BS: Science and Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 09:52 PM

Science AND religion.

I have a very fuzzy concept of what "God" is and it keeps changing all the time. I don't really know for sure if some Supreme Intelligence actually does exist, or if this is merely a human attempt to explain things that has simply hung on since our primitive ancestors cowered in their caves. I most definitely do not believe in the cranky (but all-loving) bearded old man up on Arcturus 12 who marks the fall of every sparrow and hurls lightning bolts at sinners.

I agree with the late Joseph Campbell. He said that where many religious folks go off the rails is when they assume that religious myth and metaphor (a standard part of all religious beliefs) is historical fact.

But—assuming that All Of This was cobble together by a Supreme Intelligence that is beyond our comprehension and whom we attempt to personify by calling "God," I would say that there is no real conflict between science and religion. Whenever there is, it is due to a lack of understanding of either one or the other—or both.

Science endeavors to describe how God did it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John P
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 09:32 PM

Depending on the definition of religion, I could go with AND. If religion involves "faith" or "deity", then I have no use for it. It just sounds like wishful thinking that doesn't really make any sense.

While science may fulfill the same role in one person's life that religion fulfills in another's, calling science a religion is disingenuous. Religion usually involves faith and deity; a person who rejects them should not be called religious, at least not without a lot of qualifiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 09:21 PM

Religion does not need to presuppose; simply finding a series of spiritual truths is quite enough religion for some.

Here's a perspective on the whole subject under the rubric of "quantum mysticism".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Fergie
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 08:25 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?

Fergus

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 08:05 PM

Science has become a religion. Spirituality has become more inclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:52 PM

Susan,
1. Definitely AND, but not religion!......SCIENCE AND FAITH!
2. They intersect in all forms of moral and ethical compass, which should rein in the likely excesses of a purely scientific viewpoint, while recognising the realities of life.


""Finally, my partner's great uncle made an interesting comment just the other night when he said he happily believed in both god and evolution and didn't have a problem incorporating them both into his worldview....Spleen Cringe

He is absolutely correct. There is NO conflict between God and Science.

There is NO conflict between faith in God and Science.

The missing question Susan, is this:-    Is religion synonymous with faith?

IMO, NO! IT'S NOT!

Religion is man's interpretation of God's intent and purpose. If that interpretation, as so often is the case, denies science, denies logic, and ignores fact, then it becomes Science VERSUS Religion.

I've made this point so often in the past, and I can't quite see why it should be so difficult to grasp for all but the most rabid bible belt fundamentalist.

FAITH is purely personal belief, in whatever an individual may think is true. It requires NO teaching, but is based on personal understanding of environment and events which affect that individual.

Religion is what somebody else tries to teach an individual to believe in. At best it provides a moral and ethical framework which can result in truly saintly behaviour, self sacrifice, and utter goodness.    At worst it can give rise to the basest of all human interaction, murder, genocide, and utter evil.

When dealing with religion, it is wise to examine the likely motives of the hierarchy. Not all are concerned with the welfare of adherents, in fact many are more interested in adherents' bank accounts, while others seek power over their fellow man.

Those which ARE genuine in their intent, will be concerned with neither, and MOST of those WILL recognise and welcome scientific knowledge.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Slag
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:25 PM

The object defines the subject. The quest? Reality, the ultimate reality. To some science is the religion of logic.

If you drew a Venn diagram, any point of overlap would be points of agreement and depending on who was drawing, the overlap would vary greatly. The absolute advocate of human reason would see no point of contact between the two except in a clinical sort of way. The absolute religionist would see no point of contact either but for different reasons. They would be in polar agreement about no contact!

On the practical side, the proof is in the tasting. Science works. From proven theories, the modern world has emerged and provided us with things beyond the imagination of folks of just 100 years ago. On the religion side, well some make certain unprovable assertions about healings and finding things but it is largely personal and experiential to the individual.

Religion is Man seeking God and that gets into an entirely different debate which has had plenty of "woodshed" at this site. Briefly and broadly "God" is what ever an individual hold as the focus and in highest esteem in their life (with apologies to Paul Tillich). Defined thus, science can indeed, be a religion.

It is my belief that the assertion of most religions are statements of faith or belief in a metaphysical realm. In the practical and scientific world faith and religion are bubbles (not Venn circles, as each has multi-dimensional aspects) that really just kind of bounce around off each other. They are both concerned with reality but the realities are almost mutually exclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Rowan
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:17 PM

Having been brought up in a context where traditions were strong I came to an understanding that scientific methodology was based on answering the "What, When, How, (and to a lesser extent, the Who) questions; it was also good at answering the more trivial aspects of the Why question.

Religion, according to many, started off with a bent that could be described as scientific in the sense that it tried to explain the Why in terms that might have been rather simplistic (to some) but delved into the depths of what it was that made us human; for me, its best aspects still attempt to address the existential aspects of "Why".

To me, any deity (monotheistic or not, Mosaic/Abrahamic or not) shows considerable evidence consistent with it being a human creation.

Does this make me an "And"?

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: frogprince
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:11 PM

Religion AND science, for me, so long as religion doesn't mean any form of fundamentalism. I wouldn't even want to imagine living in a world without the benefits of science; A substantial share of us wouldn't even be here if medical science hadn't begun to make real progress before our parents time. But science has an overwhelming inclination to do anything it makes possible. Religious values can bring at least some counter-pressure to bare, as well as help motivate some people to pursue their science specifically for the sake of the general wellfare.
                         Dean

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: michaelr
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:05 PM

Do I see WHAT as
Science AND Religion?
Or Science VS Religion?

You really should ask a more concise question if you want clear answers.

But then, you probably won't want to hear from me anyway, as I've stated here before that I see religious faith as a sort of mental illness.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:00 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 06:56 PM

LH: so religion IYO, is a spectrum of possibilities? One chooses how to view it? There is no definition? Final paragraph open to discussion.

Bee...: Is scientific "fact" always correct??? Who determines what is "empirically verified"?
Love your last sentence! But- "things" do not all have roots nor do all "things" reach.... - Or do they? How would we know??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 06:46 PM

AND

I see the two as being not only compatible but both being subject to further development.

In other words, I think of science as being testable to the extent of its knowledge. And I say, Bless it and the horse it rode in on.

I think of religion, or more to the point, the inanimate, as being in the realm typified by love and altruism, consisting of more than the five senses that science recognizes (Who has not "felt" eyes upon themselves? Who has not had the inexplicable urge to call home? Who has not produced a creative something that seemingly came out of nowhere? Who has not relied on an unseen force to see to it that s/he is in the right spot at the right time?).

It is my belief that science some day will "see" things very differently from what it has in the past. I think that religion/the intangible will someday come to realize that there are physical, even if invisible, forces at work in the most arcane.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 06:10 PM

Religion that denies scientific evidence is mere superstition. Clinging to a set of ancient folk tales as factual truth when confronted with contrary explanations which are supported by scientific fact is a particularly foolish form of tunnel-vision.

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. Those ancient folk tales may not have much factual truth in them, but they have a tremendous amount of metaphysical truth. A lot of scientists seem to have never learned the meaning of the word "transcendent". In their search for the roots of things, they've forgotten that the reason things have roots in the first place is so they can reach for the sky.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:46 PM

Religion at its best is not a collection of superstitions and rituals, it's a very positive philosophy and set of ethics. Religion also does not necessarily require you to believe in "a creator". Some types of religion do require that, but not all types by any means.

Religion is often entirely compatible with science...but goes into further areas which science is not inclined to even comment upon...those areas having to do mostly with philosophical and ethical viewpoints on life and inquiries into the meaning of life.

That is to say, science is primarily concerned with the objective, while religion is primarily concerned with the subjective. Since a person needs to understand and experience both objectivity and subjectivity to be a complete personality, it would seem wise to look at the world through both viewpoints, and in a way that can harmonize them.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:45 PM

First define "religion". Impossible to answer otherwise.

Templeton is full of interesting ideas - Farewell to God is an interesting book.

Religion does not need to include God at all, any sort, or gods either. Spiritual Naturalism.

Jung could "not help anyone who did not believe in a superior force."

Loren Eiseley doubted one could be a scientist and not believe in God.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Gervase
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:28 PM

Put me down as a 'random agglomeration of matter' sort of bloke.
Science for me every time. Religion, to me, is just a superstitious way of trying to explain stuff that science hasn't yet revealed.
The world is so much more wonderful if you don't have to think of a creator.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: fretless
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM

The John Templeton Foundation in the US has been investing lots of energy and money recently in an exploration of this and related questions about the intersections of science and religion. Lots of interesting reading on their website.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 04:50 PM

God said "let there be light" and e equalled mc²

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 04:47 PM

Having spent 55 years thinking about 'it', I don't have time to write a short answer.

But essentially, it boils down to whether we are asking whether both are 'true', or 'useful', or 'compatible'...or maybe whether the whole issue is a matter of language trying to encompass our DNA programming.

Me? I 'suspect' that both can co-exist, no matter what "ultimate truth" is, but because so much (all?) of religion is cultural and subjective, it can (and does) take many paths which are in conflict with both science and other religions.

(sorry, Susan...I'm not sure if that fits any of the parameters of a survey *weak smile*)

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 03:43 PM

If it's about the pursuit of positive, life-enhancing ideas, actions and discoveries, then either or both or neither, depending! Some terrible things have been created/discovered by scientists and done/decreed by religionists. Some wonderful things have been created/discovered by scientists and done/decreed by religionists. We are an odd species, truly.

By the way, I'm personally inclined towards atheism and keen on evidence-based science. However I'm not some atheist fundamentalist: I can see and accept that there are plenty of good things done by religious people in the name of their religion, including many amazing acts of altruism, heroism and charity. Whether these people would still do the same if they were not religious, but just because they are good people, is largely irrelevant if in fact they do ascribe their actions to their beliefs. I also recognise that there are scientists with strongly held religious beliefs out there who don't necessarily allow their religion to blunt their sense of curiosity. There are also atheists with a very unscientific, gut-instinct-led basis to their atheism. Takes all sorts.

Finally, my partner's great uncle made an interesting comment just the other night when he said he happily believed in both god and evolution and didn't have a problem incorporating them both into his worldview.

Just some bits 'n' pieces for the pot...

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 03:23 PM

As Rapaire said. I see no inherent conflict between science and religion/spirituality. To the contrary, I see the two working together ultimately toward a shared understanding of reality.

Science AND religion/spirituality, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Goose Gander
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 03:14 PM

Paul and DaveO -

Pleased to meet you both. But that is quite a leap of faith, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Ian cookieless
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:59 PM

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

And the survey:

2. If you see it as Science AND Religion, where do you see them intersecting in a positive way, from your view?


I am really not trying to be awkward when I say it depends what you mean by "it". This needs to be qualified if the survey is to be meaningful. If "it" is knowledge, but it also depends on what type of knowledge for a debate to ensue. If "it" is ethics, then one would have to ask where the scientists gain their ethical inferences, and which 'brand' of religion's ethics we are discussing: fundamentalists or liberals?

For 2., I find myself agreeing with what many religious people say on medical ethics - that life should be considered to begin very early, perhaps even conception, that life itself is extremely precious (I cannot say 'sacred' as I am not religious). However, I hold these views without reference to God or religious concepts, and I cannot see anything of substance that is added to an ethical debate by inserting God into an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:52 PM

Paul Burk, you beat me to it by about nine minutes.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:43 PM

I haven't met many hard-core athiests who believe in absolutely nothing beyond a random universe created out of nothing

Hi.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Goose Gander
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:41 PM

Science deals with phenomena that can be quantified; religion deals with matters that can not. There have been brilliant scientists who were religionists, and others who were athiests. One does not negate the other. Anyway, many so-called athiests believe in a spirit world (ghosts, etc.) . . . I haven't met many hard-core athiests who believe in absolutely nothing beyond a random universe created out of nothing, but I know they are out there.

A useful religion can founded upon lies; a purely rational, athiestic scientist can create a monstrosity. See Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:35 PM

GREAT stuff, folks, keep 'em coming, please.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: gnu
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:35 PM

And.

They are two different things/thinks. Both have merit. Both have otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:31 PM

I see no inherent conflict in them. Such is only in people's minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:30 PM

Science and literature. Religion is just old literature, sometimes taken too literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:23 PM

1. AND
2. Metaphysics, ethics, psychology, philosophy, ontology, epistemology, physics, technology, marketing, sociology, medicine, political theory, economics...and about a dozen others.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:18 PM

Science AND Religion.

There are certain propositions that are not objectively testable - belief (or not) in these is religion.

All assertions that are testable should be tested. This is science.

Subject: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 01:23 PM

I had in mind a poll/survey, not a debate, tho I am sure a debate will develop. (Please know in advance that I will probably not participate in the "debate" aspect, beyond stating my own rather integrated view, once, as clearly as I can.)


But here's the poll:

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

And the survey:

2. If you see it as Science AND Religion, where do you see them intersecting in a positive way, from your view?


I'll start.

1. I see it as Science AND Religion.

2. I see them interesecting in a positive way (because of checks and balances) in a field I know as Medical Ethics.


You?


~Susan