Science Vs. Religion? Not always

[finn]

I think you may not be seeing this because your focus appears to be on Islam and not religeons which was what Jove was saying. In fairness there are always bits and pieces we can pick apart, but the overall point was to do with other religeons not specific ones.

People don't see Buddhism as a religeon of violence or Hinduism, frankly anyone who has any clue about history must acknowledge the violence of Christianity, I mean they even killed their own Godhead, not to mention crusades, inquisitions etc.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing with you about Islam but the point was general not specific and the specific does not necessarily illustrate the point and Jove has in fairness acknowledged that. I think Jove's argument is valid and the attitude to Islam mute in its context.

[Lord Mhoram]

finn,

The overall point was that Eastern religions are more respected in the West than Christianity, and Islam and Judaism were mentioned specifically. If I challenge the use of Islam as an example, how doesn't that invalidate the argument as a whole? I don't think Jove's argument is valid. I think there is a vocal minority of secularists in the United States who have curbed Christianity's place to a small degree in public life, which again I think is healthy. This trend has been blown entirely out of proportion by an equally small minority of vocal Christians who view their rights as being stamped upon. This is what Jove refers to in his listing of Rosie O'Donnell, et al., and the crucifix in a jar exmple. This does not in any way qualify the statement that Eastern religions are more respected than Christianity in the West, when at the end of the day, Christianity is still the majority religion in the West, and while it isn't being given a free ride by the press or secularist politicians anymore, this says nothing about the status of Eastern religions in the West, Islam especially.

[kevinswatch]

I don't see how this got into a discussion about "Christianity vs. the World", but oh well, heh.

Anyway, just to add my two cents, I think using Rosie and this "crucifix in a jar" (which I never heard of) are very poor examples that "today's media doesn't respect christianity." They represent extremes rather than the norm. (And I am Catholic.)

It's sort of like that whole "War on Christmas" thing that Bill o'Reilly loves to rant about (which I never understood).

-jay

[Cail]

I think it has to do with the uproar and furor over the Danish cartoons and the dumping of the Qur'an in a commode, versus the de-Christ-ing of the Christmas holidays.

[finn]

C'mon LM accept that this was not Islam-centric and lets get back on track1

[Lord Mhoram]

finn,

Let us use 'respected' then. Certainly you notice that in today's media, Islam and Judaism are given far more respect than Christianity.

I see mostly the perception of Muslim's as freedom fighters against American/Christian oppression.

Define "Islam-centric." Islam was certainly given the center stage in his argument. In any event, the argument that Eastern religions are given more respect in the West is still not a valid argument. Again, secularists only combat Christianity because a) Christianity is by far the largest religion in the West, and b) Christians in the United States sometimes fight for public expressions of their faith which secularists disagree with. If a Hindu wanted a Bhagavad Gita in a courtroom, you don't think secularists would fight that?

[Zarathustra]

jay, I agree science does not have to assume there is no God, but today's definition of science does.

No true at all. A scientific theory doesn't mention or consider God. This isn't the same as asserting his nonexistence. Scientific theories also don't mention anything about Adam Sandler, but we shouldn't take this to mean that they're asserting the comedian's nonexistence.

Science IS the combination of activities involved in finding naturalistic explanations for the natural world. It isn't in the business of proving or disproving supernatural entities. This isn't a slam on God. Science isn't shunning God. The absence of God in science text books occurs only because God (like mediocre, annoying comedians) isn't part of the subject matter of science. That would be religion.

I don't get the theists' objection that science starts out assuming natural mechanisms are responsible for natural phenomena. Do they have similar problems with scientists assuming that inter-dimentional elves have nothing to do with natural phenomena? If every possible supernatural cause had to be ruled out in order to safely proceed with the exploration of natural mechanisms, then no science would ever get done. God and elves can't be ruled out. They might exist somewhere we haven't looked (or can't look). But if science is to be done at all--if it is to take its very first step towards explanation--it must from the start ignore the infinite number of supernatural entities we might imagine, and explore the finite realities around us. That's just how science is done. If you don't like it, then stick to mythology and religion.

[Kinslaughterer]

Ouch, I don't like Sandler either but the Wedding Singer was kinda of funny.

It seems that theists view Science as a competing philosophy. Science is fundamentally a method usable by all not a monolithic group of white coats burning down churches. At its root in the determination of factual understanding, science is unloving and ammoral. Enlightenment isn't all warm fuzzies sometimes you have to accept the facts you don't like.

[TheUnbelievingDLH]

ever read dan brown's (yes, the davinci code author) angels and demons? it poses the conflict between science and religion; providing arguments on both sides. no, it does not have anything like the whole jeseus being a husband and father thing in it

[Fist and Faith]

Although I didn't read Davinci, I read A&D. It was a lot of fun!

The conflict, however, is a false one. It exists for two reasons:
1) Some people attempt to use science to disprove various religious beliefs. This is a misuse, if not an abuse, of science, and it cannot succeed. It can only make some people of faith dislike, mistrust, and/or misunderstand what science is.

2) Some people attempt to use religious beliefs and sacred texts to ignore or disprove any cold, hard facts that put any of their specific beliefs in question. But they almost never disbelieve facts that are vital to their survival, so they're relatively safe. And it doesn't make the slightest difference to science, and shouldn't make any difference to the scientific community.

Now one could make the argument, as the doc essentially is, that evolution as a process is so intricate it had to be created. Does it?

Is this how the book ends?!?!?!?!??!!??? As I said, I haven't finished it, because I'm trying to learn a little more about genetics first, so I can understand some of what he's saying. But I'm pretty damned pissed that this is his angle, after all his honest, intelligent talk about not falling back to a "God of the gaps."

So we ask "what is the meaning of life?" I know the answer. The meaning of our life is to continue our species. What's the meaning of all life? It doesn't have to have one.

Those answers are prefectly valid. My own answers are Love and Every single moment. However, other people seem to need other kinds of answers. They cannot not want those answers any more than Mozart could not want to compose, or some pedophiles could not want to abuse children. I chose a gloriously good analogy and a horrifying one, so as not to appear to be saying that I think those who search for answers in the ways we're discussing are good or bad - smart or stupid - admirable or not. I am not saying they are one or the other, and I do not think they are one or the other. It is simply a fact that some people are driven in ways that I am not.

[Kinslaughterer]

Is this how the book ends?!?!?!?!??!!??? As I said, I haven't finished it, because I'm trying to learn a little more about genetics first, so I can understand some of what he's saying. But I'm pretty damned pissed that this is his angle, after all his honest, intelligent talk about not falling back to a "God of the gaps."

This idea was what I was attempting to get across in my earlier post. Due to evolutionary changes in the human brain (mostly complexity at the later stages), it thinks good to us or makes sense to us as a sort of creator and problem solver that various processes were created exactly as they appear because they seem important to us.

In other words, we see something like gravity and say, wow that's so important I couldn't live without that. Our brain's response is to assume something complex must be created as we create complex ideas. Luckily for us the problem solving ability has allowed us to ask critical questions over time to better deduce the real cause and effect relationships of the universe.

Those answers are prefectly valid. My own answers are Love and Every single moment. However, other people seem to need other kinds of answers. They cannot not want those answers any more than Mozart could not want to compose, or some pedophiles could not want to abuse children. I chose a gloriously good analogy and a horrifying one, so as not to appear to be saying that I think those who search for answers in the ways we're discussing are good or bad - smart or stupid - admirable or not. I am not saying they are one or the other, and I do not think they are one or the other. It is simply a fact that some people are driven in ways that I am not.

Again this goes back to my previous post. Meaning is ascribed by our brains and our brains as problems solvers assume that all aspects and details have meaning or are important in some capacity. The fact that we preceive meaning/importantance suggests to us that some other thing also regards it as important. Problem solving is ultimately about recognizes the details and thinking abstractly. Religious ideas are just an evolutionary byproduct as are essentially all ideas within the spiritual realm.

Clearly we each have our definition of the meaning of life. Perhaps a better question is what is the purpose? The purpose is the continuance of our respective species. Unlike virtually everything else on Earth, humans have stopped making most decisions by instinct and now use intellect. So our behavior determines what each individual regards as important. Many will say having a family and that is within the realm of instinct. I on the other hand regard the search for knowledge of the past and general understanding of humanity to be more important to me so I became an archaeologist. Mozart wrote music, although I think music may ultimately fit into a more instinctual category while being tempered by behavior and our increased dexterity, however it all goes back to what our brain likes.

[Fist and Faith]

Yup. I agree with everything you just said. I've long seen the "purpose" of humanity as the same purpose ants have. They do whatever it takes, often sacrificing themselves by the thousands, to keep the species going.

I just don't think Collins' argument will be that, because evolution as a process is so intricate, it had to be created. At least that damned well better not be his argument. Everything I've read so far indicates that he's well beyond that kind of thing.

[Kinslaughterer]

No, I doubt he would state that complexity equals divine agency. However, I've put up a little money that he will remark on more than one occasion at the preceived "elegance" or even "incredible coincidence". Though I hope not. One of the big problems with actually process of evolution is that is has grown exponentially in complexity with the development of complex organisms so a rather simple process with single-celled creatures looks utterly fantastic when applied to humans for instance.

[Fist and Faith]

No, I doubt he would state that complexity equals divine agency.

The reason we're having this discussion is that you said he "essentially is" making that argument.

Anyway, let's face it, it is elegant! As elegant as anything else we've ever seen!

As for "coincidence," I guess it depends on which end you start from. Go back thousands of years, and what are the odds of ME ever coming into existence? Statistically impossible? But here I am. Of course, any other possibility was just as unlikely.

But then, is there such a thing as coincidence? Really? I've run into people I've known VERY far from home. It seems impossible for it to happen, and we can get caught up in amazement for days. But then, there have been MANY MANY MANY MANY more times I've been far from home and not run into anybody I know.

[Kinslaughterer]

The reason we're having this discussion is that you said he "essentially is" making that argument.

I don't want to make assumptions but the title alone is making some implicit statements about origins.

Anyway, let's face it, it is elegant! As elegant as anything else we've ever seen!

I've always thought elegant is a poor choice of words for a biological process that has produced far more failures than successes. Ultimately the process is highly inefficent as well.

for "coincidence," I guess it depends on which end you start from. Go back thousands of years, and what are the odds of ME ever coming into existence? Statistically impossible? But here I am. Of course, any other possibility was just as unlikely.

Be very careful concidering things in this fashion. This is the problem solving brain issue I've been talking about. Statistics can't be used this way. Statistically speaking given enough time with all the various natural processes plus individual behavioral agency I'm not really sure what is impossible. It runs back to assigning meaning to largely meaningless things.

[Fist and Faith]

The reason we're having this discussion is that you said he "essentially is" making that argument.

I don't want to make assumptions but the title alone is making some implicit statements about origins.

Well, here's hoping your assumption is incorrect. Having been let down every previous time by people who claimed they were going to do what I now hope Collins is doing, I didn't buy it until I looked through it a bit. Nothing suggested the It's so intricate it must have been created! conclusion we have come to expect.

Actually, in the 140 pages I've read he has:
1) Given some history of himself and the HGP.
2) Spoken out against the God in the gaps mindset.
3) Given what is for me conclusive evidence for evolution. Although I've always taken things on face value and accepted that evolution has been going on as it appears to have been, for the first time, I am aware of stronger evidence - extremely strong logic - ruling out the thought that a creator made things as they are now. (Of course, there are those who will still believe God did things this way to "test our faith.")

Anyway, let's face it, it is elegant! As elegant as anything else we've ever seen!

I've always thought elegant is a poor choice of words for a biological process that has produced far more failures than successes. Ultimately the process is highly inefficent as well.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. Of course, it has gotten the job done pretty nicely.

for "coincidence," I guess it depends on which end you start from. Go back thousands of years, and what are the odds of ME ever coming into existence? Statistically impossible? But here I am. Of course, any other possibility was just as unlikely.

Be very careful concidering things in this fashion. This is the problem solving brain issue I've been talking about. Statistics can't be used this way. Statistically speaking given enough time with all the various natural processes plus individual behavioral agency I'm not really sure what is impossible. It runs back to assigning meaning to largely meaningless things.

Indeed. And I don't consider things in this fashion. I'm just saying how things can appear, if we try to look at them from different angles. But, when it comes down to it, we all are here, and the billions of tiny events required to achieve that did, indeed, happen.

[Kinslaughterer]

guess that's one way of looking at it. Of course, it has gotten the job done pretty nicely.

I'd say nicely is quite relative.

when it comes down to it, we all are here, and the billions of tiny events required to achieve that did, indeed, happen.

Yes, over the course of billions of years. However all those tiny events made sure lots of other things didn't happen.

[Fist and Faith]

guess that's one way of looking at it. Of course, it has gotten the job done pretty nicely.

I'd say nicely is quite relative.

Of course.

when it comes down to it, we all are here, and the billions of tiny events required to achieve that did, indeed, happen.

Yes, over the course of billions of years. However all those tiny events made sure lots of other things didn't happen.

Damn right! Paving the way for me!!!

[Fist and Faith]

I believe I've read enough of the book to say this. The rest of it (after page 200ish) seems to be about moral/ethical issues like stem cells. (Which he also explains very nicely, for those of us who don't know nuthin'.)

Collins did not attempt to prove, or even support, the existence of any creator. The beginning of the book tells how he found faith. For him, that's a given, and genetics is God's language. He spent most of the book discussing this language; usually debunking various creation ideas (Intelligent Design and Behe's irreducible complexity among them.), and giving extremely convincing support for evolution.

He often says that there need be no conflict between faith and science, and tells about his own way of combining the two; something called theistic evolution. Which I think is explained pretty well here:
www.geocities.com/wendyschristianpage/t ... ution.html

Just a couple quick quotes, to give an idea...

Question: What is theistic evolution?

Answer: It is exactly the same as atheistic evolution on the scientific side of things. The only difference is that a theistic evolutionist is also a theist. That is, they believe in God, gods, spirits, or something else beyond the physical that would be called "supernatural." In my case, I am an evolutionist and a Christian. The theism and the evolution are not related to each other, that is, theistic evolution does not imply calling upon miracles for the creation of life. Rather, it claims that God uses evolution as a tool of creation, or works through the process.

Question: You're believing in a God of the gaps!

Answer: God is not put into any gaps because I do not assign "God did it" as an explanation for any natural phenomena. I fully accept abiogenesis and evolution as well as all other natural processes science has described. I am not calling upon miracles here. While I believe that divine miracles can occur, such as Jesus' miracles, I do not use them to explain natural phenomena such as the diversity of life. My theism and my acceptance of science are two separate subjects. The label "theistic evolutionist" only denotes that I am not an atheist or agnostic.

Instead of placing God into any gaps, I believe that God was involved the entire time, working through natural processes.

[Kinslaughterer]

Question: What is theistic evolution?

Answer: It is exactly the same as atheistic evolution on the scientific side of things. The only difference is that a theistic evolutionist is also a theist. That is, they believe in God, gods, spirits, or something else beyond the physical that would be called "supernatural." In my case, I am an evolutionist and a Christian. The theism and the evolution are not related to each other, that is, theistic evolution does not imply calling upon miracles for the creation of life. Rather, it claims that God uses evolution as a tool of creation, or works through the process.

I find this particularly interesting. Evolution does not include any atheistic statement and he is implying that those who believe are atheists. He certainly isn't the first christian that believes in evolution.

Question: You're believing in a God of the gaps!

Answer: God is not put into any gaps because I do not assign "God did it" as an explanation for any natural phenomena. I fully accept abiogenesis and evolution as well as all other natural processes science has described. I am not calling upon miracles here. While I believe that divine miracles can occur, such as Jesus' miracles, I do not use them to explain natural phenomena such as the diversity of life. My theism and my acceptance of science are two separate subjects. The label "theistic evolutionist" only denotes that I am not an atheist or agnostic.

Instead of placing God into any gaps, I believe that God was involved the entire time, working through natural processes.

This is a little troubling. He is willing to accept logic and fact in his everyday life but dismiss those same things to believe in something that he likes. In any other aspect of life that shows a real lack of integrity. He decided to scientifically assess evolution then why not scientifically assess the origins of Christianity or the miracles he speaks of? For a seemingly credible scientist to accept ancient theological writing is really no different than accepting a flat earth or unicorns.