Reconciling science and religion

[Prometheus]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

 

"So you agree we should drop the issue of religion been a problem and focus on the actual problems and their causes. Good."

Actually, I think we should focus on the topic.

Of course, if you think that religion is a probe (and you accept that science isn't) then you have found a fundamental difference between the two which can't be reconciled and you have shown that  the answer to the thread is that they can't be reconciled.

 

In any event, science and religion cant't be reconciled because they have totally opposed views to evidence.

It's been pointed out that, for example, some of the major churches now accept evolution.

Great, but in doing so they are not being religious, but being scientific.

If they did the same thing with all of the areas where there's a disagreement- contraception, sexuality, racism etc they would stop looking like a religion and look like a social club.

Science and religion would- in a way- be reconciled by that process, but only by the death or religion. Virtually nothing would be left that was "an article of faith" rather than a matter of reasoned opinion.

The suggestion has already been made that we ensure that critical thinking is taught in schools.

That would bring about progress towards this sort of "reconciliation".

You labour under the misunderstanding that religion has to be based on faith. Certainly this seems true of the Abrahamic religions, but far from all.

Take out faith from many forms of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism and you haven't removed anything important, certainly nothing defining of the religions.

Many religions have no creation story so evidence one way or another has no impact whatsoever on it. So evidence is not opposed to the religion.

And even if the Abrahimic faiths were left with virtually nothing, so what? If people are happy with what is left why are so keen to belittle them?

[John Cuthber]

Is there proof of the fundamentals of Taoism or Buddhism?
Aren't reincarnation  etc articles of faith?

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

If people are happy with what is left why are so keen to belittle them?

If they were happy with that then nobody would bother with them.

But they are not. As I said earlier, they don't just get together and sing songs.

They stick their noses into tings that are better addressed by other  processes.
However in the real world they do irrational things and they get in the way of people trying to be rational.

Things like the dead  children.

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

"So you agree we should drop the issue of religion been a problem and focus on the actual problems and their causes. Good."

Actually, I think we should focus on the topic.

 

About time...

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

In any event, science and religion cant't be reconciled because they have totally opposed views to evidence.

It's been pointed out that, for example, some of the major churches now accept evolution.

Great, but in doing so they are not being religious, but being scientific.

1

Bollocks, you can't have it both ways, despite your ridiculous definition of what constitutes being religious. 

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

If they did the same thing with all of the areas where there's a disagreement- contraception, sexuality, racism etc they would stop looking like a religion and look like a social club.

Science and religion would- in a way- be reconciled by that process, but only by the death or religion. Virtually nothing would be left that was "an article of faith" rather than a matter of reasoned opinion.

 

Again bollocks, why would peoples faith be diminished because they accept the evidence? There would be plenty left, God can't be denied through evidence and the good stuff (that I've explained over and over) would be left to follow.

The problems of religious extremists are far better tackled by a reconciliation than by flat denial, as previously explained by others.

[Strange]

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Great, but in doing so they are not being religious, but being scientific.

False dichotomy. Based, apparently, on the fallacy of begging the question, as you have already decided they can't be reconciled.

On the other hand, if they can be reconciled then these people are being scientific and religious.

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

If they did the same thing with all of the areas where there's a disagreement- contraception, sexuality, racism etc they would stop looking like a religion and look like a social club.

Many religious people do not have any disagreement with any of those things. After all, none of them are fundamentally religious issues (*). Many religious people accept all results of science (in as much as anyone does; i.e. with an appropriate level of caution). After all, many scientists are religious. Many religious people have liberal views on the sorts of issues you mention. 

Perhaps you should think of it as a social club and leave it at that.

So, once again, this looks like a bit of a straw man argument: "no real religious person can agree with science or my liberal views and if they do, then they are not really religious".

(*) What a surprise.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

It looks like you need to  start by telling us how you are defining science and religion.

My view that one is based in faith and the other in logic and observation seems to tally with the dictionary, but not with you.

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms:

faith, belief,...

 

science

ˈsʌɪəns/

noun

 

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    

   1 hour ago, Strange said:

   Perhaps you should think of it as a social club and leave it at that.

   I'd be happy to if they would act as one.

   But, instead they insist on getting involved in making important decisions; and making the wrong choices.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

and making the wrong choices.

Sometimes. But sometimes they will agree with you. (Just like non-religious people.)

Edited August 27, 2017 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sometimes. But sometimes they will agree with you. 

Good, but let's only involve them in the decisions where religion is more likely to be right than science.

(and in the same way, where science is more likely to be right, we can leave religion out of it).

Where they make the right decisions, they are redundant; were they make the wrong ones, they are a bad influence.

So, where are they useful?

 

Edited August 27, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

Maybe this discussion wouldn't keep going round in circles if you didn't keep saying that all religious people do this, all religious people do that....

I know. I know. You are going to say "I never said that." Of course not, you use the usual racist weasel words so you can deny you meant it. But the fact that you constantly refer to "religious people" and "they" implies you are tarring them all with the same brush. Imagine someone was to make negative comments about another majority by saying "black people do this..." "they do that..." And then turned round and said "but I'm not racist". Would you really believe them?

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Where they make the right decisions, they are redundant

So people who vote the same way as you are redundant?

Or scientists who are religious are redundant?

And what would you do about it?

[Area54]

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Good, but let's only involve them in the decisions where religion is more likely to be right than science.

(and in the same way, where science is more likely to be right, we can leave religion out of it).

Where they make the right decisions, they are redundant; were they make the wrong ones, they are a bad influence.

So, where are they useful?

There are many scientists who have chosen to accept no responsibility for the use to which their work is put. (And many who have taken an appropriate ethical stance.)

Many religious people have rightly questioned violence, warfare, weapons of mass destruction and the like. (And many have not.)

So why are some scientist and some religious people capable of ethical behaviour, and some are not? Why is there this spread of two conflicting behaviours and attitudes across two groups? Wait a moment! Could it be because both groups are composed of humans?

John, you very clearly have an obsession when it comes to religion. You are as fundamental in your negative attitude to religion as YEC's are to science and with much the same justification. None. So, thank you for the conversation, but I'm not wasting anymore time on your personality quirk.

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'd be happy to if they would act as one.

But, instead they insist on getting involved in making important decisions; and making the wrong choices.

 

 

Does science?

How many scientists have been turned by money (their faith that money will enhance their lives)? Tobacco, food and global warming, to name but three.

 

cross posted...

Edited August 27, 2017 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Maybe this discussion wouldn't keep going round in circles if you didn't keep saying that all religious people do this

I never said that, and I have pointed out plenty of times that I never said that.

Since it's not true, the rest of your post is silly.

It seems that you don't understand that "Black people come from Africa or Australasia" isn't absolutely true, but it's a reasonable generalisation of history and not racist.

"Religious people oppose equality of marriage" is a similar statement.

It's shorthand for "in general..."

And in some cases, "it's an article of faith that..."

 

But the point is that, since marriage is actually a secular event, religion has no legitimate claim to make the decision.

So, once you learn to stop reading generalisations as absolutes, you will see that I really never did say what you are (offensively) claiming and perhaps you could then get on with looking at the reality.

Others have reported that , for example, the biggest hindrance to vaccination programmes in 3 parts of the word is religion.

That's not saying it's the only problem; in spite of your daft claim, I never said that.

 

The worst you can accuse me of is failing to add things like "often" or "in general" in my posts.

That make you claim about weasel words all the sillier.

 

  

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I never said that

Bingo.

Are you going to say that "Some of my best friends are religious" next.

[John Cuthber]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Does science?

How many scientists have been turned by money (their faith that money will enhance their lives)? Tobacco, food and global warming, to name but three.

Good question, and very interesting; but fundamentally irrelevant.

"Science" as an entity doesn't "preach" a policy of doing the wrong thing.

It's hypothetically possible that a scientist (in a rather loose use of the word) burned a witch to see what would happen.

But it's religion  that tells people to do it because it's "right".

 

There are, of course, "scientists" who tell lies for money.

And there are policemen who do the same.

But it isn't actually part of being a policeman, and it isn't part of being a scientist.

Deliberately misleading people is the antithesis of science so, as I said, it's irrelevant.

And, of course, when they get caught (which is rather likely in science) they get into trouble.

 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Bingo.

Are you going to say that "Some of my best friends are religious" next.

You said that elephants grow on trees.

 

Making an offensive false statement, predicting that it will be refuted, then claiming some sort of victory when it is, is a new low in debating techniques.

Edited August 27, 2017 by John Cuthber

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Good question, and very interesting; but fundamentally irrelevant.

"Science" as an entity doesn't "preach" a policy of doing the wrong thing.

It's hypothetically possible that a scientist (in a rather loose use of the word) burned a witch to see what would happen.

But it's religion  that tells people to do it because it's "right".

 

There are, of course, "scientists" who tell lies for money.

And there are policemen who do the same.

But it isn't actually part of being a policeman, and it isn't part of being a scientist.

Deliberately misleading people is the antithesis of science so, as I said, it's irrelevant.

And, of course, when they get caught (which is rather likely in science) they get into trouble.

1

It's not irrelevant because it's just as political as being a religious fundamentalist. Politics always muddies the water and will always get in the way of any sort of reconciliation whatever the factions; but the fact remains, whatever your protestations, religion is trying. 

And that will always be preferable to your approach.  

[John Cuthber]

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's not irrelevant because it's just as political as being a religious fundamentalist. Politics always muddies the water and will always get in the way of any sort of reconciliation whatever the factions; but the fact remains, whatever your protestations, religion is trying. 

And that will always be preferable to your approach.  

 

In what way is religion trying to bridge the gap(s)?
The last I heard was a group of senior religious leaders arguing for their continued place in politics on the basis of the "revealed truth" of religion.

My approach is education.

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

 

In what way is religion trying to bridge the gap(s)?
The last I heard was a group of senior religious leaders arguing for their continued place in politics on the basis of the "revealed truth" of religion.

My approach is education.

 

Sigh, the Catholics have acknowledged evolution, the church of England have women bishops and gay clergy and Buddhists have accepted scientific evidence.

Your approach is nothing more than a desire to be correct no matter what; consequently, your entire discourse on this thread is that of someone who is just trying to extend the gaps, for your own agenda, despite the evidence. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

The CoE pretty much has "evolved" into a social club. But, while it is true that they have, in some regards, been dragged into the 20th century, they have not been driving the change. They have gay clerics- yes, but 50 years after the rest of society accepted homosexuality.

The Catholic church is still strongly resisting attempts to make it recognise that gay people are human.

They are still trying to spread the word  of abstinence as a way to deal with HIV- even though "abstinence only " plans are known to fail more frequently than just about any other system. They have finally accepted that condoms aren't the Devil incarnate; but how many people had to die to convince them.

 

This isn't religion "trying" to integrate with science, it's religion trying to assert dominance, even where the evidence shows they are wrong.

This is not evidence that they are "trying" to reconcile religion with science; they are trying to avoid the incompatibility; but failing.

[dimreepr]

Tbh I don't care why they converge with science, just that they do, for whatever reason; it can only be beneficial for society as a whole. You're as welcome to distrust their motives, as I am to distrust yours.

[John Cuthber]

46 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Tbh I don't care why they converge with science, just that they do, for whatever reason; it can only be beneficial for society as a whole. You're as welcome to distrust their motives, as I am to distrust yours.

My point is that they are trying not to.

[Area54]

Who is throwing around -1's. I've already removed one from John Cuthber and one from DimReepr. I don't believe either response merited it. Verbal disagreement should be sufficient in this thread.

[Manticore]

3 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Who is throwing around -1's. I've already removed one from John Cuthber and one from DimReepr. I don't believe either response merited it. Verbal disagreement should be sufficient in this thread.

Possibly a lurker. I think just about everyone who contributes to this thread is far more likely to openly disparage a poor post.

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

My point is that they are trying not to.

Eppur si muove.

(See what I did there...)

[John Cuthber]

7 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Who is throwing around -1's. I've already removed one from John Cuthber and one from DimReepr.

You seem to have answered your own question.

[Area54]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

You seem to have answered your own question.

Is that an admission?

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Eppur si muove.

(See what I did there...)

Yes, you quoted something that was probably never said.

So...?

 

Just now, Area54 said:

Is that an admission?

No.
But your accusations are interesting.
You seem to thin you are being persecuted by both sides...