Reconciling science and religion

[John Cuthber]

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

Is it? Can you enter that as a plea in court?

so we could go round in circles again ...

Ye.

No

No.

 

57 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What's science got to do with politics?

Lots.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Lots.

 

Tell that to the politicians...

[John Cuthber]

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Tell that to the politicians...

They know

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/trump-offers-his-first-list-science-priorities-and-it-s-america-first

vs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Science_(Canada)

[Strange]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Ye.

No

Not much good as a justification then. Self defence would probably be better. 

[Prometheus]

9 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

No.

What I'm doing is refusing to draw a line.

If it's in the book, it's part of the creed.

Not "it might be part of the creed- ask so-and-so" nor "it might have been part of the creed once- but we realised that bit was silly so - in spite of saying it's the Word of God, we don't follow it".

After all, "Cherry picking the OT is no answer, it's just an excuse".

If the Book is the Word of God then only He can legitimately draw the line. For mere mortals to do it is blasphemy.
Has anyone asked Him and got a reply lately?

No, you've drawn a line under a literal interpretation (and apparently not realised it). So to be a Christian you have to follow every single bit in the Bible (including the bits that contradict? Because by your definition that means no Christian anywhere at any time has ever existed.)? How many Christians do you think eat shellfish? I don't know but i'd hazard a guess that well over half of them have.

If you are using a definition that precludes what the normal person would call a Christian then it's your definition which is wrong, not the billions of people using the label. 

 

But, of course, you can't do that- it's blasphemy.
So; what can we do?

Do we, as some seem to have suggested, tolerate it?

So would you prefer to insist that all Christians should stone adulterers to death, or god forbid, just change your rigid definition? Christians have changed quite a lot in 2000 years, putting aside some absurd beliefs, but still choose to be Christians. If it's blasphemy that's between them and their conscious - why the need to insist they are not Christian?

 

 

[Manticore]

13 hours ago, Strange said:

So? You think people can only believe something if enough other people believe it?

No. but I would say far more than that live in peace - so their religion (or lack of one) has nothing to do with it.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Manticore

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, Manticore said:

No. but I would say far more than that live in peace - so their religion (or lack of one) has nothing to do with it.

It does for those who do believe and find comfort in that - so why can't they be allowed to carry on?

[Manticore]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It does for those who do believe and find comfort in that - so why can't they be allowed to carry on?

No objection to them carrying on as long as they don't bother the rest of us.

[John Cuthber]

13 hours ago, Prometheus said:

No, you've drawn a line under a literal interpretation (and apparently not realised it). So to be a Christian you have to follow every single bit in the Bible (including the bits that contradict? Because by your definition that means no Christian anywhere at any time has ever existed.)? How many Christians do you think eat shellfish? I don't know but i'd hazard a guess that well over half of them have.

If you are using a definition that precludes what the normal person would call a Christian then it's your definition which is wrong, not the billions of people using the label. 

 

So would you prefer to insist that all Christians should stone adulterers to death, or god forbid, just change your rigid definition? Christians have changed quite a lot in 2000 years, putting aside some absurd beliefs, but still choose to be Christians. If it's blasphemy that's between them and their conscious - why the need to insist they are not Christian?

 

 

OK, they can live a life of hypocrisy if they wish; but let's not pretend that they are doing anything else.

As I said, it's like Trump pretending to follow the teachings of Christ. 

If they are able to pick ad choose from  the scripture, then why bother with it?

More  importantly, what's to stop them seeing the bit about keeping slaves and stoning adulterers to death and thinking "Now there's a good idea"?
More likely, what's to stop someone else telling them "You should kill he Westerners because the Book tells you so?

 

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

More  importantly, what's to stop them seeing the bit about keeping slaves and stoning adulterers to death and thinking "Now there's a good idea"?
More likely, what's to stop someone else telling them "You should kill he Westerners because the Book tells you so?

Of course, a small number of people do that. But the vast majority don't. And some people argue for slavery or killing others for non-religious reasons. So I'm not sure why you keep banging on about this. It is a problem of human nature, rather than religion per se.

14 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If they are able to pick ad choose from  the scripture, then why bother with it?

You would have to ask them. But presumably because they believe it is important. And why not.

[Handy andy]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course, a small number of people do that. But the vast majority don't. And some people argue for slavery or killing others for non-religious reasons. So I'm not sure why you keep banging on about this. It is a problem of human nature, rather than religion per se.

You would have to ask them. But presumably because they believe it is important. And why not.R

Science and religion would need a complete rewrite to reconcile them. People are sent to prison in some countries for speaking out against religious atrocities, or not believing some nonsense. All religions are constructed from many contradictory stories, and as such for a world religion would need a rewrite. Most religious folks are aware of the many contradictions in their religions, and so just select the bits they believe in that suits there purposes. Example love your neighbour versus reject anyone that does not believe your nonsense. 

How can anything be reconciled without some flexibility. Many people who are religious claim that religion gives them their morals, without which they would be drug users, or kill people etc, The Barcelona bomb is a fine example of religious morals from Islam, the 13th century crusades or more recent IRA terrorism are more examples of Christian religious morality. Religion is a tool used by leaders to control people or guide people like cattle through wide gateposts. The tool is religiously misused to turn easily lead people against each other. If a moslem decides to become an Atheist they can be sent to prison or even killed.

How would people rewrite religion to offer proper moral guidance to people that seem to require leadership, and who decides what those morals would be? Most sentient people don't need religion, but religion has served a role in some societies for creating diverse cultures, it has also been used to destroy other cultures. How would a rewrite of world religions avoid destroying cultural diversity in the sense of the arts.  

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

Science and religion would need a complete rewrite to reconcile them.

I don't see why. There are plenty of people who see no conflict. For example, some religious people have a problem with evolution. Others make a very strong case that religion and evolution are completely compatible, for example: http://biologos.org

It is (some) people that are the problem; e.g. the anti-religion attitudes we have seen in this thread, and the anti-science views you hear from some religious people. But there are people who have expressed strong anti-science views for non-religious reasons. And people who are against religion for non-science reasons. (Actually, all anti-religion views are non-scientific as science has nothing to say about religion.)

[dimreepr]

53 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

How can anything be reconciled without some flexibility. Many people who are religious claim that religion gives them their morals, without which they would be drug users, or kill people etc, 

1

Utter nonsense.

57 minutes ago, Handy andy said:

The Barcelona bomb is a fine example of religious morals from Islam, the 13th century crusades or more recent IRA terrorism are more examples of Christian religious morality. Religion is a tool used by leaders to control people or guide people like cattle through wide gateposts. The tool is religiously misused to turn easily lead people against each other.

1

Religion may be used as a clarion call for people who feel oppressed, but it's naive to think they wouldn't rally behind something else if religion was unavailable.

 

Quote

 If a moslem decides to become an Atheist they can be sent to prison or even killed.

people throughout history get imprisoned/killed for speaking out against oppressive governments, religion is immaterial to that fact, for instance, what faith did Nelson Mandela disavow? 

[John Cuthber]

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

people throughout history get imprisoned/killed for speaking out against oppressive governments, religion is immaterial to that fact, for instance, what faith did Nelson Mandela disavow? 

Christianity; according to the cherry picked version that the apartheid regime.

He didn't accept the bits that said Slavery's OK and he didn't understand that, since God made man in  His own image, and that image is clearly white skinned, he wasn't a proper man, but some sort of sub human.

 

 

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Of course, a small number of people do that. But the vast majority don't. And some people argue for slavery or killing others for non-religious reasons. So I'm not sure why you keep banging on about this. It is a problem of human nature, rather than religion per se.

Human nature is like that- so why hand them the weapon of religion to help them do it?

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, Handy andy said:

Science and religion would need a complete rewrite to reconcile them.

I don't see why

Well, Dimreeper summed it up earlier.

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

When ignorance reigns life is lost, the source is immaterial because it's always political.  

Edited August 20, 2017 by John Cuthber
Rats! it won't let me edit.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Human nature is like that- so why hand them the weapon of religion to help them do it?

As you keep saying, there is nothing special or unique about using religion for one's purposes. If it were possible to get rid of religion (in some fantasy version of reality) then the same people would use some alternative justification. Or invent a religion.

[John Cuthber]

 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

As you keep saying, there is nothing special or unique about using religion for one's purposes. If it were possible to get rid of religion (in some fantasy version of reality) then the same people would use some alternative justification. Or invent a religion.

And the evil warlord would say to the people "you must kill the Westerners because it is the will of God -it says so in this Book-".

 

And they would laugh at him.

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

And the evil warlord would say to the people "you must kill the Westerners because it is the will of God -it says so in this Book-".

And they would laugh at him.

Most people already do. (Reject the message, anyway.)

If they are not going to believe him for that reason then they are not going to believe him when he appeals to national pride, or the superiority of their race, or whatever.

If they are going to act for that reason, then they would act on appeals to nationalism, racism, or money or whatever else motivates them.

If religion was really as powerful as you think it is, then presumably we could solve the world's problems by just telling people that "it is god's will". But life and people are not as simple as you seem to think. ("Oh, the book says so. OK, I will set aside my doubts about this insane leader spreading words of hate, and risking the lives of all my family and friends, and follow his lead" I don't think so.)

Edited August 20, 2017 by Strange

[Itoero]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Actually, all anti-religion views are non-scientific as science has nothing to say about religion.)

Science has a lot to say about religion. Religion is often studied in a scientific way. Many universities have a center for scientific study of religion.

[Strange]

Just now, Itoero said:

Science has a lot to say about religion. Religion is often studied in a scientific way. Many universities have a center for scientific study of religion.

Here take this stick. No, not that end!

[John Cuthber]

The reason that religion or science would need to change is that they have totally opposed views to facts.

In science, if an observation contradicts the textbook, we change the textbook.

In religion, if an observation contradicts the Textbook, we lie about it.

We pretend, for example, that evolution isn't real.

 

In science, the facts matter more than the credo and in religion, it's the other way round.

Since the Books were all written a long time ago they are riddled with stuff that's just plain wrong.

Why, on a science website, do I have to justify my opposition to a belief that systematically denies reality?

1 hour ago, Strange said:

(Actually, all anti-religion views are non-scientific as science has nothing to say about religion.)

Oh come on!

You know better than that.There are many scientific studies about religion.

I have often posted that, when someone has to resort to saying things that are plainly not true in order to justify their perspective, then it's time to change that perspective.

Are you going to?

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

In religion, if an observation contradicts the Textbook, we lie about it.

We pretend, for example, that evolution isn't real.

Ludicrous exaggeration and caricatures are not a great rhetorical technique. I only need one example to show you are wrong...

http://biologos.org

(And, of course, there are non-religious people who reject evolution.)

23 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You know better than that.There are many scientific studies about religion.

Whoosh. Or are you just pretending to miss the point.

25 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I have often posted that, when someone has to resort to saying things that are plainly not true in order to justify their perspective, then it's time to change that perspective.

Oh, the irony.

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Why, on a science website, do I have to justify my opposition to a belief that systematically denies reality?

 

Mostly because you keep posting your intolerant, cherry picked, views in the religious section.

I've pointed out the good teachings found in the bibles, which you insist is common sense, but even common sense has to be learned; western culture seems to teach revenge rather than forgiveness, intolerance rather than tolerance and loving your enemy is a foreign concept, since the initial reaction is to bomb the shit out of them.

40 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

When ignorance reigns life is lost, the source is immaterial because it's always political.  

You seem to be ignorant of the message here.

[John Cuthber]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

western culture seems to teach revenge rather than forgiveness, intolerance rather than tolerance and loving your enemy is a foreign concept, since the initial reaction is to bomb the shit out of them.

I wonder where they learned it from.
Glad to see that religion has a much nicer view- as expounded by Leviticus

"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death."

That's part of the scripture. You can't pretend that it isn't part of the West's heritage and a part of the history of the judicial system in  most Western countries.

Good to know that Galileo was imprisoned by a ludicrous caricature.

It seems Boko Haram are just a caricature too.

NOt even slightly troubled by education and facts 

oh, hang on...

"Boko Haram promotes a version of Islam which makes it "haram", or forbidden, for Muslims to take part in any political or social activity associated with Western society.

This includes voting in elections, wearing shirts and trousers or receiving a secular education."

The scientific studies of religion- of which there are many- are , in Strange's world, non existent.

"science has nothing to say about religion"

 

And, of course, religion and its advocates have a dedicated love of the facts.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

I wonder where they learned it from.
Glad to see that religion has a much nicer view- as expounded by Leviticus

"And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death."

That's part of the scripture. You can't pretend that it isn't part of the West's heritage and a part of the history of the judicial system in  most Western countries.

Good to know that Galileo was imprisoned by a ludicrous caricature.

It seems Boko Haram are just a caricature too.

NOt even slightly troubled by education and facts 

oh, hang on...

"Boko Haram promotes a version of Islam which makes it "haram", or forbidden, for Muslims to take part in any political or social activity associated with Western society.

This includes voting in elections, wearing shirts and trousers or receiving a secular education."

The scientific studies of religion- of which there are many- are , in Strange's world, non existent.

"science has nothing to say about religion"

 

And, of course, religion and its advocates have a dedicated love of the facts.

No cherry picking here...

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That's part of the scripture. You can't pretend that it isn't part of the West's heritage and a part of the history of the judicial system in  most Western countries.

Is anyone pretending it isn't? You seem to be pretending that it is the only message. And, just to be really clear as you seem to have your anti-religion blinkers on, Christianity and other religions also teach mercy, forgiveness and redemption. And that is also part of the history of the judicial system in most Western countries. Most of whom have abolished capital punishment, for example. The abolition of which is often campaigned for(*) by religious people.

(*) and, to be balanced, against. (Similarly, there are people from the political left and political right on both sides. And people with blue eyes and brown eyes.)

Edited August 20, 2017 by Strange