BS: Science without Religion..............

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:49 PM

I think there are three problems here:

First the thread is not related to basic questioning premise of the chicken thread, namely should religious commands be logical or sensible.

Second, the article linked to starts from such a silly basis that it arouses (in me) nothing but a desire to shout and possibly throw a Molotov cocktail.

Third, I am seriously concerned for the Mudcat that a person may both start a thread for discussion and insist on his personal right to moderate it. A bit like Fox news. Mick I think you should recuse yourself from moderating this thread and leave it to be moderated ONLY by those who do not have an axe to grind.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:37 PM

Of course a confession can be heard anywhere. In my own religion it is not even referred to as confession anymore. There has never been a prohibition on where it can happen.   It is just scheduled in the gathering place as one would expect. This is no different from any other practice, and I am not sure what relevance it has.

Ever heard of the ecumenical movement? With the exception of the extreme fundamentalists, most don't accept the notion that anyone has a corner on God. And how is that any different from the fundie pagans who insist on theirs as being the only way that makes sense? Or the secular fundamentalists who speak so condescendingly to those of us who follow a path different than theirs?

I used to love to eavesdrop on a Jesuit friend of mine when he and another friend, an avowed atheist, used to heatedly debate concepts and ideologies. I think there is a lot of merit in this. My favorite was when they debated faith. You think "What is the definition of folk Music?" is hard. LOL.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:27 PM

Not to be picky, but do any of the religions which expect confessions, offer them anywhere else but in church, unless on someone's deathbed? Would they, for instance, say "come out to the park on Sunday and father so & so will hear your confession?"

I also do not believe any one whatever has a corner on "god," but there are plenty fundies out there who DO think they do and will have at anyone who does not go to their certain church, etc. I agree with her take on those being the types who throw out the test tubes, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:23 PM

I am not aware of any major religion that advocates or insists on the need to experience spirituality in a church, temple, whatever. These are just meeting places. There is nothing wrong with finding spirituality in or out of a church. I don't believe pagans, native spiritualists, or anyone has a corner on finding God (or whatever you choose to name) in the beauty of creation.

Clinton, you apparently have no intent of decent discussion. I didn't see Dick or myself on the fence on this. I agree with Dick's statement, and I further would like his observations on the article, just as katlaughing did. I've met you, you are a fairly smart fella, why don't you make a comment on the subject at hand instead of just trying to provoke. Please stay on topic. Thanks, I will appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:13 PM

Even if you don't care about any of that, you probably have to admit that when the big things happen in your life - births, deaths, the transition to adulthood, marriage - you end up in a church or temple. The question of what human work gets done there is your business.

Can a temple not be one that we make in our minds? It could have trees for walls and sky for roof. If that isn't what was meant then I agree that it is condescending and patronising.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:12 PM

"did you read the linked article? If so, your thoughts, please"

A fence is an uncomfortable place to sit

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:09 PM

I read it. It seemed a little out-dated to me and presumptive. For instance, the Episcopal Church is having a great deal of trouble right now, with large congregations wanting to split because of the liberal stance on gay and lesbian members.

This, I found presumptive: Even if you don't care about any of that, you probably have to admit that when the big things happen in your life - births, deaths, the transition to adulthood, marriage - you end up in a church or temple. The question of what human work gets done there is your business.

In all of my life, each time I have been married, had a child, or lost a loved one, never have I found myself inside a human-made temple or church. Like traditional Native Americans, pagans, etc. I find my spirituality best by honouring what I think of as the god/dess in all things. Churches and temples, to me, seem to set us apart from the spirituality of creation. Yes, they are beautiful and can be uplifting, but I dislike the notion that to speak with "God" or be spiritual one must do so in a building.

A really good organisation which addresses science and religion is at Templeton dot org Here is their mission statement:

The mission of the John Templeton Foundation is to serve as a philanthropic catalyst for scientific discovery on what scientists and philosophers call the 'Big Questions.' Ranging from questions about the laws of nature to the nature of creativity and consciousness, the Foundation's philanthropic vision is derived from Sir John's resolute belief that rigorous research and cutting-edge scholarship is at the very heart of new discoveries and human progress.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 05:45 PM

Agreed, Dick. Did you read the article? Your observations on it, please?

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 05:45 PM

There's certainly nothing preventing a scientist from beleiving. When those beliefs get in the way of the science, however, the result is simply bad science.
    Faith-based science is a ludicrous concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Rumncoke
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 05:40 PM

I found just reading the article is difficult - right from the first words it shows a woollyness of thought.

Who is the 'we' and in which world are they living?

Perhaps it is the style of writing but I was left unsure of what or who the article is actually about. Maybe I'll try to read it again tomorrow - things often look clearer on a second look after sleeping.

Anne

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 05:29 PM

Yes, Jerry, I was a little put off by the condescension as well. But in the main, if that is all we faced from the secular community, I would be very happy. There is an intolerance germinating out there that concerns me greatly. It is called polarization, and it results in witch hunts, Inquisition, and misery. Both sides are very vulnerable to it. If we could but foster a more tolerant view of things, I would be much more comfortable.

By the way, this polarization is intertwined into many aspects of society, not just the secular/religious argument.

By the way, I believe that were Christ about today, he would be in the streets and very radical.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 05:25 PM

Fundamentalist of any sort are a pain. Basically, they tend to carry their brand of it (fundamental thought) to such an excess that little else is allowed inside the framework of their thinking, and everything is seen in the light of that thinking. Science has had and has its moments like that, too. Sad really.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 05:16 PM

Just read the article, Mick and it is a good foundation for a discussion. Being a believer, I guess I found it a little bit condescending... like a pat on the head. But, that's alright. I wait to see if this thread really can remain respectful. I'd just add a few things.

It's not just atheists who find religious fundamentalists obnoxious and disgustingly judgmental. Many, many more liberal Christians (no that is not an oxymoron) find them equally so. A basic tenant of Christianity is not to be judmental. Better it would be to have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the sea.

I have a great respect for the Unitarian Church. One of my sons, who is an Agnostic is a member of a Unitarian Church, and I am very happy about that. Funny thing is, there are times when in discussions groups people start knocking Christians, and my son leaps to their defense, not being one himself.

When my wife were at the Grand Canyon a week ago, an Indian chief gave us a tour. He spoke feelingly about his Gods and how they reveal themselves in the rock formations of the cliffs, and I felt fine with that. As a Geologist, I could as easily give a lecture on the formation of the Grand Canyon with no reference to God.

I don't blame atheists for attacking the excesses of the religious right. I think that if Christ were here, he'd overturn their tables quicker than a wink...

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 05:04 PM

My view exactly, Jerry. I think you will find the article very interesting and the basis for a very solid discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 04:57 PM

One is not necessarily exclusive of the other, as you know, Mick. No, I haven't read the article, but I'll do it right now...

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 04:48 PM

Then make sure even you keep to those rules, and best of luck with the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 04:44 PM

Perhaps you could extend the courtesty of using the whole statement so folks get the context:

I will insist on civility in this thread, and in that sense it will be moderated. Moderated, in this instance will have a very limited definition. It will be limited to any type of personal attack. It will not include vehement disagreement with a position, or defense of one's arguments.

You show your intent by taking the quote out of context, and then using it to shift the premise. Nowhere does my post suggest that I will moderate on the basis of tone. I say quite clearly that it is moderated only to control personal attacks.

You will not be allowed to try shifting the premise again. Please stay on topic, or do not participate. I am after a civil, yet spirited, discussion of the topic and article I have layed out.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 04:32 PM

"I will insist on civility in this thread, and in that sense it will be moderated."

This statement (and twice before) you have said words to the effect that if you don't like the tone or what's said you will close the thread. Tell me then, do other people who start threads have this right even though they may not have an edit button? If so, to whom do they address the request that the thread be closed? And if not, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Roughyed
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 04:26 PM

A very intelligent and interesting article, Big Mick. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I think there is a sense among some rationalists that we are in danger of a religious revival that could ultimately lead to a loss of freedoms for atheists. I understand that this can happen in the US although not usally on this side of the puddle. I read about someone being thrown out of a Vietnam vets organisation when he revealed he was an atheist - I think you would be OK in the British Legion. Strange to me that it was OK to kill people but not believing in god put you beyond the pale.

Also I think that amongst those of us who had a repressive religious childhood (Roman Catholic in my case) there is often a lot of understandable anger about what was done to us as children which doesn't always make for a balanced argument.

My personal dislike is for 'Thought for the day' which is a religious slot in BBC's main radio news programme. It should usually be renamed 'Woolly thought of the day' but having said that I do like Rabbi Lionel Blue (one of the contributors). On most mornings I can be found shouting at the radio. If you're wondering why I don't switch it off, my wife likes it and I think she enjoys winding me up first thing if the truth be told. I think this is probably less to do with dislike of religion and more to do with me being a grumpy old man

I don't agree with excessive proseletysing on either side, but I think it is valuable for both sides to have their beliefs challenged. You do have to be careful though. There are worse things in people's lives than believing nonsense and I would hate to persuade someone to give up any religion if it was the only thing holding them back from alcoholism or drugs for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 04:13 PM

Maggie, did you read the linked article? If so, your thoughts, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 03:57 PM

Science was co-opted by religion years ago, actually. Science is a component of each of the Industrial Religions (christian, jew, muslim). It just depends on what branch of science you're talking about, to get into the arguing.

SRS

Subject: BS: Science without Religion..............
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 03:31 PM

.......is lame. Religion without Science is blind.   Albert Einstein

I am starting this thread as a place to have a discussion. I understand the secular position, I get what atheists say and believe to be true, but I have been disturbed by the need of these folks to attack those of us who have religious beliefs and faith, at every opportunity. I have seen this most graphically in Rabbi Sol's thread about a fraud perpetrated on his religious community. I would ask those that are going to participate in this discussion to first read Jennifer Michael Hecht's excellent essay titled Believer or not, we can coexist. This is not a pro religious essay, and it not terribly lengthy, but sets a great frame for the discussion. I must admit that Hecht answered a number of questions for me regarding the current intolerance on the part of secular folks. I found it interesting that the earlier times of "enlightenment" were a backlash against the Catholic Church, and this current one seems to be a backlash against the fundamentalist groups. But please read it first and then let's go. There is a lot of room for agreement, and a lot of room for spirited discourse.

I will insist on civility in this thread, and in that sense it will be moderated. Moderated, in this instance will have a very limited definition. It will be limited to any type of personal attack. It will not include vehement disagreement with a position, or defense of one's arguments. Thanks, in advance, for complying with this request.

All the best,

Mick