Establishing an ethical relationship between Science and Religion.

[InfiniteNow]

I'll just highlight in RED the assumptions and personal interpretations:

 

Certainly it does that. But the basic religious message is clearly to remind people to maintain ethical behavior. All parables are designed to give examples of good social mores and what happens when society disobeys. Before science evolved out of those Iron Age cultures and came to further enlighten us, those scriptures were vital tools that gave give parents a moral and historical base to teach their chuildren from. That is a universal fact, repeated over and over again in every culture. If that was not so, "culture" would never have happened and nor would science.

 

 

 

Scripted religion did not evolve out of a vacuum as Marx assumed. It is an extension of ancient human spiritual beliefs that originated in a prehistoric spiritual base of animism and shaman mediumship. Our earliest ancestors were universally superstitious. Shamans in Europe, Siberia and Africa and the Americas all practice identical customs. All animists believe that the universe has a soul.

"Ouch" is the result of ethical trespass. Pain teaches us the need to become more aware of how one's behavior might affect another detrimentally. This "force" that protects ethical structures, is Natural. Animals suffer too.

 

All these assumptions are based on a life of experience. I have seen it in action everywhere. Sure they are subjective. But they are based on common sense. What this thread is asking you to do, is not put down tools and prostrate yourself. It simply asks for a courteous responce.

 

If you disagree with the way I am making this plea - please address it directly from your own prespective, and leave me and my assumptive views out of it, for the sake of preace.

I've done this in the very first response to this thread (Post #2), post # 13, and post # 24. You've just chosen to ignore it.

[Eclogite]

I said this

I think you would have saved everyone a great deal of time if you had advised us of your bizarre definitions of religion and science at the outset. Your understanding of these two bears no relationship to any I have ever encountered before. . Whatever you are seeking to establish an ethical relationship between it is not religion and science as understood by the rest of the world. Further discussion is pointless

MagnetMan responded with this:

This response has remained unanswered for a week or more. However ineptly I may have represented the need to be decent to each other, it reamins a simple plea for common decency that all can understand. It is this kind of disrespect and the way it seems to be condoned, is what the thread has tried to address.

Item 1:I suggest you are extremely over sensitive. My feelings towards you are entirely neutral. I am disappointed that you have taken my remarks as disrespectful, or an attack. They are an objective observation.

 

Item 2:Your definitions (implicit and explicit), as given in this thread, are quite evidently not standard definitions of science or religion. It is therefor demonstrably valid and objective to characterise them as bizarre. If you wish to contend this please support that contention with a range of citations from reputable sources.

 

Item 3:Pleading for common decency is an admirable stance. Justifying the plea on the basis of unsubtantiated and controversial premises is a fatuous and potentially offensive stance.

 

Item 4:The potential offensiveness moves much closer to actuallity when you then castigate others for not accepting those unfounded premises, and imply that they are therefore rejecting the aim of your thesis - treating others with respect.

 

Item 5:Not for the first time on these forums your undoubted passion for fair play and commitment to a better world seems to have led you to unwarranted assumptions, unproven conclusions and unjustified attacks.

[MagnetMan]

I can appreciate your stance, MagMan... but I personally find the practice of religion old-fashioned... to the power of 100. Religion has served an ancestral purpose, but belief in a creator (as expressed in another thread recently) is inversely proportional to education level. Although I greatly respect many of my peers on this site, as well as their freedom to believe what they wish, I feel (please take this in the best possible way) that beliving in God is silly.

I personally find this post insulting. Why not just say that you are an atheist, but repect thiose who are not?

 

 

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

What other single issue do you think is more urgent?

 

For me, it's overpopulation, global warming, and putting walls up between people -- fostering difference instead of similarity. Religion fosters this difference too...

 

Instead of giving a single issue as directly specified so that we could compare values, you palm it off with several.

 

 

To me, teaching ID in school is a bit like giving our kids an idiot pill and giving our future a turd. They don't teach that leeches will remove cancer because a better theory and research has replaced it. Same with ID. It's been replaced by something with a much more solid foundation, secure footing, and replicatability.

 

So much for addressing the problem of disrespect between science and religion. Yet somehow you have managed to make it seem as though I am the one who has been unfair in this thread.

 

I think you would have saved everyone a great deal of time if you had advised us of your bizarre definitions of religion and science at the outset. Your understanding of these two bears no relationship to any I have ever encountered before. . Whatever you are seeking to establish an ethical relationship between it is not religion and science as understood by the rest of the world. Further discussion is pointless

 

Calling someone's opinions bizarre is hardly condusive to good relations. Besides there are many billions in the religious field who understand precisely what I am saying and the effort I am making to cement better relations.

 

One can understand polite disagreement. This is hardly so. I appreciate your partcipation in this debate, but I would prefer a more respectful tone - not only to the subject itself, but also personally.

 

I think the confusion lies in the fact that most scientists have only argued with sectarian religious dogmatists. I am not one of those who have been instrumental in bringing such disrespect to mankind's oldest cultural institution. My modern metaphsyical stance is far closer to science than you might suppose. My advantage is that I understand physics, far better than you do metaphsyicas - for science is the predominant subject taught in the classroom and the lecture room.

Eclectic metaphsyicians are reclusive and need to be sought out, for they have no time for public redicule and do not relish the idea of persecution. I will remain arguing for more respect, for as many blows as I can stand.

[InfiniteNow]

MM,

 

Perhaps you could try leading by example. Best wishes,

[MagnetMan]

MM,

 

Perhaps you could try leading by example. Best wishes,

 

Quite right. It takes two to tango. I will try to be more diplomatic.

 

Cheers

[Turtle]

No calling for brain exercises, and it would be enough to say that ethics isn't an aim of science. OK?

I thought the call for brain exercise carried the best hope for any resolution to the suggested dichotomy. Here's an old thread discussing some secular aspects of brain hemisphere difference:

http://hypography.com/forums/medical-science/3543-fun-brain-science-experiments-exercises.html?highlight=fun+brain+exercises

I have seen medical shows in which an entire hemisphere of a person's brain is surgically removed; if the 'wrong' side is removed, does this mean they never experience morality?:doh: :cup:

[MagnetMan]

I thought the call for brain exercise carried the best hope for any resolution to the suggested dichotomy. Here's an old thread discussing some secular aspects of brain hemisphere difference:

http://hypography.com/forums/medical-science/3543-fun-brain-science-experiments-exercises.html?highlight=fun+brain+exercises

I have seen medical shows in which an entire hemisphere of a person's brain is surgically removed; if the 'wrong' side is removed, does this mean they never experience morality?:phones: :)

 

Very good lead. Work by Roger Sperry shows that the left brain controls the right side of the body and vice-versa. The brain is split into intuitive and analytical modes of comprehension. Inspiration comes from the intuitive(feminine) side and the analytical (masculine) side applies the insight. Betty Edwards (Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain) teaches children who don't think they can draw, by putting a picture upside down and making them copy it. After twenty minutes of such concentration, the brain makes the switch to the right side and - Hey Presto! Inside three months of practice they all draw like Rembrant. Other experiments in right brain switches have resulted in a uniform sense of of previously unrecognized spirituality. Sperry got the Nobel for his work. Check him out on the internet.

When one side of the brain is removed, the remaining side has the capacity to take over the missing side's functions!!!God has all the bases covered.

[Eclogite]

Calling someone's opinions bizarre is hardly condusive to good relations.

Point 1: I have not called your opinions bizarre. I have called your definitions bizarre. There is a world of difference between the two.

Point 2: In general I consider bizarre to be a positive, interesting, complimentary adjective. I can't help it if you see things differently.

Besides there are many billions in the religious field who understand precisely what I am saying and the effort I am making to cement better relations.

It's odd that none of them seem to be posting here.

One can understand polite disagreement. This is hardly so. I appreciate your partcipation in this debate, but I would prefer a more respectful tone - not only to the subject itself, but also personally.

I am not being disrespectful, so I see no need or opportunity to offer more respect. My observations are intended to be objective and thus neutra with regard to respect. I regret it if your perspective causes you to make interpretations that are invalid. I regret it, but do not consider myself responsible for your misinterpretations of my intent.

I think the confusion lies in the fact that most scientists have only argued with sectarian religious dogmatists. I am not one of those who have been instrumental in bringing such disrespect to mankind's oldest cultural institution. My modern metaphsyical stance is far closer to science than you might suppose. My advantage is that I understand physics, far better than you do metaphsyicas - for science is the predominant subject taught in the classroom and the lecture room.

Eclectic metaphsyicians are reclusive and need to be sought out, for they have no time for public redicule and do not relish the idea of persecution. I will remain arguing for more respect, for as many blows as I can stand.

You might obtain some of that respect if

a) you stopped presuming which side of the fence people such as myself are standing on;

:confused: you did not presume that I, and others, have no knowledge of metaphysics;

c) stopped implying that I, and others, have been instrumental in bringing such disrespect to mankind's oldest cultural institution.

 

You keep asking for, and in some cases demanding, respect MM. You appear unnwilling to accord any of that respect to those you engage with. I began the discourse with you in this and other threads with the same respect I have for all humans - a low intensity, 'I'm sure he's a decent sort' kind of respect. As the dialogue has progressed you have given me an increasing number of reasons to withdraw any respect for you. Why? Belligerence, presumtuousness, rudeness. Would those do for starters.

 

Now I imagine I am going to be taken to task by you for these remarks, yet all I am doing is pointing out how you are coming across, to me at least. You may feel those remarks show no respect. Let me assure you the opposite is true. Respect for you leads me to point out what appear to me to be failings in your approach. If I had zero respect for you I would either ignore you completely or post a string of profanities directed at yourself.

[MagnetMan]

 

Now I imagine I am going to be taken to task by you for these remarks, yet all I am doing is pointing out how you are coming across, to me at least. You may feel those remarks show no respect. Let me assure you the opposite is true. Respect for you leads me to point out what appear to me to be failings in your approach. If I had zero respect for you I would either ignore you completely or post a string of profanities directed at yourself.

 

I believe that we have both made our respective positions reasonably clear and honor is restored. I find no reason to object to your tone in this latest post. I believe that you are a worthy opponent representing an opposite view. If you would rephrase any question that I have given a seemingly bizarre answer to, it will try my best to rephrase my answer.

[InfiniteNow]

Seeing others as opponents instead of complimantary to ourselves is a source of discord... Funny really, considering the proclaimed intent of this thread.

[MagnetMan]

Seeing others as opponents instead of complimantary to ourselves is a source of discord... Funny really, considering the proclaimed intent of this thread.

I have already cried uncle:D

[Eclogite]

I believe that we have both made our respective positions reasonably clear and honor is restored.

I do mean this most kindly: it was only ever about honour in your mind; in my mind it was all about precision.

If you would rephrase any question that I have given a seemingly bizarre answer to, it will try my best to rephrase my answer.

You said the following:

Religion, as I understand it, means something one does religiously.........If I get up every day and go to the lab and religiously persue my research and try not to cheat on my results, then ......?

This is a bizarre definition of religion. As Boersun pointed out you are taking a metaphorical usage of religously and according it a literal meaning. That really is bizarre.

[questor]

In the threads i have posted, i have learned some interesting things.

1. when asked to describe God, no one could do it.

2. when asked why they do NOT believe in God, few could give sensible reasons.

3. when asked to differentiate between God and the creator of the universe, they could not do it.

4. they can swallow the BB, string theory, 12 universes, undetected particles, unproved theories, but they gag on a creator.

5. they cannot believe that natural forces, physical laws, intelligence,

order and existence itself could indicate the presence of a supreme power.

6. they can believe the unproved without evidence, but they can't believe the unproved that shows evidence.

7. this argument has no solution because no one knows the answers. we can only go on our own perceptions of evidence and deductions.

8. it makes no sense to reject ideas just because you don't happen to believe them, but cannot give a persuasive reason why.

It would seem that in our schools we could teach the science that has been proved and also admit and teach that there are many questions yet to be answered about the earth, life and the universe.

[Boerseun]

1. when asked to describe God, no one could do it.

Depends on your particular flavour of Religion. "God" could be a big guy sitting on a cloud, with a flowing gray beard as portrayed in "The Creation of Adam", or your "God" could be a really angry muscled guy throwing lighting bolts around and swinging a big hammer. Pick one.

2. when asked why they do NOT believe in God, few could give sensible reasons.

Now that's an example of objectivity gone wrong if ever I saw one. The mere fact that you don't like their reasons, don't make it meaningless. Go to www.secularhumanism.org for a clear and concise listing of why NOT to believe in God.

3. when asked to differentiate between God and the creator of the universe, they could not do it.

God is held to be the 'Creator' of the Universe by religious-minded folk like yourself. Science is saying that based on the evidence at hand, the existence of God and God being the 'Creator', is unlikely. There must be some 'natural' explanation of the Universe coming into existence. If we decide to blame it on God, then the age-old hoary old chestnut of who created God comes to the fore. Give me an answer for that one. Come on now, don't be shy.

4. they can swallow the BB, string theory, 12 universes, undetected particles, unproved theories, but they gag on a creator.

String Theory, Relativity Theory, Quantum Theory, all of these things we so gladly 'swallow', are presented to us as theories. Their value is determined by how well they describe what we see around us, and in predicting the outcome of experiments designed to test their validity. Religion is presented to us as a fait accompli, as the Truth, and nothing but the Truth. It doesn't predict anything in terms of experiments, and doesn't contribute anything at all to Science, except for coming to the party with a highly unlikely explanation of how the Earth was created in six days. This have been conclusively disproven through geology, biology, astronomy and a whole bunch of other fields of study ending in -y. Why would the single concept of the actual 'Creation' of the universe be likely if it has been conclusively described via the above fields that God can't even create such a small little planet as Earth? And now we should assume He's culpable for the whole universe?

You're right - I do 'gag on a Creator', because believing in a Creator is running away from our responsibilities as reasoning, intelligent people to use our minds.

5. they cannot believe that natural forces, physical laws, intelligence, order and existence itself could indicate the presence of a supreme power.

I will believe it once the evidence points in that direction. Until then, Religion should at least have the grace to call itself a hypothesis, and be prepared to be discounted as such by Science in view of a severe lack of evidence. And the Bible simply doesn't count as evidence. Sorry.

6. they can believe the unproved without evidence, but they can't believe the unproved that shows evidence.

Nobody ever 'believed' any unproven theory. They take a look at it, and at the predictions that it might make. You'll notice a bunch of scientists jabbering away at the media when presented by a new exciting theory. They'll say things like "If this theory turns out true, it will revolutionise physics!" "If we can prove this theory, then A, B and C will happen, which will be cool!"

Listen to what they say - nobody ever believes any theory based on someone's words alone. Let alone a theory thats only piece of evidence is a 2000 year-old book that has been translated into oblivion.

7. this argument has no solution because no one knows the answers. we can only go on our own perceptions of evidence and deductions.

This argument has a solution. If Science is supposed to recognize Religion on an equal footing, then Religion simply must come up with evidence. Science don't deal in mystical and mythical stuff. Deal with it.

8. it makes no sense to reject ideas just because you don't happen to believe them, but cannot give a persuasive reason why.

Should I say this again? Ideas (in Science) are proven or disproven based on the evidence at hand. The evidence for Religion is flaky at best. Deal with it. Bring the evidence.

It would seem that in our schools we could teach the science that has been proved and also admit and teach that there are many questions yet to be answered about the earth, life and the universe.

Yes, indeed. There are plenty of things we know nada about. But in the Scientific world, Religion simply isn't the answer to those things. Unless, of course, you could come up with tangible evidence.

 

I propose an experiment:

 

Go up to the highest mountain you can find, together with a Muslim, a Hindu, a Mormon, and as many individuals from differing religions as you can get together. Once you reach the top, all stand in a circle. Then, all at once, everyone should blaspheme.

See who gets struck by lightning.

[questor]

Boersun, you obviously have not read my many posts in which i have said i am not a religious person. i have also said i do not believe in God as conceived by man. you are determined to argue God as your bete noir, while i am talking on a different subject. your depiction of religion and God have nothing to do with my subject. your reply again illustrates my points #1, #3,

and #5 in post #64 on this thread. your reply is a rehash of statements made many times over and have little to do with my point. perhaps i can try once again to clarify what i am saying.

when one is contemplating the origin of the universe, there are 3 possibilities:

1. the universe was always here

2. the universe was created

3. the universe just happened to occur

i could believe any of these three possibilities if i could have proof. since there is no proof, my observations lead me to believe #1 and #2 are most likely. i have stated my reasons for favoring #2 and i see no evidence of #3

this is as simple as i can make it.

[MagnetMan]

This is a bizarre definition of religion. As Boersun pointed out you are taking a metaphorical usage of religously and according it a literal meaning. That really is bizarre.

 

I do not agree. My definition of religion is no more bizarre than the one scientists in general find rediculous - Ie that Jesus is God, or Mohammend is or Buddha is. People are entitled to adopt any Belief that they like and practice it religiously. Even worship a coke bottle - for God is omnicient and He can be seen in everything and anything. My religion is metaphsyics which I practice religiously. Yours is physics which you practive religiously. My religion encompasses physics for I believe that my consciousness comes from the atoms that my body iscomprised of. Yours denies the metaphsyical implications of atomic radiation that allows you to experience consciousness. My God is infinite. Your God is finite. My time span is eternal. Yours lasts three score and ten. Your universe is bounded and therefore ultimately boring and eventually gets incinerated or swallowed up in a black hole. Mine is unbounded and eternally interesting. You believe that when you are dead, that is the end of you. I believe that I have always existed and always will. Life is about choices. You have your choice and you have chosen to limit yourself.. I had that same view once and I abandiooned it for something unlimited and more meaningful. If you think that is bizarre or some sort of cop-out, I do not. I have been in your shoes and know as much about science as the average man. Unless you have had mystical contact, you can have no idea of what i am talking about or what other domension of reality I am busy exploring. It is far from bizarre.

[InfiniteNow]

I must admit, questor, as hard as I've tried, I very much struggle to grasp how you seperate concepts of "a creator" with concepts of "a god." To me, the two are inextricably linked in their definitions.