Jump to content

Reconciling science and religion


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, iNow said:
23 minutes ago, Itoero said:

The fact that there are moral teachings in the NT doesn't prove that it's meant to teach contentment. 

 

I've never claimed proof.

23 minutes ago, Itoero said:

And you know secularity teaches contentment so why do you again seem to claim it doesn't?

Really, show me some proof.

23 minutes ago, Itoero said:

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

Yes, historical evidence suggests they spread far and wide, enveloping existing deeply held beliefs on route, much like science is doing today; presumably for similar reasons.

Edited by dimreepr
This was not a reply to iNow, don't understand how he was included.
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.

8 minutes ago, Itoero said:

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?

The bible actually says: "The secret to a happy Christian life is contentment".    I can't remember which NT chap/verse this is...  but it is there in the teaching for sure.... it is THE SECRET to a happy life according to the book/manual for Christianity.

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

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.

TBH I dismissed Handy Andy's grasp of science a while back (and stopped reading his posts), so I apologise for missing the context.

But just to be clear I ascribe my position to all the major religions (not just Christianity, there seems to be a lot of parallels) but only in their initial thinking not the vast amount of re-interpretations.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DrP said:

 

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.

 

 

It's pretty secular where I live and there are several ways contentment is taught which have nothing to do with religion. In many weekly or monthly magazines the subject of 'getting back on track' or 'how to be content' is always present. Several television shows also deal with that subject. There are many 'able people' you can visit like a psychologist without a degree.

Yes, science concerns the job of a scientist. :) It depends if you consider social sciences as science. Psychology is a social science...

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

It's pretty secular where I live and there are several ways contentment is taught which have nothing to do with religion. In many weekly or monthly magazines the subject of 'getting back on track' or 'how to be content' is always present. Several television shows also deal with that subject. There are many 'able people' you can visit like a psychologist without a degree.

....so, nothing to do with science then. I am still unsure how you confuse 'science' with 'secular'....  although a secular society may well be the result of what we have learnt from science, it isn't the same thing.  

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

It's pretty secular where I live and there are several ways contentment is taught which have nothing to do with religion. In many weekly or monthly magazines the subject of 'getting back on track' or 'how to be content' is always present. Several television shows also deal with that subject. There are many 'able people' you can visit like a psychologist without a degree.

1

That's not evidence (it's an anecdote) how do you know their teachings are correct?

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

The bible actually says: "The secret to a happy Christian life is contentment".    I can't remember which NT chap/verse this is...  but it is there in the teaching for sure.... it is THE SECRET to a happy life according to the book/manual for Christianity.

But what does the bible matter if it's only part of the teachings?

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

....so, nothing to do with science then. I am still unsure how you confuse 'science' with 'secular'....  although a secular society may well be the result of what we have learnt from science, it isn't the same thing.  

I think dimreepr meant to say 'Secularity doesn't teach contentment'...he said this several times before.

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

I think dimreepr meant to say 'Secularity doesn't teach contentment'...he said this several times before.

Nope, never.

The closest I've come to saying that is "secularity doesn't SEEM to teach contentment" but that's way off topic here.

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

That's not evidence (it's an anecdote) how do you know their teachings are correct?

How can I give evidence for something like that? Being content is a very personal feeling.  What do you mean with that question? You remember/read/listen/see what you think is useful...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Itoero said:

How can I give evidence for something like that? Being content is a very personal feeling.  What do you mean with that question? You remember/read/listen/see what you think is useful...

Yet you expect/deride me for the same failing, at least I gave historical evidence, all you have done is dismiss my point out of hand.

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

Nope, never.

The closest I've come to saying that is "secularity doesn't SEEM to teach contentment" but that's way off topic here.

I disagree strongly with that but, as you say, it is off topic. :)

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

Yet you expect/deride me for the same failing, at least I gave historical evidence, all you have done is dismiss my point out of hand.

Which historical evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I retired from engineering I took a job as the Science Teacher fora small Christian High School.  One of the concessions I got from the school was that we would teach science using the best available secular textbooks-- No religious science books.  At the next 'Parents Night' one of the parents asked me point blank how I could reconcile Science and religion.  This was my answer:  "You believe God created the World.  In my classes the students will learn how the world works.  In Religion class your students should learn how to make ethical use of what Science provides."  The parents accepted this and we had no later issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/08/2017 at 11:57 AM, Strange said:

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. 

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").

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.)

 

On 17/08/2017 at 0:17 PM, 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. 

Poor people, I simply dont believe in the standard models absolute accuracy. 

Whilst the Quantum foam Theory of gravity hasnt been accepted as the standard model yet, it mostly agrees with my assertions over the previous threads that you argued against.

I think only fools believe in singularities a beginning and end of time, time travel etc etc. Space is not an empty nothing consisting of fixed dimensions. It is full of virtual particles or quantum foam which creates space, without which their is no space for you to exist in. You are both in denial and preach the standard model as actual fact, when in actual FACT is is a mathematical model with some unbelievable predictions that only a religious fool would believe. The standard model is a model which ignores irregularities or dreams up unobserved dark matter to make it work.

The concept I put forward above, was partly plausible and an attempt at actually contributing to thread, reconciling religion and science, rather than trying to crush peoples religious belief in something else. 

It is generally accepted that religion is a tool used for controlling the masses, based on high priests speaking on behalf of god and preaching the standard model of their religion or doctrine. Pagans or disbelievers are told off or get moderated, in the hope they will believe in nonsense. 

It is also widely recognized today and in the past that religion is misused by some religious leaders, to try and expand their influence or control of world resources. The concept I tried to put forward above takes the god concept out of the hands of leaders and puts it inside everything.

I think the following comes from some religion or other or perhaps I just made it up, from some fading memory. Dont you know god is in you and around you and in everything you see and feel. For your average scientist that could be the god particle.

The concept of what someone feels is something that will never go away, even if it is just a chemical reaction in your body after eating or making love. Science is going to have to come up with a plausible explanation that cant be proved or disproved, which peasants can understand, and believe in. The Greeks had the aether, I suggested quantum foam, it is same concept. Animal emotions are what make animals behave the way we do, etc In the absence of Zeus coming down to earth in a space ship, the aether concept is all that should remain of the greek religions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2017 at 4:38 PM, Area54 said:

...

If we examine the character of science as understood by practicing scientists, or philosophers, with that of religion as understood by serious theologists there is little or no significant overlap. The conflict arises when militant atheists, such as Dawkins, or aggressive evangelicals, such as the ID mob, inappropriately seek to extend the boundaries of science and religion respectively.

...

Just what is the field in which religion legitimately holds sway.
What can it do that you can't do without it?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Poor people, I simply dont believe in the standard models absolute accuracy. 

No one does. This is another of your ignorant caricatures of the nature of science.

Quote

Whilst the Quantum foam Theory of gravity hasnt been accepted as the standard model yet, it mostly agrees with my assertions over the previous threads that you argued against.

Instead of repeatedly making these unsupported assertions in random threads, where they are nearly always off topic, why not start a thread to discuss this "quantum foam theory of gravity" of yours. 

28 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

 Science is going to have to come up with a plausible explanation that cant be proved or disproved, which peasants can understand, and believe in. 

No it isn't. If they can't be proved or disproved, then they aren't science. Science has no duty to provide explanations that "peasants can understand" (whatever that means). If you can't understand a theory or don't like the consequences, that doesn't make it wrong. Only evidence can do that.

29 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

It is generally accepted that religion is a tool used for controlling the masses, based on high priests speaking on behalf of god and preaching the standard model of their religion or doctrine. Pagans or disbelievers are told off or get moderated, in the hope they will believe in nonsense.

I assume that is intended as some sort of metaphor for the way you think science works. If so, all it does is show, one again, that you don't have a clue about science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Just what is the field in which religion legitimately holds sway.
What can it do that you can't do without it?

A proper answer would require a book length treatment, composed over a decade, with several hundred pertinent references.

One of the many improper answers would be that it can offer a cogent, organised ethical focus for individuals predisposed to be followers rather than leaders.

You seem to be an intelligent person. I find it unlikely that you cannot produce even better examples to answer your question, if you try.

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

Poor people, I simply dont believe in the standard models absolute accuracy. <...> You are both in denial and preach the standard model as actual fact

I see my very simple position has not been accurately comprehended. The point everyone here has been making pretty clearly is that science is rooted in provisional acceptance of ideas and that people will change their minds when clear evidence which scales with the claim gets presented. By saying the above, it is rather clear that you're either intentionally or unintentionally failing to understand that very basic foundational premise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Area54 said:

A proper answer would require a book length treatment, composed over a decade, with several hundred pertinent references.

One of the many improper answers would be that it can offer a cogent, organised ethical focus for individuals predisposed to be followers rather than leaders.

You seem to be an intelligent person. I find it unlikely that you cannot produce even better examples to answer your question, if you try.

But it's not cogent, not focused, not ethical and not the only option available to those who seek to follow, rather than to lead.

I'm not asking for a book; just an example of what religion can do that nothing else can.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

But it's not cogent, not focused, not ethical and not the only option available to those who seek to follow, rather than to lead.

Your opinion is flawed and you appear to be working to a militant atheist agenda. I view militant atheism much as I view Young Earth Creationists or climate change deniers. I don't think further discussion between us would be productive.

For those with more open minds, here are some examples:

The teachings of bhuddism are cogent.

The prayer rituals of Moslems are focused.

The Sermon on the Mount is ethical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Your opinion is flawed and you appear to be working to a militant atheist agenda. I view militant atheism much as I view Young Earth Creationists or climate change deniers. I don't think further discussion between us would be productive.

For those with more open minds, here are some examples:

The teachings of bhuddism are cogent.

The prayer rituals of Moslems are focused.

The Sermon on the Mount is ethical.

Asking for a single example isn't "militant" as you put it.

You can cherry pick bits from any religion and find the bits that make sense.
However, as a whole religion is not cogent, not focused, not ethical and not the only option available to those who seek to follow, rather than to lead.
So, once again 

I'm not asking for a book; just an example of what religion can do that nothing else can.

If you can't find a single example of what the exclusive role of religion is then you may well be right about there being nothing for you to discuss.
You might want to consider why that is.
It may be because religion has no real role.

So, where religion reaches into anything, it is reaching outside it's true (empty, or, at best, historical) realm.

 

 

Science and religion will be reconciled only when they stick to their own realms.

We know what the realm of science is- it's knowing what and why.

If religion ventures into that space then it's treading on the toes of science and should expect to get a strip torn off it.

 

What are the areas that science should leave to religion?
You tell me there's a whole book full. Well list some.

One would be a start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

But it's not cogent, not focused, not ethical and not the only option available to those who seek to follow, rather than to lead.

I'm not asking for a book; just an example of what religion can do that nothing else can.

 

Did anyone say it is the only option? Or that it can do things nothing else can?

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.