 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Science and Religion
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Amos Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:49 PM The priestly hierarchy of "approved thought" that shows up in scientific journals is not infallible, and there are many instances of trustworthy documentation of facts outside the scientific world. Business, law, individual agreements, friendships which involve property transactions and marriages are a few simple examples where adequate and sufficient documentation of fact occurs and proves reliable in the actual event. I think we need to differentiate between the analytical rigor of scientific thought, and the formalization into institutions and habits. Organized science is no more impeccable (compared to basic scientific thinking) than organized religion is compared to basic spiritual insight. The question that must be answered in both cases is what constitutes valid data, and given a set of data, whether validated or partially validated or simply raw, how can one draw meaningful approximations of truth from it? And I DID bill Mull, but the lazy so-and-so just stiffed me... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Bill D Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:37 PM "..., if you are trying to achieve some scientific approach to the study of viewpoint...etc.." But that is the point...I'm not. I'm not remotely suggesting that those anecdotes and narratives can be subject to anything except, perhaps, statistics. They are highly personal, subjective and often dependent on the vocabulary of the person reporting them. As with religion, I make no attempt to deny or DISprove them.... I just know that within realms where 'science' can operate, there are physical phenomena which seem to approximate such experiences. This is what tells me that there might BE alternatives....and my inclination is to bring in old Willie-O (Occam) to adjudicate the possibilites. Others stand firmly on "I felt it/saw it/remember it, and you'll never convince me it isn't real." Fine...nothing I can say to them, any more than I can say the little girls at Lourdes didn't see what THEY claimed. Science is in the business...mostly.. of studying what everyone can see...stuff that can be replicated and measured. I say 'mostly', because it IS smart to keep an eye out for ways to see, test or measure stuff they hadn't before. (Every now & then I note that I LIKE the idea of stuff like psychic phenomena being real... I have read Sci-Fi for years, and I'd hate buying into presumed wonderful experiences, only to have them prove fleeting and will-o-the-wisps. I will wait..) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Dorothy Parshall Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:54 PM Stringsinger: Some of us believe that humans may be vestigial in the evolution of planet earth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Bill D Date: 11 Jun 09 - 04:15 PM Ya' know, Amos....this: "The priestly hierarchy of "approved thought" that shows up in scientific journals is not infallible, ..." reads a bit like a sarcastic straw man would phase it. ☺. Who do you know that actually claims that scientific journal articles are infallible? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Jun 09 - 04:25 PM "...I need to reply to.... mercy! (not Rig...he is just being silly)" No I'm not, and I think Little Hawk was really trying to cite Professor Bunsen Burner... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Amos Date: 11 Jun 09 - 04:38 PM Bill: As I hope to persuade you some day, context is everything. You will note just upthread from my "strawman" a remark from Mrzy: I mean, if it isn't in a scientific journal, how an it be WELL-documented? . My answer, given that context, was no Strawman, unless you have the Tin Woodman's ear and see it as a Cowardly Line. To me it was a cogent response to Mrzy's question. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:24 PM You most certainly are being silly, Rig. ;-) I don't blame you, though. This world could use more silliness, I think, to cheer people up. Now, I got the name slightly wrong when I said "Professor Bunsen Honeywell". No, it is Professor Bunsen Honeydew I'm referring to. It's this guy: Science! Making the world safe for everyone! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:30 PM And here's a nice short showing the good professor with his faithful assistant, "Beaker", whom I feel sure is actually Mrzzy posing under a professional stage name. Science solves the problem of germs! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:34 PM ""With every hour that passes, science finds more evidence that there is no god. It's just a matter of time. More and more people everyday turn away from religion. When religion is finally determined to be a mental illness, we'll be on our way to a peaceful world."" That may just be the single most inane comment in the history of discussions about Science and Religion. 1. Where is this massive body of evidence located. 2. How precisely does it achieve the impossible task of proving a negative. 3. Who are the learned scientific geniuses who produced and tested this evidence. 4. What credentials can they produce to back up the credibility of their research and conclusions. If there are no credible answers to ALL of these questions, then there can be NO SCIENTIFIC VALUE in your statement. Finally, please explain HOW that statement refutes my contention that to deny the existence of ANYTHING, without a vestige of objective, knowledge of its existence, OR non-existence, is BY DEFINITION UNSCIENTIFIC. And THAT would include denying the existence of a Deity. You don't have to believe in it, but to deny its reality without evidential backing is unscientific. Discuss. Don T. P.S. I thought I had made it clear in my first post that I speak, not of religion, but of FAITH. I don't much care for the bible, it being, IMHO a collection of anecdotes by men who are separated from the events described by many years, or even centuries, and who, in any case had their own agendas to pursue in the way they slanted the message. IMHO the Old Testament is a collection of parables designed to instil a system of morals and ethics, and I very much doubt that Jesus would recognise his teachings as portrayed in the New Testament. My faith is in God, not in men who wear reversed collars and black frocks. DT. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:34 PM One LAST correction! It's Doctor Bunsen Honeydew. My apologies for the poor memory. I blame it on all those boring damned science courses that I was forced to take in high school...some of the least competent teachers I ever had, I must say, with the notable exception of the chemistry teacher, Mr Antonacci...he was brilliant...so much so that he gave me some good appreciation for a subject that would otherwise have left me cold. But that's a story for another day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:31 PM "P.S. I thought I had made it clear in my first post that I speak, not of religion, but of FAITH." Does that mean you have faith that there is a god, and I have faith that there is no god, so we both have faith and therefore we are both right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:43 PM Actually, that's what's generally the case, Rig. Some people have faith that there is a God. Others, like yourself, have faith that there is NO God. In both cases that's pure faith, not backed up by any conclusive evidence. Still others don't fit into either of those 2 categories of faith, but everyone has faith in something all their own. Stay around them for a bit, observe their behaviour, and you will find out what they have faith in. Most people, for example, have a simply tremendous faith in the value and power of money, and they'll do really bizarre things now and then on the strength of that faith. Others have a tremedous faith in some political party they support. I regard that as one of the most foolish forms of faith possible, and it's led whole nations into utter catastrophe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Bill D Date: 11 Jun 09 - 07:29 PM Ok, Amos... context wins...this time. I admit to NOT evaluating your remark as it relates to some of those 'other' posts. I do get too serious about it all at times.... it sure is easier when I get body language and vocal tone to help me decide whether to bring my intellect to bear on miscreants.... giggle |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: John P Date: 11 Jun 09 - 07:45 PM Faith is antithetical to rational thought. There is a big difference of type between having faith in the existence of God and disbelieving in the existence of God, since there is no shred of evidence for the existence of God. Disbelief is not the same as negative faith. If there were something like a God bouncing around the universe, surely there would be some evidence of it. I myself disbelieve in the existence of forty-foot tall apes in Africa, even though I can't conclusively prove that they don't exist. The lack of any evidence, however, causes my disbelief to make a lot more sense than the faith of someone who believes that King Kong was a documentary. Put another way, there is no reason to try to disprove the existence of God, since there is no evidence of any such existence. A complete lack of evidence goes a lot farther toward being able to say something doesn't exist than it does toward saying it does exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: John Hardly Date: 11 Jun 09 - 08:03 PM I'd say science AND religion. But I see both as broken up into subsets that create most of the controversy. That is: Religion is not monolithic. To be perfectly honest, I was taught growing up that, though there's little value in trying to make the distinctions to those who don't see the Christian faith as I was taught it, I was taught that religion was at it's best, merely a lame expression of the human end of the God/man relationship -- and that true Christianity was not a religion in the sense that religion is generally understood -- as a MEANS toward achieving the goals that the Christian believes God already accomplished (which is the worst of religion). The science side of things is just as adulterated. Too many think they are talking science when they are merely delving in philosophy. Ultimately, I believe that whatever scientific discovery -- true scientific discovery --- leads us to will also coincide with true "religion". I personally don't think that when we get there we will think of it as "religion". I don't think we'll have a problem viewing the science part that got us there as science, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Fergie Date: 11 Jun 09 - 08:06 PM Very well put John P. As I said in my earlier post "Religion presupposes the existance of a god/creator. Can anybody produce one piece of scientific (or otherwise) evidence that such a thing/being exists?" Nobody here has seriously addressed the essence of that assertion. Fergus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jun 09 - 08:56 PM No, John P, faith is not antithetical to rational thought. Faith is simply a form of trust in someone or something. Faith is also something you may go on when you haven't YET got any definite proof for or against something...so you go on your gut feeling. It may well move in concert WITH rational thought and it usually does. It is only when faith in someone or something contradicts rational thought (which is based on logic and evidence) that faith is antithetical to rational thought. Such blind faith can be seen in certain kinds of extremists, fundamentalists, political fanatics, and fanatics of very kind. Most spiritually inclined people are just as capable of rational thought as you are, John P, they use it just as much as you do, and your inability to grasp that indicates that your own uses of rational thought are far more limited by your prejudices than you imagine they are. Your definition of the word "faith" is also far too narrow. I suspect you think that it ONLY applies to religious beliefs. It doesn't. It applies to anything whatsoever that a person has confidence in, and that confidence is usually a result of a number of things: - familiarity - past experience - rational thought - emotional habits - social customs - what your parents told you - what your teachers told you - what your government told you - what the books you read told you - what your friends told you - what your culture told you - what your doctor told you - what "the news" told you - what your psychiatrist told you - what your pastor told you - AND what you figured out for yourself In short, John, your definition of the word "faith" is so utterly narrow that it could probably be fit through the eye of a needle. But a camel can't. ;-) Nor can your predudices. They're too broad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: John P Date: 11 Jun 09 - 09:58 PM Sorry, Little Hawk, but you're barking up the wrong tree again. I know, of course, that there are lots of definitions for the word "faith", and I agree that many of the examples you give are not antithetical to rational thought. In this context, however, and considering that I was replying to specific posts about religion, I think it is easy to figure out what I meant by faith. Perhaps you ought to think about what's really being said before you broaden a definition beyond its easily identifiable context and start accusing me of being prejudiced. Had you considered actually replying to what you actually know I was actually saying? You seem to be saying that I'm not a spiritually inclined person. This theory is based on what? As it happens, I very much am spiritually inclined. Perhaps you ought to inspect your own prejudices, where "prejudice" means jumping to conclusions without any evidence. Just in case you are actually having trouble keeping up, I was offended by you, once again, saying that the "faith" in "faith in god" is the same as a "faith" in the disbelief that something exists for which there is no evidence. "Some people make science their religion" is bullshit if "religion" includes faith. And, yes, before you start spouting off again, I know that the word "religion" doesn't automatically include faith. You'll just have to have faith that it does in the context in which I'm using it. But, nice guy that I am, I'll digress with you and reply to your list with what I have "faith" in. - familiarity As in, experience has indicated that something is true? Reasonable amounts of faith. - past experience Ditto. - rational thought Some, but not complete faith. - emotional habits As in, if I feel like something once, I will feel the same way in a similar circumstance? Very little faith. The issue is WAY too complex. - social customs Unclear. Faith that most people will follow them? Little. Faith in their usefulness? 80%. Faith that I will follow them? None at all. I try to decide such things on a case-by-case basis. - what your parents told you Some yes, some no. I'm not a robot. - what your teachers told you Some yes, some no. Teachers have a habit (not necessarily bad) of inserting all sorts of other thoughts along with the hard data. And faith in what they say depends totally on the teacher. Case-by-case basis. - what your government told you None at all. - what the books you read told you Case-by-case basis. - what your friends told you Ditto. - what your culture told you None at all. - what your doctor told you Case-by-case basis. - what "the news" told you Ditto. - what your psychiatrist told you Hee hee hee. - what your pastor told you Case-by-case basis. - AND what you figured out for yourself Ditto. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Amos Date: 11 Jun 09 - 11:02 PM Fergy: Only some religions make that presupposition. They are called theistic religions, and there are plenty of others. While spirituality is widely experienced in one way or another, but not universally recognized, it is not the case that God is as widely directly experienced. I suspect, likewise, that many people run into their own spirituality and have been so long estranged from it that they call it God as it is surprising enough to strike them that way. These are just my own speculations. There's more than enough such to go around, to be sure! The kind of evidence that WOULD support such an encounter is surely not evidence that would belong in the class of what people can experience in common, anyway. This assumption--that the rules of "objective" evidence must be the rules of spiritual evidence, which is not an objective phenomenology--is the mistake that makes Bill Day so frustrated (not to say occasionally tiresome). :>) Explaining the difference in the vocabulary we developed from heuristic science is what makes me so frustrated and tiresome. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Slag Date: 11 Jun 09 - 11:05 PM Dorothy, you're right. The world IS getting smaller. Here I am having a dialog with you in a manner that 30 years ago was almost inconceivable except to a few forward thinkers. But, is it getting better? Lot's a debate on that one. Too much thread drift involved. Faith was NOT the question and for the most part it is an entirely different subject. You can have faith without being religious and you can have a religion without any faith. Did I mention earlier that religion is a very broad category of human behavior? Much of it boarders on the superstitious and much of it crosses that border. In fact, I would maintain that "religion" is a substitution FOR faith. It involves ignorance, fear of the unknown and magical thinking in many instances. Most ritualized behaviour is intended to influence events and natural processes beyond our control. At best it is an act designed to pay homage to the one or the object held in highest esteem; to attribute worthiness to the same. Science too, has some ritualized behavior attached to it, necessarily so, It is the ritual of repeating conditions under which certain predictable things will happen. Similar to religion born of faith or hope but for different reasons. re "God". Yup Amos. God IS a verb, at least the Jewish God is. YWHW translated "I am" or "I am Who I will be". Well, its a subject and a verb. And also God is nothing, that is, no thing. If such a being is outside of the experiential universe, ie, transcendent, then He is not subject to the routine sensual and factual analysis we can give objects of scientific interest. One of those unprovable categories. I feel that this thread is becoming helical if not circular. Maybe you should all just cast your votes for the question at hand and let it go at that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Bill D Date: 11 Jun 09 - 11:28 PM "...the mistake that makes Bill Day so frustrated (not to say occasionally tiresome). :>)" gee, I'm glad you're not gonna say that. ;>)) At least we sort of agree that the criteria for evaluating those different type of experience ARE different....and at least there's not so much directly at stake in favoring one interpretation over the other....as there IS in debates over religious views. The two views are phenomenologically related, but one is not 'quite' so loaded with emotional & cultural angst as the other. "Eternal Life" is a pretty hot topic compared with the status of thought patterns in the brain/mind. (Now, I'm going to bed...and I'll look in the morning to see if I think I really said much there.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Dorothy Parshall Date: 11 Jun 09 - 11:36 PM 1. I requested that the terms be defined right at the get-go. and gave the wiki sites. I consider it untenable to try to determine anything without first defining it. However, others were more interested in playing around with their own definitions and having fun going off in all directions at the same time. So be it. 2. I do believe I stated why I believe this shrinking of the world through the internet is a positive. (Or was that on a different thread?) 3. Some of youse guys do have fun pontificating. 4. Science and Religion - each are concerns and/or interests, and mysteries to most people (probably all people if the truth were told). There can be no vs. Eventually, when/if human beings evolve to an appropriate state of being/intelligence/spirtuality, it will all become clear. In the meantime, y'all can continue pontificating. It intrigues and amuses me. 5. I guess that sounds a bit arrogant. I know some of you have differently functioning brains than I do; That does not make any of us more or less intelligent. Just different. That's what makes life interesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jun 09 - 12:22 AM Very good, John P. ;-) However, I don't believe for a moment that you have no faith in what your culture has told you. All people take for granted much of the stuff that is passed on to them by their culture. It begins as soon as they can hear, walk, and talk, and they're unaware of a great deal of it, but take it on just as a bird "patterns" on its surrogate parents, whatever they may be. I also think you must have faith in much of what your government has told you during your life..certainly not all of it...but much of it. You just like to think you're completely independent of them, because that appeals to your sense of your own independence. We all like to think such things. ;-) Other than that, your answers make good sense, and they sound much like the answers that I would give. **** Now, let's see about this paraqraph you wrote: "Just in case you are actually having trouble keeping up, I was offended by you, once again, saying that the "faith" in "faith in god" is the same as a "faith" in the disbelief that something exists for which there is no evidence. "Some people make science their religion" is bullshit if "religion" includes faith. And, yes, before you start spouting off again, I know that the word "religion" doesn't automatically include faith. You'll just have to have faith that it does in the context in which I'm using it." Hmmm. "The disbelief that something exists for which there is no evidence" (?) John, how can there be evidence for something that is, by definition, not part of the physical time-space continuum as we know it? One is not obliged to prove the existence of something which exists outside of time and space by looking within time and space FOR it. One cannot either prove or disprove it by looking for it in a "room" (so to speak) which it is not contained in. One can only state: "It's not in this room." Similarly, some scientists have proposed theories of parallel universes...not as a religious proposition...as a scientific proposition. You can't find evidence for those HERE either, because they are, by definition, NOT manifesting HERE. Yet they may indeed exist...just not here. Most traditional ideas about the Spirit world are based on a rather similar idea...that it's real...but it doesn't exist here in this time-space continuum. To say that some people make science their religion is not bullshit, and I'll tell you why. Many people know relatively little about science, yet they have absolute faith in it...that is, in the latest scientific statements and theories they've heard from the media and popular culture around them. They may be almost completely ignorant of what is actually contained in those theories...and those theories may yet turn out to be utterly wrong...and yet they have absolute faith in it merely because it came authoritatively, through the media, from the world of science. Their faith is based, like the faith of any religious fundamentalist, on a set of vague assumptions they take for granted, but they're basically ignorant. For such people, science is their religion, and they trust it without question. I understand your concern about people's unquestioning faith in God...but before you judge them you must know what they think "God" is, and why they think so. They don't all envision the same kind of "God". Furthermore, you should recognize that the world is full of people who have equally questionable faith in all kinds of other things for which they have no real knowledge or evidence...not just "God". What is it that actually concerns you here? **** Dorothy - Yes! Must of us love pontificating. It's a way of passing the time and excercising our verbal skills, as it were. It also helps us reinforce our fickle sense of our own identity, and that's probably the main reason why we do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jun 09 - 01:42 AM And now...Doctor Bunsen Honeydew shows us how to warm up our noses on a cold day! The electric nose warmer - brought to you by Science! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:39 AM ""Does that mean you have faith that there is a god, and I have faith that there is no god, so we both have faith and therefore we are both right?"" Thats a straw man argument, and you know it. Both of us are equally entitled to our beliefs. That does not make either, neither, or both of our beliefs true. My point was, and still is, that since we cannot KNOW that there is or is not a God, it is by definition UNSCIENTIFIC to flatly state that either is the truth. So for scientists to say "There is no God", is to throw away all the scientific principles on which they base their claim to knowledge. Equally, all I am entitled to say is "I believe there is a God". To go further would again be unscientific. There is not, and cannot be, any objectively verifiable evidence either way. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Jun 09 - 08:40 AM Let's put it this way--and we'll call it a theory: The evidence is overwhelming that there is no god, and the evidence to support this grows stronger with every day that passes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: John P Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:54 AM Little Hawk, to be more precise: I'm talking about faith in the existence of a God, where "God" is defined the way that most of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam define it -- a god with a personality, who bothers with the affairs of humans, listens to prayers, etc. Not the spirit world, of which there is sufficient evidence to put it in the "unknown" camp. Not anything outside of the space-time continuum, which, as you say, we can't possibly know anything about. I have no problem postulating the existence of alternate universes -- the theories make sense and mostly derive from known phenomena, even if there is as yet no way to really test them. Anyone who has ever experienced the effects of deep meditation knows that there is something going on outside of the "normal" physical world -- at the least, rationally unexplainable connections between points of energy. This could, of course, be brain chemistry and not taking place anywhere but inside our heads, but that doesn't really matter in day-to-day living. I see what you mean about people who don't know anything about science having faith in it. I thought you were talking about scientists and other scientifically educated people, who would consider faith in an untested conclusion exactly the opposite of science. I suppose the difference is that someone who doesn't know anything about science in a real sense can still have some rational confidence that if a scientist is saying something it might well be true, or at least possible. Unlike a church-goer sitting in a pew listening to their pastor tell them that God will listen to their prayers, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that this wine is now blood. No evidence, but complete faith. The two really are different -- the faith doesn't come from the same place, and is not of the same type. You're probably right that I shouldn't say I have no faith in what my culture told me. I will say, however, that whenever I become aware of something in myself that I'm taking on faith, I pull it out and examine it in whatever way I can. I try to stay aware that faith can be problematic to self-knowledge. So I guess maybe this still isn't faith, but rather untested and unconscious assumptions. Again, not the same thing. You say you can understand my "concern" about people having unreasoning faith in God, and that I shouldn't "judge" them without more knowledge. The reality is that I'm not at all concerned about it, and the only judgment I make is that they are willing to believe things that don't make any sense and for which there is no evidence. It doesn't have anything to do with how I perceive them as people -- the factor that is most important to me in judging people is whether or not they are good-hearted. That's not something that is determined by whether or not they are able to carry conflicting concepts around with them. Of course I have to know what people mean by religion before I can know what they mean by faith. But when I hear someone in our culture say, without further explanation, that they have faith in God, I think I can draw a reasonable conclusion as to what they are talking about. So can you, of course, but one of your functions around here is to take conversations off on tangents, so that's OK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Mrrzy Date: 12 Jun 09 - 12:12 PM It doesn't take faith to conclude, from existing evidence, that there are no gods. It's the most logical conclusion. And when you're talking about science, which we were, then yes, if it isn't in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it isn't well-documented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jun 09 - 12:28 PM Excellent post, John P! I find myself in agreement with you on every point. I'm not a Christian, a believer in the Judaic faith, or a Muslim, and, yes, I understand exactly what you mean about the anthropomorphic idea of "God" (a god with a personality, who bothers with the affairs of humans, listens to prayers, etc) that is typically held by people in these faiths. I have no idea if such a God exists...but I doubt it. I'm not anything specific in the sense of "belonging to a religion", I'm just a human being who is quite interested in spirituality. I'm also interested in religion in a general sense. I'm interested in anything that has absorbed the thoughts of billions of human beings over thousands of years. So...I'm interested in religion, history, politics, culture, art, architecture, shipbuilding, etc. The attitude toward science that troubles me, as I explained before, is that a vast number of unscientific people in the general public who know little or nothing about science will automatically believe anything they hear if it purports to be coming from a "scientific source", or if a man in a white lab coat says it to them. Those people are behaving in the same thoughtless and ignorant fashion as a group of religious people who believe anything a priest or pastor or mullah tells them. In both cases they have surrendered their own judgement to an external human authority figure who does their thinking for them. That can lead to serious problems if the authority figure is not a reliable person or is pushing some hidden political agenda! ;-) I have no objection, on the other hand, to experienced science people themselves who actually KNOW what they're talking about and who ARE reliable people, and I'd be delighted to talk to them about anything in their field of expertise. Likewise, I'm delighted to talk to an experienced meditator or yoga instructor about techniques for relaxing the body and quieting the mind during meditation. I regard spirituality as an inner search and discipline, not an attempt to negotiate terms and conditions with an outer "God" figure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Donuel Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:11 PM Amos, you may have accidently overlooked Phenomenology The new Tom Hanks movie is about science and religion. I watched the History channel's two hour show entitled angels and demons. The in depth look at Galileo, Newton and others was enthralling... well it was at least engrossing. If you believe in relativity, you might concede that other life forms may have god like power compared to us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Amos Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:23 PM Excerpt from an interview in der Spiegel with a scientist discussing the possibility of extra-terrestrial contact: "Drake: A civilization may remain detectable through radio-waves only for a short time, maybe 100 or 200 years. That means that primitive civilizations like ours are the easiest to detect. We are wasteful. Almost all the energy that we send out with radio-transmitters, for example for our television systems, does not go to earth. It does not even arrive on earth just goes off into space. SPIEGEL ONLINE: That means that the first thing that extraterrestrials get to see from us could be the daily soaps. Drake: That is very scary. Particularly at night there are so many crime programs on television, violence and blood and all that. That is a really inaccurate picture of our civilization. SPIEGEL ONLINE: And last year, we even sent a commercial for tortilla-chips. Drake: Oh, we did? I didn't know that! I think that's a stupid waste of resources. It doesn't make sense in any way. How should extraterrestrials buy our tortilla-chips? SPIEGEL ONLINE: And what if the first extraterrestrial signal that we receive on earth is a cosmic commercial? Drake: Actually, one of my worst nightmares is that we find a signal and it will be an advertisement for a religious cult. SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why would that be a nightmare? Drake: I want to learn more about a civilization than just its belief in the supernatural. Religion is an important part of the culture but may not help to improve the quality of life in a civilization. Maybe their religion is a really good one, but I doubt it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:44 PM If extra-terrestrials judged us on the basis of our TV shows, they would certainly not have much encouragement to visit us, would they? I think it more likely that they would attempt to quarantine this planet. A religion is as good as the ideals which drive it. If the religion puts forth such ideals as love, kindness, justice, fairness, tolerance, and generosity, then it's quite useful to humanity. If it puts forth ideals such as exclusivity, hardheartedness, vengefullness, retribution, punishment, and domination, then it's very bad for humanity. There are elements in the Judaic, Christian, and Muslim faiths who have espoused the former (positive) ideals. There are elements who have espoused the latter (negative) ideals. The ones espousing the negative ideals have usually been the ones who exercised the most political control. Why? Because politics is usually devoted to various forms of brutal competition between groups to secure land, money, and resources for someone at the expense of someone else. I think, therefore, that the essential problem is more with politics than it is with religion. They certainly make nasty bedfellows. Furthermore, you don't need a conventional religion to drive a vicious political agenda. Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin have already proven that beyond any shadow of a doubt. Watch out for aggressive political causes. They'll use religion or not use it...as they please...and they will wreak havoc upon the world, either in the name of God or in the name of atheism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Amos Date: 12 Jun 09 - 02:50 PM Bravo, Donuel. THis is exactly the point I was groping for, and a quick search for definitions brings this statement forward which is highly germane to the current discussion: "In psychology, phenomenology is used to refer to subjective experiences or their study. The experiencing subject can be considered to be the person or self, for purposes of convenience. In phenomenological philosophy (and particularly in the work of Husserl, Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty) 'experience' is a considerably more complex concept than it is usually taken to be in everyday use. Instead, experience (or Being, or existence itself) is an 'in-relation-to' phenomena, and it is defined by qualities of directedness, embodiment and worldliness which are evoked by the term 'Being-in-the-World' [1]. Nevertheless, one abiding feature of 'experiences' is that, in principle, they are not directly observable by any external observer. The quality or nature of a given experience is often referred to by the term qualia, whose archetypical exemplar is "redness". For example, we might ask, "Is my experience of redness the same as yours?" While it is difficult to answer such a question in any concrete way, the concept of intersubjectivity [2] is often used as a mechanism for understanding how it is that humans are able to empathise with one another's experiences, and indeed to engage in meaningful communication about them. The phenomenological formulation of Being-in-the-World, where person and world are mutually constitutive, is central here." The interesting thing is that a degree of heuristic balance can be arrived at even though one is dealing with phenomenological data, by (a)comparing a significantly large set of such data for patterns and (b) weighing the data for importance, and other qualities, to sort the wheat from the chaff, as it were. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: TIA Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:47 PM LH says: "Many people know relatively little about science, yet they have absolute faith in it...that is, in the latest scientific statements and theories they've heard from the media and popular culture around them. They may be almost completely ignorant of what is actually contained in those theories...and those theories may yet turn out to be utterly wrong...and yet they have absolute faith in it merely because it came authoritatively, through the media, from the world of science." LH is quite correct. These people absolutely do exist. But they are absolutely not doing science. Furthermore, the existence of persons having uninformed faith in the products of science does not at all imply that science itself relies in any way upon faith. In fact the method of science involves the destruction (by experimentation and measurement) of articles of faith (hypotheses). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Slag Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:53 PM Now we're on to E.T.s! Wow! Yes, Dorothy, there IS pontification below the line here at the 'cat. that's what we DO! (I'm tempted to say "that is ALL we do", but, well, that just isn't factual and, besides, I think that line may be copyrighted!) And Yes LH, we get to show off our verbal skills, intellect, sophistry and the God given ability to BS thru just about any subject! Don't ya just love it? Did the Creator God have Theomorphic ideas concerning man? That is asserted in Genesis. It's Man without the familiar presence of God who came up with the anthropomorphic argument concerning the nature of God. That God created Man for a personal relationship with Himself is consistent with the hermeneutic integrity of the Bible. I would contend that scientists ARE of a faith, albeit a knowledge-based faith, in the method. The ultimate tautology is that reason is reasonable. The sensual world and whatever extensions of those senses we can manage are the exclusive realm of scientific thought. It cannot acknowledge anything beyond our ability to sense and extrapolate. That is the limit of scientific endeavor. The common man may be ignorant (for whatever reason) about the scientific process but he sees and experiences the successes of science and therefore he DOES have some basis for his belief. Even so, he may have an over-inflated belief on the ability of science to do all he expects it to do. I don't quite remember the exact limit but such a limit does exist and it is depressingly small in terms of the immensity of the universe in regards to the most powerful electromagnetic signal mankind could reasonably be expected to generate. At the distance of about 20 light years any radio signals thus far generated by humankind will have been absorbed or have become meaningless radiation. I think it is at about 40 lys that our most powerful beam imaginable will have evaporated. Isaac Asimov proposed that our search for a truly advanced extraterrestrial civilization might include looking for a star that winks or dims off and on in a non cyclical manner. Such civilization, recognizing the limitations of artificially generated signals may attempt to orbit shielding material about a star in a pattern that would be mathematically identifiable. Who knows? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Amos Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:04 PM The ultimate tautology is that reason is reasonable. The sensual world and whatever extensions of those senses we can manage are the exclusive realm of scientific thought. It cannot acknowledge anything beyond our ability to sense and extrapolate. That is the limit of scientific endeavor. I just love the first sentence. However scientific thought can be applied to any data set, because in addition to material replicability it also uses imagination and analytic skills of several kinds. And it can (in the right mind) be used to find new ways to acquire data and then test and evaluate the data so acquired. Phenomenological data is not, strictly speaking, part of the sensual world in any shared sense of the word. There is no sure way to know if one perception of intense affection is just like another's even though they both say it is love.:D But there are ways to group and compare such data. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:55 PM ""Let's put it this way--and we'll call it a theory: The evidence is overwhelming that there is no god, and the evidence to support this grows stronger with every day that passes."" WHAT EVIDENCE! If you have it, PRODUCE IT, with proper attributions. Elsewise, stop making a fool of yourself. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Slag Date: 12 Jun 09 - 06:41 PM Thanks Amos! Put another way might be to ask why something is thus or thus. Through reduction one finally has to make the appeal to reason, ie, "because it is reasonable to think so." When dealing with children, you can go one step further and appeal to authority "Because I said so!" That seems reasonable to me! Your second paragraph is essentially what is meant by "extrapolation". Phenomenology is better described as a way of viewing the world, an exercise, if you will. It is laying aside "words" and measurements, etc. and viewing the object or phenomena as "a thing in itself". It is interesting to do this for a while. Painters and media artist pretty much make this their way of seeing most things most of the time. If nothing else, it teaches one to really see the world as it is, not as we may think it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:00 PM TIA - My problem isn't with people who are doing science. Not at all. I applaud their efforts. My problem is with chauvinistic but ill-informed individuals who simply hate religion on principle for some reason (generally due to some kind of negative experiences they've had with it...or just due to the fact that they're not themselves inclined to BE religious), and who insist on regarding it as the antithesis of science...but whose own knowledge of science is so fragmentary and incomplete that they don't have much business quoting it as their supposed authority. It seems to me like the ignorant attacking the ignorant for being ignorant...or the pot calling the kettle black. ;-) The people I am most impressed by are those who understand and respect and appreciate BOTH science AND spiritual philosophy and have found a way to integrate the two so that knowledge can be found through combining both of them. And there are a good many such people. Instead of wasting their time trying to find the stupidest and most prejudiced people on the OTHER side of the supposed divide in order to justify their own prejudice, they are doing something productive by realizing that there IS no real divide between science and spirituality when you take them to the higher levels of understanding. That's the path of wisdom, seems to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Bill D Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:37 PM "...no real divide between science and spirituality when you take them to the higher levels of understanding." And that high level of understanding....you will be sure to point it out for those of us who can't 'quite' manage the path on our own? ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Dorothy Parshall Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:53 PM I don't know about LH but I do not believe anyone can point out that path for another person. I believe we each must find our own. Of course there are plenty of people out there who, for an exorbitant fee, will offer to help. "Nobody else can do it for you" but the odd hint or example might be helpful. "This I know experientially" is, for me, about all that counts - after all the reading and talking, etc. That is where I stand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Bill D Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:57 PM Of course, Dorothy... I am merely tweaking LH about our differences over whether there IS such a place and the language used to discuss it. (we have been at this for 6-8 years.. *grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Amos Date: 12 Jun 09 - 09:34 PM Hey--I taught LH everything he knows!! I'll do the same for you if you can pass the qualifications exam. His was a book of blank checks, but it varies with your A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Jun 09 - 09:45 PM "Elsewise, stop making a fool of yourself." What, and let you have the stage all to yourself? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Slag Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:13 PM It has been said that experience is not only the BEST teacher, it's the ONLY teacher. LH, isn't it amazing how we usually fit our own paradigm for wizdom? All those who agree with me on that point, I salute you as ALSO being very wize. PS I HAVE Spellcheck |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Mrrzy Date: 13 Jun 09 - 12:19 AM If people would just work together, we would be AS gods! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Amos Date: 13 Jun 09 - 12:56 AM A wonderful wonderful Wiz he is, If ever a wiz there was, he is Because because because because becaaaauuuuse Because of the wonder woz he haz! Yatatatatatatummmmm! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Jun 09 - 08:49 AM That's it! God was uncloaked in 1935. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Mrrzy Date: 13 Jun 09 - 09:52 AM OK, then, since nobody's voting any more, who wants to do the tally? I gotta go see Mom (managed to break the femur in her "good" leg and the shoulder blade in her "good" arm right after her 80th birthday...) but I'll check back... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Jun 09 - 10:22 AM ""Elsewise, stop making a fool of yourself." What, and let you have the stage all to yourself?"" No SENSIBLE answer then? I thought not. Don T. |
