science vs religion

[Arnold Layne]

Oh dear, I do apologise. What a terrible mistake to make, I am so sorry ~nobody~. I hope you are not too offended?

Awe man, I feel really bad - its a big mistake to make. I cannot apologise enough ~nobody~.

Thanks, Withers

Edited May 4, 2011 by Arnold Layne

[Sylar]

Religion - you're in a cave, canna only grows outside, no hybrids. You hope to get the seeds before the birds do.

Science - you're here online, growing canna indoors, 1000s of hybrids to choose from. The postie brings your seeds.

[northwest]

First of all 'mental illness' probably was fishing for a reaction somewhat, so sorry for that, bad choice of words. However.... I didn't 'accuse others of things like mental illness, just because they have a faith'. What I said was that I think people that belong to groups based around religious notions aren't... let's say, completely of sound mind. I actually said I thought everyone acted on faith, it was the first thing I said.

I stick to that though, mooslems, catholics, scientologists, spaghetti worshippers etc, whatever. All a bit nuts.

"Is it still acceptable to be religious and be a scientist like Francis Collins the director of the National Institute for Health. "

was the original question. I'd rather have someone making decisions that might effect me agnostic, because that seems by far the most rational and I'm suspicious of this need to invent explanations, especially, as I said, collectively. Especially when they also decide about stuff like surgeons. But I suppose as long as the hoodoo doesn't effect the performance at the job I suppose it's ok. Just keep an eye on them, be ready to act if their eyes glaze over

Edited May 4, 2011 by northwest

[distracted]

Religion - you're in a cave, canna only grows outside, no hybrids. You hope to get the seeds before the birds do.

Science - you're here online, growing canna indoors, 1000s of hybrids to choose from. The postie brings your seeds.

you suggest that science has created the ability to surf the net, have electricity, a postal service whereas religion has not been able to raise us as a species beyond cave dwellers? It's twaddle, our society was built partially by scientists but they weren't automatically devoid of a religion, it is a fair bet that all the greats and lesser scientists that have helped forge the present were religious to a degree, Darwin himself studied theology at cambridge, Newton was an obsessed theologian, Pasteur a creationalist, the list can easily be populated further using google. This idea that scientific thinking excludes a belief is modern and a wild generalisation

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. Einstein 1968

Edited May 4, 2011 by billious

[troy]

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

One degree , it was modular, just to clarify.

Whatever the title anyone is free to make points about the issues involved. I don't respect anyones religious ideas, they are made up and are bullshit. Clearly most people get 'thoughts' as you call them from being indoctrinated as a child. Beliefs should be subject to examination and tested for their veracity otherwise how could we know what is true or not ? There is a taboo around criticising religion as you have amply demonstrated. Some people seem to automatically think that there is virtue in being religious. This is patently not true , how could a belief system confer status on its followers ?

There is an obvious divide between religion and science. One is faith with no evidence and the other is is about observing and testing reality , forming ideas and then checking them. Fundamental christians have been trying to block research into stem cell research because of its use of embryonic clusters which consists of 150 cells , about the size of a full stop. They do this because they believe the soul begins at conception and in this way you are taking a life. Similarly for abortion which is opposed by many believers. Stem cell research has the strong possibility of finding many therapies to alleviate the worst aspects of the human condition. This is where science and religion come into direct conflict.

'There is no hope in science" quite the opposite I would say, advances in science give us hope to cure illnesses and increase longevity and alleviate suffering, much more so than any religion. I think you are talking about superstition in the last part, I have no problem with this as long as we don't take it too seriously. Religion was an attempt at philosophy and maybe science and has now become redundant as a way of understanding the human condition. It comes from a time when we had no awareness of evolution , germ theory, atomic theory. I'm not completely averse to people having religious ideas but they should be kept private Additionally I don't think religion should have any privileged status in society.

Einstein :

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Edited May 4, 2011 by troy

[~nobody~]

sorry ~nobody~.

No problem Arnie. I didn't mean to seem like I was trying to catch you out or anything, it's just that I found that particular post quite significant, in particular the sentence;

Jesus and me get along just fine, but religion is the devil's arse-produce.

One of my problems with religion is that it seems to so obviously appeal to our herd mentality (safety in numbers, being part of a larger community etc), so for someone who has been part of the infrastructure of a religion to lose their faith in the religion, but not their faith in their faith, as it were, certainly helps to demonstrate that the two are separate and distinct, and encourages me to investigate spirituality (for want of a better word) more without feeling that in doing so I'm obliged to buy into any of the organised doctrines of which I'm so mistrustful. Sorry, that was a very long sentence.

I appreciate your suggestions on texts to read around this subject, and have added "The Two Horizons" to the ever-expanding list, but I wonder if you'd mind explaining further your comments re gospels;

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?

If it's not asking to be spoon-fed too much, how would you suggest I approach these texts? In answer to your question, no, I have no real insight into the precise nature of a gospel, so I'd appreciate any advice you can give me to get the most out of the experience of reading them.

With regards to translations I'd planned on reading the KJV and the Welsh William Morgan version (the original 1588 if I can get hold of it, rather than the amended 1620 version, which I believe is more akin to the KJV). Having read you and Arbs conversation in one of these threads I was also planning on reading the Tyndale version. I'm not too phased by the idea of reading ye olde englysshe, having done some Chaucer many years ago at school, although one of the attractions of the welsh versions is the ability to go quite far back and still be reading something recognisable and not too removed from the modern tongue.

I do now regret not carrying on with Latin when I had the choice at GCSE level, it would be great to be able to read a Latin version too.

Are there any other translations or collections (The Book Of Common Prayer, perhaps?) you think I should look at?

Edited May 4, 2011 by ~nobody~

[distracted]

Whatever the title anyone is free to make points about the issues involved. I don't respect anyones religious ideas, they are made up and are bullshit. Clearly most people get 'thoughts' as you call them from being indoctrinated as a child. Beliefs should be subject to examination and tested for their veracity otherwise how could we know what is true or not ? There is a taboo around criticising religion as you have amply demonstrated. Some people seem to automatically think that there is virtue in being religious. This is patently not true , how could a belief system confer status on its followers ?

There is an obvious divide between religion and science. One is faith with no evidence and the other is is about observing and testing reality , forming ideas and then checking them.

'There is no hope in science" quite the opposite I would say, advances in science give us hope to cure illnesses and increase longevity and alleviate suffering, much more so than any religion. I think you are talking about superstition in the last part, I have no problem with this as long as we don't take it too seriously. Religion was an attempt at philosophy and maybe science and has now become redundant as a way of understanding the human condition. It comes from a time when we had no awareness of evolution , germ theory, atomic theory. I'm not completely averse to people having religious ideas but they should be kept private Additionally I don't think religion should have any privileged status in society.

Einstein :

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

I actually agree with most of what you say, I just don't agree in pushing that reasoning onto others, it's a personal thing belief or a lack of it for me and whatever a person chooses is their own choice, I dislike missionaries and zealots for the same reason.

My use of hope was very specific, I know what I was trying to say but expressed it badly as acknowledged in my post earlier...

regarding the Einstein quote, it was about aggressive atheism rather than religion: here is a more long winded one:

I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims. Einstein, 1941

[troy]

Hi billious, religious belief may be a personal choice but unfortunately it is a bad one. Its not really a choice for most people anyway as they were indoctrinated as children, thats hardly a choice ! Beliefs lead to behaviour as I demonstrated earlier with the stem cell research example and as we see every day with religious fanatics blowing themselves up. So beliefs are not something you should get at the pic 'n mix counter as they really have an affect on your worldview. They can't be considered in isolation to human behaviour. If someone believes in the afterlife it may have a huge impact on their general behaviour. Its a myth that beliefs are innocuous, they shape our representation of the world and our place in it and our relationships with it and other people.

eta aggressive atheism. This subject comes up a lot in the media, here is pats take on it.

Edited May 4, 2011 by troy

[Squaggles]

I don't think that video does you any favours really troy , is

pat somebody that you agree with ?

[troy]

I think he makes the point well and is very funny. What is your problem with it if you don't mind me asking ? You could try sam harris instead, a more scientific measured approach.

Edited May 4, 2011 by troy

[distracted]

Hi Troy, we will have to agree to disagree on this, I'm too entrenched in my own attitude to be open minded to yours, I will tolerate any doctrine until it is shoved in my face or offends my moral position. Pat Condell comes across to me as generalising bigot, no better than a religious fundamentalist in his position of misunderstanding and rigidity, but that's his job I suppose

I'll bow out out of your thread now, but it's good to see it hasn't descended into a shitstorm, thought it was trolling for one when I first saw the title, glad I was wrong

[Archangel]

God is Omnipresent and Eternal, so comes from and came from nowhere as he is already everywhere and for all time. Arnold Layne

Thanks for clearing that up for us, makes perfect sense really, especially the male/female specie-al connotation.

My attitude. Its disgusting, rude and inappropriate.

Im so sorry, please dont burn me because i dont believe in Christianity, which is a Jewish sect in disguise, used to control most of the planet for the last 2000 years.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Archangel

[Guest weirdofmouth]

hey, Sylar, don't you think any of the Rastas or Sadhus in this world (both big on "religion", both weak on "science") know how to find and grow and select and roll and smoke any fine Herb? cmon??!

[Arnold Layne]

God is Omnipresent and Eternal, so comes from and came from nowhere as he is already everywhere and for all time. Arnold Layne

Thanks for clearing that up for us, makes perfect sense really, especially the male/female specie-al connotation.

My attitude. Its disgusting, rude and inappropriate.

Im so sorry, please dont burn me because i dont believe in Christianity, which is a Jewish sect in disguise, used to control most of the planet for the last 2000 years.

A) Any non physical "God" must, by definition be beyond "gender". But in using language one inevitably falls into inaccurate usage. Plus, see B)

B) I was speaking in the objective, and referring to Christian orthodoxy. In which God (A being "without body, parts, or passions") is generally viewed (IMO erroneously) as "He". Please don't try and trip me up by quoting out of context.

C) Go light your own stake if that's what you want. Are you really so paranoid?

[Guest weirdofmouth]

hey Arnold, you're trying too hard with these people

all they need is a week alone in a cave in the desert

they'll all find God