Is science a religion?

I assume that you mean a link to the Clergy Project.There is also the Christian Alliance for Progress.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It is obvious to me, that either you don't understand what you are talking about, or that you are expressing yourself so poorly that nobody can understand you.You keep throwing out the word "emotion" as if it were some magic incantation. However, your use of that term is not making any sense at all.

Because traits are passed down from generation to generation.
People who couldn't care less about future generations tend not to
1) reproduce at all
2) care enough for any offspring that they have, that they teach them to survive efficiently.Such people's genes are very soon removed from the gene pool.
Therefore, the most common traits to be passed down from generation to generation are those that favor the survival of the species as a whole.Remember, evolution happens to species not individuals.

Wow, this thread is really moving right along! I hope I'm not too late in answering your post. Don't take the term I used ("naive A") personally. That wasn't the intent. I could have used A' or some other designator. However, I think it's a pretty good descriptor for what I was trying to get across. Jar and others could probably explain it better, but here goes my take on it. Naive A represents a subset of all A's that apparently haven't, for one reason or another, internalized the philosophical underpinnings of their faith. At best, they are allowing superficialities to obscure the true nature of their belief system. At worst, they are (in their own terms) skirting idolatry by placing more emphasis on a book (or Book, if you prefer) than the glory of the creation their deity has provided for them - including the intelligence and wisdom to see it. What this literalism leads to is an apparent "weakness" in their faith. When a perceived challenge arises from "mere science" (with apologies to Lewis), they are forced by their position into denial. If the challenge is severe enough - when the evidence becomes overwhelming - they are placed in the position of either denying the evidence or denying their faith. Like a child confronted with something that goes against a cherished idea, they try and cling to it in spite of reality even to the point of lying to themselves and others. This group is easily manipulated by the unscrupulous who prey on them by seeming to offer a life preserver in the form of reassurance that there's no need to question their position. To do this, the manipulators will say anything, do anything, and promise anything to keep their prey naive. Including proclaiming that all those who disagree are somehow damned. It can be a highly emotionally charged feedback loop - and highly effective.Contrast this position with what I termed "mature A". These folks have, consciously or not, deeply internalized the "true" meaning of their belief system (whatever that may be). In the case of science vs. religion for instance, they recognize that there is no conflict. The two have "non-overlapping magisteria" as Gould puts it. IOW, there is no conflict because science and religion are concerned with different things (the physical and the spiritual respectively). Indeed, I have often heard "mature A" folks express the idea that science is actually a (perhaps imperfect) way for humans to begin to catch a glimpse of the mind of God Himself by observing, understanding, and relishing God's creation as it is, not as they think it should be, or as the parables and fire-side stories of a group of Bronze Age pastoralists may have perceived it. And moreover, by using the gifts - intelligence and reason - that their God has granted them, they may come closer to Him in the end by honoring those gifts. Their faith is certain and deep, and hence invulnerable to any challenge. This is borderline insulting, dontcha know. There is no basis for this statement. Indeed, it is at the heart of one of the fallacies of the naive A: an Authority is needed to keep the peasants in line. Have you ever read the Humanist Manifesto? It's a fascinating document. I'll repost here the basic tenets, and put a link to a fuller explanation. I think you'll find a lot of commonality with the things that Christianity is supposed to stand for, especially in tenets 4, 5, and 6.4. Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.5. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.6. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.I urge you to read the fuller descriptions (linky). The above doesn't do it justice, actually.

quote:

---

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

​

The lifestance of Humanism”guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience”encourages us to live life well and fully.

---

Somehow this doesn't sound like the philosophy of mad rapists and murderers to me. Seems to me it would be fully compatible (except for the "lack of supernaturalism" part), with "mature A" Christianity.

I may have told you some reasons for some things I believe, but it's not as though a man can only have one reason. I'm sure you'll see more in due course.

You don't see that by believing in Evolutionism, I have no reason to care about keeping us going? In fact, if evolution is true, ending my line would give me so much more power then all all those that came before me ever had the courage to weild. Billions came before me, and I can end it. I'm the only one in my line to do that. That's power.

Hi Brian. "Us"? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Would you mind clarifying a bit? Thanks.

It appears Infixion that some percentage of fundies are actually sociopaths that NEED the ultimate radio braclet on them. The God-bracelet is there to monitor them ever second. Without it they are utterly with out morals or conscious.Perhaps we should take them at their word when they keep saying this is the way they are and stop doing anything that might convince them the God-bracelet's batteries are dead.

My fault. Sorry, Ned

No that isn't power. It's just plain stupid.
How would ending your life give you power over anything?
Like i said in my previous post, evolution happens to entire populations. The action or inaction of one insignificant member of that population has about as much impact on evolution as a whole, as a single raindrop does in filling the ocean.Evolution doesn't care if you kill yourself.
In fact if you were really to behave as you have described (doesn't seem too likely that anyone would though) then your withdrawal from the gene pool would only serve to strengthen the human race as a whole.

Quetzal, if anyone on this is mature, you are. Your answers are articulated nicely and calmly. You make sense of what I say and dispute it instead of saying it makes no sense and that I'm stupid. Thank you for that.
I appreciate, as well, the clarity given for naive and mature personalities. I appreciate that you see a good many people cling to a book so strongly that they will dilute themselves if it doesn't happen to coincide with reality. I can see it too. I have also thought on this subject. I considered that it's possible that the books I've read regarding God and his interaction with his creation are false in part or in whole. I have some reason to doubt them. I have more reason to doubt other things, such as many of the scientific theories that are proposed here. I am also fully aware that we cannot possibly conceive of all possibilities. Even the most obvious contradictions, I believe, could be made clear if given the proper explanations. They do this in books all the time. A good author will make the true answer impossible to detect until it's revealed. I believe God can do better than any authors we have alive today. The feeling I get when I finish a good book is wonderful. I expect I'll have a similar feeling when I am given the question for the answer of 42.. if you catch my meaning.
I believe you are a rational man. I believe you can give me an answer that is genuine. Does it take faith to believe in Evolution? Even if it takes more faith to doubt it, does it take even a little faith? (Replace faith with trust, belief, anything you want. Let's not get caught up in the definition like we did with religion.)
All this talk about religion and science and how one is independent of the other is ridiculous to me. We like, sometimes, to categorize things and act like they don't interact with one another. Everything I do in life mingles with everything else I do. My work is not independent of my home life. What I'm feeling when I go home stems from what I was feeling while I was at work. You get the idea. To act as though trusting to the interpretations of the physical data is simple and that it doesn't affect the rest of your life is ludicrous, wouldn't you agree? If I believed in Evolutionism instead of Jesus, I would have to change my life, would I not? If I have to change my life to believe a thing, I'm going to evaluate it on all levels, not just the surface. Is that irrational?
Did I ever tell you my mom had a near death experience? I don't believe I have. Am I supposed to accept that she experienced a biochemical reaction in her dying brain and that she really didn't see what she thought she saw? She said it was as real or more real than reality as we know it. Am I a fool to accept testimonies such as this because they don't fall within the boundaries of science (5 senses and inference from those)?
I believe we are both logical. I believe if I said that we process the data the same way, you would agree with me. I believe that the difference is that we start with a different base. What qualifies as truth? To you, personal experience does not count. To me it does. That's a huge difference. Would you agree that distinction in how we view the world would lead to drastically different views on what counts as truth?
Does the bible count as history? Most people believe Lincoln existed. No problem. Even the Roman manuscripts, nobody doubts those. Can we trust that Jesus existed? The documents that talk about him -- all the documents, say that he did miracles. All the documents said that he did. Nobody from the time denied it. All 11 of his disciples were faithful unto death. The other disciple killed himself. Does this historical narrative not count? Why not? At very least one (if not two) was an eye witness account. I know why... it's because it takes faith to believe it. Why? Because it doesn't match with the scientific definition of truth. In other words, there's reason to doubt it given your scientific base. Does the scientific definition for truth make sense to me? Of course. If we value our senses, we will take what they show us seriously. If we value our logic, we'll put our trust in it. We have emotional ties to those things because they are reliable. Why shouldn't I trust my mom's personal testimony? Why shouldn't I trust Jesus' disciples? Sure, it takes very little faith to believe that the evidence supports the claim of evolution, but what do we do with those things that contradict it? I know what the vast majority of evolutionists have done. Am I a fool not to throw in my towel with them?This message has been edited by brianforbes, 05-12-2006 02:36 PM

US - humanity

I wouldn't kill myself.. I'd kill my offspring.. abortion and the like.What do I care if this "evolution" is strengthened or not? You talk of him like he's some sort of god that cares what we do.

My wife understands me. Perhaps you have to put away your bias or maybe adopt mine to see where I'm coming from. That strengthens my point that there should be more ID scientists allowed to teach in colleges, and go on expeditions, etc. It's fine to have the data, but it would be nice for guys like me to have some of the finds interpreted through a different lense. I like the word. It's a good word. I've been thinking and discussing the difference of logic and emotion for a good two or three years now. Some only value logic. I value emotion. The more I see emotion at work, the more I see the value of its spontaneity and intuition. I believe you could see the value of emotion if you thought about it for a while. Use this phrase, "I felt like it." It'll tell you if something was motivated by emotion or logic.Ultimately, everyone comes to a decision about how they will live their lives. They decide if they will sleep with this or that person. They don’t use logic to determine these things. I believe most of you used emotion to decide to write answers to my posts, for instance.

Some parts of it. Just like some parts of the some parts of the Koran and the Buddhist scriptures are considered historical as well. DOes that mean that Budda walked across the river on a reed? Not necessarily. There are (at least) hundreds of different holy books that speak of miracles, why believe one over the others? I don't think there's any mention of miracles by Tacitus, Pliny, Seutonius, etc...In fact, the only extrabiblical source that says Jesus was anything special, by Josephus, is considered unreliable. (some parts are forgeries)