Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just a note -- science people argue quite loudly about certain things. Global warming, vaccines, diets...
True, good point, and rightfully so, right? Or what should we otherwise do with what we learn from science?
These are universal issues, affecting all of us, regardless our religion. Someone else wanted to make the argument that religions have no conflict with science, so here too you have scientists -- of all faiths -- arguing in common, what science teaches them/us, regardless their faith.
Again, this is an important distinction among a good many others! The quest for universal truth rather than the agenda of one religion vs another.
Rather than warning people we are going to hell if we don't believe the word of God according to them, they argue with an honest effort to prove what they believe is the ultimate truth; rationally, intelligently, with facts not conjuring! Present knowledge of things, not words passed down from when we knew nothing of what we know now!
Again a big difference, right?
When was the last time a religion discovered something new, for all of us to learn from, benefit from...
Perhaps, but even calling one study serious and another not serious stems from a priori assumptions and expectations.
Rather than mix the pot of confusion and/or go in these sorts of circles, we should turn to specifics, examples, and evaluate what study you wish to deem serious or not, as we can and certainly should. Right? I surely hope you are not trying to argue that all study is equal, just like anyone's beliefs, just because of subjectivity.
I often like to give the example of a jury, who must make a sound rational decision about what is true, what really happened, even though none of them were witness to the occurrence. Just because they are all people and just because we are subject to certain levels of bias and ignorance about many things, does NOT mean that we are not bound to think, evaluate and decide what is right and what is not by way of the "preponderance of evidence."
Unfortunately, the preponderance of evidence about what I must accomplish today, made very clear to me by my wife, requires I sign off now with hopes of actually accomplishing something with my time! Thanks again for the hope anyway...
True, good point, and rightfully so, right? Or what should we otherwise do with what we learn from science?
These are universal issues, affecting all of us, regardless our religion. Someone else wanted to make the argument that religions have no conflict with science, so here too you have scientists -- of all faiths -- arguing in common, what science teaches them/us, regardless their faith.
Again, this is an important distinction among a good many others! The quest for universal truth rather than the agenda of one religion vs another.
Rather than warning people we are going to hell if we don't believe the word of God according to them, they argue with an honest effort to prove what they believe is the ultimate truth; rationally, intelligently, with facts not conjuring! Present knowledge of things, not words passed down from when we knew nothing of what we know now!
Again a big difference, right?
When was the last time a religion discovered something new, for all of us to learn from, benefit from...
Another difference. Need I go on?
I am not saying that science and religion are the same in scope, process or application, but that one of the dividing lines isn't "religions argue and scientists don't."
There can be no argument between science and religion as they are both just different ways of explaining the world and our experience in it.
Judaism makes no pretense to discovering something for "all of us to learn from", just for Jews to understand to help them be more successful as Jews.
Rather than mix the pot of confusion and/or go in these sorts of circles, we should turn to specifics, examples, and evaluate what study you wish to deem serious or not, as we can and certainly should. Right? I surely hope you are not trying to argue that all study is equal, just like anyone's beliefs, just because of subjectivity.
I often like to give the example of a jury, who must make a sound rational decision about what is true, what really happened, even though none of them were witness to the occurrence. Just because they are all people and just because we are subject to certain levels of bias and ignorance about many things, does NOT mean that we are not bound to think, evaluate and decide what is right and what is not by way of the "preponderance of evidence."
The jury is actually only making a decision about what was proven, not what was true. It cannot know what really happened but it can judge whose version of what really happened was more persuasively presented.
All study is not equal. I find much scholarly study of religions to be based in ignorance when compared to the study of a religion by those steeped in it.
....
All study is not equal. I find much scholarly study of religions to be based in ignorance when compared to the study of a religion by those steeped in it.
I am not saying that science and religion are the same in scope, process or application, but that one of the dividing lines isn't "religions argue and scientists don't."
There can be no argument between science and religion as they are both just different ways of explaining the world and our experience in it.
Judaism makes no pretense to discovering something for "all of us to learn from", just for Jews to understand to help them be more successful as Jews.
I am not clear about what you are getting at here. I don't know if anyone has any question about this "dividing line" you point out. Of course people argue, about everything and anything...
The distinction I am trying to make is that science and religion are NOT "just different ways of explaining the world and our experience in it." That is, of course, unless you also want to argue that voodoo medicine and modern medicine are just different ways of providing medical attention.
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental.
(Definitions from Wikipedia)
Not to single out Judaism of course, but for anyone -- of any religion -- to turn to religion rather than science for purposes of helping them "understand" and/or to help them be successful, is quite telling in terms of the WHY people believe what they do. Perhaps another proof the issue of what to believe is not a matter of truth but an agenda, self-serving agenda, regardless of truth. What I am forever forced to conclude when I hear such explanations.
If truth ultimately matters to anyone..., through the ages, historically, what has been the agenda of science? What has been the agenda of religion? Again two very different and telling observations in terms of what is born of an agenda driven by self interest versus knowledge.
The jury is actually only making a decision about what was proven, not what was true. It cannot know what really happened but it can judge whose version of what really happened was more persuasively presented.
All study is not equal. I find much scholarly study of religions to be based in ignorance when compared to the study of a religion by those steeped in it.
Might be a jury is not the best example to use here...
Whether the quest is to prove something or know what is true, would you rather turn to 12 people who suggest you consult the stars or 12 people who are required to consider only the facts as best they can be proven?
The study of religion "by those steeped in it" is highly dubious to me unless the person doing the study is actually studying for purpose of determining the truth, and doing so in an objective intelligent manner. If instead, the "study" is to feel better about one self or feel better in general or for other social/emotional purposes, then this is not the sort of "study" most people would consider "scholarly."
Scholarly describes serious academic study, not religious study.
Studying one's own religion, for the sake of seeking truth anyway, is not what someone of serious study would exactly consider objective learning. More like confirmation bias to the ultimate degree.
On a personal note, I have perhaps come closest to religion during times of hardship, serious hardship. I know I am not alone when it comes to that inclination, because when everything we know doesn't make us feel good, we turn to what we think might make us feel better. A patient who is told they have no chance to survive is not going to feel like a patient who is told they will be just fine, regardless which is actually true.
What is truth, however, is truth for all of us, regardless how we feel...
The distinction I am trying to make is that science and religion are NOT "just different ways of explaining the world and our experience in it." That is, of course, unless you also want to argue that voodoo medicine and modern medicine are just different ways of providing medical attention.
You are equating methods of explaining and understanding subjective experiences or unknowable facts with evidence based medical practices? I can't follow you there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Yes, and? How is this in conflict with anything? By the way, other definitions include, "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject", "knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding" and " knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method".
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental.
another definition "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
Picking a definition or understanding of a word is as much an act of faith as anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
but for anyone -- of any religion -- to turn to religion rather than science for purposes of helping them "understand" and/or to help them be successful, is quite telling in terms of the WHY people believe what they do.
I'm not sure what this means. I have a belief about the origin of the universe -- not the scientific method by which it was effected. And since there is no empirical evidence either way and no testable method, the choice of explanations for that origin is an expression of my belief. Who says that anyone is turning to religion "rather" than science? In Judaism, if one prays for healing, one also goes to a doctor. Trying to see them only as in opposition seems to reflect an agendized presumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
If truth ultimately matters to anyone. Through the ages, historically, what has been the agenda of science?
That's a rather broad question. Often science strives to understand the way the world works (often to control the world or dominate other people).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
What has been the agenda of religion?
To help people understand their role in the world and provide a code of behavior to help people make a better world for themselves, for their societies and for their relationship to the concept of the divine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Again two very different and telling observations in terms of what is born of an agenda driven by self interest versus knowledge.
Yes, very telling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
