Religion and Science

So I am saying math and science are very malleable.

True science, real Science, is not really malleable.

It's only malleable as far as one's own perception allows. For example, you can plot data points on a graph an infinite many ways. Some of them will appear more impressive or less impressive, and it's not difficult to use the numbers to your advantage. But the numbers, the science, it's still the same. The only thing which can change is your perception of it.

Science is solid in that it can be backed up by facts, proven, and tested. Certain religion is suppose to be solid such as Christianity since their rules and fairy tales are written in an ancient book but ever since the late 1800s where Science has majorly contradicted religion, religion is now interpreted in certain ways to make their faith more convinient, and everytime something new is discovered the bible has to be reinterpret.

I just find it fruturating that these people are brainwashed as children and never get a chance to learn the truths. .

True science, real Science, is not really malleable.

It's only malleable as far as one's own perception allows. For example, you can plot data points on a graph an infinite many ways. Some of them will appear more impressive or less impressive, and it's not difficult to use the numbers to your advantage. But the numbers, the science, it's still the same. The only thing which can change is your perception of it.

Perception is really all that matters.
At least that is what I will argue.
....
We can not see an object without the prejudice of our perception of said object.

Science is solid in that it can be backed up by facts, proven, and tested. Certain religion is suppose to be solid such as Christianity since their rules and fairy tales are written in an ancient book but ever since the late 1800s where Science has majorly contradicted religion, religion is now interpreted in certain ways to make their faith more convinient, and everytime something new is discovered the bible has to be reinterpret.

I just find it fruturating that these people are brainwashed as children and never get a chance to learn the truths. .

I am not backing ANY religion ( RAmen FSM).
I am saying that people need to check their sources on material they BELIEVE to be infallible science.
I would say we blindly accept science on the basis that we assume the scientific community throughly checks the hypothesis.
However, do you check to make sure it is legit before spouting about it all over your forums, friends, and family?
Some people do.
Some people just trust the article they read cause it said SCIENCE.
....

Science is solid in that it can be backed up by facts, proven, and tested. Certain religion is suppose to be solid such as Christianity since their rules and fairy tales are written in an ancient book but ever since the late 1800s where Science has majorly contradicted religion, religion is now interpreted in certain ways to make their faith more convinient, and everytime something new is discovered the bible has to be reinterpret.

I just find it fruturating that these people are brainwashed as children and never get a chance to learn the truths. .

Can I ask how having a faith is brainwashing? Every time something in Science is discovered aren't things reinterpreted? How many times have things in Science been changed to benefit a new discovery?

Everything changes. A belief system will change with the times. Not everything in Science can be backed by facts and completely proven. There are laws in science that have been tested to death and then changed years later because of a single discovery.

Religion is a belief system hardly a fairy tale or a fallacy. Saying religion is a fairy tale is building America off of a fairy tale. Why were the America's primarily discovered? Religious freedom

Last time I checked I'm not a fairy tale.

I'm agnostic if that matters before you go calling me a Bible thumper.

Why were the America's primarily discovered? Religious freedom

You know nothing of America's past.

The New World, as it were, was plundered for profit. The outcasted pilgrims from England didn't come along until 1620, yet Columbus was here in 1492.

In addition, all that happened was that religion was forced here the same as it was in England, only here it was a different religion. This is why the Framers of the Constitution made sure to note that there should be a separation between the church and the state when the new nation came about roughly 150 years after the pilgrims came.

And the problem people have with the belief system thing is that it's rigid. For example, there are tons of things in the bible which are simply ignored now because they simply are WRONG. Things like slavery, abusing bad children, not being allowed to eat meat. You can't just reinterpret a line saying that poorly behaved children should be stoned as something else. You can't just reinterpret the book saying eating meat can be a hell-worthy trespass. They can't be interpreted into something relevant so they must just ignore them, yet ironically, they'll cite other passages from the same book to support their bigoted views.

But in science, things are changed as understanding changes. Science is liquid.

lol the whole catholic side its basically described by afrobean

dont eat meat on frdays, er unless you forget!
jeff don-a-hee (i dont know his last name's spelling

I've found exactly what I want to say:
Science (and math) exist independently of humanity.
They are pure and correct.
HOWEVER.
Humanity's interpretation or PERCEPTION of science or math can lead to false conclusions.
....
*cheesing*

I personally love science. I aspire to go into the science field for collage. Does that make me an atheist? No. I believe science, but I believe my religion, too. The way I see it, they’re both right.

^^

I've found exactly what I want to say:
Science (and math) exist independently of humanity.
They are pure and correct.
HOWEVER.
Humanity's interpretation or PERCEPTION of science or math can lead to false conclusions.
....
*cheesing*

Exactly.

, and everytime something new is discovered the bible has to be reinterpret.

So you're saying, in science, nothing is ever reinterpreted? Interesting thought. IMHO, science has changed as much in the last 100 years, or even more so, than religion has changed in the same 100 years.

IMHO, science has changed as much in the last 100 years, or even more so, than religion has changed in the same 100 years.

Religion tends to be more rigid over its dogmas, anyhow.

I personally love science. I aspire to go into the science field for collage. Does that make me an atheist? No. I believe science, but I believe my religion, too. The way I see it, they’re both right.

^^

Care to elaborate? On other forums, people have argued quite the opposite. Religion is about faith, Science is about logic and rationale etc.

So you're saying, in science, nothing is ever reinterpreted? Interesting thought. IMHO, science has changed as much in the last 100 years, or even more so, than religion has changed in the same 100 years.

Its different. When science clearly proved that the Earth was over 6000 years old, religion said it was not literal. When something in science is proven wrong, like the idea that the world is flat, they admit they are wrong and don't try to say the world is metaphorically flat.

Its different. When science clearly proved that the Earth was over 6000 years old, religion said it was not literal. When something in science is proven wrong, like the idea that the world is flat, they admit they are wrong and don't try to say the world is metaphorically flat.

Really though.
The DOGMA in religion and science are both VERY VERY VERY strong.
You say use the flat Earth example.
I'll use the Heliocentric Geocentric argument.
EVEN AFTER Copernicus and Kepler showed Geocentric with MATH. the Scientific community was long to accept it.
Rank and Respect in the science community reflect that structure of the Religious community.
DOGMA HOLDS

Really though.
The DOGMA in religion and science are both VERY VERY VERY strong.
You say use the flat Earth example.
I'll use the Heliocentric Geocentric argument.
EVEN AFTER Copernicus and Kepler showed Geocentric with MATH. the Scientific community was long to accept it.
Rank and Respect in the science community reflect that structure of the Religious community.
DOGMA HOLDS

Kepler and Copernicus showed that the solar system is heliocentric, not geocentric. The vast majority of the scientific community did not go against Copernicus when he published his book. The ones who did, however, were either part of Catholic nobility or were scared of being prisoned because of agreeing.

Kepler and Copernicus showed that the solar system is heliocentric, not geocentric. The vast majority of the scientific community did not go against Copernicus when he published his book. The ones who did, however, were either part of Catholic nobility or were scared of being prisoned because of agreeing.

I said the arguement over helio vs Geo.
I know they said Geo.
..
I guess we just have different sources.
Because from what I have heard Copernicus was pretty much labeled a babbling idiot for quite some time because of this.
Not so much with Kepler since he just changed circular orbits to elliptical ones.
...
I digress- The science community can be a tough nut to crack.
It requires more than just science. Prestige and Respect play a huge part.

I said the arguement over helio vs Geo.
I know they said Geo.
..
I guess we just have different sources.
Because from what I have heard Copernicus was pretty much labeled a babbling idiot for quite some time because of this.
Not so much with Kepler since he just changed circular orbits to elliptical ones.
...
I digress- The science community can be a tough nut to crack.
It requires more than just science. Prestige and Respect play a huge part.

Back then, it didn't matter who you were, if your idea broke one of Christianity's fundamental teachings, you were a heretic. The Pope and his servants are not the scientific community. Back then, most members of the scientific community like Bernard Wapowski, William Gilbert, Tycho Brahe, even Kepler himself, along with many others gladly accepted his work. There is a difference between being labeled by the church as a babbling idiot (mind you, the church had power of the public), and being labeled by the scientific community as a babbling idiot. The latter rarely happens if you have evidence to support your hypothesis.

And no, the scientific community is not a 'tough nut to crack'. I've published papers for my university, and my professors have published papers for many scientific and academic journals. There is no prestige about sitting in an office all day collecting and extrapolating data and typing up your results in an eloquent fashion.

Back then, it didn't matter who you were, if your idea broke one of Christianity's fundamental teachings, you were a heretic. The Pope and his servants are not the scientific community. Back then, most members of the scientific community like Bernard Wapowski, William Gilbert, Tycho Brahe, even Kepler himself, along with many others gladly accepted his work. There is a difference between being labeled by the church as a babbling idiot (mind you, the church had power of the public), and being labeled by the scientific community as a babbling idiot. The latter rarely happens if you have evidence to support your hypothesis.

Actually upon Copernicus' release of On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres there was little to no backlash for him (at 1st later the church would attack him).

However there was also little feedback to as how much acceptance of the Theory went over as well.

Also Bernard Wapowski was not a scientist to my knowledge- he was a cartographer that worked with Copernicus
William Gilbert Kepler and Brahe were all respected scientists.

And no, the scientific community is not a 'tough nut to crack'. I've published papers for my university, and my professors have published papers for many scientific and academic journals. There is no prestige about sitting in an office all day collecting and extrapolating data and typing up your results in an eloquent fashion.

I can not argue here at all. I am only going on hear say from some people I know at University and some engineers at NASA.
I guess it just depends on what work you are doing?


EDIT: All this GEO-Heliocentric argument is missing the point.
Point Is while science is not teh Friggin' church for Dogma
They hold some tight reins themselves.
Most of the time this good as to prevent the propagating of false info.
But often times it can also be pure stubborness on not wanting to change an established theory.
I'll see if I can find a decent example somewhere later

Well, I did read in one of my Chemistry books that the scientific community tends to not shift towards new theories in the blink of an eye, specially if it's a controversial one and challenges an old, recognized and tested empirically several times model. It did, however, show a rare counter-example. I'll see if I can find it.

Actually upon Copernicus' release of On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres there was little to no backlash for him (at 1st later the church would attack him).

However there was also little feedback to as how much acceptance of the Theory went over as well.

It's true that at first there was little backlash, but it his book was later placed on the index of forbidden books along with Galileo's works. But there was much acceptance from other scholars of his book. I can give you a whole list of scientists, philosophers, and even theologians that accepted his work that I've found in one of Randall Knight's physics textbooks. That list, compared to the ones who did oppose him, is quite large. With that being said, there is stubbornness in the scientific community, but unlike with the Catholic Church it doesn't involve burning people at the stake, ex-communication, or imprisonment.