Jump to content

Reconciling science and religion


Recommended Posts

Just now, Strange said:

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

If it's not the only option then why use it when the other option works without the "side effect" of religious intolerance?

Also,  religion has, for years said that it's the "one true path" well, let's see it prove that there's no other path?

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.

30 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If it's not the only option then why use it when the other option works without the "side effect" of religious intolerance?

 

The major religions all teach tolerance, it's politics and deliberate misinterpretation that subvert that teaching to intolerance, what's your excuse?

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

If it's not the only option then why use it when the other option works without the "side effect" of religious intolerance?

Personal preference? 

And not all religious people are intolerant. Similarly, as you kindly demonstrate, not all non-religious people are tolerant. So that hardly seems relevant. 

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

The major religions all teach tolerance, it's politics and deliberate misinterpretation that subvert that teaching to intolerance, what's your excuse?

No, they  do not.
Exodus 22:18

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.".

Leviticus 25:44

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."


Ephesians 6:9

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.


Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
 

Leviticus 20:10

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

At least I didn't say things that were plainly untrue.
What's your excuse?

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Personal preference? 

And not all religious people are intolerant. Similarly, as you kindly demonstrate, not all non-religious people are tolerant. So that hardly seems relevant. 

The religious people who are being tolerant are, to that extent, not being religious. They are not devotedly following their scripture.

I'm perfectly happy to tolerate any religion as long as it does no harm.
Can you show me an example?

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

The religious people who are being tolerant are, to that extent, not being religious. They are not devotedly following their scripture.

They may be following different bits than the ones you have chosen. 

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

The religious people who are being tolerant are, to that extent, not being religious. They are not devotedly following their scripture.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Unless you believe every Christian who eats shellfish is not really a Christian: they have to follow every single part of a holy book to count as a 'true' religious' person. This is an extreme position to take for membership isn't it? More extreme than most Christians even.

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

No, they  do not.
Exodus 22:18

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.".

Leviticus 25:44

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."


Ephesians 6:9

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.


Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
 

Leviticus 20:10

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
 

5

Cherry picking the OT is no answer, it's just an excuse

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

They may be following different bits than the ones you have chosen. 

That's OK, I'm told it's cogent so it can't possibly contradict itself.

But the point remains if they only follow bits of it then...

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Cherry picking the OT is no answer, it's just an excuse

... it looks like I'm not the only one.

 

12 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Unless you believe every Christian who eats shellfish is not really a Christian: they have to follow every single part of a holy book to count as a 'true' religious' person. This is an extreme position to take for membership isn't it? More extreme than most Christians even.

No.

The prototype  "No true Scotsman" fallacy happens  where you attach an irrelevant trait- like salting porridge, to a condition- like being Scots.

But following the teachings of the scriptures really is  a defining characteristic of a religion.

Otherwise you get things like Mr Trump pretending to be a Christian which is clearly absurd.

 

Who gets to draw the line?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Perhaps we should rename the thread 'Reconciling Science and Handy Andy'; although I think the OP is easier.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

- Carl Sagan

A mathematical model is just that it does not need to describe all the variables involved in what it is attempting to model. Relativity describes an end result it does not describe the mechanism which is described by quantum foam theory. 2+2=4 and 2+2+1-1=4 andc an infinite number of other eqations can get the same result. Belief that an equation describing an empty space completely ignoring the mechanism, causing gravity is religion. Being a clear minded numerate pagan none believer, you will just have to tolerate my disbelief.

Cross posted with a strange.  

Edited by Handy andy
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

it looks like I'm not the only one.

Shrug. 

 

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Who gets to draw the line?

The individual believer, I guess. (Although it sounds like you want to do it for them.)

5 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

- Carl Sagan

That sound you can hear is every irony detector on the planet breaking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Area54 said:

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.

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

The individual believer, I guess. ...

 

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

Shrug. 

 

The individual believer, I guess. (Although it sounds like you want to do it for them.)

That sound you can hear is every irony detector on the planet breaking. 

The thread is about reconciling religion with science not about one belief crushing another, the fact that I think you are wrong is neither here or there, and I realy couldn't give a damn, I just aint going to believe in singularities from which all matter in the universe sprang and gravity being transmitted through a smooth empty space, devoid of anything, or dark matter come to that, that never has been detected or observed.

To reconcile religion and science there has to be some bending of words and understandings otherwise it will never happen. Clearly belief that god created everything could quite easily be re written as everything came out of space and has been destroyed and recycled for an eternity. Peoples feeling of connectedness could be reworded as all things are connected to a certain extent by quantum entanglement, you could even give the weirdos the possibility of a mystic connection to each other etc. An Esperanto language existing between religion and science could be encouraged to evolve, based on science and psychology, but for any reconciliation to take place some give and take has to be accepted on all sides. Very wide goalposts with acceptable views need to be taken into account when trying to persuade large numbers of people with very different backgrounds that religion and science might come anywhere near to being reconciled.

If there is no flexibility nothing and no one will ever be reconciled, and you are wasting your time and everyone elses by posting on a thread about reconciliation of science and religion.

 

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

I just aint going to believe in singularities from which all matter in the universe sprang

That's fine because there is no science that says that. As you might know if you weren't so wilfully ignorant. 

3 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

dark matter come to that, that never has been detected or observed

Except of course it has been observed. Presumably you think it was just invented for fun. 

5 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

you are wasting your time and everyone elses by posting on a thread about reconciliation of science and religio

I'm one of those who doesn't see any conflict between science and religion. 

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

 

That sound you can hear is every irony detector on the planet breaking. 

 

I reckon in a hundred years time that view will be flipped, but both you and I will be dead, burnt to a crisp, I will be cast to the winds, I guess you will be producing beautiful roses from the nonsense you tried to convince me about. Empty space with no substance, singularities, a beginning of time, haha, I haven't fallen for it, and I aint going to either.

Just now, Strange said:

 

Except of course it has been observed. Presumably you think it was just invented for fun. 

I'm one of those who doesn't see any conflict between science and religion. 

You are completely off thread, BUT Citation required. Dark matter has never been detected it is simply inferred to exist to make an equation work.

ROFL

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

The thread is about reconciling religion with science not about one belief crushing another, t

 

Only one is a "belief"- the other has evidence.
That's fundamentally why they won't reconcile.
Religion seeks to change the facts to fit their beliefs.
Science changes to fit the evidence.

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

 

You are completely off thread, BUT Citation required. Dark matter has never been detected it is simply inferred to exist to make an equation work.

ROFL

Do you understand that the rotational speed of galaxies is a measured quantity?
Do you understand that the speed doesn't make sense unless there's something else there adding gravity, but not light?

That's the evidence.

There's something else there.

They chose to call it dark matter because

It's dark and 

it has mass.

 

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

Do you understand that the rotational speed of galaxies is a measured quantity?
Do you understand that the speed doesn't make sense unless there's something else there adding gravity, but not light?

That's the evidence.

There's something else there.

They chose to call it dark matter because

It's dark and 

it has mass.

Plus it can be seen pretty directly via gravitational lensing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Prometheus said:

You apparently.

No.

What I'm doing is refusing to draw a line.

If it's in the book, it's part of the creed.

Not "it might be part of the creed- ask so-and-so" nor "it might have been part of the creed once- but we realised that bit was silly so - in spite of saying it's the Word of God, we don't follow it".

After all, "Cherry picking the OT is no answer, it's just an excuse".

If the Book is the Word of God then only He can legitimately draw the line. For mere mortals to do it is blasphemy.
Has anyone asked Him and got a reply lately?

 

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

They will have picked the bits that suit their agenda and ignored the bits that don't. 

As everyone does. 

That's OK, since religion provides a cogent whole, all the bits will be equivalent. It won't matter what bits they choose.

However, it seems that, since some people keep focusing on the- shall we say- "nasty" bits of it, we might be better off if those bits were removed.

But, of course, you can't do that- it's blasphemy.
So; what can we do?

Do we, as some seem to have suggested, tolerate it?

 

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.