Science and Religion Converge

[PivotalSyntax]

This is mainly directed at the people who align themselves with science. I don't profess to have a certain side, but I'll explain more at the end.

Why is it that atheists so vehemently reject all God and religion? As I see it, religion, science, and philosophy are all facets of the same gem trying to convey the same point and message. I'm aware that there are certain elements of religion that are incompatible (from an atheists viewpoint) with science and philosophy and logic, because there is simply no evidence for it. By this, I am mainly referring to the presence of "noun-gods." The monotheistic or polytheistic religions that claim a God that can intervene in our worldly realm. But why do these approaches have to be taken literally? I see them out-right rejected by atheists, rather than interpreted for their metaphorical meaning and message. I'm all for debate, but these concepts are too quickly scrapped. Religion should be a highly individual path -- often religious teachings are distorted through history by "authorities" who know no more than the average person.

Science and religion are pointing in the same direction. That is, the Oneness, the Ultimate Reality of everything. Science approaches it by explaining it, breaking it down mechanically, rationally, logically. Religion has a myriad of approaches to explaining reality. But in general it is trying to convey that reality "just is." The Ultimate Reality, the Universe just is. How is that wrong or different from explaining it scientifically? They two different ways of saying the same thing. The Universe speaks to people in different ways. There are 6 billion of us on this planet -- you cannot expect everyone to realize TRUTH by the same method. Let's take a micro example. We're sitting on chairs. Science may describe the solidity of the chair by explaining particle theory, etc. How is that different from saying it "just IS"? Macro-mize (I know, not a word) and it applies to the Universe as a whole. Religions can be distorted and skewed in their meaning. They are adapted through history based on social and political conditions. But the underlying message runs through ALL religions, and through SCIENCE. It simply takes on a different path. I have no issue with religions being refuted, disproved, etc., but in doing so, so many people ignore the UNDERLYING current and profess themselves atheists too quickly.

From my experience, atheists reject God, and then proclaim that particular religion invalid because of that. Religion has more purpose than just the existence of God(s). Science is not flawless either. Look at the inductive problem, for example. And if a scientific theory is thought to be proven, but in the end new discoveries bring us new knowledge that proves the theory obsolete, people do not instantly proclaim all of science to be wrong. Religion is looked at too narrowly. People reject religious views, but fail to explore it on their own -- which is ultimately where real meaning can be derived from.

It's not the refutation and arguments against dogma and other burdens on spirituality that I have a problem with. Those things SHOULD be refuted. They get in the way of actual meaning. I just want to clearly state that.

This post is slanted in view of religion against science, but it's for purpose of debate. The argument could easily be flipped around. (I just don't like the attitude of atheists in general.) Religion is just as guilty as rejecting science, and not realizing that science is trying to point at the same thing religion is trying to point at. World religions are stunted by dogmas and fallacies that I do believe should be eliminated through argument and debate. I hope this makes sense. It makes a lot more sense intuitively where it comes together in my head. It's very hard to find the right words to convey what I'm trying to say, and I am not convinced I did it adequately. It would take a book to do that, I imagine. As for me personally I don't take on a theistic view. I have a highly personalized view that combines pantheism (verb Gods), Oneness, Ultimate Reality, Science, and Philosophy. So I guess I'm not a theist in the "traditional sense". But I understand how all religions are trying to say the same thing.

The goal should be unbiased search for truth!

 

[Child of Atom]

Hello Pivotalsyntax!

I'm of the opinion that science and religion DO NOT converge and in fact they lead in opposite directions in many cases. To say that all religions are saying the same thing is really a discredit to the many differences that religions have. Each religion addresses a different problem while offering a different solution. For example, Christianity claims that the problem is sin and the solution is salvation through Jesus Christ. Buddhism claims the problem is ignorance and selfish desire and the solution is the Noble Eightfold Path. Every other religion has a different problem/solution setup. To ignore this is to ignore a very crucial fact about reality. I know that it FEELS better to believe that all religions are essentially the same, but the facts do not support this view.

Now, back to how science and religion diverge. One thing that many religions do have in common is the view that humanity is somehow intimately connected to what lies at the center of all being. To put it another way, we are somehow specially important and have an important role to play in the cosmic drama. Unfortunately, we simply don't know that. The role of science is to find out whether that's true or not rather than to approach the question with the demand that it be true, as religions propose. If you look at the progress of science, it seems to be diverging from this traditional religious view as time goes on. Galileo discovered that the Earth was not the center of the Universe as the Vatican officially proclaimed. Darwin proposed that mankind had evolved rather than having been created by God as the Victorians would have liked to believe. Freud displaced us in another way on a psychological level. The Hubble Telescope revealed how utterly insignificant we really are on a cosmic scale. The entire history of science has been diverging from the view that we're important in the Universe. We're being presented with a mechanical view of ourselves that we don't know how to take in.

I think that the challenge of science is not that it's just reproducing bodies of knowledge that we already have access to, but that it's giving us an entirely new perspective on ourselves that's a real challenge to our imaginations. If all it was doing is was repeating what religions already say about us then there would be something redundant about it.

 

[PivotalSyntax]

I'm of the opinion that science and religion DO NOT converge and in fact they lead in opposite directions in many cases. To say that all religions are saying the same thing is really a discredit to the many differences that religions have. Each religion addresses a different problem while offering a different solution. For example, Christianity claims that the problem is sin and the solution is salvation through Jesus Christ. Buddhism claims the problem is ignorance and selfish desire and the solution is the Noble Eightfold Path. Every other religion has a different problem/solution setup. To ignore this is to ignore a very crucial fact about reality. I know that it FEELS better to believe that all religions are essentially the same, but the facts do not support this view.

These surface differences again go back to the analogy of the many facets of the gem. On the surface they represent many different sides, interpretations, etc., but this surface makes up the least volume of the gem. Underneath these surfaces is the STRUCTURE of the gem. The main body of the gem is contained under these facets. It is the underlying current, or message. Ultimately are they all not pointing at being one with the Ultimate Reality? Christianity desires this through virtuous action (or salvation through Jesus Christ.) The Kingdom of Heaven (in my understanding) is very similar to this ONE, as Jesus taught the Kingdom is here in the present in this very moment, if only we allow it to be. Buddhism wants to reach this ONE through the cessation of suffering, and the elimination of the Ego so that we can see that our Self is really not distinct from this reality. (Nirvana)

Now, back to how science and religion diverge. One thing that many religions do have in common is the view that humanity is somehow intimately connected to what lies at the center of all being. To put it another way, we are somehow specially important and have an important role to play in the cosmic drama. Unfortunately, we simply don't know that. The role of science is to find out whether that's true or not rather than to approach the question with the demand that it be true, as religions propose. If you look at the progress of science, it seems to be diverging from this traditional religious view as time goes on. Galileo discovered that the Earth was not the center of the Universe as the Vatican officially proclaimed. Darwin proposed that mankind had evolved rather than having been created by God as the Victorians would have liked to believe. Freud displaced us in another way on a psychological level. The Hubble Telescope revealed how utterly insignificant we really are on a cosmic scale. The entire history of science has been diverging from the view that we're important in the Universe. We're being presented with a mechanical view of ourselves that we don't know how to take in.

Not all religions profess to be at the center of all that is the Universe. I agree with you that our role in this Universal Drama is shrinking and shrinking as we find out more and more. I don't profess that we have any special purpose. Perhaps this is one of the misconceptions of religion that should be eliminated to find the truth? I don't see this as an inherent problem to the central goal of religion.

I think that the challenge of science is not that it's just reproducing bodies of knowledge that we already have access to, but that it's giving us an entirely new perspective on ourselves that's a real challenge to our imaginations. If all it was doing is was repeating what religions already say about us then there would be something redundant about it.

That's exactly my point! Science is not repeating what religion is saying! It's giving a new perspective, one that challenges us to perceive in new, extraordinary ways. My criticism is that the science isn't willing to look through the lens of religion, and vice versa. If they looked through each other's lens, they would see that they are focused on the same thing.

 

[Skwim]

Why is it that atheists so vehemently reject all God and religion?

The utter lack of reasonable evidence, just as with fire breathing dragons and 4" fairies.

Science and religion are pointing in the same direction.

Hardly, although it's a fanciful notion that fence sitters like to hold close to their breast---kind of like a Cracker Jack badge of rationality.

From my experience, atheists reject God, and then proclaim that particular religion invalid because of that.

Gross generalization, but if straw men are your forte then I guess it's as good as any.

Religion is just as guilty as rejecting science, and not realizing that science is trying to point at the same thing religion is trying to point at.

Nah. Science is "pointing at" an understanding of the universe whereas religion is "pointing at" calming the fear of the unknown. Not at all alike.

 

[Child of Atom]

These surface differences again go back to the analogy of the many facets of the gem. On the surface they represent many different sides, interpretations, etc., but this surface makes up the least volume of the gem. Underneath these surfaces is the STRUCTURE of the gem. The main body of the gem is contained under these facets. It is the underlying current, or message. Ultimately are they all not pointing at being one with the Ultimate Reality? Christianity desires this through virtuous action (or salvation through Jesus Christ.) The Kingdom of Heaven (in my understanding) is very similar to this ONE, as Jesus taught the Kingdom is here in the present in this very moment, if only we allow it to be. Buddhism wants to reach this ONE through the cessation of suffering, and the elimination of the Ego so that we can see that our Self is really not distinct from this reality. (Nirvana)

Not all religions profess to be at the center of all that is the Universe. I agree with you that our role in this Universal Drama is shrinking and shrinking as we find out more and more. I don't profess that we have any special purpose. Perhaps this is one of the misconceptions of religion that should be eliminated to find the truth? I don't see this as an inherent problem to the central goal of religion.

That's exactly my point! Science is not repeating what religion is saying! It's giving a new perspective, one that challenges us to perceive in new, extraordinary ways. My criticism is that the science isn't willing to look through the lens of religion, and vice versa. If they looked through each other's lens, they would see that they are focused on the same thing.

I understand your analogy of the gem, I just don't agree with it. Saying that the Ultimate Reality is God is very different from saying that it's Nirvana. God has a personality with distinct characteristics and motives whereas Nirvana is the cessation of personality and distinctions, not to mention it's essentially non-theistic. Christianity does not accept the view that we can be one with the Ultimate Reality, this is really more of an Eastern notion. God and man are separate in the Christian view. We can only be close to God, we cannot become God.

The problem with using terms like "ultimate reality" and "oneness" is that they're too vague and they're not really describing anything specifically. What do you mean by Ultimate Reality and Oneness? Are they really descriptive terms or are they just satisfying some emotional desire you have to make everything fit neatly into simple concepts?

I think it's a mistake to assume science and religion are focused on the same thing. Religion imposes supernatural concepts onto reality whereas science attempts to explain physical reality as it actually is. Religion seeks to satisfy our emotional needs and calls "truth" whatever FEELS good (heaven, God, etc.) whereas science searches for truth without regard to our emotional biases.

 

[PivotalSyntax]

The utter lack of reasonable evidence, just as with fire breathing dragons and 4" fairies.

Hardly, although it's a fanciful notion that fence sitters like to hold close to their breast---kind of like a Cracker Jack badge of rationality.

Nah. Science is "pointing at" an understanding of the universe whereas religion is "pointing at" calming the fear of the unknown. Not at all alike.

You failed to read my post -- your refutations are general and are simply restatements of the exact things I was addressing. Repeating the statements that I addressed is rather dogmatic. You're claiming lack of evidence on behalf of religion, but I fail to see any sound arguments in your post. At least nothing constructive.

Gross generalization, but if straw men are your forte then I guess it's as good as any.

I certainly didn't mean all atheists. It's just a prevailing attitude I find among many that I encounter. Sorry for the miscommunication.

 

[joea]

Was man created by accident...we came from nothing, never born never died ?. The planets came from nothingness ( Black hole )...so I assume then, we are all one..oneness ?

 

[PivotalSyntax]

I understand your analogy of the gem, I just don't agree with it. Saying that the Ultimate Reality is God is very different from saying that it's Nirvana. God has a personality with distinct characteristics and motives whereas Nirvana is the cessation of personality and distinctions, not to mention it's essentially non-theistic. Christianity does not accept the view that we can be one with the Ultimate Reality, this is really more of an Eastern notion. God and man are separate in the Christian view. We can only be close to God, we cannot become God.

Yes, I understand where you come from Child of Atom. Perhaps God is the personification of Oneness, or of Reality. Perhaps a Christian cannot become one with God, but as you have stated, he can grow closer to God. Perhaps the apex of this relationship -- when a Christian comes to know God to the fullest -- is the extent which is analogous to a Buddhist's enlightenment. God's motives could described as the natural laws (in terms of science) or as the flow of the Universe (in more eastern terms). I use indefinite terms, because as I have stated, it is highly personal and open to interpretation.

The problem with using terms like "ultimate reality" and "oneness" is that they're too vague and they're not really describing anything specifically. What do you mean by Ultimate Reality and Oneness? Are they really descriptive terms or are they just satisfying some emotional desire you have to make everything fit neatly into simple concepts?

I should have defined these earlier. Excuse me for this. I see these terms in two ways: descriptive or rationally, and intuitively or emotionally. Obviously it is futile to describe how I know I see it intuitively. That affords no proof, and how do you convey intuition? So I will attempt my best at my description, but I am still learning the fullness of what exactly this Oneness entails. The Oneness is the Harmony of everything. It is how everything flows together and functions. Imagine the Universe with no sentient beings. Everything just flows, like a river. It happens. But this balance... this flow still remains when you add sentient beings and strife and conflict. It simply becomes a part of this Everything. In scientific terms, the Oneness is the natural laws that govern the Universe. They are the laws of physics, the rules of mathematics, the proofs of geometry. It is much akin to Tao. There is also the metaphysical aspect of it, but I don't feel that I can describe that in my own words well enough. I think it best to remain silent when one is not ready to speak.

I think it's a mistake to assume science and religion are focused on the same thing. Religion imposes supernatural concepts onto reality whereas science attempts to explain physical reality as it actually is. Religion seeks to satisfy our emotional needs and calls "truth" whatever FEELS good (heaven, God, etc.) whereas science searches for truth without regard to our emotional biases.

Supernatural concepts can explain reality as it actually is. It's not trying to explain the SCIENTIFIC LAWS. It is trying to explain REALITY. That is a distinction that I think is often blurred. A poem can convey so much meaning, yet do it metaphorically with no regard for science. Science is a more direct method, and this appeals to certain people. Based off of how what you have said, the scientific way appeals to you. It is true that part of religion is to satisfy our emotional needs. That is a good thing though. And as regards religions only calling "truth" what FEELS good, I think that is too much of a generalization. Buddhism says life is full of suffering, after all.

With warmth,

-PS.

 

[Tathagata]

This is just more wishful relativism that erroneously tries to claim that all religions/philosophies are essentially the same. False. I find it especially surprising that you chose the two most opposite religions and tried to show how they are the same. You could've at least picked Islam to show how they are similar. But Buddhism is quite the opposite of Christianity.


How about you accept that there are a great diversity of religions/philosophies that all have their own take on reality. It's much better to accept that there are many different philosophies rather than pretend that they are the same.


.

 

[PivotalSyntax]

This is just more wishful relativism that erroneously tries to claim that all religions/philosophies are essentially the same. False. I find it especially surprising that you chose the two most opposite religions and tried to show how they are the same. You could've at least picked Islam to show how they are similar. But Buddhism is quite the opposite of Christianity.

I didn't pick Christianity and Buddhism to compare. Those two were brought up, my friend. Perhaps this is wishful relativism, but debate is a discursive method for fleshing out what is true or false. Still, I'm not convinced that it is erroneous. I realize relativism is well... relativism, but perhaps you could prove actually provide me with evidence that shows me erroneous, and I will throw down the relativist walls a bit.

How about you accept that there are a great diversity of religions/philosophies that all have their own take on reality. It's much better to accept that there are many different philosophies rather than pretend that they are the same.

I'm not saying they're the same. I quite acknowledge the wonderful diversity. That doesn't mean that there can't be an undercurrent running through them all, or that they can't be facets of one central truth.

 

[Child of Atom]

Yes, I understand where you come from Child of Atom. Perhaps God is the personification of Oneness, or of Reality. Perhaps a Christian cannot become one with God, but as you have stated, he can grow closer to God. Perhaps the apex of this relationship -- when a Christian comes to know God to the fullest -- is the extent which is analogous to a Buddhist's enlightenment. God's motives could described as the natural laws (in terms of science) or as the flow of the Universe (in more eastern terms). I use indefinite terms, because as I have stated, it is highly personal and open to interpretation.

I should have defined these earlier. Excuse me for this. I see these terms in two ways: descriptive or rationally, and intuitively or emotionally. Obviously it is futile to describe how I know I see it intuitively. That affords no proof, and how do you convey intuition? So I will attempt my best at my description, but I am still learning the fullness of what exactly this Oneness entails. The Oneness is the Harmony of everything. It is how everything flows together and functions. Imagine the Universe with no sentient beings. Everything just flows, like a river. It happens. But this balance... this flow still remains when you add sentient beings and strife and conflict. It simply becomes a part of this Everything. In scientific terms, the Oneness is the natural laws that govern the Universe. They are the laws of physics, the rules of mathematics, the proofs of geometry. It is much akin to Tao. There is also the metaphysical aspect of it, but I don't feel that I can describe that in my own words well enough. I think it best to remain silent when one is not ready to speak.

Supernatural concepts can explain reality as it actually is. It's not trying to explain the SCIENTIFIC LAWS. It is trying to explain REALITY. That is a distinction that I think is often blurred. A poem can convey so much meaning, yet do it metaphorically with no regard for science. Science is a more direct method, and this appeals to certain people. Based off of how what you have said, the scientific way appeals to you. It is true that part of religion is to satisfy our emotional needs. That is a good thing though. And as regards religions only calling "truth" what FEELS good, I think that is too much of a generalization. Buddhism says life is full of suffering, after all.

With warmth,

-PS.

Okay, I see what you mean. The problem is that most religions don't claim to be highly personal and open to interpretation. They claim absolute truth that is applicable to all people across the board. I understand that you wish religious myth was interpreted metaphorically, but this simply isn't the reality of it. Furthermore, using indefinite terms means that you can make anything pretty much MEAN anything you want: knowing God becomes the same as Enlightenment, etc. I use terms in the way that Christians and Buddhists understand them.

You see order and harmony in the universe where I see chaos and conflict. I guess this is just a difference of interpretation.

I don't believe that supernatural concepts explain reality in any way, shape, or form. Can you give me a supernatural concept that accurately explains reality? I think you confuse explanation with expression. Poems, art, and metaphors express different things but they do not explain what reality actually is. Using metaphors like "God" or "Nirvana" does little to further our explanation of reality.

 

[Tathagata]

I didn't pick Christianity and Buddhism to compare. Those two were brought up, my friend. Perhaps this is wishful relativism, but debate is a discursive method for fleshing out what is true or false. Still, I'm not convinced that it is erroneous. I realize relativism is well... relativism, but perhaps you could prove actually provide me with evidence that shows me erroneous, and I will throw down the relativist walls a bit.

I'm not saying they're the same. I quite acknowledge the wonderful diversity. That doesn't mean that there can't be an undercurrent running through them all, or that they can't be facets of one central truth.

Fair enough.

 

[PivotalSyntax]

Okay, I see what you mean. The problem is that most religions don't claim to be highly personal and open to interpretation. They claim absolute truth that is applicable to all people across the board. I understand that you wish religious myth was interpreted metaphorically, but this simply isn't the reality of it. Furthermore, using indefinite terms means that you can make anything pretty much MEAN anything you want: knowing God becomes the same as Enlightenment, etc. I use terms in the way that Christians and Buddhists understand them.

As regards to religions being absolute, that is where they do indeed fall short, and that is why they have become essentially what they are today. Unfortunate. (Not all, of course.) As regards what I'm saying, I think I'm falling into deep subjectivism, which is what I would have liked to avoid. I guess it is unavoidable in this situation, as what I'm arguing for is more a matter of "wisdom" per se rather than "knowledge". And subjectivism can't be proven or refuted. Hmmm. Perhaps someone knows a way of getting out of this subjectivism? This is why I love debates. You always learn!

You see order and harmony in the universe where I see chaos and conflict. I guess this is just a difference of interpretation.

Depends on what I'm looking at.

I don't believe that supernatural concepts explain reality in any way, shape, or form. Can you give me a supernatural concept that accurately explains reality? I think you confuse explanation with expression. Poems, art, and metaphors express different things but they do not explain what reality actually is. Using metaphors like "God" or "Nirvana" does little to further our explanation of reality.

If you define "supernatural," sure. As for expression not equaling an explanation of reality, I don't think that is entirely true. But if there is no truth of reality to expression (whether it be artistic, metaphorical, etc.) then it becomes essentially meaningless. Usually art or metaphors convey a truth THROUGH expression. But this is going more into philosophy of aesthetics. Things need not necessarily be explained the same way. Let's look at an example.

Let's use a bird flying through the air. An average observer would say "The bird is flying." His scientific friend may say, "The aerodynamics of the bird's wings give lift, and it's hollow bones allow for easier flight." and he could go on about all the details of flight. Then the artistic friend may say "Oh the bird strives on loftily through the mighty air, cleaving it's way through the sky like a black dagger." Are all statements true? Do they all explain reality? I think so.

 

[Skwim]

You failed to read my post -- your refutations are general and are simply restatements of the exact things I was addressing.

Restatements, huh. Well you're the one who asked the question that prompted my, "The utter lack of reasonable evidence, just as with fire breathing dragons and 4" fairies" answer. If you don't like the answers you get then I suggest you stop asking questions.

Re. my "restatement." "Hardly, although it's a fanciful notion that fence sitters like to hold close to their breast---kind of like a Cracker Jack badge of rationality." Exactly where did you address anything close to the subject or my observation?

Re. my next "restatement." "Science is "pointing at" an understanding of the universe whereas religion is "pointing at" calming the fear of the unknown. Not at all alike. Now granted I did pick up on your grammatical "pointing at" device, but considering that the aim of the threads on the forum are to generate discussion isn't pretty disingenuous to complain when others address your points? If not, then just what do you expect we should do with your OP pronouncements?

You're claiming lack of evidence on behalf of religion,

No. I'm claiming an utter lack of reasonable evidence.

but I fail to see any sound arguments in your post. At least nothing constructive.

So what is it you want? You want me to prove that atheists find an utter lack of reasonable evidence for god? All I've done here was to challenge your assertions, meaning I don't believe what you said and am waiting for you to show us why they're valid. The burden of proof is on he who makes the assertion, not he who questions it. The ball is still in your court PS.

 

[PivotalSyntax]

Re. my "restatement." "Hardly, although it's a fanciful notion that fence sitters like to hold close to their breast---kind of like a Cracker Jack badge of rationality." Exactly where did you address anything close to the subject or my observation?

Re. my next "restatement." "Science is "pointing at" an understanding of the universe whereas religion is "pointing at" calming the fear of the unknown. Not at all alike. Now granted I did pick up on your grammatical "pointing at" device, but considering that the aim of the threads on the forum are to generate discussion isn't pretty disingenuous to complain when others address your points? If not, then just what do you expect we should do with your OP pronouncements?

The whole original post addresses this. It deals with people just brushing religion aside as fanciful fairy tales.

No. I'm claiming an utter lack of reasonable evidence.

That's irrelevant to the fact that you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims.

So what is it you want? You want me to prove that atheists find an utter lack of reasonable evidence for god? All I've done here was to challenge your assertions, meaning I don't believe what you said and am waiting for you to show us why they're valid. The burden of proof is on he who makes the assertion, not he who questions it. The ball is still in your court PS.

This thread isn't about proving or disproving God. You haven't challenged my assertions at all. You've blatantly claimed that they are wrong -- anyone can do that. A real challenge involves something disproves my original claim. You don't "believe" what I said, yet belief of religion is what you're railing against. The ball is long out of my court.

 

[Child of Atom]

If you define "supernatural," sure. As for expression not equaling an explanation of reality, I don't think that is entirely true. But if there is no truth of reality to expression (whether it be artistic, metaphorical, etc.) then it becomes essentially meaningless. Usually art or metaphors convey a truth THROUGH expression. But this is going more into philosophy of aesthetics. Things need not necessarily be explained the same way. Let's look at an example.

Let's use a bird flying through the air. An average observer would say "The bird is flying." His scientific friend may say, "The aerodynamics of the bird's wings give lift, and it's hollow bones allow for easier flight." and he could go on about all the details of flight. Then the artistic friend may say "Oh the bird strives on loftily through the mighty air, cleaving it's way through the sky like a black dagger." Are all statements true? Do they all explain reality? I think so.

Okay, you have a point. Poetry can be used to explain reality through expression. The quality of explanation differs though. The truth statement is "the bird flew through the air". Saying the air is mighty or that the bird cleaved through it like a black dagger does little to add to the original truth statement, it merely decorates it with poetic imagery. And if the poetic friend was claiming that his statement was not metaphorical but that it was factual in the scientific sense, then he would be wrong. The scientific statement about aerodynamics does add to the truth statement so it has a finer quality of truth to it. The primary goal of poetry is not factual truth but emotional expression.

Anyway, religions don't claim to be poetic. Most of them claim literal truth in the scientific sense and so they are wrong. Even if they're taken metaphorically they don't accurately explain reality. Saying that "God did it!" does not have the same truth quality as explaining how the fundamental forces of nature interacted to create the universe. If you want to use God as a metaphor for the laws of nature, fine. But it shouldn't supplant them. You could say that the laws of nature interact with one another like the thoughts of a mighty inventor. This is not how religious people speak though. If it were then mythology would be little less than poetry. Instead it is used as an actual explanation for reality. You see the difference?

 

[Skwim]

No. I'm claiming an utter lack of reasonable evidence.

That's irrelevant to the fact that you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims.

Hey, if you don't believe my answer to your question about atheists, so be it. No sweat off my brow.

You haven't challenged my assertions at all. You've blatantly claimed that they are wrong -- anyone can do that.

Oh, I see! You don't want to defend your assertions, you want others to make counter assertions and then defend those. Sorry but I don't play bait-and-switch games.

 

[PivotalSyntax]

Oh, I see! You don't want to defend your assertions, you want others to make counter assertions and then defend those. Sorry but I don't play bait-and-switch games.

Why would I defend my assertions against arguments that don't exist? You can come in here and say that I haven't "proved" anything yet, but that means absolutely nothing. Someone with ill intentions or someone obstinate and unwilling to shift their opinion could simply say I haven't proven anything, no matter what assertions I make. So far you've convinced me that my arguments are fairly sound because you haven't proven any of it false. Unfortunately you've gotten things backwards, and expect me to continuously make more and more assertions to prove my original assertions. It doesn't work that way. How would I know when I've afforded enough evidence to convince you of proof? I can't. Your claims are absurd.

Okay, you have a point. Poetry can be used to explain reality through expression. The quality of explanation differs though. The truth statement is "the bird flew through the air". Saying the air is mighty or that the bird cleaved through it like a black dagger does little to add to the original truth statement, it merely decorates it with poetic imagery. And if the poetic friend was claiming that his statement was not metaphorical but that it was factual in the scientific sense, then he would be wrong. The scientific statement about aerodynamics does add to the truth statement so it has a finer quality of truth to it. The primary goal of poetry is not factual truth but emotional expression.

It still does have truth to it, and that's the point. Whether the quality of truth is lesser, or whether science adds more truth to the statement, is up to the person I suppose. If the poet claimed it was factual in the scientific sense, that would be absurd. That's where certain religions fall down. They try to impede on science when they have no right to. They don't understand what type of truth they're trying to convey. So you're completely correct about that. But it goes the same for science. If the scientist claimed his explanation correct in the poetic sense, I think that would be absurd to a degree. (I say to a degree, because some proponent of modern art could say a scientific explanation could be poetic, but that's more of a question for aesthetics than this.)

Anyway, religions don't claim to be poetic. Most of them claim literal truth in the scientific sense and so they are wrong. Even if they're taken metaphorically they don't accurately explain reality. Saying that "God did it!" does not have the same truth quality as explaining how the fundamental forces of nature interacted to create the universe. If you want to use God as a metaphor for the laws of nature, fine. But it shouldn't supplant them. You could say that the laws of nature interact with one another like the thoughts of a mighty inventor. This is not how religious people speak though. If it were then mythology would be little less than poetry. Instead it is used as an actual explanation for reality. You see the difference?

I think the key thing to note here is that they claim literal truth in the scientific sense. If they claim literal truth in the religious sense, like they should, this whole science vs. religion debate would be a non-issue. Because science could go on conveying its truths, and religion could go on conveying its truths. Two sides of the same coin. I think science also has the problem of trying to disprove religion further than it's capable. It can only disprove religion insomuch as religion tries to be scientific, or goes into scientific boundaries. Otherwise, science has no business critiquing another system. (And vice versa, of course.)

As to whether saying "God did it." has less truth quality than a scientific explanation, I think the question is a lot more complicated than you've made it out to be. In the scientific sense, saying "God did it," is highly inaccurate and false and absurd; you are correct. But in the religious sense it could be the absolute truth. I guess what I'm reaching at is that these are two different systems. Science is not a flawless system (scientists have basically mutually agreed to ignore the induction problem), and nor is religion. These systems should be critiqued from within. Another system should not be used to critique the logic of another system. UNLESS one system crosses into the boundary of another system (ie. arguments of God's power contradict natural laws or something scientific.)

 

[Skeptisch]

Title: Spiritual Luftmensch

Would the English translation for “Spiritual Luftmensch” be “Spiritual Airhead”?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why is it that atheists so vehemently reject all God and religion?

I reject neither god nor religion. However, I do accept them for what they are - constructs of the human mind which have developed in response to various psychological and sociological phenomena and processes.

Why would I reject something when I can understand it?