| Muckraker
Posts: 235 Joined: 13 Jan 2012 |
DANGER- MUST SILENCE: Matthew Jabour:
Theology, while certainly viable in its own way, cannot compete with science. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. What does “compete” mean? I am saying that creationism is not science. Very true. Unfortunately, for people who practice fundamentalism, you will never be able to make a convincing case. You know why? Because creationism is not a science. It is a RELIGION. Strictly speaking, creationism in and of itself isn’t a religion. It’s a particular doctrine of a few particular interpretations of a few particular religions. Now, I myself am a Christian. I myself believe in God, and I know that without religion, this world would be a darker place. But it’s not a debatable subject. I strongly disagree. It is possible to debate religion, and theologians have done so for generations. It is just that in our modern age of fundamentalism, where the shallow doctrines of unlearned followers dominate the discourse, that it doesn’t happen. You don’t see Pope Francis standing behind a lectern and debating the Ayatollah. Because religion can’t move. I suspect the reason you don’t see such debates has much more to do with politics and the fact that in today’s climate it wouldn’t be to anyone’s benefit. But you are wrong when you claim religion can’t move. It can move, and it does move. We can observe it moving as we look at the historical record. Movie Bob even gave us an example recently through the evolution of the character of Satan. Hell, we can even watch the notion of God himself evolve over the course of the books that make up the Bible. There is no way to fundamentally alter the way a religion feels. Sure there is. How do you think fundamentalism arose out of mainstream Christianity in the first place? How do you think Protestantism sprang from Catholicism. How else did Christianity arise from Judaism. Religions are constantly changing to reflect their followers (what sad statement does this make about the Christianity of modern America?). It is entirely in a different field from science, Well, yes, but that doesn’t make any of other claims you’ve made about religion true as a result. The title of this thread is wrong. Religion is compatible with science. And we have evidence to prove it:
Here we have a medieval illumination made at the end of the 10th century shows Otto III being enthroned, and the proof we have of the compatibility of science and religion rests in Otto’s left hand – the globus cruciger. The globus is an ancient symbol of deities’ domination of the world. In antiquity there were many depictions of gods like Jupiter holding (or holding their foot on) the globus, and when Christianity came into prominence a crucifix was added to make the image exclusively Christian. Now, the globus’s representation of dominion over the world can only have come from a society that understood the world to be round. The Greeks established that the world was round well before the birth of Christ, and contrary to the wild tales many Americans tell, this wasn’t secret knowledge that had to be re-discovered by Christopher Columbus. It was well known and widely proclaimed by mideival Christians, including even Bede the Venerable. Now, the notion of our world as spherical directly contradicts the literal text of Genesis. According to Genesis, God created the world with the waters in the firmament above or set below the Earth. Like most Mesopotamians, the original writers of Genesis held to a flat-Earth cosmology. So how could medieval Christians have not just accepted the idea of a spherical Earth, but embraced it to the point that it could be a symbol of their God’s worldly dominance? The answer is simple- they didn’t rely exclusively on our modern, fundamentalist approach to religion. Medieval Christians can be faulted for a great many things, but in one way they were better than modern Christians. They knew their holy book was a tool for devotion, not a manual to literally describe the truth of the material world. They were comfortable with the idea that some parts of their religion were metaphorical. They were comfortable with the truth that in order to understand their religion, they would have to interpret it. Attempts to treat the Bible as literal truth as I understand it didn’t arise until the Age of Reason, as a reaction against science. But this reaction is not an essential part of religion as a whole, it’s just a political movement from a few members of a certain religion. What I’m trying to say is that you cannot base your science on religion. They are ‘incompatible’ because you cannot get one from the other. They should be kept completely separate from each other, otherwise it all ends in disaster. |
| Muckraker
Posts: 254 Joined: 27 Jul 2011 |
Matthew Jabour: What I’m trying to say is that you cannot base your science on religion. But can you base your religion on science? Matthew Jabour: I respectfully disagree. Its only a disaster when you base your science on religion. This is to say on predetermined conclusions. When you base your religion on science you avoid that trap. More importantly you get an objective morality that simple humanism lacks. |
| 21 POSTED: 7 February 2014 2:35 pm | |
| Gone Gonzoonmouseover=”new Tooltip(this,’I wouldn\’t click on me if I were you.’,{title:’Miracle of Goats<div class=\’subtitle\’>Awards</div>’})” v:shapes=”_x0000_i1044″>
Posts: 1632 Joined: 16 Jan 2013 |
Third-eye: But can you base your religion on science? …I respectfully disagree. Its only a disaster when you base your science on religion. This is to say on predetermined conclusions. When you base your religion on science you aviod that trap. More importantly you get an objective morality that simple humanism lacks.Have you read Asimov’s Foundation series? A major theme is religion constructed around science and technology. Still, it doesn’t approach objective morality, exactly– I fail to see how we could derive one from scientific principles. |
| Third-eye | 22 POSTED: 7 February 2014 3:56 pm |
| Muckraker
Posts: 254 Joined: 27 Jul 2011 |
Silvanus: Have you read Asimov’s Foundation series? A major theme is religion constructed around science and technology.Sure, it’s a classic. Silvanus: It’s simple really. Science shows that dark matter/gravity seeks to slow time and shrink space. When you analogize this to morality “good” becomes what slows time and shrinks space. “Good” then is found in words like “life”, “growth”, “prosperity”, “health”, “freedom”, “flourish”, “longevity”, “exploration”, “wisdom”, etc. “Bad” then is the opposite notions, found in words like “death”, “stagnation”, “drought”, “sickness”, “confinement”, “wither”, “stymied”, “parochial”, “foolishness”, etc. You can go farther and say that the purpose of life is to mimic the universe’s general relativity through special relativity. We mimic general relativity through our technology of transportation and communication. Its no accident the Einstein developed special relativity while contemplating time on a moving train. It is through such technology that we slow time and shrink space. It’s also no accident that throughout history, it’s the culture with the most advanced forms of transportation and communication that becomes the dominant social, political, and military power of its time. From Roman roads through British sea-power to America’s dominance in aerospace, world hegemony has always been based on technology that slows time and shrinks space. Morality has the same bases. |
| Pulitzer Laureate
Posts: 850 Joined: 27 Jul 2008 |
Third-eye: Science shows that dark matter/gravity seeks to slow time and shrink space. When you analogize this to morality “good” becomes what slows time and shrinks space…You’ll need to explain how this equalisation occurs objectively for “Science” to have any kind of determinable base objective morality. As it stands, all you’ve done here is made a very large assumption, asked that we go along with it, and then used skewed thinking in conjunction to agree with yourself. “Gravity makes things fall down, so down is good” doesn’t really translate in any meaningful way. This reminds me of Sam Harris’ talks about scientific morality – wherein he essentially wants to have his cake and eat it to. He believes spiritual enlightenment and morality should absolutely be a goal of scientific research… despite being an atheist, and not believing in the spiritual. He’s been rightly dismissed by a lot of people on both sides of the discussion because of this hypocritical thinking. An atheistic worldview makes any kind of absolute morality authority impossible. Harris is, essentially, attempting to turn science into one – and it just so happens to agree perfectly with him. Its one of the many reasons why I believe religion will never be killed off. Pull down the Gods, and we’ll just worship something else. We’ll simply call it “science” instead. We’re already seeing the seeds of such “thinking” today. |
| 39 POSTED: 9 February 2014 12:38 pm | |
| Muckraker
Posts: 254 Joined: 27 Jul 2011 |
Zeh Don: You’ll need to explain how this equalisation occurs objectively for “Science” to have any kind of determinable base objective morality.Not sure what you mean. As I said, it’s an analogy. It’s just a way of ordering the universe. Besides, for me it just seems obvious, reasonable, and natural that there to be a link between the physical and spiritual. Zeh Don: Well of course that’s a distortion of what I said. “Down” is simply a consequence of warped space. It’s the warping that’s important. It slows time and shrinks space. Zeh Don: Sorry, not familiar with Mr. Harris. Personally I believe in link between the physical and spirital. Zeh Don: I agree. In fact I’m counting on it. |
| Silvanus | 40 POSTED: 9 February 2014 1:39 pm |
| Gone Gonzoonmouseover=”new Tooltip(this,’I wouldn\’t click on me if I were you.’,{title:’Miracle of Goats<div class=\’subtitle\’>Awards</div>’})” v:shapes=”_x0000_i1071″>
Posts: 1632 Joined: 16 Jan 2013 |
Third-eye: Well of course that’s a distortion of what I said. “Down” is simply a consequence of warped space. It’s the warping that’s important. It slows time and shrinks space.Why should it be objectively “good” to slow time and shrink space? The forces that cause this to happen have no will or consciousness. Zeh Don: What is the “spiritual”, precisely? It doesn’t sound very scientific. |
| Third-eye | 41 POSTED: 10 February 2014 9:30 am |
| Muckraker
Posts: 254 Joined: 27 Jul 2011 |
Silvanus: Why should it be objectively “good” to slow time and shrink space?I suppose its a kind of naturalism, a faith in the fundamental “wisdom” of the universe, in the way the universe works. Understand, 95% of the mass of the universe does nothing more than capture and corral the other 5%, and thereby cause gravity. Gravity slows time and shrinks space. So 100% of the mass of the universe is involved in the process of slowing time and shrinking space. Can 100% of the mass of the universe be wrong? Silvanus: I agree, no consciousness. But no Will…? Silvanus: The spiritual is simply the desire to be “one” with the universe, to be part of the universe, and, most importantly — of highest spirituality — to understand our place and purpose in the universe, beyond mere notions of survival and existence. It’s the opposite of nihilism. It’s the answer to the age-old question, “What’s it all about?” And yes, its not very scientific. |
| Silvanus | 42 POSTED: 10 February 2014 9:54 am |
| Gone Gonzo
Posts: 1632 Joined: 16 Jan 2013 |
Third-eye: I suppose its a kind of naturalism, a faith in the fundamental “wisdom” of the universe, in the way the universe works. Understand, 95% of the mass of the universe does nothing more than capture and corral the other 5%, and thereby cause gravity. Gravity slows time and shrinks space. So 100% of the mass of the universe is involved in the process of slowing time and shrinking space. Can 100% of the mass of the universe be wrong?It cannot be wrong or right– those are terms you can’t meaningfully apply to natural, unguided processes. Third-eye: How can you have a will without consciousness? A will requires thought. The moon cannot be said to have a will when it causes the tides. Third-eye: “Being one with the universe” doesn’t really mean very much either, when it comes down to it. Understanding our place in the universe is one thing– and what we understand of it so far has been gleaned from scientific process. That’s how we understand what we do about cosmology, about the ecosystem, about biology. Understanding our “purpose” is quite another (assuming we have an objective one). Even if we did, I see no reason to connect it to the existence of spirits, or “higher” planes of existence. |
| 45 POSTED: 10 February 2014 11:47 am | |
| Muckraker
Posts: 254 Joined: 27 Jul 2011 |
Silvanus: It cannot be wrong or right– those are terms you can’t meaningfully apply to natural, unguided processes.Is it unguided? I’m a Teleolgist. I believe the universe, or a large part of it, has a purpose and a goal, and that is to eliminate time and space and the baryonic matter that can not exist without it. Silvanus: Well of course simple cause and effect needs no will. Perhaps “Will” isn’t the best term, but we do talk about the “will to survive”. Does that require thought? We see it in the most basic and simplest one-celled organisms. Is there a thought process going on? When you pull your hand away from an open flame do you think about what you’re doing? No, but you certainly “willed” your hand away. Again I believe mass seeks a result and has a goal, and so I say it “wills” the elimination of time and space. Silvanus: I agree. I don’t believe in any of that crap. |
| 47 POSTED: 10 February 2014 12:10 pm | |
| Gone Gonzo
Posts: 1632 Joined: 16 Jan 2013 |
Third-eye: Is it unguided? I’m a Teleolgist. I believe the universe, or a large part of it, has a purpose and a goal, and that is to eliminate time and space and the baryonic matter that can not exist without it.You said earlier you agree the universe does not have a consciousness. In what sense can it have a “goal”? The usual definition of the term requires intention. Third-eye: Perhaps “Will” isn’t the best term, but we do talk about the “will to survive”. Does that require thought? We see it in the most basic and simplest one-celled organisms. Is there a thought process going on? When you pull your hand away from an open flame do you think about what you’re doing? No, but you certainly “willed” your hand away. Again I believe mass seeks a result and has a goal, and so I say it “wills” the elimination of time and space. Instinct and self-preservation are present without conscious thought, that’s true– but they’ve also only ever been observed in life-forms. There’s no evidence whatsoever to suggest the laws of physics can exhibit the same traits as organisms. Besides, it’s arguable whether such instinctual survival mechanisms actually do require a will. A single-celled organism preserving itself is probably more akin to a chemical reacting with another. Third-eye: Ah, my mistake. The term “spiritual” has a lot of baggage, keep in mind– for the majority of people, that’s exactly what it implies. |