BS: Science and Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 09:58 AM

"You never can tell what people will think."

                   But if you're gunna have a meaningful discussion, folks gotta be able to say what they think.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 10:17 AM

Tally - ho?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 01:26 PM

THe story you report supports the model that a soul is not something one has, while being a body+mind machine. Rather, the soul is who you are while having a body+mind machine.   My own opinion is that this model goes a great deal further in explaining a lot of fringe phenomena (such as the experience of the woman in your story). Her story, BTW, is fairly typical of the class. The ones that are really appealing are the "sneaker on the window ledge" variety, in which a patient had an OOB experience under surgery and reported floating up outside the window and seeing an old sneaker (trainer) on the ledge above the window in a place she could never have seen it physically. The existence of the sneaker as well as the fact that she had never been on the upper stories or the roof of the building were included in the story.

A story of this sort does not lend itself to hard-core scientism, in that it cannot be readily replicated, and the variables are too many and subtle to make for good control.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 02:14 PM

She had no brain activity and was clinically dead.

She clearly wasn't dead, as proven by the fact that she recovered. Hence her "death" is irrelevant to any concept of "soul".

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 03:00 PM

The term "clinically" may have escaped your attention, Paul.

It reflects the fact, I suppose,that the boundary conditions between life and death are probably not completely understood.

I have known other cases where death was medically declared and thought to be indisputable, but was reversed anyway. The ones I have heard of all include an act of will or consciousness taken indepently of the body, often while watching the body from an exterior position with clarity.

You might also pursue some of the evidence ccollected by Moody and Kubler-Ross on the subject.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John Hardly
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 03:02 PM

I never metaphysical
I couldn't be

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 03:31 PM

I never drank a metaphysic,
Never hope to drink one.
But I can tell you right enough,
It's easier to think one.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 04:14 PM

The point I made is that all experiences which have been interpreted of presagements of an afterlife were made by living- often seriously ill, but not dead- people. Dying is NOT dead. It's only to be expected that a seriously disrupted system will give strange interpretations; hell, my DREAMS are queer enough. It's interesting that there may be some consistency between different people's expoeriences, but again, there are strong cultural reasons why this should be so- you are bombarded with instructions about what to expect from childhood onwards. Similarly, different cultures give people different expectations concerning a ghost's appearance and behaviour- and they see the ghosts they expect.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 04:59 PM

Well, your argument seems to be that regardless of all clinical criteria adopted by specialists, any instance of reversal hinges only on a misdefinition of the term.

This semantic loop, of course, completely closes the door on whether life outside the body can ever be demonstrated since by your argument the only real case of death is one in which no such evidence appears. Neat loop. But not rigorous.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 05:36 PM

I wish I had your time and stamina to post, but with limited time available, it's you who is settling for an arbitrary definition of death- whatever the best clinical practice of the moment says- and making it an absolute. I doubt if you'll find a medical professional who will be prepared to say that a clinical estimate of death is anything but a provisional statement- at least before more obvious signs, like decay, become apparent. People diagnosed as brain- dead sometimes recover after being kept in suspended animation on life- support for years. It's surprising, and a challenge to diagnostic procedures, but not to philosophy.

No, if they recover, whatever a diagnosis said, they weren't dead. Doctors can be wrong, you know.

Incidentally, it's why in my old age I tend to prefer funerals to weddings- the protagonist doesn't come back a couple of years later, saying it was all a mistake, they've changed their mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: 3refs
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 05:43 PM

Thanks for your comments and enlightening me somewhat.
As I have said many times, I'd like think I'm a spiritual person, but I do have a bit of a problem with organized religion and some of the doctrine. The literal meaning of Muslim is "one who surrenders" or "submits" to the will of God. According to the Quran, those who submit to one God are Muslims. The Old Testament books of the Bible describe numerous struggles of the Jewish people and they're belief they are God's chosen ones. Buddhism has the four basic truths which kind of takes the fun out of a lot of things. The core of Hinduism is the belief in Brahman, the underlying universal life force that encompasses and embodies existence, but if you don't believe your reincarnated for eternity. Animism kind of gives life and souls to everything and connects the birds with the stones, which confirms what most people say that we're all made of the same basic stuff. I'll admit that if I was to be labeled, it would in all likelihood, be that of a Christian. I happen to like a lot of what Jesus had to say! I celebrate the holidays. I have no desire to delve into the dark side of things. To be honest, it scares the shit out of me!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 07:39 PM

ROFLMAO!

Well, if you define the word as "irreversible" rather than clinical, obviously the whole subject is closed until someone comes back discarnate and starts borrowing your keyboard to type "You won't believe what happened to me today....".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 10:53 PM

The Ontological Argument has been around for a long time. I don't personally see the importance of a "soul". It has no bearing on behavior or value systems. It is always assumed that a "soul" is a good thing. Why? You don't need one to be a compassionate and considerate human being. A "soul" is a reference to a theological concept that has no concrete basis in fact. It is Descarte's homunculus.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:55 AM

You're being either obtuse or deliberately so, Amos, which is dishonest. You can't take refuge in clinical judgement- which at best is state-of-the-art- to make a claim about the structure of the Universe- which is what a claim about a dual body/ soul complex is. As I've stated far above, the concept of soul-as-process does not violate any physical or biological concepts, and fits the phenomena at least as well as does the soul-as-separate-object model- though it also raises intriguing questions that science does not yet answer, or sometimes even address. There's s research opportunity for you.

If you want a separate soul, you need clear cases of separation. Near death won't do- it isn't death, infinitely less even than near-beer is beer. Yes- you really need the kind of communication with the dead- with a soul clearly separated from a body- that the Spiritualists claim, and whose claims have been so often and so thoroughly debunked.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 10:27 AM

Paul:

The definition of death used in medical practice is not disingenuous. It's the best they can come with for a definition.

"Soul as process" is a nice phrase. The implications of it are that the chemical and electrical ingredients of the nervous system are the entire source of thought, and awareness. Pull the battery and it all goes black.

There are some phenomena which it doesn't cover, though. Childhood memories of prior identities, remote viewing (where it has been validated), are a couple of items in the bin of relevant anomalies.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:16 PM

um, tally-ho?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:46 PM

If there were any validated childhood memories of prior existence, or validated remote viewings, I would not have any problem. There aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:03 PM

Ah. But, I submit, indeed there are.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:10 PM

When you have such an experience personally, it's validated. But only for you, not for a skeptic. When a child clearly remembers a whole bunch of stuff he or she can't possibly know about a prior life and other people hear that info from the child and check it out, and it turns out to be correct, it's validated. But not for a skeptic. When someone dies on the operating table, has a spiritual experience out of their body, then comes back to life and tells people in the operating chamber things that the person saw from spirit...and those things are accurate and correct...it's validated. But not for a skeptic.

A skeptic already BELIEVES things like that simply can't be true. A skeptic has ironclad faith that such things can't be true. A skeptic is not impressed by anyone else's experiences or anyone else's testimony, because a skeptic already knows what is possible and what isn't.   (grin)

How does the skeptic know? Well, that's the question, isn't it? Godlike ominscience? Papal infallibility? Sheer brilliance?    Goodness knows, when you're as smart and well-informed as the average skeptic knows he is, the last thing you would ever question is your own absolute certainty, right?

That, baby....THAT is faith! Religions can only dare to hope that their own adherents will show faith of a similar level to that of the confirmed skeptic. The confirmed skeptic's faith is harder than a diamond. It is as a solid rock. It cannot be moved.

This is also true of the religious fanatic. I regard both the confirmed skeptic and the religious fanatic as being cut from the same cloth, psychologically speaking. They are an impediment to human progress, and they deserve to be pestered by each other.

The rest of us don't deserve to be pestered by either one of them...

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:39 PM

Ah, yes, the confirmed skeptic. When I have been badgered into describing experiences I've had that can't (yet) be measured in a scientific sense, I've been asked to prove the reality of the experience to the skeptic. I've come up with a good response: "I don't feel any need to do so. I don't care if you believe me or not." They usually laugh and move on. The fact is, I don't even feel any need to prove it to myself. It doesn't really matter if the experience is "real" or just a artifact of brain chemistry. If it has an effect on my perceptions and understanding, it has it's own reality. Besides, artifacts of brain chemistry are real . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:29 PM

That's right, JohnP. Well said. One cannot "prove" the reality of an experience that does not leave behind any physically observable data nor should one be expected to prove it. Yet we all have many such experiences. We have them every day of our lives. We have inner mental and emotional and, quite possibly, spiritual experiences that ARE real experiences, but that do not leave behind any physically observable data.

As you say, it isn't about proving anything.

It's about not prejudging reality strictly on the basis of your own prejudices...and not prejudging others' experiences and perceptions of their experiences strictly on the basis of your own prejudices.

And that sort of pre-judgment of others is exactly what is done by both the religious fanatic and the anti-religious fanatic or the confirmed skeptic. They prejudge on the basis of their own prejudice.

My reaction to such an attitude is the same as yours: "When I have been badgered into describing experiences I've had that can't (yet) be measured in a scientific sense, I've been asked to prove the reality of the experience to the skeptic. I've come up with a good response: "I don't feel any need to do so. I don't care if you believe me or not."

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: 3refs
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:29 PM

All I want the skeptics to do is convice me, and you can!

The other side of the coin is, show me a miracle, and they have!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 05:36 PM

Amos.. Paul Burke asked for validated instances of "childhood memories of prior existence, or validated remote viewings".

You state that there are.

I am sure there is equivocation on the idea of validated involved. There are 'unexplained' instances of such things, but when you accurately describe all the conditions, including who did the reporting and whether there was corroborating testimony and controlled environment, I doubt most of the stories would pass any severe scrutiny.
When we can design a test and control what is 'viewed remotely', and have something like two or more subjects pass the test, AS we monitor their condition...etc...etc...then we might get some data to seriously investigate.
There is so often this 'mysterious' element in reports, such as
'near death' and stories from children whose reports may be not only vaguely worded, but reported inaccurately by others.

So VERY many reports are hyped with the generalized - "Well, *I* can't think of any other explanation for such a strange occurance!"
Perhaps not....but often I can. It is not a matter of dis-proving strange experiences, but rather of them being totally convincing to the mass of us who seem to be excluded from actually having them.
(As Paul said above,"...my DREAMS are queer enough!". I'm sure 'almost' dying can do strange things to the synapses in the brain that make simple 'dreaming' seem tame.)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:00 PM

Why is scepticism suspect? Is it because those who have had unusual experiences crave affirmation, the one thing the sceptic cannot provide? As a sceptic I can respect your understanding of your experience, but not necessarily share it. Surely no problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:00 PM

As to the reasonable concern:

"When I have been badgered into describing experiences I've had that can't (yet) be measured in a scientific sense, I've been asked to prove the reality of the experience to the skeptic. "

It's all in HOW you report these things. If you simply say "I had this strange experience and I wonder about it and what it means..", even *I* won't harass you! But when you suggest that it must BE true and that NO other explanation is possible...and often, that others who have NOT had such experiences should accept it and act in some way as a result, you do get resistance.

I would never assert that someone did not 'seem' to have the experience they report. But I am not willing to agree that you are the reinacarnation of Ghenghis Khan or that you were abducted by aliens or that we should evacuate Schenectady because you 'saw' it burning in your dreams. Yet...many believe everything Nostradamus and others said...

If it ain't the sort of thing that can be proved, be aware of how you present it.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM

"When a child clearly remembers a whole bunch of stuff he or she can't possibly know about a prior life and other people hear that info from the child and check it out, and it turns out to be correct, it's validated. But not for a skeptic." Says a skeptic, if it were truly checked out and correct, there would be a publication about it, and I could believe the publication. I have no reason to believe anything unbelievable when somebody just says so.

"When someone dies on the operating table, has a spiritual experience out of their body, then comes back to life and tells people in the operating chamber things that the person saw from spirit...and those things are accurate and correct...it's validated. But not for a skeptic." Again, there are plenty of valid publications about people perceiving things they ought not to have been able to perceive, but which were indeed happening, and thus COULD HAVE BEEN perceived. I have no problem with that, all it means is that they weren't as dead as it was thought. People often lose their body perception but continue to perceive, and those perceptions appear to come from outside the body since they have lost the perception OF their body. No biggie, nothing to disbelieve. Nothing spiritual about it, either. It's just biology, again.

I am going to try to take the time this weekend and do the tallying.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 06:53 PM

Bill, that's why I said "badgered" into talking about it. I generally don't talk about it at all, and never present it as anything other than a subjective experience. Skeptics that are easy about it are no problem. The problem is the ones who seem to take glee in somehow "proving" that these experiences didn't really happen. Oh, and I'm not talking about being the reincarnation of Ghenghis Khan or being abducted by aliens. I'm talking about mental states, visual effects, and spiritual realizations that come as a result of meditation. All that other stuff is just plain CRAZY! ;^)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 07:01 PM

JohnP...even I KNOW that things like meditation can allow interesting mental states. I know that some Hindu & other practitioners can control even heartbeat & respiration with elements related to bio-feedback. I know that, with effort, calmness and heightened awareness can be achieved.....but these ARE natural occurrences and not the things really at issue...for me, at least... *smile*

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John P
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 07:45 PM

Well, that's always been my point: these are natural occurrences that have been reported by people from all over the world and throughout history. The mental states can now be scientifically measured somewhat, but not the inner light or universal connectedness. Oh well.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 07:46 PM

BillD:

You say "when we can" without researching what exists in the literature. It is easy to assert "no evidence" when what is meant is "I have seen no evidence, and I ain't lookin, either!"

I have posted various sources in the many discussions we have had about these border territories and what has and has not been observed there in.

One of the problems with the excessive skeptic approach is this line of reasoning: any report of evidence must be flawless, because if I can find some way in which it COULD be flawed, that proves that it WAS so!" This of course is nonsense, just as much as accepting purely anecdotal superstition is.    In matters of this sort, the actual probabilities have to be assessed even-handedly.

The girl with the sneaker is a case in point. It did not occur under clinical conditions. But the report was confirmed by independent observation. Go figger.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 08:07 PM

"...confirmed by independent observation."

I know....and that, to me, makes it "more unexplained" and interesting. The myriad of questions that can be asked are why I remain a skeptic... Has this person done anything like this before or since? If not..why not? Why a sneaker 'out there' and not a broken light bulb in the closet?

When we can have replicable instances, we can begin to sort things out.

"Go figger"... I went... I figgered... I wonder...I wait....

The phrase I prefer is "...if I can find some way in which it COULD be flawed, it needs more investigation."

It remains the case that the type of assumptions I would have to make about the very nature of reality in order to accept these concepts are way beyond what I can manage.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 09:58 PM

"I have seen no evidence, and I ain't lookin, either!"

That's it in a nutshell, Amos. ;-) That sums up the pigheaded attitude embraced by religious fanatics, anti-religious fanatics, professional skeptics, and stiff-necked, stubborn, prejudiced people the world over.

Every belief system contains some such people, sadly, and they make life unpleasant for the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: TIA
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:47 AM

Actually, a true skeptic truly *is* still looking - always. Skeptics do not accept "it's a miracle', or "it's unexplainable". Skeptics keep looking for the undiscovered answer. That is not faith. It is a total rejection of faith. Why accept that we cannot understand some phenomenon? Why not keep on looking (lifelong even) for the explanations?

Refusing to accept "a miracle!" is not "faith" in science, it is the goll darn scientific method top to bottom. "Faith Free".

Now, I will completely accede that there are some people who won't or can't keep looking. But they are not true skeptics, and certainly not scientists. They are just bullhead stoopids.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:52 AM

I can't find the joke thread. Figured maybe you folks could use a break.

A teacher was doing a study testing the senses (taste)



The children began to identify the flavors by their color:

Red........................Cherry
Yellow................Lemon
Green.................Lime
Orange...............Orange

Finally the teacher gave them all HONEY lifesavers. None of the children
could
identify the taste.

The teacher said, 'I will give you all a clue. It's what your mother may
sometimes call your father.'

One little girl looked up in horror, spit her lifesaver out and yelled,
'Oh my
God! They're ass holes!

The teacher had to leave the room!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 08:00 AM

Agreed, TIA. All intelligent (and unarrogant) people are eager to find the explanation for something and they will look for it.

This is because they have faith in their own powers of observation, intelligence, and perception.

It was the "bullhead stoopids" you allude to that I was referring to as being a problem in the world. Some skeptics ARE bullhead stoopids...and so are some religious people.

Then you have the intelligent skeptic and the intelligent religious person...both of whom are eager to find the explanation for a phenomenon and both of whom will look hard for the explanation, using their powers of observation, intelligence, and perception. Those people should be able to find much in common, and they should get along fine with one another. They have not been blinded by their own arrogance into thinking that they already know it ALL.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 01:31 PM

My father, the nuclear physicist, had a succinct definition:

"Religion is the awe in which we hold our ignorance"

This comes off sounding like a put-down. BUT, I would add, it is actually a good way to approach a fluid phenomenon, as science peals away at certain areas, it allows religion to find itself in better places.

What business does The Church have with cosmology once Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton has established the laws of Gravitation?

What business do the Fundys have with evolution once Darwin, Watson & Crick have made such progress with Natural Selection and DNA?

There are plenty of unknowns left for everybody to tackle, the reason we still have problems are not truly religious in nature, they are due to self serving and lazy people in power who don't want to shift themselves out of their comfy chairs!

The world needs iconoclasts in both the scientific and the religious spheres.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:28 PM

One of those still-to-be-understood zones is the nature of observation and awareness. How it seems to happen that observation effects quantum-scale events is a bit of a deep mystery. Even more so is how particles and energy could be held to account for awareness at all, at any but the most shallow stimulus-response level. And S==>R is not actually awareness, although it is used as a substitute when programming mindless systems to respond to circumstances the way an aware entity might.

The universe of thought, consideration, awareness, and intentionality has not been scratched by material science. There are several reasons, one of which is that material science is by its own premises, well, material. Another reason is that the majority of consciousness in this sector of existence has been so over-whumped by physical forms and the concomitant pains and overwhelms of force that it is pretty shaky on its own feet anymore. Thus, individuals who may have inklings of telepathic ability when safe and private become frozen lumps in the face of equipment and skeptical laboratory investigators. Thirdly, the substantive differences--the qualitative differences--between thought and objects have not been accounted for in most investigative procedures. THis makes it extremely tricky to set up any method of proof.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:53 PM

You know,,,I oughta be ashamed for doing this, but I really think everyone ought to know that all conflicts between science & religion have been resolved:
   I post here ONE part of hundreds of revelations by one "George Hammond", who fills a Usenet group with these for the benefit of all who are willing to listen....Enlightenment for all!

(yes- his website, mentioned at the end, will fill you in on the details.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, as a physicist, your WORST FEARS have been realized.

Yes, a scientific proof of God has been discovered.

You've always known that there was something "suspicious"
about Relativity... and you know that it has produced
more controversy than any discovery in history...
including A-Bombs, Black Holes and the Big Bang!

However.... these are mere "cheap thrills" touted by ignorant
physicists and astronomers to keep men from confirming their
more BASIC SUSPICIONS about Einstein's theory..... yes....
that Einstein's theory is actually the world's first proof of God!

In an amazing experimental discovery (Hammond 2003)
a US physicist has discovered that subjective reality is a
"curved version" of objective reality and this curvature
is what we call "God".... and not only that..... that the
experimentally measured curvature is EXACTLY described
by Einstein's curvature tensor G_uv...... in other words:

                         GOD = G_uv

Amazingly, this is due to the fact that the human skeleton
(as pointed out by Sir Richard Owen many years ago) is a
"Cartesian Machine". This causes the Cartesian cleavage
of the brain and thus links the curvature of subjective space
to the curvature of real space, and thus God to G_uv.
At any rate, the existence of "God" has finally been proven,
(and published in the peer reviewed literature) and soon the
insufferable ignorance of the scientists will finally be mooted
by the recognition that a scientific proof of God has been
found, and Science put back in uniform where it belongs.

You can read all about it here:
--
========================================
    SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
   mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
========================================

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:59 PM

..and if George ain't enough for you,this fellow can clear up all the rest!

He begins one Usenet post this way: "Dear citizens of England!
If you want to live, lock sir Hawking into a prison immediately. He
took part in the preparations of the global terrorist act."

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 03:44 PM

Invidious comparison as a form of logic? Dear Gawd, Bill, surely that is below you!!!

"These nutballs have wild ideas about God. These nutballs are loony. I have ideas about God. Therefore....I must be loony, too!"

That's a pathetically fallacious algorithm, old son.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 03:48 PM

Bill, it is a somewhat disingenous form of argumentation to sieze upon a few of the silliest possible statements you can find on one extreme side of an argument to imply that your side (the other side) is therefore the only side with something worthwhile to say about it... ;-)

I see people doing that here all the time.

Why not look for some common ground instead? Why not seek agreement on matters in common rather than pertuating old divisions and disagreements by quoting the most extreme positions you can find?

Note: Most politicians follow that same approach...they seek out the dumbest and most inflammatory and most unlikely statments of their political opponents with an eye toward stirring up controversy, ridiculing others, and giving people a chance to sling mud at each other. They figure that in this way they can "win".

Obama doesn't do that. He stays calm. He stays reasonable. He looks for common ground. He listens to both sides. He considers their viewpoint. He seeks compromise. He negotiates. He seeks win/win scenarios, not win/lose scenarios.

Obams acts like a grownup! How refreshing and how unusual!

That's why I like Mr Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 03:53 PM

Sometimes Obama acts like a grownup, but the other day he said he is driven to his knees, at times, in order to grovel, mumble and search for non-existent answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 03:55 PM

I can't speak for his every moment... ;-) I can only say that his general level of behaviour is far better than what I usually see in politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 03:55 PM

I take it that in this formless void of a forum, you cannot see my tongue placed so firmly in my cheek that I can barely pronounce my Welsh consonants.

ah, well.. I SAID I oughta be ashamed.....but now maybe I'm not.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 04:07 PM

To the contrary!!! Wallow in your shame, Bill. Suffer the torments of the damned in your mortification! (grin) I expect you to dress in sackcloth and ashes for the next 14 days and fast between sunset and sundown. Some self-flagellation wouldn't hurt either. Perhaps a hair shirt...

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 06:28 PM

...tried some of that. Hair shirt wouldn't fit over the sackcloth. But it did soften some of the self-flagellation.

(Can't wear all that to the benefit for Severn tomorrow anyway...may have to start that 14 days right afterwards.)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: frogprince
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 09:01 PM

FertheluvaPete; I'm trying to believe that everyone didn't immediately realize that Bill D. posted that purely for a hoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 09:10 PM

I knew perfectly well that he posted it for a hoot. ;-) I've been sparring and bantering back and forth with Bill forever about this stuff, so I just thought I'd pretend like he was dead serious and keep the joke rolling along for a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 12:28 AM

BEsides, it's a treat to catch him off his own base--let alone off ours--even if he did it on purpose!!


A

Subject: Abrazos: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 01:35 PM

I said I would post my own thoughts about this, once, and this is that post. If anything in it is not clear enough to suit, please PM.

My interest in this topic was piqued by a "Cosmos" episode I saw a few months ago. When that US TV series was new, I only saw a tiny fraction of it. It is seldom re-run, but with the new DVR I thought I'd catch one when I saw it come along.

To paraphrase and summarize quite a bit, in that episode the host Carl Sagan vividly described his NYC growing-up experiences and how, as a boy one day in school, he found himself wondering about some things. That wondering sparked a lifelong interest in science.

The episode goes on to present his sense of the history of the development of the discipline we know, today, as "science," and how it is based upon wondering about things.

As he described it, though, it wasn't "wondering" in a cultural vacuum. He said that the beginning of scientific thought was totally a response to the corrupt, state-mandated spirituality of the time.

Then he traced scientific development through time. Pioneer by pioneer, he described the religious milieu of their times, and how their science rigorously set a direction-- in the opposite direction to any kind of spirituality.

And I thought, as I listened to a series of moving and evocative descriptions from an articulate and intensely curiosity-driven man, how sad it was that science had been born not of wonder alone, but out of wonder wounded.

I reflected for a long time how different our world's cultures might be if, instead of being anti-Anything, science had simply arisen without that need to first discard something else. I thought about how the development of science had, at its birth, discarded a whole LOT of areas to wonder about and investigate-- including its own prejudices and biases. I thought about how that is true of any discipline, because we are, after all, human beans.

I thought about how this particular set of biases had pepetuated themselves, as biases do.

I thought about the loneliness of the statistically few who reject the limits of biases and whose curiosity pushes them past the biases and the loneliness and the nay-sayers whose rigidity gives their own, innate curiosity a narrower field within to work.

Science.... Religion.... I thought about how, to many thinking people, there is no need to discard one for the other, and how much more interesting it can be to pursue one's curiosity without closing one door in order to open another. Doglike, I reveled in how great it is to stand in the crossbreeze, sniff the air, explore the clues to the source of the scent.... roll around in a good scent sometimes.

In that series of reflections as I washed dishes, ministered to many people in the normal course of daily clergy-family life, studied and welcomed an unfolding sense of faith-driven vocation, and continued learning about other things of intense interest-- somewhere, I lost any defensiveness about religion.

I regained a tremendous amount of curiosity and, as this thread reflects, one of the first things I was curious about was how a bunch of miscellaneous people might or might not still see science and religion as mutually-exclusive, rigidly-defined concepts.


This thread has satisfied that curiosity, pretty much.

It presents a wide variety of view and feeling. It demonstrates what happens when the question is asked. It offers a glimpse of the amount of competition such questions appear to provoke. I really had hoped for just a long, LONG series of answers to questions 1 & 2, but I knew, I think, how the thread would go, and it has gone pretty much as expected.

I thank you all for your posts. I plan to print it out and use a highlighter to grab the points that jump out at me for further reflection.


Abrazos,

~Susan