God and Science are not mutually exlcusive......

Page 3 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Statto
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 68
Location: UK

15 Sep 2014, 6:04 am

All the religious books contain many, simple errors that are scientific fact. They all strangely reflect the beliefs of man (beyond just that particular religion) at the time the texts were written and/or 'discovered'. If these texts were the word of whichever version of the all knowing god we are talking about you'd expect it to be completely accurate in terms of what we now know to be fact. I'm not even talking about complex theories, but things like the earth being round and rotating around the sun etc.

At absolute best they could only ever be considered interpretations of the word of god and given it is man doing the interpretation I'm sure you can't rule out some creative licence also.

As such it's science for me.



BuyerBeware
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,476
Location: PA, USA

15 Sep 2014, 11:55 am

Science-----------> WHAT God did, and HOW God did it.

Philosophy/Religion------------------> WHY God did it, and WHERE it's going.


_________________
"Alas, our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar." --TS Eliot, "The Hollow Men"


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

15 Sep 2014, 12:05 pm

^ :lol: I assume that is satire?


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

15 Sep 2014, 1:39 pm

YourMum wrote:
[Of course Christian beliefs are fallible. The Church is a human institution and humans are very fallible.

Science and a particular sense of morality are your ideals, and it's beyond denial that they have influenced your approach to these matters. Your outlook is no more objective than any other.


That is a ridiculous statement. Some approaches will be naturally more than objective then others. Holy doctrine aims to be infallible and immutable , falsifiability is a key aspect of any objective scientific hypothesis.

This "you are an idealist too" wont wash. Of course I can be an idealist but in science you must guard against this when you test your hypothesis.

I question my beliefs constantly. I don't rely on faith, or suspension of disbelief. This alone makes me more objective than Orthodox religion. Of course we all have cognitive dissonance, but some are in denial of this.

Also I think you are skirting round my points rather than directly addressing them.

What I'm saying is the creation part of religion comes with other doctrine which has nothing to do with creation question.

Therefore in logical terms just becuase B is doctrinally attached to A, doesn't mean to have to accept B is true if A were to be true. So the the Christian hypothesis of having a creator, is not a validation for Christianity as a whole, nor is it a validation of the entirety of the Genesis text. It is Christianity that says becuase genesis may have happened this way, therefore you are expected to believe the rest of the text.

It should be obvious, but the point of that list was to question the B and A relationship. To say you might assume there is a creator, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you have to believe in the rest. Belief in a creator is not a validation of religions.

You can believe it, but it is not scientifically relevant.

You might have heard of the 19th century Deists. They held a similar view that a creator doesn't necessitate deferring to religious authority or text.



YourMum
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 150

16 Sep 2014, 12:57 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Holy doctrine aims to be infallible and immutable


Whose 'Holy doctrine'? The Southern Baptist Convention?

0_equals_true wrote:
This "you are an idealist too" wont wash. Of course I can be an idealist


We're all 'idealists'. Read your Sorel.

0_equals_true wrote:
...but in science you must guard against this when you test your hypothesis.


Hang on, how can you be objective when you've already chosen your perspective? You've already determined the criteria by which you are going to assess the world.

0_equals_true wrote:
I question my beliefs constantly. I don't rely on faith, or suspension of disbelief. This alone makes me more objective than Orthodox religion.


Do you know what faith is? Doubt is a huge factor in it. Read R. S. Thomas, or even the Talmud if you feel like putting in a bit of work.

0_equals_true wrote:
You might have heard of the 19th century Deists...


That's fair enough if you're a Deist. Just don't cheat yourself into thinking that you've got any better grip on the truth than anyone else.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

16 Sep 2014, 1:37 pm

BuyerBeware wrote:
Science-----------> WHAT God did, and HOW God did it.

Philosophy/Religion------------------> WHY God did it, and WHERE it's going.


No

Science is "know what"

Technology is "know how"

Philosophy is "know why"

Religion is a subset of "know why" in which the knowing why invokes dieties, or a diety.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

16 Sep 2014, 4:03 pm

YourMum wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
Holy doctrine aims to be infallible and immutable


Whose 'Holy doctrine'? The Southern Baptist Convention?

0_equals_true wrote:
This "you are an idealist too" wont wash. Of course I can be an idealist


We're all 'idealists'. Read your Sorel.

0_equals_true wrote:
...but in science you must guard against this when you test your hypothesis.


Hang on, how can you be objective when you've already chosen your perspective? You've already determined the criteria by which you are going to assess the world.

0_equals_true wrote:
I question my beliefs constantly. I don't rely on faith, or suspension of disbelief. This alone makes me more objective than Orthodox religion.


Do you know what faith is? Doubt is a huge factor in it. Read R. S. Thomas, or even the Talmud if you feel like putting in a bit of work.

0_equals_true wrote:
You might have heard of the 19th century Deists...


That's fair enough if you're a Deist. Just don't cheat yourself into thinking that you've got any better grip on the truth than anyone else.


On the issue of doubt - doubt has always been the companion of faith. Because of doubt, faith can be tested, and can rebound that much stronger. In the Lutheran tradition (which I am of), the old man, Luther, had lost his daughter and was hounded by terrible anger and doubt directed at God (something that doubtlessly would test anyone's faith), but was able to learn and grow from the terrible experience.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

16 Sep 2014, 5:07 pm

YourMum wrote:
Hang on, how can you be objective when you've already chosen your perspective? You've already determined the criteria by which you are going to assess the world.

The best criteria, however subjective that might be.......

Determining a criteria is necessary and useful, evidently, an epistemology is shown to work and the possibility of failure, the alternative fails even more, science has a working methodology including limiting bias, surely it works better than pseudosciences, and religions are known for supporting pseudosciences.

About objectivity, well yeah, complete objectivity is impossible, however the limitations of objectivity in science, it doesn't necessarily undermine its epistemic value.

Quote:
Do you know what faith is? Doubt is a huge factor in it. Read R. S. Thomas, or even the Talmud if you feel like putting in a bit of work.

What a load of crap. Doubt is NOT a factor of Faith.
Mathew 14:25-31 wrote:
"Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. ?It?s a ghost,? they said, and cried out in fear.
But Jesus immediately said to them: ?Take courage! It is I. Don?t be afraid.?
?Lord, if it?s you,? Peter replied, ?tell me to come to you on the water.?
?Come,? he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, ?Lord, save me!?
Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. ?You of little faith,? he said, ?why did you doubt?"


Doubt is a key component of the scientific method, and is incompatible with biblical faith.

And don't expect your sources to be taken seriously, might as well you provide a fairy tale for toddlers, it would make no difference.

Quote:
Just don't cheat yourself into thinking that you've got any better grip on the truth than anyone else.

As I have pointed out earlier, which is shown to work best "gets a better grip on the truth" than anything else. And I'm not referring to absolute certainties.

By the way I and others here do not adhere to relativism when it comes to epistemology as you do, much less philosophical skepticism, so at least I, am not "cheating myself".



BuyerBeware
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,476
Location: PA, USA

16 Sep 2014, 5:29 pm

TallyMan wrote:
^ :lol: I assume that is satire?


I guess it could be.

I read it somewhere once as a science-loving religious Christian's attempt to explain how those two things can co-exist. I think it was a rebuttal to an argument that science renders religion obsolete, worthless, and et al.

I've carried it around ever since, as sort of a comforting talisman reminding me that I can embrace religion (because I like it, I like life better with it than I do without it) without having to reject science. They can co-exist, because they address separate spheres.

Science tells us HOW and WHAT.

"What is autism?" "A certain collection of behaviors, strengths and deficits, and patterns of brain activity."

"How did I get it?" "Either from an inherited mutation, a de novo mutation, or a reaction to something introduced into your system at an early age."

Religion and philosophy give us the opportunity to attempt to tell ourselves (or figure out the Great Puzzle, or whatever) WHY and TO WHAT END.

"Why did this happen to me?!?!"

"The Devil twisted what the Lord made." "To make up for something that happened in a past life." "Because you chose it as part of your cosmic progression." "Where wast thou when I made the wild goats?" "Before I formed you in your mother's womb, I knew you" (AKA, "That's for me to know and you to find out, but I have My reasons."). "It is the will of Allah." Ad infinitum.

Science, of course, is provable at least in the sense that it is repeatable. Religion?? Well, I can prove that believing certain things makes it easier for me to get out of bed and go about life. As far as Big Proof goes?? I guess we'll have to wait until we get there...

...and if there is no "there" to "get to," then I guess it doesn't matter.

It COULD be satirical. I could probably base a pretty good piece of satire on it (although a lot of us could probably do better). I didn't mean it that way, though. It's something that comforts me because I do not wish to discard either science or religion, nor do I wish to be absolutely black-and-white slavishly bound to either one.

You may, of course, fill in the deities/forces of your personal preference for "God." I grew up with God. It seems like a great generic proper noun (Deity never sounded right) to me. I used to type [God], but now I have an uncooperative keyboard that particularly dislikes certain keystrokes.

Like return, backspace, and brackets. I think someone spilled something....


_________________
"Alas, our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar." --TS Eliot, "The Hollow Men"


YourMum
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 150

16 Sep 2014, 7:09 pm

blunnet wrote:
...religions are known for supporting pseudosciences.

...complete objectivity is impossible...


Sciences are known for supporting pseudosciences too, so I don't see where that angle gets you.

I'm glad to hear you agree.

blunnet wrote:
What a load of crap. Doubt is NOT a factor of Faith.


Says who, you the Christian?

Mathew 14:25-31 wrote:
?You of little faith,? he said, ?why did you doubt?"


Oh great! You've got eight lines of Bible, without any history, commentary or context of any sort. Why didn't you say so? That obviously renders the rest of all religious thought and tradition completely redundant.


blunnet wrote:
And don't expect your sources to be taken seriously, might as well you provide a fairy tale for toddlers, it would make no difference.


I thought you were an open minded scientist, willing to go where the evidence takes you!

blunnet wrote:
As I have pointed out earlier, which is shown to work best "gets a better grip on the truth" than anything else.


Different angles work better for different perspectives.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

16 Sep 2014, 8:02 pm

On the notion of objectivity.

My 35+ years as a Christian was quite subjective. I could rationalize just about any challenge to it. It was only through being open to objectivity that I was forced to change my mind. And that change did not come easily. I fought against it for many years, The hardest thing I had to do was the moment I had to admit to myself that I am no longer a Christian. Why? Because I had invested most of the years of my life in it. Every choice I made for came back in one way or another to my beliefs. Imagine the cost of that investment and then the cost of quitting it.

Objectivity was forced on me, and I'm glad it was.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

16 Sep 2014, 8:39 pm

YourMum wrote:
Sciences are known for supporting pseudosciences too, so I don't see where that angle gets you.

Evidence please.

Quote:
I'm glad to hear you agree.

Not really, you are discrediting its epistemic value because of it.

Quote:
Oh great! You've got eight lines of Bible, without any history, commentary or context of any sort. Why didn't you say so? That obviously renders the rest of all religious thought and tradition completely redundant.

:roll: I would have thought that in the story Peter almost drowned because of lack of faith (he had doubts!).

The issue is faith and doubt is biblically incompatible, this isn't about crisis of faith, which is a different thing, but rather the place for uncertainty for some things in religion (which it has to be biblically rejected) "I believe God probably exists but it may be possible that he doesn't exist" or "I believe the resurrection was possible but it could be false" there is no place for such falsifiability. Pascal's Wager is incompatible with biblical faith.

John 20:27-29 wrote:
Then he said to Thomas, ?Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.?
Thomas said to him, ?My Lord and my God!?
Then Jesus told him, ?Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.?

That is believing without evidence.

Quote:
I thought you were an open minded scientist, willing to go where the evidence takes you!

I never said I was a scientist, rather I am a skeptic, in fact I rather be identified as a skeptic than an atheist but that's another issue. Open-mindedness doesn't mean one has to fall for anything; "you don't buy X you are not open-minded" it doesn't work that way.

Ok, I was too dismissive in the sources thing, the talmud isn't something that will be much of of use for this purpose, and it wouldn't make a difference if a rabbi or a pastor connects faith with doubt (anybody can make up anything they want and sell a book) a source has to be reliable and credible, evidence has to be valid you can't just name any crap as evidence. That said, some sources are crappier than others, there is a problem when they lack neutrality and expertise regarding an issue.

I mean for example, creationist text books, they don't serve any purpose.

Some religious text books are not going to be taken too seriously to prove certain points in academic and secular terms, and some probably will.

Quote:
Different angles work better for different perspectives.

I can prove Gravity you can't prove The Resurrection, they are not in the same epistemic plane. This sort of relativism is useless.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

17 Sep 2014, 8:57 am

BuyerBeware wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
^ :lol: I assume that is satire?


I guess it could be.

I read it somewhere once as a science-loving religious Christian's attempt to explain how those two things can co-exist. I think it was a rebuttal to an argument that science renders religion obsolete, worthless, and et al.

I've carried it around ever since, as sort of a comforting talisman reminding me that I can embrace religion (because I like it, I like life better with it than I do without it) without having to reject science. They can co-exist, because they address separate spheres.

Science tells us HOW and WHAT.

"What is autism?" "A certain collection of behaviors, strengths and deficits, and patterns of brain activity."

"How did I get it?" "Either from an inherited mutation, a de novo mutation, or a reaction to something introduced into your system at an early age."

Religion and philosophy give us the opportunity to attempt to tell ourselves (or figure out the Great Puzzle, or whatever) WHY and TO WHAT END.

"Why did this happen to me?!?!"

"The Devil twisted what the Lord made." "To make up for something that happened in a past life." "Because you chose it as part of your cosmic progression." "Where wast thou when I made the wild goats?" "Before I formed you in your mother's womb, I knew you" (AKA, "That's for me to know and you to find out, but I have My reasons."). "It is the will of Allah." Ad infinitum.

Science, of course, is provable at least in the sense that it is repeatable. Religion?? Well, I can prove that believing certain things makes it easier for me to get out of bed and go about life. As far as Big Proof goes?? I guess we'll have to wait until we get there...

...and if there is no "there" to "get to," then I guess it doesn't matter.

It COULD be satirical. I could probably base a pretty good piece of satire on it (although a lot of us could probably do better). I didn't mean it that way, though. It's something that comforts me because I do not wish to discard either science or religion, nor do I wish to be absolutely black-and-white slavishly bound to either one.

You may, of course, fill in the deities/forces of your personal preference for "God." I grew up with God. It seems like a great generic proper noun (Deity never sounded right) to me. I used to type [God], but now I have an uncooperative keyboard that particularly dislikes certain keystrokes.

Like return, backspace, and brackets. I think someone spilled something....


That is a false dichotomy. Science can also explain why things happen. Science and religion are opposites.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

17 Sep 2014, 4:23 pm

It depends on which gods you are talking about. A vague creator is not in opposition to science. The claims about Yahweh and his doings in the bible are often opposed to modern findings.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

17 Sep 2014, 4:32 pm

simon_says wrote:
It depends on which gods you are talking about. A vague creator is not in opposition to science. The claims about Yahweh and his doings in the bible are often opposed to modern findings.

It would still be opposed to the principles of science, since there is no evidence for it, and Occam's Razor applies.



YourMum
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 150

17 Sep 2014, 5:44 pm

blunnet wrote:
YourMum wrote:
Sciences are known for supporting pseudosciences too, so I don't see where that angle gets you.

Evidence please.


Homoeopathy, eugenics, and unquantifiable bucket-loads on autism are the first which spring to mind. Or forget that; have you ever picked up a newspaper and read the health pages in there? These all take place within the scientific community. The former few are largely rejected today but arose from the scientific context and still maintain proponents within that language. This is in much the same way that religions reject [heresies]. In the end it's not the arguments of either which determine the truth, but whoever happens to have the most money.

blunnet wrote:
:roll: I would have thought that in the story Peter almost drowned because of lack of faith (he had doubts!).


Do you really think that if that were true you would be the first to notice it, in over two thousand years of Christian history?

blunnet wrote:
The issue is faith and doubt is biblically incompatible, this isn't about crisis of faith, which is a different thing, but rather the place for uncertainty for some things in religion (which it has to be biblically rejected) "I believe God probably exists but it may be possible that he doesn't exist" or "I believe the resurrection was possible but it could be false" there is no place for such falsifiability. Pascal's Wager is incompatible with biblical faith.

John 20:27-29 wrote:
Then he said to Thomas, ?Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.?
Thomas said to him, ?My Lord and my God!?
Then Jesus told him, ?Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.?

That is believing without evidence.


You're judging a book from over a thousand years ago by the language of truth standards today. It's as if I were speak Arabic and you were speaking Dutch.

blunnet wrote:
Ok, I was too dismissive in the sources thing, the talmud isn't something that will be much of of use for this purpose, and it wouldn't make a difference if a rabbi or a pastor connects faith with doubt (anybody can make up anything they want and sell a book) a source has to be reliable and credible, evidence has to be valid you can't just name any crap as evidence. That said, some sources are crappier than others, there is a problem when they lack neutrality and expertise regarding an issue.

I mean for example, creationist text books, they don't serve any purpose.


I'm glad to see you change your stance, but it seems quite ignorant to call the Talmud an unreliable source. I fail to see how the work of an Anglican priest are irrelevant either. Are you rejecting these because they challenge your preconceived ideas?

You're looking at it far to teleologically.

blunnet wrote:
I can prove Gravity you can't prove The Resurrection, they are not in the same epistemic plane.


If you mean that in a pseudo-Foucauldian sense then I agree completely.



Last edited by YourMum on 17 Sep 2014, 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.