Jump to content

Reconciling science and religion


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, DrP said:

I guess it depends on what you need to forgive yourself or others for.

That's why it's so difficult to fathom because it really doesn't depend on anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 396
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Most of your posts are also nonsense most of the time because I realize you really post a lot of nonscientific bullshit.

It's impossible to reconcile science and religion because religion is bullshit while science is not. Any moderately intelligent person can see that religion is total bullshit.

The irony is that you have been saying the same thing, even although multiple members have refuted/destroyed/countered your arguments/evidence/assertions.

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's why it's so difficult to fathom because it really doesn't depend on anything.

I meant that the difficulty level depends on what is being forgiven....  It is easier to forgive someone for stealing a crisp from your packet than it would be to forgive them for murdering your child for example.  ;-) 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys know anything about whats happening with the Hinduism in India ? Most of them very extreme these days and they don't even believe in an afterlife .. like the religions of the books .

Even when they don't believe in afterlife , they are killing innocent people for eating beef these days like ISIS .

One of the reasons why Islam and Quran keeps talking about the one god , is mostly i think because of the millions of Gods Hindus have .Not exactly because of the trinity issue , which isn't much of an issue ...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you have some knowledge about science like electronics and quantum mechanics , you might try to connect it with religion and sometimes you try to seek answers from the book , because you are curious about the creation around us . Science is kind of new , but religion is old like old poetry . How does these old poetry talk about this much information about different places , prophets very mysterious miracles etc ,They all sound very Alien like to me , that too  even before the development of science as we know it today .

Its only after the invention of PC and internet , knowledge like these have become accessible to us .

So i think its natural for people like me to connect the science knowledge available these days to religious verses , they could mean a lot of things ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DrP said:

I meant that the difficulty level depends on what is being forgiven....  It is easier to forgive someone for stealing a crisp from your packet than it would be to forgive them for murdering your child for example.  ;-) 

 

 

 

I know what you meant, but the transgression doesn't lessen the efficacy.

The point is if you can't affect the outcome, then the only damage you can inflict is on yourself, not the perpetrator. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, science and religion are NOT incompatible. They answer different questions.

My encouragement is to seek to understand with an open mind and heart, regardless of whether you're a believer or an atheist. We can't completely avoid confirmation bias in our endeavors to understand science and/or faith, but having awareness of it could result in us being more honest to our discoveries.

If, in learning about faith, one discovers that it is not incompatible with science and/or previously established beliefs and biases, then one must be humble to admit that. And this applies for those coming from the faith background learning about science.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CaptainT said:

IMO, science and religion are NOT incompatible. They answer different questions.

The only question religion answers is how many people are willing to believe nonsense in the absence of (or in direct contradiction to) available evidence.

It's a mistake to suggest that religious works of fiction actually "answer" any questions. They don't. They tell stories that make some feel better about lacking answers, or that bond communities together over shared narratives, but (of the two) science is the ONLY one putting forth any actual answers. 

Try not to conflate "stories" and "tales" with "answers." It's an abuse of the meaning of words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iNow said:

The only question religion answers is how many people are willing to believe nonsense in the absence of (or in direct contradiction to) available evidence.

It's a mistake to suggest that religious works of fiction actually "answer" any questions. They don't. They tell stories that make some feel better about lacking answers, or that bond communities together over shared narratives, but (of the two) science is the ONLY one putting forth any actual answers. 

Try not to conflate "stories" and "tales" with "answers." It's an abuse of the meaning of words.

The Sermon on the Mount provides an answer to the question "How shall I live my life?" You appear to be thinking of questions only in terms of questions that fall within the purview of science. And your comments are wholly valid for those. They are not valid for the metaphysical and spiritual questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about questions with objective answers, then?

I could, of course, ask the question about your favorite ice cream flavor or best tasting fruit (or best way to live your life), but it's (once more) an abuse of language to suggest those questions have "an" answer since all that can be offered in response is a subjective opinion. 

I don't want this to turn into a semantic squabble, though. I just see "answers" as being more consistent across observers and not subject to the whims of the observer or the moment (hence my post above). What you seem to be describing are "responses" to questions, not "answers."

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎14‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 6:03 AM, CaptainT said:

IMO, science and religion are NOT incompatible. They answer different questions.

My encouragement is to seek to understand with an open mind and heart, regardless of whether you're a believer or an atheist. We can't completely avoid confirmation bias in our endeavors to understand science and/or faith, but having awareness of it could result in us being more honest to our discoveries.

If, in learning about faith, one discovers that it is not incompatible with science and/or previously established beliefs and biases, then one must be humble to admit that. And this applies for those coming from the faith background learning about science.

 

 

On ‎14‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, iNow said:

The only question religion answers is how many people are willing to believe nonsense in the absence of (or in direct contradiction to) available evidence.

It's a mistake to suggest that religious works of fiction actually "answer" any questions. They don't. They tell stories that make some feel better about lacking answers, or that bond communities together over shared narratives, but (of the two) science is the ONLY one putting forth any actual answers. 

Try not to conflate "stories" and "tales" with "answers." It's an abuse of the meaning of words.

You are both right partly. Extremist beliefs to one side

The question science and religion are facing is belief, both believe themselves to be correct. Neither will admit they are wrong. Science is based on perceived facts generated by popular theories today, whereas religious belief is based on theories held in the past. Both want to control and claim to be preaching the truth, some religions are backing down, others are claiming scientists are a set of idiots.

Most religion is based on some human requirement for spirituality, peace of mind, oneness with god, gaia or the universe type of thing, at the basic level. Clearly the omnipotent gods of the past don't exist unless they are space aliens are something along those lines.

I would like to play with the idea of the oneness with a omnipresent god that makes up all things, not exactly a creator god, a bit like a god particle, (a deity can be a brick or statue if you want something to meditate on) Space is an interesting concept it is in everything in all the gaps, as must be quantum matter which is ethereal. All things evolve grow old and are recycled. 

If the moderators would care to stay of my back for the next three paragraphs, whilst I make something up, along religious lines, to demonstrate an idea. I haven't had any negative points for a while and am missing them.

Space is made up of an expanding and contracting quantum foam, which is your god substance or particle ie the mind of god. For your scientist death has about as much influence in the here and now as a omnipresent god. For the Spiritually minded the none detectable quantum particles inside your dead body, could be entangled and form a spirit for a while before they decohere and become one with god, ie decohered quantum foam.

Quantum matter or foam can over an eternity forms into stable particles, which swirl around and form into gas clouds or nebulae and eventually blackholes and make all things in the universe all things are created from space, or quantum foam, which is exploded out into space etc

Multiple Black holes are the source of big bangs along with supernovae etc. Matter and gamma rays have been observed being ejected from black holes, this could well be caused by matter being converted into anti matter inside blackholes due to extreme pressure and temperature and when produced in high enough quantities and forced into contact with matter it explodes, emitting gamma rays and matter from black holes. On a large enough scale these could be the big bangs, of which there may have  been many over an eternity.

The basic concepts above are simple to understand and may appeal to some religious type folk with a few modifications, a god type idea and some spiritual concept off a possible afterlife, not based on complete bollocks, might appeal to the religious minded folk of the world, and not totally discredit everything some people feel :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

The question science and religion are facing is belief, both believe themselves to be correct. Neither will admit they are wrong.

Wrong on three counts.

Science is not based on belief. Science always admits it is wrong. Science is never certainly correct. All theories are provisional. 

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

Science is based on perceived facts generated by popular theories today

That is completely backwards. Theories are based on observed evidence ("facts" is a very poor word that I would generally avoid in the context of science apart from really obvious things like "gravity exists" or "evolution happens").

2 hours ago, Handy andy said:

Both want to control and claim to be preaching the truth

Science never claims to be preaching (or even stating) the truth. I don't think any modern philosophers of science (and few scientists) would say science has anything to do with "truth". That belongs to religion and philosophy.

Remaining drivel skipped. (Although, I would say it is not "along religious lines" - it is just a collection of sciency-sounding words strung together in a meaningless way.)

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange already addressed all relevant bits and I fully agree. Poor Handy Andy very clearly doesn't understand science and instead attacks a strawman or caricature of it. 

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Strange already addressed all relevant bits and I fully agree. Poor Handy Andy very clearly doesn't understand science and instead attacks a strawman or caricature of it. 

There does seem to be a common trend for people who don't like the consequences of science (whether for religious reasons or just personal taste) to justify their beliefs by claiming science is just stuff people make up for reasons of belief / dogma / politics / opportunism/ whatever. As you say, this betrays a total lack of understanding of how science works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That religious people think belief plays a part in science seems odd to me. They accept that building a sewing machine or a surveyor measuring the distance to a distant mountain does not require belief. But they get confused when a scientist looking through a telescope, similar to a surveyor looking through a transit, calculates the distance to a star or galaxy. They don't like the distance to a galaxy meaning that light is older than their belief of the age of the world; thus, they blame it on the scientist having a flawed belief. Although, the scientist used only math and measurements, similar to the surveyor. People are funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Strange said:

There does seem to be a common trend for people who don't like the consequences of science (whether for religious reasons or just personal taste) to justify their beliefs by claiming science is just stuff people make up for reasons of belief / dogma / politics / opportunism/ whatever. As you say, this betrays a total lack of understanding of how science works.

3

At the risk of getting into a war of words with a couple of 'SuperNerds' but the converse sometimes seems equally true, in that a lack of understanding of religions initial intentions often leads a scientific atheist to dismiss the religious out of hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

At the risk of getting into a war of words with a couple of 'SuperNerds' but the converse sometimes seems equally true, in that a lack of understanding of religions initial intentions often leads a scientific atheist to dismiss the religious out of hand.

What do you think the "initial intentions" of religions are?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Manticore said:

What do you think the "initial intentions" of religions are?

The sermon on the mount explains it for me, they were designed to teach contentment; something that science has yet to accomplish, at least, on as large scale as was accomplished by religions when they started.

So in answer to the OP, yes I think there could well be a benefit in their reconciliation, but only if the religions do the moving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The sermon on the mount explains it for me, they were designed to teach contentment; something that science has yet to accomplish, at least, on as large scale as was accomplished by religions when they started.

So in answer to the OP, yes I think there could well be a benefit in their reconciliation, but only if the religions do the moving.

With 'science'  you mean 'secularity' I suppose? So you claim secularity doesn't teach contentment? Seriously?

Edited by Itoero
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Itoero said:

 

With 'science'  you mean 'secularity' I suppose? So you claim secularity doesn't teach contentment? Seriously?

Oh no not this again, re-read my post because you're proving my point.

BTW I'd be happy to go through the sermon line by line in another thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Itoero said:

 

With 'science'  you mean 'secularity' I suppose? So you claim secularity doesn't teach contentment? Seriously?

 

I don't think he meant that at all ( I might be wrong). They are different completely. Secularism is just society without religion.... it says nothing about science. There are ways people search for contentment in a secular society. Maybe some of the religious teaching that promotes contentment is useful....  things like learning humility, grace, mercy and forgiveness...  maybe there should be more stress on these things when teaching people about the world through love.

 

Being fair - does science even need to deal with contentment and happiness... other than to study it objectively. Secular society on the other hand might well learn something from the babies in the bathwater they ditched when they dropped the god myth.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DrP said:

Being fair - does science even need to deal with contentment and happiness... other than to study it objectively. Secular society on the other hand might well learn something from the babies in the bathwater they ditched when they dropped the god myth.

1

Good point +1

But wouldn't an objective position on both sides benefit us all? After all, science is a part of society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

At the risk of getting into a war of words with a couple of 'SuperNerds' but the converse sometimes seems equally true, in that a lack of understanding of religions initial intentions often leads a scientific atheist to dismiss the religious out of hand.

I'd considered this point while writing my reply, but then realized that religions themselves seem not to understand or agree on their initial intentions. Even within one sect there are different denominations warring over interpretations (Catholics v Protestants; Sunni v Shia; ad infinitum).

Ask ten different religious people what religion is/means/does/is for and you'll get ten different answers. That's simply not the case in science if you ask scientists.

I acknowledge your sincerity and appreciate your desire to treat fairly those who hold these beliefs. I also appreciate that you personally hold a high regard for the positive teachings of the one religion to which you personally ascribe, though feel your point in response to me above equivocates in a way that renders it immediately false.

Let's not lose the context here. Handy Andy (based on his posts) clearly does not understand science (or, at the very least, seems incapable of accurately describing and commenting on its methods, whether he does so based on malice or ignorance I cannot say).

Likewise, many of us here can be said not to "understand" or be capable of "accurately describing and commenting on" religion. However, within science the understanding is consistent. The same cannot be said within religion. The two cannot be said to be equivalent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Oh no not this again, re-read my post because you're proving my point.

BTW I'd be happy to go through the sermon line by line in another thread.

The fact that there are moral teachings in the NT doesn't prove that it's meant to teach contentment. And you know secularity teaches contentment so why do you again seem to claim it doesn't?

And you claimed religion taught contentment when they started and they succeeded...any evidence for this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

At the risk of getting into a war of words with a couple of 'SuperNerds' but the converse sometimes seems equally true, in that a lack of understanding of religions initial intentions often leads a scientific atheist to dismiss the religious out of hand.

I agree completely. I don't (or try not to) do that. I am not an anti-theist. I only criticise religious claims when they fail on basic logic or contradict facts. And that has nothing to do with them being religious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.