/sci/ - Science & Math

Maybe

>nokosaged from my iphone.

I really dont think science and religion could ever coexist, they contradict eachother.

>>3965682

Explain how they contradict

>>3965682
they coexist today you retard

>>3965669
>religion
>answers

Religion offers a response. It's not a legitimate answer because there's no way to figure out if it's correct

>>3965686
Science: Change the hypothesis to fit the evidence
Religion: Change the evidence to fit the hypothesis

the answers to how questions in nature leads tot he answers of why questions. u can never answer a why question with certainty without how answers.

so no, it couldn't. science has already told us how we are the way we are (natural selection), and by that answered why we are the way we are (evolution). as for the origin of life, the how answer is still being searched for, so we don't know whether there is a why answer or what it is yet. therefore all answers, including religious ones, cannot be taken seriously.

>>3965695
If you are implying that the coexistence of science and religion in today's world is at all successful than you are clueless moron.

>>3965686

See:
>>3965700

>>3965700
>Religion: Change the evidence to fit the hypothesis
it's a common mistake made by proponents, but not an innate characteristic of religion itself. rather religion has: a) one major governing body deciding what's admissible as evidence; and b) very little evidence to draw from with regard to theological texts and evidences.

>>3965697
This. Besides, why does Niagara Falls exist? What is the purpose of the Grand Canyon?

We are biologically hardwired to look for purpose in things. But expecting to find purpose in everything is senseless because purpose just leads to an infinite regress. Like a child asking "Why?" whenever their parent gives them an answer.

Why are there phones?
For people to communicate.
Why do people communicate?
They enjoy it.
Why do people enjoy communication?

It never ends. And no, "Because God said so" is not an end.

>>3965724
>reality denial

both science and religion are thriving. just look around you.

get it into your retarded brain that contrary forces can coexist and both thrive.

>>3965724
You are worse cancer than the religion trolls.
People like you and their butthurt are keeping religion threads alive.
You know that you can't change a troll's opinion, yet you fall for him and keep bumping while spouting insults.

Please just ignore threads like these.

And if you really need to respond to my post, do it with a sage.

>>3965731
What's this governing body? And by what criteria do they decide what's admissible? Whether it fits scientific doctrines or not?

And what have they admitted as evidence for, say, Jesus' supposed resurrection?

>>3965739

I meant religious doctrines.

>>3965736
If you had only one sage, would you use it on a religion thread or a homework thread?

>>3965739
obviously its based on a governing body respective to the religion. you can use google for this
and there have been some studies based on the gospels and so forth to determine the existence of jesus as a historical figure, although it doesn't seem to amount to much.
like i said there's just very little to work with

>>3965735
You are ignorant. You think religion is thriving?

The average rates or religiosity are decreasing, google it.

>>3965736
>You get mad at my name calling.
>Call me butthurt.
>You mad.

>>3965669
I think it's funny that Trey Parker, a cartoon writer, is a source of wisdom and levelheadedness in today's culture.

Trey *is* a genius, though.

>Couldn't science be the answer to the question how there is life and religion be the answer to why there is life?

Science answers how. The question of "why" presupposes a cause or an actor, ie intent. It's like dividing by zero, it's just the wrong question so has no answer.

Religion isn't an answer to anything except this:

"What demonstrates Human stupidity the most?"

Religion doesn't run on EVIDENCE, hence is not a useful tool for anything. Not the whys, and not the hows.

>>3965757

I don't think scientific progress is the main driving force behind decrease of religiosity in first world countries, but rather wealth.

So the reason why religiosity is decreasing in first world countries, is not because religion and science contradict each other.

Can't science be how there is life, and religion be a con made up by old men to hang onto power, and something else completely is why there is life?

>>3965769

To be fair, religion isn't a con made up by old men to hang to power. It is manipulated by old men to hang to power, but religion didn't emerge because of "evil" reasons like this.

>>3965768
I never said science decreased religiosity, but I wasn't even talking about the first world.

I know this is CNN, but the article is based on a poll. The bulk of the actual information is on the second page.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-09/living/us.religion.less.christian_1_american-religious-identifica
tion-survey-christian-nation-evangelical?_s=PM:LIVING

>>3965669
Religion can't answer anything, It's a retard pacifier for people who can't handle the fact they are a stupid fucking animal with very little clue of the world around them and that they are going to die and be forgotten.

Wow, OP. Religion vs science. Classy.

>>3965776
Yeah, it's quite good in alternation with homework threads.

Science and religion can (and do) coexist.
In the human mind scientific thinking is separated from faith.

>>3965782
Only by retards who think that faith is worth anything of value.

Science deals with things we can observe.
Religion deals with things we cannot observe.

When science or religion oversteps its boundaries, hilarity ensues. And by hilarity, I mean flame wars and lawsuits.

>>3965787

there is worth, just not for knowledge and truth. faith makes a person stronger and capable of doing things he/she otherwise couldn't do.

>>3965793
>things we can observe

macroevolution
string theory
c being a speed limit


/troll

>>3965793
>Religion deals with things our ancestors thought we couldn't observe.

FTFY

>>3965801
What about the afterlife? It's totally speculation.

>>3965801

>macroevolution

/troll

>string theory and c being speed limit

oh don't worry, science will find a way to observe then prove or disprove them.

>>3965803
No, religion should deal ONLY with what cannot currently be observed. "Observable" has totally changed over generations, but religion refuses to accept that.

If religion would confine itself to answering questions about things science is unable to observe, then there would be no problem.

The problem then becomes where to place the fence.

>>3965774
Religion is the collective organisation and mobilisation of spirituality and an innate desire for answers. Born out of the same desire from whence came science by the way. Religion and science are kindred spirits. They share a common ancestry, a familial relation, but haven't you ever noticed how remarkably conflicting brothers can be? Sibling rivalry. In fact conflict is probably more likely considering they are deeply related. One offers useful answers and accepts limitations in our capacity for discovery. The other does its best to provide answers but for the most part only embraces our infinite curiosity and from there assumes our capacity to discover must be equally infinite. It's not.

>>3965804

Out-of-Body and Near Death Experiences.

>>3965779
>>3965776

>Not interested in a thread
>Post in that thread that you're not interested
> Classy

>>3965812

Personally, I don't think science and religion were born out of the same desire for answers.

Science was, while religion was born out of the desire for peace of mind. Religion doesn't care about answers that do not provide peace of mind, regardless of truth.

>>3965813
Out of body experiences dont exist just drug infused hallucinations
near death experiences proven to just be hallucinations of a dying brain.

>>3965809
>If religion would confine itself to answering questions about things science is unable to observe, then there would be no problem.

Agreed about this, the problem today is that religion is largely hereditary. Kids learn about Adam & Eve at 4 years old and by the time they're old enough to be taught evolution, the belief is too deeply ingrained and butthurt ensues.

>>3965831
>near death experiences proven to just be hallucinations of a dying brain

What?

When someone is about to get hit by a car, his brain isn't dying. It is the perception of death that slows time down and causes the person to experience some crazy shit.

>>3965852

My cousin is a Christian, and it disgusts and infuriates me when I see her teach and make her son (like less than 2 years old) pray multiple times everyday. If he doesn't pray, he is not fed. He is also already baptised.

>>3965853
"neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy, with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia), and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots, or as in hyperventilation followed by Valsalva manoeuvre. Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor, and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned, as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD, psilocarpine, and mescaline. These induced experiences can consist of unconsciousness, out-of-body experiences, and perception of light or flashes of recollection from the past."

ofcourse theres some special pleading that these are only induced ones and not real NDE's.

>>3965809
What a stupid thing to say why should religion be god of the gaps. If you believe in god and realize religion should be what we don't yet know then you're being dishonest as fuck.