Science And Religion Aren't Friends

[Vixentrox]

Non-existence is incredibly easy to understand. What were you before you were born? Nothing. What are you when you die? Nothing. And what happens when an asteroid destroys everything on earth? A bunch of floating consciousness in space? No seems far more likely that there will be nothing for anyone else too.

 

You are lucky that I didn't give you that as a koan.

 

Do you have an experience or evidence of this "nothing" that you somehow were or will be? How can one make such a pronouncement (be it nothing, disembodied consciousness, whatever) about the past or future when the only you that exists is now?

There is no evidence to presume otherwise. As for experience, I am alive, there was no me before. Pure and simple. When I die my brain activity will cease and whatever I was will be work food (hopefully ashes though, it's cheaper)

[Legion]

Rodney, first and with all due respect, you don't know any more than I do what mind is.

 

Second, I looked into abiogenesis, for years. I could bore you with a lengthy synopsis of this, but I won't. Suffice to say, we do not yet understand what life is, much less how it came to be.

 

Life and mind, life and mind, oh I wish I understood life and mind.

[Rev R]

Rodney, first and with all due respect, you don't know any more than I do what mind is.

 

*Yawn* Legion I expect better from you.

 

Second, I looked into abiogenesis, for years. I could bore you with a lengthy synopsis of this, but I won't. Suffice to say, we do not yet understand what life is, much less how it came to be.

 

What you say is true we do not know. However, as you well know these are the guys looking for the answer.

 

Tell me this: If we do not understand what "life" is how the hell are you going to figure out this relationship with organisms?

 

 

Life and mind, life and mind, oh I wish I understood life and mind.

 

Be careful what you wish for...

[Legion]

Tell me this: If we do not understand what "life" is how the hell are you going to figure out this relationship with organisms?

Frig Rodney, I'm working on it man. I'm not going to solve an enduring mystery overnight.

[Rev R]

Tell me this: If we do not understand what "life" is how the hell are you going to figure out this relationship with organisms?

Frig Rodney, I'm working on it man. I'm not going to solve an enduring mystery overnight.

 

I understand that.

 

I am curious about your methods though. At this moment it appears that you are trying to solve a murder with nothing but a 911 tape. A little insight please?

[Legion]

Well here is my suspicion. Facts are not what we lack here. We have plenty of facts. Our cup overflows with facts. I think we are missing the conceptual apparatus to organize these facts into a coherent picture.

 

Towards this end and at the moment I am concentrating on the work of those who have a bit of a theoretical bent: Kauffman, Rasmussen, Louie, and above all Rosen. These are people who have tried/are trying to build the conceptual frameworks to understand the facts. An even smaller step I am currently taking is trying to internalize a branch of mathematics called category theory.

 

That's a brief snapshot of where I'm at.

[Guest Valk0010]

Does myth have to be true, to be meaningful, no, its just like reading a great work of literature. That is at least what is has involved into, and may not even been the original intent of the writers. The gospels, for example have some good moral preachings, but that doesn't mean the gospels have to be true, to value good aspects of it.

[Vixentrox]

Does myth have to be true, to be meaningful, no, its just like reading a great work of literature. That is at least what is has involved into, and may not even been the original intent of the writers. The gospels, for example have some good moral preachings, but that doesn't mean the gospels have to be true, to value good aspects of it.

Could say that about almost any abhorrent thing if you want to cherry pick out of it.

[Guest end3]

 

Tell me this: If we do not understand what "life" is how the hell are you going to figure out this relationship with organisms?

 

Does it have to be that we must understand life before we can understand the relationship or can the relationship define life? Two.five cent's worth.

[Guest Valk0010]

Does myth have to be true, to be meaningful, no, its just like reading a great work of literature. That is at least what is has involved into, and may not even been the original intent of the writers. The gospels, for example have some good moral preachings, but that doesn't mean the gospels have to be true, to value good aspects of it.

Could say that about almost any abhorrent thing if you want to cherry pick out of it.

Key word...aspects.

[Rev R]

Could say that about almost any abhorrent thing if you want to cherry pick out of it.

 

Maybe it's not cherry picking Vix. Maybe we are looking at evidence for natural selection of ideas. Those ideas that may be harmful to an individual, a society or a civilisation are culled while those that could possibly be helpful are preserved.

[Galien]

Actually I suspect sleep is a lot like non-existence

[Rev R]

Actually I suspect sleep is a lot like non-existence

 

Without the waking up feeling like shit?

[Vixentrox]

Actually I suspect sleep is a lot like non-existence

 

Without the waking up feeling like shit?

Yeah, no hang-overs.

[Antlerman]

 

They were. So "never will be", is a strong statement to make for the future in the light of the facts of history.

Yeah, but have you noticed, how the more science develops the more religion because hostile, the work of henry morris and ID come to mind.

The best way to look at that is to say that the fridge elements of religion became more agitated. Henry Morris is a radical that the mainstream of Christianity would never accept. If you polled every living Christian, and every Institution of it as an organization, the pie chart favoring the YEC folks like Morris would likely not be very large.

 

Now this isn't to say that Christianity as a whole hasn't had to grapple with concepts revealed by science that challenging their traditional Creator-centric ways of imagining the universe, but I think its not realistic to say as a whole the religion becomes more hostile towards science. For one thing, Christianity does not define all religions, and other religions have no issues with it on the level Christianity has faced internal challenges.

 

So yeah, newton and galileo were christians, but also religion didn't particuarly like the ideas.

Some of these ideas about Galileo are not entirely full picture. The harshest oppositions to Galileo largely because he was telling them how they were interpreting scripture was wrong, and was attempting to show them in scripture the right way to understand it in light of his discoveries. That's stepping square out of being a scientist into being a theologian. (I actually just heard this entire thing described less than 2 weeks ago watching the first season the the History Channel's Universe series on DVD we rented). In light of that, sure they responded with censure. Challenging science discoveries is one thing, telling the church they don't know how to read the Bible correctly... Just a tidbit of information I found fascinating.

 

So yeah I agree with you half right, they were friends at one time, but the relationship broke totally I think about the time of darwin. I think the divide will continue to grow, at least the odds as I understand them say they will.

Which is what I was saying. The Enlightenment marked the beginning of the split. Prior to that everything was integrated under a mythological system. My point was, it was integrated. Now it is not.

 

I'm not so sure the divide will continue to grow however. Why is that you think that it will?

 

Incorrect. Man developed a framework of interpreting and relating to the world on multiple levels, including, but not exclusively the pursuit of understanding nature. There were also social factors, philosophical questions, spiritual perceptions, etc.

Yeah but they often have a duel purpose, creation myths come to mind.

Creation myths are really not about the science of the natural world, actually. They are origin stories, which are about a people, a tribe, where they come from, who they are, what is their place in the world, what their purpose is. They are really only superficially, or peripherally concerned about explaining the formation of natural structures. They are concerned only as a prop for the real story - themselves. "We are the people the god Enthu formed from mud in the days of the great trouble..." that sort of thing.

 

Scientific thinking like we have it, is a separate thing outside the purpose of Creation or Origin myths. That's why the modern Evangelical has got so wrong when trying to say the Bible is supported in it's facts scientifically. Nonsense. It is equally as errant for us to evaluate the myths themselves on those erroneous terms.

 

Yeah there was a blend, cultural and social evolution isn't monolithic in decision making, if that makes any sense. But that blend is like the number 2 between the numbers one and three. That 1,2,3 format is where I get the justification to say that religion was the world first attempt at science.

But that doesn't fit the data. It's not that "religion" was the first attempt at science. You have to be careful what you call religion. Everything was under a certain mode of thought, and religion as well as science was under that mode of thought. That is entirely different than saying science was under religion, or a part of religion. Again, creation myths are not about the science of the world, which was a notion made popular by ever vitriolic Ayn Rand. Cultural Anthropologists, those who study myths, etc., show that really isn't the case.

 

 

Clearly not, unless you mean using mythology to talk about the natural world? Then yes, that role has been replaced, and justly so. I'd further this to say that as mythology as a language for the natural world needed to be replaced (which is why it happened), likewise our social and spiritual worlds need to shed mythology as well in order for us to advance in these areas as well as our scientific understanding of the natural world.

Religion in its classic full package of both explanation and meaning is becoming limited, if fact I would say religion is becoming nearly if it hasn't already, a collection of purely meanings statements.

Again, I wouldn't say religion was about being science, even though as part of governing body it had certain roles in overseeing that an integration of the system was maintained. And that's where certain conflicts began to arise. The fault was the religious system's ability to adapt (we're talking Western Religion here in the form and Institution of Christianity, not Religion in the broad sense which would include the East as well). What is the role of religion in the West in the face of this history today? That's the big question. That's been their struggle ever since faced with the loss of power at the center. How do they define themselves, etc. The radicals you mentioned are just the wacky fringe responses to that dilemma.

[Antlerman]

(continued from previous post...)

 

So can science be immaterial according to you? Because it doesn't seem to me it can.

Psychology, sociology, anthropology. Yes. Furthermore, even the traditional "hard sciences" require large leaps of logic and faith in order to come up with certain higher level models, such as the Theory of Relativity. Were that not there, where would we be?

 

But claim it, when you say its just a meaning statement, if its a truth claim we need to evaluate it, religion in its current bastardized form doesn't exactly cut it.

Not true at all, actually. One example is that within religious systems themselves, they do have systems of checks and balances. Governing bodies within those systems are constantly looking at truth claims against their particular standards of measure. Granted that their field of focus may be pretty internal and self-facing, such as validating Mother Mary appearances for instance, but my point is they are not just some ungoverned free-for-all, some anything goes sort of deal.

 

They have a system of evaluating truth-claims, it just may not cut the grade for making claims about the world outside themselves for everyone else. The method isn't that broad, but in all honesty, coming back to the 'soft sciences' such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc, the complaint is that they are 'fuzzy' too. Yet, they certainly don't lack value and do indicate reliable, repeatable, results - just not quite so clean and easy as the "hard" sciences like physics.

 

Personally, I see the appeal of 'hard' sciences as a much clearer definitive response to wild, nutty truth claims. Unfortunately, the world actually is not clean sharp lines, and humans indeed do operate in 'fuzzy' ways, incredibly multifaceted truth evaluations and responses. Philosophical Reductionism is appealing, it seems, because it postulates that we can understand everything if we can reduce it to something we can test and examine at the component level and say definitively what is and is not true through those methods of verification. To me, that's as oversimplifying as saying God's Word tells us the facts.

 

None of this is easy to say what is the 'right' way to approach it. I tend to see a much more holistic approach as broader in reach. That's why I move my thoughts beyond the physical into the mental and the spiritual. Now with all those, how do we approach truth claims, without it being some willy-nilly subjective, postmodernist free-for-all of anything and everything is true? Is it possible to avoid that without being unrealistically reductionist? I believe it is. Yes.

 

But religion isn't always, all three. And as far as I am aware never has been always all three.

This is my fault in how I stated it. I explained more clearly above to clarify what I mean. (Damn, religion is such a fluid word)!

 

Its like i said how, one could value the upanishads but not be hindu. That makes sense, but I am still not in agreement that its a requirement. Meaning is not universal its relative, so why would taking from myth uniformly be beneficial to society. Or am I misunderstanding you.

Yes, this is misunderstanding. I'll have to try to explain more of this later. In short, it's not so much 'meaning' I'm talking about, as those can be largely culturally specific and relative, as you say. To use these terms I like, there is a difference between deep structures and surface structures. Deep structures run through all cultures and times, surface structures are temporary. Humans as a species operate using deep structures. Humans created surface structures to function laterally, horizontally in that slice of space and time and environment. The surface structures are our adaptation. The deep structures are what our surfaces structures are woven into.

 

One theorist (anthropologist George Murdock) refers to this as like a tapestry, of warp and woof. The "warp remains everywhere much the same, for the student of culture is forced to recognize the essential 'equality and identity of human races and strains as carriers of civilization. The woof however, varies with the number and variety of cultural influences." It can be compared also to the human body of bones and limbs (deep structure), but the activities of work and play are the surface structures that vary.

 

To me what I am looking towards are those deep structures that may be indicated in the surface structures. It's what is before and beyond the myths, along with those surface structures. We are a tapestry, not individual threads, nor just our surface structures. We are Holistic, in the sense of length, width, and depth. Make sense?

 

 

The rest of this about definitions of religion I am going to split that discussion off from this one and re-post that list in the Spirituality section. We can pick up our discussion of that part of this in there. BTW, forgive me if some of this seemed murky. I'm fighting a nasty cold and my head is full of medicine.

[Ouroboros]

The best way to look at that is to say that the fridge elements of religion became more agitated.

Fridge elements? Do you mean they're really cold or did you meant to say fringe?

[Antlerman]

The best way to look at that is to say that the fridge elements of religion became more agitated.

Fridge elements? Do you mean they're really cold or did you meant to say fringe?

One wonders, considering the frozen in time sort of thinking they do.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

Psychology, sociology, anthropology. Yes. Furthermore, even the traditional "hard sciences" require large leaps of logic and faith in order to come up with certain higher level models, such as the Theory of Relativity. Were that not there, where would we be?

So there is such a thing as scientific faith I guess according to you. But luckily I guess, even though I disagree that we need faith to have science. There is obvious differences in say believing in a resurrection then say believing in relativity, the "faith" as you call it would be more concrete. I like concrete.

 

at all, actually. One example is that within religious systems themselves, they do have systems of checks and balances. Governing bodies within those systems are constantly looking at truth claims against their particular standards of measure. Granted that their field of focus may be pretty internal and self-facing, such as validating Mother Mary appearances for instance, but my point is they are not just some ungoverned free-for-all, some anything goes sort of deal.

Yeah and we know how reliable they are. They are like the UFO society to me. I say they don't cut it, because like apologists, they try to make sure things come out there way.

 

They have a system of evaluating truth-claims, it just may not cut the grade for making claims about the world outside themselves for everyone else. The method isn't that broad, but in all honesty, coming back to the 'soft sciences' such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc, the complaint is that they are 'fuzzy' too. Yet, they certainly don't lack value and do indicate reliable, repeatable, results - just not quite so clean and easy as the "hard" sciences like physics.

Its why you get debates over the existence of socrates iirc. But, yeah as compared to religious styles of verification, they have the more deep fuzzy problem to use your words, and I would say less fuzzy, the better.

 

Personally, I see the appeal of 'hard' sciences as a much clearer definitive response to wild, nutty truth claims. Unfortunately, the world actually is not clean sharp lines, and humans indeed do operate in 'fuzzy' ways, incredibly multifaceted truth evaluations and responses. Philosophical Reductionism is appealing, it seems, because it postulates that we can understand everything if we can reduce it to something we can test and examine at the component level and say definitively what is and is not true through those methods of verification. To me, that's as oversimplifying as saying God's Word tells us the facts.

I am reductionist, because I don't believe there is any question beyond a answer. And also, to me, a even mild reductionist stance is beneficial. Take this as a example, I was talking to a christian one time, and I said, I believe all religions are man made inventions. He asked me "Are you serious?" I replied somthing to the effect of, You have to have something more provable then, "the devil did it", because the devil did it is something you can't prove.

 

None of this is easy to say what is the 'right' way to approach it. I tend to see a much more holistic approach as broader in reach. That's why I move my thoughts beyond the physical into the mental and the spiritual. Now with all those, how do we approach truth claims, without it being some willy-nilly subjective, postmodernist free-for-all of anything and everything is true? Is it possible to avoid that without being unrealistically reductionist? I believe it is. Yes.

I don't like the idea of going beyond the physical, without I guess a proof that is tangible, because it feels like a assumption, and all my sense says it an assumption. Look at the born again experience for example, you can't have one if you don't already believe before you say a sinners prayer.

 

So is there such a thing as absolute truth or only increasing levels of understanding. And if you do think there is such a thing as absolute truth how can you separate the factual claims from the spiritual claims of religion? Or are they held by the same criteria?

 

So our culture past still applies today because we carry with us, the mental device of sorts with us today. Well makes sense, otherwise we couldn't evolve socially.