Can Religion and Rational thought coexist?

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

Theistic Evolution. Creationism.

Neither are scientific theories. They don't even qualify as hypotheses.

So what do they qualify as? Ideas? They use rational thinking in order to explain the creation of us overall, along with the creation of the earth.

Theory:
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

That's nice, now how about using the definition of theory as it actually applies to science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Just because it's not a scientific theory, doesn't make it a theory.

Religious ideas can be considered theories, just as the Big Bang can be.

No they can't. The fact that you're not using official scientific terminology for the term "theory" is indicative that you have utterly no clue what you're talking about.

Because my vocabulary is not expansive enough to match up the exact word that I want to use to make my point, I have no idea what I'm talking about? I figured that the relevance of the words would be good enough for you.

Nonetheless, the official scientific terminology for the term "theory" is..?

[Urran]

Of course it can.

I know he might not be the best political example, but neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson is a devout Christian, yet he has done some great things in the field of medicine. I see no reason why people cannot have faith and also be rational and intelligent people.

[Mavorpen]

So what do they qualify as? Ideas?

Sure, you can call them ideas.

They use rational thinking in order to explain the creation of us overall, along with the creation of the earth.

Which doesn't make them scientific theories in any way. Attaining the status of "theory" is not something you can accomplish by just having an idea and believing you're right. The standard is something that neither of those ideas have even come close to reaching.

Just because it's not a scientific theory, doesn't make it a theory.

Yeah, no. We're talking about science here, and so we need to use scientific terminology. I don't give a rat's ass if you want to call it a "theory" in a colloquial setting, but if we're discussing science and rational thought, the scientific terminology is what actually matters. Plus, you explicitly compared these ideas to the Big Bang which is a scientific theory. You've given up any right to backpedal and insist that you meant the colloquial meaning of "theory" that basically means "guess."

Because my vocabulary is not expansive enough to match up the exact word that I want to use to make my point, I have no idea what I'm talking about?

Yes, you made a claim and you ended up being wrong. That's a pretty big indication that you're not very knowledgeable about the topic.

I figured that the relevance of the words would be good enough for you.

What does this even mean?

Nonetheless, the official scientific terminology for the term "theory" is..?

I already gave it to you.

That's nice, now how about using the definition of theory as it actually applies to science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

The link also explains the criteria that must be met in order to be classified as a scientific theory:

It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

Ideas involving "God" utterly fail to fulfill the criteria.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

They use rational thinking in order to explain the creation of us overall, along with the creation of the earth.

Which doesn't make them scientific theories in any way. Attaining the status of "theory" is not something you can accomplish by just having an idea and believing you're right. The standard is something that neither of those ideas have even come close to reaching.

The founders of many Religions have used rational thought in order to put together these theories. It's not as simple as saying "There's a big man in the sky that made the earth, now pray to him or burn."

Just because it's not a scientific theory, doesn't make it a theory.

Yeah, no. We're talking about science here, and so we need to use scientific terminology. I don't give a rat's ass if you want to call it a "theory" in a colloquial setting, but if we're discussing science and rational thought, the scientific terminology is what actually matters.

I thought we were discussing if Religion and Rational thought could co-exist. Not the science behind religion.

Plus, you explicitly compared these ideas to the Big Bang which is a scientific theory. You've given up any right to backpedal and insist that you meant the colloquial meaning of "theory" that basically means "guess."

Yes, you made a claim and you ended up being wrong. That's a pretty big indication that you're not very knowledgeable about the topic.

What claim did I make that was wrong?

What does this even mean?

I was hoping that the words were close enough to what I was saying for you to get an idea of my point.

Nonetheless, the official scientific terminology for the term "theory" is..?

I already gave it to you.

So if I don't call a "theory" by the scientific terminology, then I have no clue what I'm talking about?

Me: My leg hurts.
Doctor: Your leg?
Me: Yes, my leg.
Doctor: It's called a Femur, not a leg. Since you're not using the scientific terminology, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about!

That's nice, now how about using the definition of theory as it actually applies to science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

The link also explains the criteria that must be met in order to be classified as a scientific theory:

It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any pre-existing theories.
It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

Ideas involving "God" utterly fail to fulfill the criteria.

But it's not a scientific theory. It's a religious theory. Just because it's not scientific doesn't mean it can't be rational.

[Ripoll]

Nope. Rational people who are religious are ones who identify as a religious person but don't actually follow their religious texts, or they just don't apply their rational thought to their religion.

That's a pretty baseless claim, what about the renaissance? The Western world as we know it today? Coming out of the Dark Ages? International Law Theory? The most famous and epic literature up to this day? It was a religious monk who was credited with the founding of the entire field of genetics. It's ridiculous to think religious people cannot be rational and cannot contribute to society.

[Ripoll]

For Christ's sakes the Big Bang was introduced by a catholic priest

[Mavorpen]

The founders of many Religions have used rational thought in order to put together these theories. It's not as simple as saying "There's a big man in the sky that made the earth, now pray to him or burn."

And I really don't care. They aren't theories in the sense that you tried to apply them to. They aren't scientific and thus there's utterly nothing special about them.

I thought we were discussing if Religion and Rational thought could co-exist. Not the science behind religion.

YOU were the one who mentioned the Big Bang. You explicitly demonstrated that you were placing these ideas under the umbrella of science and thus trying to gain them validity. You've suddenly decided to backpedal after being demonstrated that they aren't scientific in any way.

What claim did I make that was wrong?

Religious ideas can be considered theories, just as the Big Bang can be.

So if I don't call a "theory" by the scientific terminology, then I have no clue what I'm talking about?

No, if you call something a theory and then compare it to the Big Bang, a scientific theory, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. And backpedaling and pretending as though that's not what you meant when you made it clear that's what you meant doesn't change that.

Me: My leg hurts.
Doctor: Your leg?
Me: Yes, my leg.
Doctor: It's called a Femur, not a leg. Since you're not using the scientific terminology, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about!

I must be psychic, because I appear to have anticipated this straw man of yours and already addressed it:

Yeah, no. We're talking about science here, and so we need to use scientific terminology. I don't give a rat's ass if you want to call it a "theory" in a colloquial setting, but if we're discussing science and rational thought, the scientific terminology is what actually matters.

In other words, context fucking matters. If you're casually talking to someone, using terms colloquially is fine. If you were though, for example, taking a fucking Anatomy and Physiology course and you put down "leg" for a question asking "what is the scientific name for your thighbone?" you don't get to complain when you get called out on being ignorant.

But it's not a scientific theory. It's a religious theory.

So basically it's worthless. Okay.

Just because it's not scientific doesn't mean it can't be rational.

No, it just makes it completely worthless to obtaining actual knowledge about reality.

[Imyoji]

Nope. Rational people who are religious are ones who identify as a religious person but don't actually follow their religious texts, or they just don't apply their rational thought to their religion.

That's a pretty baseless claim, what about the renaissance? The Western world as we know it today? Coming out of the Dark Ages? International Law Theory? The most famous and epic literature up to this day? It was a religious monk who was credited with the founding of the entire field of genetics. It's ridiculous to think religious people cannot be rational and cannot contribute to society.

Most of these were methods of 'rebellion' against the establishment. Most notably the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, which was pretty much a bunch of philosophers and early scientists going 'fuck the current (Church) system, we shall find it through the methods of observation and introspection, because there has to be more than what they (Church) say'

Over simplified but that's pretty much it. Oh. The Protestant Reformation can be thrown in as well, though that's a tad blurry.

[Ripoll]

The founders of many Religions have used rational thought in order to put together these theories. It's not as simple as saying "There's a big man in the sky that made the earth, now pray to him or burn."

And I really don't care. They aren't theories in the sense that you tried to apply them to. They aren't scientific and thus there's utterly nothing special about them.

I thought we were discussing if Religion and Rational thought could co-exist. Not the science behind religion.

YOU were the one who mentioned the Big Bang. You explicitly demonstrated that you were placing these ideas under the umbrella of science and thus trying to gain them validity. You've suddenly decided to backpedal after being demonstrated that they aren't scientific in any way.

What claim did I make that was wrong?

Religious ideas can be considered theories, just as the Big Bang can be.

So if I don't call a "theory" by the scientific terminology, then I have no clue what I'm talking about?

No, if you call something a theory and then compare it to the Big Bang, a scientific theory, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. And backpedaling and pretending as though that's not what you meant when you made it clear that's what you meant doesn't change that.

Me: My leg hurts.
Doctor: Your leg?
Me: Yes, my leg.
Doctor: It's called a Femur, not a leg. Since you're not using the scientific terminology, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about!

I must be psychic, because I appear to have anticipated this straw man of yours and already addressed it:

Yeah, no. We're talking about science here, and so we need to use scientific terminology. I don't give a rat's ass if you want to call it a "theory" in a colloquial setting, but if we're discussing science and rational thought, the scientific terminology is what actually matters.

In other words, context fucking matters. If you're casually talking to someone, using terms colloquially is fine. If you were though, for example, taking a fucking Anatomy and Physiology course and you put down "leg" for a question asking "what is the scientific name for your thighbone?" you don't get to complain when you get called out on being ignorant.

But it's not a scientific theory. It's a religious theory.

So basically it's worthless. Okay.

Just because it's not scientific doesn't mean it can't be rational.

No, it just makes it completely worthless to obtaining actual knowledge about reality.

It's completely ignorant to claim only scientific contributions to society have any real meaning, even then that's just blatantly ignorning the fact that many of these scientific theories were created and presented by religious philosophers.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Neither are scientific theories. They don't even qualify as hypotheses.

So what do they qualify as? Ideas? They use rational thinking in order to explain the creation of us overall, along with the creation of the earth.

They're beliefs, or hypotheses.

I mean, I believe in theistic evolution, but in science it'd be laughable to allude to God as the prime mover, but you still have such a belief. It is, nevertheless, a belief, a guess using the supernatural to explain how did it come to happen; it is not a scientific theory.

[Mavorpen]

It's completely ignorant to claim only scientific contributions to society have any real meaning,

That's nice. Not sure why you're posting this in response to me since I never said this.

even then that's just blatantly ignorning the fact that many of these scientific theories were created and presented by religious philosophers.

No such thing has ever been ignored by me.

Want to actually respond with something relevant to what I posted?

[Ripoll]

That's a pretty baseless claim, what about the renaissance? The Western world as we know it today? Coming out of the Dark Ages? International Law Theory? The most famous and epic literature up to this day? It was a religious monk who was credited with the founding of the entire field of genetics. It's ridiculous to think religious people cannot be rational and cannot contribute to society.

Most of these were methods of 'rebellion' against the establishment. Most notably the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, which was pretty much a bunch of philosophers and early scientists going 'fuck the current (Church) system, we shall find it through the methods of observation and introspection, because there has to be more than what they (Church) say'

Over simplified but that's pretty much it. Oh. The Protestant Reformation can be thrown in as well, though that's a tad blurry.

The church played a crucial role all throughout the renaissance so if the real goal was to get rid of the church they failed miserably (that wasn't the goal, and many of the thinkers behind the renaissance were catholic.)

[Mavorpen]

So what do they qualify as? Ideas? They use rational thinking in order to explain the creation of us overall, along with the creation of the earth.

They're beliefs, or hypotheses.

I mean, I believe in theistic evolution, but in science it'd be laughable to allude to God as the prime mover, but you still have such a belief. It is, nevertheless, a belief, a guess using the supernatural to explain how did it come to happen; it is not a scientific theory.

To clarify, they aren't scientific hypotheses either. I'm not making a statement in disagreement with you or anything, because I'm not sure what context of "hypothesis" you were using, but I'm just clearing this up.

[Ripoll]

It's completely ignorant to claim only scientific contributions to society have any real meaning,

That's nice. Not sure why you're posting this in response to me since I never said this.

even then that's just blatantly ignorning the fact that many of these scientific theories were created and presented by religious philosophers.

No such thing has ever been ignored by me.

Want to actually respond with something relevant to what I posted?

"Religious theories are basically worthless"

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It's completely ignorant to claim only scientific contributions to society have any real meaning, even then that's just blatantly ignorning the fact that many of these scientific theories were created and presented by religious philosophers.

There's a difference between a scientific theory and ideas.

Ideas can be scientific theories, but scientific theories are not just ideas.

Just because Locke wrote the treatises of government during his time that shaped America that doesn't make them scientific.

[Mavorpen]

That's nice. Not sure why you're posting this in response to me since I never said this.

No such thing has ever been ignored by me.

Want to actually respond with something relevant to what I posted?

"Religious theories are basically worthless to obtaining actual knowledge about reality."

There we go, that's better.

Any more intellectual honesty through quote mining you want to engage in?

[The Foxes Swamp]

with some of the scientific theories out their you gotta wonder if some scientists are rational.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

with some of the scientific theories out their you gotta wonder if some scientists are rational.

which scientific theories are you talking about?

[Shaggai]

Yes, of course. Read some Aquinas. Even if all religious belief was based entirely on faith, religion could coexist with rational thought. Humans are not perfect logic-machines, so we can believe contradictory things at the same time.

[Imyoji]

Most of these were methods of 'rebellion' against the establishment. Most notably the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, which was pretty much a bunch of philosophers and early scientists going 'fuck the current (Church) system, we shall find it through the methods of observation and introspection, because there has to be more than what they (Church) say'

Over simplified but that's pretty much it. Oh. The Protestant Reformation can be thrown in as well, though that's a tad blurry.

The church played a crucial role all throughout the renaissance so if the real goal was to get rid of the church they failed miserably (that wasn't the goal, and many of the thinkers behind the renaissance were catholic.)

I believe you are missing the point here. The goal was not to bring down the Catholic system. It was to... reform the corrupt system. While many were indeed Catholic, most were dissatisfied with the answers made by the church when given some pretty vital questions. Basic methods based on observation, rather than faith, were made to address the vital questions of that time.

You can be religious. That is in fact quite easy. The will to challenge the answers given by an established authority is what these men (and women) were doing throughout the times where large amounts of discoveries were made. That is the hard part. That is what it means to be rational. To challenge the old answer through observation. Needless to say, the Church did in the end change in favor for observational inquiries of the observable universe (1700s and onwards). Which is why the father of early genetics was a Catholic friar, as well as the father of the early Big Bang theory.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Somewhat.

/explanation

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Religious theories are basically worthless to obtaining actual objective knowledge about reality."

There we go, that's better.

Any more intellectual honesty through quote mining you want to engage in?

Fixed the fix.

[Mavorpen]

There we go, that's better.

Any more intellectual honesty through quote mining you want to engage in?

Fixed the fix.

Well I was finishing the sentence with what I actually said, but your edit is more accurate.

[The Foxes Swamp]

with some of the scientific theories out their you gotta wonder if some scientists are rational.

which scientific theories are you talking about?

http://listverse.com/2010/07/12/10-craziest-scientific-theories/

[Ripoll]

The church played a crucial role all throughout the renaissance so if the real goal was to get rid of the church they failed miserably (that wasn't the goal, and many of the thinkers behind the renaissance were catholic.)

I believe you are missing the point here. The goal was not to bring down the Catholic system. It was to... reform the corrupt system. While many were indeed Catholic, most were dissatisfied with the answers made by the church when given some pretty vital questions. Basic methods based on observation, rather than faith, were made to address the vital questions of that time.

You can be religious. That is in fact quite easy. The will to challenge the answers given by an established authority is what these men (and women) were doing throughout the times where large amounts of discoveries were made. That is the hard part. That is what it means to be rational. To challenge the old answer through observation. Needless to say, the Church did in the end change in favor for observational inquiries of the observable universe (1700s and onwards). Which is why the father of early genetics was a Catholic friar, as well as the father of the early Big Bang theory.

In that case I agree, I just didn't know where you were coming from