science vs religion

[northwest]

Religion deals with thing of which there is no evidence. You can believe quite literally what you like about things that can't be proven eitherway.

Which is fine, infact, I think we all do it. It's when it gets all organized and the notion that we should start to agree, in groups, about things of which there is no evidence and that can't be proven eitherway that you run into problems. It's just not healthy, organized religion.

I think people that adhere to organized cults are mentally ill and they should be prevented from holding any position of responsibility. But as long as beliefs don't contradict reason and evidence, limited as they are, I don't see a problem with religion in itself.

And as for this, really what utter drivel to post. Obviously you've never read a single word of serious Apologetic religious writing.

I am not mentally ill, and your suggestion is extremely offensive and insulting.

I wont even begin to address your words as they are worthless, rude, and just plane ridiculous.

Missed that post. Do you adhere to to an organized cult then?

[sam-i-am]

You're totally lost in your own nonsense. Catholic?

Would you be prepared to post that with the word muslim instead of catholic?

Mooooooooslem. Sure, why not. I didn't think he sounded muslamic though. He's got a Catholic sense of rationality.

That's cool then, just so long as we're not discriminating on religious grounds, article 14 and all that

Edited May 3, 2011 by sam-i-am

[strawberry]

What it's possible to get funding for for is irrelevant, completely,but as you mention it

practical application ...an integral part of science is irrelevant?

what do you think the practical application or exploitation of the large hadron collider was said to be?

...you appear to see relevance after all

given how atomic science has been exploited over the last 100 years...it's not much of a reach to see how sub-atomic science will be exploited in similar ways...throw in the bonus of possibly discovering a single theory to explain Everything aka unifying field theory ...the effects of which could lead to a complete overhaul of the standard model(physics) ...at this point in time the practical applications of the large hardon are near infinite... ...think along the lines of splitting the atom and how that discovery has shaped the world we lie in today

What are the comercial exploitations from the science revealed in the LHC?

[~nobody~]

it seems to be a problem in regards to it's 'truth' ...truth from a scientific perspective....which is what I was answering

...

science isn't the enemy as such, its when people try to misuse science to beat religion over the head...then this misuse is open to criticism

This is the stumbling block for me I guess. I just can't buy into a theology without attempting to apply 'scientific' analysis to it. It's a hangover from my upbringing to fear being wrong and consequently to test all my assumptions and beliefs. The consequence of this is that I find it impossible to maintain a belief in any form of the supernatural, because the explanations offered by science all seem more plausible to me.

I would suggest starting with The Perennial Philosophy(1945) by Aldous Huxley, gives a good overview of the main religions from an academic/rational pov, then straight after read The Doors of Perception by the same author...then come on here and tell us what you think(after some practical testing of your own)

The world of Christian Apologetics is wide and comes from ever corner, from raving evangelical to far-out liberal.

A quick Google threw this up, it might be of interest, I do not know.

C S Lewis Society

Thank-you both for those suggestions. I have actually read 'The Doors..' before, but I can't say that it offered me any particular illumination. I was young however, and only reading it because I thought it was a 'drug book'. I am also long overdue to start a task which I've been meaning to do for years and which Arbs has reminded me of, which is to actually read the Bible, Torah and Koran for myself, away from the context of Sunday School and school RE lessons. I'm not sure that I have the commitment to learn the Arabic necessary to really do the Koran justice though.

I never needed any apologists to confirm my faith....

Therein lies the rub perhaps. You evidently need no proof to confirm your faith, and nothing I say can shake it. I, on the other hand have no faith, and no-one has yet offered me a convincing argument why I should. I can see the benefit in having faith, but that doesn't mean I can manufacture it within myself, and I'm pretty sure that pretending to believe would miss the point.

[strawberry]

I think weed_G, you have a problem telling the difference between science, scientists and their non-scientific management.

....also its been shown that placebos work just as well as popular anti-depressants from big pharma, but it doesn't stop the science pills from passing scientific/empirical testing...and are still being prescribed throughout the land ..maybe science would do better to worry about the beams in its own eye?

How has it been shown? Are you saying science has shown these pills to be without worth -- that these pills sold are for unscientific reason? Hiding negative research isn't scientific, it's done by the money people.

....its nigh impossible to get funding for research without some explanation of how the work will be applied or exploited in a practical way...in fact for the people investing in your research only the application holds any real interest

From where do you get this idea?

[chubby1891]

I think the only conflict is when someone says my child cant have a blood transfusion because it is against gods will. Other than that no conflict, and its also interesting to note that the Vatican employs an astronomer. Is that watching god or watching science?

[groovelick]

I think the only conflict is when someone says my child cant have a blood transfusion because it is against gods will. Other than that no conflict, and its also interesting to note that the Vatican employs an astronomer. Is that watching god or watching science?

They need someone to confirm that an heavenly apparition is not just some old comet.

[distracted]

its also interesting to note that the Vatican employs an astronomer. Is that watching god or watching science?

Science and religion have been longterm bedfellows in many religions, religions have protected and nurtured scientific knowledge.... they aren't self cancelling, there is no automatic divide between scientific theory and spiritual belief

the vs in this threads title is though automatically divisive, it requires a polarised position be considered, no base religion says "thou shall not embrace science" but seemingly the self appointed supporters of "science" in the thread say thou shall not embrace belief without being open to ridicule... you say you have 3 science degrees troy, maybe the next one should be a humanity or a social science of some kind or even try one of the arts, it may help build respect of other peoples thoughts a bit more, human society and interaction doesn't just run on proof it also includes hope which is a future aspiration, there is no hope in science so it doesn't complete the human condition if the gap is there, we all have expressed hope, wishes, whispered mantras, it's not religion but it's not science either, it's just being human and expressed best in gamblers and the religious imho but we all drop into it from time to time

[Perfect Haze]

Religion is science, it's all just allegorical retellings of the zodiac. All of it.

[Arbuscule]

its also interesting to note that the Vatican employs an astronomer. Is that watching god or watching science?

Science and religion have been longterm bedfellows in many religions, religions have protected and nurtured scientific knowledge.... they aren't self cancelling, there is no automatic divide between scientific theory and spiritual belief

the vs in this threads title is though automatically divisive, it requires a polarised position be considered, no base religion says "thou shall not embrace science" but seemingly the self appointed supporters of "science" in the thread say thou shall not embrace belief without being open to ridicule... you say you have 3 science degrees troy, maybe the next one should be a humanity or a social science of some kind or even try one of the arts, it may help build respect of other peoples thoughts a bit more, human society and interaction doesn't just run on proof it also includes hope which is a future aspiration, there is no hope in science so it doesn't complete the human condition if the gap is there, we all have expressed hope, wishes, whispered mantras, it's not religion but it's not science either, it's just being human and expressed best in gamblers and the religious imho but we all drop into it from time to time

I agree that the polarity in the title is divisive. Destructive of real debate imho.

re the italicised bit - psychobabblers like Julia Kristeva make hay with that notion of a 'gap' (where gamblers play and gambol, one might say ). For Kristeva the 'semiotic babble' of the 'unconscious' is much like what I think you're talking about. Apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick. I#ve no idea what sshitipedia etc have to say about Kristeva and Lacan et al. Just drawing on memory from years ago but if I check I bet I'm right

Myself I have next to no time for any type of psychoanalysis (I yeah, I know it has no scientific credence - but I'm talking about human experience rather than strictly talking about 'science')

I have no faith in any brand of psychobabble but I think that is where texts expanding on what bilious said can be found

e2a read as fiction psychoanalysis is illuminating. For me though I gave up on psychobabble and went all out with fiction I honestly believed - despite my position as a staff nurse in psychiatry - that I could learn more about humanity from fiction than anything else so I did a few years without holidays to finance ma lit.

And I still think Shakespeare, Jane Austen and Terry Pratchett etc etc have wisdom that psychobabble can't touch and address human experience in ways that are so far beyond what any science can even begin to discuss. That's proper science or bogus science - neither have anything much to say about hope, desire, love and fear

Edited May 4, 2011 by Arbuscule

[Arnold Layne]

Do you adhere to to an organized cult then?

Of course I do, I'm ordained, have been for 30 years.

But my theology is so liberal, you would not recognise it. My denomination is known for the broadness of its theological tradition.

As for apologetics, note my past tense.

What is so intolerable about your posts is the way you accuse others of things like mental illness, just because they have a faith. This is as pathetic as it is rude and insulting.

Are you really so bitter, twisted and dry inside? I can't believe it; but that is the taste you leave behind you - that of a nasty little bigot.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Arnold Layne

[~nobody~]

I don't mean to pick AL but I thought you'd said in another thread that you were no longer an adherent of any specific denomination. Surely in forging your own path you are not part of, as NW puts it, 'an organised cult'. Or have I misunderstood (either him or you)?

here's the post I'm referring to;

I am an ex-evangelical preacher/priest. I specialised in the theology of the Reformation, and have read widely. In 1998 I had a nervous collapse. I had run myself into the ground working silly hours (at least 18 hours per day, 6 days a week). I also underwent a complete intellectual implosion. I resigned my ministry (I was in oversight of three busy churches), and over the next month I emptied my head of every last belief. Then I began the work of intellectual re-construction, the fruit of which can be seen in my posts around this place.

After over 17 years I am still experiencing the consequences of this. It was total re-write of my life. Everything changed, completely. But I'd much rather be adrift in the sea of agnosticism, than anchored in the cold, drab harbour of evangelical Christianity. The main consequence of all this is that I am horrified by what I have said and done in the past. Truly, horrified. WTF was I on??

Thankfully, there is much I can look back on with pride. Times when I've gone toe-to-toe with a Bishop and told him that No, I will not do as told, and he can go shove his directives where the sun don't shine. As he said, my prospects kind of vanished at that point! I'm also proud of the many times I broke serious Church Regulations. I married divorcees a handful, buried suicides in Church grave-yards without so much as a murmur of disapproval, and baptised bastard infants beyond count, and gladly. I also out-drank the locals in the pub opposite the Church. Not popular with the "Holy" crowd, but it gained me access to homes otherwise barred and shuttered.

I don't miss church one bit. But I did enjoy the work I did with the public. Like the addiction counselling, or the work with kids, or the prison visiting and ministry. But the religion bit, well I'm glad to be well out of it. I'm kind of taking the Christ out of Christianity. Jesus and me get along just fine, but religion is the devil's arse-produce.

[distracted]

there is no hope in science so it doesn't complete the human condition if the gap is there, we all have expressed hope, wishes, whispered mantras, it's not religion but it's not science either, it's just being human and expressed best in gamblers and the religious imho but we all drop into it from time to time

re the italicised bit - psychobabblers like Julia Kristeva make hay with that notion of a 'gap' (where gamblers play and gambol, one might say ). For Kristeva the 'semiotic babble' of the 'unconscious' is much like what I think you're talking about. Apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick. I#ve no idea what sshitipedia etc have to say about Kristeva and Lacan et al. Just drawing on memory from years ago but if I check I bet I'm right

Myself I have next to no time for any type of psychoanalysis (I yeah, I know it has no scientific credence - but I'm talking about human experience rather than strictly talking about 'science')

I have no faith in any brand of psychobabble but I think that is where texts expanding on what bilious said can be found

that was no attempt at psycobabble on my part, sorry if it read badly, what I was trying to say was that we all hope.... we hope when we roll a dice, place a bid on e-bay, hesitate before opening an important envelope, sit by the side of an ill friend, etc, we even hope or experience trepidation in science, when an experiment is reaching conclusion, or the first data appears..... with a belief the hope can be channelled towards a divinity as a spoken or unspoken prayer, without a divinity it is just hope, a wish that things will work out favourably, a silent plea to nothing and no one, neither science or belief... nothing important in what I said though, it was just an observation

[Arnold Layne]

~Nobody~, I'm still ordained, can't do anything about that. They also pay me a pension. There are many in the Church who's views are similar to mine, it is quite possible to be wildly liberal and still belong to a church.

Is that "Adherence"? I do not know. I do not "attend" a Church, and have no congregational affiliation. From a strictly ecclesiastical viewpoint, I am an outsider and "beyond the gate", to use a Biblical expression.

But I know this: Your accusations and slurs about mental health and the rest are well out of order.

Time to change that attitude, no?

In fact, you might find people more inclined to listen to you if you drop that attitude of yours.

You say you are going to read the Bible. Good. But may I ask, how do you plan to understand such a collection of ancient myths and prophetic writings? Have you managed to acquire the literary skills needed to unravel an ancient text? For example, have you any insight into what the precise nature of a "Gospel" is? What kind of literary text is a "Gospel", and how is it meant to be read and understood? Is it mere time-line history? Obviously not! So what is it, and how should we read it in the modern world, without mistaking its intent and thereby abusing it badly?

Moreover, which translation will you read? And how will you reach that decision, on what will you base your choice?

I suggest that, as an introductory read, you try this: A Thistleton's "The Two Horizons". It will, at least open your eyes to the complexity of the hermeneutic task. Otherwise you will just make all the same mistakes as any far-right Evangelical. They force the text into a modern world view, a world view it was never meant to address. Moreover, they read it "in the flat", as if it were an article from today's Times. This makes for wooden and less than Biblical theology. Seven Day Creationism is a good example of such an erroneous approach to the text. The same mistake is repeated by the opponents of SDC, who run off at the mouth about evolution disproving Genesis.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Arnold Layne

[withnail]

~Nobody~, ......

But I know this: Your accusations and slurs about mental health and the rest are well out of order.

Time to change that attitude, no?

In fact, you might find people more inclined to listen to you if you drop that attitude of yours.

I think its Northwest that was slurring folks with religious tendancies rather than Nobody Arnie

Just clarifying like