Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,222 Year: 5,479/9,624 Month: 504/323 Week: 1/143 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religion or Science - How do they compare?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 16 of 882 (831625)
04-22-2018 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by GDR
04-21-2018 9:21 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
GDR writes:
I contend that mankind is continuing to gain a more focused understanding of God all the time.
You can contend that but you've got no actual evidence of it. You have no more idea of God than I have.
From my perspective the only one I know who has it all correct is me, but even then I continue to question where I might be wrong and make corrections.
This is the point - you all make up your own God to suit yourselves.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 04-21-2018 9:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 04-24-2018 4:53 PM Tangle has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 17 of 882 (831635)
04-22-2018 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by GDR
04-21-2018 9:21 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
quote:
At its core religion is simply mankind’s attempts to understand the nature of an external intelligence that is responsible for our existence and then, what that means to our lives.
Aside from the fact that religion is far too diffuse a phenomenon to be characterised so simply, aside from the fact that religions don’t even need any sort of God, let alone one responsible for humans, the religious attitude far too often opposes understanding in the name of dogma. And that very much includes you.
quote:
As a Christian I’ll simply deal with the question from that perspective. The Bible itself is obviously a group of books which depicts a progressive revelation, with that part of the revelation climaxing in Jesus of Nazareth
Except there is nothing obvious about that. There is a lot of revisionism, but whether it constitutes revelation is far from obvious. That the pre-Christian books were building up to the supposed climax seems more likely false than true. You may say that you were answering from the perspective of Christian belief, but that simply takes it back to my previous point - dogma is taken as more important than understanding.
quote:
I contend that mankind is continuing to gain a more focused understanding of God all the time.
I am not sure how you would measure focus, nor how you would count the increase in the number of people - at least in the West - who don’t associate with any formal religion. Moreover a more focussed view is only beneficial if it is focussed on the truth and there is no way to judge that (except, perhaps, in the way that religionists often avoid inconvenient truths, perhaps)
quote:
That sounds good, but from my observation I'd say that some scientists can be just as dogmatic as some theists.
Regardless of individual,weaknesses, scientists as a group are likely more open-minded about science than religionists are about their religion. And, as an institution Science has a much better record than religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 04-21-2018 9:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 04-22-2018 4:10 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 04-24-2018 5:10 PM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18456
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 18 of 882 (831655)
04-22-2018 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
04-22-2018 6:54 AM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
PaulK,responding to GDR writes:
...aside from the fact that religions don’t even need any sort of God, let alone one responsible for humans, the religious attitude far too often opposes understanding in the name of dogma. And that very much includes you.
Remember that by definition religious "understanding" does not require nor even seek evidence in the way that science has to do. Belief involves chosen ideology that supports dogma.
There is a lot of revisionism, but whether it constitutes revelation is far from obvious.
Granted that we will be unlikely to arrive at a consensus as to what is obvious without resorting to embracing either belief or evidence as the gold standard.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2018 6:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2018 4:23 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 04-23-2018 11:53 AM Phat has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 19 of 882 (831658)
04-22-2018 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
04-22-2018 4:10 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
quote:
Remember that by definition religious "understanding" does not require nor even seek evidence in the way that science has to do. Belief involves chosen ideology that supports dogma.
Mere adherence to belief without full comprehension - which includes the implications is not understanding. Inventing excuses - themselves poorly understood - to cling to belief is not understanding.
Religion is often opposed to understanding - and that is one of the things that makes it very different from science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 04-22-2018 4:10 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 526 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 20 of 882 (831706)
04-23-2018 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Phat
04-22-2018 4:10 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
Phat writes:
Remember that by definition religious "understanding" does not require nor even seek evidence in the way that science has to do.
quote:
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In other words, "Park your understanding at the door," is pretty much the basis of faith.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 04-22-2018 4:10 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 04-23-2018 1:24 PM ringo has replied
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-23-2018 2:32 PM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18456
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 21 of 882 (831715)
04-23-2018 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
04-23-2018 11:53 AM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
n other words, "Park your understanding at the door," is pretty much the basis of faith.
Not at all. What I am saying is that you cant expect evidence or the scientific method to corroborate your faith.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 04-23-2018 11:53 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 04-23-2018 1:31 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 526 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 22 of 882 (831720)
04-23-2018 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
04-23-2018 1:24 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
Phat writes:
What I am saying is that you cant expect evidence or the scientific method to corroborate your faith.
I just pointed out that the Bible tells you to park your understanding at the door.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 04-23-2018 1:24 PM Phat has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1558 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 882 (831723)
04-23-2018 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
04-23-2018 11:53 AM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
"Lean not unto your own understanding" is good advice to fallen humanity so prone to error, when we have God who is omniscient and willing to guide us to the truth: "In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 04-23-2018 11:53 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 04-23-2018 2:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2018 2:59 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 04-24-2018 11:36 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 31 by Paboss, posted 04-24-2018 10:12 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 24 of 882 (831725)
04-23-2018 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
04-23-2018 2:32 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
Faith writes:
"Lean not unto your own understanding" is good advice to fallen humanity so prone to error, when we have God who is omniscient and willing to guide us to the truth: "In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
Yet the Bible is just the product of fallen humans and not anything directly from God. In addition all we have is our own understanding and the best we can ever have is our own understanding which is then tested against physical reality.
The Bible is no greater source of wisdom and knowledge than the Qu'ran or Tao Te Ching or the Vedas.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-23-2018 2:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 25 of 882 (831726)
04-23-2018 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
04-23-2018 2:32 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
quote:
"Lean not unto your own understanding" is good advice to fallen humanity so prone to error
It’s also a convenient saying for false religions out to enslave people. Like your Christianity
Too bad for you that you are one of the most error-prone people I’ve ever met and your religion seems to encourage it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-23-2018 2:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 526 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 26 of 882 (831762)
04-24-2018 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
04-23-2018 2:32 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
Faith writes:
we have God who is omniscient and willing to guide us to the truth
What we have is shamans - e.g. Bible commentators - who are eager and willing to guide us. But they too are fallen. It makes no difference how perfect The Source is, as long as all of the interpreters are fallen.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-23-2018 2:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 27 of 882 (831785)
04-24-2018 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tangle
04-22-2018 2:32 AM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
Tangle writes:
You can contend that but you've got no actual evidence of it. You have no more idea of God than I have.
You contend that there is no god but you have no actual evidence of that.
I understand the nature of God but what what we have written about Jesus. Sure, I can't prove the accuracy of the Gospel stories, but by understanding that Jesus presented the true nature of God and His model of how we are called to live our lives is something that makes sense of my life, and the world I live in. I am prepared to live my life as best I can adhering to his message that we are to love His creation sacrificially, and that is something that I am prepared to take on faith.
Tangle writes:
This is the point - you all make up your own God to suit yourselves.
....as you make up your lack of faith.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tangle, posted 04-22-2018 2:32 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Tangle, posted 04-24-2018 5:16 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 32 by Paboss, posted 04-24-2018 10:25 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 28 of 882 (831787)
04-24-2018 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
04-22-2018 6:54 AM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
PaulK writes:
Aside from the fact that religion is far too diffuse a phenomenon to be characterised so simply, aside from the fact that religions don’t even need any sort of God, let alone one responsible for humans, the religious attitude far too often opposes understanding in the name of dogma. And that very much includes you.
OK, the theistic religions. I'm wondering what understanding that I have that opposes understanding.
PaulK writes:
Except there is nothing obvious about that. There is a lot of revisionism, but whether it constitutes revelation is far from obvious. That the pre-Christian books were building up to the supposed climax seems more likely false than true. You may say that you were answering from the perspective of Christian belief, but that simply takes it back to my previous point - dogma is taken as more important than understanding.
I simply said that it is obvious that The Bible shows an evolving understanding or a progressive revelation. I wasn't arguing that was evidence of its accuracy. I'm only saying that taken from a Christian perspective it is obvious.
PaulK writes:
I am not sure how you would measure focus, nor how you would count the increase in the number of people - at least in the West - who don’t associate with any formal religion. Moreover a more focussed view is only beneficial if it is focussed on the truth and there is no way to judge that (except, perhaps, in the way that religionists often avoid inconvenient truths, perhaps)
Of course we don't KNOW the truth. We all choose what we believe to be true. We can look at the world where the idea that sacrificial love is valued in a culture, the better the culture has done.
PaulK writes:
Regardless of individual,weaknesses, scientists as a group are likely more open-minded about science than religionists are about their religion. And, as an institution Science has a much better record than religion.
Ultimately science can usually prove or disprove there ideas so it is easier to move on than it is with religion. However, as near as I can tell, there certainly are numerous theories in the field of QM that scientists vigorously disagree on and are pretty dogmatic in their beliefs.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2018 6:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2018 5:24 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 33 by Paboss, posted 04-24-2018 10:38 PM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9539
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 29 of 882 (831788)
04-24-2018 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by GDR
04-24-2018 4:53 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
GDR writes:
You contend that there is no god but you have no actual evidence of that.
Oh come on; you know the rules by now, i don't have to prove there isn't a god.
I understand the nature of God
You do not.
Sure, I can't prove the accuracy of the Gospel stories,
Which is a damn shame because that's all you actually have.
I am prepared to live my life as best I can adhering to his message that we are to love His creation sacrificially, and that is something that I am prepared to take on faith.
Well jolly good for you. But I have to say, I can't find any meaning in those words - it's the sort of preachie bollox spun by shamans to impress the gullible.
as you make up your lack of faith.
You really must stop doing this, how the hell can I make up a lack of something? It's not there to be made up.
Please argue honestly it doesn't do your cause any good to weasel around like this.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 04-24-2018 4:53 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 30 of 882 (831791)
04-24-2018 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by GDR
04-24-2018 5:10 PM


Re: Compatibility of science and religion
quote:
OK, the theistic religions. I'm wondering what understanding that I have that opposes understanding.
I didn’t say that it was understanding that opposed understanding. It is the wilful ignorance of dogmatic belief that opposes understanding, such as your rather desperate attempts to minimise and downplay the differences in the Appearance stories.
quote:
simply said that it is obvious that The Bible shows an evolving understanding or a progressive revelation. I wasn't arguing that was evidence of its accuracy. I'm only saying that taken from a Christian perspective it is obvious.
The Bible certainly shows changing views. Whether any of those changes are Revelations is another matter altogether, and certainly not something that can be considered obvious.
quote:
Of course we don't KNOW the truth. We all choose what we believe to be true. We can look at the world where the idea that sacrificial love is valued in a culture, the better the culture has done
And yet we see Christians complaining of persecution when they aren’t given special privileges even today. Let alone all the abuses of the past, the anti-semitism, the murderous conflicts between the adherents of different denominations.
quote:
Ultimately science can usually prove or disprove there ideas so it is easier to move on than it is with religion. However, as near as I can tell, there certainly are numerous theories in the field of QM that scientists vigorously disagree on and are pretty dogmatic in their beliefs.
Which only illustrates that science as an institution is not dogmatic, since it tolerates the differing beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by GDR, posted 04-24-2018 5:10 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024