Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Then there's the God v Science question.


Forums Forums Humanism Then there's the God v Science question.

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 105 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #303486
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    That’s what I like about your magesteria CC, you aren’t trying to reconcile them, or to excuse one or the other. The two complement each other. You can’t deny reality exists without redefining the word and part of reality is that our minds don’t fully know it.

    #322050
    @halster
    Participant

    God v Science question is inutile today.  It was a question a few decades ago.

    #322058
    @write4u
    Participant

    Susan Said; I think religion and science should ultimately be reconciled.

    I used to think that also and wrote many posts in defense of that approach, hoping to close the gap that has existed ever since science infringed on the idea of  Gods ruling the universe.

    Note that whereas science does not really acknowledge theism as scientific to begin with, religion is in direct conflict with science.

    As theism was established long before the true investigative sciences, science posed a direct threat to religion.  The story of Hypatia is a stark example of religious resistance to science and scientists.

    Hypatia (woman astronomer)

    Following the lead of Peter, a reader for the church, the Monks of Nitria pulled Hypatia from her seat and dragged her through the city to Caesarium, the Church of Caesar. There, they stripped her naked, and beat her with broken pieces of pottery and scraped the skin from her body. Even though she was now dead, they were not yet finished. They tore her body, limb from limb, and took it to a place outside the city called Kinaron. There, they burned the remains of this noble lady upon a great pyre.

    http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia2.htm

    #322087
    @widdershins
    Participant

    Reconciling science and religion…that’s not really a thing.  Science works perfectly as it is.  And it has not only no problem with religion, but nothing to say about religion.  If God were to come down tomorrow and say, “Here I am”, science would respond, “Yeah, we got nothing here.” because science is the study of the natural.  The supernatural, until it can be defined naturally, is beyond the scope of science by design.

    And this means that science has no opinion about religion (though obviously some scientists do).  Science is not concerned with religious teachings and stories, only observation and experimentation.  If you can’t detect it and you can’t make predictions with it then it’s useless to science.  Science doesn’t care what your beliefs are.  It is the religious who have the problem when the facts don’t match up with their beliefs.  So what would a reconciliation look like?  If science were to remain what it is, the best method of discovery ever created, then religion, alone, would have to change.  Religion would have to give up the beliefs which are contrary to the facts.  They would see it as giving everything to science and getting nothing back.  But from a scientific perspective, they wouldn’t “get” anything from religion.  No matter how much religion gives up, this does absolutely nothing for science because, as I said, science isn’t concerned with religion.

    I don’t think the word “reconciliation” describes that.  There would be no “reconciliation” between science and religion.  Religion would simply be accepting known reality as it is.  It would have nothing whatsoever to do with science.  I suppose religion would be reconciling their beliefs with known reality as described by science, but the reconciliation would be entirely one-sided.  It wouldn’t be “between” science and religion.  It would just be religion accepting reality.

    #322129
    @write4u
    Participant

    Widdershins said; It would just be religion accepting reality.

    Perfect example is that two popes have declared “evolution to be fact” on advise of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

    This is in direct conflict with the story of Genesis, but was justified as “evolution is true but only after divine creation of species”, which of course is not a logical argument in the face of the definition of evolution.

    • This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by Write4U.
    #322200
    @halster
    Participant

    Abrahamic Christian monotheism was an argument from its conception. Today the argument has little meaning but continues for believers and nonbelievers

    #322208

    Hal:  God v Science question is inutile today.  It was a question a few decades ago.

    I’m confused how can you say that given the political reality in this country?  Namely, there is a hostile take over attempt being executed against our American government, by people who believe they have god in their back pockets, and who want to see our country turned into a theocracy.

    They use their God of the EGO to deny the reality or significance of Earth sciences and worse.

    Can you explain what you mean?

    #323720
    @sree
    Participant

    @citizenschallengev3

    Religions are human constructs for enabling people to reconcile themselves with the seasons and hardships of their lives and to enable human societies to function in a civil organized manner

    Is there anything that is not of human construct? There is nothing outside of “you”, which is also a human construct.

    Science on the other hand is humanity’s recipe for learning about the physical world and its processes as honestly as possible.

    This is where you wander off into the maze of confusion where every construct is broken off from each other. And the make-belief relationship among all constructs is called science.

     

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Sree.
    • This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Sree.
    #323724
    @write4u
    Participant

    CC-v.3 said: Science on the other hand is humanity’s recipe for learning about the physical world and its processes as honestly as possible.

    Sree said:This is where you wander off into the maze of confusion where every construct is broken off from each other. And the make-belief relationship among all constructs is called science.

    What on earth are you talking about.. You are the one living in a maze of confusion and broken constructs of theism. May I remind you that there is only one worldwide accepted method of investigation into the nature of the universe and the world,  “Science”!

    OTOH, how many varieties of religions and theistic beliefs are there? Moreover, theists have been known to kill each other over their different belief constructs. Yet you dare suggest that science is a fractured confused belief system? I suggest that you clean your own backyard from religious trash before you start accusing scientists of littering the landscape.

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Write4U.
    #324813

    Well, write4U, that one shut up Sree.

    I tip my hat.

    sree: “Is there anything that is not of human construct?”

    Seriously Sreeeeeeeee?   Rhymes with eeeeeek, and sounds like finger nails on a caulk board.

     

    Sree, Do you think the world disappears when you close your eyes or your mind goes to sleep?

    #332793
    @yoramdiamand
    Participant

    Hi, the personal assistant of John Lennox asked me to read the Gospel of John. It did not agree with me: “The Jews are sons of the devil, not of Abraham, since Abraham refused to kill his son and the Jews did not refuse to kill Jesus. Jesus is the son of God, and the Messiah, top dog Jew. Thus the father of Jesus is the father of the Jews. Then the devil and God are one and the same.” After reading John I wrote a letter on ecology and God. John might have helped me to be a nonconformist. Sincerely Yoram

     

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/s2oktg7goky70by/Thermodynamics%20with%20and%20without%20photosynthesis%20by%20Yoram%20Diamand.pdf?dl=0

    #332794
    @yoramdiamand
    Participant
    #332796

    Conclusion: Since photosynthesis was not incorporated in the heat death theory, the theory is not relevant. If photosynthesis is included in the calculation, we have to worry about the conditions applicable to the heat death of the world. This does not, by any means, dismiss our worries about climate change. We can create green areas, stop deforestation and combat desert growth to absorb some CO2 and try to avert the heat death of the world at the same time.

    Wow that was quite the ride.  Sadly does not compute within this head.

     

    #332800
    @lausten
    Keymaster

    @yoramdiamand, please don’t post links only. We are here for discussion, so discuss, tell us about you. Also, refrain from generalizations about classes of people, like “Jews” even when quoting others. Since I don’t know you, I don’t know how it “did not agree with you”, and shouldn’t have to sort through 13 pages of charts and text to figure it out.

    #332801
    @yoramdiamand
    Participant

    Hi, pleased to meet you. My father was a deported Jew, so I was not generalizing on that matter. As you might have seen the link was the same twice, it was a small fight with the computer. My father knew John to be anti Jewish. So this is the reason why, I told him. As for God versus Science, I was very compact in earlier versions, and the professor asked me more info. So I cannot do it right can I? As for the discussion in short: Darwin does not mention the decrease of entropy in evolution, Isaac Asimov does. In the age of Darwin people thought the energy of the world was constant and the entropy of the world urged towards a state of maximized chaos. That is why old school thermodynamics do not speak of a gain of molecular complexity in evolution as a decrease of entropy. Asimov explains it is the sun with photosynthesis and the food chain that invest in molecular complexity: a decrease of entropy. Ilya Prigogine did not mention photosynthesis as the source of our food chain. To some a decrease of entropy is called creation, but to me it is just being complex. I think a decrease of entropy should be part of the evolution theory, and does not exclude God permanently but it is amatter of words. Kind regards Yoram

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 105 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.