Science and Religion Converge

[jarofthoughts]

Define: "good answer"

One that clearly and logically outlines why one should judge religious claims and scientific claims on two different standards.

As I think I've made clear, I don't think they should be. But apparently certain people disagree with me and I'd like to give them a chance to explain their point of view.

 

[McBell]

One that clearly and logically outlines why one should judge religious claims and scientific claims on two different standards.

As I think I've made clear, I don't think they should be. But apparently certain people disagree with me and I'd like to give them a chance to explain their point of view.

So basically you define "good answer" as "prove god exists"?

 

[jarofthoughts]

So basically you define "good answer" as "prove god exists"?

I didn't state that criteria, but if that is your justification for not applying the same standards to religious claims as you do scientific ones, then yes, that is where we end up.

 

[McBell]

I didn't state that criteria, but if that is your justification for not applying the same standards to religious claims as you do scientific ones, then yes, that is where we end up.

If what is my justification?

 

[sniper762]

sciense AND religion do not HAVE to be contradictory. a good understanding of both will allow one's serinety in their co-exsistence.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed: "A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation."

 

[jarofthoughts]

If what is my justification?

The rhetorical "you".
Let me clarify.
1. I asked why some people think that religious claims should be judged by a different standard than scientific claims.
2. Scientific claims, as we know, are held to the standard of empiricism and evidence. According to me, this is the standard by which we should judge all claims about reality.
3. So, in relation to what you asked, if people claim that the reason that religious claims should get a free pass, as I would call it, and be absolved of these standards because they say these claims come from god, then yes, the next logical step would be to provide evidence that there even is a god.

 

[jarofthoughts]

sciense AND religion do not HAVE to be contradictory. a good understanding of both will allow one's serinety in their co-exsistence.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed: "A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation."

While you have correctly used Einstein's quote here, I have encountered many who have not. So, to avoid misunderstandings, here is the full letter from which the quote is lifted: Albert Einstein: Religion and Science

Also, sociological sciences, neuropsychology and others have provided a more more solid understanding of the values that Einstein considered beyond the scope scientific endeavours in his letter. In other words, we can now explain many of the things that Einstein thought we could not.

 

[painted wolf]

Why the inconsistency?
Why the differing standards?
Why give religion a free pass?

I don't give religion a "free pass"... is simply realize that it has a specific limited role in my life. That is, it informs how I personally relate to nature and my place in the universe and in cultural/moral decision making.

I can not empirically decide how a rainbow makes me feel... I can understand how it forms, how it demonstrates physical realities about the way the world works... but I can't decide that it evokes wonder or measure it. Nor can I decide empirically if it will cheer me up or not.

My faith doesn't tell me why a rainbow exists except to illustrate cultural value lessons... It gives me an insight into what my ancestors thought and placed value on. How should I empirically measure this? Should I only enjoy a story or a song that has scientific merit?

I think Spinoza comes very close to my theism.

If you can suggest a way to empirically measure the value of culture then by all means do share.

wa:do

 

[Skeptisch]

My faith doesn't tell me why a rainbow exists except to illustrate cultural value lessons... It gives me an insight into what my ancestors thought and placed value on. How should I empirically measure this? Should I only enjoy a story or a song that has scientific merit?

You are of course right when you say we can’t empirically measure a thought or a feeling, or a story or a song. From what you tell us about “your” theism and “your” faith, it is clear that it does not harm anybody.

Can you tell us a bit more about your God?

 

[painted wolf]

To avoid thread derailment... http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...97236-ask-pw-about-her-faith.html#post1992296

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

I don't give religion a "free pass"... is simply realize that it has a specific limited role in my life. That is, it informs how I personally relate to nature and my place in the universe and in cultural/moral decision making.

That is, of course, your choice, however you say it "informs" you, which means that it must involve some kind of "information" to the table. How do you judge the validity of that information?

I can not empirically decide how a rainbow makes me feel... I can understand how it forms, how it demonstrates physical realities about the way the world works... but I can't decide that it evokes wonder or measure it. Nor can I decide empirically if it will cheer me up or not.

Not yet, but neuropsychology is still in its infancy. We are getting closer all the time to figuring out how the brain, and therefore the mind, actually works. While we cannot empirically show how and why certain things make us feel certain ways it is not something that I consider to be theoretically impossible, merely hindered by our current lack of understanding.

My faith doesn't tell me why a rainbow exists except to illustrate cultural value lessons... It gives me an insight into what my ancestors thought and placed value on. How should I empirically measure this? Should I only enjoy a story or a song that has scientific merit?

I personally think that people should do whatever they enjoy so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. But as I mentioned, while it may not be possible to empirically measure that experience yet, I do not see it as impossible at some point in the future.

I think Spinoza comes very close to my theism.

I think Spinoza comes very close to Deism, not Theism.

If you can suggest a way to empirically measure the value of culture then by all means do share.

Not completely and fully, but one can to some degree empirically measure the value of a culture. One can measure its success, its staying power, the happiness of its inhabitants, how well it cares for the weak in its midst, what progresses it contributes to the world as a whole, how well it upholds certain values that we think is important (highly subjective, but measurable) and so on and so forth.

 

[Skeptisch]

PW, your “Ask PW about her faith” seems to show that you have a need for belief in belief, whether this is cultural or genetic or a bit of both does not really matter. What does matter is that your belief and faith in your own brand of theism does not harm anyone. But many other faiths do much harm all over the world.

“To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used”.
Richard Dawkins

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further”.
Richard Dawkins

 

[skydivephil]

sciense AND religion do not HAVE to be contradictory. a good understanding of both will allow one's serinety in their co-exsistence.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed: "A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation."

If you read Einstein proprely his defintion of religion was a sense fo wodner of the cosmos. he clearly stated he didn not believe in a personal god.
Examples:


"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”
[FONT=Bookman Old Style, Arial]Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.[/FONT]
“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”
[FONT=Bookman Old Style, Arial]Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam, March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 218.[/FONT]

 

[sniper762]

i agree, but his quote sums it all up that one depends upon the other, regardless of one's belief

 

[jarofthoughts]

i agree, but his quote sums it all up that one depends upon the other, regardless of one's belief

It is an argument for awe and amazement, not for theism. Better make that distinction clear so that no-one misunderstands and thinks that Einstein somehow validated the organized religion of their choice.

 

[sniper762]

Einstein validated neither. simply put, the quote says that science AND religion need each other to be validated. though he claimed to be non-religiously affiliated, he did not discount religion's importance.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Einstein validated neither. simply put, the quote says that science AND religion need each other to be validated. though he claimed to be non-religiously affiliated, he did not discount religion's importance.

When you read the quote in its original context the meaning is quite clear.
This is a normal problem called quote-mining in which people gather sentences said by well-known persona and use them out of context to twist their meaning. Now, I would recommend anyone to actually read Einstein, but please, read more than just the quotes of a web-page...

Here is the passage that the quote is taken from as well as the passages immediately following it:

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

And here is a link to the full article which appeared in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930: Albert Einstein: Religion and Science

 

[gnostic]

I think that science and religion are doing the exact opposite to converging. If anything science has moved further away than the last century.

It is only people like the creationists and intelligent designers who tried to insert their belief into science paradigm. These groups are still ignoring the scientific method, which required there be evidences that are testable, repeatable and that one evidence can be verifiable through other set of evidences from independent sources or discovered by other scientists.

Religion may have some parallel with the modern fields of literature, morality and laws, but they are weak in the understanding the natural laws...and artificial laws (eg bridge or road building, computers, etc).

 

[painted wolf]

That is, of course, your choice, however you say it "informs" you, which means that it must involve some kind of "information" to the table. How do you judge the validity of that information?

It gives me a starting point on which to mull my opinions of issues like morality. It also provides a body of prior thought to study and rituals for meditative/symbolic use. Since it is part of my subconscious it gives me an insight into my unconscious thoughts through dreams and visions.

Not yet, but neuropsychology is still in its infancy. We are getting closer all the time to figuring out how the brain, and therefore the mind, actually works. While we cannot empirically show how and why certain things make us feel certain ways it is not something that I consider to be theoretically impossible, merely hindered by our current lack of understanding.

Again, understanding how a thing works is not the same as developing an appreciation for the thing. I understood the biology of my gestational diabetes and how bacteria produce cellular products... but that didn't stop me from being thankful to the E.coli that made my insulin.

I personally think that people should do whatever they enjoy so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. But as I mentioned, while it may not be possible to empirically measure that experience yet, I do not see it as impossible at some point in the future.

I don't rule that out. The future holds a great many things in possibility.

I think Spinoza comes very close to Deism, not Theism.

Deism is a form of theism..
And it is also very close to Pantheism (all is "god").

Not completely and fully, but one can to some degree empirically measure the value of a culture. One can measure its success, its staying power, the happiness of its inhabitants, how well it cares for the weak in its midst, what progresses it contributes to the world as a whole, how well it upholds certain values that we think is important (highly subjective, but measurable) and so on and so forth.

A lot of highly subjective values for that to be empirical.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

It gives me a starting point on which to mull my opinions of issues like morality. It also provides a body of prior thought to study and rituals for meditative/symbolic use. Since it is part of my subconscious it gives me an insight into my unconscious thoughts through dreams and visions.

That may well be so and I understand that this is something you value in your life. I'm not attacking your faith here, I am merely trying to understand the reasoning behind it as a source of information that you use to guide you. What you said is probably true, but it doesn't address the validity of religion as a source of information.

Again, understanding how a thing works is not the same as developing an appreciation for the thing. I understood the biology of my gestational diabetes and how bacteria produce cellular products... but that didn't stop me from being thankful to the E.coli that made my insulin.

I think we misunderstood each other. I meant that in due time we may be able to map out exactly how the whole idea of attraction works in the first place and find out why certain things appeal to us and not.

Deism is a form of theism..
And it is also very close to Pantheism (all is "god").

I would argue that there is a marked difference though. The Oxford Online Dictionary defines Deism in this manner: belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Whereas Theism is defined in this manner: belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

A lot of highly subjective values for that to be empirical.

wa:do

Granted, but some of them are values that we have agreed are valid on a global scale based on certain universal morals inherent in just about every society on the planet, morals which, by the way, I would claim is a trait of the Evolution of societies.