Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Way Forward is Through Science and Religion
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 43 (347113)
09-06-2006 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Gary
09-06-2006 8:05 PM


And how did Katherine Harris do?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Gary, posted 09-06-2006 8:05 PM Gary has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Gary, posted 09-06-2006 8:27 PM jar has not replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 43 (347117)
09-06-2006 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
09-06-2006 8:19 PM


She won the Republican nomination for senator, possibly because she is a religious nutcase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 09-06-2006 8:19 PM jar has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 18 of 43 (347124)
09-06-2006 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ThingsChange
09-06-2006 7:39 PM


Re: Islam fanatics are more of threat than Christians
quote:
Science takes a further back seat in Islamic countries than in the West, where Christians are more predominant. And, Islamic extremists hold a gun to a person's head and force him to convert or die. You should turn your attention more to Islam than Christianity, in my opinion.
That is true, but it is only true now.
Go back a few hundred years and the opposite would have been true, except the christians demanding conversion wouldn't have had guns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ThingsChange, posted 09-06-2006 7:39 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 19 of 43 (347126)
09-06-2006 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
09-06-2006 8:04 PM


Re: Perhaps an Example is in Order
NWR, I think you forgot your smiley face in this post.
Maybe the Soviet Union (USSR). During the cold war things never got too far out of hand.The wars were relatively limited in scope. Now that the cold war is over, all hell is breaking loose.
Prior to the Cold War, the alliance between Hitler and Stalin is part of what did not act as a brake on their mutual ambitions. During the Cold War there was Korea and Vietnam for the US, and Afghanistan for the USSR, all of which had far higher casualties than current actions. Also the Iran-Iraq War, the several wars involving Israel, other proxy wars, and the grandaddy of bloodshed, the Chinese Revolution.
The USSR acted for their percieved benefit in these circumstances, not necessarily for peace.
We're just lucky the US and USSR did show enough restraint not to kill each other and everyone else during those times, however, they were not by any means completely peaceful. I believe this overall restraint was due to a higher dose of rationality than dogmatic fervor in the cause of religion or political psudo-religion.
Perhaps rationality is underrated by some modern commentators.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 09-06-2006 8:04 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 20 of 43 (347134)
09-06-2006 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by anglagard
09-06-2006 7:28 PM


Re: Perhaps an Example is in Order
anglgard writes:
Perhaps we should ask which nation has advanced the cause of peace more than any other in modern times and see what its attributes are that may help to explain such behavior?
I'm not going to answer that strictly because I don't want the thread to become political.
anglagard writes:
I would like to vote for Switzerland. Now just to fend off any criticism, I am positing Switzerland as the nation that has advanced the cause of peace more than any other. I did not say perfect or heaven on Earth. Switzerland is guilty of acting as Hitler's bankers in WWII.
I do want to comment on this though. I'm wondering what would have happened 60 years ago if countries like Britain, Canada and the US had taken the position that the Swiss did. Answers to questions like this are never simple.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by anglagard, posted 09-06-2006 7:28 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by anglagard, posted 09-06-2006 11:24 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 21 of 43 (347137)
09-06-2006 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ThingsChange
09-06-2006 7:39 PM


Re: Islam fanatics are more of threat than Christians
ThingsChange writes:
It's not just the Bible. Why are you picking on the Bible Inerrant Christians (a more appropriate label than "literalist")? It's not the only religious dogma preaching creationism.
Actually I disagree with using the term Bible Inerrant Christians. I believe that the Bible is inerrant, I just don't believe that it should be read literally. We can all agree, (I think), that the story of the Good Samaritan is a parable. The truth that is being told is inerrant but it is not literal.
I only used Biblical literalists because I know more about it than other religions. I did use the term religion in the title as it was meant to include all religions, although of course not all religions are in conflict with modern science.
ThingsChange writes:
Science takes a further back seat in Islamic countries than in the West, where Christians are more predominant. And, Islamic extremists hold a gun to a person's head and force him to convert or die. You should turn your attention more to Islam than Christianity, in my opinion.
Actually I'm not sure that Islam claims to know anything more about creation that Allah did it. Is there a conflict with Islam and science? Somebody else can answer that.
I agree that some of their methods of gaining converts can be a tad extreme.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ThingsChange, posted 09-06-2006 7:39 PM ThingsChange has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 22 of 43 (347159)
09-06-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by GDR
09-06-2006 9:12 PM


Some Problems with Oversimplification
GDR writes:
anglgard writes:
Perhaps we should ask which nation has advanced the cause of peace more than any other in modern times and see what its attributes are that may help to explain such behavior?
I'm not going to answer that strictly because I don't want the thread to become political.
Unfortunately, IMHO you begged the question by using the French Revolution as an example of how neither religion or science alone can create the idyllic world peace. Yet you seem to be saying that if we could all just get along in regard to science and religion, such a utopia is within sight.
I'm afraid the concept that religion and science are somehow equivalent forces in some resolvable conflict between dialectical opposites is a vast oversimplification of both science and religion, and indeed the human condition in general.
Science only seeks to make the universe understandable by using reason and logic as its primary methods. Within science, there is an effort to purge the dishonest from its ranks. Science does not seek to place value judgments upon reality, nor answer such personal questions as why am I here? what is the purpose of life? or how do I live a good life?
A given religion does seek to answer such questions, but by doing so, must inherently rely upon less easily transferable methods of communication and common understanding, becoming therefore less universal in its acceptance among the general population in the particular. Additionally, there is much less effort, if any, to purge the dishonest from its ranks.
The two are not equivalent "opinions." Science and religion among the theistic are rendered compatible either through acceptance of science as the way God acts or through the compatamentalization of each system of belief such that each renders unto the other within clear boundaries. Personally, I believe the former is the more preferable view.
Of course there are also those theists who reject the idea of understanding God's creation for personal reasons. Such place the wonder of sentences above the wonder of life IMHO, as can be seen by their lack of humor.
The problem lies not in the stars, or in our books, but in ourselves. The ideal of scientific inquiry, just as the ideals of a given religion, may easily be corrupted by the amoral. This corruption of science and religion is often seen among those who, along with their slavish lackeys, place the will to power above such ideals, as is seen daily in the politicization of both. The awful things done in the name of science or religion are caused by the interpreter, not the belief system.
Therefore, ultimatlely it is people, not guns, religion, or science, that kill people. And it is people, on an individual basis, who must make the decision to get along with people who may look, think, or act differently.
Edited by anglagard, : remove useless sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 09-06-2006 9:12 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 09-07-2006 1:09 AM anglagard has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 23 of 43 (347183)
09-07-2006 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by anglagard
09-06-2006 11:24 PM


Re: Some Problems with Oversimplification
Great post anglagard
anglagard writes:
Yet you seem to be saying that if we could all just get along in regard to science and religion, such a utopia is within sight.
I can see where you would get that impression. Certainly there is no utopia in sight but it does seem to me that both science and religion can be forces for good. The atmosphere of distrust that currently exists, (for no good reason in my view), has to be having a negative influence on any good that might be accomplished.
anglagard writes:
The two are not equivalent "opinions." Science and religion among the theistic are rendered compatible either through acceptance of science as the way God acts or through the compatamentalization of each system of belief such that each renders unto the other within clear boundaries. Personally, I believe the former is the more preferable view.
I absolutely concur. I only found an interest in science about 3 years ago. The reading that I have done since has done nothing but affirm my faith. The study of the "way God acts", (science),fits so well with the Theistic view that I had held all aong.
anglagard writes:
The problem lies not in the stars, or in our books, but in ourselves. The ideal of scientific inquiry, just as the ideals of a given religion, may easily be corrupted by the amoral. This corruption of science and religion is often seen among those who, along with their slavish lackeys, place the will to power above such ideals, as is seen daily in the politicization of both. The awful things done in the name of science or religion are caused by the interpreter, not the belief system.
Therefore, ultimatlely it is people, not guns, religion, or science, that kill people. And it is people, on an individual basis, who must make the decision to get along with people who may look, think, or act differently.
AMEN!!

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by anglagard, posted 09-06-2006 11:24 PM anglagard has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 24 of 43 (347236)
09-07-2006 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by kuresu
09-06-2006 7:39 PM


Religion is belief in a supernatural world
question--does science teach morality? ethics?
in a word, no.
does religion teach morality? ethics?
in a word, yes.
Morality and ethics exist independently of religion (you've noted the Utilitarian tradition yourself, and there's also the classical Epicurean tradition that Utilitarianism developed from). At heart religion is belief in a supernatural world, and it's that belief that conflicts with science.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kuresu, posted 09-06-2006 7:39 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by GDR, posted 09-07-2006 10:07 AM JavaMan has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 25 of 43 (347237)
09-07-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by kuresu
09-06-2006 7:39 PM


quote:
does religion teach morality? ethics?
in a word, yes.
However religion also subverts morality and ethics. Religious extremists of all stripes are happy to let morality fall by the wayside whenever it is convenient to further their religious goals.
While the Straussians may claim that religion is a "noble lie", necessary for social control it is far from clear that it really contributes as much as some people claim for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kuresu, posted 09-06-2006 7:39 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 09-11-2006 12:13 PM PaulK has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 26 of 43 (347248)
09-07-2006 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by JavaMan
09-07-2006 8:12 AM


Re: Religion is belief in a supernatural world
JavaMan writes:
Morality and ethics exist independently of religion
I agree, but I would add that as a Christian I believe that is because God has created all of us to know good and evil, right and wrong etc.
JavaMan writes:
At heart religion is belief in a supernatural world, and it's that belief that conflicts with science.
Absolutely wrong. Science is agnostic. It is the study of the natural world and has nothing to say about the supernatural.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by JavaMan, posted 09-07-2006 8:12 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by JavaMan, posted 09-08-2006 7:26 AM GDR has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 27 of 43 (347263)
09-07-2006 11:29 AM


I think only Paulk has answered my question.
let me reprhase it:
who is in the business of teaching morality?
as to actually following through--I noted earlier on here that while religion teaches morality, it is up to the individual to follow through--this was in response to why are so many religous people amoral and why aren't atheists.
I honestly don't see why science and religion cannot co-exist peacefully.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 09-07-2006 11:51 AM kuresu has not replied
 Message 29 by nwr, posted 09-07-2006 11:57 AM kuresu has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 28 of 43 (347273)
09-07-2006 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by kuresu
09-07-2006 11:29 AM


kuresu writes:
who is in the business of teaching morality
Parents.
It is my contention that God has endowed us with the knowledge of good and evil etc. God nudges us in the direction that we should go but He still leaves free to ignore those nudges.
Religion is just a system of belief, which has as a part of the system a set of guidelines pertaining to morality. Churches, synagogues, mosques etc try to influence their adherents but I don't quite see it as teaching morality.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by kuresu, posted 09-07-2006 11:29 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 09-11-2006 12:16 PM GDR has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 29 of 43 (347275)
09-07-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by kuresu
09-07-2006 11:29 AM


who is in the business of teaching morality?
Parents, friends.
We probably learn more by seeing examples than by listening to lectures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by kuresu, posted 09-07-2006 11:29 AM kuresu has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 43 (347281)
09-07-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by kuresu
09-06-2006 7:39 PM


Science and Ethics?
question--does science teach morality? ethics?
in a word, no.
I am not so sure of that. Ethics is a major necessity in science and is most certainly both taught and practiced.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kuresu, posted 09-06-2006 7:39 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by kuresu, posted 09-07-2006 1:48 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024