Heresiarch Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 That is like saying 'East is east and West is west and the twain shall never meet' Or alternativelyWomen and men can never be alike, because they are complementary to each other. The history has shown that both the statements are not absolute truths:) If you're saying that, with regard to science and religion, the twain shall indeed meet, that the two endeavors can and should be alike, then please say more. That's an interesting notion. How specifically do you see the two converging? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallenrm Posted December 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 Yes, indeed I think so. You can see my arguments in yet another thread posted by me http://hypography.com/forums/community-polls/9334-will-science-ultimately-assimiliate-religion-2.html You will find my opinion in the post#17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEH Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 Religion is what resides in the abode of the mind before the arrival of science. If time itself was created at the beginning of the universe,then all that existed was eternity (which,in my opinion,is merely the absence of time.) Therefore anything,including reality in general and life in specific, is not only possible,its inevitable. It will exist as long as there is nothing prohibiting its existence.DEH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 If you're saying that, with regard to science and religion, the twain shall indeed meet, that the two endeavors can and should be alike, then please say more. That's an interesting notion. How specifically do you see the two converging? Science and religion are two threads of the same pursuit. They both seek the same thing: knowledge of that which we do not understand. Be it life, death, Creation/Big Bang, the mind body and spirit in unison. They both approach the unknown in different ways but if they both seek the same ultimate truth/truths they inevitably will meet, even if it is simply to disagree. But they both seek to understand the same reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 Science asks questions that may have no answer.Religion gives answers that may not be questioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 Science asks questions that may have no answer.Religion gives answers that may not be questioned. However, let's say sometime this century we develop medical equipment that can detect spirit and spiritual energy. If we can defintively prove the existence of spirit and possibly afterlife, ghosts etc. etc. then we open a door into the questions of religion that are at this time unknowable. Religion asks questions like, what is the soul?, what is the spirit? what happens in death? is there an afterlife? what my relationship to my environment? All are legitimate questions. But without the technology to explore it, they remain unknown and skeptics have room to scrutinize religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Pyrotex' point is that religion does not ask these questions, the questions exist independently, religion only claims to have the answers, yet offers no means of checking whether or not the answers offered are correct. Religion and science are very different, in both aims and expression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Pyrotex' point is that religion does not ask these questions, the questions exist independently, religion only claims to have the answers, yet offers no means of checking whether or not the answers offered are correct. Religion and science are very different, in both aims and expression. I beg to differ all religious seekers are simply the seekers of the unknown.... like those who set sail thinking the Earth was truly round. If I pose a logical question: What happens to my mind in death? That is a very legitimate question. And the pursuit of the answer is just as noble as those who seek to know the inside of a blackhole. I understood his sarcasm about religion and thought it was funny. I also like the idea that scientists come up with answers that may have no meaning. Scientists ask questions that (may?) have no answer". The eternal pursuit of Pi, or the square root of 2. Aaaah gotta love irrational numbers. But if as a biologist I propose the question: "What happens to the human mind in death?" The pursuit of that answer is equally valid to any other question regarding the unknown and unseen. I did notice the sarcasm about how the answers that religion poses cannot be questioned without persecution (which is honestly funny), but should we drop the pursuit of knowledge about life and death because some people refuse to open their minds to the possibility? That's not the essence of inquisitive science. Who ever gave up a scientific theory because others were skeptical? Probably alot but my point is that they shouldn't have given up until they were sure they could be disproven at the same table as the skeptics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 as a biologist I propose the question: "What happens to the human mind in death?"I propose common definition first be found regarding what is the human mind in life... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Dyothelite: Exactly, it is you who asks the question, not the religion, religion provides "answers". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 I propose common definition first be found regarding what is the human mind in life... :) YES!!! I agree, but when we decide that.... am I allowed to ponder the effect of death on that principle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 Dyothelite: Exactly, it is you who asks the question, not the religion, religion provides "answers". What if I dictate the theology? What about the philosophers that shaped theology? Religion provides answers because some dared to ponder the unknown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 If you dictate the theology you have complete freedom to say whatever you like because it exists at a fantasy level, nothing is confirmed. Science requires reliable confirmability, this means that answers given by science are accessible to all people, answers given by religions are only answers for those subscribing to the fantasy concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 If you dictate the theology you have complete freedom to say whatever you like because it exists at a fantasy level, nothing is confirmed. Science requires reliable confirmability, this means that answers given by science are accessible to all people, answers given by religions are only answers for those subscribing to the fantasy concerned. My point is that all religions emerged from free thinking philosophers originally. I think you are misdirecting your skepticism. Yes organized religions today propose unquestionable answers. (that negates progression in my opinion too), however, those original answers came from free thinking philosophers. I agree that fundamentalism restricts new ideas, but we should not throw out the pursuit of answers because some churches won't allow for new ideas. Again my point is organized fundamental churches offer unquestionable answers, but a true theologian asks the unanswered questions and questions the legitimacy of the unquestionable answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 What is a "free thinking philosopher"? If the gospels in the New Testament are to be believed, christianity was started by the charismatic leader of a doomsday cult, all that's required, for such a cult, is an appeal to fear of death. If this is what you have in mind with "free thinking philosophers", I still dont see any similarity to science or scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyothelite Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 What is a "free thinking philosopher"? If the gospels in the New Testament are to be believed, christianity was started by the charismatic leader of a doomsday cult, all that's required, for such a cult, is an appeal to fear of death. If this is what you have in mind with "free thinking philosophers", I still dont see any similarity to science or scientists. Early philosophers like St. Augustine, Origen, Tertullian, St. Thomas Aquinas all had to compete against the logic of Greek and Roman philosophers and prove their ideas logically. They shaped what we know as Christianity today. They were free thinkers with logical basis for their discourse. The answers that the Christians dictate as unquestionable fact today was once just a thought in an early philosophers mind. Abraham, Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tze, Confucius, Mohammed all were revolutionary free thinkers with revolutionary new ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 The members of your first paragraph were not "free philosophers", they were defenders of a religious point of view that they had inherited. The members of your final paragraph are a mixed bunch but all have in common the fact that their religious ideas were simply made up. Maybe Lao Tzu and Confucius can be classed as philosophers, how do you justify the label for the other four? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.