Religion
- Thread starter wkmac
- Start date
- Status
wkmac
Well-Known Member
That may be true Old but this presents what I think is a real problem here in this thread. The definition of terms. Hope, faith, belief, what do they actually mean? What is the history and the historical meaning of those terms and then how were those terms used and grafted into our culture in regards to social mores, religious or otherwise? Is my use of those terms correct? Is your use correct? Is anyone here at all using the terms correctly?
Seems to me until some consensus on terms is arrived at, any discussion that moves forward for any benefit goes nowhere.
As to the point about religion and science. There was a time where religion and science were not separated at all and yet there were points in history where religion was not also as rigid and dogmatic, even literal. There was space to breath and move around in. And not that science can't have its own rigidity and dogmatism too.
One of my favorite quotes is from the late Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman who speaking to a group of science teachers said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
As to the nature of science and religion, before being crushed by Christianity, there were schools of thought within so-called paganism, a term of abuse imposed by christians, that did wonderful work and yet easily moved in and out of both worlds of religion and science. One example would be the great city of Alexandria and among its philosophical schools often called mystery schools was the central source of knowledge in the Library of Alexandria. Now christians often get the blame for the knowledge lost in Alexandria but it is a bit more complicated than that. Also the muslims had a hand in it as well but the great war of Christianity and Paganism as a result of Christian Orthodoxy post Constantine did not help matters at all. The great Alexandrian pagan scholar Hypatia and her tragic story may well be a good account of this and many feel was the death knell that carried our world into the 1000 years known as the dark ages. I on some level subscribe to that but more generally than specifically to Hypatia herself.
But in regards to science, science holds a great debt to religion and in fact to Islam specifically. As christianity was deep in the throws of ignorance and bloodshed as religion was abused for the sake of power, in Islam an enlightenment was at work. In the late 10th century was born Ibn-al-Haytham who would go on to change the world of science as we know it. And it was interesting that this eye opening moment came about when in the early 11th century, Ibn moved to none other than Egypt and from his learning there emerged what we today refer to as the Scientific Method. More on Ibn-al-Haythem found here but there are many sources should one choose to look.
Yep, it was from the world of Islam that science got its foundational method to which it establishes what is called truth or fact. At TAM (The Amazing Meeting) a few years back, Neil deGrasse Tyson spoke of this very subject along with the fact that much of Astronomy and mathematics came from the Islamic world and during a time christians were locked in their own dungeon of ignorance and abuse, again, not for the sake of religion but for the sake of power. Religion only served as the weapon. Sound familiar? We're not really that complicated you know!
It is also suggested that the Genesis story and what science sez about the creation of our universe matches on some level and I can see why some would argue that. As I said elsewhere, the father of the Big Bang theory, Catholic Priest George Lemaitre, saw the Big Bang and its singularity as the source, the cosmic egg of all being, in his case God. The irony that science has taken the hypothesis of a religious man and moved it forward to offer a secular explanation of our being here. As to the creation stories (yes stories as in more than 1) the english translation does seems to make that claim valid but do the Hebrew source language and culture of the time support such a conclusion?
At another time because it will get in depth in order to do both sides justice, I'd like to take that claim on using the bible itself along with contextual scholarship of the bible and see if such claim is indeed valid in the first place. It may well be so.
The backstory also explains (solves the contradiction) why the order of creation in Genesis Chapter 1 differs from the order of creation in Chapter 2 (thus more than 1 story) and that the Chapter 2 story (7th to 6th century BCE) predates the Chapter 1 (post Babylonian exile) and chapter 1 was to impose the new monotheism to supplant the old polytheism of Chapter 2.
Hmmmm!
Seems to me until some consensus on terms is arrived at, any discussion that moves forward for any benefit goes nowhere.
As to the point about religion and science. There was a time where religion and science were not separated at all and yet there were points in history where religion was not also as rigid and dogmatic, even literal. There was space to breath and move around in. And not that science can't have its own rigidity and dogmatism too.
One of my favorite quotes is from the late Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman who speaking to a group of science teachers said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
As to the nature of science and religion, before being crushed by Christianity, there were schools of thought within so-called paganism, a term of abuse imposed by christians, that did wonderful work and yet easily moved in and out of both worlds of religion and science. One example would be the great city of Alexandria and among its philosophical schools often called mystery schools was the central source of knowledge in the Library of Alexandria. Now christians often get the blame for the knowledge lost in Alexandria but it is a bit more complicated than that. Also the muslims had a hand in it as well but the great war of Christianity and Paganism as a result of Christian Orthodoxy post Constantine did not help matters at all. The great Alexandrian pagan scholar Hypatia and her tragic story may well be a good account of this and many feel was the death knell that carried our world into the 1000 years known as the dark ages. I on some level subscribe to that but more generally than specifically to Hypatia herself.
But in regards to science, science holds a great debt to religion and in fact to Islam specifically. As christianity was deep in the throws of ignorance and bloodshed as religion was abused for the sake of power, in Islam an enlightenment was at work. In the late 10th century was born Ibn-al-Haytham who would go on to change the world of science as we know it. And it was interesting that this eye opening moment came about when in the early 11th century, Ibn moved to none other than Egypt and from his learning there emerged what we today refer to as the Scientific Method. More on Ibn-al-Haythem found here but there are many sources should one choose to look.
Yep, it was from the world of Islam that science got its foundational method to which it establishes what is called truth or fact. At TAM (The Amazing Meeting) a few years back, Neil deGrasse Tyson spoke of this very subject along with the fact that much of Astronomy and mathematics came from the Islamic world and during a time christians were locked in their own dungeon of ignorance and abuse, again, not for the sake of religion but for the sake of power. Religion only served as the weapon. Sound familiar? We're not really that complicated you know!
It is also suggested that the Genesis story and what science sez about the creation of our universe matches on some level and I can see why some would argue that. As I said elsewhere, the father of the Big Bang theory, Catholic Priest George Lemaitre, saw the Big Bang and its singularity as the source, the cosmic egg of all being, in his case God. The irony that science has taken the hypothesis of a religious man and moved it forward to offer a secular explanation of our being here. As to the creation stories (yes stories as in more than 1) the english translation does seems to make that claim valid but do the Hebrew source language and culture of the time support such a conclusion?
At another time because it will get in depth in order to do both sides justice, I'd like to take that claim on using the bible itself along with contextual scholarship of the bible and see if such claim is indeed valid in the first place. It may well be so.
The backstory also explains (solves the contradiction) why the order of creation in Genesis Chapter 1 differs from the order of creation in Chapter 2 (thus more than 1 story) and that the Chapter 2 story (7th to 6th century BCE) predates the Chapter 1 (post Babylonian exile) and chapter 1 was to impose the new monotheism to supplant the old polytheism of Chapter 2.
Hmmmm!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I know its Pat Robertson so nothing is off limits to the extremes of the absurd but Christianity does itself no favors when it tolerates this kind of lunacy. Seems to me one could argue and debate the lifestyle and life choices of David Bowie without such leaps off the cliff of rational and reality. Some argue that the absurdity of the Westboro Baptists are a mere anomaly and on some level this may be true but then again, are other christians just better at nuance?
Robertson: “David Bowie Is Not Dead, He Was Kidnapped By Demons Summoned By Rock Music”
Robertson: “David Bowie Is Not Dead, He Was Kidnapped By Demons Summoned By Rock Music”
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I don't find this as necessarily being a bad thing but I'm sure there will be those with a "god of the gaps" answer. Maybe the truth is that nobody has the answer. And why is that a problem?
The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics
The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics
wkmac
Well-Known Member
What if the universe itself had no beginning (alpha) and no end (omega)? If the universe itself had the characteristics of what we call God as opposed to some human form father figure? What then? Where or in what would we find god, learn about god or begin to understand god? Would we have to completely rethink how we even define the term god to begin with? And where did that word even come from, its origins, original definition?
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
Lustful madness.If that were true, then explain the lottery hysteria of the last couple of weeks?
Yes, we understand planetary motion. And yes, there was briefly an "orbital" theory of atomic motion. It was quickly discarded because it didn't work. That's the nice thing about science - it doesn't hold on to dogma. Our current understanding of the quantum realm is focused on fields and wave particle duality - the very interesting, and confirmed, theory that everything is a probability wave until it decoheres into a particle after being observed. Observed here does not mean "witnessed by a conscious observer," but rather "forced to 'choose' a particular state by any outside thing/event/etc. "
Quantum mechanics is extremely successful as a theory. As with all things, our understanding is not perfect, but so what? Do you require science be omniscient before you accept its conclusions?
Where did I say science relies on faith? You won't find that post because it doesn't exist. I've said repeatedly that it relies on the reasonable and unavoidable assumption that our observations reflect reality in some way and that testing those observations against theories is a good way to learn things. That's not faith in the same way believing in god is faith, it's a necessary assumption for life in general. If we couldn't trust that our senses are in some way related to reality, we couldn't make any meaningful statements about it.
I've never understood why some people are so keen on linking faith and science. It's as if you want to think that science is on the same shaky ground as religion. That's simply not so.
As for your last points, regarding life problems, I'm not sure I've ever said science teaches you how to lead a fulfilling life. Science teaches us the what and the how. It doesn't imply meaning or suggest how to be happy. It simply describes reality. Finding meaning in that reality is outside the scope of science.
That's good for you, but that's your personal journey. We weren't talking about whether or not religion can help you as a person, we were talking about whether it can provide meaningful descriptions and predictions about reality in the same way as science. It can't. It doesn't even have a mechanism for doing so beyond perhaps taking inspiration from a perceived higher power, which doesn't and has never worked with regards to giving us testable theories about reality.
You said science and religion are both a constant search for understanding, after saying they both increase our understanding of the world, and after I jag said that science refines our understanding via testable theories. You have a habit of conflating faith and science, such as claiming that science is faith based, and then calling foul when I press you for details on how faith increases our understanding of the world in the same way as science.
And, as I've said before, I agree, faith and science are not inherently opposed. Some people try to make it so by attempting to discredit science in one way or the other or vice versa; but as far as I'm concerned they fulfill different purposes. The only time I have a problem with religion is when it tries to impose its will in detrimental ways - outlawing birth control, demonizing evolution and science in general, or encouraging ignorance for the sake of maintaining faith. Other than that, if faith works for you, go for it.
Reality is more than the physical universe.
How is explaining my view point preaching? I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone and I've even said multiple times that I have no problem with people who believe faith makes their life more fulfilling.
Does the bible provide a testable theory on anything? I don't see how a similar explanation could even apply to the bible.
I said science isn't a theory, not that it doesn't contain them. It's a means for gaining knowledge.
I've had similar thoughts about the universe - specifically whether or not consciousness couldn't be considered as a fundamental force in the same way gravity and EM are interwoven into the fabric of reality, and that we are acted upon by it and experience it in the same way massive objects experience gravity.
Of course, this is just a fanciful notion and I can't imagine how we would test it.
If so, we have no way whatsoever to confirm or deny that notion. Either way, if true, it's totally meaningless, as if anything from outside our reality had any effect on it, it would effectively cease to be outside our universe, rendering your assertion moot.
Wait, you think the world was created 10k years ago?
Because your reply is ridiculous. Religion says stop asking? Really? Maybe you're just not asking the right question. I mean, really, would you ask a philosophy professor to explain the deepest aspects of the internal combustion engine?
How about taking it for what it's worth. As far as religion and whatever it has to teach, the earth was created 10,000 years ago. Don't like that. Ok. But it really is beside the point. As far as your life today goes, science and religion are in agreement: the earth was formed long before you were born.
While true that many religious people have had a profound impact on science, I would take issue with your phrasing. I would say that science owes a great debt to religious people, and maybe even the religious impulse to search for understanding and meaning, but not religion itself. Religion is in most cases stagnant by nature, but certainly its infrastructure has in the past provided a fertile ground for science to flourish. Without the Catholic churches proclivity for obtaining and restoring ancient works, for example, we probably would've lost many very old and very important works of Western philosophy/proto science/biology, etc.That may be true Old but this presents what I think is a real problem here in this thread. The definition of terms. Hope, faith, belief, what do they actually mean? What is the history and the historical meaning of those terms and then how were those terms used and grafted into our culture in regards to social mores, religious or otherwise? Is my use of those terms correct? Is your use correct? Is anyone here at all using the terms correctly?
Seems to me until some consensus on terms is arrived at, any discussion that moves forward for any benefit goes nowhere.
As to the point about religion and science. There was a time where religion and science were not separated at all and yet there were points in history where religion was not also as rigid and dogmatic, even literal. There was space to breath and move around in. And not that science can't have its own rigidity and dogmatism too.
One of my favorite quotes is from the late Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman who speaking to a group of science teachers said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
As to the nature of science and religion, before being crushed by Christianity, there were schools of thought within so-called paganism, a term of abuse imposed by christians, that did wonderful work and yet easily moved in and out of both worlds of religion and science. One example would be the great city of Alexandria and among its philosophical schools often called mystery schools was the central source of knowledge in the Library of Alexandria. Now christians often get the blame for the knowledge lost in Alexandria but it is a bit more complicated than that. Also the muslims had a hand in it as well but the great war of Christianity and Paganism as a result of Christian Orthodoxy post Constantine did not help matters at all. The great Alexandrian pagan scholar Hypatia and her tragic story may well be a good account of this and many feel was the death knell that carried our world into the 1000 years known as the dark ages. I on some level subscribe to that but more generally than specifically to Hypatia herself.
But in regards to science, science holds a great debt to religion and in fact to Islam specifically. As christianity was deep in the throws of ignorance and bloodshed as religion was abused for the sake of power, in Islam an enlightenment was at work. In the late 10th century was born Ibn-al-Haytham who would go on to change the world of science as we know it. And it was interesting that this eye opening moment came about when in the early 11th century, Ibn moved to none other than Egypt and from his learning there emerged what we today refer to as the Scientific Method. More on Ibn-al-Haythem found here but there are many sources should one choose to look.
Yep, it was from the world of Islam that science got its foundational method to which it establishes what is called truth or fact. At TAM (The Amazing Meeting) a few years back, Neil deGrasse Tyson spoke of this very subject along with the fact that much of Astronomy and mathematics came from the Islamic world and during a time christians were locked in their own dungeon of ignorance and abuse, again, not for the sake of religion but for the sake of power. Religion only served as the weapon. Sound familiar? We're not really that complicated you know!
It is also suggested that the Genesis story and what science sez about the creation of our universe matches on some level and I can see why some would argue that. As I said elsewhere, the father of the Big Bang theory, Catholic Priest George Lemaitre, saw the Big Bang and its singularity as the source, the cosmic egg of all being, in his case God. The irony that science has taken the hypothesis of a religious man and moved it forward to offer a secular explanation of our being here. As to the creation stories (yes stories as in more than 1) the english translation does seems to make that claim valid but do the Hebrew source language and culture of the time support such a conclusion?
At another time because it will get in depth in order to do both sides justice, I'd like to take that claim on using the bible itself along with contextual scholarship of the bible and see if such claim is indeed valid in the first place. It may well be so.
The backstory also explains (solves the contradiction) why the order of creation in Genesis Chapter 1 differs from the order of creation in Chapter 2 (thus more than 1 story) and that the Chapter 2 story (7th to 6th century BCE) predates the Chapter 1 (post Babylonian exile) and chapter 1 was to impose the new monotheism to supplant the old polytheism of Chapter 2.
Hmmmm!
Of course, this ties into the issue of definitions you mentioned. It is very important to arrive at a common consensus for terms, as these types of debates often hinge on or fall apart over common terminology or the lack thereof. The distinction between religion itself/religious people or religious sentiment being a good example.
Last edited by a moderator:
I love the Westboro Baptist Church. They're so absurd that some people have suggested that they are 'deep cover liberals' working to discredit the religious right from within.
No. I think that for what religion has to teach us today, it really doesn't matter if it was created 10,000 years ago or 38 million years ago. Personally I'm fine with 150 million years ago--give or take several million.
- Status
Similar threads
