Quote (Mattd90 @ 10 Jun 2013 05:45)

I've been saying this forever. People who don't understand math and science, but claim it to be all knowing are pretty much the same as any other person following a religion.
I'm a man who understands science and believes in a religion, I don't see why so many people think the two can't coexist.

Quote (brmv @ Jun 10 2013 12:57am)

you just read the op and nothing else - congratulations

somehow that puts in question if you understand science though 

Quote

Scientific thinking and religious thinking derive from very different bases, said the study’s authors. Science is based in analytical thinking, rational inquiry and an objective weighing of evidence. Religious thought is founded on intuition, inner experience, and a valuing of historical revelation.

Quote (Mattd90 @ Jun 10 2013 12:12am)

I only somewhat agreed with the article.



I know people who don't understand too much math/science who are a degree religious, but are still very logical thinkers. I myself am a more logical thinker simply because of the way I have to think, but there simply times where i rely on some degree of faith.

Yeah you can say that might be a general relation, but I just don't think it can be cut down that easily.

Quote (AEtheric @ Jun 9 2013 09:32pm)

There's a difference between the mainstream modern scientific discourse, the mainstream and modern method of science through peer-review and consensus among 'experts', theoretical physics, mathematically dominated theories of cosmology, astronomy, quantum physics, etc. and the classical science that allowed us to build computers or fly in airplanes.  Modern science is far more than simple machines built by understanding.

Quote (Voyaging @ Jun 9 2013 10:58pm)

Fingers: derived from the scientific method
Vegetables: derived from the scientific method

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Mitt-Romney-Laughing.gif

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 10 2013 02:33am)

Awww man, your purposefully obtuse 12 year old interpretation of what I was saying really got me there :(  Guess I'll just have to go back to my corner.

Quote (Voyaging @ Jun 10 2013 12:39am)

No, you just said it wrong.

When having a discussion about something like this, people need to be a lot more clear in the language they use rather than get pissy when someone shows their error.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 10 2013 02:39am)

I understand the need for clarity, but this wasn't one of those cases.  Nobody with any brain thought I was saying fingers were derived through the scientific method.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 9 2013 11:20pm)

everything we use today is derived from the scientific method

Quote (AEtheric @ 10 Jun 2013 06:22)

I agree that it can't be 'cut down that easily'. There are very many philosophers who were pretty logical and rigorous but still held to a theological background or a philosophically oriented theology.
And there's nothing really wrong with the study too much, just that they didn't have a control group.  However, there have been plenty of other studies that show that those who are religious cling to their faith in times of hardship.

Quote (AEtheric @ Jun 8 2013 05:57pm)

You're pretty much making some nonsensical statement that has nothing to do wtih reality. Most people like you forget that science is fallible, which is why you have so much faith in it.  All I'm saying is that people can have faith in science as much as they can in religion. That's all. It doesn't matter about the ramifications of their faith, or the ramifications of what they believe. This study was conducted to show that clinging to absolutes is a much a problem for theists as science freaks. And yes, you can have faith in science where you reject empirical evidence. Look at dark matter and dark energy.Both are undetectable, and both are simple patches to the big bang theory that have no true empirical backing. It's pure fairie dust. Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories. If you actually look at the history of the hot big bang theory, it has gone through so many reveisions that it should have been proven wrong, but instead they keep on speading open the parameters and adding more bullshit to support it. Why don't they examine the fundamentals of it? Because they want to maintain their creationist story of the universe, and mainstream science democracy and peer review are preventing true scientific advancement. Therefore, you have faith in science. Science is not perfect, it is not infallible.  And not all religion deals with fantasy. Buddhism is a very scientific religion that mixes the scientific method with mysticism. My own religion proves that there is a god through mystical experience, but that is a philosophical standpoint that is rudimentarily verified by experience and research. I don't care how much 'fantasy' you believe religion has, it is still faith in it just as much there is faith in the infallibility and supposedly non-biased mode of science.

Quote (AEtheric @ Jun 9 2013 07:32pm)

There's a difference between the mainstream modern scientific discourse, the mainstream and modern method of science through peer-review and consensus among 'experts', theoretical physics, mathematically dominated theories of cosmology, astronomy, quantum physics, etc. and the classical science that allowed us to build computers or fly in airplanes.  Modern science is far more than simple machines built by understanding.

Quote (majorblood @ Jun 10 2013 01:16am)

you must be jesting if you believe there is no empirical evidence for what we call dark energy and dark matter