mudcat.org: BS: Science and Religion
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]


BS: Science and Religion

wysiwyg 08 Jun 09 - 01:23 PM
GUEST,TIA 08 Jun 09 - 02:18 PM
Amos 08 Jun 09 - 02:23 PM
Paul Burke 08 Jun 09 - 02:30 PM
Rapparee 08 Jun 09 - 02:31 PM
gnu 08 Jun 09 - 02:35 PM
wysiwyg 08 Jun 09 - 02:35 PM
Goose Gander 08 Jun 09 - 02:41 PM
Paul Burke 08 Jun 09 - 02:43 PM
Uncle_DaveO 08 Jun 09 - 02:52 PM
GUEST,Ian cookieless 08 Jun 09 - 02:59 PM
Goose Gander 08 Jun 09 - 03:14 PM
Little Hawk 08 Jun 09 - 03:23 PM
Spleen Cringe 08 Jun 09 - 03:43 PM
Bill D 08 Jun 09 - 04:47 PM
Doug Chadwick 08 Jun 09 - 04:50 PM
fretless 08 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM
Gervase 08 Jun 09 - 05:28 PM
Dorothy Parshall 08 Jun 09 - 05:45 PM
Little Hawk 08 Jun 09 - 05:46 PM
Bee-dubya-ell 08 Jun 09 - 06:10 PM
Ebbie 08 Jun 09 - 06:46 PM
Dorothy Parshall 08 Jun 09 - 06:56 PM
Dorothy Parshall 08 Jun 09 - 07:00 PM
michaelr 08 Jun 09 - 07:05 PM
frogprince 08 Jun 09 - 07:11 PM
Rowan 08 Jun 09 - 07:17 PM
Slag 08 Jun 09 - 07:25 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 08 Jun 09 - 07:52 PM
Tug the Cox 08 Jun 09 - 08:05 PM
Fergie 08 Jun 09 - 08:25 PM
Amos 08 Jun 09 - 09:21 PM
John P 08 Jun 09 - 09:32 PM
Don Firth 08 Jun 09 - 09:52 PM
Little Hawk 08 Jun 09 - 11:36 PM
Dorothy Parshall 08 Jun 09 - 11:58 PM
Little Hawk 09 Jun 09 - 12:10 AM
Don Firth 09 Jun 09 - 12:15 AM
Little Hawk 09 Jun 09 - 12:28 AM
GUEST,Slag 09 Jun 09 - 01:20 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 09 Jun 09 - 05:46 AM
wysiwyg 09 Jun 09 - 08:53 AM
Amos 09 Jun 09 - 09:10 AM
Mrrzy 09 Jun 09 - 09:27 AM
Stu 09 Jun 09 - 09:56 AM
Amos 09 Jun 09 - 10:18 AM
Stringsinger 09 Jun 09 - 10:29 AM
wysiwyg 09 Jun 09 - 10:45 AM
john f weldon 09 Jun 09 - 11:21 AM
Bill D 09 Jun 09 - 11:29 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 01:23 PM

I had in mind a poll/survey, not a debate, tho I am sure a debate will develop. (Please know in advance that I will probably not participate in the "debate" aspect, beyond stating my own rather integrated view, once, as clearly as I can.)


But here's the poll:

1. Do you see it as
Science AND Religion?
Or Science VS Religion?
Or what?

And the survey:

2. If you see it as Science AND Religion, where do you see them intersecting in a positive way, from your view?


I'll start.

1. I see it as Science AND Religion.

2. I see them interesecting in a positive way (because of checks and balances) in a field I know as Medical Ethics.


You?


~Susan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:18 PM

Science AND Religion.

There are certain propositions that are not objectively testable - belief (or not) in these is religion.

All assertions that are testable should be tested. This is science.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:23 PM

1. AND
2. Metaphysics, ethics, psychology, philosophy, ontology, epistemology, physics, technology, marketing, sociology, medicine, political theory, economics...and about a dozen others.



A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:30 PM

Science and literature. Religion is just old literature, sometimes taken too literally.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:31 PM

I see no inherent conflict in them. Such is only in people's minds.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: gnu
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:35 PM

And.

They are two different things/thinks. Both have merit. Both have otherwise.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:35 PM

GREAT stuff, folks, keep 'em coming, please.

~S~


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Goose Gander
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:41 PM

Science deals with phenomena that can be quantified; religion deals with matters that can not. There have been brilliant scientists who were religionists, and others who were athiests. One does not negate the other. Anyway, many so-called athiests believe in a spirit world (ghosts, etc.) . . . I haven't met many hard-core athiests who believe in absolutely nothing beyond a random universe created out of nothing, but I know they are out there.

A useful religion can founded upon lies; a purely rational, athiestic scientist can create a monstrosity. See Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:43 PM

I haven't met many hard-core athiests who believe in absolutely nothing beyond a random universe created out of nothing

Hi.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:52 PM

Paul Burk, you beat me to it by about nine minutes.

Dave Oesterreich


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Ian cookieless
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 02:59 PM

1. Do you see it as
Science AND Religion?
Or Science VS Religion?
Or what?

And the survey:

2. If you see it as Science AND Religion, where do you see them intersecting in a positive way, from your view?


I am really not trying to be awkward when I say it depends what you mean by "it". This needs to be qualified if the survey is to be meaningful. If "it" is knowledge, but it also depends on what type of knowledge for a debate to ensue. If "it" is ethics, then one would have to ask where the scientists gain their ethical inferences, and which 'brand' of religion's ethics we are discussing: fundamentalists or liberals?

For 2., I find myself agreeing with what many religious people say on medical ethics - that life should be considered to begin very early, perhaps even conception, that life itself is extremely precious (I cannot say 'sacred' as I am not religious). However, I hold these views without reference to God or religious concepts, and I cannot see anything of substance that is added to an ethical debate by inserting God into an argument.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Goose Gander
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 03:14 PM

Paul and DaveO -

Pleased to meet you both. But that is quite a leap of faith, you know.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 03:23 PM

As Rapaire said. I see no inherent conflict between science and religion/spirituality. To the contrary, I see the two working together ultimately toward a shared understanding of reality.

Science AND religion/spirituality, that is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 03:43 PM

If it's about the pursuit of positive, life-enhancing ideas, actions and discoveries, then either or both or neither, depending! Some terrible things have been created/discovered by scientists and done/decreed by religionists. Some wonderful things have been created/discovered by scientists and done/decreed by religionists. We are an odd species, truly.

By the way, I'm personally inclined towards atheism and keen on evidence-based science. However I'm not some atheist fundamentalist: I can see and accept that there are plenty of good things done by religious people in the name of their religion, including many amazing acts of altruism, heroism and charity. Whether these people would still do the same if they were not religious, but just because they are good people, is largely irrelevant if in fact they do ascribe their actions to their beliefs. I also recognise that there are scientists with strongly held religious beliefs out there who don't necessarily allow their religion to blunt their sense of curiosity. There are also atheists with a very unscientific, gut-instinct-led basis to their atheism. Takes all sorts.

Finally, my partner's great uncle made an interesting comment just the other night when he said he happily believed in both god and evolution and didn't have a problem incorporating them both into his worldview.

Just some bits 'n' pieces for the pot...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 04:47 PM

Having spent 55 years thinking about 'it', I don't have time to write a short answer.

But essentially, it boils down to whether we are asking whether both are 'true', or 'useful', or 'compatible'...or maybe whether the whole issue is a matter of language trying to encompass our DNA programming.

Me? I 'suspect' that both can co-exist, no matter what "ultimate truth" is, but because so much (all?) of religion is cultural and subjective, it can (and does) take many paths which are in conflict with both science and other religions.

(sorry, Susan...I'm not sure if that fits any of the parameters of a survey *weak smile*)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 04:50 PM

God said "let there be light" and e equalled mc2


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: fretless
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:20 PM

The John Templeton Foundation in the US has been investing lots of energy and money recently in an exploration of this and related questions about the intersections of science and religion. Lots of interesting reading on their website.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Gervase
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:28 PM

Put me down as a 'random agglomeration of matter' sort of bloke.
Science for me every time. Religion, to me, is just a superstitious way of trying to explain stuff that science hasn't yet revealed.
The world is so much more wonderful if you don't have to think of a creator.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:45 PM

First define "religion". Impossible to answer otherwise.

Templeton is full of interesting ideas - Farewell to God is an interesting book.

Religion does not need to include God at all, any sort, or gods either. Spiritual Naturalism.

Jung could "not help anyone who did not believe in a superior force."

Loren Eiseley doubted one could be a scientist and not believe in God.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 05:46 PM

Religion at its best is not a collection of superstitions and rituals, it's a very positive philosophy and set of ethics. Religion also does not necessarily require you to believe in "a creator". Some types of religion do require that, but not all types by any means.

Religion is often entirely compatible with science...but goes into further areas which science is not inclined to even comment upon...those areas having to do mostly with philosophical and ethical viewpoints on life and inquiries into the meaning of life.

That is to say, science is primarily concerned with the objective, while religion is primarily concerned with the subjective. Since a person needs to understand and experience both objectivity and subjectivity to be a complete personality, it would seem wise to look at the world through both viewpoints, and in a way that can harmonize them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 06:10 PM

Religion that denies scientific evidence is mere superstition. Clinging to a set of ancient folk tales as factual truth when confronted with contrary explanations which are supported by scientific fact is a particularly foolish form of tunnel-vision.

On the other hand, science that denies religion is blind reductionism. For science to say it has all the answers and that there is no room for anything which can't be empirically verified is an equally foolish form of tunnel-vision. Those ancient folk tales may not have much factual truth in them, but they have a tremendous amount of metaphysical truth. A lot of scientists seem to have never learned the meaning of the word "transcendent". In their search for the roots of things, they've forgotten that the reason things have roots in the first place is so they can reach for the sky.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 06:46 PM

AND

I see the two as being not only compatible but both being subject to further development.

In other words, I think of science as being testable to the extent of its knowledge. And I say, Bless it and the horse it rode in on.

I think of religion, or more to the point, the inanimate, as being in the realm typified by love and altruism, consisting of more than the five senses that science recognizes (Who has not "felt" eyes upon themselves? Who has not had the inexplicable urge to call home? Who has not produced a creative something that seemingly came out of nowhere? Who has not relied on an unseen force to see to it that s/he is in the right spot at the right time?).

It is my belief that science some day will "see" things very differently from what it has in the past. I think that religion/the intangible will someday come to realize that there are physical, even if invisible, forces at work in the most arcane.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 06:56 PM

LH: so religion IYO, is a spectrum of possibilities? One chooses how to view it? There is no definition? Final paragraph open to discussion.

Bee...: Is scientific "fact" always correct??? Who determines what is "empirically verified"?
Love your last sentence! But- "things" do not all have roots nor do all "things" reach.... - Or do they? How would we know??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:00 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: michaelr
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:05 PM

Do I see WHAT as
Science AND Religion?
Or Science VS Religion?

You really should ask a more concise question if you want clear answers.

But then, you probably won't want to hear from me anyway, as I've stated here before that I see religious faith as a sort of mental illness.

Cheers,
Michael


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: frogprince
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:11 PM

Religion AND science, for me, so long as religion doesn't mean any form of fundamentalism. I wouldn't even want to imagine living in a world without the benefits of science; A substantial share of us wouldn't even be here if medical science hadn't begun to make real progress before our parents time. But science has an overwhelming inclination to do anything it makes possible. Religious values can bring at least some counter-pressure to bare, as well as help motivate some people to pursue their science specifically for the sake of the general wellfare.
                         Dean


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Rowan
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:17 PM

Having been brought up in a context where traditions were strong I came to an understanding that scientific methodology was based on answering the "What, When, How, (and to a lesser extent, the Who) questions; it was also good at answering the more trivial aspects of the Why question.

Religion, according to many, started off with a bent that could be described as scientific in the sense that it tried to explain the Why in terms that might have been rather simplistic (to some) but delved into the depths of what it was that made us human; for me, its best aspects still attempt to address the existential aspects of "Why".

To me, any deity (monotheistic or not, Mosaic/Abrahamic or not) shows considerable evidence consistent with it being a human creation.

Does this make me an "And"?

Cheers, Rowan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Slag
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:25 PM

The object defines the subject. The quest? Reality, the ultimate reality. To some science is the religion of logic.

If you drew a Venn diagram, any point of overlap would be points of agreement and depending on who was drawing, the overlap would vary greatly. The absolute advocate of human reason would see no point of contact between the two except in a clinical sort of way. The absolute religionist would see no point of contact either but for different reasons. They would be in polar agreement about no contact!

On the practical side, the proof is in the tasting. Science works. From proven theories, the modern world has emerged and provided us with things beyond the imagination of folks of just 100 years ago. On the religion side, well some make certain unprovable assertions about healings and finding things but it is largely personal and experiential to the individual.

Religion is Man seeking God and that gets into an entirely different debate which has had plenty of "woodshed" at this site. Briefly and broadly "God" is what ever an individual hold as the focus and in highest esteem in their life (with apologies to Paul Tillich). Defined thus, science can indeed, be a religion.

It is my belief that the assertion of most religions are statements of faith or belief in a metaphysical realm. In the practical and scientific world faith and religion are bubbles (not Venn circles, as each has multi-dimensional aspects) that really just kind of bounce around off each other. They are both concerned with reality but the realities are almost mutually exclusive.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 07:52 PM

Susan,
1. Definitely AND, but not religion!......SCIENCE AND FAITH!
2. They intersect in all forms of moral and ethical compass, which should rein in the likely excesses of a purely scientific viewpoint, while recognising the realities of life.


""Finally, my partner's great uncle made an interesting comment just the other night when he said he happily believed in both god and evolution and didn't have a problem incorporating them both into his worldview....Spleen Cringe

He is absolutely correct. There is NO conflict between God and Science.

There is NO conflict between faith in God and Science.

The missing question Susan, is this:-    Is religion synonymous with faith?

IMO, NO! IT'S NOT!

Religion is man's interpretation of God's intent and purpose. If that interpretation, as so often is the case, denies science, denies logic, and ignores fact, then it becomes Science VERSUS Religion.

I've made this point so often in the past, and I can't quite see why it should be so difficult to grasp for all but the most rabid bible belt fundamentalist.

FAITH is purely personal belief, in whatever an individual may think is true. It requires NO teaching, but is based on personal understanding of environment and events which affect that individual.

Religion is what somebody else tries to teach an individual to believe in. At best it provides a moral and ethical framework which can result in truly saintly behaviour, self sacrifice, and utter goodness.    At worst it can give rise to the basest of all human interaction, murder, genocide, and utter evil.

When dealing with religion, it is wise to examine the likely motives of the hierarchy. Not all are concerned with the welfare of adherents, in fact many are more interested in adherents' bank accounts, while others seek power over their fellow man.

Those which ARE genuine in their intent, will be concerned with neither, and MOST of those WILL recognise and welcome scientific knowledge.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 08:05 PM

Science has become a religion. Spirituality has become more inclusive.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Fergie
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 08:25 PM

Religion presupposes the existance of a god/creator. Can anybody produce one piece of scientific (or otherwise) evidence that such a thing/being exists?

Fergus


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 09:21 PM

Religion does not need to presuppose; simply finding a series of spiritual truths is quite enough religion for some.

Here's a perspective on the whole subject under the rubric of "quantum mysticism".


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: John P
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 09:32 PM

Depending on the definition of religion, I could go with AND. If religion involves "faith" or "deity", then I have no use for it. It just sounds like wishful thinking that doesn't really make any sense.

While science may fulfill the same role in one person's life that religion fulfills in another's, calling science a religion is disingenuous. Religion usually involves faith and deity; a person who rejects them should not be called religious, at least not without a lot of qualifiers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 09:52 PM

Science AND religion.

I have a very fuzzy concept of what "God" is and it keeps changing all the time. I don't really know for sure if some Supreme Intelligence actually does exist, or if this is merely a human attempt to explain things that has simply hung on since our primitive ancestors cowered in their caves. I most definitely do not believe in the cranky (but all-loving) bearded old man up on Arcturus 12 who marks the fall of every sparrow and hurls lightning bolts at sinners.

I agree with the late Joseph Campbell. He said that where many religious folks go off the rails is when they assume that religious myth and metaphor (a standard part of all religious beliefs) is historical fact.

But—assuming that All Of This was cobble together by a Supreme Intelligence that is beyond our comprehension and whom we attempt to personify by calling "God," I would say that there is no real conflict between science and religion. Whenever there is, it is due to a lack of understanding of either one or the other—or both.

Science endeavors to describe how God did it.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 11:36 PM

Dorothy - Yes, religion/spirituality is a simply vast spectrum of possibilities which also can include all the investigatory processes of science...and ought to. If you don't believe me, read some of the books written by Sri Aurobindo who started out as an atheist in the sciences...a brilliant honor student who disbelieved in anything spiritual when he was young...and who ended up as a spiritual philosopher who still believed in science as much as he had at the beginning. There is no vaster spectrum than that covered by religion/spirituality/science/philosopy...and it's all one spectrum . It is the spectrum of Life itself. Religion and spirituality are attempts to understand Life, its meaning, its purposes, and its processes. Science is mainly an attempt to observe and understand Life's processes, how they come about, and why. I capitalize Life because it is sacred. No, not the magazine! ;-)

Fergie - Religion does NOT necessarily presuppose the existence of a god/creator. I'll grant that some religions do that. The 3 great religions that came out of the Middle East (Muslim/Christian/Judaic) do. There are a number of important Eastern religions and spiritual philosophies, however, which do not. Read a bit about Taoism and Buddhism if you don't believe it. Check out the higher mystical teachings of Hinduism. You will be surprised at what you find there if you bother to look far enough.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 08 Jun 09 - 11:58 PM

Well, I now have all the answers! I asked my pendulum and:

superior force = inner wisdom

There is no such thing as God, or a Supreme Power or Intelligence, or creator.

Mysticism is based on inner wisdom which is the same as original wisdom and makes sense. Quantum mysticism does not make sense.

Inner wisdom is consistent.

Science is not always correct. Religion has as many definitions as there are people defining it.

That's it for me. I have my answers, based on inner wisdom which is that place from which the pendulum draws its answers, and from which we each need to draw our own answers. Now I am almost ready to write about down to earth, everyday mysticism. We each have it if we only give ourselves a chance to listen. Little kids listen until it is knocked out of them by the damaged adults around them. We each need to get back to where we can acknowledge and feel/listen to the original wisdom we have within. That is NOT religion.

Have fun! You are welcome to tell me I'm crazy. I KNOW I stand on firm ground. This thread triggered this process for me. I have never been more clear on anything.

Now you can have fun and I will not even need to look in on this thread


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 12:10 AM

Cool. I've done some pendulum work myself. It's quite interesting. I'm not 100% sure, however, that it's always reliable, depending on who does it and what they're thinking and why, but that's for each person to find out for themselves. For certain people it may be 100% reliable. Perhaps not for certain others. I've seen people who were very adept at that sort of thing (pendulum, dowsing, etc).

What do you mean by "superior force"? Have you read the book "Power Versus Force"?

And....what do you mean by "Quantum mysticism"?

Can you have all the answers? That would presuppose, for one thing, that you have already asked all the questions. ;-) There are some questions that a person might never even think to ask.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 12:15 AM

"Science is not always correct."

No one (especially scientists) ever said that it was. Science is constantly revising, improving, and expanding. The same cannot always be said for many bodies of religious belief.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 12:28 AM

True, Don. It's unfortunate when people's thinking becomes rigidly tied to any past body of either scientific or religious dogma...and they are unwilling to revise, improve, and expand their thinking. If this is so, it's because they are afraid to (at some level).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 01:20 AM

Fergie, et al, for some, science presupposes the NON-existence of God. So there you have it. Loggerheads. The Mills method of scientific reasoning does not allow for the introduction of non-provable categories. And science IS a method of applied human reason. The hypothesis must be testable and repeatable.

The hypothetical aspect of science, though is most interesting, especially what is going on in cosmology, cosmogony and physics these days. It is amazing to me that from observable data and the tools of science that some of these bastions of human reason can postulate parallel universes where every conceivable and even inconceivable scenarios may take place, INFINITELY! But let there be no mention of a God! Which is harder to swallow? That right now there are herds of blue and orange polka dotted elephants and twenty headed dinosaurs stampeding through you house and super nova exploding all around you just a dimension away or that God may indeed exist?

That science makes mistakes is entirely true. In fact if there were no mistakes science could never progress for it is by our mistakes and failures that we learn and narrow our investigative focus. Until we got away from the Aristotelian didactic of absolute truth and irrefutable logic did we begin to progress. This was Aquinas's realm and that of the old RCC. Rather science uses the inductive method over the deductive method of reasoning. Deduction has its place but the premises are ALWAYS subject to inspection and revision. And if that is true (look Ma, no hands!), then you must allow for the possibility of a God.

Just the same, you must allow for the possiblity of a human mind with the ablitiy to comprehend the universe, for without it, the universe does not exist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 05:46 AM

"On the other hand, science that denies religion is blind reductionism. For science to say it has all the answers and that there is no room for anything which can't be empirically verified is an equally foolish form of tunnel-vision."

This is what non-scientists tend to think about science. In fact it is religious people who think that they have "all the answers" whereas scientists only know what they don't know.

A religious person tends to believe that all of the 'answers' are contained within an ancient, sacred text whereas a scientist can only attach probability statements to the outcomes of even the most well-designed and careful of experiments.

To sum up: religious people are certain, scientists are uncertain.

And to be really contentious: religious people are often full of pride in their certainty whereas scientists tend to be humble in their uncertainty.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 08:53 AM

Back to the questions I asked, to calrify:

"It" = "your" worldview/paradigm/concept of the essential relationship between "your" concept of science and "your" concept of religion, and whether you generally see them as a compatible combination or as mutually exclusive. Not the absolute definitions of these, but "yours." Because, remember, I'm not looking for debating-type thinking. I'm looking for a collection of individual views in terms that allow a rough summary in numbers I can count up.

The COMMENTARY also is interesting, but without the numbers I'm left to summarize what I think I hope I understood-- that would amount to me, speaking for "you," and "you," and "you," and "you,"-- and I'd rather not.

I know-- it's not a scientific approach. :~) It's not a religious approach, either. :~)

~Susan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:10 AM

Read the article linked to upthread on the topic of Quantum Mysticism--it is just a descriptor of the kind of thinking that some major physicists in the early era of quantum mechanics held.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:27 AM

Science is the study of the real, and religion is belief in the supernatural. I see them as AND, not VS, but I don't see an intersection in the real world. I do see people trying to make them intersect, but that's square peggery to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stu
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 09:56 AM

1. Science is a search for the truth based on empirical evidence. It relies on observation, deduction and reproducibility, along with an ability to analyse and interpret. By it's very nature, science questions everything and it formulates theories based on the available evidence to try to explain it's findings. When new data presents itself, theories are altered, amended, abandoned and re-formulated, and so our understanding of us and the universe develops slowly over the ages. Religion and spirituality are not the same. I believe science is the way forward, as it more enough awe and wonder any religion could ever offer. If I had my time again, I would be a scientist and I study palaeontology, geology and other disciplines in an amateur capacity to help me understand the world. Science vs Religion.

2. I was walking in the woods near my home (here in the UK) one hot summer's day. The footpath I was on runs parallel to a small stream that is now channelled by a dyke built years ago and becomes a feeder for the local reservoir used to top up the canal. At one point, a small wooden bridge crosses a tributary of this small stream and some of the water tumbles of a few stones under the bridge; it's overflow from the runoff pipe from some field drains on the hillside. As I crossed the bridge I heard a woman's voice talking; the sound seemed to be coming from the stream itself as it ran over the stones. I backed up thinking I was listening to a distant tannoy announcement, but everything went quiet again. On re-approaching the bridge the voice started again, and although I could hear it speaking clearly I couldn't quite make out the words. I listened to the voice (it was quite musical) for a while before I carried on over the bridge and continued on with my walk. I realised I couldn't make out the words not matter how hard I listened so moved on.

After thinking about this for a while I decided I heard a genius loci; a spirit of place I was able to actually hear in the material world. Perhaps if my spirit had been less troubled, my mind more open or more connected with my ancestors then I could have understood the voice. I have passed that bridge many, many times since that warm summer's day but have never heard the voice again. Hopefully, one day I will be allowed hear the spirit of place again, my music and my art are part of my journey towards achieving this through a clear mind and a calm, quiet spirit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 10:18 AM

There's a great deal of unanswered mystery about existence which, since time beyond measuring we have dumped in the laps of supernatural or superhuman entities, gigantic metaphors for our own ignorance or poor memories.

Material science has assured us that, for example, volcanos are not the side-effect of psychopathic gods having a bad hair day. We have learned the world is not flat. But in my opinion there is a set of purely spiritual questions of a different class-ones that will not go away in the advance of material science. Knowing, perceiving, modes of being, and the core nature of space and the viewpoint "in" space are probably, ultimately, questions that will be answered in a spiritual model rather than a material one.

None of this has anything to do with the kind of toxic iconology that is typical of our more primitive religions. These, I think, are no more durable than the flat-earth or caloric models in natural science.

But the questions are.


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 10:29 AM

Susan, as you probably know, I think it's Science vrs. Religion today. ID and other corrupt mythologies have muddied the waters. I see religion as something irrelevant to ethics and ethical behavior.

I believe that science should investigate religion as to its validity.

I respect many religious people but not for their beliefs but for who they are as ethical
human beings.

Science and dogma is an oxymoron. Science is continuously debunking itself whereas
religion offers strict unchanging platitudes.

I see religion as an umbrella for unethical behavior that condones murdering abortion doctors to child abuse in the Catholic church, the rise of fascistic hate groups, and the forcing of religion down the throats through a national day of prayer.

Susan, I respect you and think that you are a good person and asking a legitimate question.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 10:45 AM

Thank you, Frank.

~Susan


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: john f weldon
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 11:21 AM

A little filmlet I made a few years ago. Pictures and more fun than words, eH?

Science, Religion & Decorum


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Science and Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jun 09 - 11:29 AM

"I'm looking for a collection of individual views in terms that allow a rough summary in numbers I can count up.

Ok then... The bet I can never collect on is:There is No supreme creative consciousness that 'ordered' the Universe, therefore - the pure, basic notion of Science will always versus the pure, basic notion of religion.
(I use the adjectives because of all the linguistic, metaphorical definitions of religion noted above)

*end of direct answer*
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, I suggest that when folks who use 'Science' most of the time, but admit to a 'religious' feeling/belief/attitude/concept, they are doing the very human thing of harboring an internal logical inconsistency. We are capable of using poetic language to create concepts that we can only explain with more poetic, metaphorical concepts. It's what MAKES us human, and I don't doubt it will always be with us, with the continuity of religious beliefs assured. The real goal, then, should be to get wider recognition OF this dichotomy and to get people to process their 'religious' concepts as purely subjective, and to limit attempts to ***impose*** any of them on others as "truth" which should affect and/or control the laws, morals, etc., of the basic structures of society.

(explication of that condensed bit of philosophy is about 20 pages long...)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 4 April 8:18 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.