Reconciling science and religion

[Area54]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

No.

But your accusations are interesting.
You seem to thin you are being persecuted by both sides...

That is a bizarre statement. Someone gave you a -1, negative rep. I thought it unwarranted and cancelled it with an upvote. I did the same for a -1 applied to DimReepr. In what way is that me showing a belief I am being persecuted by both sides? Sorry John, but that strikes me as a very silly thing for you to say.

[John Cuthber]

I misread your post. I thought you said you had received the marks, rather than that you had removed them.

[Area54]

24 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I misread your post. I thought you said you had received the marks, rather than that you had removed them.

I'll take that as an apology then.

[Prometheus]

 

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

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

Only a few Taoists believe in reincarnation. It is not mentioned at all in the Tao Te Ching.  Certainly not a required belief  to be Taoist.

Rebirth (slight modification on reincarnation) is generally taught in Buddhism. Belief in it is considered compulsory in only a few of the more conservative traditions. That is some schools consider it fundamental, others do not, and since there is no consistent canon in Buddhism there is no way to 'prove' by scripture who is right.

 

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

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.

What, all of them? You keep on insisting you're not trying to characterise all religious but then make sweeping statements like this. You could try saying some of them, since that is what you profess you mean, and people wouldn't think you mean all of them. Is it that much effort? 

 

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

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

So Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism are not religions by your definition? Even Hinduism is a grey area by this definition, given the Atman isn't necessarily a controlling power. I'm fine if that definition if you want, it's just those 4 'social clubs' are generally considered religions.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Prometheus

[John Cuthber]

11 hours ago, Prometheus said:

So Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism are not religions by your definition?

No, they are not religions by the dictionary definition.

11 hours ago, Prometheus said:

You could try saying some of them, since that is what you profess you mean, and people wouldn't think you mean all of them. Is it that much effort? 

 

I would say "all ..." if that was what I meant.

Now I accept that leaving out the word "some" or the word "all" makes it ambiguous, but since I have repeatedly explained what I meant I really think I should be able to expect you to remember it.

What doesn't help is that, if I point it out, what I get is Strange doing some weird victory dance as if it's an achievement to get someone to say that a falsehood isn't true.

12 hours ago, Area54 said:

I'll take that as an apology then.

Unreservedly.

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No, they are not religions by the dictionary definition.

 

It would seem even you're religious, by the dictionary definition.

Quote

 

religion

rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/

noun

 

1. 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, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More

   • a particular system of faith and worship.

     plural noun: religions

     "the world's great religions"
   • a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

     "consumerism is the new religion"

 

1

1. •  

[John Cuthber]

You are highlighting the problem I pointed out earlier. The term seems poorly defined.

That's why I asked for your definition(s).

For the purposes of this discussion, it might be useful if, even at this late stage,  you said what your definitions of "science" and "religion" are.

Then we can actually look at what the OP asked about.

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

You are highlighting the problem I pointed out earlier. The term seems poorly defined.

That's why I asked for your definition(s).

For the purposes of this discussion, it might be useful if, even at this late stage,  you said what your definitions of "science" and "religion" are.

Then we can actually look at what the OP asked about.

The definition is subjective and changes nothing in this thread.

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

 

If someone decides they're Christian/Muslim/Buddhist then that's what they are, just as you will no doubt decide you're not religious despite the fact that the dictionary definition does include you.                                                       

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The definition is subjective                                                       

Of course, hence the request to clarify the parameters in use.

Quote

and changes nothing in this thread.

This, however, is quite obviously untrue.

By example: If my definition of "religion" is "following a standard process to collect evidence and discarding ideas that conflict with the evidence," then of course my "religion" can be reconciled with science. If, however, my definition of "religion" is "ignoring standard processes and any evidence that conflicts with my beliefs," then of course my "religion" CANNOT be reconciled with science. I've made my example both extreme and simple to better highlight my point, the veracity of which should be obvious.

The definition in use changes everything in this thread (as made obvious be even the minor distinction between Abrahamic religions and eastern philosophies like Taoism), hence the need to be clear on how words are being used. 

[John Cuthber]

58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The definition is subjective and changes nothing in this thread.

Great!

I can define religion as "that which can't be reconciled with science"

and you can define it as "that which can be reconciled with science"

That way everyone is happy.

 

(Unless of course, they were after a meaningful answer contingent on the conventional meanings of the words, but who would expect to find that on a discussion site?)

Cross posted with iNow

[Prometheus]

On 8/28/2017 at 9:36 AM, John Cuthber said:

No, they are not religions by the dictionary definition.

By that dictionary. They are usually considered religions, but fair enough. Just out of interest, what do you consider them if not religions?

Interestingly in Human Rights law religion is not explicitly defined at all. Doesn't help us here much.

 

On 8/28/2017 at 9:36 AM, John Cuthber said:

I would say "all ..." if that was what I meant.

But earlier you concluded that all religious people are either not actually religious or hypocrites. So which is it? Are religious people all hypocrites or just some of them? If you're going to be rigid in your definitions at least be consistent.

 

On 8/28/2017 at 9:36 AM, John Cuthber said:

Now I accept that leaving out the word "some" or the word "all" makes it ambiguous, but since I have repeatedly explained what I meant I really think I should be able to expect you to remember it.

And yet you keep lampooning people for allegedly believing that accepting religious people is the same as letting them stone adulterers and massacre infidels. If you're going to ask for leeway, you should be willing to give it. 

 

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, iNow said:

.This, however, is quite obviously untrue.

By example: If my definition of "religion" is "following a standard process to collect evidence and discarding ideas that conflict with the evidence," then of course my "religion" can be reconciled with science. If, however, my definition of "religion" is "ignoring standard processes and any evidence that conflicts with my beliefs," then of course my "religion" CANNOT be reconciled with science. I've made my example both extreme and simple to better highlight my point, the veracity of which should be obvious.

The definition in use changes everything in this thread (as made obvious be even the minor distinction between Abrahamic religions and eastern philosophies like Taoism), hence the need to be clear on how words are being used. 

3

'Ok my bad' choice of words, I should have said "it doesn't change my position in this thread":

I think society, as a whole, would be improved if, those that consider themselves religious or scientific reconcile their differences. 

[iNow]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think society, as a whole, would be improved if, those that consider themselves religious or scientific reconcile their differences. 

Clearly, an understandable and just sentiment.

This sentiment, however, implies the need for compromise on both sides. That is not something I support in any way. My perspective is that science should NOT compromise it's process or strength in order to satisfy the religious worldviews of those whose beliefs conflict or stand at odds with the science.

Given your comments above, do you feel I'm making a mistake by holding this position? Do you feel i'm being unfair by asking that religion compromise, but not science?

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Clearly, an understandable and just sentiment.

This sentiment, however, implies the need for compromise on both sides. That is not something I support in any way. My perspective is that science should NOT compromise it's process or strength in order to satisfy the religious worldviews of those whose beliefs conflict or stand at odds with the science.

Given your comments above, do you feel I'm making a mistake by holding this position? Do you feel i'm being unfair by asking that religion compromise, but not science?

Not at all, in fact, I suggested the same thing earlier in this thread but that doesn't mean science has nothing to learn from religion.

On 09/08/2017 at 2:18 PM, dimreepr said:

I can see the benefit of such a reconciliation, but the onus is squarely on religion to move its position into line with science, not the other way round.

My first reply.

[Area54]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

.Given your comments above, do you feel I'm making a mistake by holding this position? Do you feel i'm being unfair by asking that religion compromise, but not science?

I probably agree with you that science should not compromise. (I have not examined that possibility in enough depth to be sure.) However, I think scientists can compromise. In particular militant atheists who use their science to declare they have disproven the existence of God. Or, as we see in this thread, scientists who insist religion fails completely when subject to a cost-benefit analysis. I would argue that such positions are often unscientific and stem from belief systems rather than logic.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

...but that doesn't mean science has nothing to learn from religion.

Well, psychology and sociology do, at least.

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

I think scientists can compromise. In particular militant atheists who use their science to declare they have disproven the existence of God.

Perspective matters. The term "militant" is applied to the religious when they bomb, yet applied to atheists when they speak with non-deferential clarity.

A good one here: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/extremists

See also:

Side note: Seems like a bit of a strawman, too, TBH. Very few atheists "declare they have disproven the existence of god(s)."

[Area54]

Militant is, I think, a perfectly accurate (and in its way, honourable) adjective for describing the stance of that sub-set of atheists. What are the alternatives? Aggressive atheists? That, to me, implies a emotional content that is not necessarily part of their stance. Active atheists sounds vague. Militant captures the structured approach, with an objective and active program.

I don't attack the religious zealots for stances I disapprove of on the basis of their religion, but on the failure of those stances in the face of logic, science and common decency. Tarring all with the same brush, as has occurred in this thread, is neither rational, nor helpful.

As to the limited number of atheists who claim to have disproved god, I made no assertion as to number. I simply contradicted your claim that no compromise was necessary. Those individuals who are militant and who make claims arguably just as weak as those they oppose are the ones I suggest need to compromise. And that remains true even if there were only two of them.

 

A

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, Area54 said:

What are the alternatives?

Anti-theists?

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, Area54 said:

As to the limited number of atheists who claim to have disproved god, I made no assertion as to number. I simply contradicted your claim that no compromise was necessary. Those individuals who are militant and who make claims arguably just as weak as those they oppose are the ones I suggest need to compromise. And that remains true even if there were only two of them.

Yes. In bare mathematical terms, your point is accurate. Further, those atheists who claim to have disproved the existence of god must be challenged, but their numbers are so vanishingly small and their contribution to the overall population of atheists so marginal that they can largely be ignored. 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Anti-theists?

Precisely

[Area54]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Anti-theists?

Doesn't work for me, since it fails to convey the active and organised opposition to theism the subgroup represent. Whatever we wish to call them, I maintain that compromise, or perhaps concession, from any scientists in that sub-group would be welcome.

[iNow]

[John Cuthber]

7 hours ago, Area54 said:

In particular militant atheists who use their science to declare they have disproven the existence of God.

You must mean something like "In particular militant atheists who misuse their science to declare they have disproven the existence of God."

If the declaration was valid we would have heard by now.

I'm just as happy to call them hypocrites as I am to call the people who think the Bible is an a-la-carte menu hypocrites.

 

[Area54]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

You must mean something like "In particular militant atheists who misuse their science to declare they have disproven the existence of God."

It is a curiosity that the sentence works with either use or misuse as the key word, depending upon which emphasis one wishes to carry. It seems, despite my criticism, I was empathising with the militant atheists. I prefer your version.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm just as happy to call them hypocrites as I am to call the people who think the Bible is an a-la-carte menu hypocrites.

1

Oh the irony: 

Quote

 "Other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks, claims to a consistency that one cannot sustain, claims to a loyalty that one does not possess, claims to an identity that one does not hold."

 

You claim the bible has to be taken literally and in its entirety for one to be truly religious.

I claim the Bible contains wisdom, not that it's entirely consistent.

I'll ask others to decide which one of us is the hypocrite.  

Edited August 30, 2017 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Other kinds of hypocritical deception include claims to knowledge that one lacks

 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I claim the Bible contains wisdom

And you have made that claim in the past.

I asked then, and I'm asking again, if there's any "wisdom" in the Bible that's not just common sense?

If not, are you, on behalf of the Book, claiming knowledge that it actually lacks?

 

I'm not sure I ever claimed anyone's loyalty.

Edited August 30, 2017 by John Cuthber