Goddess Pele

[Guest]

Im not sure message boards account for the second most murder in history, like religion accounts for the most.

[wakan]

On the Topic of religion and science.

Science is based on experimental proof. Religion is based on blind faith.

Science demands critical reasoning. Religion demands uncritical reasoning.

Science is an open-ended discipline designed to continually challenge even its own established ideas about how the world is. Religion is a closed ideology that is resistant to change, and in its strictest forms, does not even allow for questioning its precepts.

Any scientific theory must have an element of "falsifiability" (disprovability) built into it--which means there must be a way to objectively test it (and perhaps prove it wrong). Sometimes it takes a while for technological abilities to catch up to theory, but the theory must, at least, have a theoretical potential for experimental proof. Otherwise, it's not considered a scientific theory.

Religions are based on dogmas that, in most cases, were composed thousands of years ago (when the state of human knowledge was in a far different place). These religious dogmas further insist (in most cases) that their precepts are fixed and eternally constant from the time they are written down in sacred texts or articulated in chants and ritual. They are immutable and not open to change with the passage of time--nor do they accept any degree of cultural or geographical relativity.

When a scientist comes up with a new idea or theory (through deductive or inductive reasoning), he/she then subjects it to experimental verification. If the results support the hypothesis, the scientist then publishes the results in a peer review journal where all the experts in that field (those who most understand the fine points of the theory and the experiment) read it over and proceed to do everything they can to disprove it. If these experts cannot reproduce the same positive experimental results, the theory does not survive. Cold fusion is a well known example. It's a rigorous process that is designed to filter out any subjective distortion of the facts.

Which system can be more realistically depended upon to advance our knowledge of the world around us and the Universe at large. Open ended experimental/scientific methodology that allows for changes in time of our understanding of reality or closed minded religious dogma that resists change and demands blind faith as an approach for our understanding of reality.

Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler were not only under the threat of the external religious authorities of their time. They were also living at a time when their own internal mental processes had been shaped by the overwhelming place of religion in European culture. Their discoveries were not only a challenge to the prevailing religious views of the Church; they were also a challenge to their own internal cultural values.

And it is true that there are some scientists, even today, that are not atheists--however surveys are clear that most legitimate scientists are, in fact, atheists. And most of those that continue to practice a religion are not of the fundamentalist type mentality. Michael Behe, who has written several books that challenge the Darwinian Theory of Evolution (The Edge of Evolutionbeing a notable brilliant work) is an excellent example. Though Creationists love to use him as an example of a modern day scientist who trashes Darwin, he doesn't actually trash the idea of Evolution. In fact he argues for the obviousness of "Common Descent" (which is actually what evolution is all about) So even though he argues against Darwinian Theory, his ideas are contradictory to Biblical teaching. So Beware of claims that "many" scientists are practitioners of religion.

Scientists are human beings, so they are fallible. And of course there are scientific pecking orders, pressures to publish, competition for tenured positions in universities, and theoretical turf wars. Like everybody else, scientists have egos that want their pet theories to survive, and they want recognition from their peers. So their is always some amount of subjectivity in the work of scientists, but the antidote is peer review. A theory that is wrong may last for a period of time, but it will eventually be overturned by some ambitious young scientist. Science is a revolutionary as well as evolutionary endeavor. It is always re-inventing itself.

So with all this being said, I don't really see much room for the integration of science and religion. Evidentiary proof and blind faith just don't mix.

[Midnight Rambler]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Derrick Barnicoat

It is also important to realize that science requires quite a bit of belief and faith. Science is often way off like when it says the earth is flat or that the earth is the center of the galaxy.

---

Oh good grief... Science has never said the Earth is flat. It's been known to be round for millenia, as should be obvious to anyone who looks at the ocean. The circumference of the Earth was even calculated within 15% in the 200's BC.

More importantly, when science is wrong, it's corrected by science - not by belief. In fact it's usually clinging to beliefs over the evidence that is in front of people (which you're right that even scientists sometimes do) that causes incorrect things to be perpetuated.

[peteadams]

wakan, excellent summary of Philosophy of Science 101, with appreciated comments about the humanity of scientists. All the basics, clearly expressed. Evidence, the results of observations and studies, can always be shared with the community, while faith often can not. Fundamental difference.

[TomK]

wakan - small correction. Science is based on evidence and probabilities. Proof is for mathematicians and courts of law. A good scientist will never say something is proved.

[protoss]

A scientists finding/breakthrough will however be peer reviewed and the experiment has to produce consistent findings every time in order to be accepted widely

'Your whole idea about yourself is borrowed-- borrowed from those who have no idea of who they are themselves.'

[wakan]

TomK,

I stand corrected (and happily so). I guess I underestimated how carefully my post would be read (however, I do appreciate, the attention you gave to it). You are, of course, absolutely right. Nothing of science can ever be absolutely proven because--as per my own arguments--experimental evidence is always open to modification, refinement, or even nullification. This is especially true as a result of the increasing sophistication of our technologies and experimental methodologies.

However, in the general sense, even scientists slip up once in a while and use the word. (I don't have a college degree--so I have a good excuse; but my Dad was a world-class microbiologist--and even he was known to let the P word slip out in conversation.)

I would just point out a few well known experiments that even academic writers sometimes speak of as having "proved" or "disproved" standing or proposed theories:

The Michelson-Morely experiment of 1887 which "disproved" the standing theory of the Aether through which light and matter were assumed to move.

Eddington's 1919 observations of a solar eclipse that "proved" Einstein's 1915 Theory of General Relativity by measuring the Red Shift effect which that theory predicted.

Louis Pasteur's experiments in the mid 1800's with filters over boiled meat broths that "disproved" the theory of Spontaneous Generation" and "proved" the validity of the Germ Theory.

I would love to have more discussions like this with some members of this forum; but unfortunately, I moved from to the mainland earlier this year after almost thirty years in Kapoho. I just stumbled onto this forum while trying to get more information on the lava flow, and I had no idea that there were that many people in Puna with similar interests.

Anyway, I'm afraid that this may be detracting from the purpose of the forum, so I will leave it at this for now.

Hopefully, this will divert people's attention away from the egg on my face.

[TomK]

wakan - I always enjoy reading intelligent and well-argued posts. Yours was certainly up there in the list! The "scientists prove this or that" thing though has always been a bugbear of mine and you generally read it only in the media, but I have seen one or two scientists I really respect use it as well, and it just riles me! I thought, however, apart from that minor point, your post was top-notch.

[TomK]

PS. I hope the fact that you've moved away from the island doesn't mean you will stop posting and really get it when you want to see what's happening with the lava flow. It's nearly 20 years since I moved here from the UK and still check the UK news each day. It's perfectly acceptable to do that (I even check the local rag in my home town, and can say it's about as professional as the Hawaii Tribune Herald. But it also includes the scores from the cricket club I used to play for)!

Getting back to the Pele subject, that is something that is personal belief, local myths and a strong cultural history on this island. Science doesn't deal with that sort of thing, nor should it. Personal beliefs are just that; beliefs held by a person. I have some as does everyone else including you. They do not come under scientific scrutiny which only involves things that are testable. On the other hand, there are many scientists who are vocal about the nature of religion, but they are only voicing their opinion. I tend to *believe* they are right, but how do you form the null hypothesis?

Please keep posting, wakan, it's a pleasure responding to you.

[OnoOno]

You are so spot-on with this analysis. What really irks me is when people assert that there is no morality sans religion.

IMHO, Pele is nothing but a quaint euphemism for volcanic activity, and absolutely nothing more. I am not against references to "her", but in a figurative, not literal, sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wakan

On the Topic of religion and science.

Science is based on experimental proof. Religion is based on blind faith.

Science demands critical reasoning. Religion demands uncritical reasoning.

Science is an open-ended discipline designed to continually challenge even its own established ideas about how the world is. Religion is a closed ideology that is resistant to change, and in its strictest forms, does not even allow for questioning its precepts.

Any scientific theory must have an element of "falsifiability" (disprovability) built into it--which means there must be a way to objectively test it (and perhaps prove it wrong). Sometimes it takes a while for technological abilities to catch up to theory, but the theory must, at least, have a theoretical potential for experimental proof. Otherwise, it's not considered a scientific theory.

Religions are based on dogmas that, in most cases, were composed thousands of years ago (when the state of human knowledge was in a far different place). These religious dogmas further insist (in most cases) that their precepts are fixed and eternally constant from the time they are written down in sacred texts or articulated in chants and ritual. They are immutable and not open to change with the passage of time--nor do they accept any degree of cultural or geographical relativity.

When a scientist comes up with a new idea or theory (through deductive or inductive reasoning), he/she then subjects it to experimental verification. If the results support the hypothesis, the scientist then publishes the results in a peer review journal where all the experts in that field (those who most understand the fine points of the theory and the experiment) read it over and proceed to do everything they can to disprove it. If these experts cannot reproduce the same positive experimental results, the theory does not survive. Cold fusion is a well known example. It's a rigorous process that is designed to filter out any subjective distortion of the facts.

Which system can be more realistically depended upon to advance our knowledge of the world around us and the Universe at large. Open ended experimental/scientific methodology that allows for changes in time of our understanding of reality or closed minded religious dogma that resists change and demands blind faith as an approach for our understanding of reality.

Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler were not only under the threat of the external religious authorities of their time. They were also living at a time when their own internal mental processes had been shaped by the overwhelming place of religion in European culture. Their discoveries were not only a challenge to the prevailing religious views of the Church; they were also a challenge to their own internal cultural values.

And it is true that there are some scientists, even today, that are not atheists--however surveys are clear that most legitimate scientists are, in fact, atheists. And most of those that continue to practice a religion are not of the fundamentalist type mentality. Michael Behe, who has written several books that challenge the Darwinian Theory of Evolution (The Edge of Evolutionbeing a notable brilliant work) is an excellent example. Though Creationists love to use him as an example of a modern day scientist who trashes Darwin, he doesn't actually trash the idea of Evolution. In fact he argues for the obviousness of "Common Descent" (which is actually what evolution is all about) So even though he argues against Darwinian Theory, his ideas are contradictory to Biblical teaching. So Beware of claims that "many" scientists are practitioners of religion.

Scientists are human beings, so they are fallible. And of course there are scientific pecking orders, pressures to publish, competition for tenured positions in universities, and theoretical turf wars. Like everybody else, scientists have egos that want their pet theories to survive, and they want recognition from their peers. So their is always some amount of subjectivity in the work of scientists, but the antidote is peer review. A theory that is wrong may last for a period of time, but it will eventually be overturned by some ambitious young scientist. Science is a revolutionary as well as evolutionary endeavor. It is always re-inventing itself.

So with all this being said, I don't really see much room for the integration of science and religion. Evidentiary proof and blind faith just don't mix.

---

Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!