Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

OK, I see you get my point. Like I said, objective evidence is more than evidence that is observed by human beings.

Yes necessarily. Even with your example we are still physically stimulating the brain. You could still trace the source of those signals as interacting with the physical. As long as it interacts with the physical world, I see no reason to see why we shouldn't be able to build an instrument to detect it.

Heh. How are you going to trace the source of the signals if they're interfering with your brain to prevent you from tracing the source of the signals or even detecting that they exist?

I'm just pointing out that it's not theoretically impossible to evade detection. If you are a being that has supernatural powers, this task becomes even easier.

Isn't that what ghost hunting is supposed to be about? Trying to use electronic recording devices to record ghosts since they allegedly interact with electricity and white noise?

I wouldn't know. I can tell you, however, that the UFO phenomena provides a great example of what might happen if supernatural entities interacted with human beings in the modern age. Answer: basically nobody can agree what's going on. Is objective evidence recovered? Yes, definitely. But what does it mean?

Not that is matters, of course, since the witnesses are often treated like they're crazy, and some of them may be. But that doesn't rule out that they're being visited...in fact, maybe that is WHY they are being visited. And the oddest thing about the whole UFO deal is the degree to which belief in aliens has become a belief...an essentially religious belief...among some of its adherents.

I'm *not* making a judgment stance on the whole UFO deal here, simply pointing out that hey, here's a situation where there's allegedly interactions with (practically) supernatural beings, hard evidence is collected, and people dedicate their lives to the beings based on their experience. The nonbelievers can't make heads or tails of the evidence, but the believers know exactly what it means of course. It's the quintessential religious experience. (If you view it through this lens, BTW, it suddenly becomes very, very interesting to behold.)

Now, if we can't get to the root of the UFO thing using scientific methods, what makes you think we could pin down supernatural entities? We still can't agree on what happened to Travis Walton, for crying aloud.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Oh dear heavens. Which thousand years are you talking about? The "dark ages?" The idea that the dark ages were dark is largely a myth, and while it's convenient to focus on Europe during that time, science and progress were getting it on just fine in the parts of the world that were occupied by...Islam. That's part of the cause of the Renaissance, IIRC, due to the trade with the Islamic world, bringing in innovation and free-thinking. But the Islamic world was very religious at the time. That idea relies on cherry-picking of facts to suit your purposes.

Time between ~300 to ~1300 for Christianity was period of no any major discoveries and can be largery contributed to religion oppression of science and knowledge. Second half of that period is when Islam was scientifically ahead of everyone else, and due to incoming new ideas church actually went to create what we know today as Inquisition to fight 'heresy' and teachings/anything that was not in bible. This is some basic common knowledge that you should pick up in history class if you had one. We had whole discussion about lost knowledge due to religion.

Seems that only person cherry picking here is you, trying to change what history teaches us because it appears that you don't like it... Sorry, but that is our history...



Let's try with drawing... might better show you how science and religion went hand in hand... Do you know what this picture shows?

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Heh. How are you going to trace the source of the signals if they're interfering with your brain to prevent you from tracing the source of the signals or even detecting that they exist?

Because it is still interacting with your brain physically.

I'm just pointing out that it's not theoretically impossible to evade detection. If you are a being that has supernatural powers, this task becomes even easier.

Look. It doesn't matter how you stimulate your senses, either through your actually sensory organs or by cutting into the path and directly stimulating the brain, you are STILL interacting physically with a physical object in some manner. Hence it reasons that we should be able to detect this interaction.

The brain works through electricity, so if something is interfering with our senses to stimulate our brain, then it is putting out an electrical signal. We should be able to detect that electrical signal. Ever heard of a CAT scan?

I wouldn't know. I can tell you, however, that the UFO phenomena provides a great example of what might happen if supernatural entities interacted with human beings in the modern age. Answer: basically nobody can agree what's going on. Is objective evidence recovered? Yes, definitely. But what does it mean?

The UFO phenomena is a good example of humans letting their imaginations get the better of them. They may be seeing unidentified flying objects, but humans are being intellectually dishonest by trying to say they are alien in nature. Unidentified means we don't know what it is, so pretending that you do know is wrong.

Not that is matters, of course, since the witnesses are often treated like they're crazy, and some of them may be. But that doesn't rule out that they're being visited...in fact, maybe that is WHY they are being visited. And the oddest thing about the whole UFO deal is the degree to which belief in aliens has become a belief...an essentially religious belief...among some of its adherents.

That's because Ufology is mired in subjective evidence, hoaxes, and confirmation bias. Maybe if the field would try to handle itself a bit more scientifically then people would take it more seriously, but in any case Ufology has no one to blame but itself for the treatment it receives from the scientific community.

I'm *not* making a judgment stance on the whole UFO deal here, simply pointing out that hey, here's a situation where there's allegedly interactions with (practically) supernatural beings, hard evidence is collected, and people dedicate their lives to the beings based on their experience. The nonbelievers can't make heads or tails of the evidence, but the believers know exactly what it means of course. It's the quintessential religious experience. (If you view it through this lens, BTW, it suddenly becomes very, very interesting to behold.)

There is no hard evidence collected. Hard evidence would be an actual spaceship or even better an alien. There is subjective evidence collected that is tried to be passed along as objective evidence, but that's it.

You do bring up an interesting parallel in that Ufology is more akin to a religion than an actual field of science, and I agree. It is.

Now, if we can't get to the root of the UFO thing using scientific methods, what makes you think we could pin down supernatural entities? We still can't agree on what happened to Travis Walton, for crying aloud.

What scientific methods for the UFO thing? When was the last time someone wrote an article for a peer reviewed journal on Ufology? Look, Ufology is a pseudo-science. It is called that because it uses SOME methods from the scientific method but also deviates from it at points that it finds inconvenient like peer review and falsifiability.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Because it is still interacting with your brain physically.

How are you going to measure it accurately if it can manipulate your perception? Your scanners could be going off the charts and you wouldn't see a thing.

Look. It doesn't matter how you stimulate your senses, either through your actually sensory organs or by cutting into the path and directly stimulating the brain, you are STILL interacting physically with a physical object in some manner. Hence it reasons that we should be able to detect this interaction.

Unless we're being constantly deceived *or* it only happens when the scanners aren't handy.

The brain works through electricity, so if something is interfering with our senses to stimulate our brain, then it is putting out an electrical signal. We should be able to detect that electrical signal. Ever heard of a CAT scan?

Right, but...how would be know if we had detected it if our senses are interfered with?

The UFO phenomena is a good example of humans letting their imaginations get the better of them. They may be seeing unidentified flying objects, but humans are being intellectually dishonest by trying to say they are alien in nature. Unidentified means we don't know what it is, so pretending that you do know is wrong.

All true.

That's because Ufology is mired in subjective evidence, hoaxes, and confirmation bias. Maybe if the field would try to handle itself a bit more scientifically then people would take it more seriously, but in any case Ufology has no one to blame but itself for the treatment it receives from the scientific community.

Mostly true. The scientific community's approach has been to let non-scientists do all the work and then make fun of them when they screw up.

There is no hard evidence collected. Hard evidence would be an actual spaceship or even better an alien. There is subjective evidence collected that is tried to be passed along as objective evidence, but that's it.

There's been hard evidence...radiation measurements, metal scrapings, etc. The problem is, what do they mean? Is it a hoax? An alien spaceship? A military aircraft?

You do bring up an interesting parallel in that Ufology is more akin to a religion than an actual field of science, and I agree. It is.

What scientific methods for the UFO thing? When was the last time someone wrote an article for a peer reviewed journal on Ufology? Look, Ufology is a pseudo-science. It is called that because it uses SOME methods from the scientific method but also deviates from it at points that it finds inconvenient like peer review and falsifiability.

Peer review isn't part of the scientific method per se–that is, you could still conduct scientific experiments if you were stranded alone in the Arctic. Anyway, I'm not sure how you could do falsifiability with a phenomenon like that, although I haven't thought about it.

Anyway, back to my point: what if *that* was how the supernatural world interacted with us? How would we pin it down and measure it?

originally posted by: SuperFrog
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Time between ~300 to ~1300 for Christianity was period of no any major discoveries and can be largery contributed to religion oppression of science and knowledge. Second half of that period is when Islam was scientifically ahead of everyone else, and due to incoming new ideas church actually went to create what we know today as Inquisition to fight 'heresy' and teachings/anything that was not in bible. This is some basic common knowledge that you should pick up in history class if you had one. We had whole discussion about

This "basic common knowledge" is largely false.

Let's try with drawing... might better show you how science and religion went hand in hand...

Do you know what this picture shows?

Yup, it's nicely captioned. I'm familiar with all that.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
How are you going to measure it accurately if it can manipulate your perception? Your scanners could be going off the charts and you wouldn't see a thing.

It's a process. First, you have to build a machine that can even DETECT it, let alone measure it. Clearly this wouldn't be existing technology.

Unless we're being constantly deceived *or* it only happens when the scanners aren't handy.

Well that isn't a problem with the technology then.

Right, but...how would be know if we had detected it if our senses are interfered with?

This is the same reason that we cannot accept EVP's as valid recordings of ghosts because digital recorders weren't designed with that intended purpose. So first you need to be able to build a piece of technology with the intent to detect these things then you can modify the detection criteria later.

There's been hard evidence...radiation measurements, metal scrapings, etc. The problem is, what do they mean? Is it a hoax? An alien spaceship? A military aircraft?

Well see those are legitimate questions. It's when people jump to conclusions because they don't have the answers to the questions where things start to become a problem.

Peer review isn't part of the scientific method per se–that is, you could still conduct scientific experiments if you were stranded alone in the Arctic. Anyway, I'm not sure how you could do falsifiability with a phenomenon like that, although I haven't thought about it.

Ok I will give you that, but your experiment should still be able to be reviewed and duplicated even if you are the only one who can do the reviewing and duplicating.

Anyway, back to my point: what if *that* was how the supernatural world interacted with us? How would we pin it down and measure it?

One step at a time. Just like all other science.

a reply to: Krazysh0t, StalkerSolent

It may be possible for us to have our cake and eat it. Yes, of course the whole damn' thing could be a simulation, but it doesn't matter in the least. If it's so perfect it's undetectable, then it's also so perfect it might as well be reality itself, which justifies our treatment of it as such.

What really happens, I suspect, is something like this: our senses and our brains create for us a picture of physical 'reality' that is

1. a consistent and faithfully interactive mapping of selected elements of, or abstractions from, genuine physical reality and phenomena occuring therein; and
   
   
2. only one of an infinite possible variety of such mappings. A bat, say, which relies on sound to 'see' its surroundings, has a different map from ours, but it maps aspects of the same reality, which is why people and bats can cohabit without (most of the time) bumping into each other. Imagine how the world looks to a platypus hunting prey with its myoelectric sense, something for which humans can't even create a decent analogy that we can use to help us understand it.

I don't believe there is such a thing as 'absolute' reality — by which I mean only that there is no 'level' of perception at which what is perceived is more real than at other levels. A professional philosopher would pick that last sentence to shreds, but I'm sure you understand what I mean. If clarification is required I would be happy to explain.

I am happy with my picture of reality, which I believe to be veridical enough to suit my purposes. I must say I'm not really very interested in whether or not it is an artificial simulation. As long as the Simulators don't suddenly put in an appearance, I'm happy.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
This "basic common knowledge" is largely false.

Not really, if you follow pages you refer in search, you will notice most of them trying to debunk term dark ages, but without much success, because period between 300 and 1300 we really did not have much scientific advancement in anything. Just follow links, you will see that all of them are stating its myth, but it has no clear picture what those advancement were.

Just like I said, sure, Islam world saw advancements until 1100, about 300 years of progress got strong halt once math and knowledge were proclaimed being work of devil... and they are still there, almost a thousands years now...

This blog made by professor of history is very neutral and points exactly what I am talking about...

However, in all this the one claim that cannot be sustained is that Christianity "encouraged" science. Had that been the case, then there would not have been almost a thousand years (from roughly 300 to 1250 AD) of absolutely zero significant advances in science (excepting a very few and relatively minor contributions by Hindus and Muslims), in contrast with the previous thousand years (from roughly 400 BC to 300 AD), which witnessed incredible advances in the sciences in continuous succession every century, culminating in theorists whose ideas and findings came tantalizingly close to the scientific revolution in the 2nd century AD (namely, but not only, Galen and Ptolemy). You can't propose a cause that failed to have an effect despite being constantly in place for a thousand years, especially when in its absence science had made far more progress. Science picked up again in the 1200's precisely where the ancients had left off, by rediscovering their findings, methods, and epistemic values and continuing the process they had begun.

richardcarrier.blogspot.com...

From the same blog...

One might object and say, "Well, it wasn't totally dark, some improvements in technology were made, some history was recorded, a lot of ancient knowledge preserved." But that would only be a valid point if I were claiming a Pitch Black Age. Even with a little light, it was plenty dark. Moreover, by far most of what was invented, improved, or preserved came after the 12th century. The Dark Ages preceded that. Even what was preserved through to the 12th century was only barely so, much of it only in a few isolated places, sometimes only in a single manuscript, perhaps two or three, scattered across the world and collecting dust on forgotten shelves, often damaged or surviving only in translation. And by far most of what survived was preserved only in the comparably wealthier Middle East, where times were never as dark as they definitely became in Europe. Hence the Dark Ages more aptly describes the history of Europe than of the medieval Middle East, although even the latter experienced a notable decline from pre-fall Rome in every aspect of civilization and culture.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Not really, if you follow pages you refer in search, you will notice most of them trying to debunk term dark ages, but without much success, because period between 300 and 1300 we really did not have much scientific advancement in anything. Just follow links, you will see that all of them are stating its myth, but it has no clear picture what those advancement were.

If you had followed the links, you would have seen that the Scientific Revolution was based on work done in the Middle Ages. (Link) A little research would have shown you that there were quite a few scientific advancements made during even the "dark" period of the Middle Ages.

Just like I said, sure, Islam world saw advancements until 1100, about 300 years of progress got strong halt once math and knowledge were proclaimed being work of devil... and they are still there, almost a thousands years now...

So science and religion *aren't* incompatible, you just don't like Catholicism

Even the blog post you linked to pointed out how scientific progress picked up again when people began picking up still written by the *pagans.* It's not religion that's the problem. It's broader than that.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

It would help if you read pages from your links....

Medieval technology refers to the technology used in medieval Europe under Christian rule. After the Renaissance of the 12th century, medieval Europe saw a radical change in the rate of new inventions, innovations in the ways of managing traditional means of production, and economic growth.[2] The period saw major technological advances, including the adoption of gunpowder, the invention of vertical windmills, spectacles, mechanical clocks, and greatly improved water mills, building techniques (Gothic architecture, medieval castles), and agriculture in general (three-field crop rotation).

The development of water mills from their ancient origins was impressive, and extended from agriculture to sawmills both for timber and stone. By the time of the Domesday Book, most large villages had turnable mills, around 6,500 in England alone.[3] Water-power was also widely used in mining for raising ore from shafts, crushing ore, and even powering bellows.

European technical advancements from the 12th to 14th centuries were either built on long-established techniques in medieval Europe, originating from Roman and Byzantine antecedents, or adapted from cross-cultural exchanges through trading networks with the Islamic world, China, and India. Often, the revolutionary aspect lay not in the act of invention itself, but in its technological refinement and application to political and economic power. Though gunpowder along with other weapons had been started by Chinese, it was the Europeans who developed and perfected its military potential, precipitating European expansion and eventual imperialism in the Modern Era.

Please note, both of paragraphs actually point to what I have already posted multiple times - AFTER 12th century we saw rapid innovations, and even Church developed contra measure in means of inquisition, it was unable to stop future progress and birth of modern science.

Blog I posted just reaffirms that there was time in Europe when religion was preventing science, and it is common knowledge... except for those who rather believe in myths and try to think that religion somehow helped us... while they did everything to stop progress and remove everything that did not match religious books.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: StalkerSolent

It would help if you read pages from your links....

It would help if you read from the page you quoted, where it listed important inventions developed before 1300, or the other page I linked you to, explaining how the Middle Ages were crucial to the birth of modern science.

Please note, both of paragraphs actually point to what I have already posted multiple times - AFTER 12th century we saw rapid innovations, and even Church developed contra measure in means of inquisition, it was unable to stop future progress and birth of modern science.

The Inquisition was not a product of the "Church," it was a product of the Catholic Church designed to hunt down unbelievers and heretics. You're confusing Catholic Christianity with religion.

Blog I posted just reaffirms that there was time in Europe when religion was preventing science, and it is common knowledge... except for those who rather believe in myths and try to think that religion somehow helped us... while they did everything to stop progress and remove everything that did not match religious books.

The blog you posted reaffirms that there was a time in Europe when Catholicism was preventing science. I could just as logically point you to the espousal of Lamarkian biology under Stalin and claim that Marxism is against science.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Thanks I'll check it out! I like to get as much info as I can.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
It would help if you read from the page you quoted, where it listed important inventions developed before 1300, or the other page I linked you to, explaining how the Middle Ages were crucial to the birth of modern science.

There was no MAJOR inventions in whole almost thousands year period, yet you still mix that with enaissance and pre-modern-science period that followed.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
The Inquisition was not a product of the "Church," it was a product of the Catholic Church designed to hunt down unbelievers and heretics. You're confusing Catholic Christianity with religion.

This is funny... so in your world catholic Christianity is not religion. I like how church and catholic church has 2 different meanings... But see, same dark ages period actually moved onto Islam, and they are still there... I am talking about religion whole along... but you somehow see that as attack only on your church/belief...

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
The blog you posted reaffirms that there was a time in Europe when Catholicism was preventing science.

Finally... note in blog where it states clearly that term is usually used for Europe of the time, which largely was under Catholic church... So finally, yes, preventing science... Was that hard to acknowledge?? No, is Catholicism religion or not?? BTW, orthodox church of the time was no better... actually it was even worst...

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I could just as logically point you to the espousal of Lamarkian biology under Stalin and claim that Marxism is against science.

What that has to do with anything already said here??

originally posted by: SuperFrog
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

There was no MAJOR inventions in whole almost thousands year period, yet you still mix that with enaissance and pre-modern-science period that followed.

That is false. (Artesian wells ought to count, for starters...) Check the Wiki link. Unless by major inventions you mean "steam engines" or "airplanes" or "spaceships." Furthermore, you still haven't addressed my point that it was the thinkers of the Middle Ages who led to the scientific revolution. I take it you conceded that.

This is funny... so in your world catholic Christianity is not religion.

No, in my world religion ≠ Catholicism. Of course Catholic Christianity is a religion! But you can't say "Aha! The Catholics did this, so religion does this!" I might as well take a look at some religious drug use and say "Aha! Religion encourages drug abuse!"

I like how church and catholic church has 2 different meanings...

Well yeah, it does. Since 1054 there were two major branches of Christianity, not to mention the various other denominations that were springing up pre-Renaissance.

But see, same dark ages period actually moved onto Islam, and they are still there... I am talking about religion whole along... but you somehow see that as attack only on your church/belief...

No, I don't. I'm not Catholic, for starters. Secondly, your argument is inconsistent. Basically, it says "Religious people in the Catholic church were anti-science for 1000 years, and in Islam for another thousand years, so despite the fact that I'm only picking on two religions for a certain period of time, religion as a whole is anti-science." -_-

Finally... note in blog where it states clearly that term is usually used for Europe of the time, which largely was under Catholic church... So finally, yes, preventing science... Was that hard to acknowledge?? No, is Catholicism religion or not??

Sure, it's religion. But because *a* religion attacks science doesn't make science and religion incompatible.

BTW, orthodox church of the time was no better... actually it was even worst...

They've always been more obsequious than the Roman Catholics to the will of the state.

What that has to do with anything already said here??

It's illustrative of your line of reasoning. You're using the part to whole fallacy to construct your argument.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Name one god who has been verified via the scientific method. Or any spiritual ideology that answers to science before it answers to the supernatural.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Name one god who has been verified via the scientific method.

What would that even look like?

Or any spiritual ideology that answers to science before it answers to the supernatural.

And what would that even look like? "We've scientifically determined that there is an afterlife, it's on the Planet Saturn, and you don't get to go there if you are Hitler."

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
No, I don't. I'm not Catholic, for starters. Secondly, your argument is inconsistent. Basically, it says "Religious people in the Catholic church were anti-science for 1000 years, and in Islam for another thousand years, so despite the fact that I'm only picking on two religions for a certain period of time, religion as a whole is anti-science." -_-

Please read first post...

Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

Please note, this is topic... All religions are the same, they are in denial of obesrvation so that belief can be perserved, and it is fundamental difference between science and religion.

YES, all religions are against science, and road to today progress was quite bloody.

I will not even try to point all conflicting things you said in your post... but let me ask you something... what do you think this really means:

originally posted by: God in Genesis 2:17
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Name one god who has been verified via the scientific method.

What would that even look like?

That's the point of the scientific method.

And what would that even look like? "We've scientifically determined that there is an afterlife, it's on the Planet Saturn, and you don't get to go there if you are Hitler."

See above.

originally posted by: SuperFrog

Please note, this is topic... All religions are the same, they are in denial of obesrvation so that belief can be perserved, and it is fundamental difference between science and religion.

Uh huh. I haven't observed any evidence of that. I've seen some religious deny some scientific observations some times.

YES, all religions are against science, and road to today progress was quite bloody.

Ah, yes, our glorious progress...
I do see that you've stopped trying to argue that there wasn't scientific progress in the Middle Ages. I take it you've conceded the point

I will not even try to point all conflicting things you said in your post... but let me ask you something... what do you think this really means:

originally posted by: God in Genesis 2:17
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

It means what it says. What *that* means is the real question. I think the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was capable of giving men understanding of moral right and wrong.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You lost me
Care to elaborate?