SubJeff on 7/9/2010 at 18:54
Quote Posted by Queue
- Religion is the perpetuation of an ideal.
This is just a very narrow statement. I suspect you're talking about specific organised religions.
Kolya on 7/9/2010 at 20:31
Quote Posted by demagogue
Thinking about it that way, the tension isn't so much between science vs religion, but science AND religion vs a humanist perspective
An excellent change of perspective. A humanist will find common grounds on both sides, posing the question of happiness.
CCCToad on 7/9/2010 at 21:17
Quote Posted by fett
This is religion's most singular strength and danger. There's a mob mentality inherent to religion that doesn't exist in any other entity with such a widespread influence. When you can get 8000 men to sit in a stadium and collectively agree that they are all evil at heart
Are we talking about religion or football fans jeering the other team? ;)
On a serious note, It isn't just religion that has that mob mentality. The same thing could be said of any extremist political ideology in the 20th century.
st.patrick on 7/9/2010 at 21:55
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Are we talking about religion or football fans jeering the other team? ;)
On a serious note, It isn't just religion that has that mob mentality. The same thing could be said of any extremist political ideology
in the 20th century.
coughgreatfrenchrevolutionetc.cough
Telliamed on 7/9/2010 at 22:14
feh... People can't even manage peaceful coexistence of religion and religion. Good luck with all that.
Brian The Dog on 7/9/2010 at 22:28
Science = model of universe, checked by experimentation.
Religion = Belief in a supernatural deity or deities.
The two only conflict if the supernatural deity impinges on reality. This is not the case in Deism, is marginally so for Islam, and is a bit more for Judaism & Christianity. Druidic religions are way-towards science and religion being in competition.
The problem is usually that people either (a) don't understand what science is, or (b) don't understand what religion is.
demagogue on 7/9/2010 at 23:28
Quote Posted by Brian The Dog
Religion = Belief in a supernatural deity or deities.
Plenty of religions don't have deities or any supernatural elements at all ... High-path Buddhism, at least Zen (at most there's samsara, but there's some debate to what extent it has to be "supernatural" and to what extent Zen needs it); Taoism; Confucianism definitely doesn't have supernatural elements; Unitarianism; Some version of deism and naturalism ... The deism of Jefferson and Hobbes (whose God was a physical being obeying physical rules); 19th Century theosophy; a 19th Century brand of scientism; humanism... Also there's some question to what extent some supernatural beliefs are really "supernatural"... Pantheism can just be a version of panpsychism (everything is conscious); or many supposedly "supernatural" doctrines if you really look at how they are actually used ... I think many times when people actually use the word "miracle", I mean how they are actually functionally using the term (putting aside how they might
say they're using the term; I think those are two different things), they aren't talking about the physical way it was caused but the fortuitous timing and circumstances, what it personally meant to them. I'm not sure they really *mean* that the sub-atomic particles of the guy that happened to be walking by to save them didn't actually physically move to make the guy walk by them to save them (for one thing, that would mean the guy wouldn't have walked by and it would have defeated the whole "miracle" part of it if they insisted on it not being "natural", not being about a physical guy walking.)
All this is also aside from the fact that the "natural" vs "supernatural" distinction isn't actually very clear. People can't see electricity but they impute its existence into wires the same way they might impute a spirit or consciousness in a brain or a non-physical being ... We don't call it "supernatural" because we "know" electricity "really" exists, but our brain experiencing it fills in the gap with an imagined experience all the same. Then there was Russell who said the term "physical" may not have any intrinsic meaning but is just a proxy term for things we've discovered. After we discover it we suddenly call it "physical". So actually it isn't a very helpful term in distinguishing the "real" world from a "supernatural" world. Are the branes in string theory natural or supernatural before we know whether they exist or not? And plenty of "supernatural" doctrines have physically-possible manifestations ... other dimensions, your consciousness being reinstated in another brain after your death, possibly higher-order organizations manifesting consciousness -- so to the extent these are "supernatural", it's not necessarily physical theory limiting them, but the fact that they are wildly improbable or not thought about the way physical theory would say they should be. But now "supernatural" isn't really the hook to make these arguments.
Edit: Sorry, this doesn't really get to what *is* a religion then. Just some thoughts about relying too much on the "supernatural" vs "natural" distinction. I'll have think about what I think religion might be and save it for another post, I guess.
daniel on 8/9/2010 at 00:21
You know, I'm a pretty devout Catholic (gasp), and I have a decent knowledge of a broad range of subjects from physics and math. If I drew a Venn diagram of what I know from science and what my beliefs cover, they wouldn't intersect. Perhaps I don't know enough of each?
What I don't get is why people keep thinking that science and religion have to answer the same questions. Would you use math to come up with a dessert recipe? Certainly some people would try to calculate the perfect dessert, but how well would that turn out compared to the creativity of a chef?
Similarly, why would religion answer the questions of where we came from, or why the world is the way it is? Religion can still say "God's will" and have its book of Genesis, but people need to be aware when the bible is to be interpreted. This is the domain of history and science where facts can be proven or reliable references used.
I also think science needs to stop trying to answer moral questions. "When does a human have a soul?" Medical science can answer when the fetus might become capable of feeling pain, or the heart starts beating. Many cannot accept that the religious concept of "soul" should have its questions answered by religion when they don't even believe in it.
The new atheism that is being preached has as its number one commandment - "God's existence cannot be proved by science, therefore He does not exist." I can understand the desire to want undeniable proof of God, but what would you do if you had it? What is the scientific value in knowing that there might be moral absolutes in this world? That Man has a soul?
It seems to me from a religious perspective that religion and science have no problem coexisting. Stephen Hawking can say all he wants about the creation of the universe, and if he can prove it mathematically and experimentally I will be pleased that another answer to the puzzle of nature has been answered.
There are a few zealous individuals that speak up and pretend they represent all of a sect or order; they are only the loud voices that are listened to since no one else has a problem with new ideas or the ones that are quoted so that every issue has its opposing force to make it interesting. These loud religious people don't have enough faith in their own religion to accept new ideas that may alter their own perception of how the world and God interact. So they deny what is known.
I would think, then, that those using science to preach against God's existence or the belief in religion have some kind of moral dilemma or something that weighs heavy on their conscience. The idea that they may one day suffer for their actions that separate them from God; that they cannot live a life full of easiness and pleasures and still have salvation after death is abhorrent. So they deny what is believed.
In short, my answer to your question is that they will peacefully coexist when people have enough confidence in science to not feel the need to bother with religion or enough faith to not feel threatened by new scientific discoveries.
CCCToad on 8/9/2010 at 00:25
Quote Posted by st.patrick
coughgreatfrenchrevolutionetc.cough
True, but the 20th century alone had enough crazy secular movements to show that religion isn't the only cause of insanity in the world.
Phatose on 8/9/2010 at 01:31
Quote Posted by daniel
The new atheism that is being preached has as its number one commandment - "God's existence cannot be proved by science, therefore He does not exist." I can understand the desire to want undeniable proof of God, but what would you do if you had it? What is the scientific value in knowing that there might be moral absolutes in this world? That Man has a soul?
The commandment is more along the lines of "If god is so intangible as to have it's very existence be questionable, then it does not interact with our world, and is thus meaningless." When something is completely undetectable, by it's nature it has no effect on the world at all - and if it's not having any effect on the world at all, what meaning could it's existence have?
Anyway, were there to be proof, we proceed to investigate god's nature. It's existence alone is not sufficient to prove souls or moral absolutes, but with proof of existence, we can proceed further down practical study. And eventually, we reach the point we do with all leaders, and either embrace or rebel.
In short, it brings the question out of the realm of authoritarian regimes and philosophical word games, and back to physical reality, where the rules are at least fairly well defined.
