Science as Religion and Vice Versa *debate*

Post by **Lord Mhoram** » Mon May 02, 2005 9:48 pm

Lady Revel,

Religion can help some people people live with peace and happiness in ways that science can't.
Ermm....please tell that to the Irish Catholics and Protestants, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Muslims and the Jews. Maybe they will listen. *snort*

I guess I see what you're saying. But that's still a gross and offensive generalization - as Fist said there are people of all those faiths that are peace-loving. It is fundamentalism you wish to condemn, not entire faiths.

Post by **lurch** » Tue May 03, 2005 12:07 am

...Nobody is saying science is meant to give you a mystical warm and fuzzy. Science can give you a nice hot micro-waved diner, but is Not incombent upon science to fulfill any mystical needs.

That is the fallacy of this whole thread. It starts off presupposing science and religion are in some struggle. Maybe in some minds they are because inorder for their religion to work , there has to be some evil, some wrongness, and to name what is not understood is unfortunate.imho.

Organized religion has not created vaccines, has not created the means to go to the moon, see distant star births, look into the atom, etc, etc. Science doesn't see Jesus next to you at church, or feel the warmth of charity. Now, if you say, maybe God inspired Salk to come up with the Polio Vaccine,,okay,,if you go with that,,then you have to concede that God created the Polio Virus..so what kind of God is that? yea, rite, billions of people over time messed up with polio so one fellow can be inspired..Sorry.

Science is a process...!?!?!?!?!?!?!?..thats it visually..but the tools of science is technology. A hundred years ago there where no means to make a 8 meter mirror used to see billions of lite years into the past. Nor was there the ability to see virus up close and personal as we can today with an electron microscope. So bringing up what was believed 100 years ago is ..what?..yea, that was 100 years ago..it got us to where we are today. The arguement of 100 years ago,, is based on a incorrect assumption and is disengenious with how things work.

Today the Kansas State Board of Education is Once Again considering having " Devine Intelligence,," creationism" taught along side science. Tomorrow, if they decide to..Kansas will take their offspring a step into the dark ages, a return to being the laffing stalk of the rest of the country and world..Shame on them. Shame on them for tarnishing their children with ignorance...Shame on them for even allowing Ignorance to be perceived as equal to science. There is no arguement here. You are talking apples and oranges,,and no matter how hard you try ,,they are not the same. I make no apologies if the world is enjoying the taste of one of those fruits over the other . An apple is an apple and no matter of faith is going to make a apple all of a sudden look and taste like a orange, an still be an apple...So why do you all keep trying?...MEL

Post by **Myste** » Tue May 03, 2005 12:14 am

Plissken wrote:
Myste wrote:The Articles of Faith embraced by the Catholic Church (and to greater or lesser extents by other churches) are non-negotiable. They don't change, because their unchangingness is built into the practice of the religion.
Huh. Somebody better go over to the House o' Paganism and warn Kym about that whole unchanging, non-negotiable "Suffer not a witch to live" bit.

Of course, there's quite a few of us that spill our "seed upon the ground" that might want to start lacing our track shoes as well...

Sorry, Plissken. I didn't mean that as a slam. I guess I was generalizing on too little information. I should have said "basic tenets of Christian faith" instead. In naming the Catholic Church in particular, I was specifically trying to leave room for people with faith in the Pope's infallibility. The Episcopal Church, which I was raised in, has Articles of Faith, too (though the Pope's infallibility isn't among them), and it's gotten past that whole witch thing, too.

It does make me wonder, though--did the church (small "C" because the Puritans did it too) stop hunting for witches to burn because they thought that witchcraft wasn't evil anymore? Or did they do it because they stopped believing in witchcraft?

If they stopped believing in witchcraft, why? Did it have anything to do with science? If it did, then maybe science and religion are not mutually exclusive....

Post by **Vector** » Tue May 03, 2005 12:47 am

Myste wrote:It does make me wonder, though--did the church (small "C" because the Puritans did it too) stop hunting for witches to burn because they thought that witchcraft wasn't evil anymore? Or did they do it because they stopped believing in witchcraft?

If they stopped believing in witchcraft, why? Did it have anything to do with science? If it did, then maybe science and religion are not mutually exclusive....

Or maybe they stopped hunting because the children of Salem decided to accuse the Governor's wife of Witchcraft - after which "spectral evidence" was banned as acceptable proof in a court of law.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Tue May 03, 2005 1:50 am

Or maybe the tide of the battle was turning, and the witches were starting to win! The hunters became the hunted, and figured they'd better drop the matter entirely.

heh

Hey, all this talk about Articles of Faith is giving me a swelled head!!

Post by **Plissken** » Tue May 03, 2005 5:41 am

Myste wrote:
Plissken wrote:
Myste wrote:The Articles of Faith embraced by the Catholic Church (and to greater or lesser extents by other churches) are non-negotiable. They don't change, because their unchangingness is built into the practice of the religion.
Huh. Somebody better go over to the House o' Paganism and warn Kym about that whole unchanging, non-negotiable "Suffer not a witch to live" bit.

Of course, there's quite a few of us that spill our "seed upon the ground" that might want to start lacing our track shoes as well...
Sorry, Plissken. I didn't mean that as a slam. I guess I was generalizing on too little information. I should have said "basic tenets of Christian faith" instead. In naming the Catholic Church in particular, I was specifically trying to leave room for people with faith in the Pope's infallibility. The Episcopal Church, which I was raised in, has Articles of Faith, too (though the Pope's infallibility isn't among them), and it's gotten past that whole witch thing, too.

It does make me wonder, though--did the church (small "C" because the Puritans did it too) stop hunting for witches to burn because they thought that witchcraft wasn't evil anymore? Or did they do it because they stopped believing in witchcraft?

If they stopped believing in witchcraft, why? Did it have anything to do with science? If it did, then maybe science and religion are not mutually exclusive....

As I tried to point out before, even the basic tenents of Christian faith have been massively modified over the course of church history. I mean the longest, most detailed Commandment of the Big Ten has been changed - but Fundies base their whole idea of their religion on the idea that their god's Word is unchanging.

I'm all for using religion as a tool in the spiritual quest of life, but to declare that your sect's set of modifications to a book are the ones that please a god who's will and Word have never changed - that's the kind of logic that kinda chaps my hide.

Post by **Avatar** » Tue May 03, 2005 8:44 am

Interesting thread. Very interesting. Is science a religion per se? Not technically. Do some people use it to perform a function similar, if not identical to, the function of religion in peoples lives? Yes, in some cases, very probably. Are we ever going to resolve this? Not while we're alive anyway.

I think an important aspect of what Kin was saying, (important to me anyway) is that science makes no moral judgements. It attempts to describe the world around us in understandable, and above all, testable, terms. Nothing else.

Yes sure, science has been "wrong" before. And with any luck, will continue to be "wrong" in the future. While facts may stay the same, our understanding of them improves frequently.

Perhaps the subjects are irreconcileable. In the end, it doesn't really matter does it?

Thing is though, nothing can be proved to somebody who doesn't accept proof. I think the difference is that if god descended from on high, and said to the scientists, "Look, here I am", they'd start trying to fit his existence in. But you can't prove a negative. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, all you can do is point to a lack of tangible evidence.

One scientist says: "the sun makes plants grow." Another says, "No it doesn't!" On whom does the burden of proof lie?

--Avatar

Post by **Myste** » Tue May 03, 2005 5:27 pm

Fist and Faith wrote:Hey, all this talk about Articles of Faith is giving me a swelled head!!

Just remember that it's Articles OF Faith, not articles ABOUT Faith.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Tue May 03, 2005 9:15 pm

Either way, they're my articles!!

Post by **Myste** » Tue May 03, 2005 11:17 pm

As long as I get to keep my prepositions, you can have them!

Post by **Lady Revel** » Wed May 04, 2005 3:54 pm

Lord Mhoram said:

I guess I see what you're saying. But that's still a gross and offensive generalization - as Fist said there are people of all those faiths that are peace-loving. It is fundamentalism you wish to condemn, not entire faiths.

You are absolutely correct, and I do apologize profusely, and truly, it wasn't my intent to hurt. It is true, fundamentalism was where I was aiming that arrow, not entire faiths, which do include many, many people striving to do the right thing, and trying hard to make the world a better place.
Please forgive my ignorance and generalization. It was not fair, and I should have explained further and especially thought a little harder before I made that post.

Post by **Myste** » Wed May 04, 2005 5:29 pm

Avatar wrote: One scientist says: "the sun makes plants grow." Another says, "No it doesn't!" On whom does the burden of proof lie?

--Avatar

This is a very good point, and it gives me the opportunity (once again) to voice (part of) my favorite quote from HHGTG (emphasis mine):

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "because proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

This may be the very center of the conundrum--leave it to a comedian to hit the nail on the head.

Science relies absolutely on proof. Religious belief relies absolutely on faith. It's not that "Science" and "Religion" are mutually exclusive--Religions are mediums for cultures to express their beliefs. It's "Faith" and "Proof (by which I mean empirical evidence)" that are mutually exclusive, because the whole point of Faith is to believe without Proof.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Thu May 05, 2005 2:31 am

Myste wrote:Religious belief relies absolutely on faith.

Most people agree, although, as I've said from time to time, I don't see why it must be this way. After all, the story is that Satan was once God's greatest angel. There couldn't possibly have been any question in Satan's mind of whether or not God existed. But he rebelled anyway. For me, simply learning that any particular god exists isn't the issue. I would then be faced with what I consider the more important issues of whether or not I like:
1) how this god behaves
2) its plans for the future

Post by **Avatar** » Thu May 05, 2005 5:54 am

Well said again Fist. Especially those two points.

And out of interest, does anybody have a biblical reference for Lucifer being one of the brightest angels, and the "Fall"? Does this story even appear in the bible? If not, where does it come from? Surely it must predate Milton?

--Avatar

Post by **Myste** » Sat May 07, 2005 9:31 pm

Definitely good points, Fist. I don't know if it was clear that by "religious beliefs" I didn't mean only Christian beliefs, or Christian faith, but any religious beliefs, in any faith.

Fist wrote:After all, the story is that Satan was once God's greatest angel. There couldn't possibly have been any question in Satan's mind of whether or not God existed. But he rebelled anyway.

Well, he might have believed God existed, but that doesn't mean he had faith in the fact that God could redeem him. Judeo-Christian faith relies not only the belief that God exists, but that God has dominion over everything. If you're the Bright Angel, you can believe in God's existence, but you don't have to believe in his Dominion.

Avatar, the Lucifer reference pops up in the King James Version of the Bible, in Isaiah 14.

Isaiah 14:12–17
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

The NIV cuts out the name "Lucifer" entirely, replacing it with "morning star." I'm not sure why, except for what my old Student NIV tells me..

A name used of Satan--Lucifer, or "morning star"--comes from this verse. The word Lucifer refers to Venus, one of the brightest objects in the sky. Yet, when the sun rises, the light of even the brightest morning star is totally eclipsed.

The theory is that the fall of the Morning Star took place on the seventh day, when God was resting--since at the end of Day 6 of the Creation, God saw all and it was good.

Post by **Ariadoss** » Sun May 08, 2005 6:16 am

Kinslaughterer wrote: It doesn't "tell" anyone what to do, science allows someone to find out how things really happen on their own without someone else. Science does none of those things.

Funny you should say that, I believe in a religion that promotes the idea of independent investigation of the truth and the harmony of science in religion, because without science religion is just blind faith, and without religion science is just idle fancy.

Post by **[Syl]** » Sun May 08, 2005 12:01 pm

Jesuit?

Post by **Ariadoss** » Sun May 08, 2005 5:06 pm

www.bahai.org/ - The Bahá'í Faith

You can look at that website, or if you prefer an objective opinion try an encyclopedia or BBC's page: www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bahai/index.shtml

As a Bahá'í I believe in following (these beliefs will influence my opinions on these boards, that is the main reason they are relevant to this discussion):

There is only one Loving Creator, known by different names in many languages.

The world's religions emanate from one God, who has given us one religious faith, progressively revealed by a succession of divine Messengers throughout history.

The nature of the soul is eternal.

The human family is one, and prejudice must be eliminated.

Living a moral life, centered on spiritual laws and principles, is vital.

Family life is a foundation of society and marriage is a fortress for well- being (well I know a lot of you guys might disagree with this one).

Women and men are equal in the eyes of God.

Universal education (including spiritual education) is important.

Religion must be harmonious with science and reason.

It is each individual's responsibility to pursue an independent investigation of the truth.

Post by **Myste** » Mon May 09, 2005 1:10 am

Everything you believe in makes sense to me, Ariadross, but I'm concerned about this one:

Religion must be harmonious with science and reason.

I mean, how can anyone with faith reconcile their beliefs with a lack of empirical evidence? I know that many people feel--or believe, or know--that they have empirical evidence that proves what they believe in to be true, but I tend toward the Doubting Thomas side of the equation--I long to believe that what I have been taught is true, I long for faith--but my rational mind just can't quite make the jump to reconciling what IMO is a lack of physical evidence.

Post by **Ariadoss** » Mon May 09, 2005 5:57 am

My personal belief (not what my religion says) is that there is a scientific explanation for everything, even the paranormal, it is just our finite minds may not always understand or comprehend the explanations. Like with God, I believe God is an unknowable essence, the only proof of his existence is in his messengers or prophets in which he manifests himself, how could humans comprehend something that has no beginning and no end, if you don't believe in a Creator, look at it from a scientific perspective. We have DNA, DNA has a code, this code is complex and can tell us different things about a person, have you ever seen a code created by an unintelligent being? That is just one of my “proofs” (again has nothing to do with my religion). Also for those of you who believe in love, who truly understands love? You may have felt it, but can you really adequately describe it? I believe God is the personification of love, we know love exists but we can't explain why or how it came about.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Science as Religion and Vice Versa debate

I sense a retreat...