Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 36 to 70 of 100

Thread: Religion vs science

  1. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    14,927

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    Amish or Mennonite?
    You're assuming he knows the difference...
    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails."
    -William A. Ward



  2. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    2,861

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    Amish or Mennonite?


    they were amish i believe. though i think there's mennonites in the same area.

  3. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    2,861

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Electricity is used in some businesses
    Some Amish do in fact use electricity in their businesses. The owner of a market stand business may make use of the electrical capacity provided in the stand. The use of electricity in this case is allowed as the stand itself is not owned by the Amish person, only rented by him.

    Amish may operate air hammers or a variety of tools using these means of power. Some Amish may have electric forms of lighting installed in shops, especially if working with flammable chemicals (ie, furniture finishing). Generally, Amish allow a greater degree of technology in places of business than in the home or schoolhouse.Other Amish may generate electricity for various devices as described above, by making use of a generator and inverter. In addition to electricity, many Amish make use of both hydraulic (oil) and pneumatic (air) forms of power, referred to as “Amish electricity” (see Kraybill, The Riddle of Amish Culture, pp. 208-210). A diesel engine will be used to drive these devices.

    Some more conservative Amish, such as Swartzentruber Amish, will not permit these means of powering equipment, however. In such cases they may rely on a line shaft attached to a number of belts which drive various pieces of equipment in a shop.
    Electricity while also be used to varying degrees on the farm, as in powering welders or electric fences to confine livestock. Gas engines are also used to power lawnmowers or weed whackers in some Amish church districts, though they would be off-limits in others.

  4. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24,700

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    I think I understood it. Not sure you understood my response. I think 'pray' could be replaced with 'hope', no?
    No.

  5. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    If there was a serious connection, I would think all church goers would be ethical. . . .

    The denial of science seems to be something done by religious folks. Am I wrong there?
    You miss my point. I did not claim that being religious (of any variety) necessarily makes one behave better, although in some cases it can. But religions are one major source of people's ideas about what's right and what isn't. This can be good or bad - religion can preach against slavery or for crusades, for equal rights for all or in favor of the Inquisition - but religion has real influence over what people think is right, and what they think is important.

    The denial of science today is a feature of fundamentalist Protestantism (also conservative Islam, but I don't know as much about that). Other varieties of Christianity, generally not.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  6. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    39,684

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    The denial of science today is a feature of . . . . . . (also conservative Islam, but I don't know as much about that).
    Which I find puzzling because from http://www.muslimheritage.com/articl...slamic-science
    The Arabic term ‘ilm literally means science and knowledge in the broadest sense. It is derived from the Arabic verb ‘alima, to know, to learn. Therefore, ‘ilm implies learning in a general sense. The Prophet Muhammad, like all the Semitic Prophets before him, was an educator and spiritual mentor. He contended that the pursuit of knowledge (‘ilm) is a duty (fardh) for every Muslim [27].
    I suppose it is about power, keep them ignorant and in the kitchen.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  7. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    29,574

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    Electricity is used in some businesses
    Some Amish do in fact use electricity in their businesses. The owner of a market stand business may make use of the electrical capacity provided in the stand. The use of electricity in this case is allowed as the stand itself is not owned by the Amish person, only rented by him.

    Amish may operate air hammers or a variety of tools using these means of power. Some Amish may have electric forms of lighting installed in shops, especially if working with flammable chemicals (ie, furniture finishing). Generally, Amish allow a greater degree of technology in places of business than in the home or schoolhouse.Other Amish may generate electricity for various devices as described above, by making use of a generator and inverter. In addition to electricity, many Amish make use of both hydraulic (oil) and pneumatic (air) forms of power, referred to as “Amish electricity” (see Kraybill, The Riddle of Amish Culture, pp. 208-210). A diesel engine will be used to drive these devices.

    Some more conservative Amish, such as Swartzentruber Amish, will not permit these means of powering equipment, however. In such cases they may rely on a line shaft attached to a number of belts which drive various pieces of equipment in a shop.
    Electricity while also be used to varying degrees on the farm, as in powering welders or electric fences to confine livestock. Gas engines are also used to power lawnmowers or weed whackers in some Amish church districts, though they would be off-limits in others.
    There's an Amish farm in Lancaster. It would have you believe they used a lawnmower engine to run a washing machine.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  8. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    29,574

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    You miss my point. I did not claim that being religious (of any variety) necessarily makes one behave better, although in some cases it can. But religions are one major source of people's ideas about what's right and what isn't. This can be good or bad - religion can preach against slavery or for crusades, for equal rights for all or in favor of the Inquisition - but religion has real influence over what people think is right, and what they think is important.

    The denial of science today is a feature of fundamentalist Protestantism (also conservative Islam, but I don't know as much about that). Other varieties of Christianity, generally not.
    I guess then it falls into the category of "tools", which can be used to build or destroy. In the bigger picture, the evangelicals are supporting polluting our air and water. If they do this because they don't believe in climate change on religious grounds, the two become incompatible.

    If, however, they put up with this because they'll succeed in making abortion illegal, maybe making birth control illegal, and maybe ending gay marriage and other things that would damage a sector they don't believe in, they will have been bought, no?

    I should confess that I know a few. a VERY few, that actually live by what the preach. Most preach how they believe others should live or behave; their rules are not for themselves.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  9. #44
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    1,650

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    I know the evangelicals do not consider Catholics to even be Christian, but I endured 12 years of Catholic school (my mom was born again and fervent) and never once did science and religious classes contradict each other. In fact my biology teach in HS was a nun who had no problems teaching about Darwin. Not once did her religion and vows creep into the purely scientific teaching of evolution
    In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949)
    I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. Itís the one characteristic that connects all the
    defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men.

    Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.Ē

    Captain G. M. Gilbert, Army psychologist

  10. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24,700

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    Amish or Mennonite?
    Big difference!

  11. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,522

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    You don't, but that's one major thing religions do. You can have systems of ethics, and act ethically without religion, of course. But saying the connection is 'mythical' is silly; pretty much every religion that's ever existed has had as a central teaching a description of the right way to behave.


    Nah. Different styles, very different theology. Aquinian's a Catholic, Frank's a fundamentalist Protestant of some kind. No fundamentalist Protestant would ever call himself 'Aquinian'.
    Ya I've been away for a long time. They all are starting to look goofy to me at this point.
    PaulF

  12. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - Australia
    Posts
    1,897

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    i wonder, are there people that truly believe religion and science are mutually exclusive?
    Not mutually exclusive.
    All religions require, at a fundamental point, that one simply 'believes'. As the Catholic priests of my youth would say about the incongruities "yes, it is a mystery', and smile. This is incompatible with science.
    Science however is not incompatible with religion. A person willing to place belief before evidence can pick and choose the parts that work or don't. The gaps in knowledge, for example the big bang and before, allow for religion to fit in just fine.
    "People should be able to access these benefits [Social Welfare] as a matter of right, with no more loss of their own standards of self-respect than would be involved in collecting from an insurance company the proceeds of an endowment policy on which they have been paying premiums for years."
    Robert Menzies - Liberal Party (Conservative) Prime Minister of Australia.

  13. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by paulf View Post
    Ya I've been away for a long time. They all are starting to look goofy to me at this point.
    Can't argue with that. But there are many different kinds of goofiness, some goofier than others.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    I guess then it falls into the category of "tools", which can be used to build or destroy. In the bigger picture, the evangelicals are supporting . ..
    Exactly! I say it over and over, but 'religion' is not one homogeneous thing, not even Protestant Christianity. Evangelicals tend to support all sorts of dreadful things, no doubt. But for a contrast, look up the positions of, say, the United Church of Christ on various social issues (link here). Very different. You can read what the Episcopal Church thinks here. The Presbyterians here. And these are not some odd lefty fringe groups, but mainline Protestant denominations with millions of members, and churches all over the place. The religious right makes a lot of noise. They're certainly not all of Christianity, or even all of Protestantism, not even close, although they'd like you to believe they were.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    I should confess that I know a few. a VERY few, that actually live by what the preach. Most preach how they believe others should live or behave . ..
    And this is different from the non-religious how? Everybody, religious or not, has a system of ethics, a set of ideas about what's right and what's wrong. (Let's leave out sociopaths for now) It's a rare person who always does what he thinks is right. I sure don't. People are complicated, and have lots of conflicting desires.

    __________________________________________________ __


    I'd say (as a first pass) that the major functions of religion are these:
    - Tribal identity / community; at worst 'us vs them', at best community and friendship and mutual support.
    - Proposing explanations for things we don't understand. This has contracted as we've learned more abut the physical world, and it's historically where science and religion have come into conflict. But there are still many areas (what does it all mean?) where religion can play a real role.
    - Giving us some sense of power over things we can't control. This also has shrunk as we've learned more, but petitionary prayer is still very common.
    - Codifying ethics, and encouraging people to behave that way. This can be anything from 'all men are brothers' to 'kill the unbelievers', although the former has become more common lately.
    - And probably the most important, helping people deal with the hard parts of life and death. Buddhism is very explicitly about this, but every religion does it. AFAIK we're the only animal that knows we and everybody else are going to die, and we don't like it much. Religion tries to help, with mixed success.
    Last edited by Keith Wilson; 07-11-2018 at 09:25 AM.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  14. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    47,244

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Conflating the stupidest, ugliest, loudest, and most ignorant and authoritarian strains of religion with ALL religion is claptrap. I'm glad to see John seems to have moved off of that position some.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  15. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Conflating the stupidest, ugliest, loudest, and most ignorant and authoritarian strains of religion with ALL religion . . .
    Surprisingly common among the non-religious. Sometimes it's just lack of knowledge, sometimes a variation of the straw man fallacy. Stupid religion is easier to argue against. Unfortunately, there's all too much stupid religion.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  16. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    47,244

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Surprisingly common among the non-religious. Sometimes it's just lack of knowledge, sometimes a variation of the straw man fallacy. Stupid religion is easier to argue against. Unfortunately, there's all too much stupid religion.
    And there's no way to argue that religion has always been true to, and successful in, it's laudable goals. There's a reason the phrase 'Recovering Catholic' exists. It applies beyond the Catholic church. Hopefully soon there will be mobs of 'recovering fundamentalists' <G>
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  17. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    16,944

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    There's a reason the phrase 'Recovering Catholic' exists. It applies beyond the Catholic church. Hopefully soon there will be mobs of 'recovering fundamentalists' <G>
    Recovering Mennonites are very common here. Oystagirl is one, although in her case it might be more accurate to say that it just never "took".

    What are you doing about it?




  18. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    29,574

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Can't argue with that. But there are many different kinds of goofiness, some goofier than others.

    Exactly! I say it over and over, but 'religion' is not one homogeneous thing, not even Protestant Christianity. Evangelicals tend to support all sorts of dreadful things, no doubt. But for a contrast, look up the positions of, say, the United Church of Christ on various social issues (link here). Very different. You can read what the Episcopal Church thinks here. The Presbyterians here. And these are not some odd lefty fringe groups, but mainline Protestant denominations with millions of members, and churches all over the place. The religious right makes a lot of noise. They're certainly not all of Christianity, or even all of Protestantism, not even close, although they'd like you to believe they were.

    And this is different from the non-religious how? Everybody, religious or not, has a system of ethics, a set of ideas about what's right and what's wrong. (Let's leave out sociopaths for now) It's a rare person who always does what he thinks is right. I sure don't. People are complicated, and have lots of conflicting desires.

    __________________________________________________ __


    I'd say (as a first pass) that the major functions of religion are these:
    - Tribal identity / community; at worst 'us vs them', at best community and friendship and mutual support.
    - Proposing explanations for things we don't understand. This has contracted as we've learned more abut the physical world, and it's historically where science and religion have come into conflict. But there are still many areas (what does it all mean?) where religion can play a real role.
    - Giving us some sense of power over things we can't control. This also has shrunk as we've learned more, but petitionary prayer is still very common.
    - Codifying ethics, and encouraging people to behave that way. This can be anything from 'all men are brothers' to 'kill the unbelievers', although the former has become more common lately.
    - And probably the most important, helping people deal with the hard parts of life and death. Buddhism is very explicitly about this, but every religion does it. AFAIK we're the only animal that knows we and everybody else are going to die, and we don't like it much. Religion tries to help, with mixed success.
    I think the difference is that the general idea of 'believers' is religion is what gives us a sense of right or wrong.

    I'm old enough to remember lefties being put through hell by believers. Their religion told them it was a choice and a sin. I also remember "masturbation will grow hair on your palms"

    Then there's all the 'mulligans' the "family values" people give Trump, which kind of speak for themselves.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  19. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    29,574

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Surprisingly common among the non-religious. Sometimes it's just lack of knowledge, sometimes a variation of the straw man fallacy. Stupid religion is easier to argue against. Unfortunately, there's all too much stupid religion.
    Which begs the question. If God exists, and he cares, why would he allow stupid religions? Why would he allow people to use his name and his bible to justify the unjustifiable. Is there no point where he would step in to protect the innocent?
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  20. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sequim, Washington
    Posts
    5,522

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    I have no idea what is at the core of our universe, I'm quite sure others don't have that answer ether. Surely the Bible was written by ordinary folks.

    It seems that religion requires one to believe things that are not provable in any way, some are simple faith but some move into the"abducted by Aliens" realm. To blindly buy some of that stuff is to disregard reality.
    PaulF

  21. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    East Quogue,NY
    Posts
    15,213

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Which begs the question. If God exists, and he cares, why would he allow stupid religions? Why would he allow people to use his name and his bible to justify the unjustifiable. Is there no point where he would step in to protect the innocent?
    Yin and Yang. Alpha and Omega.

    We need cold to define warm. We need dark to define light. We need evil to define good. Things are defined by their opposites--or, at least, by the, " other."

    Kevin
    Last edited by Breakaway; 07-11-2018 at 10:45 AM.
    There are two kinds of boaters: those who have run aground, and those who lie about it.

  22. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    Which begs the question. If God exists, and he cares, why would he allow stupid religions? Why would he allow people to use his name and his bible to justify the unjustifiable. Is there no point where he would step in to protect the innocent?
    That's the very, very ancient 'problem of evil', the entire subject of theodicy (link). One formulation that I particularly appreciate is attributed to Epicurus, about 300 BCE:

    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

    A tremendous amount of effort has been put into it by some very bright folks over the millenia. I've never seen anything like a satisfactory answer, except maybe that God, if he exists, leaves us alone to screw things up as much as we want. (See the links if you're interested in this kind of thing; it's a pretty deep hole.)

    .
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  23. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    47,244

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    Which begs the question. If God exists, and he cares, why would he allow stupid religions? Why would he allow people to use his name and his bible to justify the unjustifiable. Is there no point where he would step in to protect the innocent?
    John - you really do have quite simplistic (and mostly erroneous) ideas of what religion is, and how it works.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  24. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    16,944

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    John - you really do have quite simplistic (and mostly erroneous) ideas of what religion is, and how it works.
    To be fair, part of the problem of religion (if I may be permitted the phrase) is that there seems to be a different one for every believer. We could have an interesting time talking about "what it is", but to me and many others, that is part of the reason why/how it doesn't​ work... at least for us.

    What are you doing about it?




  25. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    47,244

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Orca View Post
    To be fair, part of the problem of religion (if I may be permitted the phrase) is that there seems to be a different one for every believer. We could have an interesting time talking about "what it is", but to me and many others, that is part of the reason why/how it doesn't​ work... at least for us.
    True enough, which makes attempting to define it in such rudimentary fashion... silly. There are SO many shades, branches, variations, interpretations, and... yes... perversities. Historical and present day.

    An example - my sweetie is a Unitarian Universalist minister. In basic terms, that's a melding of two Protestant offshoots. The Unitarian Raison d'Ítre is the apparently crucial belief that 'God' is singular. NOT a trinity.
    And the roots of Universalism are planted in the rejection of the notion of Hell. <sorry Kat, sorry Paul> The firm belief that 'no loving god would send his children to such a place'. Kind of an 'all dogs go to heaven' approach. Throw in the fact that neither of those issues are in the forefront of their present-day theology (or anyone's, afik), and the UU's define themselves these days in quite different terms. None of which involve 'faith' trumping thinking.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  26. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    24,700

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Orca View Post
    To be fair, part of the problem of religion (if I may be permitted the phrase) is that there seems to be a different one for every believer. We could have an interesting time talking about "what it is", but to me and many others, that is part of the reason why/how it doesn't​ work... at least for us.
    Given the severe lack of critical measurements, this can't come as a surprise.

    What bothers me about these discussions is that we allow the most extreme elements in any religion to define both that religion and the values of religion in general. It's like using an elephant to describe what it's like to have a nose. It leads otherwise intelligent people say foolish things that are drawn more from their prejudice than reality.

  27. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    16,944

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by CWSmith View Post
    It's like using an elephant to describe what it's like to have a nose.
    I am struck by the justice of this remark. Well said.

    What are you doing about it?




  28. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Orca View Post
    To be fair, part of the problem of religion (if I may be permitted the phrase) is that there seems to be a different one for every believer.
    The problem may be that 'religion' is commonly in the singular. What if we referred to 'animal', meaning all of them?

    Quote Originally Posted by CWSmith View Post
    . . .we allow the most extreme elements in any religion to define both that religion and the values of religion in general. It's like using an elephant to describe what it's like to have a nose.
    YES! Now, of course the more extreme folks would be very gratified if people thought 'Christianity' meant their particular brand of it, and they try to act like it does.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  29. #64
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    1,650

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    The biggest issue I have with people trying to force their beliefs on science is that I am not even a Christian. I gave up on Christianity decades ago and turned to Buddhism. I do not like people trying to convert me back, I certainly do not care for the government trying to do it too.
    In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949)
    I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. Itís the one characteristic that connects all the
    defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men.

    Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.Ē

    Captain G. M. Gilbert, Army psychologist

  30. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    47,244

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Haberland View Post
    The biggest issue I have with people trying to force their beliefs on science is that I am not even a Christian. I gave up on Christianity decades ago and turned to Buddhism. I do not like people trying to convert me back, I certainly do not care for the government trying to do it too.
    I agree... no one should be attempting to impose anything religious on anyone else. And the realm of 'faith' should hold very little sway in the realm of science.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  31. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg MB
    Posts
    16,944

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    The problem may be that 'religion' is commonly in the singular. What if we referred to 'animal', meaning all of them?
    We do. The problem I've encountered with trying to treat "religion" as a definable category of ideas with common characteristics is that someone inevitably says their conception doesn't include those characteristics... but hold on, it can't really be defined, either!

    It's kind of like trying to nail Jell-O to the ceiling. Eff the ineffable, is what I say.

    What are you doing about it?




  32. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    47,244

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Orca View Post
    We do. The problem I've encountered with trying to treat "religion" as a definable category of ideas with common characteristics is that someone inevitably says their conception doesn't include those characteristics... but hold on, it can't really be defined, either!

    It's kind of like trying to nail Jell-O to the ceiling. Eff the ineffable, is what I say.
    If you want to postulate that such is even possible... well... that's deep subject, eh? <G>
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  33. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,151

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Well, yes - sort of - but animals vary a lot, even though they are descended from common ancestors a long time ago. They're enormous and microscopic and everything in between, live just about everywhere and by every means possible. Some are tasty, some try to eat us, some make us sick when they get inside us, some are useful, some are pests . . . And there's no natural taxonomy of ideas, no common descent. Saltation is the rule. Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? Well . . . yes. Or maybe no. Other than something vaguely to do with Jesus, what does the United Church of Christ have to do with the Christ Gospel Church? Not much, I can tell you!

    Nail that Jello! Nail that Jello! Hoohah!
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  34. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    29,574

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    That's the very, very ancient 'problem of evil', the entire subject of theodicy (link). One formulation that I particularly appreciate is attributed to Epicurus, about 300 BCE:

    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

    A tremendous amount of effort has been put into it by some very bright folks over the millenia. I've never seen anything like a satisfactory answer, except maybe that God, if he exists, leaves us alone to screw things up as much as we want. (See the links if you're interested in this kind of thing; it's a pretty deep hole.)

    .
    Then comes the question: If we are on our own and his design is to never get involved, what is the point of prayer?
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

  35. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    29,574

    Default Re: Religion vs science

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Orca View Post
    To be fair, part of the problem of religion (if I may be permitted the phrase) is that there seems to be a different one for every believer. We could have an interesting time talking about "what it is", but to me and many others, that is part of the reason why/how it doesn't​ work... at least for us.
    Yes, if two men agree they believe in God, they tend to believe their beliefs are identical. Likely they are not.
    How do we form a mutiny? Our new captain is navigating poorly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •