One of the beautiful things people seem to enjoy doing with science and religion is ridiculing fundamentalists, but then putting more ridicule on those taking science into account of their belief. A sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Of course when science is shown to be wrong, then science has corrected itself. Religion adapts itself to new information and ideas, then religion is simply wrong. Religious figures accept scientific principles, finding that they coexist with their beliefs with no alteration they are executing a defense mechanism. A scientists has to retract entire lines of publishing for which grant money and time was used to explore, that is simply the pain of science. Religious thought and philosophy are not allowed to progress, but science is free to blunder away without fanfare. Can't have both.
Science is a method, not a set of ideas, and because the method itself does not claim to produce error-proof dogma, it's not a big deal when the theories that science develops turn out false as that's built right into the system (it admits its fallibility). Religion however, claims to be truth, and is dogmatic to its core. If religious figures admitted they were just acting based on what they believe to be truth to their best intentions but that they don't actually know anything for sure, then science and religion would be given the same benefit when errors arise. However, religious figures and adherents alike claim they speak directly to god and glean information about the inner workings of reality. The difference is that religion claims to be ultimate truth, science claims to be strong conjecture backed by meticulously gathered evidence.
Granted, there's no reason why religion couldn't be softer and admit that it's an approximation, an attempt at finding the truth and pursuing it, latching onto an idea because it makes intuitive sense, and seeking for better answers at the same time as admitting they simply have a hunch and they're going with it. That kind of religion I could perhaps get behind (in fact I'd say I'm religious in that way even), it's just sad that religions are not that way generally speaking. There probably are groups that resemble this out there somewhere more than likely, but they certainly are not the norm.
Well, I never said science could not prove or disprove anything. Science is limited by the resources at hand. If you want though, I will give you an example of something science has yet to explain. Tell me how Tylenol works.
There's lots of things that science hasn't explained. Everything science does explain tends to open up more questions. I'm not sure what your point here is though.
Science exists without logic and reason. Science exists through observation, experimentation and reproducing results. A philosopher can use logic all day long to think a situation out, but if that logic cannot be shown through the scientific method than there is no science. Likewise, if a scientist has an experiment that does not follow to a logical conclusion they do not ignore the results. Science does not need logic to exist.
This is not at all accurate in any way shape or form. Please read up on the philosophy of science before you make statements like this. I will give you a quick irrefutable example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
< this is key to science.
As for Raptor Jesus, I am hopeful that there is not one speaking with us. The bones do speak and scientists do conduct research on those bones. There is definitive data about the creatures leaving behind such bones, the regions the bones were discovered in and what some of those time frames can mean. Scientists than infer possibilities based on that evidence. If one pays close attention to the openings of these episodes on Discovery Channel the narrator often says, "this is how scientists believe the world to have existed then." Translation, this is their best guess. Also in regard to forensic evidence, keep in mind that often times in a court room an expert witness, scientist, is called to refute those same findings. There is a lot of interpretation left to forensic evidence. Science requires observation, experimentation and reproducibility.
I really don't see how that refutes her point. If we can find evidence that dinosaurs once existed, why couldn't we find evidence of a supposed great flood? There is not a single miracle mentioned in the bible which has actually been corroborated by research. That I'm aware of anyway -- feel free to present counter evidence.
Science certainly has limitations and people experience those limitations. Not all things are explained at this time by science, so an intelligent person keeps their mind open. Supernatural events can become natural ones with the right insight, tools and techniques. Dismissing people as disgruntled with science because they believe in supernatural occurrences is close minded. Many discoveries in our world were made by people that witnessed something peculiar and pursued that information to a conclusion. If tomorrow ghosts were discovered to be real, then science would claim that as a field. What then? Were ghosts never supernatural? Or were they simply part of our world not yet measured and understood.
The definition of close minded is to make a determination on an event or a phenomenon without weighing the evidence before coming to that conclusion. The evidence points to the supernatural being nonexistent. It is not inherently close minded to reject the existence of the supernatural. Can one be close minded in rejecting it? Yes, to discount the idea out of hand without any critical thinking or entertaining other people's ideas is close minded no matter what the subject.
"religion contributes little to nothing to the scientific arena in terms of that particular subject (and...in general, really), soooo." - That is a statement of ignorance that deserves only a response of pointing out the ignorance of it.
Religion contributes absolutely nothing to science. Even in previous discussions where we've gone back and forth on this topic, the only thing you've given in response is that there are religious people who have advanced science. That speaks of the action of individuals, not the action of religion. Religion is a set of beliefs, please show me where these sets of beliefs encourage people to weigh critically all of the available evidence and come to a determination based on that analysis, not preconceived notions. The best you'll be able to do in response (and I know this because you've tried to do it before) is pull out a few fables or statements which seem to speak the virtue of doubting accounts by others -- never once does religion encourage people to question religion.
Yet I can provide you with numerous examples where religion encourages questioning or rejection of anything that comes into conflict with it (including science). Granted, many of these examples either include religious people making these statements or religious authorities (the latter of which has validity in the Pope's case given that he makes religious dogma), but I'm well aware that none of that will shake your point of view in the least. Why?
Science casts doubt on the supernatural accounts given by Christianity. History shows that Christianity as we know it is a construct put together by the early Roman empire and that Jesus' story is a common myth echoed throughout the ancient world before and while it was told/supposedly occurred. There is not a speck of independent verification for any of the fantastical claims contained in the bible. The evidence overwhelmingly comes down against Christianity. Does this disprove religion? Nope -- Christianity is one religion. Does this disprove Christianity? No. Does it make Christianity extremely unlikely to be true? Yes.
But again, I don't expect you to change your point of view or even recoil in the least from anything I've said. Why? Because you're a Christian so you already believe something that is incredibly unlikely. You can claim time and time again that religion and science are not in conflict, that one does not invalidate the other, but science, empiricism, and historical facts merge to form a great big shadow of doubt, and if there's one thing that Christians are good at, it's ignoring that. This is key to the thread as well, it's why some reject evolution on the basis of their religion (along with everything else they don't want to believe).
Now, I'm not saying religion is a scourge (it's not -- I don't believe the world would be better off without it). I'm not even saying Christianity is a force of negativity in the world (again, I don't think it is). I believe that Christians do more good than harm in the modern world. Christianity is responsible for a great deal of charity. However my respect for the good that they do in this world, acknowledgment that they are not a force of negativity, and belief that they are good people does not mean that the ideas which they hold sacred are beyond reproach. You can separate the ideas a person holds to be true from the individual and judge it separately, even if the individual can't accept that for reasons of cognitive dissonance.