0
Nightingale

Science v. Religion

Recommended Posts

I think science and religion address different aspects
of our human experience, but how I go about experiencing
those different aspects isn't all that different.

In math I go into attunement mode and then follow the
recipe (proof), think these thoughts and you will experience
the truth of the theorem.

In religion I go into attunement mode and then follow
the recipe, clean up your act, adjust your attitude,
meditate, eat vegetables etc, and I experience the truth
of spiritual insight.

They're both predictable and reproducible.


Actually what I like to do is go into attunement mode
and see where it leads.

Skr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think in both cases (science/religion) the old adage applies.

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.
It cuts both ways.B|
--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>pointing out how biblical claims are downright physically impossible
>(to the best of our knowledge) . . . .

Yes, but again, that's not the point. If a thermo book says that a device that can convert 70% of the energy content of its fuel into energy is a good design, you could claim "That's absurd! Thermonuclear weapons have efficiencies like that and are NOT good things."

But if you did that, you'd be making the same mistake that the people you mention are making. You'd be looking at a science book as a moral document, using it to make value judgements on what good and bad is. That's not its purpose, any more than the bible is a science book. The bible is a document handed down through the ages that contains the moral and historical basis for many religions. It's good at that, and simply not even competent when it comes to defining how gravity works, or how flaming chariots fly.

Now, the stack of manuals that describe how to fly and maintain an F-14 _are_ a good reference on how flaming chariots fly, but are a terrible moral reference. The trick is knowing which is which.



Hmm, I am still not sure I agree with you, even though I understand what you're saying and why.

*If* the bible only laid claims to moral issues, I'd agree with you in a heartbeat. It is when it begins to make claims about historical "facts" and claims about the physical world and its properties I begin to object. And it has done so, or at least the people seeing this work as God's Word have done so, and continue to do so.

In these situations, I think it's in order that science brings out the big Smack-Arse club, just as I think it is in order for the Bible if science (as it has done in the past) try to 'teach morals'.

A number of scientist-dudes have had problems for saying "uhm, priest-dude, you're wrong and I can prove it". This happens when religious texts encroach on areas where science can be applied - and it does just that.

Lately, the religious copout has been "oh, but you have to read it figuratively!"

It's a copout because "thou shalt not kill (murder)" can also be seen in a figuratively way - and you'll be hard pressed to prove my claim wrong, as it is an interpretation.

There'll be collisions in the future, because the two do encroach on each others domains. IMHO.

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yep. I think it's as silly to read the bible for scientific fact as it is to read a science textbook as the basis for your morality.


the Bible is the first Sci-Fi book...
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I see it the bible's justification for laying out these moral guidelines is that they were handed down by some huge power that both created and controls everything. You can't make all these commandments without having serious clout behind them.
The idea of the god figure creating and controlling everything (especially in the way's literally described in the bible) is becoming increasingly contradicted by scientific advances.

If the justification for the moral rules is contradicted by science then the moral rules themselves are shown to be baseless and worthless.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The idea of the god figure creating and controlling everything (especially in the way's literally described in the bible) is becoming increasingly contradicted by scientific advances.

If the justification for the moral rules is contradicted by science then the moral rules themselves are shown to be baseless and worthless.



Do you have a basis for your accusations or are you just repeating what you've heard? Give examples for your generalizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The idea of the god figure creating and controlling everything (especially in the way's literally described in the bible) is becoming increasingly contradicted by scientific advances.



Why? I mean, HOW is that idea "becoming increasingly contradicted by scientific advances"? LOL...what if God controlled those scientific advances? :P

I believe the Bible was divinely inspired. It is still relevant (essential) as a moral document. But it was written down by MEN in a time when things were a lot different. See, to me, God is beyond true human comprehension. He always has been and always will be.

Today, in the year 2004, we as a human population are more intellectually sophisticated than the ancient Hebrews were. I'm NOT saying we're more intelligent. I'm saying we have more tools at our disposal with which we can understand the universe.

An example...the book of Genesis. I believe there is no possible way the ancient people of the Bible (before Abraham, so I mean the people who are today Jews and Muslims) could have remotely comprehended the true nature, the HOW, of God creating the universe. It's like trying to imagine "infinity", or "nothing." So he gave them a story. They wanted to know where they came from...who doesn't? He loves us, and didn't want to have out minds explode with divine knowledge...it's not for us to know. Much like parents trying to explain a grown-up concept to a child. They must put it in child-like terms.

However, he also left it open to discovery. Science, if you will. He planned for us a rational, thinking mind that would naturally question and seek answers. Are we closer today than the ancient people were? Yes, I believe so. But I still believe there's no possible way we, in 2004, could comprehend the HOW of the creation of the universe. ;) BUt we're getting there, and we're using science to do it.

I believe science is a method for revealing God. I understand that I am not like most Christians in this, but my scientific background and education gives me this perspective.

Here's a thought experiment: what WAS before the Big Bang? Was there anything there? Nothing? If nothing, where did all the material for the universe, all that energy, come from? What about the law of conservation of energy?
Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you have a basis for your accusations or are you just repeating what you've heard? Give examples for your generalizations.



well first off there are the things that have already been discussed along the lines of the seven day creation, adam and eve and all that but the argument for that has already moved into the "take it figuratively" stage. (which begs the question, who decides what is figurative and what actually happened)

I don't know what your image of god is so its difficult to show how it may have been contradicted but lets take the example of a soul. Pretty fundamental to most faiths as the idea of a conciousness/ morality of a person that goes to a nice fluffy place when you die. Used to explain emotion and stuff. With biologists and chemists and EKG machines and CAT scans looking inside the brain finding which lobes and neurons relate to which of the brains functions surely it becomes apparent that without the brain there can be no intelligence, emotion or in fact any kind of conciousness.
Could relate that to advances in zoology/anthropology? teaching chimps to sign, finding out how much emotion and conciousness they have when surely animals are souless and therefore without conciousness.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Today, in the year 2004, we as a human population are more intellectually sophisticated than the ancient Hebrews were. I'm NOT saying we're more intelligent. I'm saying we have more tools at our disposal with which we can understand the universe.



Then surely it's time to pass down a new document. With the increased knowledge we have of the world around us isn't it time we had a new prophet who show's people how it all works in a way that makes sense now, like gods Unified Theory of Everything.
Apparently he sent the last ones down when people lost their way and forgot the message, have things got better since then?

Quote

Much like parents trying to explain a grown-up concept to a child. They must put it in child-like terms.



Kids grow up, is it time for the next stage of our "education"

Quote

But I still believe there's no possible way we, in 2004, could comprehend the HOW of the creation of the universe. BUt we're getting there, and we're using science to do it.



We could have a model thats a damn sight better though, and for the first time EVER the whole world could see it live on CNN.

Quote

Here's a thought experiment: what WAS before the Big Bang? Was there anything there? Nothing? If nothing, where did all the material for the universe, all that energy, come from? What about the law of conservation of energy?



I thnk the latest theory was something to do with the big crush at the end of a previous universe creating enough energy and matter density to break through a dimension and explode out the other side. Seriously though it is a mystery and I don't think we'll ever know just how the universe started.
I just don't see why that means everyone should take the easy way out and believe in some bite size easy to swallow explanation of higher power formulated thousands of years ago and split off and redefined a million times since then.

The other side of that thought experiment is that since we, our universe and our timeline are finite and god is assumed to be infinite then what did he do Before. Most people left on their own for a few years go crazy:S, that might explain a lot:P
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing you've said disproves scientifically anything in the Bible relating to the topics you've mentioned. You can't prove scientifically that without the capability of intelligence or emotion or even conciousness means that there is no soul. Nothing is discredited or contradicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Then surely it's time to pass down a new document. With the increased knowledge we have of the world around us isn't it time we had a new prophet who show's people how it all works in a way that makes sense now, like gods Unified Theory of Everything.
Apparently he sent the last ones down when people lost their way and forgot the message, have things got better since then?



That's what they said about Islam, Mohammed, and the Quran ~800 years AD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If the justification for the moral rules is contradicted by science then the moral rules themselves are shown to be baseless and worthless.



I disagree.

First, Moral Rules need not be derived from Religious Beliefs.

Second, even if they were, it would be theoretically possible to replace them with moral rules derived from scientific study.

Where do moral rules come from, absent some kind of faith based answer?

They come from the evolution, over thousands of years, of human society. We all learned to live together, and our "moral" rules are simply the cumulative result of this societal learning (whether they are written or unwritten).

If we wished to simply disregard the moral rules that have organically evolved through use (a bad idea, if you ask me), it should be theoretically possible to study human interactions in order to create a new set of "moral" rules intended to furnish us the most efficient interactions. That "scientifically" (sociologically?) constructed set of rules would probably look remarkably similar to the "evolved" or "divinely mandated" (depends on your point of view) morality we now generally accept.

In other words, it doesn't matter if God said to do it, or we just did it--it works for us better than anything else we've found. The justification for the moral rules lies in their efficiency and usefulness for organizing human behavior. They are not made somehow less useful if you "scientifically" contradict one possible explanation for them.
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Then surely it's time to pass down a new document. With the increased knowledge we have of the world around us isn't it time we had a new prophet who show's people how it all works in a way that makes sense now, like gods Unified Theory of Everything.



Once again, the Bible is not a science book. Your entire argument seems to be based on the idea that it is or should be used in such a manner. Please note what I said in my previous post:

Quote

It is still relevant (essential) as a moral document.



moral and scientific are not necessarily the same, though many don't seem to be able to separate them.

Quote

Seriously though it is a mystery and I don't think we'll ever know just how the universe started.



Hmmm...sounds suspiciously similar to:

Quote

But I still believe there's no possible way we, in 2004, could comprehend the HOW of the creation of the universe.



Like I said, I believe that science is a God-given means to reveal the nature of God...You believe science is something else. So what, then, is science to you?
Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's another perspective. The following is from "When Skeptics Ask" by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks. It is an argument that the cause of the universe must be moral, in addition to being powerful and intelligent.

- All men are conscious of an objective moral law.
- Moral laws imply a moral Lawgiver.
- Therefore, there must be a supreme moral Lawgiver.

In a sense, this argument also follows the principle of causality. But moral laws don't describe what is; they prescribe what ought to be. They are not simply a description of the way men behave, and are not known by observing what men do. If they were, our idea of morality would surely be different. Instead, they tell us what men ought to do, whether they are doing it or not. Thus, any moral "ought" comes from beyond the natural universe. You can't explain it by anything that happens in the universe and it can't be reduced to the things men do in the universe. It transcends the natural order and requires a transcendent cause.

Now, some might say that this moral law is not really objective; it is nothing but a subjective judgment that comes from social conventions. However, this view fails to account for the fact that all men hold the same things to be wrong (like murder, rape, theft, and lying). Also, their criticism sounds very much like a subjective judgment, because they are saying that our value judgments are wrong. Now if there is no objective moral law, then there can be no right or wrong value judgments. If our views of morality are subjective, then so are theirs. But if they claim to be making an objective statement about moral law, then they are implying that there is a moral law in the very act of trying to deny it. They are caught both ways. Even their "nothing but" statement requires "more than" knowledge which shows that they secretly hold to some absolute standard which is beyond subjective judgments. Finally, we find that even those who say that there is no moral order expect to be treated with fairness, courtesy, and dignity. If one of them raised this objection and we replied with, "Oh, shut up. Who cares what you think?" we might find that he does believe there are some moral "oughts." Everyone expect others to follow some moral codes, even those who try to deny them. But moral law is an undeniable fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I agree with that either.

The existence of an objective morality is supportive of neither the presence nor absence of a supreme being.

Consciousness of an objective morality simply means that we have all learned how to play well with others. Some of us may choose not to, but in general, it's a survival trait for a human to do so.

We learned this via thousands (or millions, or whatever) of years of evolution, plus a handful of years of personal experience.

Our concept of objective morality could simply be part of the evolution of humans as social organisms.

I'm an atheist. I still believe that there are objective morals. Why? Because the world works better, for all of us, if there are, and we all know that on some level.

It is of course, equally possible that God (or Allah, or another deity of your choice) handed down those moral guidelines _because_ they were the best way for us to work together. Or even that he decreed that we would evolve them (sort of a moral equivalent to the theory of divinely guided biological evolution).
-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

- All men are conscious of an objective moral law.
- Moral laws imply a moral Lawgiver.
- Therefore, there must be a supreme moral Lawgiver.



I don't buy that at all. Firstly, morals are subjective. Secondly, implication is not proof. Thirdly morals are shaped by society, you aren't born with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is of course, equally possible that God (or Allah, or another deity of your choice) handed down those moral guidelines _because_ they were the best way for us to work together. Or even that he decreed that we would evolve them (sort of a moral equivalent to the theory of divinely guided biological evolution).



If you believe your last statement above, then you're not an Atheist.

Atheism Or Theism – I Know Whether God Or gods Exist Contrary to agnosticism, which says it does not know, are theism and atheism. Both of these groups claim to have knowledge about the existence of a supernatural being or beings. The atheist knows that God or gods do not exist. The theist knows that God or gods do exist.

Secondly, why are moral laws, generally speaking, around the globe basically the same? Why wouldn't a culture on one side of the world be different from one on the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

- All men are conscious of an objective moral law.
- Moral laws imply a moral Lawgiver.
- Therefore, there must be a supreme moral Lawgiver.



Assuming there is a supreme moral Lawgiver, does this being make up the law, or does it exist separately. In another word, it knows what the moral law is and relates it to us.

favaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Secondly, why are moral laws, generally speaking, around the globe basically the same?



They aren't. And those that are is mostly because the world isn't really that big of a place. The morals of natives to the "new world" were vastly different than European morals. Same with African tribes. And how about cannibalism on pacific islands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no idea why or how God does what he does in this matter. I do believe, however, that people are born with an inherent knowledge of what is right or wrong. I also believe that people will always have the tendency to act selfishly according to their nature. Not that they always will do so, but that they lean in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0