Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Pew Survey 10/22; Religion and Science. Not in conflict for most Americans. TWT

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163

    Pew Survey 10/22; Religion and Science. Not in conflict for most Americans. TWT

    Least Religiously Observant Are Most Likely to Say Science and Religion Are Often in Conflict

    http://www.pewinternet.org/files/201...ence_FINAL.pdf 1.1 MB 64 pages

    http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/2...th-each-other/ VIDEO 0:33

    http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/2...-and-religion/

    Science, religion not in conflict for most Americans

    Two-thirds of American adults have no problem reconciling their religious faith with the facts of science, but 59 percent think “other people” have a problem, according to a new Pew Research Center study.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ost-americans/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Not at all surprising. Religion and science don't conflict because they operate in largely independent spheres. We might as well ask if our poetry or music "conflict" with science.

    Also no surprise that the least religiously observant are most likely to say there is a conflict. Many of those described as "the least religiously observant" are actually among the most devoted followers of the "religion of science". By that, I mean those who are overtly hostile to deist religious beliefs and are deliberately using science as an "anti-religion" to attack religion. For many of these, science has become their religion: that institution in which they place full faith, their high priests being the lab-coat-clad scientists who run experiments that 99% of the population can't even begin to understand, much less replicate.

    To paraphrase Galileo, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven; Science tells us how the heavens go." No conflict, simply different spheres of operation.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  3. #3
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Not at all surprising. Religion and science don't conflict because they operate in largely independent spheres. We might as well ask if our poetry or music "conflict" with science.

    Also no surprise that the least religiously observant are most likely to say there is a conflict. Many of those described as "the least religiously observant" are actually among the most devoted followers of the "religion of science". By that, I mean those who are overtly hostile to deist religious beliefs and are deliberately using science as an "anti-religion" to attack religion. For many of these, science has become their religion: that institution in which they place full faith, their high priests being the lab-coat-clad scientists who run experiments that 99% of the population can't even begin to understand, much less replicate.

    To paraphrase Galileo, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven; Science tells us how the heavens go." No conflict, simply different spheres of operation.

    Charles
    Science isn't a religion. It's the exact opposite of it, no matter what you wish to blindly believe, there is nothing religious about science. Science is the study of the see-able, observable. Religion is the focus on the mythical, and unsee-able.

    Anyone who understands the basics of Science, and accepts science as being fact, and proven, through tangible, replicated, seen, witnessed, and thoroughly studied, cannot in good conscious, accept the following of what is unseen, un/dis-proven, non-witnessed, un-replicable, and non-factual that is the very foundation of religion.

    But, more on point; Just because more people in one survey THINK there is no conflict, does not mean there is none. Only the stupid, and the naive would believe that conflict does not exist when a form of belief in the unseen, and un-proven, comes into contact with the seen, AND the proven.
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163
    Barbara Streisand! NO ONE has directly seen an atom, just as no one has directly seen a soul. The faith statements of science and religion are precisely opposite sides of the same coin.

    In infinite time all possibilities are realized in all of their variations. We are unique only in this microcosm. Read contemporary cosmology of the spooky - Happy Halloween - entangled megaverse.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Barbara Streisand! NO ONE has directly seen an atom, just as no one has directly seen a soul. The faith statements of science and religion are precisely opposite sides of the same coin.

    In infinite time all possibilities are realized in all of their variations. We are unique only in this microcosm. Read contemporary cosmology of the spooky - Happy Halloween - entangled megaverse.
    Except we can do scientific tests to prove hypothesis and the atom. I would like to see some tests on gods......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Except we can do scientific tests to prove hypothesis and the atom. I would like to see some tests on gods.
    No test can be done to prove evolution. Quantum entanglement does fine for me as the Hand of God.

    Besides, the criterion of science is falsifiability. Technology is vastly validated and verified, but it is not science. The Standard Models of particle physics and cosmology are not falsifiable, they are explanatory narratives no different from a witch doctors curse on his believers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
    The classical view of the philosophy of science is that it is the goal of science to prove hypotheses like "All swans are white" or to induce them from observational data. Popper argued that this would require the inference of a general rule from a number of individual cases, which is inadmissible in deductive logic.[2] However, if one finds one single swan that is not white, deductive logic admits the conclusion that the statement that all swans are white is false. Falsificationism thus strives for questioning, for falsification, of hypotheses instead of proving them.

    For a statement to be questioned using observation, it needs to be at least theoretically possible that it can come in conflict with observation. A key observation of falsificiationism is thus that a criterion of demarcation is needed to distinguish those statements that can come in conflict with observation and those that cannot (Chorlton, 2012). Popper chose falsifiability as the name of this criterion.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 10-24-2015 at 09:25 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    No test can be done to prove evolution. Quantum entanglement does fine for me as the Hand of God.

    Besides, the criterion of science is falsifiability. Technology is vastly validated and verified, but it is not science. The Standard Models of particle physics and cosmology are not falsifiable, they are explanatory narratives no different from a witch doctors curse on his believers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Except we can do scientific tests to prove hypothesis and the atom. I would like to see some tests on gods......
    theologians have had centuries, and yet as i recently saw...quote: religion(s) can not survive two basic words: PROVE IT and claim your Nobel prize!! unquote

    now, please have faith and believe...

    oh, someone tell me why the children are starving???

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 10-24-2015 at 11:32 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    theologians have had centuries, and yet as i recently saw...quote: religion(s) can not survive two basic words: PROVE IT and claim your Nobel prize!! unquote

    now, please have faith and believe...

    oh, someone tell me why the children are starving???

    ipse
    Hehehe....to be fair I am also often skeptic of the claims of some "science", why I prompted Nightmare with my post. I enjoyed his response.

    Yet I was also thinking of Galileo, his theory about gravity affecting all objects the same.....and he proved it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Except we can do scientific tests to prove hypothesis and the atom. I would like to see some tests on gods......
    Prove that the atom really exists. I still have not seen one. Besides there are much smaller things that would make up these "atoms" of which you speak.

    God exists under the same idea that "atoms" do. If there was no god(s) then, who created the "atom?"



    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    Science isn't a religion. ...
    Uh...Oh-kay.

    Finally, someone has come up with a way to settle the debate over climate change: Put the people on the wrong side of the argument in cages.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/opinio...-jail/7162971/
    Hmm...interesting.

    Spanish Inquisition: (1478–1834), judicial institution ostensibly established to combat heresy in Spain. In practice, the Spanish Inquisition served to consolidate power in the monarchy of the newly unified Spanish kingdom, but it achieved that end through infamously brutal methods.

    http://www.britannica.com/topic/Spanish-Inquisition
    Sounds familiar...no?

    dark matter: noun - Astronomy

    noun: dark matter; noun: cold dark matter; noun: hot dark matter

    (in some cosmological theories) nonluminous material that is postulated to exist in space and that could take any of several forms including weakly interacting particles ( cold dark matter ) or high-energy randomly moving particles created soon after the Big Bang ( hot dark matter )

    dark energy: noun - Astronomy

    In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.
    Thanks for the liberal view of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Hehehe....to be fair I am also often skeptic of the claims of some "science", why I prompted Nightmare with my post. I enjoyed his response.

    Yet I was also thinking of Galileo, his theory about gravity affecting all objects the same.....and he proved it.
    careful, gravity affects all object the same based only what we have observed and then tested. How does gravity "work" in the next galaxy over? We postulate in the hopes...the belief, that it should work the same there as it does here.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163

    'Scientist' Leonardo Susskind, the Father of String Theory, on intelligent design.

    i stumbled across this in my night reading last night and thought y'all might enjoy - or not YMMV.

    Leonardo Susskind, the Father of String Theory:
    Most string theorists think we really do live on a brane-world, floating in a space with six extra dimensions. And perhaps there are other branes floating nearby, microscopically separated from us but invisible (to us) because our photons stick to our own brane, and theirs stick to their brane. Though invisible, these other branes would not be impossible to detect: gravity, formed of closed strings, would bridge the gap. But isn't that exactly what dark matter [my emphasis] is: invisible matter whose gravitational pull is felt by or own stars and galaxies? Polchinski's D-branes open up all sorts of new directions. From our point of view, a universe with many brane-worlds living peacefully side by side is just one more possibility that can be found in the Landscape. Calabi Yau spaces of incredible complexity, hundreds of moduli, brane-worlds, fluxes (yet to come): the universe is starting to look like a world that only Rube Goldberg's mother could love. [ ... ]
    The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illiusion of Intelligent Design (Little Brown 2005) KINDLE Ed. loc 4270 - 4276

    http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Landsca.../dp/B000SEOB2Q

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cosmic_Landscape
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind
    136 VIDEO lectures from classical (Newtonian) mechanics through quantum entanglement - rigorous maths
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyX8...aSwXJvxOqO6o5e

    What was once explained as It is turtles, turtles all the way down is now It's quarks, quarks and gluons all the way down. None have been seen, merely crafted of interminable ad-hockery.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 10-26-2015 at 08:30 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post

    careful, gravity affects all object the same based only what we have observed and then tested. How does gravity "work" in the next galaxy over? We postulate in the hopes...the belief, that it should work the same there as it does here.
    Touche'
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •