Science And Religion Aren't Friends

[DesertBob]

I read you as saying you weren't effected/affected by the relationship as defined by your belief.....taking special effort to deny the definitions: relationship, love, respect. I think that is where you were fooling yourself. I don't see it happening for her then, nor you then, nor you now, through your memories. Even from a physiological standpoint, I would bet my gonads that changes occur through attractions, relationships, intercourse. But please press on, maybe I can learn something. I will curtain the other. Thank you for your patience.

Despite reading it three times, I have no idea at all what that paragraph means, but I think we have flogged this enough in any case. Carry on ...

[Guest end3]

We agree that science need not be reductionistic to be science.

I think I disagree on that one. It's kind of the idea of science to reduce the complexity of nature to simplistic models, even if those models might not be 100%. It's hard to make science from opinion, feelings, experience, or values. Right?

Are you defining science as Hard Science, and ignoring the soft sciences?

So, you're saying that science already does contain non-reductionist attitudes? Then why is it an issue to argue that science doesn't?

 

BTW, there is a difference between using reductionist methodologies in examining nature, and reductionism in a philosophical sense. Reductionism philosophically doesn't allow for any other methodologies. They philosophically assume everything can be reduced to its components. It's a conclusion before the facts. And that is the point of the complaints you hear, and rightly so.

So, for the world to be a better world, science should refrain as much as possible from trying to find answers through reductionism and instead try to assume and posit unexplainable theories?

 

I'm not sure I follow what the problem is.

 

I do understand the idea of that we (as people, human beings) can't just understand our world through reductionism. I'm all for that. I get that part.

 

But I raised my eyebrows to the idea that science should be changed because of this. Why? Why should science be changed to something else just to satisfy this problem? I think we, as human beings, and in our experience, already are using other methods, and why should we somehow define these ways of experiencing the world, and put terms on them, and even put them under the umbrella of the word "Science"? That's the part I don't follow.

 

Is poetry reductionistic? Why not? Is that a lack in poetry or is it just the fact that poetry is a different genre of our tools to understanding the world? So would science be a better science if poetry is part of the world of "science"? How about religious experience? Should it be added to the world of science as a subdomain of scientific understanding?

 

I'm a bit lost here.

Fwiw from my standpoint, it's frustrating to hear that science explains, or will explain it all......but now you are saying why must we change science if it can't explain it all.

[Guest end3]

The sense I get is that prayer can't have that calming effect for many (most?) who don't have some supernatural belief. It certainly doesn't work for me, and I don't know of any atheists for whom it works. (I'd love to hear from atheists who can successfully get that benefit from prayer, though, because I would love to get in on it!) So, in that sense, supernatural belief is rewarded in the natural functioning of their brains simply by focusing an action around an extraordinary belief.

 

Well P. I can't speak for Christian prayers, but I don't believe in Amida or in any after death Pure Land, yet the nembutsu- namu amida butsu roughly translated: "homage to Amida Buddha"- works very well for calming and centering. There again, I adopted the practice as a non-supernatural means from the onset.

 

If I recall what I read correctly, it is the highly ritualized prayers (ie, Hail Mary or Our Father) that have the soothing effect.

 

I used to, and still do, say the Lord's prayer in my head over and over as a centering/calming thing before I had ever heard of centering.....fwiw.

SPEAKING OF SCIENCE VERSUS RELIGION!

This brings up a very important point. Christians droning on with the "Lord's Prayer" when the verse that DIRECTLY PROCEEDS IT in the Bible says:

" But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. "

IRONICALLY ...bad advice from God, as chanting/droning/meditative states have been scientifically proven to be beneficial to our health and happiness.

 

The key word here would be "vain".

[Guest end3]

I read you as saying you weren't effected/affected by the relationship as defined by your belief.....taking special effort to deny the definitions: relationship, love, respect. I think that is where you were fooling yourself. I don't see it happening for her then, nor you then, nor you now, through your memories. Even from a physiological standpoint, I would bet my gonads that changes occur through attractions, relationships, intercourse. But please press on, maybe I can learn something. I will curtain the other. Thank you for your patience.

Despite reading it three times, I have no idea at all what that paragraph means, but I think we have flogged this enough in any case. Carry on ...

 

You used the word irrelevant.......irrelevant can't exist within a relationship.....it's relevant if only one sub-atomic particle "bumps" into another. You seem to discount words like relationship, love, and respect having no value in changing "what is" by just declaring so. Have a safe trip.

[Antlerman]

There is no proof for talking donkeys and coming back from the dead. There is no proof for consciousness surviving death.

According to your idiot, fairy tale point of view.

 

 

 

Just trying it out to see how it feels. Yuk. How do you do it?

[Vixentrox]

There is no proof for talking donkeys and coming back from the dead. There is no proof for consciousness surviving death.

According to your idiot, fairy tale point of view.

 

 

 

Just trying it out to see how it feels. Yuk. How do you do it?

Oh it's quite easy when you find such things repugnant. Such beliefs have driven man to grief. There is always a charismatic to take people and manipulate them into a new religious sect that will continue to destroy lives with their superstitions.

[DesertBob]

You used the word irrelevant.......irrelevant can't exist within a relationship.....it's relevant if only one sub-atomic particle "bumps" into another. You seem to discount words like relationship, love, and respect having no value in changing "what is" by just declaring so. Have a safe trip.

Au contraire, relationship, love and respect have a great deal of value. They are, in fact, nearly everything to me. That value is relevant to many things and in many situations; but not all. Irrelevance isn't a value judgment, it's just a statement of fact. Perhaps it is a word that is quite loaded to you for some reason. I don't use it dismissively, however.

 

Most evenings I rub my girlfriend's feet. Because she enjoys it, and I love her and want to do that for her. In some crazy way it makes me feel like my existence counts for something more than a lot of other things I could do. That's relevant to how I feel about life. However no matter how much we love each other and how well we play that relationship out, it doesn't change certain things. She's in the city tonight, chaperoning her daughter and some other girls to a concert. If she gets squashed by a bus while crossing the street and never comes home, it won't have anything to do with how much we love each other. I don't worry about such things to any significant degree but I'm much more aware of them than the average bear because I've lost people I care about to various catastrophic illnesses or accidents for random / no reason more than once. We're both that way. Neither one of us can see beyond the next six months. We don't envision ourselves growing old together. We might well do that, but we don't dare expect it.

 

These are the kinds of things that love doesn't have relevance for. What would be relevant would be a comprehensible universe that plays according to the rules of an omnibenevolent god, or by some clear and fair karmic rules, or something that rises above background noise. As it is, we both fully price in the possibility that every moment together will be our last. It is not all bad; I think we make the most of more moments that way. But it's not all good, either, always ready for the other shoe to drop. I miss the contentment of complacency -- a luxury that I can no longer afford. Oh well. It is what it is.

[Antlerman]

There is no proof for talking donkeys and coming back from the dead. There is no proof for consciousness surviving death.

According to your idiot, fairy tale point of view.

 

 

 

Just trying it out to see how it feels. Yuk. How do you do it?

Oh it's quite easy when you find such things repugnant. Such beliefs have driven man to grief. There is always a charismatic to take people and manipulate them into a new religious sect that will continue to destroy lives with their superstitions.

I could easily say the same thing for those with such closed minded, dogmatic beliefs as yours to become a threat to freedom of others. If you lack the ability to see past your own irrational prejudices, you will easily become the pawn of others. You are a prime candidate for recruitment. You don't have an independent mind at all. You are a slave to your hatreds.

 

You should think about that, but I doubt you're capable actually, save for some major existential crisis in your life to open you to yourself behind your foul masks. Mark my words about being a troll in this thread, BTW.

[Vixentrox]

There is nothing irrational about it. Religions and such beliefs are a bane on humanity in my opinion. I would never want legislation or laws created against religion....but I do believe such things deserve scorn. The world in my opinion would be much better when man stops with the superstition.

[Galien]

Hmm. In order to view something with scorn, I have to believe I have the right answer and the other party is wrong. Seeing I can't possibly know whether god exists or not, then I cannot assume rightness.

 

Whilst I do view abuse and some forms of capitalism with scorn, when it come to other people's concepts and ideas, who the fuck am I to be scorning anyone?

[Vixentrox]

I know I am overly harsh but I see any form of religion as blight on humanity, a continual scam, a distraction from reality. Nothing very good ultimatly comes from it and it should be fought against at every turn.

[Deva]

Science is not a god. Very Christian of you to make it so though. The same argument that we laugh at Christians for using cannot be used to defend your equally unprovable belief.

 

You can't really prove death is the end of consciousness. Science only goes so far and yet you set it up as the final authority. Yes, it seems to be like a god for you. That is why you are continually compelled to defend it. I have no problem with science -- I just think it cannot answer all questions of life like you do, and there are facts not provable in a lab. At least, not yet.

 

I would say it must be difficult dealing with all the religious people you see in daily life when you have an attitude that they are all evil, corrupt and/or stupid.

[Vixentrox]

Science is not a god. Very Christian of you to make it so though. The same argument that we laugh at Christians for using cannot be used to defend your equally unprovable belief.

 

You can't really prove death is the end of consciousness. Science only goes so far and yet you set it up as the final authority. Yes, it seems to be like a god for you. That is why you are continually compelled to defend it. I have no problem with science -- I just think it cannot answer all questions of life like you do, and there are facts not provable in a lab. At least, not yet.

 

I would say it must be difficult dealing with all the religious people you see in daily life when you have an attitude that they are all evil, corrupt and/or stupid.

Same argument every religion uses. You can't prove there is no god. You can't prove that Moses didn't talk to a burning bush. You can't prove that Shiva is the husband of Parvati. You can't prove that Zeus wan't a philanderer. I would bet you reject all those things. Why reject them? Because there is no evidence for these beings being more than a construct of someone's imagination is why. You are perfectly fine to use your brain to reject those improbable things but I think it scares you to think that when you die, there is nothing more. Isn't that the real reason you cling to this particular consiciousnes after death theory?

[Vixentrox]

-double post-

[Deva]

Science is not a god. Very Christian of you to make it so though. The same argument that we laugh at Christians for using cannot be used to defend your equally unprovable belief.

 

You can't really prove death is the end of consciousness. Science only goes so far and yet you set it up as the final authority. Yes, it seems to be like a god for you. That is why you are continually compelled to defend it. I have no problem with science -- I just think it cannot answer all questions of life like you do, and there are facts not provable in a lab. At least, not yet.

 

I would say it must be difficult dealing with all the religious people you see in daily life when you have an attitude that they are all evil, corrupt and/or stupid.

Same argument every religion uses. You can't prove there is no god. You can't prove that Moses didn't talk to a burning bush. You can't prove that Shiva is the husband of Parvati. You can't prove that Zeus wan't a philanderer. I would bet you reject all those things. Why reject them? Because there is no evidence for these beings being more than a construct of someone's imagination is why. You are perfectly fine to use your brain to reject those improbable things but I think it scares you to think that when you die, there is nothing more. Isn't that the real reason you cling to this particular consiciousnes after death theory?

 

Go ahead and continue calling me Christian, religious, say I'm afraid, whatever --

 

Moses and the burning bush - a story in a book

Shiva and Parvati - a story in a book

Zeus - stories

 

Death - a fact.

Consciousness after death - a distinct possibility with circumstantial evidence. I don't insist others believe in it.

[Vixentrox]

Moses and the burning bush - a story in a book

Shiva and Parvati - a story in a book

Zeus - stories

 

Death - a fact.

Consciousness after death - a distinct possibility with circumstantial evidence. I don't insist others believe in it.

Death is a fact, quite true. If someone didn't tell you about it or you read it in a book, you likely wouldn't have this "consciousness after death" theory because it is hardly a new theory. Or do you claim that you came to this idea completly independent of media or word of mouth? If it wasn't a completly independant thought then it is something you borrowed from someone else. You latched onto it like others latch on to their unprovable gods...either through a story in a holy book (or similiar media), or an adherent or priest telling them stories of their relgion.

[Deva]

Moses and the burning bush - a story in a book

Shiva and Parvati - a story in a book

Zeus - stories

 

Death - a fact.

Consciousness after death - a distinct possibility with circumstantial evidence. I don't insist others believe in it.

Death is a fact, quite true. If someone didn't tell you about it or you read it in a book, you likely wouldn't have this "consciousness after death" theory because it is hardly a new theory. Or do you claim that you came to this idea completly independent of media or word of mouth? If it wasn't a completly independant thought then it is something you borrowed from someone else. You latched onto it like others latch on to their unprovable gods...either through a story in a holy book (or similiar media), or an adherent or priest telling them stories of their relgion.

 

Its like anything else, you look at all the evidence and then you may eventually draw a conclusion. You can't prove death is the end of consciousness. On balance, from my own experience of life and the accounts of others, I came to my conclusion.

 

Is there such a thing as a completely independent or unconditioned thought? That is an interesting question, actually.

[foolish girl]

SPEAKING OF SCIENCE VERSUS RELIGION!

This brings up a very important point. Christians droning on with the "Lord's Prayer" when the verse that DIRECTLY PROCEEDS IT in the Bible says:

" But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. "

IRONICALLY ...bad advice from God, as chanting/droning/meditative states have been scientifically proven to be beneficial to our health and happiness.

 

The key word here would be "vain".

 

Hey end3!

This is the thing with the Bible though. It says itself that it is not 'open to interpretation'. But we just got different interpretations from that verse, didn't we? Doesn't that prove it wrong?

So that is the problem with the word "vain" it is open to perception. Just like "beautiful", "helpful" or "stupid".

Thinking of the monotonous droning repetative nature of ritualized prayer, in light of this verse- it seems pretty clear that THAT is what is being referred to here. Hinduism was BIG when this was written.

So, I think it is ironic. And with my blinders off- the meaning is clear. This is another one of those things that it is not worth the energy to defend. (IMO)

[Vixentrox]

Moses and the burning bush - a story in a book

Shiva and Parvati - a story in a book

Zeus - stories

 

Death - a fact.

Consciousness after death - a distinct possibility with circumstantial evidence. I don't insist others believe in it.

Death is a fact, quite true. If someone didn't tell you about it or you read it in a book, you likely wouldn't have this "consciousness after death" theory because it is hardly a new theory. Or do you claim that you came to this idea completly independent of media or word of mouth? If it wasn't a completly independant thought then it is something you borrowed from someone else. You latched onto it like others latch on to their unprovable gods...either through a story in a holy book (or similiar media), or an adherent or priest telling them stories of their relgion.

 

Its like anything else, you look at all the evidence and then you may eventually draw a conclusion. You can't prove death is the end of consciousness. On balance, from my own experience of life and the accounts of others, I came to my conclusion.

 

Is there such a thing as a completely independent or unconditioned thought? That is an interesting question, actually.

Well let's hear the evidence. And is there such a thing as an independent thought. I don't see why not. Completely new inventions, tales spun by people etc. They may build on what their experiences but they still can bring something new to the world. I child raised in isolation would still have thoughts.

[Ouroboros]

Fwiw from my standpoint, it's frustrating to hear that science explains, or will explain it all......but now you are saying why must we change science if it can't explain it all.

No! I do NOT say that science must change to be able to explain it all.

 

How can I say it so people understand? I don't know anymore. It seems like I say ABC and everyone jumps on "aha! You said XYZ" and the next person says "you said DEF!"

 

Listen, I AM SAYING THE OPPOSITE! DO NOT CHANGE SCIENCE! SCIENCE IS SCIENCE, AND LET SCIENCE STAY AS SCIENCE. OTHER AREAS OF LEARNING AND EXPERIENCE ARE COVERING THOSE PARTS WHICH SCIENCE DOES NOT COVER. SO LET THE DIVISION BE AS IT IS AND DON'T MESS WITH THE DEFINITION OF SCIENCE.

 

I will try to make it extremely short, in bullet points:

 

1. I don't believe science can explain everything. It is limited. It can't put numbers on feelings for instance.

 

2. I don't believe science should explain everything. There are other disciplines that cover the areas that science can't cover. Poetry, film and story telling, food, hiking in the mountains, are all things that are good, but none of them are a "science." But they all contribute to human understanding.

 

3. Again. Should science be changed to cover ALL other things human experience cover? NOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

4. Don't change science.

 

5. Let science stay as science.

 

6. Science is a method to how we can understand the world, but only in those areas where science can help us understand the world. And science does it by being sciency, and if we change the sciency part in science, then science will not be science anymore.

 

7. It would be stupid to change science. Pure and simple. Because science is a word that covers a certain kind of niche in human experience that only science can do, but it can't be modified to become something that it is not. You can't change science to become tennis. You can put science inside tennis, but you make science into tennis.

 

8. If science is made into everything else and all other niches and things we learn. Then school, all subjects, would be science subjects. All program on the TV are science programs (even fiction). News would be called science. When I drink water, I perform a science project. When I type this post, I am performing a scientific typing on the keyboard.

 

Is that scientifically clear?

[DesertBob]

I know I am overly harsh but I see any form of religion as blight on humanity, a continual scam, a distraction from reality. Nothing very good ultimatly comes from it and it should be fought against at every turn.

I actually would agree with your assessment, except for the need to fight against it at every turn, but I believe you conflate religion with other things. I see religion as a contrived system of dogmatic beliefs designed to appease a deity. That is not the same thing as a philosophical inquiry about the nature of reality and the meaning of life and death, the best way to manage one's thought life, and related matters. My rejection of religion does not carry with it a rejection of the subjective, the unconscious, etc. Of course they are related, and I am not so credulous as to not be suspicious of areas of overlap, but I would find your un-nuanced view very confining.

 

If you feel it your mission in life to hold a hard line against subjectivity, that is your choice, but if you must "fight against it at every turn" so that there is no honest dialog, so that you admit no possibility of learning from anyone but only of others learning from you, then I have to agree with AM that your presence here is only to inflate your own self worth and not to contribute -- making you a troll.

 

I'm not asking you to change your beliefs, only your approach.

[Vixentrox]

I know I am overly harsh but I see any form of religion as blight on humanity, a continual scam, a distraction from reality. Nothing very good ultimatly comes from it and it should be fought against at every turn.

I actually would agree with your assessment, except for the need to fight against it at every turn, but I believe you conflate religion with other things. I see religion as a contrived system of dogmatic beliefs designed to appease a deity. That is not the same thing as a philosophical inquiry about the nature of reality and the meaning of life and death, the best way to manage one's thought life, and related matters. My rejection of religion does not carry with it a rejection of the subjective, the unconscious, etc. Of course they are related, and I am not so credulous as to be suspicious of areas of overlap, but I would find your un-nuanced view very confining.

 

If you feel it your mission in life to hold a hard line against subjectivity, that is your choice, but if you must "fight against it at every turn" so that there is no honest dialog, so that you admit no possibility of learning from anyone but only of others learning from you, then I have to agree with AM that your presence here is only to inflate your own self worth and not to contribute -- making you a troll.

 

I'm not asking you to change your beliefs, only your approach.

I see religion and supernatural and superstition all tied together. No difference between them really. They are all made up constructs used to control, intimidate, gain power, and bilk people out of money or are some unsophisticated, backward attempt to explain things that we now use science for. It's no longer Thor banging away with his hammer that makes thunder. As for learning from other people I keep saying, show me the science. Antlerman presented some things which frankly I don't really understand. Some of it I get but most of it sounds very nonsensical to me. I reject mysticism because it is often used as a term to become one with God/s or get in touch with spirits (even one's own). Since I reject gods and spirits, see no evidence for gods or spirits, this must be rejected till proof is offered of these things.

[Guest end3]

Listen, I AM SAYING THE OPPOSITE! DO NOT CHANGE SCIENCE! SCIENCE IS SCIENCE, AND LET SCIENCE STAY AS SCIENCE. OTHER AREAS OF LEARNING AND EXPERIENCE ARE COVERING THOSE PARTS WHICH SCIENCE DOES NOT COVER. SO LET THE DIVISION BE AS IT IS AND DON'T MESS WITH THE DEFINITION OF SCIENCE.

 

I will try to make it extremely short, in bullet points:

 

1. I don't believe science can explain everything. It is limited. It can't put numbers on feelings for instance.

 

2. I don't believe science should explain everything. There are other disciplines that cover the areas that science can't cover. Poetry, film and story telling, food, hiking in the mountains, are all things that are good, but none of them are a "science." But they all contribute to human understanding.

 

3. Again. Should science be changed to cover ALL other things human experience cover? NOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

4. Don't change science.

 

5. Let science stay as science.

 

6. Science is a method to how we can understand the world, but only in those areas where science can help us understand the world. And science does it by being sciency, and if we change the sciency part in science, then science will not be science anymore.

 

7. It would be stupid to change science. Pure and simple. Because science is a word that covers a certain kind of niche in human experience that only science can do, but it can't be modified to become something that it is not. You can't change science to become tennis. You can put science inside tennis, but you make science into tennis.

 

8. If science is made into everything else and all other niches and things we learn. Then school, all subjects, would be science subjects. All program on the TV are science programs (even fiction). News would be called science. When I drink water, I perform a science project. When I type this post, I am performing a scientific typing on the keyboard.

 

Is that scientifically clear?

 

Jesus Hans, it was just a statement and I tried to be nice even in my approach.

 

Yes, and thank you, that makes it much more clear for someone that doesn't have the extensive vocabulary that some share here.

 

The problem I see is that rather than communicating that as you did, and easing any discomfort that I have by my core beliefs being discounted, many throw the science blanket on top of issues to cover things we don't currently understand. I am certain that Christianity does the same thing, to someone else's cost or discomfort.

[Rev R]

I reject mysticism because it is often used as a term to become one with God/s or get in touch with spirits (even one's own). Since I reject gods and spirits, see no evidence for gods or spirits, this must be rejected till proof is offered of these things.

 

Let's drop the idea that "mysticism" has anything to go with gods and spirits for a second.

 

However the mystic might explain it, the one common thread is that it is a direct experience. Now, do you consider this experience valid and what proof would be required when the experience is stripped of it's religious language?

[Vixentrox]

I reject mysticism because it is often used as a term to become one with God/s or get in touch with spirits (even one's own). Since I reject gods and spirits, see no evidence for gods or spirits, this must be rejected till proof is offered of these things.

 

Let's drop the idea that "mysticism" has anything to go with gods and spirits for a second.

 

However the mystic might explain it, the one common thread is that it is a direct experience. Now, do you consider this experience valid and what proof would be required when the experience is stripped of it's religious language?

Oh I am sure people think they have some sort of experience. People hallucinate stuff all the time. Jesus talks to them, they feel his presence. The virgin Mary appears. All sorts of little mental tricks and seeing "signs". I don't doubt that people have these experiences...but there is nothing special or enlightening about them. Look for some "experience" long enough and you'll imagine one up.