Oh dear

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 15 Oct 2005, 14:01

<<With respect, I'd differ with the view shown above, in that the difference IMV is one of hypotheses, not assumptions.

While one recognizes and seeks to learn of the presence of universal conscious being (whatever the name) that suffuses the creation we inhabit,
the other acknowledges the material world but chooses to await delivery of a disectable definable body before acknowledging universal conscious being.>>

A hypothesis is a guess that can be either true or false which means that you can test it and in doing so you gain knowledge. Science uses hypotheses, religion does not. Religion relies on revealed knowledge.

Science is based on some unproven assumptions about the World and the Universe that we live in. Those assumptions are that reality is external to ourselves, observable, testable and plays fair. That means that you can do tests and repeat them to learn how the Universe works. These assumptions may not be provable but they are based in common sense and fit into the way we experience the world, so, therefore, they are rational. Also, they do appear to work. Religion does not share those assumptions. Religion makes the assumption that there is ?something? that is not testable such as god or gods. So, you can have things going contra to natural laws such as iron floating on water simply because of the will of some divine being. Because religion and science have different assumptions about the world it makes them incompatible as regarding any claims to know.

Now, for something to be true from a scientific point of view there is a test that can be done to support the possibility that it is true and can, if the test fails, show that something is not true. The test plus a reasoned argument is then used as proof of a truth claim. In religion something is true by revelation.

To bring this post back to PO, we have a very religious and very spiritual person running the US at the mo; President Bush. Such a spiritual person with his devout belief is not a person to put much attention to physical reality. He is more concerned with what he feels that his imaginary friend is telling him to do. This is an example of religion not being compatible with science and highlights the danger of being guided by religion over reality. I think religion will play its part in how we, as a species, handle PO but I think it will be more for the worse than for the good and if any good comes out of it it will be more by accident than design.

Just a note on me on this point, I?m an ex-Christian and was once very devout (heading towards but not quite fanatical). I have studied religion for many years. I am also a scientist so I have seen religion and science from both sides. I also used to teach Scientific Method at MSc level at a local University. You also have, Billhook, some other interesting religions comments but I feel to comment on them would be well off track for a PO site.

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 17 Oct 2005, 04:07

Isenhand -

I hope you don't feel I'm attempting to promote a spiritual understanding as the more rational option -
science and religion are different belief systems that have IMHO a huge commonality,
however much the poles [zealots] of both traditions may try to deny it.

Both seek to understand what is around them, albeit with different prior experiences,
and both seek to interpret the experiences their searches generate.

Given the multiple catastrophic problems society now faces,
the vast majority of which would not have occured without scientists' diligent paid assistance
at almost every stage of their development,
to suggest that science

"learns how the universe works . . . plays fair . . . based in common sense . . . appear[s] to work . . . "seems to me more than a little rich.
It would seem more accurate to suggest that science has thus far been an utterly corrupt reductionist creed of intellectual superiority over ordinary members of society.

And I fear that a backlash reflecting this view may well develop in the coming years, to our great detriment.

You wrote [of religion] :
"I think it will be more for the worse than for the good and if any good comes out of it it will be more by accident than design. "

I would point out that, (in light of the 52 yrs of problems ignored by science that I've seen),
this statement is at least as applicable to science.

Finally the idea that
"we have a very religious and very spiritual person running the US at the mo;"
seems to me non-sensical -
certainly the vast majority of people of almost all spiritual traditions would question whether there is anything more than cras role-playing going on.
In parallel to this, I guess that rather a lot of scientists would have serious misgivings over the 'scientific rationality' of, say, Edward Teller.

Given that the solutions to the Problematique, of which PO is but a part, lie primarily in resolving the inter- and intra-generational injustice on which society functions,
it would seem essential to welcome positive contributions from the morality-based perspectives of religion,
at least as much as from the a-moral evaluations of science,
which all too often seems to abdicate moral responsibility to its employer.

I think we share the hope that we're not dealing with a zealot here . . .

Billhook

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 17 Oct 2005, 08:18

<<I hope you don't feel I'm attempting to promote a spiritual understanding as the more rational option>>

No

<<Both seek to understand what is around them, albeit with different prior experiences,
and both seek to interpret the experiences their searches generate.>>

Yeap, as I said they have different assumptions about the World and therefore are not compatible.

<<It would seem more accurate to suggest that science has thus far been an utterly corrupt reductionist creed of intellectual superiority over ordinary members of society.>>

No, however, scientists are people and people have problems like that but science aims to understand the World though a rational system. However, there is then the use of science where it can be used to further people?s individual selfish gains which is what it is so often used for and it is there that the corruption occurs not in science as such. Scientists should take part of the blame even if it is only because of scientist?s attitude ?we only discover the knowledge not put it to use?. Although, to be fair, some scientists have protested and tried to do something about the misuse of science. Note also, that religion is quick to use science where it can further a religious objective.

<<And I fear that a backlash reflecting this view may well develop in the coming years, to our great detriment.>>

I would agree, and there is a danger that people will look to ?spiritual guidance? and in doing so abandon rationality and its understanding of reality. Again, bring this thread back to PO. PO is a physical problem and you need a rational understanding of the physical world to successfully tackle such a problem. ?Spirituality? is more do with emotional feeling than reality and hence people can happy go off in completely the wrong direction. Religious or spiritual people often look to their Alpha to solve the problem and thereby divert responsibility and the need for action to someone else, in this case an imaginary someone else. Alternatively they could also do nothing because it is seen as the wrath of God.

<<it would seem essential to welcome positive contributions from the morality-based perspectives of religion,
at least as much as from the a-moral evaluations of science, which all too often seems to abdicate moral responsibility to its employer.>>

Science does, which is the bad part but religion has the wrong view of the World as it is about people and their feelings rather than physical reality so it?s contribution is not positive and is a bigger danger than the turning of a blind eye of scientists to the misuse of science. To solve physical problems you need to sit down and analyse the situation rationally and go where physical reality takes you rather than go where it feels right to go now. You only have to look at Bush to see where spirituality can take people. I don?t see the religious, spiritual contribution of Bush a positive contribution.

renaud · Post by **renaud** » 17 Oct 2005, 19:57

I may not argue on this subject but here is an articlehttp://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html
on the subject of Bible and the americans.

The Christian Paradox
How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong

[/code]

Post by **mikepepler** » 18 Oct 2005, 08:18

renaud wrote:I may not argue on this subject but here is an articlehttp://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html
on the subject of Bible and the americans.

Cheers for the link renaud, that was a very well written article, all the more powerful coming from an Ameican Christian. If only a few more of the Americans who call themselves Christian would read it, and either sort themselves out or admit they were never really Christian in the first place...

desertbear2 · Post by **desertbear2** » 19 Oct 2005, 00:51

Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks.

I live in Virginia, home of some of the wackiest of the rightist christians. These folks are going backward in time. They truly believe in the end times and the rupture. Adam & Eve, Noah's Arc, Jonah and the whale are actual historical fact. They truly believe in hell and the devil as actual quantities. And they believe that open-mindedness and curiosity undermine the pure message of the god of israel.

And they are angry and fiery and full of passion. The old tolerant jesus is out the window. The hard jehovah of the old testament is the god of war....and their preferred model of deity. And they are stealthy in that they are acquiring power in a ruthless manner while hiding their true extremist agenda. And they want to rule the world as god has supposedly promised them.

To fear these folks is not unreasonable.

jev · Post by **jev** » 22 Oct 2005, 17:20

I'm not saying Bush isn't religious (it would be better if he and all political leaders weren't however - but that's another point!) but surely all he's doing with these biblical/religious quotes is appealing to his electorate. They know the Christian demographics in the States, Pat Robinson's Bush's religious mouthpiece (and funder!) and they know where the easy votes lie.

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 22 Oct 2005, 21:48

I think religion and science are compatible as long as the person is able to take a balanced outlook. There's nothing wrong with believing in a higher entity - it doesn't affect your ability to make rational decisions, your ability to understand the world or your ability to think realistically. It all depends on the person involved.

You can't mock religion because some nutter says god told him to do it. That's not the fualt of religion. If he wasn't religious, his inner voice would have told him to do it. It would be the same outcome.

With anything, people can take things too literally or too far.

My dad is a practising catholic and has a phd in chemistry - he taught science for years and lectured for years, and his religion didn't ever affect his scientific outlook, or his capacity to understand the world.

People who believe that fossils were put there to test us, or that jesus is going to lay down eternal damnation on the world etc. are just crazy. You can't blame that on spirituality or religion. If they weren't part of some fanatical religious group they'd probably be part of some fanatical political group.