Can science and religion be mutually relevant?

It's reasonable to believe because the Big Bang is reasonable to believe, and because the idea that everything exploded from nothing (which was, supposedly, already something to begin with) isn't very reasonable to believe.

What about the cosmological constants? The universe has been shown to be very fine-tuned.

You can't explain that away by invoking random chance,

So you're saying that, right from the start, science assumes that God is never an explanation?

How about, instead of, "everything has a natural cause," science is, "everything natural has a cause"?

It's been demonstrated as much as its refutations have been demonstrated (in that neither can directly support claims with, say, a laboratory example of complexity developing or not developing on its own). Have you read Michael Behe?

Are you proposing that the first cell could come into being, fully capable of nourishing itself, defending itself, and reproducing, either through spontaneous generation or chemical evolution?

God is the universe.
Science is a process by which one learns about the universe
Therefore, by substitution, science is a process by which one learns about God.

Can science and religion be mutually relevant with reference to evolution, intellegent design, cosmology, etc?

stevecook
“There is a kind a puerile, non-falsifiable religious nonsense spouted by some and a good portion of the rest of the posters (even those who are not of that inclination) seem to feel the need to dance around this bullsh*t out of some kind of sense of reverence for such religious sensibilities without any real hard nosed critique.”
“I should say though in Europe and, in particular, in the UK this kind of nonsense would be comprehensively and mercilesley ridiculed by the majority. I may be reading this wrong and there are far more non-USA contributors here than I am assuming. But its really is a pronounced cultural difference I am detecting.”

Well Stevecook what can we do? Burn them at the stake? Ban them? Cut out their vocal cords? How about pecking them to death? Oh I see, just “mercilessly ridicule”.

I can see that this is very agonizing and upsetting to you, it really must be tough knowing that “religious sensibilities” will be around long after your perfectly rational compartmentalized sensibilities are long gone.

My only point was to say that there exists a viewpoint in which both compliment the other.

I do not.

My only point was to say that there exists a viewpoint in which both compliment the other. As there exists a viewpoint in which both compliment the other, the two can be mutually relevant.

You'll note in my first post I stated that scientific pronouncements often conflict with popular religious conceptions (most notably in biology).

There are a number of us here from the USA that agree with what you and rosbourne are posting.

Huxley wrote:

My only point was to say that there exists a viewpoint in which both compliment the other.

Well, sure. But just changing the meaning of words to accomplish the relevance seems kind of inane.

Huxley wrote:

I do not.

My only point was to say that there exists a viewpoint in which both compliment the other. As there exists a viewpoint in which both compliment the other, the two can be mutually relevant.

You'll note in my first post I stated that scientific pronouncements often conflict with popular religious conceptions (most notably in biology).

So, by logical extension...

It is my viewpoint (thus, such a viewpoint exists) that a capacity for humans to fly unaided is complimented by the known laws of physics. As there exists a viewpoint in which both compliment the other, the two can be mutually relevant

The assertion that something is true simply by virtue of the fact of the assertion is the kind of peurile nonsense to which my previous post referred.

It's not like the definition of God is some unchanging constant.

....God is the universe.
Science is a process by which one learns about the universe
Therefore, by substitution, science is a process by which one learns about God. ...

I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza... I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason.

I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

So you're basing your belief on your feeling that the alternative doesn't seem reasonable to you? Is that your defense?

The Universe is not fine-tuned for us. We are fine-tuned for it. There is a 100% probability that the life within any universe will observe that universe to be compatible with that life.

Correct. That's the way it works.

Because that's not the way it works.

I'm very familiar with Michael Behe. I've been to this rodeo before.
Behe's theories are simply wrong. Besides being based on a flawed premise, they went down in dramatic flames in the Dover trial.

Of course not. That's creationist propaganda. Evolution doesn't predict that nor require it.

Some Einstein quotes on Spinoza

Quote:

I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza... I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason.

Quote:

I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

Quote:

I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.

All from WIKIQUOTES

You think no one believes in the above?

If one were to believe in the above, then no matter how many times you spew on about empiricism and nonsensical conflations, the argument is logical. That was the criteria. What's more, I do see the universe, so I think I have your empirical criteria satisfied as well.