The utterly false dichotomy of Religion Vs. Science

[Artimis]

I've been thinking on this a while, I honestly thought Buddhism might be the most science friendly of all religions that spring to mind. When I looked at the list of Catholic Scientists(courtesy of TGD, link here), I decided to look up a list of prominent scientists or figures of history from other faiths, here's what I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists - Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindus#Scientists_.2F_Inventors_.2F_Engineers_.2F_Doctors - Hinduism, tricky, it includes other professions as well as fields in science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science - Christianity, I had to be careful not to trip over Creationism to find this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_philosophers - Judaism, apparently this category is so large it had to be subdivided by country

Yet I couldn't find a list of notable scientists with a strong Buddhist background? Is this just a massive blind spot in the wikipedia or is it a case that Buddhism does not instill a strong impetus to explore the outside world? Thinking back to chang50's post here:

show: Artimis wrote

How about living in a Buddhist country for 6 years,with a Buddhist wife and adopted kids?
In theory you should be correct,yet no Buddhist country has been in the forefront of any branch of science as far as I know.Perhaps belief in reincarnation affects attitudes to innovation,research and the work ethic in general,leading to a fatalism and superstitiousness that doesn't encourage one to try to better this temporary life.And Buddhists are spectacularly superstitious believe me..

It seems that the other faiths have more zeal for Philosophical, and in more modern times, Scientific studies. Unless there is something I've missed in my search parameters, if there is a list of renowned Buddhist Scientists then by all means post a link here for us to view. It's probably the focus of Buddhism on the attainment of enlightenment to the exclusion of the material world and its distractions that puts the brakes on Buddhism in Science. -Is that an accurate insight? Right in theory but wrong in practice, I'm fine with that.

[chang50]

I've been thinking on this a while, I honestly thought Buddhism might be the most science friendly of all religions that spring to mind. When I looked at the list of Catholic Scientists(courtesy of TGD, link here), I decided to look up a list of prominent scientists or figures of history from other faiths, here's what I found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists - Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindus#Scientists_.2F_Inventors_.2F_Engineers_.2F_Doctors - Hinduism, tricky, it includes other professions as well as fields in science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science - Christianity, I had to be careful not to trip over Creationism to find this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_philosophers - Judaism, apparently this category is so large it had to be subdivided by country

Yet I couldn't find a list of notable scientists with a strong Buddhist background? Is this just a massive blind spot in the wikipedia or is it a case that Buddhism does not instill a strong impetus to explore the outside world? Thinking back to chang50's post here:

show: Artimis wrote

How about living in a Buddhist country for 6 years,with a Buddhist wife and adopted kids?
In theory you should be correct,yet no Buddhist country has been in the forefront of any branch of science as far as I know.Perhaps belief in reincarnation affects attitudes to innovation,research and the work ethic in general,leading to a fatalism and superstitiousness that doesn't encourage one to try to better this temporary life.And Buddhists are spectacularly superstitious believe me..

It seems that the other faiths have more zeal for Philosophical, and in more modern times, Scientific studies. Unless there is something I've missed in my search parameters, if there is a list of renowned Buddhist Scientists then by all means post a link here for us to view. It's probably the focus of Buddhism on the attainment of enlightenment to the exclusion of the material world and its distractions that puts the brakes on Buddhism in Science. -Is that an accurate insight? Right in theory but wrong in practice, I'm fine with that.

Even though there is no god per se in Buddhism,the effect of belief in things supernatural and karma cannot be over emphasised.This life is merely a temporary stage at best.

[_sabotage_]

Then please reference a specific example.

In the previous example, we do see the effects of social darwinism, even if they aren't saying it. The society which we have developed has based itself on the potential for evil and this is our free will.

If you wish to maintain the first example, I would say:

Plant some fruit trees at the charitable site in your free time to offset the pollution, provide a better environment for the charity and save them some operation costs.

BBS

Your objective standards in science can also be considered subjective, but throwing a stone is throwing a stone. So all you're doing is providing support for my argument.

There is a metaphysical issue on the objectivity derived from science, but for the most part that's not troubling, and it still doesn't lead us to conclude that subjective interpretations on this special book but not those special books is the superior way for generating useful knowledge about the universe and humans.

I've already mentioned the role of hypotheses to you, but you neglected that, so I don't see how providing more examples would be helpful.

Let's take a specific example: frequency and it's effects on the recipient.

Not long ago, botanists discovered that plants gravitate towards the 528 frequency and wilt and die when exposed to the 741 freq.

It has since been discovered that all plants and animals are actively emitting the 528 freq and that the sun emits the same as well as 5 other core freq.

If you tune to a444, 528 becomes a C sharp, but international standard tuning, instigated by the Rockefeller Institute is a440 which misses the 528 freq.

At the time, the top sound guy in the world told Rockefeller that a440 tuning is terrible and that it wouldn't work, people would naturally gravitate to the higher freq of a444. Of course, people weren't given the choice over the radio, since they were set to a440.

The a440 standard was put in place in 1955, ten years after the Nazis had experimented with frequencies and discovered the 741 freq of dissonance. While the Nazis frequently used the 741 freq, they also discovered the other core frequencies.

The Rockefeller institute was paying for a lot of the Nazi research according to some and just a few years later, we see our standard.

But this wasn't the first time that it was hid from us. The Catholic Church suppressed the Gregorian chants which were based on the core frequencies to spiritual uplift the listeners.

So we have the Church suppressing the same frequencies long before science. The Church did it to maintain their authority: if people could individually fulfill their spiritual needs, the Church isn't needed. And we have science doing the same.

It was Christian scientists who pursued and discovered the 528 frequency recently. It was then discovered that the Book of Numbers 7:12-83 had the core frequencies embedded in it.

In essence, if science is not conducted for the benefit of humanity, but to our detriment, then it is just as subjective as the Church. We see many scientific discoveries suppressed and usually along the same lines; they offer a benefit to society and none to the powers that be. If the practical application of science, similar to the practical application of religion via the Church, is applied for a benefit of one over the other, then it is not of any use to society.

In order to bring science in line with humanity, there has to be a tie in more specific than mere profit. Otherwise, what research is undertaken and which receives practical implementation will always be subjected to the its ability to profit the researcher. In short, to make both Christianity and science more effective, the ability to use the limitations as control mechanisms must be eliminated. Science could benefit from the Golden Rule and Christianity could benefit from the scientific method, but without the other, we are subjugated to the subjectivity of the controlling body.

[mrswdk]

If it's been such an open secret since the time of Nazis and Rockafellers then why did Tom Hanks have to risk his life to try and expose it?

[2dimes]

So if the catholic church set aside those frequencies for the clergy, did they become more god like?

[_sabotage_]

They hid them from the clergy as well.

The point is simple, science will always be subjective as long as it is paid for and bought up with objective dollars. A lot of good science exists which we are denied access to because of the dollars and this in turn is destroying our planet. They then justify more of their profit based science to cure the ills of the planet. But these are just further destroying us.

We have a lot of good science with no negative externalities. If "science" and "religion" spent more time on empowering the individual and less on strangling them and then offer to sell them air, we wouldn't be in most of the mess we are in. But when I tell you, it's them that is strangling you, you say, no they are offering us air.

[2dimes]

So do you think the church knew what they had or did they just suppress it because they did not want anyone to have it?

Some of the things I found vis google the ultamate stalker are intriguing. There is a website that claims John Lennon and Paul McCartiny have used 528 tuning. There was some discussion about Tesla, Motzart and Bethoven also. I would like to know your sources, pm would be fine.

There is a mastering company in Germany that has 440 and 528 on the same chart.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/35019056/Frequency-Chart

[Artimis]

The point is simple, science will always be subjective as long as it is paid for and bought up with objective dollars. A lot of good science exists which we are denied access to because of the dollars and this in turn is destroying our planet. They then justify more of their profit based science to cure the ills of the planet. But these are just further destroying us.

I'm not sure that subjective means what you think it means, but if you're trying to raise the subject of how free market economics strangles innovation and R&D, then 1)BBS will likely jump in here and 2)wrong thread!


Is there a major faith group that should be discussed as well as Buddhism, Catholicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism? I think that's all the major religions right there, I'm not much of a theologian so if we need to add another faith to the group for discussion then by all means chip in.

[Symmetry]

The point is simple, science will always be subjective as long as it is paid for and bought up with objective dollars. A lot of good science exists which we are denied access to because of the dollars and this in turn is destroying our planet. They then justify more of their profit based science to cure the ills of the planet. But these are just further destroying us.

I'm not sure that subjective means what you think it means, but if you're trying to raise the subject of how free market economics strangles innovation and R&D, then 1)BBS will likely jump in here and 2)wrong thread!


Is there a major faith group that should be discussed as well as Buddhism, Catholicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism? I think that's all the major religions right there, I'm not much of a theologian so if we need to add another faith to the group for discussion then by all means chip in.

Catholicism is Christian.

[Artimis]

Catholicism is Christian.

I'm not entirely convinced of this, so I name them separately so as to avoid a 'faux pas' on the same magnitude as lumping Hinduism and Islam together under the same general non-christain-faith-here subheading. If I was to lump Catholicism and Christianity together then I'd have to throw Judaism into the same category, which is going to get up someone else's nose. Which is certainly a counter-productive way of keeping the discussion civil.

[chang50]

Catholicism is Christian.

I'm not entirely convinced of this, so I name them separately so as to avoid a 'faux pas' on the same magnitude as lumping Hinduism and Islam together under the same general non-christain-faith-here subheading. If I was to lump Catholicism and Christianity together then I'd have to throw Judaism into the same category, which is going to get up someone else's nose. Which is certainly a counter-productive way of keeping the discussion civil.

Judaism is a distinct religion.Catholicism is a branch of Christianity.You wouldn't seperate Protestantism or the Orthodox churches from the rest of Christianity,so why RC?
Just realised this is an utterly false dichotomy....

[crispybits]

Indeed, if you start splitting off even one, then you have to start splitting off others. They exist separately because they have some doctrinal disagreement with each other (however minor it may appear to someone on the outside). Would the Westboro loons have their own category? Their message is supposedly christian but their doctrine is radically different to the rest...

You'd also have to start splitting the other faiths. You'd have at the very least sunni and shia islam with an argument for sufi down to the smaller ones like ahmadiyya and ibadi.

Then you'd go look at hinduism and could probably spend half a lifetime trying to unravel the complicated mess you find there (imagine all the ancient religions of Europe (Roman, Greek, Norse, etc) all being captured under one umbrella catch-all category, with people of different countries believing in a random selection of gods from different sources, and you're probably close to what hinduism is - an amalgamation of all folk religions from the area)

Buddhism contains different schools (theravada, mahayana, vajrayana and sravakayana to name the most popular four) and these could be viewed similar to catholic, protestant, orthodox, etc in christianity, as in same core message but differences in the details.

[Artimis]

Indeed, if you start splitting off even one, then you have to start splitting off others. They exist separately because they have some doctrinal disagreement with each other (however minor it may appear to someone on the outside). Would the Westboro loons have their own category? Their message is supposedly christian but their doctrine is radically different to the rest...

You'd also have to start splitting the other faiths. You'd have at the very least sunni and shia islam with an argument for sufi down to the smaller ones like ahmadiyya and ibadi.

Then you'd go look at hinduism and could probably spend half a lifetime trying to unravel the complicated mess you find there (imagine all the ancient religions of Europe (Roman, Greek, Norse, etc) all being captured under one umbrella catch-all category, with people of different countries believing in a random selection of gods from different sources, and you're probably close to what hinduism is - an amalgamation of all folk religions from the area)

Buddhism contains different schools (theravada, mahayana, vajrayana and sravakayana to name the most popular four) and these could be viewed similar to catholic, protestant, orthodox, etc in christianity, as in same core message but differences in the details.

I think it's my fault for pondering aloud the religious background of various prominent scientists and philosophers throughout history.

I'm still puzzled that we don't have at least one example of a prominent scientist who is also a Buddhist, feel free to chip in here someone.

So what do we make of the reaction of some religious groups when they object to the "Theory of Evolution"(always a soft target for mud slinging)? I can understand that the long term faithful of any religious group would be disturbed by having the validity of their creation story challenged by science(whether directly or indirectly). Must the same as people struggled with the concept of a round Earth instead of a flat Earth. Is the rebuttal of scientific theories to explain the origin of life/the universe/etc a rejection by reflex action? Or is it fear that Science is encroaching on what was once the province of the Divine? That the faithfully may be forced to challenge their own preconceptions of the world around them?

Yes, I know I'm asking a lot of questions, for once I'm struggling to imagine what it's like to be one of these people, to think like them, to understand them.

There, I said it, I don't understand them. Illuminate me please.

[chang50]

Indeed, if you start splitting off even one, then you have to start splitting off others. They exist separately because they have some doctrinal disagreement with each other (however minor it may appear to someone on the outside). Would the Westboro loons have their own category? Their message is supposedly christian but their doctrine is radically different to the rest...

You'd also have to start splitting the other faiths. You'd have at the very least sunni and shia islam with an argument for sufi down to the smaller ones like ahmadiyya and ibadi.

Then you'd go look at hinduism and could probably spend half a lifetime trying to unravel the complicated mess you find there (imagine all the ancient religions of Europe (Roman, Greek, Norse, etc) all being captured under one umbrella catch-all category, with people of different countries believing in a random selection of gods from different sources, and you're probably close to what hinduism is - an amalgamation of all folk religions from the area)

Buddhism contains different schools (theravada, mahayana, vajrayana and sravakayana to name the most popular four) and these could be viewed similar to catholic, protestant, orthodox, etc in christianity, as in same core message but differences in the details.

I think it's my fault for pondering aloud the religious background of various prominent scientists and philosophers throughout history.

I'm still puzzled that we don't have at least one example of a prominent scientist who is also a Buddhist, feel free to chip in here someone.

So what do we make of the reaction of some religious groups when they object to the "Theory of Evolution"(always a soft target for mud slinging)? I can understand that the long term faithful of any religious group would be disturbed by having the validity of their creation story challenged by science(whether directly or indirectly). Must the same as people struggled with the concept of a round Earth instead of a flat Earth. Is the rebuttal of scientific theories to explain the origin of life/the universe/etc a rejection by reflex action? Or is it fear that Science is encroaching on what was once the province of the Divine? That the faithfully may be forced to challenge their own preconceptions of the world around them?

Yes, I know I'm asking a lot of questions, for once I'm struggling to imagine what it's like to be one of these people, to think like them, to understand them.

There, I said it, I don't understand them. Illuminate me please.

Me too,religious thinking utterly bemuses me.I think we must be wired differently.I do think they must make an enormous emotional investment in their belief,whereas to me ideas are just ideas,easily rejected if the evidence warrants it.If I changed my mind 100% it would not detrimentally effect my identity.To some extent they seem trapped by their fear of the finality of death and the apparent purposeless of existence.....'There MUST be a reason for existence'.Even if true why would they fatuously imagine they would be insightful enough to comprehend it?Or arrogant enough to elevate themselves above us lesser beings who cannot?

[_sabotage_]

2Dimes: The Real Da Vinci Code by Len Horrowitz.

Chang, we are equally logical and emotional. The third eye, or pineal gland, is the bridge. Society tries to stifle the gland through fluoridation of water and toothpaste. Fluoride calcifies the gland. It can be stimulated in many ways as well, for example using the 528 frequency. Perhaps you may bridge your emotional and logical spheres by trying to engage your pineal gland?

[2dimes]

Thank you.

[PLAYER57832]

After reading some of the threads in here with posts by members with a background in religion, science and religion + science, I think we should have a debate on what's really going on with this ridiculous idea that it's either science or religion and you've got to choose between the two.

For me the great irony is that it was The Church that initially setup institutions to encourage learning and scholarly investigation into many fields of study. Presumably the motive behind this was that science would prove the existence of God and verify other widely believed geo-centric concepts such as the Earth was at the centre of the solar system. Well, they've got some answers and some of them were more than they bargained for.

To say that Religion and Science don't always see eye-to-eye is a gross understatement. The fact is that we're in a bit of a trap here, science can't be used to *prove* the existence of God/Goddess/Other Deity because then faith would no longer be required, because we'd all know beyond reasonable doubt that God/Goddess/Other Deity existed. So should Science continue to attempt to prove the existence of the Divine?

Maybe Science should just focus on more important matters, such as how to save the environment, feed a growing Human population and expand the Human reach across the solar system and beyond. Which leaves the subject of the Divine to Religion where it belongs.

You started out great, saying that the church set up institutions of higher learning and research, we at different points leaders in research of all kinds.

Then, you lapsed into the standard "but then.... religion refused to accept the truth".

The REAL truth is that religion is just thinking, thinking that goes beyond physical proofs and testing. Like science, you have many people with many diverse ideas. Unlike science, which tries to narrow itself to one mode of finding information (idea, hypothesis, test), religion can broadly encompass any mode of thinking, including the basic of science.

That is the real dichotomy. Scientists disagree amongst themselves about the kinds of evidence that exists and what it means. With so much disagreement using the same basic processes, is it any wonder that they would disagree with other ways of thinking?

BUT.. the greater fact is that for all the talk of a science/religion dichotomy and conflict, most scientists do have religious beliefs of one type or another, do adhere to one of the organized religions, even. However, saying "scientists agree with..." just doesn't make as much of a story. Also, as noted, scientists disagree a LOT amongst themselves, so why would the debates and analysis stop with the proven facts? Thinking people believe. Thinking people discuss beliefs, sometimes argue ideas. OF COURSE religion will be among those topics!

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe Science should just focus on more important matters, such as how to save the environment, feed a growing Human population and expand the Human reach across the solar system and beyond. Which leaves the subject of the Divine to Religion where it belongs.

This is what working scientists and engineers do every day. We only talk about religion when we're off the clock.

Though I would add that sometimes solutions do involve discussing religion, either as a personal morality issue, a political issue or --sometimes as a lead to a potential answer.

[PLAYER57832]

The false choice between Religion and Science is what I'm getting at, as well as the possible motives of those seeking to push this false choice.

I don't have the in depth knowledge of religions that other posters here have. From the outsiders perspective(mine), I see creationism and its proponents pushing really hard to discredit evolution and to push their theory(belief?), they're also challenging the estimated age of the Earth and the Universe. Here in Britain we have Faith-schools opening up, which is proving to be kind of an open door for Creationism. It is important to note that it's not just Creationists that are opening up Faith-schools, other religious organisations are opening Faith-schools in order to teach(or not teach as it turns out) what they deem should be in their curricula. So we're going to wind up with a fragmented standard of education across our population, as well as a significant section of our population being indoctrinated against a theory that has a broad evidence base to support it. I don't know how this is playing out in America, hopefully wise heads are prevailing and Creationism is confined to R.E.(Religious Education), which as far as I'm concerned is fine, R.E. is where various faiths should be taught.

I'm concerned because the majority of the noise seems to be coming from religious groups, are they pushing this false choice because they want people to turn away from science, because they feel that the expanding knowledge base that is accumulating as science seeks to explain more and more is perceived as threatening the validity of their belief system? I honestly cannot see religion dying out anytime soon, so for me any fear that religious groups might have about the encroachment of science into what used to be the realm of the Divine(the motion of celestial bodies, the origin and development of life) is unfounded in my humble opinion.

I want to focus on the interest groups that would benefit from pushing the false choice of siding with Religion or Science only. What do they get out of it? More importantly how do we bring this nonsense to an end?

OK, now I think I see what you are getting at.

Young Earth Creationism is a narrow cause by people who believe that to even question their personal ideas of the Bible, the ideas that have been passed down to them, is wrong. Essentially, they ARE going against God by looking to their own, human ideas and beliefs instead of the evidence that God presents. They are a subset of the kind of person that exists in every society, every group to some extent or another... those who are threatened by true challenges to their ideas.


Many will talk of "reading the Bible literally", yet... they are reading translations, interpretations, which are inherently rife with problems. Understand, I DO believe that the Bible was inspired, that the translations are true/inspired, BUT.. my belief, the belief of most Christians is not so much that our individual understanding of the Bible word for word is to be trusted, but rather that through reading and understanding the Bible, we will come to see truth. The Bible IS truth, but not everything that people can say or think about every word can be without error.

The Creationism story is a good example. Though some wish to claim that the words mean the Earth was created in 6 rotations of the Earth (some explainers go so far as to say that God had already determined the Earth's day or that God set the day of Earth to equal his days), but any such suggestion goes beyond what the Bible actually says. I find it ironic how often those claiming to "adhere only to God's word" actually go beyond. The words themselves SAY that the time frame was not a rotation of the Earth,instead it was a reference to the breaks that humans naturally take and to the fact that we, like God, need rest. HIstorians/linguists say that people, at the time the Bible was recorded, used numbers somewhat differently from us. Three days meant a "short time"-- something like we might say a week or a month, without necessarily meaning exactly a week/month. "Forty days" was essentially "too big to count", much like our grandparents said "thousands" or, we might say "millions" or even "billions". If we say "millions of stars", we don't mean exactly a million, and when they said "forty days", it did not necessarily mean exactly 40 days....etc.

[crispybits]

So what do we make of the reaction of some religious groups when they object to the "Theory of Evolution"(always a soft target for mud slinging)? I can understand that the long term faithful of any religious group would be disturbed by having the validity of their creation story challenged by science(whether directly or indirectly). Must the same as people struggled with the concept of a round Earth instead of a flat Earth. Is the rebuttal of scientific theories to explain the origin of life/the universe/etc a rejection by reflex action? Or is it fear that Science is encroaching on what was once the province of the Divine? That the faithfully may be forced to challenge their own preconceptions of the world around them?

Yes, I know I'm asking a lot of questions, for once I'm struggling to imagine what it's like to be one of these people, to think like them, to understand them.

There, I said it, I don't understand them. Illuminate me please.

Me too,religious thinking utterly bemuses me.I think we must be wired differently.I do think they must make an enormous emotional investment in their belief,whereas to me ideas are just ideas,easily rejected if the evidence warrants it.If I changed my mind 100% it would not detrimentally effect my identity.To some extent they seem trapped by their fear of the finality of death and the apparent purposeless of existence.....'There MUST be a reason for existence'.Even if true why would they fatuously imagine they would be insightful enough to comprehend it?Or arrogant enough to elevate themselves above us lesser beings who cannot?

From an atheist perspective (as in I'm not claiming to talk for the religious) I think that people from an early age feel a kind of communal membership in their religion, they go maybe once a week (some more some less) and they feel that the main thing, sometimes the only thing, that ties them to a lot of those other people in that group is their religious belief. They may have nothing else at all in common with some of those other people except their religious belief, but that's enough to bind them, to create friendships and support structures etc.

Personally, I think those kinds of community ties are good whether they are done through churches or through secular community groups. People are more than capable of forming those kinds of bonds without the church bit. The reason I object to religion is that by adding the church bit you add in a whole bunch of other stuff, and while for many people that stuff is kind of like filler and good storytelling rather than literal truth, for others (as we see here) that other stuff becomes something real that they are willing to prioritise over and above conflicting evidence, because they feel (though maybe they don't conciously make this link) that if they discrad the supernatural element, then they also have to discard the community element, and to be honest if someone told me that I'd have to discard almost my entire social circle because some scientist found out this new thing I'd probably be resistant to that too.

tl:dr version: Religion is almost invariably tied in with a sense of belonging to a larger community. If scientific thought from outside that community seemingly attempts to displace someone from their established social circles, the fear of being alone and losing that sense of community is frickin' scary and therefore the science is sometimes the thing that gets disregarded, rather than the community.

I'd quite like to see a religious person try and describe in the same way why atheists are wired differently to them (and that's not so much a confrontational challenge as a wish to see how the other half would describe their perspective)

[Symmetry]

Yes, I know I'm asking a lot of questions, for once I'm struggling to imagine what it's like to be one of these people, to think like them, to understand them.

There, I said it, I don't understand them. Illuminate me please.

There are many books by many people who did the same thing as you. I recommend Augustine's Confessions as a good read both as an example of religious conversion, and as a book you'll be better for reading.

[Artimis]

There are many books by many people who did the same thing as you. I recommend Augustine's Confessions as a good read both as an example of religious conversion, and as a book you'll be better for reading.

I'm going to have to get back to that one, Symmetry. Is this webpage here an accurate replica of the Books you're recommending?

[rant]
Against my better judgement I've been reading through this screaming, basket case, train wreck of a thread: Logic dictates that there is a God!

During the course of my browsing all the way to page 123(as of 08:13 GMT on 07/12/2013) in that monstrous thread my mind is in chaos as my emotional state flips from -> -> -> -> and around again. I must be some kind of masochist, there is no other way to explain why I would even try to wade through that thread.

I'm not replying to thread because as far as I'm concerned it can rot in the graveyard of page 2 and beyond of this forum. Logic dictates there must be a God?! It took Bertrand Russell many years to write Principia Mathematica(a tome of about 370 pages) whose contents laid out the logical proof that 1 + 1 = 2.

One internet forum thread(let alone the OP of the stated thread) does not a logical foundation for God's existance, make!
[/rant]


Phew.... I feel better now. I really needed to get that out of my system.


Lets contemplate the idea of science without religion and also religion without science. We've all got our favourites, but can one really do without the other?

[crispybits]

This depends on how broad your definition of science is (as in would the printing press count? I mean we needed to do science, though we didnt call it that back then I guess, to experiment with melting ores and producing metals, and to make the engineering of the machine work, etc).

Using the broad definition to include engineering and invention, then religion without science becomes word of mouth folk tales. It can certainly survive in that form, but it wouldn't be anything like the organised, codified and structured religion we see across the world today.

I don't know how you would define a narrower definition of science that doesn't include engineering and invention but I have seen some people try I'm sure so I'll leave answering that side of things to them.

The religious will often claim that science without religion would easily be a force for evil, but this is not true. Science without proper morality would easily become a force for evil, but religion and proper morality are not the same thing, and it is possible to have a proper set of moral rules without having any religion.

I guess depending on your definition of religion you could say that all science is religious, because pantheists will say the sense of wonder scientists have when looking at the universe is our innate awe at the sight of God manifesting itself.

We really need to know the definitions of the things we are talking about first. "Science" and "Religion" are two extremely broad and varied fields and I don't think it's at all useful to generalise at that level because the conclusions you can draw are so limited as to be facile. Are we putting this in a modern day context of the US where this conflict is most apparent or 13th-14th century middle east as islam (particularly ash’arism, the dominant sect at that time) turned against science - or some other context altogether?

[Artimis]

We really need to know the definitions of the things we are talking about first. "Science" and "Religion" are two extremely broad and varied fields and I don't think it's at all useful to generalise at that level because the conclusions you can draw are so limited as to be facile. Are we putting this in a modern day context of the US where this conflict is most apparent or 13th-14th century middle east as islam (particularly ash’arism, the dominant sect at that time) turned against science - or some other context altogether?

I was focusing mostly on the modern political situation with Creationism trying to barge its way into the science classroom and into everywhere else that it possibly can as well. If it'll make the definition of science more concise we can leave natural philosophy to one side. How do I think of religion? I think religion is having faith in a mystical power greater than yourself. That's probably the broad type of term you're trying to avoid. How about this, Religion is:

A doctrine or set of beliefs in a supernatural entity/entities that has rituals and other prerequisite customs that practicing adherents must perform in accordance with the instructions given by their seniors.

Then I would say, Science is:

A method for investigating, testing and formulating new ideas that seeks to challenge assumptions and determine whether they are valid or invalid in an effort to reveal the fundamental nature of reality

How did I do?


Islam in the Middle East during the 13th century sounds interesting, save it for another thread perhaps?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

This depends on how broad your definition of science is (as in would the printing press count? I mean we needed to do science, though we didnt call it that back then I guess, to experiment with melting ores and producing metals, and to make the engineering of the machine work, etc).

Technology=/=Science. Science may lead to new technologies and practices, but the two are different. Are the Archeulian hand axes of H. erectus science? No, just a technology that was discovered by some individual and later set into widespread practice.

-TG