religion, but you have not defined the word in an unbiased way. If you manage to complete your definition, I can then point to where I think the bias is.

m_nwankwo:

If a faith healer claims to cure prostate cancer for instance, you cannot physically measure the prayer but you can determine whether or not the patient still has prostrate cancer following faith healing intervention. Best wishes.

But you cannot determine if the patient or healer really prayed, rendering the exercise somewhat useless for its stated purpose. 

sinequanon:

Exactly. You have used the word to differentiate between science and religion, but you have not defined the word in an unbiased way. If you manage to complete your definition, I can then point to where I think the bias is. 

haha. I did not use the word to differentiate anything, my dear friend. In fact, I only used that word ONCE, and that was in the definition that i copied from a dictionary, only because u requested one. YOU used the word, and made an assertion that YOU have been asked, by someone who does not understand what YOU mean, to explain. I think it's clear you have no intention of explaining. . . maybe u just can't explain it. . . maybe u just have faith in it.    

Exhibit A: Religions just assert stuff, and try to bamboozle their way out of an explanation.  

sinequanon:

OK. It's back to soundbites.

No it isnt. . . . .

How does a layman know if he has been indoctrinated?

A lay man does not need to know all he has to is to believe wht ever he has been conditioned to believe in without evidence to back it up. . . . .

Do you believe in bosons? Have you ever witnessed any bosons or have you simply accepted what you have been told?

Do you believe in Fermat's last theorem? Can you "prove" it, or do you simply accept it on faith?

You are bound to FAIL when you talk about science from this perpective. . . . .The philosophy of science is that you can postulate explanations which may be tested by observation and or experimentation or you can postulate explanations which may only be deduced to be correct but which have a high order of probability of being correct. If you demand hard evidence for everything, you can throw out most of what we think we know about astrophysics for example, . . . . Bring me a quark so I can look at it myself. Show me the skin colour of a diplodocus. Prove to me what exists beyond the event horizon. Evidence may eventually be forthcoming but until it is, a certain amount of interpolation - and even extrapolation has to do in its stead. . . . . .

I am not suggesting guesswork or the "it's only a theory" skeptical definition as used by the Witnesses etc; I am reminding you that deduction and probability are acceptable as reasonable evidence yet cannot be taken to be absolute certainties, Moreorover, science deals with models of reality and these are not always totally congruent. If they were, we would have a "theory of everything." Historically we saw scientists wrestling with wave/particle duality - two incompatible models within a historic thinking framework, but no longer as the two are easily reconcilable within contemporary thinking.

Religion attempts to handle some of this, but has no tools to objectively realize its philosophisings.Before experimentation, everyone accepted an Aristotolian explanation of the world around them - or they accepted a religious model. What is the difference? Both are unsubstantiated pronouncements and Aristotle was often completely, embarrassingly wrong - yet "science" was based on his thinking for nearly two thousand years.

Cross discipline dialogue is not only possible, it is essential. The Church of England and the Roman Catholic church for example has gradually but wholeheartedly embraced developing science, and its core has therefore largely evolved from a theist to a deist interpretation of divinity. I know some catholics ministers here in Finland who hold onto a theistic view of "creation, many of the bishopry is plainly agnostic, or even agno-atheist. I know of catholic here under say 70 who would give ANY credence to a literal reading of the bible. To take it as anything but allegory is as ludicrous to the average catholic member here in Finland is it would be to a card-carrying atheist.
The personal deity is gradually fading away, leaving deist background radiation. It is only a matter of time before the Church becomes a humanist congregation here.

Krayola:

haha. I did not use the word to differentiate anything, my dear friend. In fact, I only used that word ONCE, and that was in the definition that i copied from a dictionary, only because u requested one. YOU used the word, and made an assertion that YOU have been asked, by someone who does not understand what YOU mean, to explain. I think it's clear you have no intention of explaining. . . maybe u just can't explain it. . . maybe u just have faith in it.

Exhibit A: Religions just assert stuff, and try to bamboozle their way out of an explanation.

Ah, I see what has happened. mazaje used the word. You answered a question I put to him about it. I mistook you for him and you got caught in the CROSSFIRE!!! My apologies.

I do think the onus is on mazaje to explain the word he used.

Krayola:


Exhibit A: Religions just assert stuff, and try to bamboozle their way out of an explanation.

The philosophy of religon, IMO is "to understand I must believe in some deity and I must please it no matter what. This requires no questioning of said deity since doubt is not faith." Science is Observe and understand. Opinions mean nothing. . Religion and science are not equal forces of anything. Why do you think it took us up until just a few hundred years ago to really get started on one, while the other has existed and wreaked it's influence since practically the first modern brains?

Religion is the practice of just saying anything and then saying you believe in it. . . . .Or just saying something written in an old book that lots of other people profess. Is there any truth? All the popular religious texts have had a hell of a long time to provide it. Religion has not given people anything really IMO beside the warm cozy feeling that it offers. People created all the supposed fruits of the religion as well as the religion it's self.

Science on the other hand, has helped us understand what's out there and interpret and even modify it to help everyone (medical, mathematical and engineering knowledge for example).

There's not a whole lot of wisdom to be derived from beating 2000/3000 year old myths that were originally created out of ancient cultures and traditions IMO.

sinequanon:

Ah, I see what has happened. mazaje used the word. You answered a question I put to him about it. I mistook you for him and you got caught in the CROSSFIRE!!!   My apologies.

haha. It's ok

I still wanna know how the concept of the "supernatural" only exists relative to science tho. It just doesn't add up to me and I'm hoping you can enlighten me  . . ,

mazaje:

The philosophy of religon, IMO is "to understand I must believe in some deity and I must please it no matter what. This requires no questioning of said deity since doubt is not faith." Science is Observe and understand. Opinions mean nothing. . Religion and science are not equal forces of anything. Why do you think it took us up until just a few hundred years ago to really get started on one, while the other has existed and wreaked it's influence since practically the first modern brains?

Religion is the practice of just saying anything and then saying you believe in it. . . . .Or just saying something written in an old book that lots of other people profess. Is there any truth? All the popular religious texts have had a hell of a long time to provide it. Religion has not given people anything really IMO beside the warm cozy feeling that it offers. People created all the supposed fruits of the religion as well as the religion it's self.

Science on the other hand, has helped us understand what's out there and interpret and even modify it to help everyone (medical, mathematical and engineering knowledge for example).

There's not a whole lot of wisdom to be derived from beating 2000/3000 year old myths that were originally created out of ancient cultures and traditions IMO.

I personally think trying to equate both, or claim that they are both fundamentally very similar, is intellectual dishonesty on steroids. But, as usual, that is just my opinion.