Science and Religion

[Southtown]

Ya that's why I let 'em in... every week for over a year I think. You never know who will want to discuss things open-mindedly. I did most the listening, though, of course. They stopped coming around after a heated argument in which they didn't even know what I was talking about. Anything out of my mouth that wasn't a question "had to be refuted". Know what I mean?

 

I didn't kick 'em out though. A couple weeks later, they told me to take a few weeks to decide if I wanted them to come back. And they gave me a book to read. Kinda like, "here agree with this first, then we can talk".

 

Damnit, I'm an anti-denom. I have sworn off of formal doctrine. I'm freelance now. I don't care how long we talk or what is said, I will never commit to "group thinking" again. Before I could even tie my shoes, I had a good idea of what God must be like. The world can kiss my ***.

[Buffy]

It would however be unfair to treat them all that way since based solely on a few bad experiences, especially if you made no attempt to verify the truth being touted or the background of the group in question.

I have to agree with that in principal. But I also wouldn't blame others for coming to an inductive conclusion on the topic.

 

There's always yet another religion that pops up, and I personally like to look at them all (why? Its fun! I'm not shopping!).

 

Of course something that's been pointed out by both the religious and the irreligious in this thread is that its *dogma* that can bite both sides. I think that the core meme in this thread is that we're talking about ought to *by definition* be seen to be separate. This is why I actually prefer the term--although its considered by some to be pejorative--meta-physics, because it defines religion as being that which lies outside of that which can be demonstrated by science, but which is sociologically useful to humans for a variety of reasons.

 

Joy to the creatures in the deep blue sea, :hihi:

Buffy

[Southtown]

I have to agree with that in principal. But I also wouldn't blame others for coming to an inductive conclusion on the topic.

 

There's always yet another religion that pops up, and I personally like to look at them all (why? Its fun! I'm not shopping!).

 

Of course something that's been pointed out by both the religious and the irreligious in this thread is that its *dogma* that can bite both sides. I think that the core meme in this thread is that we're talking about ought to *by definition* be seen to be separate. This is why I actually prefer the term--although its considered by some to be pejorative--meta-physics, because it defines religion as being that which lies outside of that which can be demonstrated by science, but which is sociologically useful to humans for a variety of reasons.

 

Joy to the creatures in the deep blue sea, :hihi:

Buffy

Funny isn't it? Spirituality is all about harmony and oneness. In this sense, religion really is evil.

[cwes99_03]

Anyway, back to the original question.

 

I would consider myself very religious. I would also consider myself a "scientist". Most of the time, its seems as if scientists disregard religion, and instead adopt a more intellectual approach to life. For me however, I really do not feel as if science and religion cannot coexist.

I've found that pretty much anything that major religions say can be backed by science.

What do you guys think? Can scientific ideas be backed by religious ideologies? ...and vice versa?

 

I too consider myself very religious. I also consider myself a scientist, as I approach all things with a questioning position and attempt to find the answer to the why before making a decision.

 

Having done so with my faith, I have asked why many times. When I couldn't find a why (or how) answer from the reams of scientific knowledge available to me, I consulted the Bible to see if its reasoning was at least logical based upon its teachings.

 

Likewise when taught a religious teaching, I was always encouraged to see if what the Bible taught was in line with scientific knowledge on the subject. Interestingly, I have yet to find a Bible teaching which is completely at odds with the science I was taught.

 

The only time I have noted my religious beliefs to be at odds with other scientists, were when those scientists refused to believe that a supreme non-corporeal being could exist. Based solely on this assumption, they hold all people who believe in such a being in derision.

 

The same individuals on the other hand often turn toward a belief in alien races with unusual powers and technology allowing them to pull of otherwise completely unscientific acts. The same individuals believe that time travel is possible, that folding space to travel from point A to point B billions of light years away in an instant is possible, and that humans can and will fix all problems they face. I see theory, but no data to support either of the first two, and I see no less than 4000 years of human history suggesting the opposite for the last point.

 

However, in the Bible at least I believe there to be 4000 plus years of historically accurate data, scientifically accurate teachings and statements when scientific thought didn't really even exist, methods for having successful relationships with others, methods for preventing sickness, methods for preventing hardship whenever possible. All of these methods are tried and true when properly adhered to. All of these methods are either backed by scientists as accurate, or backed by philosophers/great thinkers such as Ghandi as successful.

 

Yet I constantly see people fail to adhere to all of them (by choice) and then blame the Bible for the problems in their life. I know none of us is perfect, but all of us strive to improve life. When deviating from the standard, do you blame the standard, or the deviation? Perhaps, you don't even know the standard, and thus continually deviate from it.

 

Thus I disagree with the last part of MB's statement. I don't believe that anything a major religion says can be backed by science. I am a firm believer that if two different people make two statements at odds with each other that both cannot be 100% correct.

 

Thus when one religion claims we live on after death in a non-corporeal state, but another says that when we die we go to the ground and are conscious of nothing at all, only one can be right.

[cwes99_03]

Buffy, if all you see is the sociological benefit to humans, and nothing more, then you do not believe in the religious teachings. This was the reason for identifying a difference between religion and philosophy.

[Buffy]

Funny isn't it? Spirituality is all about harmony and oneness. In this sense, religion really is evil.

Harmony of our oneness against their themness....the very nature of tribalism and conflict. So much for harmony and oneness...

 

You don't understand our imaginations, :hihi:

Buffy

[Buffy]

Buffy, if all you see is the sociological benefit to humans, and nothing more, then you do not believe in the religious teachings. This was the reason for identifying a difference between religion and philosophy.

Don't be so closed minded! :)

 

I don't believe in "religious teachings": why should anyone have the right to *teach* me about what I want to believe about the unknowable? That many are not creative or motivated enough to find their own answers is not my problem. But saying that its "not religion" if its not handed down from some self-proclaimed prophet has its, er, "weaknesses" as an argument... :evil:

 

That religion has a useful sociological role is undeniable. Whether that role is "purposeful" is unknowable although because of this usefulness, is not at all required...

 

Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government, :phones:

Buffy

[Southtown]

Harmony of our oneness against their themness....the very nature of tribalism and conflict. So much for harmony and oneness...

 

You don't understand our imaginations, :phones:

Buffy

Ya, well... The first mistake is caring about what others think.

 

You must wear MY spirit, not yours!

[cwes99_03]

I disagree. Do you understand the fundamental difference between philosophy and religion? If there are none then how do you differentiate between politics and religion, as politics are obviously just an extended form of philosophy. (Did you read that thread yet?)

 

I do not deny the usefullness of a true religion, sociologically. That is to say that a true religion would improve the existance of man, and a false one would keep a person in the dark or would teach him to do things that are to his detriment.

 

Why should anyone have the right to teach you about what you want to believe? (I won't call it unknowable, because that is a defeatest attitude and is fairly unscientific, wouldn't you agree?) No one can teach you anything you don't want to believe (well I suppose if they held you against your will and brain washed you or used chemicals or something on you they could).

 

Instead what you really are asking is, "Why should I believe that anyone knows better than I do?" The answer is quite simple. You don't know everything there is to know. That is the reason you come back to this site and ask questions. That is why you constantly read, learn, and teach others. Why should anyone teach, except to show others things that they did not yet know.

[Buffy]

If there are none then how do you differentiate between politics and religion, as politics are obviously just an extended form of philosophy.

Actually I've often stated in these forums that politics and religion co-evolved and took a really long time to be differentiated!

 

I say that the distinction between philosophy and religion is simply one of how they are "most frequently" practiced, and I blame *both* when they stray into dogmatism. Philosophy is an extremely ill-defined term because it has been applied to so much over time. Religion has been--unfairly in my view--oft-times linked to organized groups that have evolved mechanisms *specifically designed* (see previous paragraph) to control their members.

 

If you want to use this particular definition for it, you're making enemies of your co-religionists (see the 3468 thread).

(I won't call it unknowable, because that is a defeatest attitude and is fairly unscientific, wouldn't you agree?)...Instead what you really are asking is, "Why should I believe that anyone knows better than I do?"

That there are things that are *considered* unknowable is undeniable! The definition of "unknowable" you're using here is the *religious* one--that it *cannot* be known--rather than the scientific one--that it cannot currently be *shown* to be knowable, but might very well be sometime in the future! Thus the rest of your argument is just trying to belittle those who don't share your belief that there are other humans who have a franchise on the truth, who in fact have *no* special claim on the truth other than their say so.

 

If you want to believe in a religion that contains a bureaucratic organization that claims that has a devine right to "the truth," that's your business. But you've got no claim that such an organization is a *requirement* for defining a religious view or philosophy if you want to call it that. Even if you do, its a pretty simple matter to create one, just like one of my friends dad who created the "Church of Charlie" which worshiped the family dog as its prophet and savior.

 

Not even you senator, :phones:

Buffy

[cwes99_03]

First off Buffy, I don't appreciate having my viewpoints twisted. I do not try to belittle people. I try to identify truth. If people feel oppressed by the truth, then they themselves should do something about discovering truth instead of living in darkness.

 

What is unknowable? Many religions today will say that something is unknowable. What do they mean? They mean that an answer is not provided. They put themselves forth as an authority and say that no answer is provided. Thus when 5 year old Timmy asks his priest why God took his mother, and the priest responds that God works in mysterious ways and it is not for us to question, the priest is admitting two things. 1) he admits he doesn't have an answer (an authority on the Bible who can't answer a Bible based question) and 2) he is suggesting that the child not bother to look nor question his authority.

To me this is 1) biblically unacceptable 2) hypocritical and 3) a demonstration of an identifying mark of false religion. If the priest had simply answered, I don't know, but you should read the Bible to find out, I would at least respect the priests honesty in showing himself not to be an authority.

 

In reading the first 21 posts in the religion vs religion thread during my free time today, I find I have a lot in common with Southtown. That is I believe a truely rationaly person can come to an understanding by studying the scriptures. I differ from him in at least the following.

 

In short, yes. It is possible for both to be right... in the sight of God. The essence of salvation by faith is that you don't have to be perfect. God is interested in sincerity. God is interested in the heart. And He is the only one who can know the reasons in a person's heart, anyway. (Proverbs 24:12) This is another reason why I'm conviced in the Gospel, because that sounds like a fair deal to me.

 

I'm afraid that the Bible does not leave such room. Further study will reveal the scriptures that show how Southtown has a start but an incomplete knowledge.

 

Likewise a young child says that an atom is the building block of all matter after learning it in a science class. Should you scold that young child and tell them they are completely wrong? No, instead you reveal to them the reasons why you believe they have an incomplete understanding, that there are smaller particles called quarks. If afterwards, the teacher comes to you and tells you that you are wrong and that the atom is the smallest particle and you should stop spreading forth lies, then you should scold the teacher and reveal them for the liar they are.

 

Likewise, when viewing a religion, (as opposed to a philosophy) you have an authority (a text) by which you can agree on. Thus two reasonable people looking at that authority can come to the same rational conclusion.

 

Anything above and beyond that authority (unless otherwise proven to be an extension of that authority) is purely human philosophy. Some people believe that the Apocryphal works are an extension to what is currently considered Bible cannon. There are rational reasons why they are not included as part of the cannon, and that again can be discussed, and two rational people can come to the same rational conclusion. I have no qualms with saying that someone who doesn't come to the same rational conclusion is wrong. There are rights and wrongs.

How will we know which is right and which is wrong? Only time will tell. A rational person will constantly keep searching for added truth, deeper understanding. As a child keeps on searching for new food to nourish them, they begin with milk, advance to soft foods and keep advancing with new flavors and textures by which they train their palate. Likewise, a rational religious person realizes that they do not know all (because of imperfection) and will continue to learn.

There are however some pretty hard standards by which a rational person can be defined. They hinge on having an accurate text only. An accurate text can be scientifically determined.

Thus a Christian (or a Jew) who believes in reincarnation, is neither a Christian nor a Jew. They are a philosopher.

[Boerseun]

Anyway, Boer and a couple of others have often pointed out their lack of knowledge on the multitudes of religions, and their sheer hatred for them.

I cannot recall any instance where I, or any other member here, have professed any sort of 'hatred' for any one particular religion. I do frown upon ignorance, though. The fact that the two might be related, is none of my doing.

 

'Sheer'? That's a bit harsh... but it still won't put any rods on the Emperor's naked ***.

[Turtle]

I'm afraid that the Bible does not leave such room. Further study will reveal the scriptures that show how Southtown has a start but an incomplete knowledge.

 

:phones: Flagitious.

[Buffy]

First off Buffy, I don't appreciate having my viewpoints twisted. I do not try to belittle people. I try to identify truth. If people feel oppressed by the truth, then they themselves should do something about discovering truth instead of living in darkness.

You're right. I absolutely see that that no one can possibly be offended by that viewpoint. Its the truth, right?

Likewise, when viewing a religion, (as opposed to a philosophy) you have an authority (a text) by which you can agree on. Thus two reasonable people looking at that authority can come to the same rational conclusion

"Can?" Sure. But "do"? Always? Seems like you missed the point of the Religion vs. Religion thread is that its quite clear that two different people can have different and equally justifiable interpretations of a scripture, even if they agree that it is God-given. If it were indeed the case that there is only one "rational" way to interpret scripture, then there would not be so many different beliefs all based on the same book...unless....

 

Here I go twisting again, but you're basically saying that if there are two opinions, then one of them is wrong. You do this quite pejoratively here by saying that South has "incomplete knowledge" because he has a different interpretation, and therefore is "wrong." I find his knowledge and *understanding* of the scriptures unbelievably complete and well-thought out, and I don't see any rational justification for this statement: I do not see any "truth" in it.

 

This of course leads us to the problem that there needs to be an available arbitrator of such doctrinal disputes:

Anything above and beyond that authority (unless otherwise proven to be an extension of that authority) is purely human philosophy. Some people believe that the Apocryphal works are an extension to what is currently considered Bible cannon. There are rational reasons why they are not included as part of the cannon, and that again can be discussed, and two rational people can come to the same rational conclusion. I have no qualms with saying that someone who doesn't come to the same rational conclusion is wrong.

We know you don't have any qualms about it. The problem here is who made you the official arbiter of truth?

 

I personally love Jubilees. I find it inspiring. Who are you to say that making it a part of the scripture I choose to find inspiration in is "wrong?"

How will we know which is right and which is wrong? Only time will tell.

But in the meantime, we have to put up with people who insist that they already know what's right. What fun!

An accurate text can be scientifically determined.

And thus, according to scientific study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, any insistence on leaving Jubilees out of the canon is wrong, right?

 

Trust yourself to do the things that only you know best, :phones:

Buffy

[Southtown]

Likewise a young child says that an atom is the building block of all matter after learning it in a science class. Should you scold that young child and tell them they are completely wrong? No, instead you reveal to them the reasons why you believe they have an incomplete understanding, that there are smaller particles called quarks. If afterwards, the teacher comes to you and tells you that you are wrong and that the atom is the smallest particle and you should stop spreading forth lies, then you should scold the teacher and reveal them for the liar they are.

Is this an argument? It sounds like you're agreeing with me and don't know it.

 

Likewise, when viewing a religion, (as opposed to a philosophy) you have an authority (a text) by which you can agree on. Thus two reasonable people looking at that authority can come to the same rational conclusion.

I disagree. People aren't perfect. Two imperfect people can be as sincerely rational as they know how and still not see eye to eye. God weighs the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 24:12) Being sincere is more important that being right, me thinks.

 

I have no qualms with saying that someone who doesn't come to the same rational conclusion is wrong. There are rights and wrongs.

No doubt there is an absolute truth. But, we must remember that people are precious, and that animosity is evil, even if it is invoked by someone who knows the truth. THAT, in my view, is the absolute truth.

[Turtle]

No doubt there is an absolute truth.

But, we must remember that people are precious, and that animosity is evil, even if it is invoked by someone who knows the truth.

THAT, in my view, is the absolute truth.

 

Little doubt there is a relative truth.

Not in a Hindu perspective, or Aztec, etcetera.

We have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

Now back on to science and religion. This time my charge is against the Jews in Israel who in their position in government have interpreted the ancient texts so precisely as to make it law that any body/skeleton uncovered, no matter its age or origin, be immediately buried according to sacred methods and no araeological studies of it be allowed.

 

Wow! That's a 54 word sentence! Do not change one jot or jottle. :phones:

[cwes99_03]

If it were indeed the case that there is only one "rational" way to interpret scripture, then there would not be so many different beliefs all based on the same book...unless....

 

Unless what, Buffy? I welcome your full thought being finished.

 

Is this an argument? It sounds like you're agreeing with me and don't know it.

 

 

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Likewise, when viewing a religion, (as opposed to a philosophy) you have an authority (a text) by which you can agree on. Thus two reasonable people looking at that authority can come to the same rational conclusion.

 

I disagree. People aren't perfect. Two imperfect people can be as sincerely rational as they know how and still not see eye to eye. God weighs the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 24:12) Being sincere is more important that being right, me thinks.

 

Southtown, which is it? I know, it is obvious that we do not have 100% agreement with each other. What the others here do not understand is that I do not claim to have 100% knowledge on the subject. I believe that there are some things in the Bible that will not be fully understood until after Armageddon. After all, in 69 AD was the imminent destruction of Jerusalem fully understood?

 

However, I do know when I find an untruth being told. Whether it is intentional or not, I can not be an expert, as you have rightly stated, only God is the reader of hearts. However, I do believe the untruth either results from an incomplete study (sounds like a cunundrum because I already stated that 100% can't be known, and people believe complete to mean 100%, and rightly so) of the scriptures, or from a willful disavowal of some part of the scriptures.

 

Often there is some truth in the story of a person telling lies. Otherwise their lies are easily seen to be just that. Likewise, it takes a discerning person to hear the lie, find the truth in it, and expose the rest for a lie. Continue studying, Southtown. If you like, I will help you, or perhaps you will help me.