Jump to content
Science Forums

Reconciling science and religion: doomed to fail


Galapagos

Recommended Posts

There is no doubt that science and religion can be reconciled; and they must be reconciled by agreement or anihilation. Right now, science has no theory of the cause, and religion holds the upper hand. Science has an upper hand in explaining effects, and religion is at loss there--but, religion was never an effect inquiry. Religion has always been a cause postulate and ought-to-do philosophy. Science has dispelled many of religions ought-to-do mandates simply because it has proven that natural effects favor a more prudent approach. But, the cause is nowhere in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, science has no theory of the cause, and religion holds the upper hand. Science has an upper hand in explaining effects, and religion is at loss there--but, religion was never an effect inquiry. Religion has always been a cause postulate and ought-to-do philosophy. Science has dispelled many of religions ought-to-do mandates simply because it has proven that natural effects favor a more prudent approach. But, the cause is nowhere in sight.

 

I wouldn't say religion has the upper hand on a cause (I presume you mean God by this). Every religion has a different creation myth. Which one is right?

Science has no business making claims that can not be supported by evidence. Hence, logically, science does not address questions concerning first cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This is a test" of the MM broadcasting system. Am I speaking in a vacuum (as it seems in my "spacetime" thread,) or am I actually being heard and simply ignored.

 

Here again is the essence of my previous post in this thread.

Consider the following statement implied in most of the above criticisms of what I call Gnosis : (Edit: This from the "Does God Exist?" thread... also no reply.)

"Since I have never experienced transcendence of personal consciousness/identity, let alone the direct experience of cosmic or God consciousness, it is impossible and in fact merely false belief or delusion."

 

Do all you critics above (Ed: ... in the "Does God Exist" thread... closely related) endorse the above?

 

I "believe" that science and mystic realization, as above, will one day find common ground and learn to "play well together"... as long as "creationism" doesn't persist in calling itself science!

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Michael, you are not being ignored:)

i dunno about common ground, but i can see coexisting. There will always be belief systems and religion while there is a fear of death and the ego that says i must be infinite. Creationism is only one point in one religion, that will never be reconciled with science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

Had response of around 800 words. Lost it to the gods of cyberspace. Apparently when I get a PM from one of you all and I am hitting "preview post" - I a) get locked out of the window where preview is and B) if I either of the two buttons to go to message, I get booted out of my Safari browser. I'm sad.

 

But! What I do remember about what I was saying in my long diatribe is:

> oh yeah, I was addressing post #19. Science may not be in business of first cause. But humans are. And while some (so called) scientists may never 'get that' I also see science as in that business tangentially and somewhere between denial and/or taking it for granted.

> Because science is based on axiom(s). And is seemingly unwilling to explore that (much). If I google the axiom I routinely come back to, I see little exploration on the topic, especially within scientific practice. The conclusion thus shows up to me as, (modern) science takes for granted existence of a physical universe. It is not in business of truly exploring this, as premise, and it often shows up to me as matter of faith, though no (materialistic) scientist will dare admit to it in that way.

> Much of scientific practice is, IMO, too concerned with restating evidence, and thus talking about or playing around with "what," rather than how and why. How and why is in there. But I'm more than happy to clarify what I mean by this if anyone cares to expound upon it. IMO, when scientific practice gets into the business of interpreting cause, which it routinely does, it is very prone to being misguided, just like any other human endeavor. To me, this isn't anything "wrong" with science, and is reflective of humanity.

> I see scientist as willing to tell 'lies' and sometimes unwilling to bend from self reinforced determination of 'facts.'

> In my experience, I encounter often people who self-identify as spiritual and who are appreciative of science and are participating in it at hobby level. IMO, that is practicing science. I also encounter spiritual people who have vendetta against science. Likewise, I encounter science types (some on this forum), who appear to be operating from, what shows up to me as, outdated views of spirituality. They may still be "popular," but it seems like some science types think the spiritual is in one vein and thus are very dismissive of any information that comes from spiritual discourse and research. What? You didn't follow a very anal methodology in your research? Off with your head!

> And finally, I believe it is inevitable that practitioners of science and practitioners of religion / spirituality reconcile, partially because we literally are one in the same. But, here in what is still reminiscent of primitive human culture, we appear to be distinct individuals, in separate camps, looking at different things with vastly different approaches. Perhaps similar things, but still vastly different approaches. And the other side, "they" seem to be intruding on our space. It's really a "them" thing that is ruining it for all of us; and we shall never frame this as "we" are contributing to the problem. For our side IS the solution, and their side is wrong, wrong, wrong.

> The dogmas may never appear in harmony, but the rigid form(s) of religion and the rigid view(s) of science are not what is desiring reconciliation. It is humanity. And in my view, it is two ways of seeing the same thing, and that same thing sees the two ways as one. I realize to some that is gobblety gook, but if not willing to explore that for more than 8 seconds, then perhaps just realize that someone like me is convinced there is significant overlap between the two. Both in my opinion and in my life practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

> I see scientist as willing to tell 'lies' and sometimes unwilling to bend from self reinforced determination of 'facts.'

.

 

 

If that is true then religion and science should get on famously, Religion is nothing but Bullshit woven together with lies and half truths. Unfortunately for religion science is indeed based on and requires the truth. This truth is based on real, repeatable evidence. Science can change if the evidence points in a new direction. Religion just tells new lies when the bullshit gets too thick for the faithful to swallow.

 

What you are are alluding to as science is really a pretty good determination of what religion is, unending allegiance to self determined facts in the face of contrary evidence by using lies to distort reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is true then religion and science should get on famously, Religion is nothing but Bullshit woven together with lies and half truths.

 

Wow, you sound like you got a little hostility going on there.

 

Not all religions are like you say. Some are. Even those are not "nothing but BS" to me.

 

I just googled a faith that I am aware of, one that I am familiar with, but not one I belong to. I don't belong to an organized religion, though feel tolerant of many. Not all. Some of them I loathe, and perhaps have more philosophic issues than you.

 

But the one I chose to google, and found on Wikipedia just now is: Bahai Faith. (I know I don't have punctuation correct on it's name. Sorry.)

 

Anyway, the reason I chose to google it is because I believe on the Wikipedia page I can quote things that you won't think is "nothing but BS." Perhaps you will, but I think not. I think if you explored this faith thoroughly, you would find plenty of BS, in your estimation. I grant that. Here are my selected quotes from the Wikipedia page:

 

- Humanity is understood to be involved in a process of collective evolution, and the need of the present time is for the gradual establishment of peace, justice and unity on a global scale.

 

- The Bahá'í writings emphasize the essential equality of human beings, and the abolition of prejudice. Humanity is seen as essentially one, though highly varied; its diversity of race and culture are seen as worthy of appreciation and acceptance. Doctrines of racism, nationalism, caste, social class and gender-based hierarchy are seen as artificial impediments to unity.

 

- Fanaticism is forbidden.

 

Anyway, I'm not holding my breath that these will have you reconsider your attitudes, but am compelled to say that it seems to me you would throw baby out with bath water that you deem too damn dirty.

 

Unfortunately for religion science is indeed based on and requires the truth. This truth is based on real, repeatable evidence.

 

It's based on truth that is physical, while not really (really really) questioning the objective reality of the physical. I think it dabbles in this, and if we explore this enough in further discussion, I may be seen to concede a wee bit, though I'm not in vendetta mode against science. I know it works. Just as I know spirituality works.

 

Science can change if the evidence points in a new direction. Religion just tells new lies when the bullshit gets too thick for the faithful to swallow.

 

I feel you are talking about individuals. I find that sometimes science practitioners have to be hit over the head (metaphorically speaking) before considering update to their ideas. It's not "evidence points in new direction," it's more like, "whole slew of other scientists are looking in this direction with great interest. Are you on board (yet)?" Evidence can be observed selectively. I'm not saying it always is. I would give benefit of doubt and say that (good) scientists remain open during testing and formulating hypothesis part of methodology. But some don't, and I believe many take for granted theories when applied to practice - as in - "I don't have to stay wide open to new evidence, because I do this for a living, and I've seen similar circumstances dozens of times." IOW, ritual replaces principles of methodology.

 

What you are are alluding to as science is really a pretty good determination of what religion is, unending allegiance to self determined facts in the face of contrary evidence by using lies to distort reality.

 

I would say - using consciousness and logic / philosophy to challenge the (dogma) convictions of materialistic universe. I might even go as far as say that it is Reason (within spirituality) challenging faith (within materialism). Show of hands on a science forum for those who agree with this claim? Anyone? Don't be shy.

 

-Jway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In everything you say are lies within lies wrapped up with half truths and false accusations. It doesn't matter which religion you choose or which one you agree with or how bad you personally feel like God is the ultimate truth or how much you want there to be something beyond science and reality. Religion is based on dogma, the dogma of lies and misinformation. Religion cannot stand the light of truth. The only sciences religion has a problem with are the sciences that are outside the experiences of most humans. You don't see religion arguing mathematics, or chemistry. Only in those areas were people can be convinced to believe falsehoods because the reality of the falsehoods seldom intervene in their privates lives can the lies of religion gain a foot hold. You can't pray away math, or chemistry, you cannot pray and make a chemical reaction not happen, or cause 2+2=5 but you can pray and deceive people onto believing their is a God looking down from the sky who is keeping track of who is naughty and nice. It's easy to lie and convince people the earth is 6000 years old when 4.5 billion is meaningless to most people. Easy to convince people that humans are special and above the real world when they want to believe they are special. I have no problem with people believing what they want as long as they don't try to teach it as the truth but Religion is a lie it feeds and exists on lies, you are being totally disingenuous by alluding to science as being something less than truthful and then trying to show religion as some sort of ultimate truth outside the keen of science. Go sell this crap somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In everything you say are lies within lies wrapped up with half truths and false accusations.

 

Care to cite these lies of which you speak?

 

It doesn't matter which religion you choose or which one you agree with or how bad you personally feel like God is the ultimate truth or how much you want there to be something beyond science and reality.

 

Sure it does. It matters. I'm sorry you are filled with so much animosity.

 

Religion is based on dogma, the dogma of lies and misinformation.

 

Some religions may be, not all religions are. IMO, spirituality is a more fair comparison, as it is as broad a category as science. Religion is more comparable to scientific organization or perhaps branch of scientific practice.

 

Scientific practice has it's dogma and misinformation. The strict view of "what is science" cited on Wikipedia, I believe constitutes dogma - which Wikipedia states as: Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by an ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

 

If I wish to practice "good" science, in your view, may I diverge from scientific method? (Here, speak into the mic.)

 

I just double-checked "misinformation" on Wikipedia and am even more convinced about this assessment within scientific practice. Essentially, until theories are updated, and a wide consensus is held, I believe science could be, likely is, engaging in misinformation. IMO, there are plenty of examples of this. One that comes to mind is scientific theories around global warming and global climate change. Personally, I would say that until something is Law (universally accepted), it would seem misinformation is plausible.

 

Religion cannot stand the light of truth.

 

Sure it can. I may concede, though would very much like to discuss, that some religions may not buy into the 'tenets' of materialism and empiricism as "the" truth. Thus if claiming that only evidence that is physical evidence is truth, then I might concede that some religions cannot stand the light of (this) truth. Though, I believe that is a) my opinion and B) very debatable as I give benefit of doubts I may have whereby some religions do actually align with these views, and perhaps have been for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

 

You can't pray away math, or chemistry, you cannot pray and make a chemical reaction not happen, or cause 2+2=5

 

It's humorous to me that you think people who identify with spirituality might have such desires. This seems to be what you are saying is related to dogma. People who are religious / spiritual want to pray away these things, because their doctrine may tell them to (in broad terms), but they cannot.

 

Yet, on the flip side, no human living today is required to adhere to scientific methodology in light of any of these disciplines in order to receive benefits from them and/or to make their own discoveries in them. I'm guessing you may dispute that last part, but I stand by it. You can make discoveries in say math, or chemistry without following scientific method.

 

but you can pray and deceive people onto believing their is a God looking down from the sky who is keeping track of who is naughty and nice.

 

I'm not even sure if this makes sense, but I think I get it as another view of how you see dogma working in religion. In my view on spirituality, and most people I know that self identify as spiritual (I'd say more than 30), I can't think of any who hold such belief in the Divine. This view strikes me as antiquated.

 

It's easy to lie and convince people the earth is 6000 years old when 4.5 billion is meaningless to most people.

 

Again, this doesn't make sense. There's like 3 ways that this doesn't make sense. The gist of what I think you're saying, I disagree with, it is not easy for someone to convince people that the earth is 6000 years old. But I'm guessing you feel that this is happening all the time, and that most spiritual people never ever question such ideas.

 

Easy to convince people that humans are special and above the real world when they want to believe they are special.

 

I think some of what spirituality is conveying to humanity is you are more than what your physical senses would have you believe. But here in human land, it isn't actually all that easy to convince people of this. Either true humility or false humility can make it challenging. Like someone wins the nobel peace prize, and is told by fellow humans that they are a cut above the rest, they are special, and they reply with, "oh no no. I'm just like anyone else. Really this award is nothing to me. I love the work I do and that's about the extent of it."

 

I have no problem with people believing what they want as long as they don't try to teach it as the truth but Religion is a lie it feeds and exists on lies

 

Okay, so one spiritual belief I hold, that is routinely teaching me, is that Now is the only aspect of time that exists, and it is eternal. How do I know it is eternal? Well in a sense, I don't need to know this. But I find it to be both logical and observational. Now, I could see you referring to my belief that now is eternal as "a lie" even while I'd be glad to have that discussion. But I'm wondering how you might deem now is all that exists as a lie? I'm open to your comments on this, if you are open to discussion. I would just add that for me to really experience Now, I find it very helpful to meditate. Prayer? Not really, perhaps as way to approach the Now, but meditation and contemplation are human terms I would use for what I find useful when approaching this (routine) experience of self discovery and further research on universal themes that I have NO DOUBT impact my daily life.

 

you are being totally disingenuous by alluding to science as being something less than truthful and then trying to show religion as some sort of ultimate truth outside the keen of science. Go sell this crap somewhere else.

 

I'm detecting a little anger wrapped up in a dose of righteousness. Again, in my worldview, science is going to be okay. The restricted view, prone to dogma, may get ruffled a bit, just as the restricted view of spirituality, religion, also prone to dogma may get ruffled a bit. These two perspectives are different sides of the same coin, and were never truly separated, thus I have no doubt, reconciliation will occur. For me, it already has. And so it is.

 

Regards,

Jway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is empirical, Religion is not. There is no reconciliation possible.

 

It is interesting to note, also, that there is no impetus from Science to "reconcile" with Religion. Religion is merely another theory presented with zero evidence, and is dismissed by Science, as such. You don't see Scientists scurrying around trying to "reconcile" with Perpetual Motion.

 

I think the whole proposition stems from Religion, who are losing ground at a helluva rate as more and more people become aware of the internal inconsistencies and ultimate intellectual bankruptcy of any religion you'd care to mention.

 

But in the face of a glaring lack of evidence, Science sincerely does not give a hoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion for sure has aspects that are empirical.

 

Again, science may not care for religious dogma and what is said by Boerseun within context of religious dogma, I'd agree. But science does give a hoot about spirituality. If you don't really care to notice that, that's okay. Spirituality, as I know and understand it, and observe it in others, doesn't give a hoot about scientific dogma. While admittedly religious dogma apparently does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...