Science and religion

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

Anyway, I don't pretend that a simple sign solves it all. At the same time I do believe that at times God has and does reveal Himself in ways that demand a logical and rational response.

Well, I think that if by God or by natural processes the basic operations of the universe remain consistent, then we should judge all things rationally or no things rationally. If God operates inconsistently (like establishing laws of nature and then violating them with miracles), then we'll never know when to be rational and when not to. The third possibility is that it's our own reason that's faulty, and we must always question what we think we understand.[/quote]

Quote:

PS. I can give a non-hypthetical example of such a situation that has been important one to me, if you're interested.

Please share it.

Fido wrote:

If you see something, does that not equate to knowing it.

No, not at all. The rote sensory experience of seeing something in no way depends on all of the organizing and associating functions of consciousness that contribute to knowing something.

dpmartin wrote:

Aedes
i realy hope this helps:

You know if it is God's Will that man should know Him then the only way that man can know God is that God would reveal Himself to you, which on one hand "why it shouldn't be incumbent upon God to reveal himself to humans?" is a valid question. But on the other hand you have to ask my friend you have to ask Him. Been there. My plea was God I don't know any one who knows you. Problem resolved, tho I did not expect an answer, nor did I look for those who did, after I asked. If you ask He will answer. Which I hope explains "explain rationally why it's incumbent upon humans to discover God, " not necessarily required to discover, but ask in sincerity.

May the Good Lord be with you

I value your point of view on the matter, and I respect your beliefs. Deep down I feel that if people are good to one another, then whether or not God's inspiration is at the heart of their actions, we can all live the ideal of godliness however the world appears to us, whether there is a God in the end or not. And if there is a God, and if there is a judgement, I hope we are judged on how good we were to other people more than how much devotion or belief we showed.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

No, not at all. The rote sensory experience of seeing something in no way depends on all of the organizing and associating functions of consciousness that contribute to knowing something.

How far are you going to make an issue of an experience independent on all the organizing and associating functions of consciousness. Perhaps you should be ignored and should ignore yourself.

Have you ever considered that presidential candidate -Dennis Kusinich who admitted to seeing a UFO? LIke; What the hell is that? I don't know. I can't identify it. But I saw it. -And those high priced press people had a big yuck about that. Why? Should he have lied? Said nothing, perhaps? Does seeing a UFO mean you believe in moon men? The point is, I have never seen one, but I have seen all kinds of crap fall out of space from little motes to huge showers. The fact is that I have seen worse things, after a fashion. I see the death that comes out of industry and foreign policy. I see the lies and the corruption that come out of washington. I see the terrible obscene grasping for power among our religious institutions, and sure, I'll tell you what I see; but I would rather be ignored than make an issue of it. How does that song go? Every body knows, that's the way it goes, and everybody Knows. When everyone has as their sole defense the ability to deny reality, or to deny consequences based upon their ignorance, how bad should anyone want to rip the veil off of anyones eyes? People will figure things out for themselves. Why kill yourself delivering the news?

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

How far are you going to make an issue of an experience independent on all the organizing and associating functions of consciousness.

Enough insofar as to distinguish seeing from knowing.

Quote:

Perhaps you should be ignored and should ignore yourself.

Perhaps.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Enough insofar as to distinguish seeing from knowing.

That is easier said than done. What people say they know, depending upon the person, usually requires an abundance of evidence, and yet, any amount of proof of what may be invisible does not equate to knowledge. Knowledge is never absolute, but reality is absolutly what it is, and experience of reality visually- is as essential as any other sense. So seeing is believing if only because we cannot begin to know what we cannot see. It is not unusual to have ignorance equated to blindness, and wisdom equated to sight.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

What people say they know, depending upon the person, usually requires an abundance of evidence, and yet, any amount of proof of what may be invisible does not equate to knowledge.

Lest you forget, you are the one who proposed that seeing is knowing and then went down a logical argument based on that presupposition. Are you contradicting that now?

Quote:

reality is absolutly what it is, and experience of reality visually- is as essential as any other sense. So seeing is believing if only because we cannot begin to know what we cannot see.

Are you now equating believing with knowing?

Irrespective of what reality absolutely is, our faculty of vision presents us with a very limited slice of that reality. Our high acuity vision has a narrow angle of view, we can only see light between ~ 400 and 700 nm wavelength, only of a limited dynamic range (around a 2^12-fold range of intensity, or ~ 12 "stops" in photographic terms), etc. Furthermore, our ability to recognize something depends on the amount of time we see it, whether it's obstructed or not, and how intense our attention to it is.

So what we see with our eyes is some sort of distillation of reality, but it's physiologically limited from the very beginning, and this all occurs before we begin to think about what we've actually seen.

Finally, we have senses that are much more in tune with reality (i.e. less prone to error) than vision.

1. Proprioception: I know where my fingers are. If I lift one hand above my head I know that it's up there whether I can see it or not. If I extend two fingers I know which two I've extended.

2. Balance and equilibrium: I know if I'm at rest; I know if I'm accelerating; I know if I'm changing directions; I know if I'm tipping over.

3. Position: I know if I'm right-side up. I know if I'm upside-down.

These are DIFFERENT than the sense of "touch" (they're both neurologically and functionally different), and there is far less room for flawed interpretation than there is with vision, especially fleeting visions of things that are unfamiliar to us.

1 Reply

@Scattered,

On the matter of Faith (mentioned a few postings back), Knowledge, and I will throw in obedience, reason being that I believe the word trust instead of( faith/obedience) is better because of religion's hack job on the meaning of faith in the world. If you trust something you response with an action. It has been state by Apostle Paul:
" Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

If you trust, or trusted your parents when it came to dealing with things in the world such as staying out of trouble, or how to handle things on your own, though you did not yet experience what you are told of, if you trusted your parents you would respond to such things as they said, and got the result that they said you would. (This is excluding any malfunction in this area such as lousy parents).

The Lord, Jesus the Christ came and said. If you trust the Word of God then you will respond. Faith is not blind, faith requires the knowledge (as in given by the parent). How are you to know what to do without the knowledge? Is it not wiser to learn then do, then do find and out your wrong and pay the price, or loss out. In the case of the scripture above Paul goes on to use the examples of the OT people of faith or trust in God's Word. In other words trusting God's Word is to respond as if you know it's the Truth.

Jesus witnessed God the Father as the Son to the world so that the world may know God. If you don't trust what Jesus said then how could He have done that which He did if what He said is not true.

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

How, again, is your parent's knowledge your knowledge? Certainly, they can give well considered suggestion, but how will you know what it is to have a hangover if you never have one? How will you know that loving your neighbor is good, if you do not love your neighbor?

Trust is not the whole of faith. Trust is part of the practice of faith, to trust others and to trust yourself. But Trust cannot replace knowing.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Lest you forget, you are the one who proposed that seeing is knowing and then went down a logical argument based on that presupposition. Are you contradicting that now?

Not really. That is the difference between religion and science. If you don't believe in joimes, science will magnify them. If you don't believe in God, no power of magnification will prove a thing.

Quote:

Are you now equating believing with knowing?

Not really, but believing is in no sense diminished by knowing. To believe what there is no evidence for is difficult. The great value of myth in all cultures is that it gives an explanation of why things are as they are. Why the bear has no tail is as useful as the seven day creation. And there needs to be no great detail. The world of creation only has to be this world, and in the sense that it does not match, the myth is in trouble.

Quote:

Irrespective of what reality absolutely is, our faculty of vision presents us with a very limited slice of that reality. Our high acuity vision has a narrow angle of view, we can only see light between ~ 400 and 700 nm wavelength, only of a limited dynamic range (around a 2^12-fold range of intensity, or ~ 12 "stops" in photographic terms), etc. Furthermore, our ability to recognize something depends on the amount of time we see it, whether it's obstructed or not, and how intense our attention to it is.

I agree with this. We do not see everything, and yet we can sense a degree of reflected light from the matter we are about. Let me put it this way. You may not see everything that is there, but how often do you run into matter that is there that you can't see is there unless you have had six for the ditch. Sight corresponds to reality. Computers have made a farce of photographic evidence. We have other explainations of visions; but seeing is believing as a first step to knowing.

Quote:

So what we see with our eyes is some sort of distillation of reality, but it's physiologically limited from the very beginning, and this all occurs before we begin to think about what we've actually seen.

Finally, we have senses that are much more in tune with reality (i.e. less prone to error) than vision.

1. Proprioception: I know where my fingers are. If I lift one hand above my head I know that it's up there whether I can see it or not. If I extend two fingers I know which two I've extended.

2. Balance and equilibrium: I know if I'm at rest; I know if I'm accelerating; I know if I'm changing directions; I know if I'm tipping over.

3. Position: I know if I'm right-side up. I know if I'm upside-down.

These are DIFFERENT than the sense of "touch" (they're both neurologically and functionally different), and there is far less room for flawed interpretation than there is with vision, especially fleeting visions of things that are unfamiliar to us.

I would suggest that these are gross sensitivities compared to vision, but not inessential. These senses normally work together, and help people to sense when reality is out of balance. If I may give you an example. I have always had trouble with my ears, sinuses, and balance. Yet, I am a retired Ironworker who used to walk that high Iron. I don't want to suggest that I fall over in the dark, but I get conflicting information from my ears, and so always kept my balance by sight. To have a welding hood come down accidently while crossing a beam has cost men their lives, and put others in the hole. I want to tell you, there is nothing worse in my case, other than standing on top of a column, connecting, having to look into a clear blue sky for a piece of iron coming on the hook with nothing more than the sun for orientation. I hope life never demands such courage from me again. I don't know how I did it.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

How, again, is your parent's knowledge your knowledge? Certainly, they can give well considered suggestion, but how will you know what it is to have a hangover if you never have one? How will you know that loving your neighbor is good, if you do not love your neighbor?

Trust is not the whole of faith. Trust is part of the practice of faith, to trust others and to trust yourself. But Trust cannot replace knowing.

If you had three times the computers and twice the fingers and you multiplied each by nine do you think you could communicate to one with out a mind? Faith is easy. It is the lazy man's knowledge. Everyone with some gumption doesn't stop askin with the first answer.

1 Reply

@Fido,

I have trouble calling faith the lazy man's knowledge. Faith implies knowledge. How can you have faith that is not arbitrary if you have no understanding of your faith?

Faith seems very difficult. How many times did Jesus reprimand someone for having too little faith?

1 Reply

@Scattered,

Didymos Thomas

Lets see;
The experience (knowledge) of the parent passing on what they know to the child. Would that be, could that be, knowledge? Sorry I didn't know I had to explain that deep concept to you.

"Trust is not the whole of faith."
So why don't you tell us what the difference is between trust and faith.

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

Quote:

The experience (knowledge) of the parent passing on what they know to the child. Would that be, could that be, knowledge?

The experience of the parent is the parent's knwoledge. It is not the experience, nor the knowledge of the child.

Quote:

"Trust is not the whole of faith."
So why don't you tell us what the difference is between trust and faith.

I didn't say there was a difference. I said Trust is not the whole of faith, that trust is not everything. Trust is part of the practice of faith, but faith still needs understandings. Trust cannot replace understanding. Again, if you have no understanding of a belief, it is an arbitrary belief.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Yet, I am a retired Ironworker who used to walk that high Iron. I don't want to suggest that I fall over in the dark, but I get conflicting information from my ears, and so always kept my balance by sight... I don't know how I did it.

I don't know how you did it either. But you are completely correct that these senses need to complement each other. Proprioception, vision, and balance are neurologically linked (and the pathways well worked out). This is why you get carsick from reading in a car -- because your vision and your balance are telling your brain different things (and these link up with your parasympathetic nervous system which, via vagal effects, can cause nausea and fainting).

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I have trouble calling faith the lazy man's knowledge. Faith implies knowledge. How can you have faith that is not arbitrary if you have no understanding of your faith?

Faith seems very difficult. How many times did Jesus reprimand someone for having too little faith?

What you may be seeing in the gospels is the influence of Paul. James was much more keen on acts. And the Muslims, like James believe they will be judged on the their deeds. There has been a real cycle in Christianity, first away from Judaism and then back again. I like the Muslims only because they manage to be more Christain. Usually.

0 Replies

@Scattered,

Didymos Thomas
"The experience of the parent is the parent's knwoledge. It is not the experience, nor the knowledge of the child. "

Then your saying that what is known as in 2+2=4 that information, knowledge, know how, can not be passed from one person to an other. How is it that one needs to experience 2+2=4 when the experience of the other that passed it on, is sufficient in the real world? You know, schools, education, degrees. It seems in your mind that would be irrelevant, because you didn't experience it. Therefore if you don't know it or experience it, it does not exist. Therefore how can it be knowledge unless you experience it. That's a ruff way to go through life, and frankly an immature view of things.
***********
"I didn't say there was a difference. I said Trust is not the whole of faith, that trust is not everything. Trust is part of the practice of faith, but faith still needs understandings. Trust cannot replace understanding. Again, if you have no understanding of a belief, it is an arbitrary belief."

Last I checked, if one is not the whole of the other then they are not equal therefore there is a difference. So ether faith is trust, or there is a difference between the two. Which is it?

How is it that trust is not all of (or not equal to) faith but yet faith still needs understanding and trust can not replace faith but yet you say you said there is no difference but yet you say there is.

Once again you say one thing, then another, without a point, insisting that you have one that should be responded to.

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

Quote:

What you may be seeing in the gospels is the influence of Paul.

I doubt it. Paul's Gospel was the last written Gospel, much to late to influence the earlier works of Mathew or Mark, or even Luke. Not to ignore the influence of Paul and his Gospel - from that text, many concepts were adopted by mainstream Christianity which are not found anywhere else in the Gospels.

Quote:

James was much more keen on acts. And the Muslims, like James believe they will be judged on the their deeds. There has been a real cycle in Christianity, first away from Judaism and then back again. I like the Muslims only because they manage to be more Christain. Usually.

I do have to agree with you here. Jesus is the second most prominent character in the Quran, and they take his words very seriously.

When Jesus speaks of faith, in the first three Gospels anyway, I think faith implies works, deeds. If you have real faith, then your actions will reflect your faith. If you do not have real faith, your actions will reflect this as well. Somehow (well, I have some ideas about it, but that's another story) the Christian church has placed so much influence on faith without understanding, that some even argue all one must do is ask forgiveness from the Lord, as if saying some magic words changes everything. This is horribly dangerous, especially to those who buy into such notions.

Quote:

Then your saying that what is known as in 2+2=4 that information, knowledge, know how, can not be passed from one person to an other.

No I'm not. Information can be passed on, not experience or knowledge, these must be verified by the person. How can I have the experience of my parents only by hearing their stories?
I am told 2+2=4. I notice that if I have two pens, and find two more, I now have four pens. If I discovered that instead such a situation left me with five pens, I would at least have some critical questions for whoever instructed me on 2+2=4.

Quote:

How is it that one needs to experience 2+2=4 when the experience of the other that passed it on, is sufficient in the real world?

Is it suffieicnt just to be told something?
If someone say's "God is over there!" do you take their word for it, or go have a look for yourself?

Quote:

It seems in your mind that would be irrelevant, because you didn't experience it.

Didn't experience what? School? I have a high school diploma (not really, but we'll just play along for the point) and went to high school for four years to get it. How is this not experience?
Similarly, if you go to college, take the classes, read the mateiral, write the papers, ect, you had the experience.

Quote:

Therefore if you don't know it or experience it, it does not exist.

What? You keep making the boldest assertions about what I'm saying, despite me never have said anything of the sort. If you have no experience of it, you, yourself do not know it. You may have a portion of another's knowledge of something through the report of another, but this is not your knowledge.
I have never seen a zebra, but I do not contest their existence. I might say, they are white with black stripes because I have seen them on TV, but even this is not my knowledge, it is someone elses being told to me.
If I go to Africa, and see the zebras, then I have knowledge of them - I have seen them, and all the hues of black and white they have, smelled them, watched them run, eat and live.

Quote:

That's a ruff way to go through life, and frankly an immature view of things.

When we've wiped away your assumptions about my position on the matter, you may want to reconsider this.

Quote:

Last I checked, if one is not the whole of the other then they are not equal therefore there is a difference. So ether faith is trust, or there is a difference between the two. Which is it?

That faith is comprised, in part, by trust. Trust is faith, faith is not trust.

Quote:

How is it that trust is not all of (or not equal to) faith but yet faith still needs understanding and trust can not replace faith but yet you say you said there is no difference but yet you say there is.

Your misconceptions about my arguments aside:
All of faith requires understanding - trust requires understanding, honesty requires understanding, ect. How can trust replace something that trust requires?

Quote:

Once again you say one thing, then another, without a point, insisting that you have one that should be responded to.

The only point I have is to bring up what appear to be incoherent claims, and root out the misunderstanding.

You compared trusting God to trusting parents, and I agree this is a good comparison; they all love you very much, and want the best for you, certainly have no intention to lead you astray.
The problem is, just like you should not take anything you are told as true until you know for yourself, you should not take that which is even supposed to be the word of God (the Gospels, scripture, teachings) as true until you know for yourself.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Is it suffieicnt just to be told something?

For many things, yes it is. Have you gone and verified all of the things you 'know', like that the earth is round and that Michael Jordan is tall?

And in a non-circular way, how have you verified any religious belief? How have you verified that Jesus ever lived? How have you verified the divinity of the scriptures that recount his story (let alone their accuracy)? Unless you speak Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, how have you verified that the translated scriptures bear any resemblance to their original?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

If you tell me there is a horse walking down the street, I can go to my window to verify this. If you tell me Michael Jordan is tall, I can't look out the window to verify that claim. We have to ask ourselves, what can we do to verify X claim? How much can we do to verify it?
We also have to ask ourselves, how outlandish is the claim? The more outlandish, the more verification is needed. Also, how important is the issue? I may take your word that MJ is tall, because I really don't care, but if we talk about God, that is important, and just someone's word is not enough.

Quote:

Have you gone and verified all of the things you 'know', like that the earth is round and that Michael Jordan is tall?

As for these two bits of knowledge, I've seen the curviture of the earth when the sun rises, and I've noticed that you see the top of a ship's mast before the rest of the ship; a dear friend of mine has met Michael Jordan in person - aparently he is taller than most, though, my friend says he seems taller because he is so famous. She was a little star struck.

Quote:

And in a non-circular way, how have you verified any religious belief?

Well, depends on what you call religious. I've verified that compassion is a good thing to practice towards all people, for example.

Quote:

How have you verified that Jesus ever lived?

As a historical figure, a man named Jesus lived and was crucified, but that's about all I know. I think we can make some well informed quesses about things he said, where he lived, ect.

Quote:

How have you verified the divinity of the scriptures that recount his story (let alone their accuracy)?

Their divinity? AS being any more divine than any other text? No. Their historical accuracy? No.

Quote:

Unless you speak Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, how have you verified that the translated scriptures bear any resemblance to their original?

Luckily for me, and others who do not speak those languages, some people do speak them. I can read what they have to say about the matter, and make an informed decision.

I'm not saying that the learning of others is of no use to us. What I am saying is that being told something is not simply enough. Especially when we consider God, and religion. Think for yourself. However dangerous the endeavor.

0 Replies

@Scattered,

All I'm saying, of course, is that except for our own personal experiences, almost everything we know boils down to something that we just have to accept without much investigation. My patients have to accept nearly everything I say based purely on their confidence (or lack thereof) that I know what I'm talking about. And with the exception of my own research and my own experiences, everything that I know as a medical subspecialist comes from my confidence in other people's research.

So in other words, the sufficiency of just being told something is a case-by-case determination -- and differs from person to person.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

To some extent I agree, but I think there is more to this. We certainly have our own reason to wade through the claims of others, or is this of no value when facing the claims of our parents? If our parents say "The sky is green, the ocean is blue" we accept the arbitrary difference? Hopefully not.

I imagine you had your own faculties of reason, and if those faculties noticed what seemed to be a problem, you asked your instructor. If your instructor's reply is unsatisfactory, you can read a book, ask another teacher, ect. Similarly, your patients have their own faculties of reason and can ask questions of you, or have a second opinion.

Also, isn't their a hierachry of concern? If someone says, for example, "I met a guy named James in England; he was a nice fellow." why should I reject this? I'm not sure I'd care enough to explore a rejection, and even if I did, what could I do? Go look for James? But if someone says "God is here!" or "God is there!" this is very serious, and important - worth a great deal of investigation, and careful consideration. Further, there is no reason to accept something until you are certain about it when the matter is so significant. For James, who care? For God, great care should be taken.

2 Replies

Science and religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know