What has caused the recent split between science and religion?

[Boojatta]

DSM-II (i.e. the 2nd Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) didn't agree to the letter, but did agree in spirit with ...

... Moses, the Apostle Paul, and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) with respect to any given GLBT orientation.

All four authorities claimed that it's a disorder. The main difference seems to be that DSM-II took the stance that a GLBT orientation can be remedied or at least treated and managed, whereas Moses, Paul, and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) didn't offer any ideas along those lines.

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) claimed to have received his message directly from an angel. The scientists who created DSM-II made no such claim, but isn't it possible that they were also inspired by an angel? After all, we are otherwise faced with a remarkable coincidence.

Since DSM-II, there have been changes to DSM. Perhaps scientists who specialize in psychiatric research have been proceeding too rapidly, rushing ahead instead of waiting for the next unique world-historical moment when an angel will provide them with the kind of special revelation that they might have already relied upon when they created DSM-II.

Alternatively, perhaps it's important to distinguish between ideas and institutions. Why do people say that it's important for governments to invest in science, and then leap to talking about providing money to specific scientific institutions? Any given scientific institution might have its own doctrinal sacred cows. Why should taxpayer money be spent to help institutions support doctrinal sacred cows, especially given the possibility that the doctrinal sacred cows that are supported might give a false and misleading picture of reality?

Now I will observe that, in this message, the sentences before this one make no mention of Galileo. In the history of the relationship between religion and science, Galileo is important. It's also important to think about history that is more recent.

[opihimoimoi]

1. Fear of the complex drives a rejection and a clinging to the simplistic...aka...teabaggers, birthers

[cleanhippie]

2. What split? They have never been joined.

Even though creationists/ID proponents keep trying, and failing.

[Boojatta]

4. I meant "split" in the sense of divergence of views ...

on a topic for which the views expressed by religious institutions were previously similar to the views expressed by scientific institutions.

[cleanhippie]

7. I see what you are saying. The split would have been caused by people understanding

the world around them, devising the scientific method, and leaving irrational fear and mythology behind.

Instead of calling it a split, I would say that science grew up while religion continued to sit in the corner and suck its thumb while reading its "holy texts."

[alex cross]

3. Recent?

n/t

[Boojatta]

5. I meant recent compared to the days when Galileo was alive.

[Fumesucker]

6. You might recall that Galileo was threatened into retracting his claim about geocentrism being false

And Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by the church for similar reasons.

Unless you consider these event's "recent" then your OP makes no sense.

[Boojatta]

9. There is a huge different between ...

a word like "recent" and a word like "prime." Nine isn't a prime number, but seven is. To distinguish between what is recent and what isn't you need to draw a line somewhere, but where?

If you want to discourage people from continuing some discussion, then you can enter a thread and assert that the events they are discussing happened too long ago to be considered "recent." How long ago is too long ago depends not on the number of years, but on the significance of the events. If the events themselves are a problem, then the line between recent and not recent can be moved to make those events fall into the "not recent" category.

For example, a DU member can go into the Israel/Palestine forum and post a message saying that Nakba (or Naqba) was "recent", and then go to another forum and classify some events that occurred after 1948 as "not recent". In contrast, the number nine isn't prime in any forum, and the number seven is prime in all forums.

[Fumesucker]

10. You were the one who used the term "recent" without defining what you meant by that.

And "prime" has more than one meaning..

Science itself as an organized philosophy of thought is not that much older than Galileo.

[Boojatta]

12. If we're required to define every term before we use it ...

then we'll need to begin by agreeing upon the words that can be used in writing our definitions.

[Fumesucker]

13. Umm.. you were the one who caviled over the definition of "recent"..

A word that you used to start with.

You also ignored my point that science itself is a fairly recent invention, Galileo can easily be seen as one of the earliest practitioners of the scientific method.

[Boojatta]

17. I'm simply trying to prevent misunderstanding.

In calculus, one may speak of a "small" number epsilon. This is a matter of directing the student's attention to something and helping the student to follow a particular train of thought. However, the word "small" doesn't appear in theorems. The word "small" plays a role in motivating and formulating some ideas, but doesn't appear in the final formulation of the ideas.

Similarly, I used the word "recent" to help introduce my thread. I didn't intend to make any kind of claim using the word "recent."

[dimbear]

18. What? Galileo threatened? No way..........

He was merely given a carefully guided tour of the torture chambers. It would seem the mere sight of the tools of the trade had a salutary influence on his erring views. :)

[Tesha]

8. The fact that religion is nothing but fairy tales and science is based on the facts, ...

...as nearly as we can determine them?

Not to mention the fact that science is willing to change its beliefs
"on a dime" when new facts arise, but religions keep on peddling
the same old fables no matter how many times their fables are
disproven.

Tesha

[Speck Tater]

11. The spilt started with the Inquisition. It's nothing new. nt

[rug]

14. People who can't see they're two different things.

I've often wondered what caused the recent split between my fish and my milliipede.

[DeSwiss]

15. And among the 182 disorders......

...to be found in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders#DSM-II_.281968.29">DSM-II it also includes a revised definition of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations">hallucinations/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions">delusions (appearing disconnected from reality) -- and for which all three of the above biblical personages would now be under psychiatric medication for. Not to mention whose behavior and statements would also very likely require them to be placed under restraint and/or be incarcerated for today. Particularly when deemed as being potentially harmful to themselves or to others.

- Which we now know that they absolutely were harmful to others. And continue to be......

[ZombieHorde]

16. Perhaps the union of science and religion was merely an illusion created by coincidence. nt

[moobu2]

19. Same thing that caused the split between alchemy and chemistry

and astrology and astronomy.

[exboyfil]

20. Two diametrically opposed groups agreeing on one thing

that theistic evolution is a non-starter. On the one hand we have Richard Dawkins and "The God Delusion" and PZ Myers descecrating a communion wafer. On the other hand we have Phillip Johnson, intelligent design, and the "Wedge Document"

I recently spent four weeks in Bible Study trying to fight off the opinions coming from the Discovery Institute channeled through "The Truth Project". while I respect Myers and Dawkins as scientists, I strongly disagree with some of their tactics. I have much greater respect for Francis Collins and Ken Miller (as well as the departed Carl Sagan and Stephen Gould). The first two profess to being Christians and the last two realized that faith is important to some individuals and that faith should be respected if not believed (if nothing more because individuals who you have respect for have that faith).

At the end of the day if I am forced by my church to decide between what I know is reality (common descent, the age of the earth, and the age of the universe for example) and the stories in Genesis, I will come down on the side of science and leave my church. I do think that my church has much good to do in this world, and I hope that I am never required to make that choice.

[cleanhippie]

21. What church do you attend?

[exboyfil]

25. Currently an ELCA Lutheran

but it has a strong undercurrent of Baptist style fundamentalism to it (thus The Truth Project). I don't think the church will ever expect a strict adherence to fundamentalism (such as Intelligent Design adherent Dembski experienced when he questioned the global nature of the Flood - he was almost driven out of his teaching position at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary). On the other hand what they are teaching is starting to get on my nerves, and I will not let them distort the words of great scientists. True U (a follow on Truth Project for teens) is starting to be used in our church as well, and I want to know what they are trying to teach to my daughters.

[immoderate]

41. I have seen the so-called "Truth Project" productions.

They are from Focus on the Family, the insane Dr. Dobson. Showing them to children is child abuse.

--imm

[Manifestor_of_Light]

22. The church persecuted scientists for centuries

If you recall the third episode of COSMOS, they threw Kepler's mother in jail for being a witch because of her incantations and telling him stories about going to the moon.

A protestant, John Calvin, barbecued the first Unitarian, Michael Servetus, who was a doctor and knew of the circulation of blood before William Harvey.

The Catholics made Galileo recant and barbecued Bruno. A lot of math and astronomy was preserved in the Arab world by people like Omar Khayyam.

"The Church says the earth is flat, but I have seen the Shadow on the Moon, and it is Round; and I have more faith in a Shadow on the Moon than in the Church."
--attributed to Ferdinand Magellan

The church wants people to be obedient and ignorant. They misuse the word theory to suggest that if it's a theory it's not proven, like the theory of evolution.

Creationism has already gone to the Supreme Court (1988 case out of Louisiana) and been declared to not be science, and not to be taught in the classroom as valid science.

[dimbear]

29. The anti-science spirit goes back to Emperor Theodosius and his

enthusiastic burning of the books of the pagans. His wholesale destruction of accumulated knowledge was a trigger for the pleasant period now called the Dark Ages.

[Sal316]

30. Trigger for the Dark Ages?

Yeah, and the Germanic tribes running across Europe, the thrice sacking of Rome initiating societal collapse had nothing to do with it.... it was those damn Christians.

[dimbear]

36. A trigger, as I say, not the only trigger.........

However, Theodosius and his ilk were the only ones I know of that were specifically trying to suppress knowledge. The barbarians were just out for a good time, for the most part.

And if I were listing the whole long list of causes for the Dark Ages, I would go to two others: plague and crop failure. Like most history, it's complex, but no one should deny the important role of Theodosius.

[AlecBGreen]

32. I think its based on fear MOL

There are many Christians who claim to believe the Bible is 100% literal and a completely accurate description of historical events (i.e. creation, Eden, the Flood, etc). To them, an admission that some of the Bible isnt historically factual means their faith is worthless, so out of fear they deny scientific explanations. They are afraid and many people when afraid get defensive and refuse to admit the possibility of alternate explanations even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I put myself in this group. I believe the earth is ~ 4.5 billion years old and human evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Even so I am aware that my faith might be nothing more than a psychological defense to soothe my ego and keep me from fear. I dont BELIEVE that is why I am a Christian, but I recognize it is a possibility.

There are some fundamentalists who will go beyond refusing to admit and go into active persecution mode. They will do whatever it takes to silence dissenting voices. They do this for three reasons: 1) to bulwark their belief and keep it safe from alteration 2) fear that 'heretical' ideas will spread and 3) to attempt to please God.

edit: apparently I cant count to 3 this morning :)

[Sal316]

23. A divergence of views....

...has always been human nature. Whether it's between schools of thought or within a singular school of thought.

There are a number of scientists, nobel laureates and fathers of modern science even, who are people of strong faith.

Just as there are great religious figures (i.e. Pope John Paul II, recently) who do not see science and scientific discoveries as a threat to faith.

The old science vs. religion canard is simply a red herring. It's a false choice offered by people on both sides who carry an inherent dislike, to be kind, of the other and refuse to believe the "other" could provide anything of meaningful value to society.

In other words, it's a child's argument from childlike minds.

As to your assertion that Moses, Paul, et.al., saw homosexuality as a disorder, that is incorrect. That would be pretty difficult to do considering homosexual didn't appear in an American bible until the RSV in 1946, I believe.

[darkstar3]

26. So, as someone who believes that science and religion can coexist peacefullly,

tell me this: What is your response to the "god of the gaps" problem?

[Sal316]

27. I'm more of a Bonhoeffer fan, myself.

"...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Letters and Papers from Prison

What I find interesting is the atheist use of the "God of the Gaps" argument, or misuse, actually, considering theologians have used the same or similar arguments for centuries as a criticism of weak faith. It has been a criticism of Christians who only see God in the supernatural and not in the natural, limiting God and, at the same time, elevating man and his knowledge above God.

Another misuse is the assumption that if it can be explained by science, then God is not involved. That use is simply the mirror image of the theology it is intended to counter, and both are rather simplistic.

[darkstar3]

28. As I suspected.

Your statements here sound VERY similar to the old summarization "science is the how, God is the why." Would you consider that a fair characterization?

[Sal316]

35. Yeah, I'd say that's fair, for the most part.

As I've said previously, though, science can, sometimes, tell us the why. However, science is more adept at telling us the how. It's a tool that gives man an understanding of how the world around him works.

Things don't happen because science says so, science simply helps explain what happens.

[darkstar3]

37. The problem is,

you're confusing two different kinds of "why".

Let me 'splain...

When you say that science can sometimes tell us why, you're talking about causality. A gives rise to B, which causes C, and so on. But simple causality is not what we're talking about when God is invoked. It wasn't what I was talking about in my post when I summarized your position saying "God is the why," and it's not what you're talking about when you imply that things happen because of something.

THAT concept, the non-causality why, is a more existential question. It involves reason, intent, design, or whatever else you'd like to call it.

Let me see if I can provide a helpful example of two different "why"s.

Causality chain:
Why did the tornado strike the farmhouse but miss the barn? Because upper level wind currents combined with low level pressures affected the track of the tornado. Meteorologists can use satellite data to trace the causality chain back from the farmhouse, to the formation of the tornado, then to the formation of the storm cell, then to the formation of the low pressure system and it's track over the continent, and so on.

Existential why:
Why do we live in a world where tornadoes can, in a seemingly random fashion, wipe out livelihoods and lives?

We are ALL driven to ask existential questions. It's part of the level of awareness we have achieved as higher mammals. But this is where believers, especially "God is the why" believers, and atheists like myself diverge. You have what you consider to BE the answer. God and his divine plan are the terminus to all of your existential queries. Atheists consider your answer to be mere postulation without support, and we keep searching for answers to those existential questions wherever we may be able to find them.

To summarize, "God is the why" is still nothing more than "god of the gaps." The gap in this case, however, is simply existential instead of scientific or natural.

[cleanhippie]

38. If that is the case, then WHICH god is the "why"?

There have been more than 3600 "god" documented in written history, which one of them is the "why" you suggest?

[LAGC]

31. The problem with God being part of nature is that we can test that.

Science can test natural forces and make falsifiable claims about them. Why should we presume that natural forces have a supernatural origin? How is it NOT "God of the gaps" to believe that something mysterious makes the universe work the way it does, and that these forces will never be known to science?

[Sal316]

34. Then please explain....

....how you can definitively test for the supernatural. I'm sure the scientific world would love to see your methods, studies, standards, and data that proves your test method to be accurate, precise, and repeatable.

If you can't, then thanks for proving my point above.

[cleanhippie]

39. You have just re-worded the "then prove that god doesn't exist" argument.

Science makes no claims that the supernatural does not exist. it states that there is no evidence to support the idea that the supernatural DOES exist, a claim which you and religion are making.

[Sal316]

40. No, I didn't.

LAGC said "The problem with God being part of nature is that we can test that."

I simply asked him how. He made the claim.

[LAGC]

46. All I meant by that was...

If God intervened in the natural world, wouldn't there be more exceptions to what we already know as the general laws of physics?

I mean, its one thing to make the claim that God created the laws of physics in the beginning of the universe -- the deist position, as Richard Dawkins even admitted, that's a position one could respect -- but its an entirely different animal to claim that God regularly intervenes and defies the laws of physics according to his will even now.

Wouldn't we see more irregularities in the laws of nature, wouldn't there be more tell-tale signs that some intelligent force was at play even today, by causing things to happen that can't be explained by science? While there is still stuff that science doesn't understand, there's no reason to believe the forces in play in this universe weren't set a very long time ago and haven't been tinkered with since.

[skepticscott]

53. The entire notion of the supernatural is

a false one. Nothing which physically exists can be beyond, above or outside of nature (i.e super-natural). Everything in our physical reality is subject to the same natural laws, and any appearance to the contrary is just that, and due merely to our own limited understanding of those laws.

[darkstar3]

33. Leaving so soon?

I thought we were just getting started...

[Silent3]

42. Giant angels might push the planets around in their orbits...

...the angels just happen to very meticulously follow the laws of physics when doing so.

Perhaps it is overstatement to say that God can't be involved in those things for which there are now scientific explanations. The more technically correct thing to say would be, "There is no proof of divine intervention, and speculation on divine intervention provides no useful explanatory power."

[Sal316]

43. Things don't happen because of the laws of physics...

....the laws of physics are how we understand our universe.

I agree that its an overstatement to say "God can't be involved in those things for which there are now scientific explanations", just as it is when people make the mirrored claim.

However, until someone can demonstrate an accepted, peer reviewed, accurate and precise testing methodology, the "no proof/evidence" claim is simply a presupposition that stands on shaky legs.

[darkstar3]

44. Oh Sal, not the "disprove God" gambit.

I may not care for your theological education, but I at least thought that you were above such blatant and overused logical fallacies.

[Sal316]

45. It's not the "disprove God" gambit at all....

....unless, of course, you're unable to show the world what tests have performed, as in LAGC's "we can test for that (God in nature)", that have led to the verifiable conclusion that there is no evidence for God.

I'm not asking anyone to disprove God, just asking them to show me what they HAVE tested that leads them to their conclusion.

So it's either:

a) As LAGC said "The problem with God being part of nature is that we can test that" meaning there's a test, somewhere, that can validate the supernatural; or

b) As cleanhippie says "Science makes no claims that the supernatural does not exist. It states that there is no evidence to support the idea that the supernatural DOES exist." Which, then, begs the question....

....How does science test for the supernatural in order to validate the conclusion that there is 'no evidence' to support the idea that the supernatural does exist.

If the whole point is that, as claimed here on DU frequently, it's more rational to trust science because it makes claims that are verifiable, then asking how it is used in order to test and verify the claim that there's 'no evidence' for the existence of God is a valid question.

Simply saying there's "no evidence" without any data or actual science to back it up is simply a fancy way to say "Because I said so".

[LAGC]

47. Why is the onus on us, Sal?

Shouldn't the onus be on the one trying to prove the supernatural claim?

As I clarified in my above post, if we are to assume there DID exist a God that regularly intervened and defied the laws of physics as we know them today, wouldn't there be more irregularities, more unexplained phenomena? Everything that most every branch of science agrees on says that whatever forces make up the laws of physics were set a long time ago, and have not been modified since.

You can still claim that God created the universe and set those forces into motion (the deist position), but what evidence do YOU have that there exists a God that intervenes TODAY, that defies the pre-set laws of physics according to his intelligent will? I mean, is there a "miracle" that's happened on this planet that hasn't had a perfectly reasonable scientific NATURAL explanation once you dig into it and learn all the information?

Why should we believe that God intervenes in the workings of the universe today? What makes you so sure those forces weren't set into motion 13.7 billion years ago and haven't been modified since?

[Sal316]

50. I'm not trying to prove anything....

...nor am I asking you to prove anything.

I'm simply asking to see what methodologies you've used to come to your conclusion(s).

That shouldn't be too difficult to provide, right?

[LAGC]

54. Okay, I'll bite.

The only methodology I use to come to my conclusion is the scientific method. I simply take a look at what scientists know about the universe, and judge accordingly. The more time goes on, the more we know about it. What few unexplained mysteries still exist will be explained in due time, I have little doubt.

You still never answered my question. Is there a "miracle" today that doesn't have a perfectly reasonable natural explanation once you dig down into it? If God really still existed and intervened, wouldn't we see more unexplainable miracles? Where are people walking on water? Where are people turning water into wine? Healing the sick? Why did all these alleged miracles happen once upon a time 2000 years ago, and nothing since?

[darkstar3]

48. Actually, it is the "disprove God" gambit, you've just overdressed it.

Firstly, your a) is contradictory.

LAGC originally stated "The problem with God being part of nature is that we can test that." We can, and we have. Claims of miracles, paranormal activity, prayer effectiveness and so on have all been tested scientifically and have all been shown to be false. There is simply no statistical significance behind any of them. But you refused to even consider these facts, and instead mischaracterized LAGCs statement to say that we can somehow test the supernatural. How can a statement speaking strictly about testing things in nature be honestly misconstrued into a claim about testing the supernatural?

Secondly, on b)...

As we have already established, science cannot and does not test for supernatural phenomena. But here's the thing: As soon as you claim that something supernatural has an effect on our natural world, THAT effect can be tested for, and as I said above we have so far found nothing.

There is no statistically significant evidence for the efficacy of prayer, the occurrence of miracles, the presence of spirits/souls, etc, etc, etc...but it is far easier to say that we currently have no evidence of the supernatural. If you want to get specific, I suppose you could say that we have no evidence of ANYTHING supernatural affecting the current natural world, but then what reason do we have to believe that something supernatural exists if we can't test it directly and we have no evidence of any effect on our world?

The supernatural is a baseless postulation, and you're telling us we have to prove you wrong. That is a purely illogical standpoint, and once again easy to summarize by calling it what it is: the "disprove God" gambit.

[Silent3]

49. Evidence of lack of evidence is what you want?

Suppose you claim, "George Washington was a hermaphrodite".

I say, "There is no evidence to support that claim.".

You're going to turn around and say it's MY burden to show YOU a "precise testing methodology" by which I can claim that no evidence supporting the hermaphroditic George Washington hypothesis exists?

[Sal316]

51. Nice try, but no.

Like I said, I'm not looking to prove anything, nor am I asking others to prove anything.

If one claims there is no evidence/no proof, then there has to be a methodology that got one to that point.

I just want to see the methodology.... if there isn't one, then saying there's no proof/evidence, is simply an opinion and a statement of faith.

[Silent3]

52. You have an interesting way of trying to rephrase what you're saying...

...and getting absolutely no distance from that which has been criticized about what you've said.

My analogy is spot on with the nonsensical nature of what you're asking. Substitute "existence of the supernatural" for "George Washington was a hermaphrodite" and we're right back at what you're asking for.

There is no methodology behind saying "there is no evidence" other than surveying the available evidence and noting the absence of the evidence.

Scientifically acceptable evidence of the supernatural would be an earth-shaking, revolutionary historical event. I don't have to pour through every scientific document ever produced to say that the evidence isn't there. If you think that evidence is out there, forgotten, suppressed, ignored, whatever... it's your burden of proof to find it and point it out, not our burden of proof to produce a "methodology" that shows the evidence isn't there.

I've never personally been to Kentucky, yet I believe Kentucky exists. You can twist your use of words to call that an "opinion" or a "statement of faith" too, but please don't pretend that acceptance of well-known, non-controversial facts is the moral equivalent of religious "faith".

[LAGC]

24. DSM-5 is coming out in a few years.

I hear religious belief is going to be listed as a psychosis. ;)

Seriously, when have psychiatrists ever been wrong before?