BS: Science and Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 10:45 PM

Too soon for a tally.

and

"It" was defined a post or two of mine ago.

Carry on, folks.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 10:00 PM

A general observation: I think it is really interesting that this theme--in this thread and a dozen similar ones, differently phrased but touching on the same questions--is one that can be guaranteed to get folks energized and conversing enthusiastically (and occasionally, antagonistically). But because it speaks to such deep-seated ways of knowing AND being, it is fascinating to watch how much energy it generates.


A

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

WYSIWYG (Susan):

1. Do you see it as
Science AND Religion?
Or Science VS Religion?
Or what?


Silly you, asking that a simple "either/or" question be answered here. What WERE you thinking?

I'm not really sure what you mean by it (not "is" but "it"). Is "it" a category? A reality? A cultural inclusion? A personal view point? "Verses"? Do you mean as in "contrast" in "compare and contrast"? I really do not know what it is YOU are asking.

If it were two books sitting side by side, you might see it as "Science" and "Religion". If it were a single volume you might see it as "Science and Religion". If it were a history of conflicts between science and religion, then I could go for the title of "Science vs Religion".

Religion is pretty much a category of human behavior about certain notions or reactions to certain experiences or unexplained phenomena whereas science is a method of reasoning, thought. Each has its own history and culture and points of intersections and interactions. There have been mighty conflicts between some proponents of either faction and some amazing points of agreement. Each category has had certain language develop around subcategories in each vast field.

I could go on but you were just seeking a simple answer, therefore, my answer (which I regrettably did not give in my first reply) is "Yes".

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:50 PM

Well, Mrrzy, I'll give you mine.
          Science makes sense, it explains what happened in the past, what might happen in the future, and gives us all kinds of answers to complex questions.
          Religion is a mental disease. The sooner the victims of religion recover, the happier the world will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: TIA
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:47 PM

A tally would be too scientific! What do you believe the results to be?   :)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:29 PM

Do we have a tally of answers, e.g. ands vs. vs's?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: TIA
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 08:28 PM

"Science has become a religion."
Oh goodness no. Disproving what everyone has believed for a long time, and which is taught by the great masters, is the surest route to fame in science.

"Science is not always correct."
science is *never* correct. The "state-of-the-art" in any science is simply the current best hypothesis which is waiting to be killed by the coming better one.

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

Apparently you didn't read the second half of my post, michael. The notion that there MUST be a prior First Cause is not binding in any sense and depends on a very fixed view of space-time and being.

There is no more reason to postulate ONE first causation point than there is to postulate four quintillion, which is a figure I think closer to the truth.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 08:10 PM

LH speaks my mind except for "everyone does that". That part I doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 07:25 PM

Thanks, bobad... that's the ambiguity I referred to about Einstein.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 07:23 PM

If you read ALL of Albert's quotes, it is a bit ambiguous whether he did or didn't thing religion was relevant. He seems to have wavered form one interview to another.

Yes, I understand about mass & energy and the relevance of the **hypothesis** about energy being ...ummm... 'eternal'. But IF you assume that "eternal energy" therfore implies a 'creator', you merely reduce the question to "why, or how, could an 'infinite creator' exist in the first place? And what is IT's cause?"
Maybe one does....it is not something I can investigate or 'know'. That is where I say "I do not 'need' to try to answer that. Those who claim 'the answer' tend to do some very awkward things with it and to each other.
I have read Kierkegaard, Kant, the Bible..(several of them).. and attended 5-6 different churches. They all purported to have some sort of answer... I'm waiting for the clouds to part and the 'right' answer to appear in the sky. I'm not holding my breath, 'cause I don't look good in blue.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: bobad
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 07:16 PM

"Some quotes from Albert Einstein, one of many great scientists who were not athiests:"

Albert Einstein is sometimes claimed by religious theists seeking the authority of a famous scientist for their theistic views, but Einstein denied the existence of the traditional concept of a personal god. Was Albert Einstein therefore an atheist? From some perspectives his position would be seen as atheism or no different from atheism. He admitted to being a freethinker, which in a German context is much the same as atheism, but it's not clear that Einstein disbelieved in all god concepts.

http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Was-Einstein-an-Atheist-.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 07:05 PM

Oh wow man. Pass it over here.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Goose Gander
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 07:01 PM

Bill, the 'something' I reference is energy. Energy is neither created, nor destroyed. I tried to express this as simply as possible.

"Need? In what sense?" I was responding directly to a statement from Paul Burke. The context and meaning of my statement should be clear enough.

Some quotes from Albert Einstein, one of many great scientists who were not athiests:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 06:50 PM

"You still need an ultimate source,,,"

Need? In what sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 06:47 PM

Michael Morris: "Your incuriosity seems to me to be the antithesis of science!"

Oh no! I have no lack of curiosity. I am abundantly curious....about things where there is any coherent way to investigate. I am perfectly willing to consider "First causes" if anyone can explain how.
I studied 'first cause. as part of 130+ hours of college Philosophy. I understand the **concept** of 1st cause (and 'remote cause' and 'final cause' and 'formal cause' etc..) Much of this is why I see the 'investigation' of first cause as something like infinity to the infinityth... *grin*
Thus...IF someone claims "the universe MUST have a cause, as I can't imagine anything coming into being from nothing.", I reply..."Well, *I* can't imagine what might BE 'something' that existed before what exists, and 'created' it all!"
What might that even mean? This is where I claim that any attempt, no matter how emotionally desirable, resorts to poetry and linguistic Gerrymandering. It is perfectly natural that folks would try to make sense out of such ultimate questions....I just can't comprehend how it can be done...except personally and subjectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Goose Gander
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 06:31 PM

"Pah! Postulate an infinite Universe? Let's postulate an infinite God instead! Universes don't set Rules of Behaviour, Dress Codes, Dietary Rules, and Laws of Sexual Behaviour, or any other useful levers of power."

You still need an ultimate source, Paul. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. Some folks might see an equation between an Infinite Universe and God. That's what I lean towards, anyway.

"Rules of Behavior," etc. are normative in all human societies, so why the tired, marxist phraseology about "useful levers of power"?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 06:19 PM

I would deem it impossible to prove that something does not exist. Therefore I depend on being able to prove that a particular thing does exist.

What can be problematic is proving the necessity of a thing that you cannot prove to exist. Why do you need to assume that there was something before time started. That does not make sense. It shows that we do not accept limits.

On another tack how can you ultimately prove that what you experience is not an illusion. You have to make some assumptions or else we could all equally well be hooked up to a machine in the 35th century experiencing the virtual reality equivalent of a historical documentary video!

I thinh it was Robert Heinlein who invented pan-dimentional multi-person solipsism.(spelling?)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:48 PM

"I trust things I experience. They are personally verifiable. They may not be quantitatively verifiable, however, because they are not all physical in nature."

LH - can you explain to me how a thing or force, or even an experience (leaving aside hallucinations or other tricks of the mind/brain) can be something other than physical in nature? Surely, something that is not physical has little chance of interacting with physical phenomena such as you and I? Please give me an example (not just a personal, unverifiable anecdote - but something that I can experience myself) of a 'non-physical' phenomenon.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:38 PM

So if science is the empirical study of the universe, then the question of origins cannot be avoided. I'll rephrase my question: minus a First Cause, from whence came all this 'stuff'?

You missed out the all important qualifier "in a closed system".

The Universe could be infinite in time and space, in which case there's an infinite amount of entropy to draw on, and the observable Universe could draw on energy from elsewhere (i.e. the Universe may be closed, but the onservable part is not so) without any violation.

Pah! Postulate an infinite Universe? Let's postulate an infinite God instead! Universes don't set Rules of Behaviour, Dress Codes, Dietary Rules, and Laws of Sexual Behaviour, or any other useful levers of power.

So where did it all come from?

Science don't know. Science is trying to find out.
Religion don't know. Is Religion trying to find out?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:38 PM

""Religion presupposes the existance of a god/creator. Can anybody produce one piece of scientific (or otherwise) evidence that such a thing/being exists?""

Is there any reason why anyone should NEED to produce proof.

Just over one hundred years ago the concept of talking to someone in America by wireless transmission, the concept of travelling in a vehicle without a horse in front, and the concept of reaching America in three hours in a flying machine would have been equally matters of blind faith for believers, and objects of ridicule for those of a scientific mindset.

Yet some DID believe, and have since been proved right. The concept of a deity may be similarly unbelievable to many, but it would be UNSCIENTIFIC to say that such an entity is IMPOSSIBLE, unless of course YOU can PROVE it to be true.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:34 PM

BBCP - Uh-huh. Well, I'm just telling you what I trust. I trust direct personal experience. I also trust things that I can reason out and which seem through my process of reasoning to be "reasonable" to me. Everyone does that.

I also tend to trust information I get from people I deem trustworthy...but that doesn't mean I trust it absolutely. The only things I trust absolutely are those I know by direct experience or by my own powers of reason.

Again, everybody does that.

I tend to trust both scientific things AND spiritual things, provided they make sense to me. I don't tend to trust them if they don't make sense to me.

I see no reason why I have to deny the one (science or religion) in order to accept the other. They are not necessarily in conflict. There isn't just ONE way of being "religious" and there isn't just ONE set of rules, beliefs, etc...similarly, there isn't just ONE set of scientific theories. There are many.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Goose Gander
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:33 PM

"I don't really see any intersection (ethics, medical or otherwise, don't necessarily derive from religion)."

Dick, you really need to study the history of ethics.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Goose Gander
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:32 PM

"There may have been universes before this one, the implosion of one of which was the Big Bang."

Rightly so, Amos. If I'm not mistaken, Hindu philosophy/religion deals with this question. But what preceeded these possible previous universes?

In another tradition, it is put this way: I Am That Which Am.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:28 PM

I suspect it's Science ANDReligion, much in the same sense that it's Bananas AND Volcanoes. I don't really see any intersection (ethics, medical or otherwise, don't necessarily derive from religion).

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Goose Gander
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:25 PM

Remarkable answer, Bill. Your incuriosity seems to me to be the antithesis of science!

1st Law of Thermodynamics – energy can neither be created nor destroyed (and matter is another form of energy).

2nd Law of Thermodynamics – all energy is moving toward a less usable form: Entropy. In other words, the universe is winding down slowly, inexorably . . .

. . . though not all the way to absolute zero – 3rd Law of Thermodynamics.

So if science is the empirical study of the universe, then the question of origins cannot be avoided. I'll rephrase my question: minus a First Cause, from whence came all this 'stuff'?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:24 PM

Little Hawk,
If I experience something that is not physical, or not currently explainable, that moves it out of belief into personally verifiable, such as the fact that the clock at home stopped at the time that my first wife died.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:15 PM

There may have been universes before this one, the implosion of one of which was the Big Bang. Depends on how you conceive of space. But ignoring all that, there is no reason to elect "a" First Cause.

For all you know we might all be First Causes, taking a tea break. After all if you can posit One, you can posit Many of the same nature. ∞^∞ makes a good deal of sense from this perspective. Where, after all, is the "Kingdom of Heaven", if not "within" You?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:08 PM

I trust things I experience. They are personally verifiable. They may not be quantitatively verifiable, however, because they are not all physical in nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:03 PM

Science is a recursively self-verifying method of explaining what we can experience.

Religion is non-verifiable by definition as it is a belief.

If you accept these definitions which would you trust?

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 04:44 PM

"What was there before the Big Bang? How to explain a universe created out of nothing without some recourse to a First Cause? "

It's a personal thing as to whether one even tries. I don't need that explanation. I sincerely doubt it CAN be answered, so I don't think inserting premises, anthropomorphic OR metaphysical, gets me anywhere. All *I* can do is look and follow what can be learned from what we can study thru science. I do not believe anyone can even tell me what it means to "create something out of nothing" without recourse to poetry and linguistic juggling.

∞^∞ (if you see those symbols, they makes as much sense as 'something out of nothing')

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 04:31 PM

Religion does not necessarily presuppose the existence of a god/creator. It does, however, presuppose the existence of a meaningful Universe and a meaningful life, as opposed to a meaningless or accidental Universe and a meaningless life.

That's what is vital about religion/spirituality, and that is its greatest strength.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Goose Gander
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 04:23 PM

"Religion presupposes the existance of a god/creator. Can anybody produce one piece of scientific (or otherwise) evidence that such a thing/being exists?"

Look for a First Cause. What created the universe? The Big Bang? What was there before the Big Bang? How to explain a universe created out of nothing without some recourse to a First Cause? I don't mean some guy with a flowing beard sitting on a cloud listening to harp music. Just an explanation for why there is 'something' rather than 'nothing'.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 11:38 AM

Susan: the thread may be more interesting than it would have been if you had clarified your original question more. : )

Don Firth: as a one-time student of Moody Bible Institute...may I have a key to your club-house? I may still be just a little more biased toward a "creationism" that the creation museum people would never recognise, but I'm very close to absolute agreement with everything you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 11:29 AM

"I'm looking for a collection of individual views in terms that allow a rough summary in numbers I can count up.

Ok then... The bet I can never collect on is:There is No supreme creative consciousness that 'ordered' the Universe, therefore - the pure, basic notion of Science will always versus the pure, basic notion of religion.
(I use the adjectives because of all the linguistic, metaphorical definitions of religion noted above)

*end of direct answer*
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, I suggest that when folks who use 'Science' most of the time, but admit to a 'religious' feeling/belief/attitude/concept, they are doing the very human thing of harboring an internal logical inconsistency. We are capable of using poetic language to create concepts that we can only explain with more poetic, metaphorical concepts. It's what MAKES us human, and I don't doubt it will always be with us, with the continuity of religious beliefs assured. The real goal, then, should be to get wider recognition OF this dichotomy and to get people to process their 'religious' concepts as purely subjective, and to limit attempts to ***impose*** any of them on others as "truth" which should affect and/or control the laws, morals, etc., of the basic structures of society.

(explication of that condensed bit of philosophy is about 20 pages long...)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: john f weldon
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 11:21 AM

A little filmlet I made a few years ago. Pictures and more fun than words, eH?

Science, Religion & Decorum

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 10:45 AM

Thank you, Frank.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 10:29 AM

Susan, as you probably know, I think it's Science vrs. Religion today. ID and other corrupt mythologies have muddied the waters. I see religion as something irrelevant to ethics and ethical behavior.

I believe that science should investigate religion as to its validity.

I respect many religious people but not for their beliefs but for who they are as ethical
human beings.

Science and dogma is an oxymoron. Science is continuously debunking itself whereas
religion offers strict unchanging platitudes.

I see religion as an umbrella for unethical behavior that condones murdering abortion doctors to child abuse in the Catholic church, the rise of fascistic hate groups, and the forcing of religion down the throats through a national day of prayer.

Susan, I respect you and think that you are a good person and asking a legitimate question.

Frank

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

There's a great deal of unanswered mystery about existence which, since time beyond measuring we have dumped in the laps of supernatural or superhuman entities, gigantic metaphors for our own ignorance or poor memories.

Material science has assured us that, for example, volcanos are not the side-effect of psychopathic gods having a bad hair day. We have learned the world is not flat. But in my opinion there is a set of purely spiritual questions of a different class-ones that will not go away in the advance of material science. Knowing, perceiving, modes of being, and the core nature of space and the viewpoint "in" space are probably, ultimately, questions that will be answered in a spiritual model rather than a material one.

None of this has anything to do with the kind of toxic iconology that is typical of our more primitive religions. These, I think, are no more durable than the flat-earth or caloric models in natural science.

But the questions are.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stu
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:56 AM

1. Science is a search for the truth based on empirical evidence. It relies on observation, deduction and reproducibility, along with an ability to analyse and interpret. By it's very nature, science questions everything and it formulates theories based on the available evidence to try to explain it's findings. When new data presents itself, theories are altered, amended, abandoned and re-formulated, and so our understanding of us and the universe develops slowly over the ages. Religion and spirituality are not the same. I believe science is the way forward, as it more enough awe and wonder any religion could ever offer. If I had my time again, I would be a scientist and I study palaeontology, geology and other disciplines in an amateur capacity to help me understand the world. Science vs Religion.

2. I was walking in the woods near my home (here in the UK) one hot summer's day. The footpath I was on runs parallel to a small stream that is now channelled by a dyke built years ago and becomes a feeder for the local reservoir used to top up the canal. At one point, a small wooden bridge crosses a tributary of this small stream and some of the water tumbles of a few stones under the bridge; it's overflow from the runoff pipe from some field drains on the hillside. As I crossed the bridge I heard a woman's voice talking; the sound seemed to be coming from the stream itself as it ran over the stones. I backed up thinking I was listening to a distant tannoy announcement, but everything went quiet again. On re-approaching the bridge the voice started again, and although I could hear it speaking clearly I couldn't quite make out the words. I listened to the voice (it was quite musical) for a while before I carried on over the bridge and continued on with my walk. I realised I couldn't make out the words not matter how hard I listened so moved on.

After thinking about this for a while I decided I heard a genius loci; a spirit of place I was able to actually hear in the material world. Perhaps if my spirit had been less troubled, my mind more open or more connected with my ancestors then I could have understood the voice. I have passed that bridge many, many times since that warm summer's day but have never heard the voice again. Hopefully, one day I will be allowed hear the spirit of place again, my music and my art are part of my journey towards achieving this through a clear mind and a calm, quiet spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:27 AM

Science is the study of the real, and religion is belief in the supernatural. I see them as AND, not VS, but I don't see an intersection in the real world. I do see people trying to make them intersect, but that's square peggery to me.

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

Read the article linked to upthread on the topic of Quantum Mysticism--it is just a descriptor of the kind of thinking that some major physicists in the early era of quantum mechanics held.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 08:53 AM

Back to the questions I asked, to calrify:

"It" = "your" worldview/paradigm/concept of the essential relationship between "your" concept of science and "your" concept of religion, and whether you generally see them as a compatible combination or as mutually exclusive. Not the absolute definitions of these, but "yours." Because, remember, I'm not looking for debating-type thinking. I'm looking for a collection of individual views in terms that allow a rough summary in numbers I can count up.

The COMMENTARY also is interesting, but without the numbers I'm left to summarize what I think I hope I understood-- that would amount to me, speaking for "you," and "you," and "you," and "you,"-- and I'd rather not.

I know-- it's not a scientific approach. :~) It's not a religious approach, either. :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:46 AM

"On the other hand, science that denies religion is blind reductionism. For science to say it has all the answers and that there is no room for anything which can't be empirically verified is an equally foolish form of tunnel-vision."

This is what non-scientists tend to think about science. In fact it is religious people who think that they have "all the answers" whereas scientists only know what they don't know.

A religious person tends to believe that all of the 'answers' are contained within an ancient, sacred text whereas a scientist can only attach probability statements to the outcomes of even the most well-designed and careful of experiments.

To sum up: religious people are certain, scientists are uncertain.

And to be really contentious: religious people are often full of pride in their certainty whereas scientists tend to be humble in their uncertainty.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 01:20 AM

Fergie, et al, for some, science presupposes the NON-existence of God. So there you have it. Loggerheads. The Mills method of scientific reasoning does not allow for the introduction of non-provable categories. And science IS a method of applied human reason. The hypothesis must be testable and repeatable.

The hypothetical aspect of science, though is most interesting, especially what is going on in cosmology, cosmogony and physics these days. It is amazing to me that from observable data and the tools of science that some of these bastions of human reason can postulate parallel universes where every conceivable and even inconceivable scenarios may take place, INFINITELY! But let there be no mention of a God! Which is harder to swallow? That right now there are herds of blue and orange polka dotted elephants and twenty headed dinosaurs stampeding through you house and super nova exploding all around you just a dimension away or that God may indeed exist?

That science makes mistakes is entirely true. In fact if there were no mistakes science could never progress for it is by our mistakes and failures that we learn and narrow our investigative focus. Until we got away from the Aristotelian didactic of absolute truth and irrefutable logic did we begin to progress. This was Aquinas's realm and that of the old RCC. Rather science uses the inductive method over the deductive method of reasoning. Deduction has its place but the premises are ALWAYS subject to inspection and revision. And if that is true (look Ma, no hands!), then you must allow for the possibility of a God.

Just the same, you must allow for the possiblity of a human mind with the ablitiy to comprehend the universe, for without it, the universe does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 12:28 AM

True, Don. It's unfortunate when people's thinking becomes rigidly tied to any past body of either scientific or religious dogma...and they are unwilling to revise, improve, and expand their thinking. If this is so, it's because they are afraid to (at some level).

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 12:15 AM

"Science is not always correct."

No one (especially scientists) ever said that it was. Science is constantly revising, improving, and expanding. The same cannot always be said for many bodies of religious belief.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 12:10 AM

Cool. I've done some pendulum work myself. It's quite interesting. I'm not 100% sure, however, that it's always reliable, depending on who does it and what they're thinking and why, but that's for each person to find out for themselves. For certain people it may be 100% reliable. Perhaps not for certain others. I've seen people who were very adept at that sort of thing (pendulum, dowsing, etc).

What do you mean by "superior force"? Have you read the book "Power Versus Force"?

And....what do you mean by "Quantum mysticism"?

Can you have all the answers? That would presuppose, for one thing, that you have already asked all the questions. ;-) There are some questions that a person might never even think to ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 11:58 PM

Well, I now have all the answers! I asked my pendulum and:

superior force = inner wisdom

There is no such thing as God, or a Supreme Power or Intelligence, or creator.

Mysticism is based on inner wisdom which is the same as original wisdom and makes sense. Quantum mysticism does not make sense.

Inner wisdom is consistent.

Science is not always correct. Religion has as many definitions as there are people defining it.

That's it for me. I have my answers, based on inner wisdom which is that place from which the pendulum draws its answers, and from which we each need to draw our own answers. Now I am almost ready to write about down to earth, everyday mysticism. We each have it if we only give ourselves a chance to listen. Little kids listen until it is knocked out of them by the damaged adults around them. We each need to get back to where we can acknowledge and feel/listen to the original wisdom we have within. That is NOT religion.

Have fun! You are welcome to tell me I'm crazy. I KNOW I stand on firm ground. This thread triggered this process for me. I have never been more clear on anything.

Now you can have fun and I will not even need to look in on this thread

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 11:36 PM

Dorothy - Yes, religion/spirituality is a simply vast spectrum of possibilities which also can include all the investigatory processes of science...and ought to. If you don't believe me, read some of the books written by Sri Aurobindo who started out as an atheist in the sciences...a brilliant honor student who disbelieved in anything spiritual when he was young...and who ended up as a spiritual philosopher who still believed in science as much as he had at the beginning. There is no vaster spectrum than that covered by religion/spirituality/science/philosopy...and it's all one spectrum . It is the spectrum of Life itself. Religion and spirituality are attempts to understand Life, its meaning, its purposes, and its processes. Science is mainly an attempt to observe and understand Life's processes, how they come about, and why. I capitalize Life because it is sacred. No, not the magazine! ;-)

Fergie - Religion does NOT necessarily presuppose the existence of a god/creator. I'll grant that some religions do that. The 3 great religions that came out of the Middle East (Muslim/Christian/Judaic) do. There are a number of important Eastern religions and spiritual philosophies, however, which do not. Read a bit about Taoism and Buddhism if you don't believe it. Check out the higher mystical teachings of Hinduism. You will be surprised at what you find there if you bother to look far enough.