Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians

[kowalskil]

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

.................................................. ..............................
OOPS, I am not yet allowed to post clickable links.

http*:*//csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.ht*ml

Instead of clicking, pemove the * and paste the rest into your browser.
.................................................. .............................

The webpage you will see was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

.
.
.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Aaaaand moved to Religion where it belongs.

[¿Que?]

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians).
Well, I briefly looked at the page, but the problem I see is in the way you frame the question. You want peaceful coexistence, but you say "our" spiritual world. That makes you sound patronizing and is setting yourself up for a bitter, as opposed to civil, dispute. Consider that it is not the material world (ours) which is at issue, but in fact, the spiritual world that is contested. Therefore, using the word "our" is sort of a jab at materialism. You should say "the" instead, and you will be much better received by materialists.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

By the way, your essay appears to be missing a couple of inconvenient little facts:

1) What scientists say happens to be true, or otherwise can be proven false. We have no way of assessing theologians' claims - they steadfastly refuse to be forthcoming in terms of evidence and reliable observations.

2) Theology maps pretty closely to culture. Had you been born in a different time and place, you may have argued for the existence of the Hellenic Pantheon, or Mithras, or the Aztec gods. Occam's razor slices away the extraneous entities - and religion is a perfectly mundane matter.

You think you can improve your odds by placing multiple bets, but there's only one horse in this race, and that's science.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think that it has a rational kernel, and is far preferable to the amusing scientism of the new atheist movement. It seems to be vaguely Carus-esque, and I have a fair degree of respect for Carus as a thinker. Religious propositions are not empirical propositions; they certainly have roles in forms of life (Wittgenstein gave the example of 'The eye of God is upon you', essentially meaning 'be good'; people do not go on to talk about the eyebrows of God), but would be nonsensical as empirical propositions (it's not that they are unfalsifiable, but rather that they are unfalsifiable because they don't say anything). However, what this viewpoint seems to miss is why exactly it is the case that, "God is that something which constitutes the harmony of the laws of nature; God is the intrinsic necessity of mathematics and logic; God above all is what experience teaches us to be the inalienable features of righteousness, justice, morality." In other words, why humans elevate their ethical practices, and natural laws, which are essentially means of describing the world, and portray them through the picture ('picture' as per the later Wittgenstein) of a being above man and nature, above the universe. The picture is a reality, although the concept of a god may be nonsensical (as per Feuerbach, Wittgenstein, Carus, Marx et al). The reason why this picture is employed is in fact hinted at by Carus quite blatantly in his work on the devil; "What is absolutely unknowable does not concern us, and the savage does not worship the thunder because he does not know what it is, but because he knows enough about the lightning that may strike his hut to be in awe of it. He worships the thunder because he dreads it; he is afraid of it on account of its known and obvious dangers which he is unable to control."

The picture is employed due to the fact that man is not the highest authority for man, as per Marx. As such, ethics must be channeled through the picture of a God above nature and man, for man has a considerable amount of control and understanding of nature now, so that the thunder no longer poses the threat above recounted, but is still not the highest authority for man. He must explain his knowledge through looking at the subject, which forms the positive content of meaning, yet this subject, as in Descartes, is incarnated above us in God. Similarly, as Engels noted, "in every department of thought, at a certain stage of development the laws, which were abstracted from the real world, become divorced from the real world, and are set up against it as something independent, as laws coming from outside, to which the world has to conform." As Norman Swartz commented, 'necessitarianism' has its basis in religion, and becomes rather bizarre divorced from it; likewise, Wittgenstein identified the causal nexus with superstition (which he also used to describe the attempts of theologians to 'prove' the existence of a god; likewise, Feuerbach separated theology of such sorts from 'letting religion speak for itself'). Ethics, science and knowledge are human, and facets of human activity, and they are incarnated in a God because they are alienated from humanity.

However, what this implies for the science-religion debate is precisely that, although religious propositions do not conflict as such with scientific statements (because they do not say anything about how the world is; of course, empirical propositions uttered by religious people are just as much empirical propositions as any others, but it is not a religious proposition to say that a pen is black, say), nonetheless the actual conflict between them is practically inevitable. After all, to get a clear, perspicuous, view of the foundations of religion is to find the terrestrial, and yet reduced to the terrestrial and to humanity, there is hardly anything left of religion. The subject becomes man, not god; one may have human ethics, but not religion. Rather, in order for religion to be preserved, people must as it were wander around Plato's cave without getting a clear view of what they're talking about. Religion is a cult of confusion. As such, religious propositions must be seen as if they were empirical propositions, even though this is not their actual usage, and cannot be (although they do have a usage). Now, empirical propositions (but not ethics, aesthetics, and so on) are a realm where science does have a presence. 'The eye of God is upon me? Well, I don't see him!' We also have the infusion of Biblical literalists and such, who are absurd and silly. The fact is, religious propositions have the grammatical format of empirical propositions, and yet they rely on their not being understood for what they are, so that the conflict between science and religion becomes in many ways rather unavoidable; religion, after all, can't have evidence, because it doesn't make any real propositions, yet treated as real propositions religious propositions seem to come into conflict with the tenets of science, and hence lead to their rejection.

And, as per Carus (paralleling the Marx of 1844 to some degree), "A state of irreligion in which mankind would adopt and publicly teach a doctrine of Atheism is an impossibility. Atheism is a negation, and negations cannot stand, for they have sense only as confronted with the positive issues which they reject. Yet our present anthropomorphic view of God, briefly called Anthropotheism, which as a rule conceives him as an infinitely big individual being, will have to yield to a higher view in which we shall understand that the idea of a personal God is a mere simile." And yet this means: a human simile. And what kind of god acknowledges himself enslaved to humans?

[28350]

"Theology is not ancillary to reason, nor reason to theology" - Spinoza

[Hit The North]

Isn't the "spiritual world" just a world made up by theologians to keep them in business?

[Black Sheep]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/icons/icon1.gif Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians ?

EpkqRVufKRw

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Religious propositions are not empirical propositions; they certainly have roles in forms of life (Wittgenstein gave the example of 'The eye of God is upon you', essentially meaning 'be good'; people do not go on to talk about the eyebrows of God), but would be nonsensical as empirical propositions (it's not that they are unfalsifiable, but rather that they are unfalsifiable because they don't say anything).

It's not god's eyebrows that are discussed though, is it? It's the idea that there is some kind of being observing and possibly judging us that comes under discussion.


However, what this implies for the science-religion debate is precisely that, although religious propositions do not conflict as such with scientific statements (because they do not say anything about how the world is;

Of course they do. They claim that certain entities and/or adjuncts to our material reality exist in some fashion - that is, they are more than mere concepts dreamt up by beings who can barely comprehend the universe they find themselves in - and that these entities/planes of existence/whatever undergo some kind of interaction with the observable universe, including our brains. Otherwise how would we know about them?


And, as per Carus (paralleling the Marx of 1844 to some degree), "A state of irreligion in which mankind would adopt and publicly teach a doctrine of Atheism-

What "doctrine of Atheism (I note the capital) would that be? "God doesn't exist" may not be a maxim to live life by, but it does tell you where not to start.

[kowalskil]

Well, I briefly looked at the page, but the problem I see is in the way you frame the question. You want peaceful coexistence, but you say "our" spiritual world. That makes you sound patronizing and is setting yourself up for a bitter, as opposed to civil, dispute. Consider that it is not the material world (ours) which is at issue, but in fact, the spiritual world that is contested. Therefore, using the word "our" is sort of a jab at materialism. You should say "the" instead, and you will be much better received by materialists.

Thank you for the comment. The word "our" was used to emphasize that "most people on earth live in two worlds." The term "spiritual" stands for "metaphysical." Aristotle, if I recall correctly, was the first to subdivide the world in which we live into two parts, physical and metaphysical. Peaceful coexistence will not happen without a lot of changes, on both sides of the barricade. Theology is much older than science and theologists have many more things to change than scientists. The main thing that scientists should do, in my not so humble opinion, is to recognize that the spiritual domain is real, and that scientific methodology is not suitable to validate or refute deism. Deism should be left to trained professional theologists. Likewise, scientific topics should be left to professional scientists.

.
.

[¿Que?]

The main thing that scientists should do, in my not so humble opinion, is to recognize that the spiritual domain is real, and that scientific methodology is not suitable to validate or refute deism. Deism should be left to trained professional theologists. Likewise, scientific topics should be left to professional scientists.

Ok, well, many scientists will disagree. If this is your angle, then the answer to your question is simply, no. Needless to say, you have to elaborate on the sense of the word "real" you are using, because obviously it is not real in the same way as material things, this is obvious.

[Astarte]

Ok, so I read through the first couple comments and all I see are essentially the same old arguments mostly against the existence of the higher realm, so just a quick couple of cents from me.

"Telling her that God does not exist would be just as arrogant as telling Galileo that his astronomical findings should be ignored."

This is from your reply to "comment 1". I agree, this is the point about spirituality that most atheists seem to miss - spiritual awareness is not a believing but a knowing. It is funny that she became so spiritually in tune after going through a classic "near death" experience - the psychological trauma of knowing she had cancer seems to have been enough to trigger an enlightenment experience; she under went gnosis - or death of the self without bodily death.

[ComradeMan]

There is no real war between theologians and scientists really, and there never has been to the extent some would have us believe.


The Pontifical Academy of Sciences (Latin Pontificia Academia Scientiarum) is a scientific academy of the Vatican, was founded in 1936 by Pope Pius XI. It is placed under the protection of the reigning Supreme Pontiff (the current Pope). Its aim is to promote the progress of the mathematical, physical and natural sciences and the study of related epistemological problems. The Academy has its origins in the Accademia Pontificia dei Nuovi Lincei ("Pontifical Academy of the New Lynxes"), founded in 1847 intended as a more closely supervised successor to the Accademia dei Lincei ("Academy of Lynxes") established in Rome in 1603, by the learned Roman Prince, Federico Cesi (1585–1630) who was a young botanist and naturalist, and which claimed Galileo Galilei as its president.The Accademia dei Lincei survives as a wholly separate institution.

During its various decades of activity, the Academy has had a number of Nobel Prize winners amongst its members, many of whom were appointed Academicians before they received this prestigious international award.

These include,

Rutherford, Planck, Fleming, Marconi, Montalcini and Heisenburg amongst many others.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

The New Atheists are building up a kind of mythology themselves which seeks to portray the Church as an enemy of science, which it hasn't really been. Pope Paolo III was big fan of Copernicus and the whole issue of Galileo was more about personality as he didn't get on with Pope Urbano- the Church was demanding he prove his claims empirically too. Bot the current and the previous Popes have supported the theory of evolution and the idea of the flat earth seems to have originated with an English scientist in the 19th century. ;)

I refer you to this book:-

Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
David B. Hart.
Publisher: Yale University Press (23 Feb 2010)
ISBN-10: 0300164297
ISBN-13: 978-0300164299

In my opinion the word "fashionable" says it all.....

[Dimentio]

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

.................................................. ..............................
OOPS, I am not yet allowed to post clickable links.

http*:*//csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.ht*ml

Instead of clicking, pemove the * and paste the rest into your browser.
.................................................. .............................

The webpage you will see was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

.
.
.

As earlier stated, the spiritual world is contested. In a technate (the kind of society which EOS is advocating) theologians would still exist, but they would not have any influence on anything beyond their area and would not have the right to try to impose limits on research.

[ComradeMan]

As earlier stated, the spiritual world is contested. In a technate (the kind of society which EOS is advocating) theologians would still exist, but they would not have any influence on anything beyond their area and would not have the right to try to impose limits on research.

The only area of conflict I see is when sicentific research causes ethical problems and really this is not the issue of obtaining knowledge but rather how it is used and for what purpose.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thank you for the comment. The word "our" was used to emphasize that "most people on earth live in two worlds." The term "spiritual" stands for "metaphysical." Aristotle, if I recall correctly, was the first to subdivide the world in which we live into two parts, physical and metaphysical.

OK, but where is the evidence that there is a metaphysical component to the universe in the first place? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it that it does exist?


Peaceful coexistence will not happen without a lot of changes, on both sides of the barricade. Theology is much older than science and theologists have many more things to change than scientists. The main thing that scientists should do, in my not so humble opinion, is to recognize that the spiritual domain is real, and that scientific methodology is not suitable to validate or refute deism.

Then what is and how can we verify it? How can it be shown to be reliable?


This is from your reply to "comment 1". I agree, this is the point about spirituality that most atheists seem to miss - spiritual awareness is not a believing but a knowing.

But knowledge is verifiable. How do we verify the metaphysical beliefs of others?


There is no real war between theologians and scientists really, and there never has been to the extent some would have us believe.


The Pontifical Academy of Sciences (Latin Pontificia Academia Scientiarum) is a scientific academy of the Vatican, was founded in 1936 by Pope Pius XI.

The Vatican, eh? This is the same entity that spreads lies about condoms. You're gonna have to do better than that if you want an example of how religion doesn't conflict with science. Last I checked, statistics was a science.

[Revolution starts with U]

I am all for the peaceful coexistence of (everybody) the religious/spiritual and the scientific/material. In fact, I coexist peacefully with many believers (and some of them aren't quite so blinded by "the Light."). But until the uber religious can stop saying one is immoral, or amoral, or can't live a meaningful life, or is basically Hitler.... they can fuck off :D (and the same goes for the uber non-religous)

[ComradeMan]

The Vatican, eh? This is the same entity that spreads lies about condoms. You're gonna have to do better than that if you want an example of how religion doesn't conflict with science. Last I checked, statistics was a science.

I don't think you'll find most Catholics, including the Pope, saying that condoms don't do the job they are meant for. I'll think you'll find the issue is whether sex without the intention of procreation within marriage is the issue- i.e. a moral/ethical issue within the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The Vatican's comments on condoms in the past have been based on the point that even the WHO maintains, that no method is 100% secure- there is always a risk. A few nutcase priests in Africa seem to have taken this further and said that they don't work- however the Catholic line does not encourage sex without a condom either- unless it's within the context of procreation within a marriage. The Church's position tends to be that condoms promote promiscuity and that does elevate the risk of spreading STDs.

Now, I am not going to get into an argument about the Catholic Church's morality on sex- that's not the issue here, but to say that the Vatican, ie. the official Catholic Church, line is anti-science because of one issue around condoms is a misrepresentation.

[bcbm]

The Church's position tends to be that condoms promote promiscuity

fucking stupid

[ComradeMan]

fucking stupid

Probably, and its an argument about the ethics/morality of Catholic doctrine- but it's not evidence that theologians are anti-science or that there is this huge conflict between religion and science that is so often used as an argument by militant atheists.

[bcbm]

if you think condoms cause promiscuity you're not exactly "pro-science." i don't know much about current stances of the catholic church, but there is a much larger conflict between religion and science in the states with things like the texas board of education and the like.

[ComradeMan]

if you think condoms cause promiscuity you're not exactly "pro-science." i don't know much about current stances of the catholic church, but there is a much larger conflict between religion and science in the states with things like the texas board of education and the like.

The whole promiscuity issue isn't really a scientific debate- we get into other areas such as morality and ethics etc.

There may well be a conflict with the Texas board of education but that hardly reflects the situation on a world scale. In fact, it seems that in the US which is a secular state there seems to be the most conflict- or at least it's the most talked about.

[#FF0000]

The whole promiscuity issue isn't really a scientific debate- we get into other areas such as morality and ethics etc.

No. The issue of whether or not condoms lead to promiscuity is just a matter of looking at the studies that say "No they do not".

[ComradeMan]

No. The issue of whether or not condoms lead to promiscuity is just a matter of looking at the studies that say "No they do not".

Have such studies been done? Are they scientific? Are they falsifiable in scientific/empirical terms?

[#FF0000]

I don't know how they wouldn't be falsifiable. But yeah lots of studies on this exist. There's no correlation between availability of condoms and sexual activity.

[khad]

An interesting bit of history:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html


This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on "a day without yesterday."
...
In January 1933, both Lemaitre and Einstein traveled to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein stood up, applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." Duncan Aikman covered these seminars for the New York Times Magazine. An article about Lemaitre appeared on February 19, 1933, and featured a large photo of Einstein and Lemaitre standing side by side. The caption read, "They have a profound respect and admiration for each other."
...
Hawking was actually being modest. In the face of the scientific turmoil caused by the supernovae results, he has adapted very quickly. But the phrase "theoretical prejudices" makes one think of the attitudes that hampered scientists seventy years ago. It took a mathematician who also happened to be a Catholic priest to look at the evidence with an open mind and create a model that worked.

Is there a paradox in this situation? Lemaitre did not think so. Duncan Aikman of the New York Times spotlighted Lemaitre's view in 1933: "'There is no conflict between religion and science,' Lemaitre has been telling audiences over and over again in this country ....His view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest, not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our time, but because he is both."

[Revolution starts with U]

Probably, and its an argument about the ethics/morality of Catholic doctrine- but it's not evidence that theologians are anti-science or that there is this huge conflict between religion and science that is so often used as an argument by militant atheists.

You're fucking clueless. We didn't start the fight. Have you ever seen Ben Stein's "evolutionists are hitler" piece of shit lie-umentary? The push for teaching creation as science in schools... that's certainly not "militant atheists" doing that.
Open your eyes and realize that just because you and the Pope can mesh science in their religion, does not mean that the majority of the religous can or do. They don['t.

[ComradeMan]

You're fucking clueless. We didn't start the fight. Have you ever seen Ben Stein's "evolutionists are hitler" piece of shit lie-umentary? The push for teaching creation as science in schools... that's certainly not "militant atheists" doing that.
Open your eyes and realize that just because you and the Pope can mesh science in their religion, does not mean that the majority of the religous can or do. They don['t.

You're fucking clueless- I have never even heard of Ben Stein... Nor do I care what the fuck he says or whatever else. So when someone talks generally, as in the OP, about theologians and science I tend to think more of things like the Pontifical Academy of Science or Planck, or Einstein's "spirituality" etc than fringe extremists. This whole issue of teaching "creationism" is not a major issue anywhere in the world outside the USA as far as I know. And here, in Catholic Italy with crucifixes on the classroom walls and where people celebrate their Saint's Day etc etc etc- I have never heard of an issue surrounding evolution being taught in schools. ;) After a quick check I have found a few issues in Europe where creationism was pushed in education and ended in dismal failure.

Open your eyes and realise that the entire fucking religious world is not the same as nutcase groups in the USA.

[NGNM85]

Not only do I think this proposed alliance between priests and scientists is impossible, I don't even think it's desirable.

[ComradeMan]

Not only do I think this proposed alliance between priests and scientists is impossible, I don't even think it's desirable.

Well you may as well propose an alliance between bakers and mechanics... it's silly. Temporal and spiritual....

[#FF0000]

It's also cool to point out that there are a lot of religious scientists, so this whole "alliance" thing is kind of, uh, stupid, because being religious doesn't mean you can't be a scientist and being scientifically literate doesn't mean you can't be religious.

[ComradeMan]

It's also cool to point out that there are a lot of religious scientists, so this whole "alliance" thing is kind of, uh, stupid, because being religious doesn't mean you can't be a scientist and being scientifically literate doesn't mean you can't be religious.

Exactly.

This kind of fashionable New Atheism seeks to create a new mythology that paints all religion as some kind of Spanish Inquisition- creationists are, for example, probably a minority within the religious world. The Pope himself declared Genesis to be a spiritual history and I am sure Jewish scholarship has long applied the many interpretations to the symbolism and metaphor. Hindus too have little problem with modern science and the mathematical calculations of the Vedas seem rather astute. ;)

[Dean]

Religion is just another way to try to make sense of the world. It's a poor science, but a science nonetheless. Or science is a religion (ie a model to follow). From an empirical standpoint, there is no honest refuting this - there is no clear demarcation between the two.

Falsifiability is a poor measure, as has been discussed elsewhere here. Falsifiability is not applicable to a lot of valuable sciences.

Elevating religion to some separate level is absurd and wrong, and only serves to make religion harder to critique. It should be judged alongside science.

Some of the philosophical and moral underpinnings of religions stand on their own right. But the empirical claims tend to be absurd. There is no reason to "let them stand beside each other" and yet apart. Judge them from the same edifice.

[ComradeMan]

Religion is just another way to try to make sense of the world. It's a poor science, but a science nonetheless. Or science is a religion (ie a model to follow). From an empirical standpoint, there is no honest refuting this - there is no clear demarcation between the two..

Rubbish. Religion is not science and science is not religion. Science is concerned with the physical and temporal whereas religion/spirituality with the metaphysical and spiritual and giving meaning to the temporal- not explaining the how but asking the why.

However a holographic bidimensional universe does make things interesting in terms of the idea of "maya" or the illusion...

[webwide]

I agreed with ComradeMan and his views in beliefs.:)

[Dean]

Rubbish. Religion is not science and science is not religion. Science is concerned with the physical and temporal whereas religion/spirituality with the metaphysical and spiritual and giving meaning to the temporal- not explaining the how but asking the why.
Religion makes claims about the material world, and if its claims on things like "god" and "souls" are correct, they are physical facts.

There are plenty of "whys" explained by science, so I'm not sure how this is a valid distinction. Early religious texts served as aggregations of wisdom under the banner of some given tradition. This is why it covers everything from genesis, charity, health and social arrangements. Not a whole lot "non-physical" about that (besides, what is non-physical except for another definition of "nonexistent"?).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's also cool to point out that there are a lot of religious scientists, so this whole "alliance" thing is kind of, uh, stupid, because being religious doesn't mean you can't be a scientist and being scientifically literate doesn't mean you can't be religious.

It's a wonderful example of doublethink in action.

[#FF0000]

It's a wonderful example of doublethink in action.

Basically. But people rationalize contradictions like this all the time.

[ComradeMan]

Religion makes claims about the material world, and if its claims on things like "god" and "souls" are correct, they are physical facts.

There are plenty of "whys" explained by science, so I'm not sure how this is a valid distinction. Early religious texts served as aggregations of wisdom under the banner of some given tradition. This is why it covers everything from genesis, charity, health and social arrangements. Not a whole lot "non-physical" about that (besides, what is non-physical except for another definition of "nonexistent"?).

"physis" and "psyche" they cannot be the same really.

The big why is not answered.

It depends on which level you read the texts too.;)

[NGNM85]

It's also cool to point out that there are a lot of religious scientists, so this whole "alliance" thing is kind of, uh, stupid, because being religious doesn't mean you can't be a scientist and being scientifically literate doesn't mean you can't be religious.

Unfortunately, yes. However, this just means they are bad, or, at best, inconsistent scientists. Francis Collins is one of the most renowned geneticists on the planet, and he is also extremely religious. He is able to maintain this through a rigorous, although, probably unconscious, process of cognitive dissonance that creates a partition between the rational, questioning part of his mind, and his religious beliefs. If he applied the same scientific rigor he used on the Human Genome Project to Christianity, it would collapse immediately.

[Dean]

"physis" and "psyche" they cannot be the same really.

If the psyche is not a part of nature, it doesn't exist.

The big why is not answered.
Oh, right, the big why! What, may I ask, is the "big why" and what on earth does it have to do with the supposed border between science and religion?

It depends on which level you read the texts too.;)
Right. If you critically assess what is being said, there is a ton of theory and wisdom which people today seem to take for granted (except, perhaps, for a few honest theologians who surround themselves in the material).

But I don't see how any of this refutes these two facts:
-Only the natural world exists
-Religion can only describe the natural world (unless you believe in "supernatural" things)

By claiming something is external than nature, how can you take that as meaning anything but that it doesn't exist?
-

[ComradeMan]

If the psyche is not a part of nature, it doesn't exist.

Oh, right, the big why! What, may I ask, is the "big why" and what on earth does it have to do with the supposed border between science and religion?

Right. If you critically assess what is being said, there is a ton of theory and wisdom which people today seem to take for granted (except, perhaps, for a few honest theologians who surround themselves in the material).

But I don't see how any of this refutes these two facts:
-Only the natural world exists
-Religion can only describe the natural world (unless you believe in "supernatural" things)

By claiming something is external than nature, how can you take that as meaning anything but that it doesn't exist?
-


What is natural?

But then is religion not natural, as it is part of the natural world? Therefore it has a right to exist in such state as being natural.

What we perceive in a bidimensional holographic universe in which what we perceive may actually be a quantum reflection of another universe thus perhaps hinting at the Buddhist concept of maya?

[Revolution starts with U]

"Religion is natural"
Yes, that was the point. It attempts to describe the natural world, but usually be ascribing some supernatural nonsense to it..

[ComradeMan]

"Religion is natural"
Yes, that was the point. It attempts to describe the natural world, but usually be ascribing some supernatural nonsense to it..

But if everything is natural, including perceptions, and perhaps things we haven't found out yet than supernatural becomes meaningless.

[Revolution starts with U]

Now you're getting it :cool:

Imo, and you may disagree, but if a miracle happens, it was a natural occurence w a natural explanation. Just most people hold this strange notion that prayer to a sky wizard causes it... yet it is claimed to happen in non-sky wizard societies too

[ComradeMan]

Now you're getting it :cool:

Imo, and you may disagree, but if a miracle happens, it was a natural occurence w a natural explanation. Just most people hold this strange notion that prayer to a sky wizard causes it... yet it is claimed to happen in non-sky wizard societies too

But who actually believes in a skywizard- and if they did, well that would be natural, wouldn't it?

This is getting to Cartesian however.... :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

Their belief in it is natural. The sky wizard itself may or may not be.

Many people believe in a sky wizard. They call him God. He lives in the sky and can do magic = sky wizard. Forgive my appeal to ridicule :D

[ComradeMan]

Their belief in it is natural. The sky wizard itself may or may not be.

Many people believe in a sky wizard. They call him God. He lives in the sky and can do magic = sky wizard. Forgive my appeal to ridicule :D

Who exactly?
:tt2:

Anyway, this is getting too Cartesian.... in an existentialist sense their belief in him or it makes him or it real for them! :tt2:

[Dean]

What is natural?

But then is religion not natural, as it is part of the natural world? Therefore it has a right to exist in such state as being natural.
Uh, yeah, religion is natural. So is fantasy and science fiction. They are ideas.

Whether or not their claims are naturally-occurring facts besides this "idea stage" is different. But I know it is absurd to claim that anything I know exists as a figment of my mind is somehow "unnatural." The electricity in a wire is no less natural, just because it is composed of energy.


What we perceive in a bidimensional holographic universe in which what we perceive may actually be a quantum reflection of another universe thus perhaps hinting at the Buddhist concept of maya?

I don't know exactly what you're saying, but a part of the Maya concept is the idea that the human psyche is not external from the universe (adaptable here as reinforcement of my argument, that the human mind is a natural concept).

Is this what you were trying to get at?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

By the way, your essay appears to be missing a couple of inconvenient little facts:

1) What scientists say happens to be true, or otherwise can be proven false. We have no way of assessing theologians' claims - they steadfastly refuse to be forthcoming in terms of evidence and reliable observations.

2) Theology maps pretty closely to culture. Had you been born in a different time and place, you may have argued for the existence of the Hellenic Pantheon, or Mithras, or the Aztec gods. Occam's razor slices away the extraneous entities - and religion is a perfectly mundane matter.

You think you can improve your odds by placing multiple bets, but there's only one horse in this race, and that's science.

You are confusing mythologers and theologians. Mythology maps to culture and can't be proven. Theology is an attempt to build an ontology which is cohesive or tries to find universal/metaphysical/philosophical truth to mythology. The belief of theology is that mythology, in a mystical way, points towards truth and by using reason to struggle with it, one can attain ontological truths while moving away from superficial interpretations of religion.


Religion makes claims about the material world, and if its claims on things like "god" and "souls" are correct, they are physical facts.


Lay mythology offers claims about the material world, but its not an essential facet of religion.



There are plenty of "whys" explained by science, so I'm not sure how this is a valid distinction. Early religious texts served as aggregations of wisdom under the banner of some given tradition. This is why it covers everything from genesis, charity, health and social arrangements. Not a whole lot "non-physical" about that (besides, what is non-physical except for another definition of "nonexistent"?).[

No "why" is ever explained in science. We know "how" the sun goes up (the earth spins), but you can't know "why" the sun goes up from that information. Some religions give that "why" in terms of a demiurge. Some like Buddhism say there is no absolute why. Most modern Catholics, however, in opposition to their galileo-punishing ancestors, accept scientific explanations for worldly existence, but give "God" as a reason why. Early Islam also used its metaphysics and theology to justify empirical science. And ayurveda and other indian sciences were theologically-justified attempts at empiricism.

What is "non-physical"? Well, any phenomena, insofar as all phenomena exist in the context of our consciousness. Even if there is a physical cause (ie, electric charge from neurotransmitters), that physical cause never in of itself represents the thought as it appears to consciousness itself. And it is this phenomenal level that religion concentrates on. Perhaps it tells fun stories of how the leopard gets his spots, but ultimately the main objective is to educate people on the ultimate eschatological justification of their own existence. Science doesn't deal in existential questioning, it merely tries to strip objective phenomenon of its subjective content and see it in its purest possible relations with other objects (and as such is a pure ideal).


I don't know exactly what you're saying, but a part of the Maya concept is the idea that the human psyche is not external from the universe (adaptable here as reinforcement of my argument, that the human mind is a natural concept).

Maya means many things, but in Hindu and Buddhist philosophy it tends to refer to the illusionary nature of any phenomena, where the phenomena is a momentary sort of veiled absolute truth. On one hand, Hindus say, all phenomena are part of absolute truth. On the other, both Hindus and Buddhists say, all phenomena fail to capture absolute truth in of themselves.



I think Kant's Critique, Hegel, Berkley and Vedanta philosophies are a good place to start if you want to see the difficulty in saying a particular phenomena corresponds to a particular material event in the universe. Even many dialectical materialists like horkheimer don't pretend that scientific phenomena shows the world as it is (just read his essay on metaphysics & materialism, he seems to endorse a critical materialism instead which understands the fluidity and imperfection of phenomena but nonetheless critically analyzes them against one another).

The problem of the purist-atheists is that there's no questioning of the nature of hypostasis. Atheist materialism is great until you need to see the unity in temporally disperse moments of conscious being (which is more difficult than connecting temporally disperse worldly events in "objective time", which is what science does).

[ComradeMan]

Most modern Catholics, however, in opposition to their galileo-punishing ancestors, accept scientific explanations for worldly existence, but give "God" as a reason why.


I agree with your points- however do note that the idea of anti-science Catholic Church and persecuting Galileo etc is not as it is often portrayed either.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I agree with your points- however do note that the idea of anti-science Catholic Church and persecuting Galileo etc is not as it is often portrayed either.

This is true. In fact, I think John Paul went so far as to say the church was wrong to do what they did to Galileo, and it happened at a unique point in church history (it was around the tumult of the reformation and the renaissance). No religion is as bad as its critics point it out to be, or as good as its dogmatic adherents insist either. Also has a lot to do with historical epochs, which as readers of marx should be something we're experienced with.

[ComradeMan]

This is true. In fact, I think John Paul went so far as to say the church was wrong to do what they did to Galileo, and it happened at a unique point in church history (it was around the tumult of the reformation and the renaissance). No religion is as bad as its critics point it out to be, or as good as its dogmatic adherents insist either. Also has a lot to do with historical epochs, which as readers of marx should be something we're experienced with.

Well, the whole problem with Galileo was actually a clash of personalities and the fact that Galileo would not or could not demonstrate empirically what he was claiming. A prior Pope had been a big fan of Copernicus. I posted somewhere further up in this thread about this issue- it is often misconstrued as the superstition of the Church against the science of Galileo, but it wasn't quite like that in reality.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are confusing mythologers and theologians. Mythology maps to culture and can't be proven. Theology is an attempt to build an ontology which is cohesive or tries to find universal/metaphysical/philosophical truth to mythology. The belief of theology is that mythology, in a mystical way, points towards truth and by using reason to struggle with it, one can attain ontological truths while moving away from superficial interpretations of religion.

What truths? How can an ontology ever reasonably claim to be anywhere near the truth when it draws it's concepts and archetypes from mythology? The fact is that while mythology may not be true, it is a hell of a lot more useful and entertaining than the constant self-serving justifications that theologians give concerning their own existence and role.

Theologians can pontificate endlessly on the subject of their field because it is ultimately unproven. They can impute whatever nature to God that is convenient to them, without ever having to worry about being loudly contradicted by the evidence, because hey, they're not dealing with reality.

Pending evidence for God, theology is socially-sanctioned fraud.


Lay mythology offers claims about the material world, but its not an essential facet of religion.

What the lay believe is far more important and consequential than the maunderings of ivory-tower theologians. All this posturing and prinking about with academic pretensions is just a handy excuse to ignore the fact that the common believer actually tends to believe in some quite ugly things.


The problem of the purist-atheists is that there's no questioning of the nature of hypostasis. Atheist materialism is great until you need to see the unity in temporally disperse moments of conscious being (which is more difficult than connecting temporally disperse worldly events in "objective time", which is what science does).

Why would anyone need to see "unity in disperse[sic] moments of conscious being"? Sounds like mumbo-jumbo.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, the whole problem with Galileo was actually a clash of personalities and the fact that Galileo would not or could not demonstrate empirically what he was claiming. A prior Pope had been a big fan of Copernicus. I posted somewhere further up in this thread about this issue- it is often misconstrued as the superstition of the Church against the science of Galileo, but it wasn't quite like that in reality.

Hang on, are you saying that Galileo was threatened with torture and murder because he rubbed someone up the wrong way? Or because he wouldn't provide evidence?

Either way, that doesn't make the Church any less fucked up. Just fucked up for different reasons.

[Revolution starts with U]

EDIT: Removed

[ComradeMan]

Hang on, are you saying that Galileo was threatened with torture and murder because he rubbed someone up the wrong way? Or because he wouldn't provide evidence? Either way, that doesn't make the Church any less fucked up. Just fucked up for different reasons.

Remember that Galileo was challenging the "established" science of cosmology etc based on Aristotle. The whole idea of helio- or geocentrism was controversial and anyone presenting a new theory had, in a true scientific sense, to provide good arguments in support. Galileo was not able to, or failed to provide the "scientific" body of the church with evidence for his claims as such.

However there is a lot more to it.

The Pope in question, Urban, was surrounded by enemies and court intrigues as well as having the Spanish put pressure on him all the time. Galileo had upset people in Rome by attacking the ideas of Aristotle and defending the evermore unpopular ideas of Copernicus. To this effect, a certain "inner sanctum" started filling the pope's ears with poison about Galileo.

The Pope had demanded that Galileo provide evidence for his theories in his book, which he did not, and to make matters worse Galileo "accidentally" parodied the Pope by quoting the Pope's words in the mouth of Simplicius of Cilicia," "Simplicio" (which also means "simpleton" in Italian). This perceived attack on or ridiculing of the Pope was not taken lightly in Rome and ended up in Galileo being called to the City to defend himself. Whereas before Urban had supported Galileo in a sense, now he was alone and without friends- and had made one very powerful enemy.

The general ban on Galileo's works was partially lifted in 1741 by Benedict XIV and the generally in 1758.

The idea that Galileo was persecuted as a scientists by medieval and superstitious witchfinders is not really accurate at all and has more to do with a clash of personalities, the power games and politics of the time and also an unfortunate lack of foresight on the part of Galileo!

If you actually look at scientific exploration in the Renaissance period you'll see the established Catholic Church was actually not as anti-science at all, quite the contrary, as is often claimed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Remember that Galileo was challenging the "established" science of cosmology etc based on Aristotle. The whole idea of helio- or geocentrism was controversial and anyone presenting a new theory had, in a true scientific sense, to provide good arguments in support. Galileo was not able to, or failed to provide the "scientific" body of the church with evidence for his claims as such.

And the threats of torture? Are they part of a "true scientific sense" too?


However there is a lot more to it.

The Pope in question, Urban, was surrounded by enemies and court intrigues as well as having the Spanish put pressure on him all the time. Galileo had upset people in Rome by attacking the ideas of Aristotle and defending the evermore unpopular ideas of Copernicus. To this effect, a certain "inner sanctum" started filling the pope's ears with poison about Galileo.

So far, so palace intrigue. I wonder if so-called holy men playing at politics is what Jesus wanted.


The Pope had demanded that Galileo provide evidence for his theories in his book, which he did not, and to make matters worse Galileo "accidentally" parodied the Pope by quoting the Pope's words in the mouth of Simplicius of Cilicia," "Simplicio" (which also means "simpleton" in Italian). This perceived attack on or ridiculing of the Pope was not taken lightly in Rome and ended up in Galileo being called to the City to defend himself. Whereas before Urban had supported Galileo in a sense, now he was alone and without friends- and had made one very powerful enemy.

When one is at the top, ridicule is to be expected. If the reaction to that ridicule is to threaten punitive action, then the fault lies with the threatener not the ridiculer.


The general ban on Galileo's works was partially lifted in 1741 by Benedict XIV and the generally in 1758.

The idea that Galileo was persecuted as a scientists by medieval and superstitious witchfinders is not really accurate at all and has more to do with a clash of personalities, the power games and politics of the time and also an unfortunate lack of foresight on the part of Galileo!

Fuck off. "unfortunate lack of foresight" my left testicle. He made fun of authority and was suppressed for it, and you somehow think that makes it better than what is commonly understood to have happened? No, it's not a bunch of superstitious old men defending their worldview, it's a bunch of superstitious old men defending their privilege and position. I guess that makes it alright then.


If you actually look at scientific exploration in the Renaissance period you'll see the established Catholic Church was actually not as anti-science at all, quite the contrary, as is often claimed.

Like I said, your pathetic apologism does nothing to reduce the magnitude of the Church's crimes. The fact remains that an old man was threatened for thumbing his nose at ecclesiastical authority, and since then the Catholic Church has continued to be a massive stain on humanity's ethical record.

The day when institutions like the Church are nothing more than a bad memory cannot come soon enough.

[ComradeMan]

----.

Yawn, it's not pathetic apologism... I was just trying to explain the historical facts around the conflict between Galileo and the Pope- FACTS- if you are too ignorant and "dogmatic" to want to listen then that's your problem...

As for the lack of foresight, well it was a bit stupid misquoting the Pope's words in the mouth of a much derided philosopher such as Simplicius. wasn't it? Derp.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yawn, it's not pathetic apologism... I was just trying to explain the historical facts around the conflict between Galileo and the Pope- FACTS- if you are too ignorant and "dogmatic" to want to listen then that's your problem...

Do I deny the facts? No. I deny that they change the outcome.


As for the lack of foresight, well it was a bit stupid misquoting the Pope's words in the mouth of a much derided philosopher such as Simplicius. wasn't it? Derp.

Good job blaming the victim in that situation. Or do you think people should be able to threaten those who misquote them with violence?

[ComradeMan]

Do I deny the facts? No. I deny that they change the outcome. Good job blaming the victim in that situation. Or do you think people should be able to threaten those who misquote them with violence?

Moving the goals as usual. The point wasn't about whether you or I or anyone else consider Galileo to have been in the right and the Pope et al to be in the wrong- the point was that the whole issue of Galileo had more to do with politics and personality clashes than with an anti-scientific sentiment within the church- as is often made out.

[TC]

When science is allowed to exist freely and peacefully - it will peacefully end the existence of religion.

[ComradeMan]

When science is allowed to exist freely and peacefully - it will peacefully end the existence of religion.


FFS- I am not saying there aren't clashes on ethical issues- but those are not scientific issues- rather ethical issues surrounding science which does not itself exist in a vacuum.

When was the last time a scientist was declared a heretic by the way? When was the last time the established church(es) came out against science or said that E=MC2 heresy etc etc etc---?

Science will not end the existence of religion whatsoever. Where is the evidence to back up your assertion? If anything the circumstancial evidence is to the contrary- at least 400 years of major scientific progress and around 4 billion people, i.e. 2/3 of the world are still in some sense religious or spiritual and religions are growing too.

Until people find out what happens after they die or why we are all here- two questions that cannot be really answered then there will always be some religious belief or other. At the end of the day science explains how things work whereas religion tackles the metaphysical and philosophical questions of why we are here and on ways to live together etc. The two are not mutually exclusive- not at least by anyone who is not a fanatic (militant atheits or religious fundamentalist).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Moving the goals as usual. The point wasn't about whether you or I or anyone else consider Galileo to have been in the right and the Pope et al to be in the wrong- the point was that the whole issue of Galileo had more to do with politics and personality clashes than with an anti-scientific sentiment within the church- as is often made out.

I am not moving any goalposts. In my first post addressed to you (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2021159&postcount=55) I pointed out that threatening someone for political reasons was no less fucked up than threatening them for for scientific reasons.

Intimidation is the tactic of bullies and thugs, and the Church is a nest of the fuckers and has been for centuries.


FFS- I am not saying there aren't clashes on ethical issues- but those are not scientific issues- rather ethical issues surrounding science which does not itself exist in a vacuum.

In the case of an ethical conflict, it almost always boils down to consequentialist ethics taking its cues from scientific evidence, versus those derived from religion (faith-based).


When was the last time a scientist was declared a heretic by the way? When was the last time the established church(es) came out against science or said that E=MC2 heresy etc etc etc---?

Scientists don't need to be declared heretics for religion to foster anti-science attitudes. Simple ignorance, lies spread by clergy in their sermons, and the whole idea that faith - belief in things without evidence - is something that society should respect is a poisonous enough cocktail by itself.


Science will not end the existence of religion whatsoever. Where is the evidence to back up your assertion? If anything the circumstancial evidence is to the contrary- at least 400 years of major scientific progress and around 4 billion people, i.e. 2/3 of the world are still in some sense religious or spiritual and religions are growing too.

Imagine how bad it was before we had things like widespread literacy, an established body of scientific knowledge and practice, or the idea that entirely natural unthinking processes could give rise to intelligent complexity.

As for "religions are growing too" I'd like to know what you're basing that on. Since we're talking about evidence, after all.


Until people find out what happens after they die or why we are all here- two questions that cannot be really answered then there will always be some religious belief or other.

We already know the answer to the first question - we rot - and most people have yet to cotton on to the fact the second question assumes a number of things not actually in evidence (for example, a purpose to the universe).


At the end of the day science explains how things work whereas religion tackles the metaphysical and philosophical questions of why we are here and on ways to live together etc. The two are not mutually exclusive- not at least by anyone who is not a fanatic (militant atheits or religious fundamentalist).

Religion doesn't answer "why" questions. Ask any two believers the answer to a "why" question and odds on you'll get completely different, perhaps even conflicting, answers.

Now, science can't tell us what to do in ethical terms, but it can tell us the consequences of a particular course of action. It's not perfect, since onus is on us all to determine what is ethical, but it sure beats holy books and sermons.

[ComradeMan]

....

Blah, blah, blah- it still doesn't disprove the assertion that Galileo was not really being persecuted for his scientific views rather than politics and personality clashes.

Intimidation and bullying have been the tactics of most who hold power- it's shameful that the church has also been involved, but it still doesn't make religion de facto anti-science.

Interestingly the Pythagoreans were not so kind to "traitors" either and it's not as if the "established" scientific world is without its dirty tricks.

[Revolution starts with U]

FFS, science answers "why." I hate that assertion. Nobody asks "what is the sky blue" or "how is the sky blue." THey ask "why is the sky blue" and science has an answer for that. The chemical compounds in the sky that correspond to blue reflect sunlight better at that angle.
Why are we here? Because a big bang happened that created a solar system with a planet with water on it and in a mesh of organic compounds, somehow, RNA was created, which later, through natural processes created DNA.
What is our purpose? To live and have children. Anything other than that is up to you.
Why do people do good things? Because natural selection, in a group species, selects for team work and altruistic behavior.

If people want to be religious, thats their matter. I think it's naive and silly, but whatever. But to suggest religion attempts to answer different questions than science is just, plain, wrong.

[Revolution starts with U]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

In reality the church officially has gone back and forth on its acceptance of science. But the Galileo affair had as much to do with a clash of epistimologies as it did a clash of personalities.
What needs to be reminded here is that the official heads of hte church, usually being more educated, are often more open to science than the average believer. The church should be opposed for its politics and political structures. But it is the religous believer on teh street where the problem of religion itself comes in. It is your average believer, or local church head, that is uses his religion to oppose science. Usually when the church takes stances like this, it is because their members are clamoring for it.

[TC]

FFS- I am not saying there aren't clashes on ethical issues- but those are not scientific issues- rather ethical issues surrounding science which does not itself exist in a vacuum.

There are clashes on factual issues, like how old the earth is, how long it took to create it, whether souls exist, how species originated, and whether or not a magic sky father figure created the world and controls it.



When was the last time a scientist was declared a heretic by the way? When was the last time the established church(es) came out against science

Churches attack the teaching of evolution in schools, deny evolution, ttack stem cell research, the big bang theory, etc all the time. They also make up their own psudo-science to justify reactionary beliefs, like the phoney link between abortion and breast cancer and suicide which the rightwing invented and christian crisis pregnancy centers push on people who don't know they're lying. Many religious conservatives even deny global warming saying that God would provide for us and that humans were given dominion over the earth and are meant to use it as a resource.

More generally, their fundamental beliefs require a denial of scientific fact: fundamentalist Christians believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and it was created in seven days; all Christians believe it is possible to rise from the dead, that Christ did this and that numerous other supernatural events can and did occur, breaking the laws of physics.



Science will not end the existence of religion whatsoever. Where is the evidence to back up your assertion? If anything the circumstancial evidence is to the contrary- at least 400 years of major scientific progress and around 4 billion people, i.e. 2/3 of the world are still in some sense religious or spiritual and religions are growing too.

Just because science hasn't ended the existence of religion yet, does not mean that it will not in time. It is making progress. Four hundred years ago virtually everyone was religious and the portion of religious people have decreased as the acceptance of science has expanded.

93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences were atheists in 1998, a figure that has progressively increased over the 20th century.


Until people find out what happens after they die

I hate to break it to you but we have known for some time what happens after people die: their bodies decompose and their minds are destroyed with their brains.


or why we are all here

We are here as a result of our parents actions, their parents before them, and so on til the first life forms. This explains why we are here.

As a consequence, we do not have any purpose except what purpose we determine for ourselves, and isn't that exciting! Our potential for meaningfulness is not dictated by anything beyond us so we can decide it for ourselves!

And to decide it for ourselves we need humanism and philosophy, not dogma, not religion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Blah, blah, blah- it still doesn't disprove the assertion that Galileo was not really being persecuted for his scientific views rather than politics and personality clashes.

Something which I have not contested, so your point is a red herring anyway.


Intimidation and bullying have been the tactics of most who hold power- it's shameful that the church has also been involved, but it still doesn't make religion de facto anti-science.

No, it doesn't. There are other reasons why religion is anti-science - it fosters the attitude that faith is at least as respectable as evidence-based reasoning, for one. But it does make the Church just the sort of institution that plays into the interests of authoritarian shits.

It also makes it the perfect shelter for child molestors - bum an altarboy and the worst you could expect for it (at least until recently) was to be moved elsewhere.


Interestingly the Pythagoreans were not so kind to "traitors" either and it's not as if the "established" scientific world is without its dirty tricks.

The Pythagoreans are dead and Albert Einstein did not, as far as I can recall, threaten to torture or murder Niels Bohr, no matter how much quantum mechanics offended him.

[Red Bayonet]

Religion says 'believe it'.
Science says 'prove it'.
Nuff said.

[ComradeMan]

FFS, science answers "why." I hate that assertion. Nobody asks "what is the sky blue" or "how is the sky blue." THey ask "why is the sky blue" and science has an answer for that. The chemical compounds in the sky that correspond to blue reflect sunlight better at that angle. Why are we here? Because a big bang happened that created a solar system with a planet with water on it and in a mesh of organic compounds, somehow, RNA was created, which later, through natural processes created DNA. What is our purpose? To live and have children. Anything other than that is up to you. Why do people do good things? Because natural selection, in a group species, selects for team work and altruistic behavior.

If people want to be religious, thats their matter. I think it's naive and silly, but whatever. But to suggest religion attempts to answer different questions than science is just, plain, wrong.

None of your explanations have answered why- they have only repeated how.

You haven't explained why the sky is blue only how it is perceived as blue by the human observer- despite the problem with that too.

If you say the sky is blue then the "sky" must always and in every circumstance be blue and you also need to define what blue is- objectively speaking a bee might perceive another colour and a dog have difficulty etc. Ceteris paribus you can reason that sky looks blue because of this and that... but you are explaining the how mechanisms and not the why.

Why did the Big Bang happen?
:lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

None of your explanations have answered why- they have only repeated how.

You haven't explained why the sky is blue only how it is perceived as blue by the human observer- despite the problem with that too.

Why: the cause or intention underlying an action or situation, especially in the phrase `the whys and wherefores'
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dwhy&sa=X&ei=UF9lTau-F8qugQesuYWVBw&ved=0CBcQpAMoAA&usg=AFQjCNEwsDXCWrWUoHOZgjC73m0rO1KhwA)
The cause of the sky being blue is that blue reflects better. The intention is moot, as there is no (physically recordable) conscious acting body behind it.
To say that science doesn't answer why means you are automatically assuming the existence of God, or that there is intention to the universe. Science tries to find the cause underlying and action or situation. It asks why.


If you say the sky is blue then the "sky" must always and in every circumstance be blue and you also need to define what blue is- objectively speaking a bee might perceive another colour and a dog have difficulty etc. Ceteris paribus you can reason that sky looks blue because of this and that... but you are explaining the how mechanisms and not the why.

Once again, there is only a difference between why something happens and how something happens if you automatically assume intention to the universe.
But yes. The sky is not blue, always. It is blue most of the time (unless you live in NEOhio, where its gray most of the time). This touches on that number debate you're having in the other thread. Wherein saying you have one apple is really saying you have 50 million molecules combined to what you would call "apple."


Why did the Big Bang happen?
:lol:

Im kind-of a proponent of membrane theory. Two opposing membranes pushing against each other created ripples which compressed into heat igniting the big bang. But, I kind of like white hole theory (let me just say here as a side note, neither one of them are really theories in a scientific sense). Some people think it may be god.
But in reality, my view is we should wait for the evidence and see what it has to say.

[ComradeMan]

Why: the cause or intention underlying an action or situation, especially in the phrase `the whys and wherefores'
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?q=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dwhy&sa=X&ei=UF9lTau-F8qugQesuYWVBw&ved=0CBcQpAMoAA&usg=AFQjCNEwsDXCWrWUoHOZgjC73m0rO1KhwA)
The cause of the sky being blue is that blue reflects better. The intention is moot, as there is no (physically recordable) conscious acting body behind it..


Better than what? Did the sky make a choice? The fact is that the sky isn't blue- it looks blue to us. You've named the problem already...


To say that science doesn't answer why means you are automatically assuming the existence of God, or that there is intention to the universe. Science tries to find the cause underlying and action or situation. It asks why..


No it doesn't. I could ask a whole host of questions to which I do not know the answer without defaulting to a God argument.


Once again, there is only a difference between why something happens and how something happens if you automatically assume intention to the universe.But yes. The sky is not blue, always. It is blue most of the time (unless you live in NEOhio, where its gray most of the time). This touches on that number debate you're having in the other thread. Wherein saying you have one apple is really saying you have 50 million molecules combined to what you would call "apple." ..

That's getting into debates about how much sand you need to have a heap of sand.

The point is this, the how argument is in the realm of science- the why, i.e. the reason behind things or perhaps the "intention" is in the real of "metaphysics" or spirituality. They are not the same- I don't think they are mutually exclusive however.


Im kind-of a proponent of membrane theory. Two opposing membranes pushing against each other created ripples which compressed into heat igniting the big bang. But, I kind of like white hole theory (let me just say here as a side note, neither one of them are really theories in a scientific sense). Some people think it may be god.But in reality, my view is we should wait for the evidence and see what it has to say.

But why are you a proponent of those theories? You're still explaining the how question and not the why?

Perhaps there is also a linguistic issue here. Italian "perché" would mean "for what" i.e. "wherefore" whereas "how" would mean "come" and this would definitely have a very different connotation- perhaps in English there isn't such a big difference. If I say "Perché...." then I want a reason, motive or cause- which then gets into the whole debate of what causes the cause etc, if I say "Come...." then I'm just interested in the mechanism.

[Revolution starts with U]

Better than what? Did the sky make a choice? The fact is that the sky isn't blue- it looks blue to us. You've named the problem already...


Better than red, yellow, green, purple, etc. The sky isn't blue. Blue only exists when light interacts with certain chemical compounds. But that would be like saying leaves aren't green at night. It's technically true... but everyone knows what I mean when I say "that leaf is green."
But what does this have to do with why v how?
Why, in english, means, as I linked, the cause or intention. If there is no intention, why still refers to the cause behind something. As I said earlier, nobody asks "how is the sky blue."




No it doesn't. I could ask a whole host of questions to which I do not know the answer without defaulting to a God argument.

But you're assuming that why means there is an intention. Why can just as readily be applied to the cause, sans any intention. "Why did that cup fall over?" "There was an earthquake."
^No intention involved in there.



The point is this, the how argument is in the realm of science- the why, i.e. the reason behind things or perhaps the "intention" is in the realm of "metaphysics" or spirituality. They are not the same- I don't think they are mutually exclusive however.

That's what I'm saying tho. For you to say science doesn't answer why (ie, the cause OR intention) means you are automatically assuming an intention to the universe (whether or not you are referring to God as such).



But why are you a proponent of those theories? You're still explaining the how question and not the why?

No. I am saying the CAUSE of the big bang may have been membrane collision. I am not assuming any intention here, so why is still valid.
It would be better to say science attempts to answer how and why. Religion does too (and usually is substandard in its attempts), but it ultimately attempts to find the purpose behind things.


Perhaps there is also a linguistic issue here. Italian "perché" would mean "for what" i.e. "wherefore" whereas "how" would mean "come" and this would definitely have a very different connotation- perhaps in English there isn't such a big difference. If I say "Perché...." then I want a reason, motive-(I removed cause) which then gets into the whole debate of what causes the cause etc, if I say "Come...." then I'm just interested in the mechanism.

Granted. That's why I like the romance and old world languages. They are far more precise, imo. English seems like a hodge podge of slang turned into a language :lol:
In that sense, science does not attempt to touch "perche."

[ComradeMan]

Well I suppose this is like the critique of the Etruscans by a Greek- perhaps it's genetic!:lol:

I can't remember exactly who, but whereas the Greeks said the thunder was caused by the clouds, the Etruscans said the clouds called thunder.... I'll see if I can find an exact reference... give me a virtual second...

But the sky is only blue depending on where you look at if from and blue is only blue because we agree it's blue and how do we know, empirically, that we see the same thing objectively?:D

Edit- oops, it was a Roman, Seneca

Seneca summarized the Etruscans’ beliefs:

"II.32.2". Naturales Quaestiones:
Hoc inter nos et Tuscos, quibus summa est fulgurum persequendorum scientia, interest: nos putamus, quia nubes collisae sunt, fulmina emitti; ipsi extimant nubes collidi, ut fulmina emittantur; nam, cum omnia ad deum referant, in ea opinione sunt, tamquam non, quia facta sunt, significent, sed quia significatura sunt, fiant.

Whereas we (Romans) believe lightning to be released as a result of the collision of the clouds, they (Etruscans) believe that clouds collide so as to release lightning, for as they attribute all to the deity, they are led to believe not that things have a meaning in so far as they occur, but rather that they occur because they must have a meaning.

[Revolution starts with U]

But the sky is only blue depending on where you look at if from and blue is only blue because we agree it's blue and how do we know, empirically, that we see the same thing objectively?

Ive tried to have that debate with many people. It is rare tha anyone even understands it (how do we know the blue I see is the blue you see). They think Im talking about color-blindness :lol:

I want to see a one world language (not necessarily the only language, but the one language used world wide for trade, commerce, politics, etc). I am very sad to think it is looking like english is winning that out :crying:
GOGO China. Mandarin, from what I know, is a kick ass language. :thumbup1:

[ComradeMan]

Ive tried to have that debate with many people. It is rare tha anyone even understands it (how do we know the blue I see is the blue you see). They think Im talking about color-blindness :lol:

I want to see a one world language (not necessarily the only language, but the one language used world wide for trade, commerce, politics, etc). I am very sad to think it is looking like english is winning that out :crying:
GOGO China. Mandarin, from what I know, is a kick ass language. :thumbup1:

Perhaps we should resurrect the long defunct Etruscan language and then no one would feel it were unfair.

[Revolution starts with U]

Take it back to the beginning I say. Sanskrit FTW! (I didnt go back to egyptian or sumerian because sanskrit is the oldest written still in widespread use)
But really... perhaps a bushman or aboriginal language would be best...

[ComradeMan]

Take it back to the beginning I say. Sanskrit FTW! (I didnt go back to egyptian or sumerian because sanskrit is the oldest written still in widespread use)
But really... perhaps a bushman or aboriginal language would be best...

Well I think Sanskrit would be problematical and Khoi-San languages would be impossibly difficult to learn for most people because of their sounds and Aboriginal languages again pose problems because there are so many of them- just which one would you pick? I say Etruscan because it is a long dead language that does not "belong" to any present day group and is not tied to religious material or anything else!

AVRA RASNA!!!

[Revolution starts with U]

You're only saying that because you live in old etruscan lands :lol: