Sorry, I don't understand.

[Copernicus]

Equivalents:
Science is not equivalent to Religion; Religion covers a much broader base.
Let equivocate(equivolate?) Science to Christianity, both rather large bases.
Physical Science can be Catholicism, and Social Science can be other denominations, since Catholicism is the largest. (I think...)
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses would be the Sociology of the Christian world, the least universally accepted, but still keeping to the base ideology.

I completely disagree. Moromon's and Jehovah's witnesses compete against each other for converts, and they promote alternative interpretations of the same Bible. Physical and social scientists do not represent incompatible points of view that contradict each other on the same subject matter. Unlike competing religious doctrines, the various fields of science and academia did not schism away from each other in the same sense that religious doctrines have.

 

[Copernicus]

Hm...I'm not so sure of that, especially when it comes to psychology (and yes, I do accept that as a science ) and the views of psychoanalysts, humanists, and behaviorists.

But I argue that it's still the same. While a Quaker and a Catholic may appear different, are their methods dissimilar in the same way a physicist's and a biologist's methods, terminology, and models are? I think it could be argued they are.

It could be argued that black is white, and your argument that the various academic disciplines represent alternative doctrines on the nature of reality is not much more compelling than that.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

All you're doing so far is asserting that they are.

Same in your case.

Both Quaker and Catholics start from the same mythology, and create different doctrines and rituals based on their own circumstances. Biologists and physicists both start from the scientific method, but end up with different methods and results based on the material they are studying: physics is heavily mathematical due to its study of energy and biology is heavily categorical due to its study of life-characteristics.

It could be argued that black is white, and your argument that the various academic disciplines represent alternative doctrines on the nature of reality is not much more compelling than that.

See above.

It's not really a black and white argument.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I disagree. According to post-modernism all ideas are equally valid, and I'm not the least bit inclined to go that direction.

Well, perhaps closer to all ideas being equally available and subject to interpretation. The key to postmodernism is the remarkable ease of disseminating knowledge in the modern world. It is inescapable barring a breakdown in technology.

Not in every case, but there are plenty of examples where they are. The idea that the earth is flat is incompatable with the idea that it's spherical.

That's a basic paradox. God and evolution are not necessarily.

But what happens if science figures out how life first arose without having to invoke any sort of "creative spirit"? Continue to tack on the needless "creative spirit", change your beliefs, or deny the science?

I don't think the "creative spirit" I invoked is needless. I think it represents something basic to the human experience: we are emotional beings experiencing a changing world and taking part in the shaping of it.

The way it's being done in that thread most certainly does.

Possibly, but not every case.

 

[Jose Fly]

Same in your case.

Both Quaker and Catholics start from the same mythology, and create different doctrines and rituals based on their own circumstances. Biologists and physicists both start from the scientific method, but end up with different methods and results based on the material they are studying: physics is heavily mathematical due to its study of energy and biology is heavily categorical due to its study of life-characteristics.

But they both adhere to the same scientific method. They may emphasize different sub-disciplines, but they still both follow the scientific method.

The same cannot be said for religion. As I posted earlier, many religions make up their own methods and there's no independent means to determine which one works. One may meditate and the other may practice fasting and self-flagellation. Which one brings you closer to "god"? Is there an independent, objective method to tell? I don't think there is at all.

Well, perhaps closer to all ideas being equally available and subject to interpretation.

But not all interpretations are equally valid, which is the essence of post-modernism.

That's a basic paradox. God and evolution are not necessarily.

That depends on which "god" you believe in. And again, because science offers an independent, objective means to evaluate competing ideas, we know the earth is not flat. Religion offers no such thing. For example, Catholics recently changed their dogma and claimed that unbaptized babies no longer go into "limbo". How exactly do we tell whether that's accurate or whether they're just making stuff up as they go along?

I don't think the "creative spirit" I invoked is needless.

And I think it is. So what independent, objective means do we employ to determine which of our theological assertions is accurate?

Possibly, but not every case.

Do you have a specific example where someone argued against evolutionary biology as a whole, but didn't deny any science?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But they both adhere to the same scientific method. They may emphasize different sub-disciplines, but they still both follow the scientific method.

The same cannot be said for religion. As I posted earlier, many religions make up their own methods and there's no independent means to determine which one works. One may meditate and the other may practice fasting and self-flagellation. Which one brings you closer to "god"? Is there an independent, objective method to tell? I don't think there is at all.

A mystic, or simply a literary scholar (perhaps) would suggest otherwise. The methods are the same. Religion speaks to the existential problems that we face as humans--especially death. Through the interpretation of symbolism, we can arrive at possible connections.

But not all interpretations are equally valid, which is the essence of post-modernism.

Nah. If there's an essence to postmodernism, it is in the confusion of being bombarded with multiple influences without any base to stand on. Hence, the grasping at both science and fundamentalism.

That depends on which "god" you believe in. And again, because science offers an independent, objective means to evaluate competing ideas, we know the earth is not flat. Religion offers no such thing. For example, Catholics recently changed their dogma and claimed that unbaptized babies no longer go into "limbo". How exactly do we tell whether that's accurate or whether they're just making stuff up as they go along?

We can grit our teeth, pat their heads, and say "Good for you!"

But seriously, religion offers more than its dogmatic inconsistencies.

And I think it is. So what independent, objective means do we employ to determine which of our theological assertions is accurate?

Part of the point is, religion doesn't have to deal in objective consistency, it just has to do what it's there for: provide meaning to someone's existence. That's often subjective. So the criteria is completely personal, or perhaps psychological.

Do you have a specific example where someone argued against evolutionary biology as a whole, but didn't deny any science?

I don't. But I said: "And, arguing against evolutionary biology does not assume a denial of science."

Denying evolutionary biology is denying some science, not all science. A denial of the conclusions is not denial of the method.

 

[Jose Fly]

A mystic, or simply a literary scholar (perhaps) would suggest otherwise. The methods are the same. Religion speaks to the existential problems that we face as humans--especially death. Through the interpretation of symbolism, we can arrive at possible connections.

How are the methods the same? One religion believes in prayer, the other believes in meditation, and another believes in sacrifice. You keep saying they're the same, but not offering anything besides your say-so. I'm giving you specific examples of differing religious methodologies and all you keep responding with is, "No, they're the same".

And religion may attempt to "speak to existential problems", but they all pretty much reach completely different conclusions, and as I keep pointing out there's no independent means to determine which is true. That's the whole point here. People in this thread keep asserting that "science and religion are compatable", but they don't go beyond mere assertion.

religion offers more than its dogmatic inconsistencies

You avoided the question. How do we determine whether or not the Catholic Church's claim about unbaptized babies is accurate?

Part of the point is, religion doesn't have to deal in objective consistency, it just has to do what it's there for: provide meaning to someone's existence

So it's not about truth or accuracy, but about simply making oneself feel good? EDIT: If that's the case, then I suppose science and religion are indeed compatable. Religion makes no claims to accuracy whereas science attempts to be as accurate as possible. Science is about testing, repitition, and independent review, whereas religion is about feeling good. Heck, that makes religion "compatable" with just about anything.

I don't. But I said: "And, arguing against evolutionary biology does not assume a denial of science."

So, "I can't substantiate my assertion with anything specific, but I'm still right"?

*shrug*

 

[Guitar's Cry]

How are the methods the same? One religion believes in prayer, the other believes in meditation, and another believes in sacrifice. You keep saying they're the same, but not offering anything besides your say-so. I'm giving you specific examples of differing religious methodologies and all you keep responding with is, "No, they're the same".

Well, by assuming that they all "speak to existential problems," I am suggesting that religious beliefs are arrived at from the same source: the human experience of trying to cope with being conscious of death.

And religion may attempt to "speak to existential problems", but they all pretty much reach completely different conclusions, and as I keep pointing out there's no independent means to determine which is true. That's the whole point here. People in this thread keep asserting that "science and religion are compatable", but they don't go beyond mere assertion.

The conclusions are not so different: arrival at a place of peace through wholehearted commitment towards an ideal.

Christian: Believe in God to reach heaven.

Hindu/Buddhist: Duty or extinction of self to reach Nirvana.

You avoided the question. How do we determine whether or not the Catholic Church's claim about unbaptized babies is accurate?

Ah, I did and I apologize.

Really, the question is whether it provides what its supposed to for the believer. What utility does this belief have? Dogmatic beliefs are often a bit silly sometimes, but I think the best we can do is trace that belief to what utility it is supposed ot provide.

Unbaptized babies seem to be a scapegoat to get folks to indoctrinate their kids early, thus perpetuating the survival of the church.

Semantics are important in religious study, but really it is up to the individual to decide if a belief fulfills something for them. THAT'S THE MAIN POINT! Often, there are no real objective methods of study into the validity of a belief, because the belief fulfills a personal need.

So it's not about truth or accuracy, but about simply making oneself feel good? EDIT: If that's the case, then I suppose science and religion are indeed compatable. Religion makes no claims to accuracy whereas science attempts to be as accurate as possible. Science is about testing, repitition, and independent review, whereas religion is about feeling good. Heck, that makes religion "compatable" with just about anything.


So, "I can't substantiate my assertion with anything specific, but I'm still right"?

*shrug*

I would say that religion does more than "making someone feel good." It's more about making peace with a feeling of being an emotional creature thrust into an indifferent and often tumultuous universe.

The reality appears to be that religion and science are compatible within an individual. How many scientists believe in God? How many religious leaders accept basic scientific concepts? I don't believe I have to find specific examples, it should be pretty self-evident. If examples are needed, look around the forum.

In the end, Jose, religion provides something that science, by its very design, cannot: existential meaning. Science provides the mechanistic models for how our reality appears to operate, and religion provides the meaning to keep on going.

We're not completely logical, rational creatures. We are emotional, and often irrational. And I think that's a perfectly fine way to be.

 

[Jose Fly]

Guitar's Cry,

Thanks for the discussion. It's gone pretty much like similar ones I've had in the past, where the conclusion I walk away with is that science and religion are indeed compatible, as long as religion makes no claims to accuracy and is content to be entirely subjective.

If religious people are happy with that, fine by me.

 

[Copernicus]

We're not completely logical, rational creatures. We are emotional, and often irrational. And I think that's a perfectly fine way to be.

Logic carries no guarantee of truth, only consistency of thought. And resting opinion on inconsistent premises is not a perfectly fine way to be. It is, in fact, a stupid way to be.

 

[S-word]

I longed to hear someone express the words I couldn't speak
Reveal to me the mysteries of life---and all it's secrets
So I saught the men of science who claim God's body has no mind
They say the universe is living but will die one day in time
So then, the men of piousness, with them I sat me down
But they say God has no body, those men in flowing gowns
Then finally in silent dream, just me and 'Who I Am'
We floated on life's living stream with a pen held in my hand.
'Twas then the veil began to tear in this temple that is me
And there within God's sanctuary, I saw the one that we will be.

Mankind is not the final result of the evolution of the eternal life.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Guitar's Cry,

Thanks for the discussion. It's gone pretty much like similar ones I've had in the past, where the conclusion I walk away with is that science and religion are indeed compatible, as long as religion makes no claims to accuracy and is content to be entirely subjective.

If religious people are happy with that, fine by me.

I enjoy discussions like this. It is challenging to take a religious defense against science, especially where I personally tend to uphold both.

And I do think that's where religion makes a critical error: it tries to assert itself as something universally true despite being something inextricably personal.

Logic carries no guarantee of truth, only consistency of thought. And resting opinion on inconsistent premises is not a perfectly fine way to be. It is, in fact, a stupid way to be.

It depends solely on the situation, though. PureX and I had a conversation once where we decided that it was best not to drive illogically, and best not to make love logically.

Staying up all night, drinking, and eating junk food is entirely illogical, but perfectly human. For humans to always be logical, I think we would be losing something worthwhile to our existence.

 

[the13th1]

Religion prescribes some belief system & requires the follower to stick to it even if it goes against the workings of the world.

Science on the other hand works just "contrary" to that. It observes the world & then forms a "belief", & more importantly it is open to further be amendment in the face of new evidences.

 

[foaly]

I like to see Science as being a way of refining religion and religious beliefs. Recent technology and techniques have allowed us to approximate the age of the Earth, and with a vast difference between the previous religious estimate of 3000 years, and the billions calculated by scientific method, I believe that the religious account of the creation of the Earth can be made more accurate. In this way, I see science and religion as being very compatible and although I believe in the modern scientific findings such as evolution, I believe in the existence of a higher power, and feel better in myself for doing so

 

[MSizer]

Scientists pose a hypothesis, apply tests, and abandon the hypothesis if the test results refute it. Theists make conclusions, design tests to support their conclusions, and then look for new tests if the results don't support their conclusions.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Any incompatibility of religion with science only occurs when religion holds to answers that science has proven incorrect.

 

[TheGodless1]

Science and religion are compatible, as long as people realize that science is used to answer questions which are answerable, and religion is used to provide answers for questions which are unanswerable.

I agree and disagree...to a point. The story of creation is nearly the same in every religion. A god gives life to a mound of earth or clay and man arises and gods breath gives it a spirit or soul. Science says the same thing but uses more complexities to arrive at the same thing, i.e. electrical impulses, cell multiplication, genetic mutation and natural selection, etc. I have found that almost every instance in the Bible can be accounted for scientifically. My disagreement is too menial to even state so I wont bother as your statement really says it all. The only thing I have found that science cannot explain is the existence or hard proof thereof of God..

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Would take a different approach to friend AlsoAnima's dilemma:

Sorry, I don't understand.
Religion and Science are not mutually exlusive. They are not opposites, they do not pull away from eachother of cancel eachother out.

I don't understand why people would think otherwise.

Please explain it to me.

What is religion?
It is a path or way.
Path/way to what?
to understand the *self*
What is that self?
It is the same as its source.
How does one know that?
by freeing the mind of thoughts.

Now, what is science?
an enquiry?
how do you enquire?
by thinking.

understand this complex state of humans.
We are part of the source, yet have a mind which thinks.

Where is the balance?
Balance is obviously in the centre.
One who's mind is both STILL and THINKS.
Like the centre of that scale where one side is *STILLNESS* and the other side is *ACTIVE* or thinking.

So science and religion are complimentary and not opposite but they never meet as as soon as the centre is reached the individual is no more.

Love & rgds

 

[imaginaryme]

Friends,

Would take a different approach to friend AlsoAnima's dilemma:



What is religion?
It is a path or way.
Path/way to what?
to understand the *self*
What is that self?
It is the same as its source.
How does one know that?
by freeing the mind of thoughts.

Now, what is science?
an enquiry?
how do you enquire?
by thinking.

understand this complex state of humans.
We are part of the source, yet have a mind which thinks.

Where is the balance?
Balance is obviously in the centre.
One who's mind is both STILL and THINKS.
Like the centre of that scale where one side is *STILLNESS* and the other side is *ACTIVE* or thinking.

So science and religion are complimentary and not opposite but they never meet as as soon as the centre is reached the individual is no more.

Love & rgds

Come on, now; friend zenzero. If you answer all the questions, we'll have nothing to debate. Enough of "science is right and religion is wrong." Let's see what the Bible says:

Exodus 21:12 Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.

How do we know insanity? We're still working on it. Yet it is cliche that talking to god is sane, but getting an answer is insane. Here is god not only providing for the insanity plea, but also taking the burden of guilt. Does this ancient tome know our own science even better than we do? I'll even go one better. Tomorrow, I shall use this sacred text to invalidate evolution!

And tomorrow comes, and the Creationists gather; and I say, first let us turn to Exodus 22:20 Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed. As the Creationist cheer, I read from Exodus 31:14 Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death... and gathering on-line (a sacrifice to the "god" of science) to use the sacred text for a purpose contrary to its true intent (sure reads like a science book to me) is not only a desecration, it invalidates evolution for this hypothetical group who sure seem like an evolutionary dead end at times. See how these things can work really well together?

I pretty much see science and religion is the same thing only different. Friend zenzero explains it nicely above. Yet, there seem to be quite a few who believe that science is above religious nonsense, that there are no "gods" in science. But what about Galileo? I posted a link on another thread that leads to NASA space imagery which makes the Iron Sun hypothesis visually appealing; yet from what I have read it is being dismissed out of hand by "believers" who refuse to consider that a four hundred year old observation made on backyard equipment (by today's standards) may be a little outdated. I don't bother arguing with the experts, cause they're experts; they know everything. I use the scientific method. I consider the source. I can accept that Galileo is a better scientist than I am; I'm not going to "believe" it. I mean, the guy pretty much had to do everything from scratch; all I had to do was open my mind and surf the net... we should never disregard the accomplishments of the greats, yet neither should we deify them. I've long felt that the scientific establishment is setting itself up to be the new priesthood (without conscious intent); but I am not an astronomer, I am a mathematician.

 

[Sunstone]

Friends,

Would take a different approach to friend AlsoAnima's dilemma:



What is religion?
It is a path or way.
Path/way to what?
to understand the *self*
What is that self?
It is the same as its source.
How does one know that?
by freeing the mind of thoughts.

Now, what is science?
an enquiry?
how do you enquire?
by thinking.

understand this complex state of humans.
We are part of the source, yet have a mind which thinks.

Where is the balance?
Balance is obviously in the centre.
One who's mind is both STILL and THINKS.
Like the centre of that scale where one side is *STILLNESS* and the other side is *ACTIVE* or thinking.

So science and religion are complimentary and not opposite but they never meet as as soon as the centre is reached the individual is no more.

Love & rgds

Good post