It's only a matter of time

[_Morley]

In the confrontation between science and religion, when has religion proven science to be wrong?

....
I also deny that there is such a confrontation. The "battle between science and religion" sells books and seems to have infatuated our discourse but the whole concept of the battle is inane.

Darwin.

[_Chap]

Science works by looking at what is happening in the real world and then hypothesizing as to why that is. Then you use a set of controlled experiments to verify or refute the hypothesis.

Well, sometimes. But not always. Funny thing, science. Defining science in a neat phrase or two is about as difficult as defining religion in a neat phrase or two, and just about as unprofitable. But it is there all right, just like religion is there.

If history were a science you'd verify the battle of Waterloo by getting Napoleon back somehow, setting up the terrain and geography exactly the same, giving him the same men to fight with, and have them battle it out to see what the results are. For various reasons we do not do that.

History has never claimed to be a repeatable physical science of the kind you have in mind here. That is, in part, because it includes human beings as conscious agents in its field of study. Your suggestion is really pretty meaningless, and no doubt that is deliberate.

On the other hand, if a detailed soil survey of (say) the alleged battlefield of Waterloo revealed absolutely no sign of any post-battle detritus such as early 19th-C musket-balls and belt-buckles, then there would be good scientific grounds for doubting that a battle had taken place two hundred years ago in that location. Moreover, if isotope studies of the skeletons buried nearby suggested that only a minor proportion of the battle casualties were Frenchmen, that might cast significant doubt on the claim that Napoleon lost the battle. And so on.

Science can have quite a lot to say about what probably did or did not happen in the past. And under the right circumstances, absence of certain kinds of evidence can be quite convincing evidence of absence.

[_Morley]

Galilei.

The guy who counted among his strongest allies members of the Church? The guy who alienated most of his ecclesiastical sympathizers by insulting them?

This is your great conflict between religion and science? Where many religious people defended science?

Your grade-school level understanding of Galileo isn't doing you any favors.

GALILEO GALILEI vs THE CHURCH: INCOMPATIBILITY OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION.

[_Buffalo]

They can be analyzed for evidence as to whether something did or did not happen or could or could not have happened. This is irrelevant though and I purposely avoided it because history is not one of the sciences.

Science works by looking at what is happening in the real world and then hypothesizing as to why that is. Then you use a set of controlled experiments to verify or refute the hypothesis. If history were a science you'd verify the battle of Waterloo by getting Napoleon back somehow, setting up the terrain and geography exactly the same, giving him the same men to fight with, and have them battle it out to see what the results are. For various reasons we do not do that.

History is a social science. However, in evaluating historical claims, branches of science such as chemestry, geology and archeology are employed. In other words, you're dead wrong. Also, your example is nonsensical, full stop.

So even if you are right (and you're not) saying that history beat out religion does not mean SCIENCE!!!! won.

History is a social science. However, in evaluating historical claims, branches of science such as chemestry, geology and archeology are employed. In other words, you're dead wrong. Also, your example is nonsensical, full stop. It displays a remarkable ignorance of the way science works. I suppose in order to study the stars we must construct a spaceship to visit each one. Right?

The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham have already failed the test, by the way.

I disrespectfully disagree.

Disagree all you wish. That's the scholarly consensus.

Anyway, a good example of this is faith healing. It has been scientifically demonstrated to have no more value than a placebo.

Okay, since I don't believe "faith healing" (or what this term usually means) ever worked as advertised I don't care for this at all.

Your church teaches faith healing.

More examples: the creation of the earth as described in the Bible, the global flood, the tower of babel, the exodus,

History, not science.

Since when do astronomy, geology, linguistics and archeology fall outside the realm of science?

near death experiences and out of body experiences,

That certain changes occur in the body does not prove that these do not involve something leaving the body. I am personally undecided on whether it happens at all anyways.

It proves that these experiences are physical, not indicative of anything spiritual at all. Remember Occam's razor.

special creation by an intelligent designer,

Science has proved this now???? Wow. Did they create a Universe without an intelligent designer? Only way I can see to test the theory.

Not necessary. They've demonstrated at every step of the way how no intelligent forces are necessary at any point.

the shape of the earth,

Silliness. The Christians knew the Earth was round. This was known since around 600 BCE at least.

Yes, and where did they learn it? Not from the Hebrew prophets. They learned it from the Greeks, who figured it out through a primitive form of science.

the nature of the solar system,

What nature? You mean that the earth wasn't the center of the Universe? Huh.....and here I was thinking those Jewish and Christian writing about other worlds might actually mean something?

Non-sequitur. You didn't address this point.

diving rods (a.k.a. the "Rod of Aaron"),

Aaron was a diver?

Typo. Divining rods. Joseph believed in them, and thought they had something to do with the priesthood. They don't work.

miracles of any kind, etc.

Since miracles are by their very nature an intervention into the natural world that cannot be repeated on command they can't be tested scientifically. You can't recreate the situation and test for it and expect it to happen again.

That's your private definition which you have constructed just now as an ad hoc means of hiding your faith from scrutiny.

Wiki has an excellent table that illustrates the gulf between science and religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscie ... udoscience

If you define religion as pseudoscience that would mean something. I don't. I don't learn much science or pseudoscience in Church. It is not what religion is about.

Nice try though.

I was referring to the section marked "superstition."

[_Tarski]

How are Tarski's criticisms "intellectually problematic in their own right"? Please elaborate.

The idea that nothing is ever fully settled in science and that all explanations/theories are open, and open permanently, to emendation, modification, and even to substantial revision, are long and well established concepts within philosophy of science,

Obviously and I never denied it. On the other hand, some theories are only "in principle" open to substantial revision. There will never be a time when we decide that the earth is the center of the solar system.

and Tarski is simply making it up as he goes along in claiming that it isn't.

No I am not claiming that. You can't read. You are such a poser (poseur) you think yourself qualified to pontificate on the philosophy of science. Your only exposure to science is second or third hand distortions found on ideological blogs.

[_Morley]

Galilei.

The guy who counted among his strongest allies members of the Church? The guy who alienated most of his ecclesiastical sympathizers by insulting them?

This is your great conflict between religion and science? Where many religious people defended science?

Your grade-school level understanding of Galileo isn't doing you any favors.

Um, what is my "grade-school level understanding of Galileo'? Or of the historic conflict between religion and science?

From the first paragraph of the Florida Atlantic University article link I posted previously:

On February 17, 1600, the Catholic Church made a most emphatic and brutal statement. Giordano Bruno, a Dominican friar, figure 1, turned philosopher, was burned at the stake in Rome. In keeping with the punishment he suffered the heretic's fork, a cruel Y-shaped object, the branched end of which passed into his jaw while the lower end was positioned behind his breastbone to force his mouth shut. Bruno had been found guilty of heresy and the fork meant that he could not longer "spread the word". His crime? Well, he was a sort of "hippie" and among his rather "way out" views for the time, he believed and maintained the Copernican model of the universe - that is the Earth not the Sun was at the center of the universe - and also that the universe was infinite - with the possibility of multiple inhabited worlds. Both views were heresy in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.

[_The Nehor]

History is a social science.

i.e. not exact.

However, in evaluating historical claims, branches of science such as chemestry, geology and archeology are employed.

Sometimes but they don't prove whether something happened or not. They may provide evidence one way or the other of course.

In other words, you're dead wrong.

Nope.

Also, your example is nonsensical, full stop. It displays a remarkable ignorance of the way science works. I suppose in order to study the stars we must construct a spaceship to visit each one. Right?

Nope, instead we study the data they send us at the current time. Then we experiment with it or compare it to other closer observable phenomena. You can't do that with history.

I disrespectfully disagree.

Disagree all you wish. That's the scholarly consensus.

I don't consider the conclusions of a few anti-mormons a scholarly consensus.

Okay, since I don't believe "faith healing" (or what this term usually means) ever worked as advertised I don't care for this at all.

Your church teaches faith healing.

Not in the usual meaning of that term.

More examples: the creation of the earth as described in the Bible, the global flood, the tower of babel, the exodus,

History, not science.

Since when do astronomy, geology, linguistics and archeology fall outside the realm of science?[/quote]

They don't but they are concerned with what we have now and then they make guesses about the past. Some of them are incredibly likely. Others less so.

That certain changes occur in the body does not prove that these do not involve something leaving the body. I am personally undecided on whether it happens at all anyways.

It proves that these experiences are physical, not indicative of anything spiritual at all. Remember Occam's razor.

Occam's razor can be a handy tool but the simple truth is it's not effective at discerning truth from error. Read up on it. I'm guessing even the wiki article knows more about that then you do.

Science has proved this now???? Wow. Did they create a Universe without an intelligent designer? Only way I can see to test the theory.

Not necessary. They've demonstrated at every step of the way how no intelligent forces are necessary at any point.

Assuming that's true (and all my reading on the Big Bang suggests to me you are talking out of your ass) that all things are completely explained that is proof that there isn't a God now? Wow.....

Silliness. The Christians knew the Earth was round. This was known since around 600 BCE at least.

Yes, and where did they learn it? Not from the Hebrew prophets. They learned it from the Greeks, who figured it out through a primitive form of science. [/quote]

Okay, then please demonstrate where religion got it wrong please.

What nature? You mean that the earth wasn't the center of the Universe? Huh.....and here I was thinking those Jewish and Christian writing about other worlds might actually mean something?

Non-sequitur. You didn't address this point.

You didn't have a point. All you suggested was that religion got the nature of the solar system wrong in some way. I can't refute your vague ideas without guesswork. Is that the secret to science beating religion? Making up vague strawmen and then smugly smashing them to pieces? When we try to defend it you say we're defending the wrong thing?

Has a strange cunning to it. More then I credited you with anyways. Guessing you learned this somewhere else.

Aaron was a diver?

Typo. Divining rods. Joseph believed in them, and thought they had something to do with the priesthood. They don't work.

You mean they don't work without the priesthood. I agree completely. If they ever work they work by miraculous means. See below for testing miracles.

Since miracles are by their very nature an intervention into the natural world that cannot be repeated on command they can't be tested scientifically. You can't recreate the situation and test for it and expect it to happen again.

That's your private definition which you have constructed just now as an ad hoc means of hiding your faith from scrutiny.

BS. It's the common theological definition. You would know that if you so much as touched a book about them.

It's much easier to pontificate about things you know nothing about though isn't it?

I recommend C.S. Lewis's book on Miracles. While flawed in some respects he is clear on how miracles interact with nature and he is repeating the consensus of Christianity on what a miracle is over the last two millenia. Amazing that you seem to have debunked something you don't understand. Does this happen often with you?

Or do you really imagine that everyone thinks miracles are magic that you can make happen on demand so they can be subjected to scientific scrutiny?

I was referring to the section marked "superstition."

I deny that any of my faith fits in that section.

[_The Nehor]

Um, what is my "grade-school level understanding of Galileo'? Or of the historic conflict between religion and science?

That it can be starkly defined as religion versus science. I recommend a good biography of Galileo. Read about his religious supporters and his religious enemies.

From the first paragraph of the Florida Atlantic University article link I posted previously:

On February 17, 1600, the Catholic Church made a most emphatic and brutal statement. Giordano Bruno, a Dominican friar, figure 1, turned philosopher, was burned at the stake in Rome. In keeping with the punishment he suffered the heretic's fork, a cruel Y-shaped object, the branched end of which passed into his jaw while the lower end was positioned behind his breastbone to force his mouth shut. Bruno had been found guilty of heresy and the fork meant that he could not longer "spread the word". His crime? Well, he was a sort of "hippie" and among his rather "way out" views for the time, he believed and maintained the Copernican model of the universe - that is the Earth not the Sun was at the center of the universe - and also that the universe was infinite - with the possibility of multiple inhabited worlds. Both views were heresy in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.

You left out that the primary reason he was burned was due to his other heretical beliefs. His cosmology was one of the most petty of his sins. It's also questionable whether the copernican model was even a heresy at that time. It wasn't until Galileo that the Catholic church had a definitive stand on it.

[_Buffalo]

History is a social science.

i.e. not exact.

However, in evaluating historical claims, branches of science such as chemestry, geology and archeology are employed.

Sometimes but they don't prove whether something happened or not. They may provide evidence one way or the other of course.

In other words, you're dead wrong.

Nope.

[/quote]

I'm not sure whether you're being intentionally stupid or not. Are you trying to discount the importance of evidence, or making a childish argument about "proof"?

[_Buffalo]

Also, your example is nonsensical, full stop. It displays a remarkable ignorance of the way science works. I suppose in order to study the stars we must construct a spaceship to visit each one. Right?

Nope, instead we study the data they send us at the current time. Then we experiment with it or compare it to other closer observable phenomena. You can't do that with history.

Oh really? You can't dig up old bones and settlements and pottery and utensils and pollen deposits and analyze them? You can't run DNA testing? Really, Nehor?

Now I understand why you usually limit yourself to one-word responses.