I think that there is no fundamental difference between science and religion.

If you think there is, please make your case for discussion.

Abeg, I agree with you completely, totally and absolutely. There is no difference between religion and science.

If anyone wants to come and state otherwise let them come.

why should the two be compared?

sinequanon:

I think that there is no fundamental difference between science and religion.

If you think there is, please make your case for discussion.

Well, it all depends on what you may mean by the differences or similarities. There are several perspectives to consider that may show that they might be fundamentally different in their outlooks, don't you think?

Topic/Poster
You have to ask Albert Einstein and Jesus. . . .

Thre is a scientist whois working on the links between science and religion [ancient wisdom] His name is Gregg Braden, you may wish to do a google search on him. Promises to be quite revealing

science is the observation and understanding of the world around you. many of the "pagan" as well as "earth" religions do the same. thus they are interchangable. thiest religions are bound by dogma and this are wholy different. as science has progress as has the upswing in "neo-pagan" folowers

agathamari:

science is the observation and understanding of the world around you. many of the "pagan" as well as "earth" religions do the same. thus they are interchangable. thiest religions are bound by dogma and this are wholy different. as science has progress as has the upswing in "neo-pagan" folowers

You're preaching your atheistic dogma once again. Atheism (the many forms of atheism I'm familiar with) is bound by atheistic dogma, so what essentially has that got to do with the 'fundamental difference between science and religion'?

viaro:

Well, it all depends on what you may mean by the differences or similarities. There are several perspectives to consider that may show that they might be fundamentally different in their outlooks, don't you think?

Okay, the way that I see it is this. Religion contains Science. Or, Religion is the application of Science. Science gains knowledge about the world and Religion applies this knowledge in order to achieve an optimal contentment in life.

viaro:

You're preaching your atheistic dogma once again. Atheism (the many forms of atheism I'm familiar with) is bound by atheistic dogma, so what essentially has that got to do with the 'fundamental difference between science and religion'?

what are you mumbling?  i have said before i am a pantheist/diest not an athiest. very large differnce between the them actually.  and again i have said before if i were to quantify my belief system with an organized religion it would be closest to hindu or budhism.  again pay attention.  pagan and earthbound religions believe in a god like force therefor they CANNOT be athiest.  someone who does not believe in the judeo-christian god in this day and age is not an athiest, someone who doesnt believe in any form of god or god like being is an athiest (btw- only ONE form of athiesm).

@ poster, it depends on which way you look at it, some people dont have a problem with the two coexisting while some others think they work in two different directions i.e: :

Science:

we have observed and tested the evidence and facts before us, lets now reach a conclusion

while Religion:

we already have the conclusions, lets now look for the evidence and facts to back them up!

Thank you all, so far, and thank you KunleOshob for the reference. I have just read an overview of Gregg Braden's work. He seems to cast his ideas wholly in scientific language, but they are interesting nonetheless. I will be reading further.  

bawomolo:

why should the two be compared?

I compare them because there is a great political and philosophical drive to contrast them, here in the UK, but particularly in the US.

viaro:

Well, it all depends on what you may mean by the differences or similarities. There are several perspectives to consider that may show that they might be fundamentally different in their outlooks, don't you think?

I agree that they are many perspectives that may suggest a fundamental difference. Please present any you think go further than suggestion.

agathamari:
thiest religions are bound by dogma and this are wholy different.

In practice, I think the fundamental laws of science are dogmatic.

By 'truth', we often mean 'consistency' and, in searching for truth, we are searching for meaning consistent with what we already believe. There are many bodies of subjectively consistent ideas, of which science is just one. None, of course, is completely consistent; the search for 'knowledge' -- making new ideas fit -- continues. Consistency, itself, leads to self-reference because it is the specific dogmatic logic behind any system of ideas which determines its consistency.

I posit that, although science may claim to defer to some absolute truth, all it is doing is deferring to self-consistency -- in which dogma is inbuilt. Inconsistency leads to re-examination and rebalancing of ideas in a manner biased so as to preserve the core principles at practically any cost. The core principles are dogma in all but name.

g1:

@ poster, it depends on which way you look at it, some people dont have a problem with the two coexisting while some others think they work in two different directions i.e: :

Science:

we have observed and tested the evidence and facts before us, lets now reach a conclusion

while Religion:

we already have the conclusions, lets now look for the evidence and facts to back them up!

I have heard this line of argument before. I will assume that you have thought deeply about it and not just repeated it because it sounds nice.

Are you applying like for like? Science is scientifically tested (which is self-referential).

Are you suggesting that religious ideas are not religiously tested (witnessed, etc.) -- also self-referential.

Or are you being biased, and suggesting that religious ideas have not been cross-referentially scientifically tested.

sinequanon:

I have heard this line of argument before. I will assume that you have thought deeply about it and not just repeated it because it sounds nice.

Are you applying like for like? Science is scientifically tested (which is self-referential).

Are you suggesting that religious ideas are not religiously tested (witnessed, etc.) -- also self-referential.

Or are you being biased, and suggesting that religious ideas have not been cross-referentially scientifically tested.

i am not being biased like i said in my post some dont see a difference while some do,

some christians and muslims cant accept human evolution because they claim that it goes against what is in their holy books, likewise some people cant accept what is in the holy books because they agree with human evolution and you finally have a third group who dont have a problem accepting both positions, so like i said it all depends on whose perspective you are looking at it from

agathamari:

what are you mumbling?  i have said before i am a pantheist/diest not an athiest. very large differnce between the them actually.  and again i have said before if i were to quantify my belief system with an organized religion it would be closest to hindu or budhism.

Okay agathamari, my fault - I misrepresented you and take the blame responsibly. I had no prior knowledge that you're a deist (I was only going by what you had posted on the other thread about atheism). Sorry about my mix up, my apologies again.

again pay attention.  pagan and earthbound religions believe in a god like force therefor they CANNOT be athiest.

I understand that very well, so no need to have repeated that at all. Pagan and earthbound religions are not to be confused as fundamentally same with science, please - that's the point. If you can go beyond lecturing us on paganism and dealing with the topic of the thread, that would be great.

someone who does not believe in the judeo-christian god in this day and age is not an athiest,

I know, thank you. That doesn't make such a person a scientist either.

someone who doesnt believe in any form of god or god like being is an athiest (btw- only ONE form of athiesm).

As above, I know that - yes, it doesn't make sucha  person a scientist. I know you understand what I just said, and the only reason why I reiterate it is so we can focus on the topic of this thread: 'What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion?'

And, please: there is not only one form of atheism. Informed atheists know what I'm talking about, so since you're not an atheist, I would rather urge you gather your facts before making such assertions. While you on it, let me leave you an example from a French atheist website - [url=http://]Atheisme.ca[/url] ~~

The underlying principles of this site, its goals, its "raison d'être".
There are many different forms of atheism; many differents atheisms so to speak. The approach adopted by this site is one of those possibilities. The purpose of this section is thus not to present a list of definitive and immutable precepts, but rather to provide a clearly worded summary explaining that approach

I hope that's a good start. Search more - information is all out there.

g1:

@ poster, it depends on which way you look at it, some people dont have a problem with the two coexisting while some others think they work in two different directions i.e: :

Science:

we have observed and tested the evidence and facts before us, lets now reach a conclusion

That's not 'science', please - that's how many atheists claim to do science. Science does not start out by observing and testing 'the evidence' - how does it know that is an "evidence" if that is not a conclusion already? Science, properly speaking, does not use the term 'evidence' in such a careless manner, and that is why your ideas about religion were queried as biased.

while Religion:

we already have the conclusions, lets now look for the evidence and facts to back them up!

That's a narrow way to reason out issues. Religion means many things to many people, and the argument could be made that religion in many instances (and for many people) does not reach all conclusions - it is seeking, continues to seek, and even when it seems to begin to reach its quest, it continues to seek further. Please don't confuse these things and start misrepresenting religion from an atheistic point of reference.

g1:

i am not being biased like i said in my post some dont see a difference while some do,,

Fair enough. I understand. You were not necessarily giving your own opinion, but opinions you have heard from others.

I am particularly interested in hearing from anyone who believes they can see and articulately describe a fundamental difference between religion and science.

Religions propose (OK I know there must be some who don't but at the least the mainstream ones) that there is another world, a supernatural world, where being who are just spirits live or reincarnate into other things. We are told this by holy books whose teaching are repeated and repeated over the generations. Yet this is the point at which religion and science are most at oddsReligion is not science and science is not religion. Science is based on observation and theories based on those observations. The philosophy of science is that you can postulate explanations which may be tested by observation and or experimentation or you can postulate explanations which may only be deduced to be correct but which have a high order of probability of being correct. One can argue that is also what religion apologists attempt to do but the key difference is creating an experiment which will substantiate the theory. . . . . . . To the best of my knowledge, there is no chant, ritual, incantation, prayer, series of gestures, etc. which will consistently produce an entity which can be seen and measured and identified as "God". . . . .Religionists love to ride on the coat tails of science if they can deviously make it seem like it supports their various religious claim, but they castigate science at every opportunity when it conflicts with their magic story even as they benefit from the fruits of science e.g a computer world, longer lives, air travel, cell phones, antibiotics, a growing wonderous understanding of our universe as well as the microscopic world, DNA, etc.

Religious folks have just gotten used to not having their pet superstitions questioned. They like to feel like it's ennobling to believe in their version of magical thinking. I feel pretty equal about all man made superstitions and mythology(Scientology, Astrology, psychics, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism,demons, satan, angels, etc). . . .All belief in the paranormal, supernatural, and other pseudoscientific beliefs. They just don't hold up under testing at all no conclusive evidence have been put forth to support them at all. Personally I believe its better I say I do not know something than believe a lie, and as far as the evidence goes, all belief in invisible beings is are all the same. There is no more evidence for Thor than Jesus-God or Allah God. There is not 2 sides to "the debate." There is one truth IMO and so far science is the best path for illuminating the truth that is the same for everyone no matter what they believe but the same can not be said of religion.

On the flip side, there are millions of different types of faiths and religions and they do not hold up or measure up the same way as science does. . . .humans have always invented gods or other invisible entities and supernatural explanations to explain that which they don't understand. But then science comes along and tells them to stop sacrificing virgins or goats, there are no weather gods that need pleasing, and we can do better by using irrigation and planting weather resistant crops. There are no fertiliuty gods that need pleasing etc. . . .The fundamental difference between science and religion is that science does not claim it knows or hold the ultimate truth or tries to castigate any body or anything that disagrees with it. . . . According to religion one version of a magical story you are urged to believe in is the ultimate " truth"over all the other possibilities because somehow you were thought it was "the truth". . . . but doesn't every believer think that? Everyone is going to hell according to somebody's religion.

21st century advances in science help explain what was once seen as supernatural or had religious explanations (volcanoes, earthquakes, rainbows,biology, physics, age of the universe, etc). It is my belief the modern day religious apologists see the advances in science as influencing people to abandon their religious beliefs and worship the "god of science". Thus, the apologists stepping into the fray are faced either with trying to discount science or elevate religious belief to an equal of science. If that understanding is correct then the modern day religious apologist is doomed. Science would like something more that conjecture about a supernatural world. Yet there is nothing. What religion teaches is just so-called facts which have no means of verification built in and require acceptance as they are with not a shred of supporting evidence or theory. Ultimately, there is nothing we have in common with religion and science at least until a religion comes up with something that suggests their world-view, including the supernatural, is a possibility. Until then (and I guess we do not expect it will come) religion and science are opposed in view.

sinequanon:

Fair enough. I understand. You were not necessarily giving your own opinion, but opinions you have heard from others.

I am particularly interested in hearing from anyone who believes they can see and articulately describe a fundamental difference between religion and science.

well it might be difficult to find some one who will give you what you are looking for, like i said they will most likely fall into the 3 categories i mentioned before,
1--if there are hardline atheist i.e they totally reject the supernatural, they will have a problem reconciling their world view and some of the supernatural claims of religion

2-- if they are really fundamental in their religion like Young Earth Creationist who believe that the earth is a few thousand years old then they will reject the scientific claims that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old

3--then you have a group of christians and muslims and other theists who do not see a clash between science and religion, they have no problem reconciling science with their faith.

you said you want an articulated explanation of a fundamental difference, which means you are looking for answers from the first two groups and answers from the first two groups will most likely be highly biased and extreme to either side, and i guess you might not be looking for an extreme end answer?

Thank you mazaje.

I would examine some of the terms you have used.

1. Supernatural

This concept only exists relative to science. The word describes ideas which have not been accepted by science.

Similarly, there are scientific ideas which have not been accepted by various religions, and religious ideas that have not been accepted by other religions. Science is no different in this respect. It is not wholly consistent with other bodies of belief.

2. Substantiate/measure

These words seems to be key to your assertion that science assesses the environment differently from religion. I see these words as self-referential. Implicitly, I think you are merely labelling qualitative assessment that happens to have used the scientific method. Like science, religions use their own means of assessment. It does not set any one of them apart in a fundamental way. Scientifically, an entity is deemed to have been measured (quantified) if it registers on some scientific scale. Equally, a religious entity is realised when it is religiously witnessed.

3. Invisible

Scientific entities can also be invisible. All sub-nuclear particles are 'invisible'. They are identified by their effect. Similarly, religious entities -- from ghosts to gods are known by their effect.

etc., etc., ,

There are more, but I think the differences you have described are superficial, semantic differences, not fundamental ones.

viaro:

That's not 'science', please - that's how many atheists claim to do science. Science does not start out by observing and testing 'the evidence' - how does it know that is an "evidence" if that is not a conclusion already? Science, properly speaking, does not use the term 'evidence' in such a careless manner, and that is why your ideas about religion were queried as biased.

That's a narrow way to reason out issues. Religion means many things to many people, and the argument could be made that religion in many instances (and for many people) does not reach all conclusions - it is seeking, continues to seek, and even when it seems to begin to reach its quest, it continues to seek further. Please don't confuse these things and start misrepresenting religion from an atheistic point of reference.

tee hee hee. That has got me thinking about the word 'evidence'. Is evidence merely something that has been evidenced, ie perceived by the senses?

Or is evidence to be understood in the sense of evidence for something else? eg. a falling apple is evidence for the force of gravity.

Must evidence necessarily point to something else that is not directly evident in order to be evidence, or is evidence just evidence in and of itself. lol! This thread is going to be sweet. Just when I was beginning to give up on Nairaland.

mazaje:

[b]Religions propose (OK I know there must be some who don't but at the least the mainstream ones) that there is another world, a supernatural world, where being who are just spirits live or reincarnate into other things. We are told this by holy books whose teaching are repeated and repeated over the generations. [/b]Yet this is the point at which religion and science are most at oddsReligion is not science and science is not religion. Science is based on observation and theories based on those observations. The philosophy of science is that you can postulate explanations which may be tested by observation and or experimentation or you can postulate explanations which may only be deduced to be correct but which have a high order of probability of being correct. One can argue that is also what religion apologists attempt to do but the key difference is creating an experiment which will substantiate the theory. . . . . . . To the best of my knowledge, there is no chant, ritual, incantation, prayer, series of gestures, etc. which will consistently produce an entity which can be seen and measured and identified as "God". . . . .Religionists love to ride on the coat tails of science if they can deviously make it seem like it supports their various religious claim, but they castigate science at every opportunity when it conflicts with their magic story even as they benefit from the fruits of science e.g a computer world, longer lives, air travel, cell phones, antibiotics, a growing wonderous understanding of our universe as well as the microscopic world, DNA, etc.

Religious folks have just gotten used to not having their pet superstitions questioned. They like to feel like it's ennobling to believe in their version of magical thinking. I feel pretty equal about all man made superstitions and mythology(Scientology, Astrology, psychics, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism,demons, satan, angels, etc). . . .All belief in the paranormal, supernatural, and other pseudoscientific beliefs. They just don't hold up under testing at all no conclusive evidence have been put forth to support them at all. Personally I believe its better I say I do not know something than believe a lie, and as far as the evidence goes, all belief in invisible beings is are all the same. There is no more evidence for Thor than Jesus-God or Allah God. There is not 2 sides to "the debate." There is one truth IMO and so far science is the best path for illuminating the truth that is the same for everyone no matter what they believe but the same can not be said of religion.

On the flip side, there are millions of different types of faiths and religions and they do not hold up or measure up the same way as science does. . . .humans have always invented gods or other invisible entities and supernatural explanations to explain that which they don't understand. But then science comes along and tells them to stop sacrificing virgins or goats, there are no weather gods that need pleasing, and we can do better by using irrigation and planting weather resistant crops. There are no fertiliuty gods that need pleasing etc. . . .The fundamental difference between science and religion is that science does not claim it knows or hold the ultimate truth or tries to castigate any body or anything that disagrees with it. . . . According to religion one version of a magical story you are urged to believe in is the ultimate " truth"over all the other possibilities because somehow you were thought it was "the truth". . . . but doesn't every believer think that? Everyone is going to hell according to somebody's religion.

21st century advances in science help explain what was once seen as supernatural or had religious explanations (volcanoes, earthquakes, rainbows,biology, physics, age of the universe, etc). It is my belief the modern day religious apologists see the advances in science as influencing people to abandon their religious beliefs and worship the "god of science". Thus, the apologists stepping into the fray are faced either with trying to discount science or elevate religious belief to an equal of science. If that understanding is correct then the modern day religious apologist is doomed. Science would like something more that conjecture about a supernatural world. Yet there is nothing. What religion teaches is just so-called facts which have no means of verification built in and require acceptance as they are with not a shred of supporting evidence or theory. Ultimately, there is nothing we have in common with religion and science at least until a religion comes up with something that suggests their world-view, including the supernatural, is a possibility. Until then (and I guess we do not expect it will come) religion and science are opposed in view.

Mazaje those are a hell of a lot of words you've posted up there. Surely your point was not so weighty as to merit all those words.

Anyway sha, it would help if you could quote some of these religious texts that propose the 'other world' so that we can peruse what it is that you are saying. Rather than just making blanket statements, whether of all religions or just some religions.

Sinequanon, I just wanna say that I really like your user name.

Yes, there is.
While science tries to understand(from zero knowledge starting point) the physical reality that surrounds us through obsevations and investigative experiments to extrapolate momentary theories or hypothesis or laws that can later be modified, or overthrown by another more befitting theories or laws, religion claims to have all the answers(
this is the starting point), and then resorts to mere worshipping of the source of that claim, GOD.

Scientific activities are governed by inquisitiveness, the continual onward flux powered by the need for knowledge,while religions are mostly stagnant in a state of perpetual ritualistic worshipping,praising and adulation of their gods who are claimed to have all the knowledge there is, hence making it needless to search for any more knowledge by the worshippers.That,in my view, is the fundermental difference between science and religion.

sinequanon:

I think that there is no fundamental difference between science and religion.

If you think there is, please make your case for discussion.

Kunle, Gregg Braden's work is about merging science with spirituality, or ancient spiritual traditions(to be more exact) and not religion per se, even though some aspects of religion can be seen as having some limited spiritual value.
Braden is not even merging the two ways of knowing but trying to take advantage of the very obvious convergence of both scientific and ancient spiritual knowledge to help create a better world for all.

KunleOshob:

Thre is a scientist whois working on the links between science and religion [ancient wisdom] His name is Gregg Braden, you may wish to do a google search on him. Promises to be quite revealing

Pastor AIO:

tee hee hee. That has got me thinking about the word 'evidence'. Is evidence merely something that has been evidenced, ie perceived by the senses?

Or is evidence to be understood in the sense of evidence for something else? eg. a falling apple is evidence for the force of gravity.

Must evidence necessarily point to something else that is not directly evident in order to be evidence, or is evidence just evidence in and of itself. lol! This thread is going to be sweet. Just when I was beginning to give up on Nairaland.

Hehehe. . when you first laughed 'tee hee', I knew sum'fin was up!

Quite an interesting observation, really. I have also wondered about the way people use that word 'evidence'. What does it mean for religiously-inclined folks? What does it mean for scientists in their various disciplines? Do we first think about something and then look for 'evidence'; or we stumble across or find 'evidence' and then begin to seek out what theories lead us to the 'evidence' for that 'evidence' that we have just stumbled across?

In all this, I was saddled with an assignment (which I haven't even looked twice): "what is the 'evidence' that something is 'evidence' in itself for any enquiry?" (Honestly, I take it that our philosophy tutor really doesn't want us to labour over that, but just to get us busy until next month in our next class). Phew! But I would appreciate any help from the philosophers of NL, hehe.

Some scientists can be dogmatic but science in itself is not dogmatic. I do not think their is a dogma behind the antibacterial properties of antibiotics or a dogma behind the genetic basis of cancer etc. I would rather use the word spirituality rather than religion. Again some spiritual persons can be dogmatic but spirituality itself is not dogmatic. I do not see any dogma behind a pure claivoyant who can make verifiable predictions or a dogma behind a genuine spiritual healer who can heal sickness by prayer. My view is that the difference between science and religion is based on the instument of investigation, incase of science it is the brain and its faculties as well as instruments to aid the brain in its investigation. Incase of spirituality, it is the faculties of the spirit. Whether it is science or spirituality, their should be evidence which others can independently confirm. It is very easy to do this in science but more difficult in spirituality since in the later case one is dealing with vibrations or substances which are undetectable by the brain or its instruments meant to aid its work. But if spirituality makes a physical claim or that it has physical effect, ie, healing of a sickness, accurately predicting future events, etc, then it should provide the physical evidence. Thus a claim of healing brain tumor by prayer should provide the evidence of absence of tumor both at the morphological and biochemical level. My view is that whoever makes a physical claim, whether a scientist or a spiritualist should provide the data for others to independently examine. I am of the view that if all claims are investigated, both science and spirituality will be better for it as charlatans in both fields will be found and shamed. Best Wishes.

viaro:

Hehehe. .  when you first laughed 'tee hee', I knew sum'fin was up!

Quite an interesting observation, really. I have also wondered about the way people use that word 'evidence'. What does it mean for religiously-inclined folks? What does it mean for scientists in their various disciplines? Do we first think about something and then look for 'evidence'; or we stumble across or find 'evidence' and then begin to seek out what theories lead us to the 'evidence' for that 'evidence' that we have just stumbled across?

In all this, I was saddled with an assignment (which I haven't even looked twice): "what is the 'evidence' that something is 'evidence' in itself for any enquiry?" (Honestly, I take it that our philosophy tutor really doesn't want us to labour over that, but just to get us busy until next month in our next class). Phew!  But I would appreciate any help from the philosophers of NL, hehe.

All this reminds me of an article I once read by a philosopher who was responding to Dawkins and his ilk.  Unfortunately I can't remember the magazine or the exact statements from the atheists that prompted the article, but the main gist of it was that some people from the Dawkins camp were trying to diss philosophy.  Why?  Because they were getting no support from the philosophy camp and so some comments were made like 'philosophers can continue with their metaphysical speculations while scientists continued to do real science', or something like that.  
This philosopher brought the full brunt of his ire down on these atheist scientists by demonstrating just how philosophically shallow their position was.  Their position can only convince people who have absolutely no idea of what metaphysics is.  In order to be a Dawkins follower you need to be superficial.  You need to be ignorant of the basis philosophical ideas underpinning science.
This evidence of evidence chat kind of evokes that for me.  Also that nonsense about science starting from zero knowledge:

jagunlabi:

Yes, there is.
While science tries to understand(from zero knowledge starting point) the physical reality that surrounds us through obsevations and investigative experiments to extrapolate momentary theories or hypothesis or laws that can later be modified, or overthrown by another more befitting theories or laws, religion claims to have all the answers(
this is the starting point), and then resorts to mere worshipping of the source of that claim, GOD.

All thought is based on certain basic premises that in philosophy are called Axioms.  There is no such thing as starting from zero knowledge in any human science or thought.  What is an Axiom?

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

It is impossible to build any body of knowledge without starting with some basic Axioms (and that's axiomatic  ).  

I've made this point repeatedly.  I touched on it when I talked about Authority and how our mental processes are based on a presumed authority.  I said that while it is not a proof of God, it certainly shows that it is impossible from mentation to occur without the presumption of an author(God?).  Those who claim otherwise are deceiving themselves, or just too daft to get it.  
St. Augustine exploited this same fact when he claimed to base his worldview on the authority of the Church and the Scriptures. These authorities were, in his argument, not to be demonstrated just like other thought systems had their own authorities that didn't require demonstration.

Though I couldn't find the article I mentioned where the philosopher attacked the Dawkins movement, in my attempts to search for it I came across another very interesting one that I read in Standpoint magazine.  And lo and behold it can be found online, what a blessing.  It's called the Darwinian Delusion and it is quite a gem.  For me it totally blows the premise of Darwinism out of the water.  Like I've argued before, there are too many things in the world, and in human behaviour that cannot be accounted for by his theory of Evolution and one of these things is Science itself.  Why the propensity to do science, to explore, even at the risk of our survival?
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/cosmos-August

The next time you want to stop a conversation among the soi-disant enlightened, ask what has atheism ever done for science. It’s one thing to admit that religious dogmatism has periodically halted the march of scientific progress but quite another to argue that atheism has actually advanced science. The difference matters. Richard Dawkins plans to spend his retirement spearheading a foundation (bearing his name) that aims to be the atheist equivalent of the John Templeton Foundation, a charity that supports science-religion collaborations.

Pastor AIO:

All this reminds me of an article I once read by a philosopher who was responding to Dawkins and his ilk.  Unfortunately I can't remember the magazine or the exact statements from the atheists that prompted the article, but the main gist of it was that some people from the Dawkins camp were trying to diss philosophy.  Why?  Because they were getting no support from the philosophy camp and so some comments were made like 'philosophers can continue with their metaphysical speculations while scientists continued to do real science', or something like that. 
This philosopher brought the full brunt of his ire down on these atheist scientists by demonstrating just how philosophically shallow their position was.  Their position can only convince people who have absolutely no idea of what metaphysics is.

PastorAIO, thank you so much for spooning out the very things I had in mind. Please when you find that reference, keep us posted (it might be just about the same things I've perused, but the name of the philosopher eludes me just now. . so hitherto I just lazily resort to Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy who was noted for quipping that Dawkins would fail a beginner's philosophy class - or something to that effect).

In order to be a Dawkins follower you need to be superficial.  You need to be ignorant of the basis philosophical ideas underpinning science.

. . . that was just the point about Ruse's quip (and which incidentally was why I carelessly called Dawkins a dunce in such matters).

This evidence of evidence chat kind of evokes that for me.  Also that nonsense about science starting from zero knowledge:

Hehe. .  I was putting up a small response to that, but you have made a better (and quicker) response!


Edit:

Though I couldn't find the article I mentioned where the philosopher attacked the Dawkins movement, in my attempts to search for it I came across another very interesting one that I read in Standpoint magazine. And lo and behold it can be found online, what a blessing. It's called the Darwinian Delusion and it is quite a gem. . . . .

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/cosmos-August

The next time you want to stop a conversation among the soi-disant enlightened, ask what has atheism ever done for science.

I haven't read Steve Fuller that much, but he's quite in many thinkers' good books. The first line of the excerpt there is a gem: "next time you want to stop a conversation among the soi-disant enlightened, ask what has atheism ever done for science" - that was what I had in mind in the other thread when I queried agathamari's pictogram on 'Scientific Advancement' - just where is atheism represented in that pictogram?

___________

PS.  I just hope we don't end up hijacking this thread!

viaro:

I haven't read Steve Fuller that much, but he's quite in many thinkers' good books. The first line of the excerpt there is a gem: "next time you want to stop a conversation among the soi-disant enlightened, ask what has atheism ever done for science" - that was what I had in mind in the other thread when I queried agathamari's pictogram on 'Scientific Advancement' - just where is atheism represented in that pictogram?

___________

PS.  I just hope we don't end up hijacking this thread!

Reading that article is the first time I remember hearing the term 'soi-disant'. I took to it immediately. What a lovely term! And the fact that it's in french makes it sound posh too. To be honest, I'd forgotten that I'd learnt such a lovely word until I got reminded again by reading it today. You'll all be hearing it a lot more from me now.

Adj. 1. soi-disant: as claimed by and for yourself often without justification; "the self-styled `doctor' has no degree of any kind"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/soi-disant

ps. I don't want to hi jack the thread. I want to annihilate it. That is if it is going to try and make a fundamental distinction between science and religion.

Religion is a Scam.
Science is an Eye Opeaner.