BS: Science and Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:04 AM

Stephen Gould's proposition that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields, or "magisteria," whose authority does not overlap -- called NOMA-- does not include the assertion that the two form the complete set of existence between them. I would argue that it is perfectly possible to espouse a rational form of spiritual awareness that is in neither magisterium.

Gould's argument, if I understand it correctly, is that the two should be separate, much as should church and state, because it complicates things unnecessarily to try to blend them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 10:44 AM

Atheists don't usually insist that there are no gods, but rather that there is no convincing evidence that would lead them to believe in anything supernatural. And there is, as you know, a huge amount of evidence for the natural world. Atheism is quite well-grounded in reality, unlike faith in the supernatural.
I have plenty of respect for people who understand that their faith is faith-based and not rational. Those of my friends who are believers all fall into that category. However, most of my friends are atheists, and have no god beliefs at all.
Your use of caps, though, leads me to believe that you DO have faith and you really, really wish it were rational, but you realize it isn't, and that bothers you. My personal take on that is why be bothered, faith is faith-based, go ahead and have it if you want to. But you're right that you can't claim any *evidence* for your faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 10:13 AM

""I don't see much tolerance that religious folk have for atheists. They are convinced that something is wrong with them, that they are scarred or cynical, somehow corrupt or anti-human. Even the benevolence they bestow on what they consider "wrong ideas" is patronizing.""

Whereas of course the scientists and atheists are much more tolerant, referring to believers as "DELUDED", or perhaps "LOONY", and many other pejoratives which cast doubt on their sanity.

Sounds to me as though the atheists, and the scientists,are EVERY BIT as religious as the believers, but in a diametrically opposed direction.

WHAT, pray is the exact difference between a fanatic who insists that there is a God, and another fanatic who insists there is not?

Neither has ANY objective proof for his point of view.
Neither has ANY respect for the other.
Each is UTTERLY convinced that HE, and only HE, is INDISPUTABLY RIGHT.

ME? I DON'T KNOW! The difference is that I am prepared to ADMIT that I don't know.

Neither of the two I mentioned above will EVER do THAT.

I have my beliefs, which are personal, and I NEVER ASK anyone to subscribe to them, much less INSIST! You may all believe whatever your hearts desire, but DON'T ever come to me and tell me you KNOW my beliefs are intrinsically wrong, because YOU DON'T.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 02:00 AM

As Dawkins pointed out, the problem with NOMA is that while even theists can agree to ascribe the magisterium of the demonstrable to science, it doesn't automatically follow that that of the non- demonstrable, the intuitive, should fall to religion. There are many other possible modes of exploring this area- and personally I'd ascribe it to the arts in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 05:33 PM

Atheism is not the cause of moral degradation, materialism (used in the sense of worshipping money and things), bad behavior, Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler, or any other so-called "sin" that you can come up with.

It simply means lack of belief in a god. That's all. There are different types. Agnostic/atheists, anti-theist/atheists, and even some atheists who attend church because they like the social/cultural aspects of it.

I don't in any way think that Carl Sagan was wounded. He realized the tyranny of religion in our public life and decided that it wasn't for him. As a scientist, he preferred to spend his time profitably investigating known facts rather than speculative meanderings based on unsubstantiated structural ideas that are imposed on others.

The term Skeptic is from the Greek word "Skepticos" which means to investigate or inquire.

Science might be reconciled with religion if the latter wasn't so pervasive and evangelized
to the point where it disses science. If a person had a private belief, that would be OK if others didn't have to honor it. It would be OK if it weren't institutionalized and others were made to accept it. I see no reason to be involved in it other than as a culturally mythological reference in its use in society. I hold no animosity to anyone who believes in sky gods or any other fairy tale as long as that belief doesn't become forced upon others. I don't care to be in obeisance to anyone who calls himself/herself a reverend, guru, priest, bishop, pope, or Grand Inquisitor. I reserve the right to treat them as human beings and not exalted figures regardless of their beliefs or titles. I also think that children have the basic "inalienable" right to accept or reject religion as they mature.

There is no fundamental atheism because there are no specific governing rules to follow.
The use of "fundamentalist atheism" is evangelistic right-wing propaganda and in itself
oxymoronic.

I don't see much tolerance that religious folk have for atheists. They are convinced that something is wrong with them, that they are scarred or cynical, somehow corrupt or anti-human. Even the benevolence they bestow on what they consider "wrong ideas" is patronizing.

I think a great solution to the problem would be if scientists would undertake a thorough
empirical investigation (testing etc.) of religion. In the meantime I do not subscribe to the theory of "No Overlapping Magisteria" (NOMA).

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 07:44 PM

No, not reading these days-- audiobooks. I looked-- zip.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:35 PM

I do see it is is possible to read large swaths of "Critique of Religion and Philosophy" at Google books. It says there are reprints available from Amazon & others. I may have to finally replace my copy.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 05:54 PM

Well, it is possible to read "The Faith of a Heretic" online, or download it in PDF.

I have a tattered hardback copy, but I lent my copy of "Critique.." many years ago, and she moved....

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 03:59 PM

If I could find Kaufman on audiobook, now, there'd be a good deal.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 03:51 PM

Sagan died about 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

He made famous a quote.

from that article: "Sagan is also widely regarded as a freethinker or skeptic; one of his most famous quotations, in Cosmos, was, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This was actually based on a nearly identical earlier quote by fellow CSICOP founder Marcello Truzzi, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."[30] In turn, those quotes originated with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827), a French mathematician and astronomer who said, "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[31] Sagan was, however, not an atheist, expressing that, "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."[32] In reply to a direct question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan gave a direct answer: "I'm agnostic."[33] Sagan argued that the idea of a Creator of the Universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe.[34]"

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 03:46 PM

I will say, there was probably NO other influence as strong on me back then as listening to Walter Kaufmann and reading his books. First, "Critique of Philosophy and Religion", then "The Faith of a Heretic"

He also wrote extensively on Nietzsche.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 03:42 PM

yep...both dead. (I saw Kaufmann live..in 1959. He was maybe 60 then.)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 02:45 PM

Yeah, I woke up this AM too dumb to frame my own questions and speak for myself. nyah nyah

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 02:41 PM

QUestion is not whether they are dead, but whether they survived it! :>P

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 02:39 PM

Bill.

BILL. (Hi Bill)


ARE THEY DEAD YET?


THAT at least ought to be a yes or no question......???

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 02:30 PM

"Do we gotta do it in Heaven though? :~)"

well, ummm.. I'll go along with whatever you can arrange. Sagan and Kaufmann...and I.. will likely be surprised. ;>))

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Little Hawk: "One of the main tenets of any relatively mature spiritual faith is the essential unity and harmony of science and religion."

*sigh*..yeah, sure..**tenets**... THEY say they are in harmony. Scholars differ.

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

Amos: re: "...a narrow definition of religion ..."

... I am mostly dealing with a practical definition/view. I am sure it is possible to have a religious doctrine as you describe, and some standard doctrines are quite non-confrontational and self-referential in their beliefs. Many religious individuals also are content to 'believe' without attempting to convert & proselytize, but like Catholics who practice birth control, they are usually just ignoring or 'gently interpreting' certain awkward 'tenets' of their faith. (" And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matthew 4:19)


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

So, Susan: re: "Please add your #3 answer.)

Remember...I started as a Methodist, then became a Unitarian...then a card-carrying philosopher. When I reflect, as I often do, of my path to 'reasonably congenial skeptic', I remember each step as "reason driven", usually as a reaction to some generalized claim that I couldn't reconcile with fact OR curiousity. I tried, at every point, to base my decisions on where some combination of logic, common sense and attempting to avoid linguistic equivocation led me. Even my partailly done Master's thesis was along this lines of "This paradox may not BE resolvable, but if it is, it must be along lines X, Y or Z."

What this led me to was no deep expertise in ANY disipline...not Metaphysics or Phenomenology or Logic or Religion. I can't argue arcane points in any of those...certainly not after all these years.

I remain a Generalist, who resorts, when I must, to Pragmatism or Utilitarianism for basic guidelines.

A Congenial Skeptic...(wonder if I can found a cult based on that?)... needs only to be able to say..."Hmmm.. that seems pretty hard to swallow. I think I'll wait....and think."

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 02:17 PM

One of the main tenets of any relatively mature spiritual faith is the essential unity and harmony of science and religion.


The "No real Scotsman" argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 01:45 PM

Bill:

You must be conceiving of a narrow definition of religion if you believe that "it" "must strive to influence various aspects of society". It is perfectly possible, I think, to have a religious doctrine whose sole interest is making what it conceives to be "data" available to its students, solely to let them use it as they see fit as an aid to discovery.

It is also arguably contradictory to refer to organized religious groups as "religion". But I am sure these points are peripheral to what you were trying to say!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 01:23 PM

One of the main tenets of any relatively mature spiritual faith is the essential unity and harmony of science and religion.

It has to be. Truth cannot be in conflict with truth. If you find truth therefore in one area or aspect of life, it must agree with truth in another area, and there is no way around that.

Yes, the Bahais are one of the most enlightened religious groups in their understanding of the essential unity and harmony of science and religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: open mike
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:59 PM

from the Baha'i Faith one of the main tenets of the faith
is the essential unity and harmony of science and religion.
http://news.bahai.org/story/387
http://www.planetbahai.org/cgi-bin/articles.pl?article=193
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_science

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: open mike
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:48 PM

my cousin sent me this today..pharyngula

this compares scientific and religious responses to an accident
among other things...

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:44 PM

(Bill,

It's a date!

Do we gotta do it in Heaven though? :~)

Please add your #3 answer.)


Is Mrrzy doing a tally sometime? Kewl!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:39 PM

Susan....I missed 4-5 post writing that long screed. Do you remember me posting some links to books by Walter Kaufmann once?
It would be fascinating to go to lunch with you, me, Kaufmann & Sagan.....

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:34 PM

TIA, at 4:18 PM above makes essentially the point I would make.

I would add a few things though.

It seems that there are different emotional/psychological responses to 'new information', whether the new stuff is cultural, scientific, linguistic, philosophical...etc.

When Copernicus said that movement of the 'heavenly bodies' could be explained without having the Earth at the center of everything, it took many years for that idea to gain any foothold, as it was clearly against church doctrine. Even when Galileo showed how it all made sense, he was roundly condemned and subjected to house arrest by church heirarchy.
   We can only guess at the reasoning (or lack therof) applied by the various individuals IN the authority. Some may have been totally unable to comprehend Galileo's points, and just assumed he was contradicting God's word for some nefarious purpose. Others may have seen exactly what it all meant and perceived a simple but serious challenge to their power. Gradually, the evidence grew too strong to ignore, and all but a few learned to adjust their Theological principles to make the new ideas 'fit'.

   This basic pattern continued...right thru ideas like Darwin presented and continuing to today with the complex theories of advanced physics.
    All thru history we have those (both scientists & theologians) who retain a basic principle that there was a "First Cause" for the Universe, and that this first cause was, in some way, sentient and controlled the process. Others were bothered by apparent contradictions and/or awkwardness in reconciling certain aspects of science & religion, and opted for a 'finer filter' for what they would accept as fact or truth....and usually, they also defined fact & truth as something that would be forever changing & evolving.

Religion, by its own basic nature, cannot allow certain basic precepts to change...else it becomes merely some odd brance of Philosophy.

So....as I said, TIA's point is about the only answer one can easily make to Susan's concern about "...if, instead of being anti-Anything, science had simply arisen without that need to first discard something else..."

Carl Sagan makes a strong point about " a response to the corrupt, state-mandated spirituality of the time."

What we...at least here in the USA... are dealing with is a situation in which Science is largely free to go about its 'business', without direct interference by some church authority, and churches which are largely free to pursue religious freedom without State interference.

(you note the term largely in both clauses? OBVIOUSLY, it is still the case that various forces in each camp try, with varying success, to affect the processes of the other!)

There are several points to be made:

It is certainly possible, with no flawed logic that I am aware of, for those of religious persuasion to say: "All these advances in science are wonderful...but I still can't wrap my head around the idea of 'existence' at all without assuming God as a 1st cause for it all."

It is also possible for those who have moved, emotionally & psychologically, away from 'needing' a religious explanation to say: "Just because there was at one time a " ... corrupt, state-mandated spirituality....", and that part of the world has now moved away from that, it does NOT follow that non-corrupt, non state-mandated religion is correct and free from errors of fact & logic."

   I totally understand the lure and power of thousands of years of Spiritual concerns as we finite and fallible humans try to fathom our existence by positing a relationship to something INfinite an INfallible.
I also understand those who wish to totally reject what they see as superstition and misguided foolishness and rely on personal and subjective 'rules' coupled with scientific explanations for existence.

   BECAUSE I understand the driving forces of BOTH camps, I keep writing, talking and suggesting that we MUST find a practical solution for the controversies that will allow everyone to proceed...within a defined set of rules.... in ways that (mostly) satisfy their needs.

Now....with that ambitious theory, what are the flaws? Well...it is still the case that it is essentially impossible to elect mnay major public officials who do not...at least formally.... subscribe to some religious doctrine, and usually a form of mainstream Christianity. Since adherents of such doctrine differ widely in their views and their tendency to insert their views into their political lives, we simply do NOT have any 'real' separation of Church & State....which means that we do not even have a separation of Science & Religion. No matter what 'science' advocates about certain issues...(you know many of them)... there are and will be politicians disputing them based on their desire to keep various religious concerns embedded in the regulations & statutes.

   and here we stand.... religion, if it follows its own beliefs & demands developed for thousands of years, must strive to influence various aspects of society, with some working harder at this then others....while Science, with its "follow where testable facts & hypotheses lead us" mandate tries to ....I have to say it....'discard' some things which it feels do not help.

I posted, on another thread, a picture of a squirrel trying to 'straddle' a fence, a very difficult thing to do. I guess one even has to make up his/her own interpretation of what the metaphor means...if anything...

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:09 PM

3. More curiosity-driven than fact-driven

Definitely, within the context of the question. Facts, however, are only an intermediary convenience--they depend on frameworks, on how you leave out aspects of reality and what fits; they depend, also, on the way you choose to perceive or measure. Data structures are necessarily distorted because they reflect a partial slice of a moment and take it out of its full context in time. But withal, they arte useful tools to pose and solve problems with.

But the truly curious mind is always looking for the next paradigm or the new framework in which to built a more embrasive model of existence, and this is true of scientific people, philosophical people, technical folks, artists, and religious people. It is probably true, though, that you find fewer truly curious minds among those self-qualifying as religious people, I would guess.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 11:10 AM

Sorry, no time to do the tally yet, Mom is better but not enough for me to spend enough time at a computer. Will try for it again, though...

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 11:04 AM

With my foregoing thoughts in mind, Hardi and I watched several more "Cosmos" episodes last night. I was so sad to see the number of definitive statements made that have, since it was made, become obsolete concepts. I was sad to see the continuing contamination of anti-religious thinking, even as the more generic term "mysticism" was uplifted.

I wish I could take Carl Sagan to lunch and ask him what's up with some of the internal inconsistencies he perpetuated in his own fascination with the wonder of our cosmos. I bet he'd laugh at how crazy science can get, because, like me, his curiosity probably kept him growing as his hair continued to fall out. :~)

I want to know it ALL. I don't want ANY biases in my way. Anytime I spot one holding me back I root it out as quick as I can.


That makes a Question Number Three: Does curiosity drive you like that, too, or are you more "fact"-driven, or both?

3. More curiosity-driven than fact-driven


~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 10:34 AM

In ancient times the science people and the spiritual philosophers WERE the same people. This was true in ancient Greece and in China, to give two great examples. They were the best educated people of their time, the most enlightened people of their time, and they made many great discoveries in the realm of practical science as well as being at the forefront of spiritual thought.

The main reason that religion later acquired such a bad name for being "unscientific" and irrational was the general decline in western civilization that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire. The Dark Ages were dominated by a Christian church that became mired in ignorance, authoritarianism, and gross superstition and that hurled itself into a lengthy war with an equally fanatical Muslim society.

There was eventually a reaction against all that in what is termed the Reformation, and the emerging science community in Europe saw themselves as in opposition to organized religion from that point forward.

And that is why we have the present disputes between people who imagine that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive...not because spiritual thought and science are naturally opposed to one another, but because we are still emerging from a particularly stupid and ignorant and bitter historical phase of 3 specific organized religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

They took it way too far one way with their ignorant authoritarianism. People attempting to exorcise the demons of our collective past are now taking it way too far the other way with their gross materialism and are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes. Man does NOT live by bread alone, and a civilization with no sense of spirituality is one that prepares its own demise, in my opinion.

People like Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin are typical of the monsters that arise out of such a civilization. They are just as bad...or worse...than any religious fanatic that ever existed, because they have a religion all their own: gross materialism. Gross materialism leads eventually to a complete collapse in morality, because it is utterly devoid of compassion or mercy. It seeks only victory...at any cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mr Happy
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 10:15 AM

' Gregor Mendel was a monk. '

Yep, he definitely had his finger on the pulse!!

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 06:15 PM

He was quoting a line out of the Bible, robomatic... ;-)

You're mistaken to assume that human progress has been a straight line climbing upward from ignorance to knowledge. It's had its hollows, troughs, and major setbacks. The Romans, Greeks, ancient Chinese, and ancient Egyptians were just as brilliant in their own way as anyone is now, and they came up with a lot of things that have not been improved upon since...plus some philosophical ideas that haven't been improved upon either. The main thing they lacked which we have was a powered engine (such as a steam engine, internal combustion engine, jet engine, etc...). This meant they had to do things with muscle power, pulleys and levers, and water power only. With those, they accomplished wonders.

We with our powered engines have polluted the Earth. Are we the wiser?

As for medicine, I regard the medical system of ancient China as considerably superior to the high tech witch doctors and drug-pushing practitioners that are in sway nowadays, but that's just my personal opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 05:48 PM

I don't see any of this as a problem, Susan.

Before there were doctors, there were blood letters and shamans.

Before there was astronomy, there was astrology.

Before there was chemistry, there was alchemy.

The better part of nonsense is sense.


"When I became a man, I put away childish things."
Elmer Gantry, quoting something or other

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 05:12 PM

Much less than a couple of humdred years. Particularly in the biological sciences, right up to tyhe end of the 19th century, the clergy were predominant, as one of the few groups of people who had the time and independent means to study science. Gregor Mendel was a monk.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 04:18 PM

Nice that you came back and gave context. Very interesting. One comment (of course...)

I understand your point about science developing as an antidote to whatever dogmatic religious thought prevailed at a given time. One phrase caught my eye:

"...if, instead of being anti-Anything, science had simply arisen without that need to first discard something else..."

I think I know what you are saying, but as a matter of course, science is the very process of discarding previous ideas. In the old days, there was no difference between a priest (or some other rare learned person) and a scientist. So, the progress of science involved discarding previous ideas that were (at the time) thought of as inherently religious. Only very recently (couple hundred years?) have we separated scientists from religious people.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 03:03 PM

Good stuff, Susan.

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 03:48 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.