unification of science and religion

[mcompengr]

"The Law is not itself God, nor is God the Law." -Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

Attempts to achieve total conscienceness exhibit asymptotic freedom.

 

Simplicity and clarity are signposts on the way to truth, but the approach of creationism produces a false simplicity at best. It's wrong to question motives, but the desire to "know" can become obsessive and can turn into a desire for there to be nothing unknown at all as an achievable goal. "Turn key" belief systems do not dispel mystery, they whitewashe it.

 

Now then, to prove that classic creationism is in no way possible would be to prove that an omnipotent creator does not exist. And, quantum mechanics seems to allow for the possibility of creationism, dinosaur bones in the dirt and all. However, it is to be hoped that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being would not play "Where's Waldo?" on us, and that God would not cheat if playing solitaire (or not).

 

[Robittybob1]

"unification of science and religion" Best of luck, but I don't like your chances.

[Strange]

Attempts to achieve total conscienceness exhibit asymptotic freedom.

 

What is that supposed to mean? (I assume you mean "consciousness"?)

 

Simplicity and clarity are signposts on the way to truth ...

 

I see no reason to assume that is true.

 

And, quantum mechanics seems to allow for the possibility of creationism, dinosaur bones in the dirt and all.

 

How do you figure that out?

 

However, it is to be hoped that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being would not play "Where's Waldo?" on us, and that God would not cheat if playing solitaire (or not)

 

Why would a god behave as you hope?

[Phi for All]

I think the best unification of science and religion is humanism. Since there are so many gods worshiped around the world with nothing truly substantial to differentiate them from each other (at least regarding their existence), it seems logical to ignore them all until one or more of them decides to do something observable and testable and predictable. That way we can focus on what we can be sure of, our own existence within the universe we share with the life around us.

 

If faith is a strong belief in something based solely on gut feelings, something we can't possibly know with a reasonable amount of certainty, I prefer not to use faith as part of my belief system. I want something I can trust.

[John Cuthber]

While some scientists may gain something from religion, there's nothing that religion has to offer to science. Vague notions and old books just don't help science.

Why would science want to join religion?

 

Since science doesn't seem to have anything to gain from this "unification" it will only happen if religion decides to move to join science.

What would it gain, and what would it lose by doing so?

Well, it would lose all it's authority and power.

 

Is there any great surprise to the fact that religion isn't rushing to join up with science?

[mcompengr]

While some scientists may gain something from religion, there's nothing that religion has to offer to science. Vague notions and old books just don't help science.

Why would science want to join religion?

 

Since science doesn't seem to have anything to gain from this "unification" it will only happen if religion decides to move to join science.

What would it gain, and what would it lose by doing so?

Well, it would lose all it's authority and power.

 

Is there any great surprise to the fact that religion isn't rushing to join up with science?

The subject should say reunification, it's only been a few hundreds years.

They have their data but it's experiential not experimental and worse, can't be

repeatedly gathered. Now, think of scientists rather than science. Many of their

fellow humans are on the other side or both sides. They have a lot to gain be$ide$

peace on Earth. Minimum, all have a right to exist.

[John Cuthber]

The subject should say reunification, it's only been a few hundreds years.

They have their data but it's experiential not experimental and worse, can't be

repeatedly gathered. Now, think of scientists rather than science. Many of their

fellow humans are on the other side or both sides. They have a lot to gain be$ide$

peace on Earth. Minimum, all have a right to exist.

Let us know when you can actually answer the question.

Why would science want to join religion?

Just asserting that they " have their data but it's experiential not experimental and worse, can't be" doesn't help- because it's simply lying about the meaning of evidence. It "can't be"- because it's not really evidence

 

(BTW peace on Earth has nothing to do with the issue- why did you raise it? )

[davidivad]

we already have holy darwinism...

we need no more than that.

[mcompengr]

Let us know when you can actually answer the question.

Why would science want to join religion?

Just asserting that they " have their data but it's experiential not experimental and worse, can't be" doesn't help- because it's simply lying about the meaning of evidence. It "can't be"- because it's not really evidence

 

(BTW peace on Earth has nothing to do with the issue- why did you raise it? )

 

Let us know when you can actually answer the question.

>>>Now, that was just for scientists.

 

Why would science want to join religion?

>>> IF true: narrow the search area, focus. You can do the same: look only where "god" is an absolute impossibility.

 

Just asserting that they " have their data but it's experiential not experimental and worse, can't be" doesn't help- because it's simply lying about the meaning of evidence. It "can't be"- because it's not really evidence

>>>??!

 

(BTW peace on Earth has nothing to do with the issue- why did you raise it?

>>>For a more pleasant working environment. I'm sorry, it didn't seem irrelevant to the issue which I began.

 

[John Cuthber]

And again

Why would science want to join religion?

(And I remind you that the forum's rules require that you answer that)

[mcompengr]

"The Law is not itself God, nor is God the Law." -Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

Attempts to achieve total conscienceness exhibit asymptotic freedom.

 

Simplicity and clarity are signposts on the way to truth, but the approach of creationism produces a false simplicity at best. It's wrong to question motives, but the desire to "know" can become obsessive and can turn into a desire for there to be nothing unknown at all as an achievable goal. "Turn key" belief systems do not dispel mystery, they whitewashe it.

 

Now then, to prove that classic creationism is in no way possible would be to prove that an omnipotent creator does not exist. And, quantum mechanics seems to allow for the possibility of creationism, dinosaur bones in the dirt and all. However, it is to be hoped that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being would not play "Where's Waldo?" on us, and that God would not cheat if playing solitaire (or not).

 

Ultimately, there can be no conflict between science and religion because we have only one reality. It seems like a false

choice to pick one over the other, and it would be so to foist such a choice on others. Folks on either "side" who have zero

doubt about the validity of the other, Shirley have a fundament gap in their understanding of both sides.

[John Cuthber]

"Ultimately, there can be no conflict between science and religion because we have only one reality. "

And, in that reality the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

So when religion stops lying about it that will help remove the conflict.

 

In the mean time perhaps you can answer my question.

Why would science want to join religion?

[mcompengr]

"Ultimately, there can be no conflict between science and religion because we have only one reality. "

And, in that reality the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

So when religion stops lying about it that will help remove the conflict.

 

In the mean time perhaps you can answer my question.

Why would science want to join religion?

I'm sorry, I thought I had did that already.

 

Answer: IF true, narrow the search area, focus.

(A corallary to the Pascal wager.)

And again

Why would science want to join religion?

(And I remind you that the forum's rules require that you answer that)

 

Read it again.

 

But, if you're right, I request "reasonable accomodation" under the A.D.A.

I don't have time to even read my crap. (pun:)

[John Cuthber]

Pascal's wager is dross.

It fails on a number of counts.*

That has been known for ages.

Once again:

Why would science want to join religion?

 

 

*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Criticism

[mcompengr]

we already have holy darwinism...

we need no more than that.

Good luck with funding.

Pascal's wager is dross.

 

 

It remains a good teaching tool though. (pun:)

[John Cuthber]

And again

Why would science want to join religion?

(And I remind you that the forum's rules require that you answer that)

[mcompengr]

Pascal's wager is dross.

It fails on a number of counts.*

That has been known for ages.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Criticism

Let them read what I write. You have a set of values. Violating them is

not good for your health. Al Capone would be alive today if he had taken

Pascal's wager. He'd be 137, but at least he'd be alive. Today, Pascal's

wager says: "To thine own self be true." (Good teaching tool.)

 

[John Cuthber]

And again

Why would science want to join religion?

(And I remind you that the forum's rules require that you answer that)

 

" Al Capone would be alive today if he had taken

Pascal's wager. He'd be 137, but at least he'd be alive."

No, he would be dead.

And it isn't possible to take Pascal's wager because you can't know which religion to follow.

It's not a good teaching tool except as a reminder that even clever people like Pascal make stupid mistakes

Edited October 26, 2014 by John Cuthber

[mcompengr]

we already have holy darwinism...

we need no more than that.

There are a number of threats to humanity out there, scientology being one.

(I was there when that book first made the rounds.) I didn't know to what

you referred, so...and I still really don't, but, um...so...um. Good luck for real.

 

[mcompengr]

A fossilized whale was just found, and it has the word יונה  (Jonah in Hebrew) on a hatband in its stomach.

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by mcompengr
verb tense correction

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, mcompengr said:

A fossilized whale was just found, and it had the word יונה  (Jonah in Hebrew) on a hatband in its stomach.

 

Whales cannot swallow a man sized object and inside a whale is a whale's stomach full of whale digestive juices, not air, no oxygen, and we have to believe a man could live encased in stomach acid, without drowning in said acid because we are all idiots? You've been watching too many disney movies dude. 

Give me a link to your source so everyone else can see how stupid it is...  

[hoola]

IF the universe is composed from mathematics, then all things considerable within it are too, including gods and other theoretical things along with real matter and energy. The difference between the theoretical and real, is that the real things are supported by the underlying logic that supports this mathematical universe, and the theoretical is not held down by such constraints, therefore, fluid, formless and immaterial.  This realm I think is the basis of what we call "free will", that is, the actual machinery of imagination. The problem of  religion is that  ideas derived from the illogical  algorithmic  component of math are taken as real things, by taking seriously imaginary beings that will solve tough problems that cannot be solved otherwise (as of yet) .To further amplify the problem is the tendency to read into the real world situations and things being affected by these imaginary playmates. To a degree this is the "experimenter affects the experiment" paradox and a self fulfilling (and compounding for the fundamentalist) illusion that the mind willingly accepts to attempt to settle an internal argument pertaining to it's immediate environment. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by hoola

[taeto]

54 minutes ago, hoola said:

 the illogical  algorithmic  component of math 

What is that?

[hoola]

the junk dna of the universe...a necessary placeholder situated arithmetically between the logical algorithms that pertain to the real physical meanings that code for space, matter, energy

[taeto]

you drunk?