Is Science Necessary...

[RestlessSoul]

You actually think " material gain", "satisfaction of worldly desires" is the only alternative to
pie in the sky?

You actually think pie in the sky is the only alternative to a life spent in pursuit of worldly desires?

 

[leroy]

to Religion?

Does Religion have to justify itself to science?

History, Science, Phylosophy, Religion, Logic, ethics and other sources of knowledge . are complementary to each other, and sometimes they can work together to achieve a goal

But they can work on their own, they don’t need each other to work properly.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Material gain is generally a reference to stuff. Money, cars, TVs, toys, etc. Neither solace nor society fall under the category of material gain. Unless you consider charity worked, contributing to build a fairer society, or being loved and loving in return to all be material gain?

Okay then. So unselfish acts are more rewarding than selfish ones. On that we can agree.

 

[ppp]

Okay then. So unselfish acts are more rewarding than selfish ones. On that we can agree.

I would say that they satisfy different aspects of the whole person. One cannot support one's friend, family or society without internal health and stability.

 

[Audie]

You actually think pie in the sky is the only alternative to a life spent in pursuit of worldly desires?

Call it what you like then.

 

[Yazata]

Is Science necessary to Religion?

I don't think so. Science restricts itself to what is revealed by the conventional bodily senses (and to their instrumental extensions) and to the relationships between those things.

Religion is more wide ranging than that. It speaks to the subjective side of human life (such as beauty and love) it speaks to the ethical (to right and wrong) and it speaks to the metaphysical (in its several senses).

Does Religion have to justify itself to Science?

Again I don't think so. (I'm not sure how it could, short of some sort of reductionism.) Religion arguably does have to be consistent with science, but that's a different thing.

 

[Nakosis]

I didn't say that I ought to pursue my goals. My goals just are. Sustenance, safety, society, sleep, solace, sex, and Star Trek*. I don't choose them. They are just a part of human facticity. All of my other goals devolve from those.

Similarly, morality is also an evolved trait in social species. Ethologists rate it on the metrics of empathy, equity, reciprocity and cooperation.

* I couldn't think an word for fun and enjoyment that started with 'S'

I also don't see us choosing our goals. I think though religion tries to justify some goals through a belief that this internal desire was put there by Go

I don't think so. Science restricts itself to what is revealed by the senses (and their instrumental extensions) and to the relationships between those things.

Religion is more wide ranging than that. Religion speaks to the more emotional side of human life (beauty and love), it speaks to ethics (right and wrong) and it speaks to metaphysics (in its several senses).​

Again I don't think so. I do think that religion needs to be consistent with science, but that's a different thing.

Actually science has had a lot of input lately with regard to the process of emption. They identified the various neurotransmitters which cause our feelings.

 

[1213]

...
Does Religion have to justify itself to science?

Do you mean Fauci, when you say science?

Science is quite arbitrary, it has often been wrong. Or the people who speak in the name of science have often been wrong.

I think religious beliefs should be in harmony with all that we can observe. But, in that it would be good to understand what is really correct observation and what is just subjective interpretation.

 

[Audie]

Do you mean Fauci, when you say science?

Science is quite arbitrary, it has often been wrong. Or the people who speak in the name of science have often been wrong.

I think religious beliefs should be in harmony with all that we can observe. But, in that it would be good to understand what is really correct observation and what is just subjective interpretation.

Here is the acid test for those who
walk the walk-
Christians who can look at the facts
and acknowledge that Noahs ark
never existed, there was no flood.

 

[Nakosis]

Do you mean Fauci, when you say science?

Science is quite arbitrary, it has often been wrong. Or the people who speak in the name of science have often been wrong.

I think religious beliefs should be in harmony with all that we can observe. But, in that it would be good to understand what is really correct observation and what is just subjective interpretation.

I don't mean anything. I see religious folks making scientific claims with regard to their religious belief.
I want to understand why they think doing so is needed.

As you say, you feel there should be harmony between religion and reality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No.
Non-overlapping magisteria is what Steve Gould called it.

I think NOMA was wrong-headed, but I'm curious which take on it you follow for issues where, traditionally, science and religion have conflicting claims:

- they're the proper domain of science. Religion should shrink its scope.

- they're the proper domain of religion. Science should shrink its scope.

Take the history of life: evolution and creationism are in conflict. NOMA suggests that not only is one of these positions wrong, but it has overstepped the bounds of what it can properly comment on. Which one do you think has overstepped?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does Religion have to justify itself to science?

Only if it cares about ensuring that it's true.

... so generally no.

 

[Colt]

to Religion?

Does Religion have to justify itself to science?

Science and spirituality complement each other. One can be a scientist and faithful to God. Either one perused exclusively is one-eyed which distorts reality.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Just dont try to push it into public polivy

This! If religion insists on informing public policy it absolutely is answerable to science.

 

[PruePhillip]

I think NOMA was wrong-headed, but I'm curious which take on it you follow for issues where, traditionally, science and religion have conflicting claims:

- they're the proper domain of science. Religion should shrink its scope.

- they're the proper domain of religion. Science should shrink its scope.

Take the history of life: evolution and creationism are in conflict. NOMA suggests that not only is one of these positions wrong, but it has overstepped the bounds of what it can properly comment on. Which one do you think has overstepped?

I am not Catholic, and don't see the Catholic church as having much relevance to the Gospels.
but...
The story of Galileo is instructive. Hes seen as confronting the Papacy. And it's very wrong-headed.
The Pope supported Galileo and took his discoveries to the world. The church suitably impressed
the emerpor of China.
But the real issue was that Galileo abused his priveleges with the Pope, and made fun of him in a
book. At the point the church was ambivalent about Copernicus and made it clear that Galileo could
not prove his theory that the earth moves - therefore Galileo's ideas would remain as theories or ways
of explaining. Like what Galileo said, 'The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.'

And that's it. Religion should shrink in the natural sciences, but religion gets little of this from the bible,
rather, from Greek and Roman ideas.

 

[PruePhillip]

The bible is right about what?
A very substantial part of what it says
is so clearly incorrect that to try to
claim its " correct" is nonsensical.

And what does the bible say about the creation of the universe? Just this, 'In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth.'
In that order.
You, the reader are then positioned upon this early earth - it is dark, sterile and oceanic. The
earth was truly a sister planet to Venus - both were oceanic cloud planets. Hot, wet and dark.
And God cleared the skies - and earth didn't suffer the fate of Venus.
And God caused the continents to rise.
And God 'commanded' the earth to create life.
How did God do all this? He commanded. What is to command? The laws of physics.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I see a number of religious folks wanting to use science to justify their belief. Just wondering why.

Have you seen this: "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue." It refers to people who don't hold a particular value giving it lip service because the world respects that value. By hypocritically praising a principle they don't hold, they are acknowledging that they can't actually say what they believe. We see this, for example, when people protesting abortion rights and citing the mental health of the mother, or that the fetus is human - things people might admire them for - when their actual reason is nothing more than that they believe their god wants them to oppose abortion, but they realize that they can't give that as a reason anywhere outside of church.

If an apologist can connect science or reason to faith, it elevates the status of faith in the community at large, which has been important to the church in trying to achieve parity with secular institutions and activities. This they believe is valuable to proselytizing in a world that respects science, and would be unimpressed with a worldview that contradicted it.

This seems to me like a likely motivation for these creationist site making specious, sciency arguments, especially to their own, who might be drifting away because of science's great triumphs often in contradiction to religious dicta. The church wants the cache that science brings.

The other prong of that effort is to try to reduce science, atheism, secular humanism, and the like to the level of religion by using words like religion, worship, and faith to describe these things.

So, if science supports faith, and if empiricism is just a form of religion, they imply, then they are equals, alternative respectable ways of knowing, and there is no reason for one to be admitted into the public schools and not the other.

 

[Audie]

And what does the bible say about the creation of the universe? Just this, 'In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth.'
In that order.
You, the reader are then positioned upon this early earth - it is dark, sterile and oceanic. The
earth was truly a sister planet to Venus - both were oceanic cloud planets. Hot, wet and dark.
And God cleared the skies - and earth didn't suffer the fate of Venus.
And God caused the continents to rise.
And God 'commanded' the earth to create life.
How did God do all this? He commanded. What is to command? The laws of physics.

The law of physics that the superrnatural
can tell mountains what to do.

 

[PruePhillip]

The law of physics that the superrnatural
can tell mountains what to do.

Sure, how to 'tell' mountains what to do.
Set in motion a set of physical laws which will enact the building and errosion of mountains.
When you think about it - it's super clever: here is a huge metal orb spinning on its axis to create day and night.
Orbiting a nuclear furnace so that it won't plunge into it.
Hurtling through the dark, cold and radiation of space with nothing more than the thinnest of atmosphere to protect.
Shifting continents which create mountain chains and keep the oceans from filling with sediment.
The parameters for life, matter, galaxies set precisely.

It's amazing - and there's two ways of looking at it. I love both the science of it, and the purpose of it.

 

[Audie]

Sure, how to 'tell' mountains what to do.
Set in motion a set of physical laws which will enact the building and errosion of mountains.
When you think about it - it's super clever: here is a huge metal orb spinning on its axis to create day and night.
Orbiting a nuclear furnace so that it won't plunge into it.
Hurtling through the dark, cold and radiation of space with nothing more than the thinnest of atmosphere to protect.
Shifting continents which create mountain chains and keep the oceans from filling with sediment.
The parameters for life, matter, galaxies set precisely.

It's amazing - and there's two ways of looking at it. I love both the science of it, and the purpose of it.

I dont think you know much science, sorry.