Are science and religion converging?

rosborne979 wrote:

This is a little off track for this thread, but let me ask a few other questions:
Does anyone think that a person can have a concept of *God* which is not awe inspiring and impressive to them? In other words, can someone ever have a concept of God which doesn't impress them?
Depending on the answer to this question, can it be said that a common thread in everyone's definition of God is that it must be a concept which is awe inspiring and impressive to them?
Does this lead to a conclusion... that anyone who is not impressed with a particular "God" concept, therefor can not believe in *that* God?

If memory is the craddle of the concept of time, the sense of awe might be that of deity. However it cannot lead to a conclusion that a person devoid of memory and without impression does not live in time and in the realm of deity.
As a person without memory may not notice time aging with the passage of time, a person without the sense of awe might not notice deity living in the light of deity.

0 Replies

satt_focusable wrote:

If memory is the craddle of the concept of time, the sense of awe might be that of deity. However it cannot lead to a conclusion that a person devoid of memory and without impression does not live in time and in the realm of deity.
As a person without memory may not notice time aging with the passage of time, a person without the sense of awe might not notice deity living in the light of deity.

RESPONSE: If indeed the central awe component of the memory impressions are focus in a way that allows for some of that to occur, we could infer (perhaps even demand) that any concepts of deity or whatever passes for "deityism" purporting to influence in such a circumstances is indeed doing so. And under any circumstance, cannot -- CANNOT -- be used as justification.

That is a line in the sand for me.

0 Replies

Anyhow, even Dawkins relies on statistics which presupposes the untestable hypothetical result of infinite trials of tossing a coin.

0 Replies

Every time I see the human ocular iris in a microscope I'm in awe of God's
creativity.

0 Replies

H'aven (where's da bird?);
consider the fact that the iris is one of very few ways to control light, so, until that series of mutations led to it, vision would have been impaired.

If "and there was light" had occurred, everyone would be blind! Laughing

0 Replies

Got to add something here that I just found, courtesy of the ......Bee.......;

Evidence #00065833497
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7073

So there we have it;

"The C. elegans are primitive organisms that share many biological characteristics of humans."
They "have two sexes: males and hermaphrodites, which are females that produce sperm. A hermaphrodite worm can self-fertilize for the first 300 or so eggs but later usually prefers to accept sperm from males to produce a larger number of offspring."
Obviously "sex" began with the hermaphrodite female, with the male turning up as a later mutation, which seems to have added a bit of "umpf"!

Guess its time to go back and edit all those bibles;

The story of "Eve and Adam" Twisted Evil

0 Replies

One of the important point of two sexes in biology is how they emerged and what is the merit of them to be fixed in the course of evolution. I can also question: why two not three?

0 Replies

Science and religion are, of course, quite different. Both may be considered belief systems but science is different from religion in two ways

1. Beliefs in scientific theory are only considered valid when
supported by empirical, repeatedly observable phenomena. There is no overall belief that is considered undeniable, no "Gold
Standard" to which new data is constantly compared to when new
data comes to the fore.

2. Any and all theories (beliefs) in science are subject to
revision or even complete rejection when current data supports
such actions.

In the first instance in religious circles we find an opposing
school of thought. Given a certain observed event, real world
explanations are not always rigorously sought. Aberrant or chance
happenings are automatically attributed to mystical causes that
revert back to initial beliefs. This is especially true when
events or visions are experienced in close proximity to Hollowed
places or individuals (Once such a "miracle" is attributed to an
individual, he or she then seems to attract more of the same. The
causative agent, here too, is explained differently by science
and religion). Those with the appropriate beliefs elevate those
events that are singularly rare and unrepeated to miracle status.
Those more scientifically inclined remain incredulous towards
such "Deus Ex Machina" type of explanations and yearn for
investigations of that type that might be sanctioned by James
Randi.

Secondly: basic religious beliefs, such as in an all-powerful
all-knowing deity, are rarely, if ever, changed. Indeed, given an
entity so defined, how could this change be effected? The
explanation of any significant data is always subject to
pseudo-logical distortions so that they may be afforded an
opportunity to "fit" into a foregone religious conclusion.
Conversely, in science if the data "doesn't fit" you must "acquit
" the theory in question.

As to the teapot theory the axiom to Sherlock Holmes corollary mentioned in BoGpWo's post of Sat May 03, 2003 12:24 pm is:

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary explainations.

JM

0 Replies

Hey Frank,

In regards to your recommended article that tries to refute the logical axiom that one cannot prove a negative we find the following statement on which the author bases his argument:

Quote:

"Thus, "there are no crows in this box" entails "this box contains something other than crows" (in the sense that even "no things" is something, e.g. a vacuum). "

Sorry, the fact the box doesn't contain crows does not insure it contains anything. Also "vacuum" is the quintessential scientific definition of the absence of anything. So a box containing a vacuum is truly empty. It's all downhill from there.

The difficulty in the proof of a negative is that one must disprove an infinite number of positive scenarios. Heuristic proofs are always time consuming but this one is a doozy.

JM

0 Replies

J.M. ..
1. The "infinity" could not be a repeatedly observable phenomenon, which already appears in the most simple case of explaining the plausibility of (1/2,1/2) probability of (H,T) of tossing a coin.

2. Even alchemy could reject some of its assumptions if they did not work.

0 Replies

Hi Satt,

If you have the time could you expand on your post in which you state:

Quote:

"J.M. ..
1. The "infinity" could not be a repeatedly observable phenomenon, which already appears in the most simple case of explaining the plausibility of (1/2,1/2) probability of (H,T) of tossing a coin."

I don't understand but am willing to learn.

Thanks,

JM

0 Replies

JM; excellent posts, very clearly evaluated.
And of course a reference to one of my posts always raises my opinion of the poster!! :wink:

and Satt; good point "why two not three?". I guess the third option, atrophied from lack of neccessity (or lack of "fun" Twisted Evil

)
And in that mode; one of my favourite comments on evolution would be the allusion to bilatteral symetry; if there had been a "designer" involved, what idiot would have given us two of everything, arms, legs, eyes, etc., when three would be so much more practical!!!

I could add; if s/he made us in her image, she's got some serious bitching to do to her "maker"!! :wink:

0 Replies

JamesMorrison wrote:

Hey Frank,

In regards to your recommended article that tries to refute the logical axiom that one cannot prove a negative we find the following statement on which the author bases his argument:

Quote:
"Thus, "there are no crows in this box" entails "this box contains something other than crows" (in the sense that even "no things" is something, e.g. a vacuum). "

Sorry, the fact the box doesn't contain crows does not insure it contains anything. Also "vacuum" is the quintessential scientific definition of the absence of anything. So a box containing a vacuum is truly empty. It's all downhill from there.

The difficulty in the proof of a negative is that one must disprove an infinite number of positive scenarios. Heuristic proofs are always time consuming but this one is a doozy.

JM

Could be! But in a sense, by writing "...the difficulty in the proof of a negative..." you are accepting that it is difficult, not impossible -- which of course was the reason I got into that diversion in the first place.

0 Replies

JamesMorrison..
You know, the concept of the individual natural numbers and rational numbers do not contain the notion of infinity. If your are to transit to the concept of real numbers which contain irrational numbers you need the concept of infinity in the process of competing the number systems.
If you are dealing with real numbers you are assuming infinity implicitly.

Actually, in the axiomatic set theory on which modern mathematics is based, the axiom that assures the existence of natural numbers is named "Axiom of Infinity" which formulates the inductively infinite process of generating natural numbers, though it does not imply that individual natural numbers contain the infinite procedures.

The fact is much more than this, modern mathematics is full of the concept of infinity while ancient Greeks cleverly evaded it. In the educational math, infinity is usually also avoided as far as possible, until it comes to teach Calculus.

0 Replies

BoGoWo..
Your utterance in the immediately preceding post is pointless. I do not think there are any creationists or those in the intelligent design group here.

In my case, when I think about biosphere I usually think in the words of evolution.

0 Replies

satt,

I am not a mathematician but isn't there the concept of infinities of different sizes? Such that (the set of all integers) < (the set of all real numbers). But if one labels each disproof using the last set doesn't the possibility of encountering the specific proof needed become vanishingly small to the point of approaching Zero?

All this aside I believe the fact that one cannot prove a "negative" has a "logical" proof and perhaps we are discussing a mathematical proof. This is interesting: I'm going to Google this and see if I can find this logical proof. Then all I have to do is to try and understand it.

Yeh Frank,

Indeed, given my semi-mathematical explanation of proof of that statement is very difficult to prove, but given this method each and every disproof must be visited and resolved to the required FALSE result. This implies and requires an infinite amount of time. Given we live in a universe with a finite life span the investigators (as well as the universe itself) will have ceased to exist before reaching all disproofs. Therefore in all practicality this proof fails. This is totally converse to a proof that requires just one proof to resolve to TRUE. In this case one could find the required proof immediately after the first or second or third...etc has failed. In this case there is always hope (maybe even faith) the next proof will be the charm.

If I can understand and then explain the logical proof (which is what is usually implied when one encounters the statement: "you can't prove a negative" this should provide a tighter logical basis for the claim.

JM

0 Replies

I reckon science and religion will never mix. As I see it science describes everything there is evidence for and extrapolations from the evidence (mostly incorrect of course) and religion describes everything else or what is deemed wrong by the head of the respective religion.
In short religion is faith based on what someone else tells you and science is faith based on some sort of physical evidence or its interpretation.

0 Replies

Re: Are science and religion converging?
The concepts as presented by Dawkins are old hat to any solid SF reader starting with (for example) A Case of Conscience (1958) James Blish.

Fifty light years from Earth is the paradise like planet of Lithia. Four scientists -- Father Ramon Ruiz-Sanchez a biologist and Jesuit priest, physicist Paul Cleaver, chemist Mike Michelis, and geologist Agronski -- are sent to study the planet, which is inhabited by tall reptilian kangaroo like aliens, and recommend interaction policy.

The alien Lithians are intelligent, logical beings. They need no laws to compel them into doing what is right, and they are never beset by doubt. Their scientific progress took a different path since their world lacks iron. They created wooden machinery and the complex Message Tree.

The contingent of scientists are divided on the issue of opening the world. Michelis favors contact because he feels we could learn from the Lithians. Cleaver votes to close off Lithia and use it for a thermonuclear bomb arsenal. Ruiz-Sanchez wants the planet quarantined because he has come to the heretical belief that Lithia is the work of the Devil.

When they are returning Earth, the Lithian Chtexa gives Ruiz-Sanchez a gift, a vase containing his embryonic child. Female laboratory chief Liu Meid, Michelis, and Ruiz-Sanchez try to raise the young Lithian.

Egtverchi grows up to be unlike other Lithians due to his unusual upbringing. He finds no logic to the Shelter society of Earth in 2050, and has little respect for it. He becomes a popular figure to the disillusioned masses, an agitator with his own 3-V program. Chaos ensues. The Pope suggests to Ruiz-Sanchez that Egtverchi and Lithia are sendings of the Adversary, and they can be banished by exorcism.

0 Replies

Science and religion should go hand in hand as with all other disciplines. Its just the misunderstanding part that reckons it "separate".

Science brings the physical understanding of why things happen hence it is thought to be an evidence of the truth. But as we all know, even Science is a conjecture of what is possibly occuring. Eg. Knowing a sure way to arrive results but yet the process is not figured out in biomolecules.

Religion explains matters which Science cannot explain since these things are not to be perceived by the naked eye or body, but by so the 4th dimension or even further. Since we all assume a form and use objects from this 3rd dimension world, how can we possibly figure it out?
Religion is not what someone tells you, its teachings that have been passed down to today. This does not mean that it is someone's opinions created out of pure belief. It is just that the evidence of the past truth is not shown to you, hence it is difficult for you to observe/understand. This is when faith comes in because reglious people understand and believe for the right reasons.

0 Replies

Your assertion that "Science" "is thought to be an evidence of the truth" is incorrect. The experimental data (if done correctly) "is thought to be" "evidence" of the truth" not science per se.

Why should science and religion should go hand in hand?

Why do you assert that religion is a discipline?

What is "the misunderstanding part that reckons it separate"?

What do you mean when you say "the process is not figured out in biomolecules"?

You assert that "Religion explains matters" what matters does religion explain?

By explain in this context I mean: to make comprehensible.

How does Religion make matters comprehensible?

Where is this "evidence of the past truth" that you speak of?

How do you know that "religious people understand and believe for the right reasons"?

0 Replies

Are science and religion converging?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know