Can science and religion be mutually relevant?

but I think if you study the subject or religion and spirituality widely and deeply, you will find many elements that cannot be simply explained away as 'figments of the imagination'. In a secular society, this is a very convenient way of dealing with all such things. It is basically denial - you simply deny that any such things are real.But that becomes another belief system.

There are ways of being rational about spirituality and religion. This approach could be described as 'philosophical spirituality'. It is very well represented in both Western and Eastern philosophy.

I am not espousing a particular faith-based system. I am a student of comparative religion, philosophy, etc, within which there are many different beliefs, ideas, practices and so on. And on the basis of what I have learned, I challenge the model of 'scientific materialism' which is the default position of the secular outlook. I don't think it stands up; it has holes in it.

You can find many real accounts of WW2 in the pages of a Captain America comic book. In 2000 years, will historians look back and say that Captain America was real because they found evidence of WW2, and can validate the locations mentioned in the stories? If so, will people in that time think that the amazing feats of Captain America really happened?

Faith is nothing to hide behind. Using the faith card is a concession, that the idea cannot be defended on it's merits alone.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpZnv8Vp-E[/youtube]

A
R
T

Science itself no longer supports materialism. So what I challenge materialism with, is that nobody knows what anything really is or really what the f***k is going on, to put it bluntly. Most of us live in a completely artificial world which could vanish in an instant. The financial system almost collapsed less than two years ago, and it could happen again.

According, most individuals have a superficial and confused self-understanding and live in a very shallow, hedonistic society which offers no real depth of understanding, while our Western lifestyle is destroying the environment and driving species to extinction.

You have very stereotyped ideas of what constitutes 'science and religion'. There are wholly new models of both emerging which cut right across all the conventional models.

failures art wrote:

You can find many real accounts of WW2 in the pages of a Captain America comic book. In 2000 years, will historians look back and say that Captain America was real because they found evidence of WW2, and can validate the locations mentioned in the stories? If so, will people in that time think that the amazing feats of Captain America really happened?

Faith is nothing to hide behind. Using the faith card is a concession, that the idea cannot be defended on it's merits alone.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpZnv8Vp-E[/youtube]

A
R
T

Yes

Faith is, by definition, a belief in something in the absence of evidence for, if one has evidence, one doesn't need faith

According, most individuals have a superficial and confused self-understanding and live in a very shallow, hedonistic society which offers no real depth of understanding, while our Western lifestyle is destroying the environment and driving species to extinction.

stevecook172001 wrote:

failures art wrote:

You can find many real accounts of WW2 in the pages of a Captain America comic book. In 2000 years, will historians look back and say that Captain America was real because they found evidence of WW2, and can validate the locations mentioned in the stories? If so, will people in that time think that the amazing feats of Captain America really happened?

Faith is nothing to hide behind. Using the faith card is a concession, that the idea cannot be defended on it's merits alone.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpZnv8Vp-E[/youtube]

A
R
T

Yes

Faith is, by definition, a belief in something in the absence of evidence for, if one has evidence, one doesn't need faith

Yes. As John Locke so astutely pointed out, there are those who are only too happy to have evidence for what they believe. But when they find they have no evidence, they suddenly come to the conclusion that they never wanted evidence in the first place, and cry out that only faith is important. Reminds one of La Fontaine's famous fable, "The Fox and the Grapes".

kennethamy wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:

failures art wrote:

You can find many real accounts of WW2 in the pages of a Captain America comic book. In 2000 years, will historians look back and say that Captain America was real because they found evidence of WW2, and can validate the locations mentioned in the stories? If so, will people in that time think that the amazing feats of Captain America really happened?

Faith is nothing to hide behind. Using the faith card is a concession, that the idea cannot be defended on it's merits alone.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpZnv8Vp-E[/youtube]

A
R
T

Yes

Faith is, by definition, a belief in something in the absence of evidence for, if one has evidence, one doesn't need faith

Yes. As John Locke so astutely pointed out, there are those who are only too happy to have evidence for what they believe. But when they find they have no evidence, they suddenly come to the conclusion that they never wanted evidence in the first place, and cry out that only faith is important. Reminds one of La Fontaine's famous fable, "The Fox and the Grapes".

Actually it was one of Aesop's fables.

If you can't argue with evidence or logic, argue against the use of evidence and logic. It is an argument from envy.

A
R
T

kennethamy wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:

failures art wrote:

You can find many real accounts of WW2 in the pages of a Captain America comic book. In 2000 years, will historians look back and say that Captain America was real because they found evidence of WW2, and can validate the locations mentioned in the stories? If so, will people in that time think that the amazing feats of Captain America really happened?

Faith is nothing to hide behind. Using the faith card is a concession, that the idea cannot be defended on it's merits alone.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpZnv8Vp-E[/youtube]

A
R
T

Yes

Faith is, by definition, a belief in something in the absence of evidence for, if one has evidence, one doesn't need faith

Yes. As John Locke so astutely pointed out, there are those who are only too happy to have evidence for what they believe. But when they find they have no evidence, they suddenly come to the conclusion that they never wanted evidence in the first place, and cry out that only faith is important. Reminds one of La Fontaine's famous fable, "The Fox and the Grapes".

Actually it was one of Aesop's fables.

If you can't argue with evidence or logic, argue against the use of evidence and logic. It is an argument from envy.

A
R
T

failures art wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

stevecook172001 wrote:

failures art wrote:

You can find many real accounts of WW2 in the pages of a Captain America comic book. In 2000 years, will historians look back and say that Captain America was real because they found evidence of WW2, and can validate the locations mentioned in the stories? If so, will people in that time think that the amazing feats of Captain America really happened?

Faith is nothing to hide behind. Using the faith card is a concession, that the idea cannot be defended on it's merits alone.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLpZnv8Vp-E[/youtube]

A
R
T

Yes

Faith is, by definition, a belief in something in the absence of evidence for, if one has evidence, one doesn't need faith

Yes. As John Locke so astutely pointed out, there are those who are only too happy to have evidence for what they believe. But when they find they have no evidence, they suddenly come to the conclusion that they never wanted evidence in the first place, and cry out that only faith is important. Reminds one of La Fontaine's famous fable, "The Fox and the Grapes".

Actually it was one of Aesop's fables.

If you can't argue with evidence or logic, argue against the use of evidence and logic. It is an argument from envy.

A
R
T

Was it Aesop? I should have looked it up. I think it is an argument from desperation.

you can in no way imagine such a realm or the kinds of realities that might exist in it. But just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it does not exist.

Atheists can imagine gods as well as theists can,

THAT is what 'believing' is about. It is instrumental, not hypothetical, if you can appreciate the distinction.