Apparently, it's also an orphan (no parents), a political independent (no party affiliation), a pacifist (won't fight), and a bachelor (not married).
Edit: like I said before, applying these sorts of terms in this way is less than useful.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science = Atheistic?
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
Edit: like I said before, applying these sorts of terms in this way is less than useful.
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
But the problem with this is that it's PURE SPECULATION, and therefore inadmissible as logical argument!!
A pink hippo could zoom here in a spacecraft from Alpha Centauri and land on the National Mall, but until it happens I'm not going to worry about it.
There's enough to worry about without wasting time on hypotheticals.
(BTW, I don't know what NOMA means.)
Bruce
Last edited:
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
So the Baha'i faith doesn't do any of the things I listed off in the sentence after the portion you quoted?
I suppose, but if you want to have a religion that lasts through the ages, it has to be able to stand up in the face of future scientific advances. History has shown time and time again that religious claims about the nature of physical things are subject to contradiction by science: for instance, a 6,000-year-old earth. Or geocentrism. Or demonic posession as the cause for disease.
In modern times, religions still make claims about the nature of physical things. For instance:
- God created the universe.
- human beings have (or are) souls that persist after the death of the body.
- a given prophet/messenger/what-have-you received direct communication from God.
- a given holy book was an original creation and not derived from previous works/beliefs.
- God directly intervenes in his creation through miracles.
- other planes of existence are real and posess certain properties (for instance, that they'd be capable of being inhabited by souls in some sort of afterlife).
All of these are claims about the physical universe. It may be that some of them will always be out of our practical reach for scientific inquiry, but none of them are beyond the conceptual scope of science. If you want there to never be a conflict between science and religion, religion would have to cede ground on all these issues and many, many more. Do you think it's going to do so?
I figured that some people might; that's why I gave a link.
It means "non-overlapping magisteria". It's a phrase coined by biologist and writer Stephen Jay Gould to describe his idea that religion and science are distinct disciplines, and that when both are done "properly", they won't interfere with each other.
Like I alluded to before, when this is interpreted in a way that doesn't arbitrarily limit science, it paints religion into a very small corner that's much smaller than its traditional territory.
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
Fortunately, the Baha'i Faith explicitly endorses science even in its scriptures! I quote:
[E]ven in Europe it is admitted that religion is the opponent of science, and that science is the destroyer of the foundations of religion. While the religion of God is the promoter of truth, the founder of science and knowledge, it is full of goodwill for learned men; it is the civilizer of mankind, the discoverer of the secrets of nature, and the enlightener of the horizons of the world. Consequently, how can it be said to oppose knowledge? God forbid! Nay, for God, knowledge is the most glorious gift of man and the most noble of human perfections. To oppose knowledge is ignorant, and he who detests knowledge and science is not a man, but rather an animal without intelligence. For knowledge is light, life, felicity, perfection, beauty and the means of approaching the Threshold of Unity. It is the honor and glory of the world of humanity, and the greatest bounty of God. Knowledge is identical with guidance, and ignorance is real error.
Happy are those who spend their days in gaining knowledge, in discovering the secrets of nature, and in penetrating the subtleties of pure truth! Woe to those who are contented with ignorance, whose hearts are gladdened by thoughtless imitation, who have fallen into the lowest depths of ignorance and foolishness, and who have wasted their lives!
(Some Answered Questions, page 137)
And while it makes verious assertions, these can be evaluated by anyone; indeed, it's by being satisfied by these explanations that millions of people have become Baha'i! ANYONE is free to accept or reject all this, and either decision is fine with us!
And the fact that these facts are largely subjective isn't a problem, either. After all, that's why religions are called "faiths."
Peace,
Bruce
[E]ven in Europe it is admitted that religion is the opponent of science, and that science is the destroyer of the foundations of religion. While the religion of God is the promoter of truth, the founder of science and knowledge, it is full of goodwill for learned men; it is the civilizer of mankind, the discoverer of the secrets of nature, and the enlightener of the horizons of the world. Consequently, how can it be said to oppose knowledge? God forbid! Nay, for God, knowledge is the most glorious gift of man and the most noble of human perfections. To oppose knowledge is ignorant, and he who detests knowledge and science is not a man, but rather an animal without intelligence. For knowledge is light, life, felicity, perfection, beauty and the means of approaching the Threshold of Unity. It is the honor and glory of the world of humanity, and the greatest bounty of God. Knowledge is identical with guidance, and ignorance is real error.
Happy are those who spend their days in gaining knowledge, in discovering the secrets of nature, and in penetrating the subtleties of pure truth! Woe to those who are contented with ignorance, whose hearts are gladdened by thoughtless imitation, who have fallen into the lowest depths of ignorance and foolishness, and who have wasted their lives!
(Some Answered Questions, page 137)
And while it makes verious assertions, these can be evaluated by anyone; indeed, it's by being satisfied by these explanations that millions of people have become Baha'i! ANYONE is free to accept or reject all this, and either decision is fine with us!
And the fact that these facts are largely subjective isn't a problem, either. After all, that's why religions are called "faiths."
Peace,
Bruce
Okay... what I get from this is that you (or maybe the Baha'i faith in general?) reject the idea of NOMA, but believe that where what you preach intersects with science, science will show the truth of the Baha'i position. Is that a fair assessment?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Humans are an inconsistent species behaviorally.... that is how we have succeeded and how we continue to evolve.
wa:do
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
That is correct, but I'm sure you'll agree that the consistent application of the Scientific Method is the most powerful and applicable idea we humans have come up with so far. ^_^
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't go that far.
Our position is that science and religion AGREE, are in harmony, and do not conflict (or normally, even address each other)!
Thus the statement that science will show the Faith's truth is incorrect because what the Faith (or essentially ANY religion) teaches is simply outside the domain of science and therefore not addressable by it.
Peace,
Bruce
Wait... what?
So your previous post ("Fortunately...") was a complete non-sequitir from my post above? Or do you concede that all these claims rightfully belong under the umbrella of scientific inquiry and not religious belief?
I feel like you completely sidestepped the point I made before: anything that physically exists is within the domain of science. It may not all be investigable at present, but it conceptually could be at some point in the future. The only sort of religion that we can be sure will never, ever conflict with science is one that makes no claims whatsoever about physical reality.
I'm fairly certain that like most religions, the Baha'i faith makes claims about physical reality... or do you only believe in a metaphoric afterlife and prophets?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Penguin makes some pretty darn good points (as always). I agree.
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
>[D]o you concede that all these claims rightfully belong under the umbrella of scientific inquiry and not religious belief?
I stand by what I've been saying:
Scientific questions belong in the scientific domain, not that of religion!
Religious questions belong in the religious domain, not that of science!
And what I said about the Baha'i Faith is that it explicitly endorses and proclaims the essential agreement (due to their non-overlapping nature) of both science and religion, and urges the promotion of both! The Faith also teaches the two statements I just made above.
Peace,
Bruce
I stand by what I've been saying:
Scientific questions belong in the scientific domain, not that of religion!
Religious questions belong in the religious domain, not that of science!
And what I said about the Baha'i Faith is that it explicitly endorses and proclaims the essential agreement (due to their non-overlapping nature) of both science and religion, and urges the promotion of both! The Faith also teaches the two statements I just made above.
Peace,
Bruce
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Absolutely.
wa:do
All of the points I raised deal with questions that are both scientific and religious.
All right... if science and religion are non-overlapping, then which one gets to answer these two questions?
How did the universe come into being?
Can a person's intelligence or consciousness survive the death of the person's body?
logician
Well-Known Member
Why does one need religion to answer these questions?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Do you assume religion overlaps with science on these questions simply because science has not yet been able to answer them?
IMO, one doesn't need religion to answer these questions. However, traditionally, this hasn't stopped religions from not only attempting to answer it, but investing heavily in the answers they give.
Do you think there isn't an overlap on these questions?
- they are within the purview of scientific inquiry. We can come up with testable, falsifiable hypotheses that work toward answers to these questions, as well as testable, falsifiable hypotheses that would contradict other answers to them.
- at the same time, they're within the traditional domain of religion. In fact, many religions make these questions absolutely central and fundamental to their entire belief systems.
AFAICT, there are only two ways that we could create a system where the domains of science and religion don't overlap on these issues:
- arbitrarily limit science by setting up and enforcing artificial boundaries: "technically you could investigate this, but we're not going to let you."
- reduce the domain of religion to a shadow of what it traditionally has been: "well, I know that our church used to say all sorts of stuff about God creating the world, answering prayers and talking to prophets, but we've decided that we don't want to say anything that could ever be proven wrong by science, so now all that's off-limits."
Both of these would be tremendous changes from the status quo, where religion and science conflict all the time.
Um no...
Yes, scientists have beliefs and perhaps confidence in a certain theory. But in a theory, you assume the possibility that the theory could be wrong and/or become replaced later by a more accurate theory. Faith and belief does not give room for doubt or the ability to question whereas in a theory you must always question.
When you test a hypothesis, you are supposed to test for the null hypothesis, which is actually the opposite of the hypothesis. For example, if my hypothesis is that the earth revolves around the sun, the null hypothesis is that the earth does not revolve around the sun. After experimentation and testing, you either reject the null hypothesis, or fail to reject the null hypothesis. You do not accept or reject your hypothesis, but reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.
The purpose of this (from what I understand), is to counteract the tendency for bias and premature acceptance of the hypothesis. In a sense, you should never accept the hypothesis, because this means you are no longer open to the possibility that it is incorrect.
If a belief is involved, it is bias that may confound the results or interpretation of the experiment. When conducting science, such subjectivity is expected to be removed. You deal with data, results, and statistical analysis, you are not supposed to be reconfirming or disproving a belief. Again, such a mentality will likely skew the design of the experiment, the results, and the interpretation. To put it succinctly, using scientific methodology to prove or disprove a preconceived belief is very bad way to conduct science. People see what they want to see. They ignore data that suggests that their preconceived belief is wrong, and overemphasize and/or exaggerate data that suggests that their preconceived notion is right. This is called confirmation bias. To say that a belief and a hypothesis are one and the same is a gross oversimplification and huge mistake.
Science is based on philosophies such as empiricism, materialism, and logical positivism. Science is about accumulating knowledge using scientific methodology (observations, experimentation, replication, etc). It is not about accumulating faith or belief. The question is whether you know or don't know. A hypothesis is a catalyst for inquiry and investigation of the unknown. It is again, not meant to reconfirm or disprove a preconceived belief and is certainly not synonymous with belief.
It is not necessarily useless. A hypothesis that is not currently testable may be testable in the future. There may be new breakthrough techniques in research that allow the possibility of testing. Such hypothesizing is not useless, it gives us a necessary framework from which we can ask questions and perform tests and then move on from there. If the hypothesis is wrong, then we formulate new hypotheses, test, etc. Any inaccuracy only works to provide insight into current investigation. In the future, there may be new found ways to test what happened before the big bang. We could create miniature big bangs of our own, etc. To say that it is useless conjecture is self-defeating and only leads to a self-fulfilling prophesy where such conjecture does indeed become useless, because you have made it useless.
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Unanswered questions can be speculated upon by both science and religion.
But only one can eventually produce empirical facts.
But only one can eventually produce empirical facts.