BS: Science and Religion

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

Good stuff, Susan.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:45 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: 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: 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 - 03:51 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:46 AM

"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."

So, religion is the answer to intolerance?

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

No, they are just suspicious of those who purport that they have answers. They are not religious in the slightest. It's difficult for people who are religious to have an understanding of those who are not. It's like smokers who just don't understand that
non-smokers don't want it and hence accuse them of being somehow prudish.

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

In my experience, I have not found most atheists to be fanatic about their point of view.
It usually works the other way around. Most atheists I know insist on proof of a god which seems reasonable to me. I don't think most atheists are adamantly opposed in a fanatical way to those who believe in a flat earth or Santa Claus.

"Neither has ANY objective proof for his point of view."

If you discount scientific proof, then you would be correct. So far, scientific proof has not revealed any god. The anger of those who are religious belies their objectivity.
I don't think most atheists that I've met are fanatically opposed to religious people as people.


"Neither has ANY respect for the other."

No this is not true. You can have respect for other humans beings without buying into
their ideology or belief system.

Each is UTTERLY convinced that HE, and only HE, is INDISPUTABLY RIGHT.

No, it's just that the burden of proof is on the believer, not the skeptic.

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

I'm prepared to accept an empirical view based on scientific methodology that shows conclusively that there is a god.

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

Not true. Atheists that I know are open to the idea that science may show something like this some day in a unified field theory (TOE) although this doesn't imply any divine deity.

"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."

Your beliefs are of course your own business. I can't really evaluate them because you haven't made them known. But religious people do all the time. We know too much about religion proportional to its value. Most atheists, for example, that I know have more knowledge about scriptures than those who purport to believe in them.

This topic reveals anger rather than rational discourse, usually.

As to a spiritual awareness, I see no scientific basis for that assertion. It falls into the
category of a belief system which is subjective and thereby unverifiable.

I have to say that I respect religious people as people and not because of what they purport to believe.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:10 PM

The problem ( which is not really a problem ) with NOMA is that science keeps chipping away at the boundries of the other side.

AND DAWKINS IS STILL BREATHING

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:18 PM

As to a spiritual awareness, I see no scientific basis for that assertion. It falls into the category of a belief system which is subjective and thereby unverifiable.

Then you have missed my point altogether, Frank, in your haste to express a point of view you have probably expressed hundreds of times over the years. The phenomenological set of events which, while not material, are nevertheless actual, include individual insight, for example (not the brain waves, but the insight itself), and many others. My point is that at least a third magisterium is perfectly conceivable covering this class of events.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 01:24 PM

""Sounds to me as though the atheists, and the scientists,are EVERY BIT as religious as the believers, ...."...etc. ad nausuem

I have posted & explained maybe 20 times here that such assertions are careless and self-serving equivocations on the concept of 'religious'!!

Those who keep saying similar things need to look up 'equivocation' and take it to heart. If you muddy a useful word by stretching its meaning to cover everything YOU wish it to mean, you end up with useless language which defines little....(sorta like 'folk' has been treated)

Pretending to criticize something by sticking in YOUR definition, then showing it's 'weak', is simply bad reasoning. This is closely related to the 'straw man' fallacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 01:37 PM

and Amos...

"...phenomenological set of events which, while not material, are nevertheless actual, include individual insight, for example (not the brain waves, but the insight itself)

Can you guess that this reasoning gets, from me, a similar complaint?

"Not material, but still actual" is close to a paradigm example of what I am getting at. Calling 'insight'--the concept-- part of one class of 'actuality' is just Plato revisited, and not taken seriously in Philosophy these days....it is a linguistic class, and when restricted to this, is perfectly relevant to certain discussions.
Used as you suggest, it clouds....not clarifies... the attempt to discuss what can be studied & investigated by anything resembling 'scientific method'.

(I'm struggling to remember and construct the argument as my old professor, Gerald Paske, would say it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 01:41 PM

According to the Dawkins book, actual surveys of scientists reveal that most are in fact atheists, the 'in fact' covering a point that, still according to Dawkiins, he has scientific friends and associates who are titular church or synagogue goers, but have told him they do not believe.

He also says that belief is inversely proportional to education and income class.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 01:50 PM

"...belief is inversely proportional to education and income class."

I think the general graph goes that way, but it ain't a smooth line.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 02:23 PM

Amos, I think to establish your case you will have to prove it scientifically. Otherwise
it's just speculation. "Insight" is up for grabs these days. Everyone claims it including our former president that thought with his gut.

There is no reasonable "third way" at this point. The polarity between religion and science is too vast. One dictionary definition describes religion as a cult, church or denomination.
You might want to try to redefine it but I don't think it will be an agent for clarity.

"Religious" could be loosely defined as an adherence to a principle on "faith". I tend to think of that faith as being misty. I think there is a historical precedence for the idea that if mankind matures, the preservation of the species could take place through a kind of enlightenment but I wouldn't characterize that in any way as religion.

I have heard the phenomenological argument many times and it is circular. You can't prove it because it can't be seen. It's a concept only. Therefore who is to say it exists?
The only verification can come through one's personal experience which may be counted or discounted depending on how reasonable you think it is. Back to the drawing board,
you have to prove it exists.

Richard Dawkins may be the natural heir to Charles Darwin.

I think there might be a trend toward moral evolution through evolutionary psychology but
I can't prove it. I can only speculate. The fact that we as a species have not yet destroyed each other I offer as some kind of proof but it seems as though countries, politicans,
authoritarians (including preachers et. al.) are working hard to disprove this.

What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan? (Fanning the flames of Jihad,
which once again shows the futility of religion.)

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 03:51 PM

Actually, I think it can be demonstrated fairly rigorously, but not proven scientifically. There's a big gap between the two, you are right. The problem is that the burden of scientific proof can be just as circular as the phenomenological angle, because in practice if not in theory, the discipline of scientific experiment is geared around intentional falsification, and the durable replicability that is to be taken for granted in material systems. Six molecules of the same element will behave as they should in a test setup no matter whether they were originally mined in Nevada or Siberia or Punjab. They won't have any creative responses to the test setup. They won't care if they pass or do not, whether they are admired or not, or viewed skeptically or not. THey certainly won't decide to be a certain way on the spur of the moment.

To require consciousness to conform to such testing standards requires the presumption that conscious will likewise have no considerations, creative responses, decisions, etc. about the test conditions--yet thew very nature of life in conscious form is to have such considerations and percpetions. So the demand for "scientific" proof becomes self defeating by ignoring the nature of the subject. The consideration of an electron or molecule does not mnatter in the smallest degree in an experiemnt, while the consideration of awareness in an experiment on consciousness makes every difference in the world.

THis is just one of the reasons why I suggest that a third realm is in fact in play, and being hobson-jobsoned to force-fit one or the other pigeonhole while actually belonging to neither, being its on non-overlapping magisterium.



A.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 04:28 PM

"To require consciousness to conform to such testing standard..."

That is not really the issue. No one...(well, not I).. am asking 'consciousness' to be tested in the same way as in a chemistry experiment. I know that the defining characteristics og being human include the ability to 'imagine' and create concepts that are not susceptible to 'measurement' in the same way the decay of Cesium atoms are. The error is in losing track of what they ARE in our assumptions when we try to discuss them. It is a subtle, but pervasive thing we do when we assume that if we have words for something, it sort of magically acquires its own 'reality'.
   Much of this tendency is driven by the natural reluctance to 'demote' certain personal 'experience' to 'mere' dreams or flawed memory or drugs..(whether naturally produced or ingested).

Note...I said "natural" reluctance! Of course people want their memories to be reliable and reflect reality! We know that sometimes memories are flawed...but we accept some and reject others based on feeling and intensity and....well, times when they 'seem' to be similar to others' reports.

Skeptics are those who shrug and say..."maybe so, maybe not..."

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 05:41 PM

The real point is not what you do with the content of someone's experience, but how you treat the fact that it was perceived at all! This point never ceases to amaze me--people using analytical skill, imagination, and intelligence to disprove the existence of analytical or imaginative ability. I know the rebuttal that they are only arguing that these things are biochemical--extensions of physics only--not that they didn't exist.

But the point is still amusing to watch creative powers used to disallow the existence of creativity.

At the center of all the noise, where signal becomes perception and perception becomes understanding, you are still facing a different range of event than any particle displacement or charge distribution can cause.

But I also appreciate that when you are firmly locked int he big sandbox, everything looks like sand to you.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 06:26 PM

(thanks for fixing my italic error)

"...people using analytical skill, imagination, and intelligence to disprove the existence of analytical or imaginative ability.

And who is doing this? That's a pretty heavy accusation of 'people'. It may be a bit of an exaggeration of what is really being done by those who recommend care in these issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 08:20 PM

You want names? Really?

I could go on at length. Crick comes to mind, as does Sachs, and Holmes Rolston, Skinner, and a half-dozen others who have bent over backwards to explain with great understanding how mechanism produces non-understanding mentality. I do not have the time at this moment to reconstruct a list for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 09:32 PM

Skinner? Not exactly a current practitioner of psychobabble... the others I will have to read about.

In fact, I will have to re-read your comment to see if I even get the gist of the assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 09:52 PM

I think that's Big Fuckin' Skinner!

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

Skinner, who is dead now, was the Father of Stimulus-Response Behavioral psychology.

But the individual names are not the point. The point is the bizarre loop of ability being put to the task of proving that there is no ability but mechanism.

I don;'t know how much more simply I can put it.


A