New possibillities

Re: New possibillities
Cyracuz

I disagree. Science cannot deal with problems the same way religion does. I am not a religious person, not even a theist, but I never understood how can science destroy religious belief. But it also cannot confirm religious belief.
Let me give you an example:
Ancient germans believed that lightning and thunder where manifestations of Thors wrath.
A scientist will say: they are electric phenomena.
And, confronted with that answer, a priest of Thor would say: yes, they are electrical phenomena, that express the wrath of Thor.

Religion and science, in general, do not question the same things. And when they do, they do with with different languages - the creation of the world by a God has nothing to do with the theory of the big bang. The theory of the big bang is a theory that departs from the present physical conditions of the universe and by observation tries to understand how they were made possible. Religions give a global explanation - not a description of physical events - from the begining to the present.

0 Replies

I agree with val but for different reasons.

Let's take a look at how Aristotle said the metaphysical facts of the world can be defined:

1)Material Cause
2) Formal Cause
3) Efficient Cause (what created it)
4) Final Cause (purpose)

Until Galileo, the scientific world tried to determine these causes as to what the world is made of - however, Galileo stated that the scientific method could not observe a things final cause (its purpose). There was just no way that humans could experience a things final cause by using the sceintific method.

This has been accepted by modern science and scientists today do not even attempt to define why a thing is here - they just attempt to define what it does, or is made of, etc.

So there seems to be why questions and what questions. Science is only concerned with the what questions, because they truly believe that they cannot determine the why questions.

Religion on the other hand is almost solely concerned with the why questions.

Science will never lead to God - and religion will never lead to metaphysics. They do not attempt to answer the same questions and thier methods are completely different.

TF

0 Replies

You look at the sciences and the religions. Look deeper. Faith is not a product of religion. Faith is in man, so there is religion. In the same way we have science because the urge to understand is in man. So you see, science and religion have more things in common than not. The primal fuel for both is the human spirit (in lack of a better word). The desire is the same. Truth. Wether or not the answers given are true or not makes no difference. The intention is to seek truth. To learn.
I am not saying that there is nothing that separates science and religion. They are not the same, and so they respond to different "reseptors" within us. You needs are satisfied according to your preferences. You might prefer a scientific answer or a theological. Eaches own. But I strongly believe that the truly grand results cannot be achieved until the institution that represents the mystical aspect of our existence works together with the scientific "side". History has shown that religion and science at times confirms eachother, and I cannot tell wich is the best way to the wisdom you need to live a happy life. But I do not believe I have to chose either.

Quote:

Science will never lead to God - and religion will never lead to metaphysics. They do not attempt to answer the same questions and thier methods are completely different.

Who knows? The atom has been known for thousands of years, and the knowledge of it was gained with means that do not satisfy the criteria for beeing accepted as science today. Science does not have all the answers, the search is still on. Once upon a time there were four elements...

0 Replies

Faith was seperate from my conversation above. I think both faith is necessary for both science and religion. A hypothosis for instance takes faith or else experimintation would never be undertaken.

I think when the atom was hypothosized by Democrotus (sp?) it was because faith and science were still blended - there is a much more firm break today.

Science is an objective study - whereas faith is a subjective study. God can never be reached objectively - it is just not possible.

So, in my conclusion - they ask seperate question, use seperate methods, and take seperate viewpoints from which to derive thier answers. I think, Cyracuz, that faith and science are so fundamentally, and philosophically different that they will not arrive at the same types of truths because they do not intend to.

TTF

0 Replies

I do not think it comes down to objective/subjective in this matter. The objectivity of science is merely the accumulated subjectivity of prior ages anyway. Yes, science and religion ask separate questions, take different approaches and all those things you say. But now we must not mistake religious intent or scientific intent with will to power. The oposition between church and science through history has always been a contemporary power struggle rather than a real debate of truths. The church's motive for denying science was that their ability to rule depended on that they had a monopoly on truth. Mainly because they lied. So like I said, will to power is present, but not important in this little argument.

Quote:

faith and science are so fundamentally, and philosophically different that they will not arrive at the same types of truths because they do not intend to.

Do not intend to? "Types" of truth? Their differences are what enables them to critisize eachother so intensely, and that makes them pure and better for it.

0 Replies

Faith is intuition, science is empirical.

0 Replies

The major problem with Cyracuz thesis is that he is setting up premises that simply are not correct.

He wrote:

Quote:

As history progresses it seems that many of the truths put forward by religion are being confirmed by science.

That is an absurdity. A gratuitous absurdity. Science is doing no such thing.

Quote:

Not only confirmed, but elaborated.

That is even more gratuitous...and even more absurd.

Quote:

It seems that science is catching up to the religions when it comes to the grand questions.

No "catching up" to be done. We all know the questions.

The answers are the problem.

Quote:

So, what do you think will happen? Do you believe that science will one day lead to the same place all religions do, to god?

It really doesn't much matter what anybody guesses...because science will be lead wherever science leads it.

If there is a God involved in existence...and if it is possible for science to detect that God...it will. But that seems unlikely.

If there is a God...the God could always reveal itself in an unambiguous way.

So far...that has not happened.

We are left with supposition...either there is no God...or...there is, but the God is not interested in us knowing that It exists.

0 Replies

I think what Cyracuz was saying Frank is that there were certain assertions to scripture that the sciences are proving to be true.

Such as - Jesus existed at a certain time and then historical and archeological evidence has been found to substantiate these claims.

However, I think where Frank is coming from is that Science cannot substantiate claims that are otherworldly. Jesus cannot be scientifically substantiated as the 'Son of Man'.

This is because, even though some individuals have seen evidence to this effect - these claims cannot be substantiated because they cannot be scientifically replicated today.

This is another reason why scienctific claims and religious claims are not the same - they cannot be replicated and repeated.

But - this brings me to a question I wanted to ask you Frank. If I am a credible person - let's say you and I are long friends and you have never seen me lie before. I come by your house and over some beers and tell you about something that I have seen happen recently.

Let's say I had seen a UFO in the sky and I saw it land about 50 yards from me.

This UFO visit cannot be replicated in a lab but it can be independently verified. You find some other people to substantiate my claims. You don't know those people as well but they basically verify what I had seen - with slight 'point of view' differences.

Would you believe me? Would you believe what I had told you had happened?

If so... isn't this what happens with scripture?

TF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

I think what Cyracuz was saying Frank is that there were certain assertions to scripture that the sciences are proving to be true.

Could be...but if that is so...his wording is most peculiar.

Quote:

But - this brings me to a question I wanted to ask you Frank. If I am a credible person - let's say you and I are long friends and you have never seen me lie before. I come by your house and over some beers and tell you about something that I have seen happen recently.

Let's say I had seen a UFO in the sky and I saw it land about 50 yards from me.

This UFO visit cannot be replicated in a lab but it can be independently verified. You find some other people to substantiate my claims. You don't know those people as well but they basically verify what I had seen - with slight 'point of view' differences.

Would you believe me?

I do not do "believing"....EVER.

I would accept what you had to say...(knowing me, with a healthy bit of skepticism)...and then change the subject.

Quote:

Would you believe what I had told you had happened?

I do not do "believing"...EVER.

I would simply accept that you say you saw a UFO...and then move on to something else. If I didn't see the UFO myself...there would be no reason for me to suggest that you actually did...or that you did not.

Of course, I would have to evaluate the story...and see if the parts make a coherent statement. For instance, if part of the story deals with the fact that you were coming back from a party where you had done losts of beer and marijuana...or if you told me that you noticed the UFO just after waking up from a deep sleep...I might be more inclined to guess the story to be false.

But most likely, I would...if pressed...say: "I do not know if TF saw a UFO...I do not know if TF did not see a UFO...and I do not have enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about that issue.

Quote:

If so... isn't this what happens with scripture?

Yeah...in a way.

But I do have lots to assess in the way of scripture.

Here is my take on scripture...specifically, the scripture of the Bible.

Either the words written in the Bible represent a fairly accurate portrayal of revelations of a God...the maker of our universe...or they are the self-serving words of relatively unknowledgeable, relatively unsophisticated, extremely superstitious ancient Hebrew who had good reason to invent a ferocious god.

I have read the Bible fairly carefully...and every instinct of mine tells me that the best possible guess that can be made about that book...all things considered...is that it represents a fanciful, self-serving history of the early Hebrew people...and that it has a fanciful, self-serving mythology intersperced.

There is no way I suggest this is the only possible assessment of the Bible...but it is the assessment I have made...and, since I am comfortable with that assessment, considering all the thought I have put into it...I think it is as good a guess as I can make.

None of the people who guess in the other direction have ever given me any reason to change my mind on that.

0 Replies

I appreciate your honesty Frank - always have. Our discussions have taught me a lot this last year and I appreciate it. You have taught me how sloppy many believers are - and how skepticism is not the antithesis of faith - it is a way of reaching faith. (If God cannot handle one measly humans skepticism - how powerful is he anyway?)

However, I think our discussion has come down to faith. If a person had faith that I was telling them the truth (and there were no obvious reasons where my story contradicted itself or reaosns why I should not be believed) then they could go along with what I said.

I think this faith is the foundation of all religion - and without it - you cannot have a religious belief.

I think the reason that no one has ever convinced you that thier beliefs are valid is that non-scientific methods (independantly verifiable and repeatable) do not apply to religious beliefs. Religious knowledge is personal and subjective. Scientific knowledge is public (or should be) and is objective (when done correctly).

Mix this in with a lot of sloppy belief - and I don't blame you for your frustration with believers. Believers tend to be sloppy, unforgiving, and elitist. It kept me out of the church for 10 years - and I still get pissed off when I see it around me.

I don't think that another persons subjective data for thier belief will ever convince an objective observer like yourself Frank.

Anyway, I wish you a happy new year brother - and I hope you have another great year golfing and doing the things you love to do. Smile

TF

p.s. I agree with your observation - I would like to hear what Cyracuz means by science verifying belief systems. I personally think this is impossible.

0 Replies

Happy New Year to you and yours, Jason.

Although my personal 2004 was terrific...for many, 2004 was closer to horrific.

I hope those people...and all the peoples of the world...have a much, much better 2005.

0 Replies

I did not mean that science can verify historical events. I think I meant precicely what Frank thought I meant. When the relationship between magnetism and electicity was first proven in an experiment, the anticipation that the currents would be circular, rather than straight lined wich was the contemporary scientific view, stemmed from the religious conviction of the scientist who conducted the experiment.

Another example is the genesis. Our way of understanding it has greatly changed the last decades thanks to science. Primarily it is a tale of origin that has been used through time to explain to a person who does not have the capacity to envision causality without somekind of personification of it. It is not incorrect, but it must be read like poetry. As science continues mapping creation I would not be surprised if scientists one day announced that they had discovered how everything came to be from nothing.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I did not mean that science can verify historical events. I think I meant precicely what Frank thought I meant. When the relationship between magnetism and electicity was first proven in an experiment, the anticipation that the currents would be circular, rather than straight lined wich was the contemporary scientific view, stemmed from the religious conviction of the scientist who conducted the experiment.

Often scientific findings are serendipitous. So what?

To suppose that a serendipitous discovery by a religious person validates religion or a "belief" in god...is equivalent to supposing that a serendipitous discovery by an atheist or an agnostic validates atheism or agnosticism.

It doesn't in any of those cases....and even if it did, the serendipitous discoveries by agnostic and atheistic scientists appear to be hundreds fold the number from theistic scientists. Fact is, a poll I saw a while back shows that scientists are OVERWHELMINGLY (over 85%, if I remember correctly) agnostic or atheistic.

Nor does that serendipitous discovery substantiate in any way your assertion, to which I took exception: "As history progresses it seems that many of the truths put forward by religion are being confirmed by science. Not only confirmed, but elaborated."

Any of the evidence (and there is precious little of it) that is offered to substantiate that science is somehow validating basic religious "beliefs" is best considered, at its most charitable, as contrived and self-serving.

Quote:

Another example is the genesis. Our way of understanding it has greatly changed the last decades thanks to science. Primarily it is a tale of origin that has been used through time to explain to a person who does not have the capacity to envision causality without somekind of personification of it. It is not incorrect, but it must be read like poetry. As science continues mapping creation I would not be surprised if scientists one day announced that they had discovered how everything came to be from nothing.

I expect that will come when theists explain how their God came from nothing.

In any case, most scientists do not suppose that "everything" came from nothing...but rather that a singularity expanded (in what is referred to as the Big Bang)...and became what we call "the universe."

Scientists simply do not know what came before the singularity...and don't even bother to speculate on that issue. It is simply too remote.

To suppose, though, that scientists will throw their hands up in the air on the question of "Where did all this come from?" and say, "Well it must have come from God"...is absurd, because all they would be doing is tossing the question one step back farther. Where did God come from?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Often scientific findings are serendipitous. So what?

To suppose that a serendipitous discovery by a religious person validates religion or a "belief" in god...is equivalent to supposing that a serendipitous discovery by an atheist or an agnostic validates atheism or agnosticism.

I am a religious person - I believe in a Christian God - and I still agree with Frank's conclusions here. There are as many examples - if not more - of peoples religious beliefs being disconfirmed. For example, the earth being a perfect stationary circle surrounded by perfect circles traveling in perfect circles was popular for nearly 2,000 years.

I remember when the big bang was first theorized - they thought that the universe would run out of energy and crunch - and the Hindu's jumped all over it saying that thier version of the universe was confirmed - however, I did not see Hinduism die when it was found that the universe would likely expand forever at this rate.

Furthermore, literalist interpreters of scripture would not adhere to your translation of Genesis and reject the Big Bang entirely (it occured over 6,000 years for one). I think you are picking and choosing what 'facts' science has confirmed - and ignoring the ones it has not.

TF

p.s. Frank, three times in a row you and I are in agreement - talk about serendipitous! I called the Vatican - this counts a miracle for you and I. Two more and we are ready for sainthood brother! Wink

0 Replies

I forgot my perspective in all this. But now I have it back. Many theories have been put forward both by religions and science, and many have crumbled. Ideas and inventions are secondary. A scientific discovery is a product of science. It is science in the same way that sunlight is the sun. The same with religion. It is the drive that is important. What we know today will no doubt be proven wrong in the future. Discoveries come and go, but we continue to make them. The interconnection between the arts of man goes through him. No science without god. Who made who is irrelevant.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

p.s. Frank, three times in a row you and I are in agreement - talk about serendipitous! I called the Vatican - this counts a miracle for you and I. Two more and we are ready for sainthood brother!

:wink: :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I forgot my perspective in all this. But now I have it back.

Good! I was hoping that would happen.

Quote:

Many theories have been put forward both by religions and science, and many have crumbled. Ideas and inventions are secondary. A scientific discovery is a product of science. It is science in the same way that sunlight is the sun. The same with religion.

Wow...it didn't take you long to lose it again!

The "theories" put forth by religion are not anything like the theories put forth by science...and in fact, to call what religion spews out "theories" is absurd lingusistically...and is considered "heresy" by most religions.

Scientists put forth theories so that other scientists can attack them and attempt to poke holes in them...refining them and working them as close to proofs as possible.

Religions simply state guesses as facts...and often put people to death for daring to attack them or poke holes in them.

You were far off base when I first challenged you, Cyracuz...and you are getting even further off base in this defense.

Quote:

It is the drive that is important. What we know today will no doubt be proven wrong in the future.

Some things we "think we know" will...some things we think we know won't. In any case...the stuff we actually know...rather than think we know...will never be proven wrong...because if we truly know it...it is correct.

Quote:

Discoveries come and go, but we continue to make them.

Yep.

Quote:

The interconnection between the arts of man goes through him.

Not sure what that means.

Quote:

No science without god.

Give me a break.

Go looking for your perspective. It has gone AWOL again.

Quote:

Who made who is irrelevant.

Then why are you making such a big deal out of your god making everything?

Why not just acknowledge that we do not know what existence is all about instead of trying to inject your god into things?

0 Replies

Cyracuz

Like Frank said, religions do not present theories. They present dogmas.
But I think that religious texts have always two different perspectives. One is the revelation. Any religion has some kind of revelation, in general given by the gods themselves (or supposed to). But those texts also show the human desire to explain things, to give a sense to the world. So, religions talk about the creation of the world, the interference of the gods as explanation for natural events. This part of most religious texts is the one that can colide with scientif theories.
What I mean is this: no science can discuss the existence of God or the soul or life after death. But when a religious text says that the earth is a disc sustained by an oak, or says that the sun moves around the earth, science can present theories, validated by experiments, that are incompatible with those religious dogmas. From scientif theories we can reach the conclusion that most religious statements are false. That has nothing to do with the modification of scientific theories in history. Science can present different explanations to the fact that earth is not a disc on an oak or is not still. But earth is not a disc and it moves.
Because most religions were created in pre-scientific periods, their explanations of natural phenomena are wrong. To me, this is not a matter of opinion.

0 Replies

Look at how the bible describes the first humans.God made adam, and then Eve from one rib of Adam. Now this sounds like a fairytalle. But what does it mean? If we call Adam the first organic cell (wich eventually evolves to humanity), it is not so miraculous that Eve was created from him. Cytogenesis is the most basic reproductionmethod of nature. The genesis does not encompass only humanity, but all of creation.

There is also the tree of wisdom that Eve ate from. They were expelled from the garden of Eden. I understand this as the tale of how, on our way to humanity, we evolved into consious beings and thus, by the power of our abilities were expelled from Eden. Eden is not a place, more a state of mind. Any entity that is not aware of more than the input of his senses at the time, lives in eden still. Animals.

Let me clarify my position once and for all: God is not a personified entity. God is simply the word I prefer when i refer to the total exictence of everything in evolution. So when
I say that God made the humans, God is everywhere, God is everything, it kinda makes sense. But I do not think Darwin is wrong either.

Like you said, religious explanations date from pre-scientific times. In times where a father didn't have words like nuclear energy and light speed to explain the world, he was inclined to use other words when speaking to his son. Because he did not know, and didn't desire to lie to his son, he came up with a genesis that is fairy accurate based on how it had to be: There must be a creative force to set it all off. How easier to explain this than to personify this energy and give it a guise the boy could understand? Religion has led man to the discovery of science. Is then science itself a religious tool?

The question that is relevant to wether or not one understands this is simple: Are you trying to learn or to validate your viewpoints. It is not a question I want answered, just a thought. Smile

0 Replies

New possibillities

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know