BS: Science and Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 01:12 PM

Hi Don,

You ask:

"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."

1. The massive body of evidence is that there is no evidence for a god at all. Only cultural delusion.
2. As you say, negatives can't be proven. It's a logical fallacy.
3. There are some scientists today who are testing the legitimacy of a god. This is what the Dover trials were about as well as was the Scopes Trial.
4. I think that in the scientific community, there is a consensus that among the more
educated and well-developed scientists, since there is no evidence to support a god,
there is a general lack of belief.

Since as you say, there is no proof of a negative, skepticism is healthy here. Otherwise
you enter the realm of delusion. You can will the earth to be flat if you are so inclined but
this flies in the face of the perception of scientific data.

Now here is one of the reasons that religion is dangerous.


http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/pastor-drake-prays-obamas-death-im-not

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 01:24 PM

Religion, metaphysics, new-age ideas, and even certain political philosophies enter into
the realm of untested, unscientific speculation. In my opinion, Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler
were religious in the application of their belief systems. They were not true atheists.
The subscribed to a "religious" ideology, each in their various beliefs.

Faith is used to justify abominable acts of humans one to another. Does this disqualify
faith as an agency for good? I think that the overwhelming evidence that faith has been used to perpetrate atrocities at worst and bullying ideologies at best indicates that the damage done by religious faith outweighs the good it purports to have.

The question to be answered is faith useful to being a good person, a moral person,
and a socially-conscious one. Not if the preponderance of its use is to outweigh the
good behavior of mankind.

I was for some reason unable to make a blue clicky of <
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/pastor-drake-prays-obamas-death-im-not>
but it bears looking at.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 02:25 PM

Here's the blue clicky to the evil Pastor.

I think it would be wise in our secular haste to differentiate between genuine and perverted variants of religion.

Buddha's advices qualify as religious script, as do Lao-Tze's, and many other writers on matters of the human spirit.

The Pope's opinion on condoms, on the other hand, is a small sample of the perversion of what is a natural human approach to mystery. And while there is a great deal of mystery still to uncover in the realm of space, energy and the cosmos and microcosmos, there is even more to be uncovered in the realm of thought, being, and the delicate web of energies involved in making dreams and data and understandings. Right, Horatio?

Let us not drink bathwater, but let us not throw out babies, either.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:16 PM

Got that right, Mrzzy! We would definitely be AS gods if we could all find a way to work together in harmony.

Slag - Well, yeah. ;-) But I have met people whom I considered to be wiser than myself. Not too many, admittedly, but a few here and there.

(I might add as a caveat that I have met a simply vast number of people who have knowledge or information or practical experience or various types of skills that I do not...and even some who were better looking than me! (joke)...but only a few whom I definitely felt were a good deal wiser than I am.)

What I have learned from Amos is...umm...well, I learned about the word "frisson" from Amos. And a couple of other rare and sophisticated words too. He has frequently reminded me of the old phrase "I swan!" (which is not about the bird) What a guy that Amos is, eh? He's like a walking thesaurus. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:23 PM

"And while there is a great deal of mystery still to uncover in the realm of space, energy and the cosmos and microcosmos, there is even more to be uncovered in the realm of thought, being, and the delicate web of energies involved in making dreams and data and understandings." Wow, something that makes sense to me!

But who is determining what is or is not "religious" writings.

LH: Please define "wisdom".

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:24 PM

If all you have learned from me, you varlet, is a few worn old words, you have been sadly lacking in proper attention, and are a poor study indeed.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:40 PM

Noun
religion (plural religions)

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.
Rather than being diligent and mindful of the way he practiced religion, he chose to stir up quarels by ridiculing the manner in which others do.

Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.
At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.

Any ongoing practice one engages in, in order to shape their character or improve traits of their personality.
Our ideological and traditional heritage.
If you examine various churches throughout the world, you will find religion expressed in diverse ways.

[edit]Usage notes

Generally speaking, certain groups that do not acknowledge the existence of one or more deities, such as Buddhism, are still religious, though some people prefer a definition of religion that discourages non-theistic groups from identifying as religious. Others are in favor of a more inclusive definition of religion that recognizes that everyone has their own set of religious beliefs. Avoid calling religious institutions that should be called churches, religions.

---

The pursuit of spiritual truth, IMHO, is the common denominator of all definitions of religion, whether theistic or not.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Slag
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 04:50 PM

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." BTW that's not original with me. "Those who have ears to hear, let them hear." Also not original with me. "Fear" in this case means having the respect for a ruling monarch who has the power of life and death over you.

OK. That's one take on the subject. A word to the wise is sufficient.

There are computers and people who have stores of knowledge much greater than I but that does not make them wiser than I. Wisdom really begins with knowing one's self. It involves absolute honesty with yourself, knowing what your strengths and limitations are, not biting off more than you can chew and not taking the backseat to anyone when it matters the most. It involves being able to assess the reality of any given situation. It involves having a firm foundation under you, a good roof over you and more than one escape plan. It's knowing how to play poker and win and it's knowing how to leave the game alone. It's knowing that you don't swim against the rip tide but in a right angle to it.

It 's being able to understand what a metaphor is and what it is telling you, as above.

It is about keeping your own counsel but also recognizing that no one lives unto himself (Usage Panel?).

It's knowing that Spellcheck is not always right.

With regards to science it's knowing that ego is not part of the method; that when you are wrong, you are wrong. Science may hold the key to much knowledge but not ALL knowledge.

The word "know" gets heavy usage in trying to describe wisdom. A wise person is knowledgeable but a knowledgeable person is not necessarily wise.

I could go on but those with wisdom are probably bored by now and those without, well, they were lost from the beginning.

Lastly, a wise person does not go on at length about THEIR wisdom. Sometimes the wisest thing to do is show yourself the fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 05:39 PM

"No SENSIBLE answer then? I thought not."


                That's right! You didn't!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 05:46 PM

We all have our own definitions, Dorothy. I guess my defintion for wisdom would be:

* great knowledge of life, combined with great love and compassion * (and that goes with emotional maturity)

Great knowledge in the absence of great love and compassion can be quite dangerous.

In regards to those people I've met who I felt were wiser than I, they usually had greater knowledge, greater love, and greater compassion than I have, and I could see that in them. This made them people I naturally wanted to be around and learn from.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 07:42 PM

LH: OK, but I do not believe worldly knowledge enters into what I would term wisdom, or does it?
As per Slag who went on about it but finally came to:
"A wise person is knowledgeable but a knowledgeable person is not necessarily wise." THAT I can accept. To me, the most real knowledge is that which is eternal and comes from the inner depths of a "wise" person.

Religion/religious- Amos: That is, of course, a long way around and, I believe begs the question in the end. But at least I understood your words! Not sure, at this point, I care anymore. I am about to dump "religion" and "the American Way of Life" in the same basket - myriad definitions, too numerous to be meaningful?

Back to your pontificating, folks. I recognize the fun you are having. Endless and circular - almost.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 07:57 PM

Slag has expressed it beautifully. No, I wasn't talking much of worldly knowledge (memorizing a great many facts), but of inner knowledge about life itself...knowledge of, as you say, "that which is eternal".

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 08:41 AM

Enjoying reading "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.

Just sayin....

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 08:55 AM

I did enjoy reading 'The God Delusion', 'robomatic'. A bit 'extreme' perhaps (?) - but then it was countering thousands of years of extremism!

I think that the most valuable lesson that it teaches is that religion is not above criticism.

I was accosted in the street, the other day, by some evangelicals. In the course of my debate with them I suddenly realised that what had prompted this particular 'crusade' was writers like Dawkins and Hitchens (author of 'God is not Great' ... if you thought Dawkins was extreme, just try that!). They even appeared to have softened their position on evolution. I suspect that at least one of those books was 'bang on target'!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 11:44 AM

Hitchens in particular does more harm than good with his "hit 'em over the head with sarcastic disparagement of religion until they see reason" type of approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 12:11 PM

Well, people who are intent on hectoring everyone else in the world into believing the same as they do about something often cause more harm than good, don't they?

This is true of religious prosyletizers. It's true of anti-religious prosyletizers. What would happen if you put Pol Pot and 1500 of his most faithful atheistic followers on an island with the Ayatollah Khameini and 1500 of his most faithful Shiite followers? ;-) A lively old time, I should think.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 12:28 PM

Amos, I think it's important to show how so-called "moderate" religion enables extremism.Sometimes it's difficult to separate them.

Dawkins is not Hitchens. Hitchens likes to fight whereas Dawkins is a humanitarian who
is interested in reason. Hitchens would prefer to keep religion as something he could bat around through argument but Dawkin's goal is to enlighten the public as to the ethics of science and the contribution of Darwin and to lessen the need for religion.

L.H., Pol Pot had his own "religion" going so I think you would be hard put to find much of a difference in oblations between him and the Ayatollah at least in their obeisance to dogma. The same "dogma" could be applied to Stalin and Bush. All this dogma resulted in human atrocities.

I think what could be written on US currency is "In Dogma We Trust". (It would be an improvement over the 1954 edict by a minister).

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:04 PM

More of a book about mathematics and religion:

Naming Infinity

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:13 PM

Strinsinger - You are dead right about Pol Pot having his own dogma and "religion" (an atheistic and materialistic religion in his case). I myself have made that point many times in threads here.

It is my opinion that all fanatical political credos ARE in fact forms of secular religion. They follow the same psychological patterns of unquestioned authority, hierarchical command structure, and strict obedience to dogma that fundamentalist religions do.

As for the motto on the US dollar "In God We Trust", it's totally appropriate, because the dollar IS God in the USA. Think about it. What do people devote the most loyalty and attention to? What lies behind every big political iniative? What is the strength of every effective lobby and power group? The dollar. It IS the dollar that America trusts and serves and the dollar is America's ruling God.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:07 PM

Communism was certainly a state religion in the now defunct USSR. I visited Leningrad and will never forget the heroic depictions of Lenin and Marx, including a small iconic 'shrine' of Lenin, backlit, at the end of the hotel corridor, exactly like a depiction of Christ. Not to mention his wax-like body on display next to the Kremlin, similar to gilded saints in the Vatican.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:13 PM

LH: LOVE that last post! Such a good laugh. Thank you!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:19 PM

Little Hawk said, in part:

there IS no real divide between science and spirituality when you take them to the higher levels of understanding.

Please explain what is meant by "the higher levels of understanding". Agreeing with your viewpoint?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Paul Cookieless Burke
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:15 PM

Nothing you'd understand Dave.Or me, or anyone else blinkered by the need for some sort of supporting "evidence".

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 05:49 PM

Uncle DaveO, I'm always hoping to meet someone who is at a higher level of understanding (about anything at all) than I am...and I do meet such people. If I met Mark Knopfler, for example, I believe he would be at a much higher level of understanding about guitar playing than I am, and I would pay close attention to anything he could show me.

If you want an airtight definition of "higher level of understanding" that will automatically identify it at ALL possible levels, I can't provide it. I'm not at at high enough level of understanding myself to be capable of that. ;-)

Just find your own definition of the concept and I'm sure it will work for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 08:01 PM

"Just find your own definition of the concept and I'm sure it will work for you. "

Kinda like Humpty Dumpty?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

It's very comfy to have everything so vague and subjective, but it's the philosophical equivalent of cotton candy.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 08:03 PM

""1. The massive body of evidence is that there is no evidence for a god at all. Only cultural delusion.""

Come on String. I expect that level of incompetence from Rig, not from you.

Find me one reputable scientist who will state that absence of evidence FOR a theory is objective evidence against it.


""4. I think that in the scientific community, there is a consensus that among the more
educated and well-developed scientists, since there is no evidence to support a god,
there is a general lack of belief.""

So they decide that in view of the lack of evidence FOR such a being they don't BELIEVE in its existence.

They do NOT say it doesn't exist. To do so WOULD be UNSCIENTIFIC, which has been my point all along.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Slag
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 08:49 PM

I hate to pick up String's cause but wasn't "ether" postulated because scientists of the day could not imagine a wave being propagated without a medium? It is what wasn't there that they finally discovered, thanks to the Michelson/Morley experiment. From there, physics took a quantum leap, you might say.

By way of analogy an artist will often use negative space to imply the object of the work. It's everything around the subject and what is NOT there that defines the object. Alas, I can use this same analogy to portray God, so grains of salt all around.

And Stringsinger, any extremist for any cause will attempt to use moderates as patsies or buffers or promoters or whatever they feel will advance their ideology. Marxs called them "useful idiots". It seems that extremists of every stripe have both contempt and plans for someone of more moderate views.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:39 PM

Let's see, a few posts back I tried to make the case that science can be supported by fact, and religion cannot. I was told that the cat who started this thread "wasn't talking about religion, he was talking about god." But the name of the thread is Science and Religion, so how about this:


    "'1. The massive body of evidence is that there is no evidence for a god at all. Only cultural delusion.'""
    "Come on String. I expect that level of incompetence from Rig, not from you."

                  There's a massive body of evidence that religion is only cultural delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:53 PM

Well, there is no question that myths, legends and icons are cultural delusions, or at least cultural artifacts trying to symbolize something a bit beyond words.

But there may be a baby still in that bathwater. Let us keep looking, at least. It is probably just as harmful to say ther eis nothing there than it is to say there is somethign there and give it false names, attributes, and attachments not natural to it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 11:21 PM

Bill, you are mistaking my goodwill toward Dave for fuzzy thinking. ;-) Uncle Dave-O decided to be nasty and sarcastic to me and imply that I respect only ideas and opinions which are identical to my own. I decided to be friendly and noncombative in return rather than hurling a similar barb back at him. And that's really all there is to it. I like a world with many different ideas and opinions being expressed.

If, however, you want a deeply serious dissertation from me on what I mean when I use the phrase "higher levels of understanding" in regards to science and spirituality ....and I really doubt that you do...well but if you do, just say "please, pretty please", and I'll do my best to try and come up with one for you.

But keep in mind, Bill... My knowledge and abilities are necessarily limited. I may not be able to totally satisfy your requirements or your expectations.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 12:20 AM

"But there may be a baby still in that bathwater. Let us keep looking, at least. It is probably just as harmful to say ther eis nothing there than it is to say there is somethign there and give it false names, attributes, and attachments not natural to it."


                   I would be willing to go along with a continued resolution to determine if there is, or is not, a god, if the people who are so completely deluded into thinking that there is one would keep it (him/her) out of public policy decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 12:44 AM

But, Rig...divide and conquer is the name of the game! Surely you don't expect the mass media and the great partisan powers that be to resist golden opportunities to set the public at each other's throat over divisive stuff like this? Surely you don't expect them to be reasonable and seek mutual understanding and look for ways to get people to agree with each other on much more important matters! How else could they generate the vicious process called "multi-party elections" without crap like this to fight over? And how could they get their supporters all excited and mindlessly partisan without crap like this to fight over?

I ask you... ;-) You must be opposed to the $ySStem as we know it!!!

If so....hey!...I can relate to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 12:52 AM

Yes, Little Hawk, I do oppose the system you talk about. But an informed people would not be so easily duped--in my opinion--so those of us who consider ourselves to be responsible citizens must do something to get the truth to the people. Having only two parties to deal with, however, makes things very easy for the manipulators-and-the-users.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Slag
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 03:32 AM

Rig, would you consider it evidence that throughout the entire history of modern man he has been a religious creature? Everywhere he has been he has left evidence that he worshipped something greater than himself. Idols, icons, pyramids, temples, music, scripture, grave markers, on and on, all evidence of a god.

So if religion or god or God is a delusion then perhaps Mankind is delusional from the get go. Or maybe you it's you, who is in a minority, that is delusional.

The fact that there are those who come along and deceive believers and manipulate them through their religious practices is NOT evidence that there is no God. That is only evidence that there are deceivers and gullible folks among us. If money is your religion what, then, is Bernie Madoff? If love is your religion what is the streetwalker? The examples are endless but it remains that there is a vast preponderance of evidence that people everywhere worship that which amounts to a supreme being.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 04:50 AM

""I was told that the cat who started this thread "wasn't talking about religion, he was talking about god.""

I had an idea that you were so sure of your own rightness that you hadn't even bothered to read the whole of this thread.

Now you've confirmed that.

I DIDN'T START THIS THREAD!

So much for YOUR cleverness.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 05:01 AM

""But an informed people would not be so easily duped--in my opinion--so those of us who consider ourselves to be responsible citizens must do something to get the truth to the people.""

Whose truth?.....YOURS?

Your carefully thought out and considered opinion that anyone who disagrees with your theories is deluded and in need of education?

What proof can you offer of your capabilities which would support your assumption of intellectual superiority over a bunch of people about whom you know next to nothing?

The only thing that stands out in your responses on this and other threads is your supreme arrogance.

When I feel the need to learn, I will choose someone who is Qualified to teach, and learn from him/her. Meanwhile my opinion is as valid as yours, or anyone else's.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 07:12 AM

I think DonT has put his finger on, and done a good job of exposing the memes that what passes for "science" these days has used to build a tremendously seductive, but also terribly illogical thesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Slag
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 07:21 AM

Excellent Don T.! Opinion passing as fact is sometimes rampant in these threads. I Love Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's line in One Sherlock Holmes story. To paraphrase, as I don't have the work before me, "mediocrity recognizes nothing but itself: talent instantly recognizes genius!"

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 08:40 AM

"I had an idea that you were so sure of your own rightness that you hadn't even bothered to read the whole of this thread."


                            I see. You just use the same call letters.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:02 AM

Slag commented:

Rig, would you consider it evidence that throughout the entire history of modern man he has been a religious creature? Everywhere he has been he has left evidence that he worshipped something greater than himself. Idols, icons, pyramids, temples, music, scripture, grave markers, on and on, all evidence of a god.

I would point out that it is equally true that throughout the entire history of modern and ancient man there have been powerfully persuasive and highly influential doubters.

I recommend to you a wonderful book called Doubt: A History, 1965, by Jennifer Michael Hecht. She goes back to ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, China, and brings it up to date. I learned a great deal about the history of philosophy and religion in both ancient and modern times, including and cross-referencing such fields of thought as the Cynics, Stoics, Hinduism, the history of Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Christianity, and coming up to very modern thought, such as that of Tillich, Buber, and countless others.
An enthusiastic recommendation!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:14 AM

Throughout human history, and apparently human pre-history, there have been many examples of individuals who, confronting a contest of wills, emotions, or resources with another human, found the solution of choice to be violent eradication of the other.

From the pre-historic skulls with ax marks in them to the ashes of the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the fried corpses of 9-11, we as humans have a long and glorious record of returning to the truth that nothing solves a problem quite like killing other humans.

To argue that this is not the case is to fly in the fast of millennia of human thought and dispute the consensus of millions over the centuries. How could anyone,t herefore, be so wrong-headed as to argue against the selective use of violence against your own species?

---

(Pardon the sarcasm, but the opportunity was irresistible.)

The popularity of theism (mono-, poly- and pan-)is no argument in its favor in a tribunal of truth. Neither is the popularity of pure materialism a supportive argument for its correctness. Authority (scientist or priest) is not an argument. The thing must be decided on its merits, and because of its highly phenomenological nature, probably by each individual for himself.

Ain't nobody else gonna walk it for you.
You gotta walk the lonesome valley for yourself.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:36 AM

I started this thread. It's about curiosity-- something I am sure God and Science share, but in this case, my own. :~)

The instructions for my request for individual responses to my questions are contained/clarified in my first several posts. Altho I find the "debate" of some interest, my time to follow all the brilliant thinking is quite limited, and I am still eagerly hoping to see more responses in the form I outlined in my posts.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:38 AM

Bossy broad, you, Sooze!! :D



A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:43 AM

"How could anyone,therefore, be so wrong-headed as to argue against the selective use of violence against your own species?"

Virtually every government on Earth seems to be in agreement with that proposition, Amos! ;-) What else are they building armies, navies, and air forces for?


Quite aside from that, however, your closing statements are quite correct, and deserve to be repeated, I think:

The popularity of theism (mono-, poly- and pan-)is no argument in its favor in a tribunal of truth. Neither is the popularity of pure materialism a supportive argument for its correctness. Authority (scientist or priest) is not an argument. The thing must be decided on its (own) merits, and because of its highly phenomenological nature, probably by each individual for himself.

Ain't nobody else gonna walk it for you.
You gotta walk the lonesome valley for yourself.

****

I am in complete agreement with that. Each individual must decide for himself whether he wants to be a materialist or a person with spiritual beliefs or someone who embraces both materialism AND spiritual philosophy. He must decide for himself whether he defines himself as an atheist or a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Taoist or a Jane or a Parsee or a Jew (religiously speaking) or a Wiccan or a Satanist or a free thinker or someone who believes absolutely nothing at all (strictly theoretical concept...I've never encountered anyone who believes nothing at all).

And once he does decide it, whatever it is...fine. He has decided it for himself. Not for anybody else. Not to force upon anybody else. Just for himself. Period. And that's okay.

As I've said again and again, I enjoy living in a world of many beliefs and viewpoints. I much prefer it to a world where everyone thinks in lockstep according to a single creed. Such a world would be stultifying, paralyzed in its thinking, and probably quite oppressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John P
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:48 AM

Don T: Find me one reputable scientist who will state that absence of evidence FOR a theory is objective evidence against it.

Uh, Don, find me a scientist that would call something a theory that has absolutely no supporting evidence. In order for a theory to be proved wrong it has to rise to the level of being a theory in the first place. Go back to the King Kong analogy. You can spend all day saying that that King Kong exists, and pointing out that lots of other people think he exists, but until there is some actual evidence you won't get much traction. What you are saying is that anyone could dream up any idea at all and claim it as a theory. Fortunately, the real world doesn't work that way. The idea that someone saying something is true and then calling it a theory has the same logical content as someone creating a controversy over Intelligent Design and then saying that since there is a controversy over over it we ought to teach it in the public schools. Stuff and nonsense!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 11:16 AM

Susan: It seems to me that much of this pontificating could have been avoided if you had defined what you mean by religion. You did not do so; you left the field wide open for all these guys to have fun.

I, broadly, cast my vote for science AND religion - whatever that is - based on the idea that each has a place. Most humans (probably all, by the broad definitions of religion given herein), regardless of their view of religion, have some form of "religion" even as they participate in work/research which is clearly and honestly absolute science.

Using the broad definitions of "religion" given in this thread and the most absolute definition of science, there is a meeting place for most if not all people - a place where the two intersect. For those who have that intersection, wherever it may be, it is a positive for each individual. I refuse to bend my mind around anything more specific than that.

"this is my simple religion. there is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."
hh dalai lama

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 11:32 AM

A parallel dualism could be drawn up pitting kindness against insight, with equally senseless results.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 11:41 AM

What I prefer to say than "evidence that there are no gods" is "evidence that anything you might think was done by gods, wasn't." Like evolution instead of creation, the historical record that the "golden rule" was around looong before the bible or any of its current manifestations, etc.

But I'm with WYSIWYG - let's go back to the voting, or at least tally what we've gotten. The other stuff is really thread creep, of which I am also guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:29 PM

Well of course the golden rule was around long before the Bible ever was, Mrzzy! ;-) Moral concepts and other ideals pre-exist any specific book that is written about them...

And as for things being "done by gods"....well, that can be anything at all. It does not pre-suppose having to choose between 2 stark alternatives such as creationism and evolution. One can just as well suppose that evolution itself is a mechanism of natural selection created in the first place BY a god as one can suppose anything else about it. It's strictly a matter of opinion...and conjecture.

Things (theoretically) created by a god do not have to happen in one minute or seven days or with a blast of heavenly trumpets. They do not have to violate what we think of as the "natural laws". They do not have to be in the nature of what people usually call "miracles" (extremely unusual or inexplicable events). They can just as well be normal natural events happening over a period of a trillion years. It all depends on how they go about happening, doesn't it?

And it's a matter of opinion whether or not a god or gods were involved.

I understand, Mrzzy, that you are objecting to seemingly quite unscientific Bible stories like that of the Great Flood and Noah and the Ark (although that could be a greatly exaggerated tale of one man and his family who rode out a very large flood that killed everyone else in their locality, and who saved a few animals with them on a boat or raft they had built...such stories are found in other ancient cultures too...not just in the Christian Bible...and they're obviously about some other "Noah" in some other part of the world...maybe at the same time period...maybe not.).

Yes, I understand your objection to the literal beliefs of fundamentalists in unlikely tales. For sure.

But so what? It doesn't prove anything one way or another about what a hypothetical "god" may have done...since a hypothetical god can theoretically put in place things like evolution and natural selection.

I do see much evidence which suggests that some of the old religious tales are either fabrications....or parables...or metaphors...or exaggerations of natural events that occurred. I don't see any evidence that conclusively stands as proof that there is no god. It's not possible to secure such evidence unless you INSIST that the "god" you are speaking of must meet the stringent limitations of your or someone's specific definition of "god"...period. And why must that be?

Just because there are some superstitious people out there who have a primitive idea of "god"...it doesn't necessarily follow that an actual "god" has to match their primitive idea, does it?

But it would be convenient for you if it did...because then you could be all the much more certain that "there is no god!" ;-) And that's what you want. It would give you satisfaction.

Note: I'm not arguing for or against the notion that there IS a god. I don't know if there is such a being or not. I have no final opinion about it. I sort of doubt it, frankly, but I have no final opinion about it.

I do tend to believe in Spirit (that there is a spiritual reality and an afterlife for all living beings)...I just don't necessarily believe in a "theos" (meaning a separate creator-God-being who rules over it all). That seems unlikely to me. However, I'm in no position to categorically deny it...because I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: plnelson
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:51 PM

It's science -VS- religion because they are epistemological opposites.

I'm a member of the American Assoociation for the Advancement of Science and I've been a science geek all my life.

Science is truth with a lower-case "t". It's PROVISIONAL truth. It's the best truth we can come up with at the moment based on our best data and models.   But it could CHANGE. A better theory, or a new observation, or a clever experiment might upset the applecart.   

And that's OKAY.   It's happened countless times throughout scientific history.   It's how science advances.   It's why we can do quantum encryption and quantum tunneling now even though Einstein pooh-poohed God playing dice, and spooky action at a distance.   It's why physicists today are all excited about "dark matter" even though that might upset LOTS of applecarts!   Scientists think new ideas are cool and exciting.   No intellectually-honest scientist can fail to acknowledge that some core belief he has MIGHT turn out to be wrong. And that's OK.

Not so much religion.   The basic premises of the world's major religions have not changed in centuries.   The idea that some test or experiment might disprove some basic religious truth fills them with horror because religions think of truth with a capital "t" - not subject to change or disproof.   If a Christian believes that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected a few days later and will return again, this is NOT subject to debate or experimentation.

A scientist can convince the rest of the scientific community that he's right if he has good data and a solid theory.   But put a Christian, a Muslim, and Jew together in a room and there's nothing any of them can say or do to convince the others.