Reconciling science and religion: doomed to fail

[Moontanman]

Care to cite these lies of which you speak?

 

The very basis of your contention that Religion (now you say spirituality) is comparable to science in any real way is a lie.

 

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

 

No I am not filled with animosity, I am filled with disgust and no it doesn't matter what religion you choose, they all rely on there being something real beyond what we call reality. It's at best a misrepresentation but in reality it's just a lie to say they know any this to be true.

 

 

 

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.

 

You are simply trying justify your spirituality by trying to move the goal posts around, religion/spirituality is just two ways of saying the same thing. The mean you believe there is something beyond the reality we can detect directly. These is absolutely no evidence for this what so ever. You can believe all you want but God, Santa, or the great beyond, has no evidence of it's existence other than the lies told to support that view.

 

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.

 

Just because science or some practitioners of science make mistakes doesn't make religion true. all practitioners of religion rely either directly or indirectly on lies. a scientists might make mistakes but the body of science rely on evidence, not dogma.

 

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

 

Funny man, if you wish to practice good religion you are attempting to practice an oxymoron.

 

 

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.

 

Your opinion? Religion is nothing but misinformation, and lies and deceit. this is not an opinion, it's reality.

 

 

 

 

 

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 :hihi: 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 really have no idea of what the truth is and what belief is do you, this is very sad.

 

 

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.

 

Since you have changed your basic argument from religion to spirituality i have to concede that being spiritual doesn't mean you necessarily want to pray away reality. It may just mean you want to hope that reality is defined by something beyond reality that cannot be quantified in any way except your way.

 

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.

 

 

No humans are nor required to adhere to scientific methodology, that is why the lies of religion can live on in our society.

 

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.

 

again since you have switched horses in mid stream i have to concede that someone who is spiritual may not believe that way but you still need the "great beyond" to support your false assumptions.

 

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.

 

Wake up! It is indeed happening all the time, just because your personal spirituality doesn't embrace this most Judeo religions do and they are the power base in this conflict.

 

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."

 

 

this is a lie it is based on absolutely no evidence what so ever other than you want this to be true. Lies lies 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.

 

because your beliefs impact your life doesn't make them real, get off your high horse and join reality.

 

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

 

I'm happy for you, self delusion is the easiest lie of all.

[modest]

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.)

 

The last sentence in the quote doesn't make sense. Practicing science is by definition using the scientific method.

 

Your posts are missing the fundamental difference between spirituality and science. The difference is not in the specific answers obtained by either method, as you have told MTM to look as some specific religion and see if he finds its claims palatable. That's beside the point. Nor is the difference the vigor with which those answers are defended by their respective practitioners. A good scientist would surely strongly support the particular theory he is advocating and I'm sure a good spiritual guru or religious leader would strongly support whatever it is they are advocating. That is, again, beside the point.

 

The difference is in the method of obtaining answers. I will assume that you know how spirituality works, so I won't presume to tell you how answers are derived in that system. But, it seems discernable from your posts that you lack an understanding of the scientific method (the method of finding answers in the discipline of science).

 

"Science" is a method of testing information. It starts with an hypothesis such as "the sun is the center of the solar system". At this point the hypothesis is neither valid nor invalid. The approach of science is to devise empirical tests which logically follow from the hypothesis which might be called predictions. If experiment agrees with prediction then the hypothesis is not disproved. If a large amount of subsequent experiment and observation agree with the hypothesis then it becomes a scientific theory, law, or model.

 

Nothing prevents matters of spirituality from being approached with the scientific method. A longstanding hypothesis of humanity is that humans (and animals) have spirits. If such an hypothesis were ever to lead to verifiable predictions which could be tested then spirituality could become scientific theory. The fact that this hasn't happened yet doesn't mean the existence of a spirit is disproved by science. It simply means science currently has no use for spirits. It is not a useful hypothesis.

 

Many non-scientists assume that science rejects religious ideas because they are religious. This is not the case. There is nothing wrong a priori with a religious hypothesis. What scientists reject is the religious method. Scientists are handicapped in that they cannot say "this is the absolute truth because it is divinely inspired" nor can they say "this is correct because I found it beautiful when I was in an enlightened state meditating". In science, no theory can ever be considered the absolute truth. It is always contingent on future experiment. The scientific method can disprove a theory, but it can never prove a theory. At best you can say: "this theory agrees with all known evidence" or "this theory does not agree with such-and-such evidence, so it is wrong". There is never an occasion to say "this theory is absolutely correct".

 

So, that's *not* dogma. It's actually dogma's antithesis. There is no such thing as scientific dogma where "scientific" is shorthand for "the scientific method".

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest (summary of post):

So, that's *not* dogma. It's actually dogma's antithesis. There is no such thing as scientific dogma where "scientific" is shorthand for "the scientific method".

 

Ideally, this is true. Objectivity *should* prevail in science. However, in the real world of science textbooks and websites which establish "the prevailing body of scientific *knowledge*", certain *theories* are actually presented as so well established by evidence that, in the scientific literature, the pass for "facts."

An example, if permitted, would be the theory that gravity bends "spacetime"... thjis without an ontology of what "spacetime" is other than a conceptual metric or "grid"... which is not the same as a natural phenomena which, in the real cosmos is "bent."

Nuff said.

Michael

[InfiniteNow]

Ideally, this is true. Objectivity *should* prevail in science. However, in the real world of science textbooks and websites which establish "the prevailing body of scientific *knowledge*", certain *theories* are actually presented as so well established by evidence that, in the scientific literature, the pass for "facts."

You clearly exist with a very poor understanding of science. Just so you know, in science, a theory is FAR more powerful than a fact. Facts are just collections of observations, whereas a theory is able to explain those observations in a consistent and repeatable manner.

 

For instance, "This rock is black" is a fact. However, the theory will explain why that rock is that color it is, as well as what color other rocks will be given some set of input parameters... the theory tells you what made the rock black, and is significantly more powerful than just observing that the rock is black.

 

 

 

Nuff said.

 

:confused:

Indeed.

[Michael Mooney]

InfiniteNow:

You clearly exist with a very poor understanding of science. Just so you know, in science, a theory is FAR more powerful than a fact. Facts are just collections of observations, whereas a theory is able to explain those observations in a consistent and repeatable manner.

 

For instance, "This rock is black" is a fact. However, the theory will explain why that rock is that color it is, as well as what color other rocks will be given some set of input parameters... the theory tells you what made the rock black, and is significantly more powerful than just observing that the rock is black.

 

First, I really like your user name. Kinda like the "absolute now" i've presented as 'the ongoing, perpetual present' in the debate about time being some kind of local entity as per relativity's "time frame" reference as to how each location is *supposed* to have its own special "time" environment.

 

Secondly, I am the worlds best expert on Michael Mooney, and I will here expose your misconception. I have appreciated the difference between the power and scope of scientific theory over mere isolated facts, as you have correctly stated, for all my adult life as a lay (amateur... lover of science) scientist for ...oh... about 50 years now.

 

But your example of the black rock (fact) and the explanation for its blackness (theory) is totally irrelevant to the example I offered.

 

Please explain the relevance of your example to mine.

What is spacetime in the same sense as the rock is indisputably black, as a matter of fact, to begin with? To posit spacetime as a fabric that is effected by gravity posits that it is an entity... as a matter of fact... which it is not. So all theories about "the fabric spacetime" are bogus if there is actually 'nothing there ' but the empty space in which observable phenomena actually exist. So then if it is just a convenient word to signify the concept of malleable space and time, this malleability must be shown to apply to the 'fabric' as a real existential entity... or it must be admitted to be a 'fabricated concept' and not an actual entity at all.

The rock is black... an insignificant fact compared to the reason it is black. Agreed.

So apply this to "spacetime." I'm all ears.

 

Michael

[InfiniteNow]

No need. I don't have to explain or support things which I didn't personally assert, nor do I need to address your off topic request if I don't feel like it, since it's not based on anything which I, myself, have claimed.

 

Glad you like my username. I also like it. :confused:

[modest]

Ideally, this is true. Objectivity *should* prevail in science.

I'm not sure what objectivity in science has to do with what I said.

 

However, in the real world of science textbooks and websites which establish "the prevailing body of scientific *knowledge*", certain *theories* are actually presented as so well established by evidence that, in the scientific literature, the pass for "facts."

 

I'm sure there are textbooks which forget to (or simply choose not to) differentiate every concept as either theory or fact every time it's mentioned. A fact and a theory can also go by the same name. That's why it behooves you, as the reader, to understand the difference between the two. Facts are honest observations. Gravity as a fact means that things fall when you drop them. Newtonian and Einsteinean gravity are theories which explain the facts of gravity. Evolution as a fact means that species change over time (an honest observation). Darwinian evolution (i.e. natural selection) is a theory which explains the fact of evolution.

 

As INow says, theories are far more powerful as a means of understanding nature than are their accompanying facts. But, we also recognize that no theory can ever be proven "true" by the accompanying facts. While the facts might generally be considered "truth", the theory explaining the facts generally cannot be.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest,

I'm in full agreement with your explanation of the scientific method in post 36.

 

My issue is with your claim that there is no dogma in science as per your statement:

So, that's *not* dogma. It's actually dogma's antithesis. There is no such thing as scientific dogma where "scientific" is shorthand for "the scientific method".

 

My example cites the *assumption* that "spacetime" is an entity that is bent by gravity... and expands, etc. As Doctordick has painstakingly pointed out, the assumption of such an entity or "fabric" is not a requirement for explaining the observations, and "the ontology of spacetime" is an ongoing debate among many scientists. Yet its existence is assumed as well established in all texts and websites (including Wikipedia) on relativity. This is what I mean by dogmatic.

 

My reference to objectivity simply affirms the obvious: that science is ideally an unbiased investigation of the natural world/cosmos.

 

Michael

[modest]

If you thought before that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.

 

-Richard Feynman

 

~modest

[freeztar]

Let's keep this thread on-topic please.

 

Off-topic posts may be moved or deleted as seen fit.

[InfiniteNow]

Readers whom are generally interested in this topic will most certainly enjoy this exchange between Sam Harris and Philip Ball, 20 year writer/editor of the journal Nature.

 

It is a series of letters between the two men written across 6 days which really dive deeply into the heart of these issues surrounding science and religion, and their differences. Despite these two men being incredibly intelligent and capable with words, it demonstrates just how irreconcilable the two approaches to existence (science and religion) truly are/can be.

 

I hope you enjoy it. Cheers. :)

 

 

What should science do? | Sam Harris v. Philip Ball | The Reason Project

Dear Phil—

 

Well, we seem to have a tempest in a teapot brewing. You were good enough to notice the birth of my foundation, The Reason Project, in your column in Nature (“How much reason do you want?” Nature News 14 May 2009), and I repaid this kindness by hurling you into the Reason Project Hall of Shame for perceived indiscretions of rational thought. You then responded to your confinement on your blog (“Whatever you do, don’t call them militant” 19 May 2009)—and life on earth has not been the same since.

 

I wonder whether you would like to have a direct exchange on these issues. I’m not entirely sure where our respective misunderstandings leave off and our genuine differences of opinion begin, but it might be interesting for readers to watch us struggle to sort things out.

 

Please let me know your thoughts.

 

Best,

 

Sam

 

Sam Harris

Co-Founder and CEO

The Reason Project

 

 

 

Dear Sam,

 

Thanks for this message. A tempest in a teapot seems an apt way to express it. I do suspect that most of our disagreement hinges on misunderstandings rather than genuine differences, although of course there’s no harm in the latter.

 

I can appreciate that you wouldn’t welcome the mildly skeptical tone of my Nature article, but I’m still puzzled about why you found it sufficiently objectionable to (as you say) hurl it into your Hall of Shame. (I assume this particular pit is not intended for all critics, but only for those whose message you find especially abhorrent or misguided.) <continue reading>

[InfiniteNow]

From today's Wall Street Journal:

 

 

God and Science Don't Mix - WSJ.com

My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.

 

-- J.B.S. Haldane

 

"Fact and Faith" (1934)

 

 

<...>

 

Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.

 

While such a leap may not be unimpeachable it is certainly rational, as Mr. McGinn pointed out at the World Science Festival. Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world's organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an "atheist absolutist," a "reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions."

 

When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues on the panel with the apparent miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of Catholic theology.

 

Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Moreover, the true believers in each of these faiths are atheists regarding the specific sacred tenets of all other faiths. Christianity rejects the proposition that the Quran contains the infallible words of the creator of the universe. Muslims and Jews reject the divinity of Jesus.

 

So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God, and thus to conclude that claimed miracles like the virgin birth are incompatible with our scientific understanding of nature. <

more at the link

>

[modest]

Continued from Re: Origin of the universe: god versus no god.

 

I am very aware of the teachings and practice of both Christians and Moslem. I can tell you first-hand, that Christains do not do as you project:

In applying religion to the problem at hand the religious person might choose to have faith in God and to pray—moving the mountain. It says, after all, in his scripture, which we can assume he rightly believes, that having faith means you can tell a mountain to move from here to there and it will move.

 

Indeed they don’t do that. I believe I said that rather clearly. Extending your quote of my post another sentence you’ll find it:

But, our christian friend doesn't do this.

 

Huh? No. Haven't you heard of the Protestant work ethic? The Puritans were workaholics.

 

Yes, I think you’ll find that really was my point. I’m afraid it appears you may not have quite followed what I was saying. Christians and other people of faith don’t usually rely on God or their faith to solve real world problems. It’s easier for an individual of faith to make use of natural methods than for an atheistic person to make use of supernatural methods simply because natural methods are more useful. I say this as a means of agreeing with your assertion that theists have an easier time incorporating science into their belief system than do atheists incorporating religion into theirs. It’s easier for the religious person to use science despite his religion than it is for the atheist to use religion despite his atheism—simply because science is more useful. That’s really all I was saying. To quote an aphorism of it: “If the mountain won't come to Muhammad, Muhammad must go to the mountain.”

 

Later talk is extended at length about some guy, Ussher, who made up his own religion. But what’s the point?

 

I don’t know what you mean by “made up his own religion”. James Ussher was a Catholic archbishop and his chronology of the bible (which is what I made reference to) is printed in most Christian bibles. The point I made is well-stated in the text of my post. It has to do with two different methods for investigating (or, at least, answering) questions about the world around us—a religious method and a scientific method. I gave an example of the 2 methods with Ussher and Hubble. They both answered the same specific question, but used different methods to find that answer.

 

Of course, Ussher’s answer was wrong, but it’s not the answer that I’m objecting to. The point I would make is that Ussher’s method (the religious method) is fundamentally flawed—so much so that you’re nearly guaranteed to obtain bad answers, and history attests to this. Discoveries that lead to advancement in knowledge and understanding come invariably by means other than divine revelation or transcendent ‘perception’.

 

Do you believe that a concept or claim that is common in those 5 religions must be true? If I show you a specific example of something claimed in all 5 that is demonstrably false would you change your mind?

Hopefully those were not empty words.

 

They were not rhetorical questions :lol:

 

Must say I am impressed with your understanding of many of many facts of Islam

 

I’ve been called crazy for it before, but I do enjoy studying and discussing religion and especially the history of religion. Though I know relatively little of Islam and the history of Islam as compared to Christianity and Judaism.

 

so I will be interested what commonality between all religions proves the lack of worth of them all.

 

Right, but, I’m asking if you think commonalities must be true, and if so then would a counterexample change your mind about that. You either interpret that to mean “prove the lack of worth of all religions”, or you prefer that as a strawman. Hopefully the former, but not good either way.

 

I mentioned something that will work well-enough as a counterexample in my last post. All 5 major world religions explain natural phenomena using supernatural or divine causes. Earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, lightning, and so on... We can no longer believe that these things have the supernatural causes that religion has historically attributed them. We now know, everybody in modern society knows, that they are natural.

 

I believe you misunderstand my meaning when I said, “Cool, I suppose anything is possible when it comes to that and other scriptures.”... What I was referring actually to was the epiphanies and understandings that one achieves when reading scripture that could apply to “anything is possible.” What I mean is that if someone were quietly reading that scripture, came to Joshua 10, and between the lines epiphany is gained that directly applies to issues/problems in that individual’s life—that gained truth need not literally relate to the sun standing still.

 

I see. By “anything is possible when it comes to scripture” you meant that scripture is good literature when read metaphorically. I apologize for the mistaken impression.

 

To that comment of mine, you bring up a specific excerpt, Joshua 10. No, that is not my intent. Please remember that scripture use many literary devices (parable, slimily, metaphor, allegory, myth, mystic, etc) therefore it is very dangerous and misleading to read too literally at all times and without reflection.

 

You’ll get no argument here—it’s horrifically dangerous :shrug:

 

The danger in Joshua 10 is not so much the sun standing still. Joshua and his people were committing mass genocide—systematically wiping out the men, women, children, elderly, and livestock of an entire culture of people. God helped Joshua by killing some of the people himself (He threw giant hailstones on them) and by lengthening a day for an additional 24 hours, because when God is on your side you apparently don’t have to ethnically cleanse a population in the dark. He’ll hold the sun up for you so that you might see the little babies clearly when you run them through with your sward (or, however it was done).

 

That same day Joshua captured and destroyed the town of Makkedah. He killed everyone in it, including the king, leaving no survivors. He destroyed them all, and he killed the king of Makkedah as he had killed the king of Jericho.

 

So then, I agree with you to the extent that literally following this kind of thing (the Bible or the Qur’an as examples) is dangerous. If Israeli Jews today literally took the character of their God like Joshua did then they would probably do the same thing again with the current occupants—Palestinians. So, I agree, but I would go a step further and say that taking such a thing metaphorically as a source of morality is still not a very rational and safe thing to do. I just can’t imagine giving something like the book of Joshua to a child and saying “Read this. Worship it. Draw inspiration from it and apply it to your life.” What a dangerous prospect that seems to me.

 

how we are expected to know what is true when any truth is possible. For example: which miracles were divine and really happened? I do not know of a rational way of answering that question.

Miracles? What miracles?

 

The many miracles commonly claimed throughout the major world religions.

 

Who said their needs to be miracles to feel/believe in God?

 

Nobody said that there need be miracles to believe in God. A belief in a God who doesn’t suspend the laws of nature on behalf of humankind with miracles and prophesy and the like is deism (as opposed to theism).

 

BTW: you have not acknowledged or denied whether you can see (or have seen) that beauty which I am trying to describe. Yes, you said that you once practiced as Baptist, but did you even see what I’m talking about?

 

I understand where you’re coming from in asking this question. You said the following to Boerseun:

It is the perception of this “beauty” that fills my Faith to overflowing. You will understand (or not) that last statements depending on your background. I expect that people with true faith--regardless of denomination--will know exactly of what I speak, while people who don't believe are probably confused (or are just now concluding that I am "confused.")

I understand. I used to be of this same mindset. I was a Jesus freak in my youth. I believed, as you apparently do now, that my experience with faith transcended worldly experience and became something so special and ineffable that others could not experience it. I was not as tolerant as you in deciding who shared my special feeling. Non-Christians certainly didn’t apply, and some Christian denominations were too far removed from my beliefs to share in the wonder. It’s not true.

 

Baptists don’t have the monopoly on feelings of majesty, wonder, awe, and beauty. Neither do Calvinists, Christians, Judeo-Christians, monotheists, theists, people of faith, or any group.

 

~modest

[Hasanuddin]

Hi Modest,

 

Before I reply, could I make a silly and small request? Please teach me how to make the button-quote that are actually hyperlinks. I’ve just been typing in html, but that doesn’t give the hyperlink.

 

Sorry if I misunderstood you, I couldn't tell which side of the fence you were on. You’re your last post, it appears you understand both sides. Personally I find it quite hard to follow someone’s reasoning if the intent behind the words is not known. For example,

Originally posted by Modest post 47:

theists have an easier time incorporating science into their belief system than do atheists incorporating religion into theirs. It’s easier for the religious person to use science despite his religion than it is for the atheist to use religion despite his atheism—simply because science is more useful.

To me, following such a quote is quite tricky without knowing what your actually predisposition is. I mean, the first part of the quote appears supportive of the faith-full, while the last cause seems firmly atheist.

Ussher: My point was that he is obscure to the point of irrelevance. Also, I’d insert that Ussher’s method is not the only method.

 

Ussher’s methods do not negate the blended methods of others, e.g., the spiritual scientists quoted earlier

”I am among those who think that science has great beauty. A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician: he is a child place before natural phenomena which impress him like a fairy tale.”

Marie Curie – (1867-1934)

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Albert Einstein – (1879-1955)

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”

Carl Sagan – (1934-1996)

 

Later the point being made with Ussher is boiled down

Originally posted by Modest The point I would make is that Ussher’s method (the religious method) is fundamentally flawed—so much so that you’re nearly guaranteed to obtain bad answers, and history attests to this. Discoveries that lead to advancement in knowledge and understanding come invariably by means other than divine revelation or transcendent ‘perception’.”

Isn’t this fallacious reasoning:

Ussher utilized a religious method

Ussher’s methodology was inherently flawed

Therefore religious methodologies are inherently flawed.

 

No, I don’t think that Ussher negates the spiritual appreciation/methodology used by Curie, Einstein, Sagan, and countless others. Arguably all such people did reconcile both religion and science (personally) to be functioning interwoven aspects of their being. In all three cases these folks seem to contradict your final assertion that scientific advancement “and understanding come invariably by means other than divine revelation or transcendent ‘perception’.” Rather the reverse seems to be true. Curie speaks of being awestruck, Einstein of being given sight, and Sagan of deriving the source of his spirituality. Although an individual person might have never seen the ‘beauty’ of God within science/nature, that does not mean that others haven’t, can’t, or won’t be seen by others.

 

To the challenge to produce a commonality between the 5 biggest religions on Earth, which is flawed, comes the reply

Originally posted by Modest

All 5 major world religions explain natural phenomena using supernatural or divine causes. Earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, lightning, and so on... We can no longer believe that these things have the supernatural causes that religion has historically attributed them. We now know, everybody in modern society knows, that they are natural.

With this assertion I both agree and disagree. True, with your assertion that the religions name divine causes for natural disasters. True, science can given accounts (for the most part) how these events naturally occur. However, there are several ways to reconcile these.

 

Essentially all such explanations fall under the category that natural disasters are part of a grander scheme. Who lives and who dies may appear to be left to chance, though are they? Were there individual lessons/tests that the survivors were meant to learn, e.g., Job? Was there some bigger purpose that was meant to be accomplished, e.g., the Bowling Day tsunami that destroyed vast parts of N.Sumatra (Aceh region) also put an end to a senseless greedy war that had been going on for thirty years? Or is there some other hidden reason that we fail to grasp, because we are so puny and unaware of all the fact? Although you might possess a bias towards any of these questions, they are actually unanswerable by either of us.

 

My understanding of Islam is that all occurrences, coincidences, happenstances, etc, including bad things (like sickness, natural disaster, etc) are all interwoven and connected to God. True, we can explain the nature of an earthquake, but we have yet to be able to predict their occurrence with any degree of certainty. Also, in a region hit by a quake, who lives unhurt, who dies, and who is wounded are all under divine purview. True, the absolute cynic could attributed everything to chance, there is no way to prove that hypothesis.

 

As I had said earlier about specific points of scripture, I really don’t want to go down that rabbit-hole. The Bible is the collective work of (I’ve read the estimate to be) more than 200 different men and women. Some of these folks were more or less divinely inspired. Some of these people could have been satanically inspired (call Satan the Newtonian opposite, anti-God, or inverse-God if you want it in scientific lingo.) I do not condone genocide; I will not commit murder; I cannot understand those who do {though I am unwilling to pass judgment on any individual who does, it is not my place, and I do believe in final reckoning.} My point is parts of any of the ancient scriptures could have been tainted by people with agendas and access. Therefore, I cannot underscore the importance that when scripture is read it is done so carefully and reflectively. Paradox within scripture is like paradox between science theory and natural fact: such places are places where a dogmatic view should be avoided at all costs.

 

Similarly the words of clerics must not be swallowed whole. Just as the original writers of a text like the Bible had differing levels of true/anti-true inspiration, so too are all clerics. No cleric is any closer/further away from God than a teacher, housewife, or death-row murderer. Too often people put the faith in the man at the pulpit rather than in God. This perversion is dangerous, and in worst-cases has led to extreme waywardness of entire congregations. Unfortunately, most people are lazy. They’d rather take the instruction of someone else, rather than think for themselves. This apathy/laziness hobbles both religion and science. People are just too lazy to try to think/understand. Personally, I don’t get it. Clerics are not “better” than us and scientists are not “better” than us. The only difference is that both expended effort to understand truths/possibilities that take time and that are complex. Anyone within society can and should learn as much as possible able both science and religion for themselves, trusting no-one to predigest and interpret.

 

My firm belief of being wary of paradox and insisting on digesting facts for myself is what allowed me to see and unravel the scientific the paradoxes that was to become the Dominium model, which we have discussed at http://hypography.com/forums/alternative-theories/18910-the-dominium-model-by-hasanuddin.html

 

I was not surprised when you later confessed

Originally posted by Modest:

“I used to be of this same mindset. I was a Jesus freak in my youth. I believed, as you apparently do now, that my experience with faith transcended worldly experience and became something so special and ineffable that others could not experience it. I was not as tolerant as you in deciding who shared my special feeling.”

I am not surprised because your insights to this point seem too deep to be from a zealous atheist.

 

Why am I tolerant of Buddhists, Hindu, Quakers, etc? Simple: because I don’t have absolute understanding. Besides, as I explained my understanding of the evolution of religions,

Originally posted by Hasanuddin:

“I believe that God is so big and complex that none of the religions could possibly have the exact “Truth” crystallized perfectly down. Each possesses certain degrees of truth. The major religions are those long-lived versions of man-gleaned truths of the “Truth.” For example, say hunter-gatherer-dude is walking along and suddenly has a great epiphany and clarity for some aspect of the greater Truth, say of the connectedness of nature. But let’s say he had the epiphany under a gum tree. Hence that valley takes on the gumtree religion. In a neighboring region, a different epiphany for a different aspect of the truth while sitting in a cave to escape the sun, hence the beginning of the religion of the cave. Tribes mixed and so too did the sharing of ideas. The concepts could merge, or one prevail. It is safe to conclude that the religion closest to the Truth would prevail in such a contest. Prophets were people that came into one group of people and who possessed packages of insights of Truth that was especially appealing.

 

Today we live in a modern world were the religions are quite mature. Therefore, the major religions would all be expected to have some aspects that are absolutely representative of some aspects of Truth. However, the aspects of Truth represented by one religion need not be the same as the next where both sets are absolute true.”

 

Unfortunately, the fact that each of the major religions possess some aspect of absolute truth has led to absolute mistakes in the form of religious wars. If Hinduism possesses an aspect of absolute truth, how can a Moslem convince a Hindu that what they have spiritually “seen” is wrong? The fact is, if that Hindu saw something that was absolutely true, then no matter how the argument is conducted it cannot be disproved. Similarly, the Hindu cannot unhinged the facets of Islam that are categorically true. Rather than accept that every individual lives separate lives and is judged separately, some chose to argue anyway. In extreme examples the argument perverts from manifestations of either pride or conceit. Some argue to shore up personal insecurities, while some wrongly feel that denigrating “other religions” will bolster their own. In worst cases, such non-winnable arguments escalate to murders and war (where everyone ends up being tainted and/or condemned.) Therefore, although I will argue the validity of religion to an atheist or someone who once believed, such as yourself, I will never argue who’s more correct with a person of a faith different than my own.

[InfiniteNow]

Hi Modest,

 

Before I reply, could I make a silly and small request? Please teach me how to make the button-quote that are actually hyperlinks. I’ve just been typing in html, but that doesn’t give the hyperlink.

I know you asked Modest, but I figure I can help you with this request, and let him address the actual content in your post.

 

 

The basic syntax is this:

 

text from that user here

 

You will notice that after you hit the "Quote" button' date=' this label appears at the very beginning of the quoted text. For example, when I hit quote after your post, this was the first thing which appeared before the text you'd written:

 

[indent']

[/indent]

 

 

Now, what I usually do is simply copy that entire tag, and paste it before the section of text to which I'm responding. Then, all you need to do is enclose that text with a close quote code ( like this:

) before your respond to that section.

 

Then, when you get to the next section, paste that same opening code again:

 

text from response here

 

 

So' date=' for example, with your post above, it would look like this:

 

[indent']

Hi Modest,

 

Before I reply, could I make a silly and small request? Please teach me how to make the button-quote that are actually hyperlinks. I’ve just been typing in html, but that doesn’t give the hyperlink.

[/indent]

 

 

... and would render thusly:

 

Hi Modest,

 

Before I reply, could I make a silly and small request? Please teach me how to make the button-quote that are actually hyperlinks. I’ve just been typing in html, but that doesn’t give the hyperlink.

 

 

 

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program. Be sure to tip your waitress, folks. :)

[Moontanman]

Unfortunately, the fact that each of the major religions possess some aspect of absolute truth

 

Hasanuddin, do you have anything what so ever to back up this claim? You seem to be intent on proselytizing religion but your claims need to be backed up even in the Theology forum. Like most religious supporters you make grandiose claims but show no evidence to back them up. Atheism is not a belief system it is simply the null position. I do not believe there is no god, I simply see no evidence of gods existence. To say I do not see any evidence of the existence of unicorns doesn't mean I do not believe in them, belief doesn't figure into it. I need not prove this non existence but to say unicorns exist does indeed require evidence.

[HydrogenBond]

The concept of infinity more than likely stemmed from religious thinking in an attempt to explain the limitlessness of a god concept. Math saw value in this religious article and picked it up. Science uses it, even though infinity does not exist in a provable way using the scientific method.

 

The term infinity is use because it has a religion mojo that can expand the mind beyond the measurable. But it needs faith because infinity never underwent the scrutiny of the scientific method to prove it exists. We may never be able to prove it except with circular logic. The value of infinity is within the mind expansion not within its proven reality. Infinity allows the atheist to sneak a religious candy bar without knowing they are eating one. This is the bridge science left attached to religion.