Humans aren't animals.

[Ipecac Drano]

Where have I said I don't believe in Science?

Allow me to place the onus on you to prove this.

I enjoy science. Chemistry and Physics were some of my favorite classes when I was in school. What I don't believe in is the infallibility of Science that so many pro-science, anti-religion people like to spout off. They are just as bad as the fundies or the zealots that use religion for their own personal gains.

The Scientific Method is the very backbone of what you claim to enjoy.

Scientific research has brought us many wonderful and advanced things. We have learned a lot in this world because of Science. Those that believe in both Science and Religion would say that Science has allowed us to discover what it was that whatever Deity they choose to worship had created.

Some things.

Sadly, Science lost its open mind somewhere along the way. Could've been ego, greed, or who knows what else, but Science is not what it used to be.

It's gotten less gullible; there is less quackery in the world. Going back to your saying that you like chemistry, without the Scientific Method we would have alchemy and snake oil would be sold on every street corner.

So bash religion all you want. It doesn't bother me. I'll let you continue to bash religion for believing in imaginary beings and alleged zombies and I'll continue to bash science for the corruption, guess work, and personal egos that continue to cause it to fail.

Sadly, all religious people believe in imaginary beings, but not all scientists are corrupt, make guess work and have personal egos.

Otherwise, you'll continue to spout off that Science is never wrong, I'll bring up multiple ways to prove that statement wrong, but you'll call it a straw man argument and we'll be at a stalemate. Sound fair?

I have never said that science in general is wrong, nor will I say that it is. In fact, I had said that it does get corrected and moves on.

Good talk.

Ipecac I just have a question for you. Do you believe that if someone is religious (any religion), they cannot also accept science to be true?

Absolutely not! Perhaps in the news you have heard of Francis Collins, who had lead the Human Genome Project and is now the head of the National Institutes of Health? He is an openly evangelical Christian. He's a fascinating person and I admire his achievements.

[muses_nightmare]

Absolutely not! Perhaps in the news you have heard of Francis Collins, who had lead the Human Genome Project and is now the head of the National Institutes of Health? He is an openly evangelical Christian. He's a fascinating person and I admire his achievements.

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that, because you are giving the impression that that is what you believe. It is hard to tell online sometimes, as there is no tone or facial expression.

To add to that doesn't that just prove that religion and science can exist in the same place at the same time (read: coexist)?

[Ipecac Drano]

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that, because you are giving the impression that that is what you believe. It is hard to tell online sometimes, as there is no tone or facial expression.

But there are words, and I didn't come right out and say that was the case.

To add to that doesn't that just prove that religion and science can exist in the same place at the same time (read: coexist)?

No. For example, Francis believes in God, but he doesn't believe that said God influences evolution. He keeps religion on another shelf. That's not having science "in the same place at the same time (read: coexist[ing])". (Your words.) If a scientist keeps God out of his equations but goes to church on Sunday to learn morals and other social issues, then science and religion are not coexisting.

If science is root beer and religion is vanilla ice cream, when they become a root beer float, they coexist. But, the root beer is in the fridge and the ice cream is in the freezer. Same appliance, but they aren't interacting with each other. And, even if you put the root beer in the freezer, they still aren't coexisting due to packaging boundaries.

[Ghel]

That alone shows that Science is fallible.

Actually, that shows that science is self-correcting. Unlike religion, which generally doesn't change its views, even when shown to be wrong.

I would also like to point out that human beings can, and frequently do, hold conflicting (even mutually exclusive) ideas in their heads. For example, a person can think "a creator god exists" and "the diversity of life was caused by evolution via natural selection" at the same time. They simply compartmentalize their mind, refusing to allow one idea to interact with the other.

[muses_nightmare]

But to use your example, the root beer and the ice cream can exist in the same refrigerator at the same time without the fridge exploding or something bad happening to either one.

What I meant by same place same time, was within the same person, or within the world. In which case they do exist without interfering with each other, which means they are peacefully coexisting. As I've said, coexisting doesn't mean they have to be mixed together, as your example seems to require to work. Coexisting is when things can sit side by side, perhaps on a different shelf, and not affect one another. Science and religion can in fact do this.

[Ipecac Drano]

What I meant by same place same time, was within the same person, or within the world. In which case they do exist without interfering with each other, which means they are peacefully coexisting. As I've said, coexisting doesn't mean they have to be mixed together, as your example seems to require to work. Coexisting is when things can sit side by side, perhaps on a different shelf, and not affect one another. Science and religion can in fact do this.

There's nothing remarkable about that. It's no different than keeping any other items apart.

[muses_nightmare]

I wasn't claiming anything remarkable came of it, just that they can and do exist at the same time without one having to affect the other necessarily.

[Ipecac Drano]

I wasn't claiming anything remarkable came of it, just that they can and do exist at the same time without one having to affect the other necessarily.

It was a polite way of me asking "So what?".

[the_std]

It was a polite way of me asking "So what?".

So, that is what you've been arguing against this whole time. Science and religion, according to you, cannot exist together. But now, muses is showing that they can. That's so what.

[Ipecac Drano]

So, that is what you've been arguing against this whole time. Science and religion, according to you, cannot exist together. But now, muses is showing that they can. That's so what.

There was confusion in defining the parameters of "coexisting" and "existing together". Either term can imply that the two concepts of science and religion can exist either side by side or be mixed together. I was arguing against their being mixed together; which is a different thing.

[Greenday]

There was confusion in defining the parameters of "coexisting" and "existing together". Either term can imply that the two concepts of science and religion can exist either side by side or be mixed together. I was arguing against their being mixed together; which is a different thing.

So you mean as one as a part of the other, like God created science.

[Ipecac Drano]

So you mean as one as a part of the other, like God created science.

Or that it was created by The Easter Bunny, etc.

[Greenday]

Or that it was created by The Easter Bunny, etc.

I prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Ipecac Drano]

I prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You fanatic, you!

[Ghel]

Ipecac, do you agree with the concept of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria)? It's the idea that science and religion each have their separate areas where they apply - science's realm is empirically testable claims, or how questions, and religion's realm is questions of morals and meanings, or why questions.

The biggest problem with NOMA is that religion refuses to confine itself in this way. Religion constantly makes testable claims, most of which fail when scientifically tested.