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.
every person's religious beliefs have scientific underpinnings.
because science is a subset of religion.
You can always stipulate definitions of terms in such a way to make virtually any statement true, but it is generally not very useful for constructive discussion. It's mostly just good for demagoguery and trolling.
Quote:
science is a window into the Creator. Everything in the physical and natural world including science is a map to God.
the religious don't have a problem with this.
the anti-religious do.
Depending upon one's definition of "God" this could be true. If in fact there is a Creator-God, then it could be that science is providing a window. But the assertion that there is a Creator God is already well-established and not much is gained by simply asserting again and again. That's just not much of a conversation.
Science is a means of discovering truths about the natural world via a particular method. If the scientific method can eventually reveal the presence of a Creator-God, then so be it. Most of the people you refer to as "anti-religious" won't have a "problem" with Creator-God if this is in fact what the scientific method reveals. The problem is that science is, so far, not revealing any such thing. Religion - in virtually all forms insofar as everyday language is concerned - does not depend on the scientific method for its claims to knowledge. Faith, divine revelation, mysticism - these things short-cut the scientific method and are thus not science by any reasonable definitions of the terms.
Science is not a subset of religion, but an alternative to it. Religion starts with an assertion of truth based on faith, mysticism, or an acceptance of a tradition, and does not depend on the scientific method for validation. Science begins with postulated theories that need to be tested and validated by the scientific method before they are accepted and, even once accepted, remain open to revision or replacement if new evidence or better theories come along. There is "faith" in logic, faith in the scientific method, faith in the idea that free discussion and exchanges of information will eventually lead to a "cream rising to the top" phenomena. If you want to call that all just "religious faith" then so be it. But I don't agree.
nope, you are wrong.
how old are you and how many children have you raised? how many decades have you spent with babies, toddlers, children, watching them grow, how many thousands of hours have you spent with toddlers and young children listening to them, observing them?
Age irrelevant, and I have an extended family. How many science papers have you read, and how many neural networks have you built and trained?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
These are all your (superficial) examples:
"Music causes the baby to 'dance', which is reinforced by peoples reactions to it"
"Musical instruments make noises, which the baby then plays with. Even when it only makes one note, such as a whistle or a fork on a plate."
"Paint is also something they can experiment with"
No, they are responses to your examples. And of course they are superficial, this forum is a bit too small to discuss 6 decades worth of science you seem unaware of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
people including children know things without learning them. you are wrong on that count also.
How can I be wrong on an argument I never even made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
this is the religion and spirituality forum. God is recognized. The soul is recognized.
Even religions with a different god to yours, and no concept of a soul?
every person's religious beliefs have scientific underpinnings.
because science is a subset of religion. science is a window into the Creator. Everything in the physical and natural world including science is a map to God.
the religious don't have a problem with this.
the anti-religious do.
None religious have a problem because it is an assertion without evidence. At least science is a real philosophy.
every person's religious beliefs have scientific underpinnings.
Do you have any examples to support this claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
because science is a subset of religion. science is a window into the Creator. Everything in the physical and natural world including science is a map to God.
LOl! You think religion owns the conversation on science? Silly silly silly
... Science is not a subset of religion, but an alternative to it. Religion starts with an assertion of truth based on faith, mysticism, or an acceptance of a tradition, and does not depend on the scientific method for validation. Science begins with postulated theories that need to be tested and validated by the scientific method before they are accepted and, even once accepted, remain open to revision or replacement if new evidence or better theories come along.....
Most people can and do reconcile science and religion. It is not a problem for them.
92% of the world population either associates with a specific religion or worships God on their own. (92% = 84% identify with a religion + 8 or 9% private worship to God on their own.) Most people in the world accept and use science. It simply is not a problem because most people are able to reconcile science and religion.
The aberration is when someone can not reconcile them. It sounds like in your post you do not reconcile them because you state "science is an alternative to religion" setting up an either-or "incompatibility." Which is simply not the case. That's like saying "a cookbook is an alternative to a painting" or "vegetables are an alternative to a music." People happily partake of both.
The problem arises when someone can not reconcile the two such as your post seems to state. On the other hand in your daily life you describe that you do pray to the Divine with a positive effect in your life which is fascinating because it demonstrates both science and prayer do have a place in your life.
I am going to refer to something you said earlier in this thread, it is applicable here with regards to your statement "science is an alternative to religion"
reference to Gaylen post #2542
It's only when these feelings transform into proclamations about absolute, ultimate truths that seem to conflict with moral common sense, well-verified research studies, or our own intuitions that we tend to gasp and say "Wait! That's crazy!" "science is an alternative to religion" is a classic example of something that makes us think that ya'll are a bit batty. There is nothing wrong with publicly proclaiming one's interest in science. But when someone steps into the public sphere and insists that "science is an alternative to religion" then we are going to play the "you are irrational" card. ....
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-17-2018 at 08:52 PM..
...Science is a means of discovering truths about the natural world via a particular method. If the scientific method can eventually reveal the presence of a Creator-God, then so be it. Most of the people you refer to as "anti-religious" won't have a "problem" with Creator-God if this is in fact what the scientific method reveals. The problem is that science is, so far, not revealing any such thing. Religion - in virtually all forms insofar as everyday language is concerned - does not depend on the scientific method for its claims to knowledge. Faith, divine revelation, mysticism - these things short-cut the scientific method and are thus not science by any reasonable definitions of the terms.....
That is the limitation of science. We know that.
It's like saying "cookbooks don't tell you how to repair a car."
the problem is not the cookbook or the car.
it is the person who thinks a cookbook is the place to look for how to repair a car.
Most people can and do reconcile science and religion. It is not a problem for them.
Most people don't understand science all that well, and most religious people have not studied their holy books in any scholarly way. I suspect that on average, atheists are more likely to have studied that Bible than card-carrying Christian. If you don't know much about science or the Bible, you can feel that both can be true, but this feeling doesn't mean that science actually supports the Bible, or vice versa. I can feel fully content that my checkbook is reconciled with my bank statement, but this feeling of contentment does not necessarily imply that I have actually reconciled the checkbook and the bank statement. To actually reconcile them, I need to look in detail of both.
Quote:
It sounds like in your post you do not reconcile them because you state "science is an alternative to religion" setting up an either-or "incompatibility."
So long as the Bible is understood in terms of myth, metaphor, spiritual inspiration, poetry, etc., I have almost no problem with saying there is no significant conflict between them. But as soon as someone starts to claim that scientific evidence supports this or that particular Biblical story, then I have to insist that this is simply not true. Science supports almost nothing in the Bible, if you take the Bible literally. In fact, there is practically no clear, independent evidence that most pf the people mentioned in the Bible even existed. Aside from the Biblical stories themselves, we don't know, for example, that Moses really existed or that any sort of "exodus from Egypt" ever took place. Let alone that whole business about parting the sea. Most people don't think of history as science but, in a manner of speaking, it is. Academic history applies the scientific method and scientific tools to the study of the past. And, so far as academic history can tell us, the Bible is almost pure fiction. Actual supporting evidence for the whole shebang is near zero. Reconciling the Bible with science is almost like reconciling Harry Potter with science. Sure, you can feel content that the two are reconciled, but if you seriously believe that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale, then you are believing something that, if taken literally, is almost certainly false by any sort of scientific standards.
Quote:
That's like saying "a cookbook is an alternative to a painting" or "vegetables are an alternative to a music." People happily partake of both.
Yes!!! Exactly! The Bible is a completely different thing than a history textbook, or a cosmology textbook, or biology textbook and it should be used for a completely different purpose. It should not be used as a reliable source of factual information about much of anything. As long as people realize this, then I have no problem with the Bible at all (except that I disagree with some of the questionable moral guidance that some people draw from it).
Quote:
I am going to refer to something you said earlier in this thread, it is applicable here with regards to your statement "science is an alternative to religion"
reference to Gaylen post #2542
It's only when these feelings transform into proclamations about absolute, ultimate truths that seem to conflict with moral common sense, well-verified research studies, or our own intuitions that we tend to gasp and say "Wait! That's crazy!" "science is an alternative to religion" is a classic example of something that makes us think that ya'll are a bit batty. There is nothing wrong with publicly proclaiming one's interest in science. But when someone steps into the public sphere and insists that "science is an alternative to religion" then we are going to play the "you are irrational" card. ....
On the other hand, here is what I actually said in post #2542:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I keep harping on the holy book concept because I see it as the main issue. In fact, my concern is not even holy books, per se, but literal interpretation of holy books as a source of moral guidance, historical knowledge, or absolute truths about the natural world. I doubt that any atheist in this forum cares if people enjoy holy books for the sake of inspiration or mystical deep meaning. These feelings, as such, derived from holy books or inspired by holy books, or reinforced by holy books, are not really a problem. It's only when these feelings transform into proclamations about absolute, ultimate truths that seem to conflict with moral common sense, well-verified scientific theories, or our own intuitions that we tend to gasp and say "Wait! That's crazy!" (The Omni-dude concept is a classic example of something that makes us think that ya'll are a bit batty.) And our solution is to advocate critical thinking. There is nothing wrong with having some general faith in the presence of some sort of higher power, feelings of love for a divinity, etc. - that's just personal choice, personal preference, etc. There is also nothing wrong with publicly proclaiming one's faith, giving public testimony, etc. It's all fine. But when the religious person steps into the public sphere and insists that we heathens are ignorant of some ultimate truth because we are heard-hearted or close-minded or spiritually immature or enemies of God, etc., then we are going to play the "you are irrational" card. Religious people cannot expect to set themselves up as having a personal pipeline to ultimate absolute truth without getting some blowback from atheists and agnostics. Ideally the non-believer responses would be calm, rational, and compassionate but, realistically, people are people. Some will get pissed and say hurtful things.
I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by misquoting me, but the historical record in this case is clear and easy for everyone to see.
Religion addresses the innate connection we have to Divinity, and how to be in relationship with the Creator who made us all.
Just to be clear: I have no problem at all if someone has faith in the idea that there was an Intelligent Creator who made us. But whenever I see someone publicly proclaim that this is a fact, or that science somehow proves this claim, or supports this claim, then I feel an urge to speak up and say "no". Maybe there is a Creator, and maybe not. Science doesn't say much of anything about that, either way. (But if you claim that the Creator is both all-powerful and has lovingly created the best of all possible worlds, then I think that logic tips the scale against this particular claim about the nature of the Creator.)
Again I want to emphasize a distinction between:
(1) The claim that God exists. (Where 'God' is just some general notion of a "higher-level intelligence" or "universal essence of Spiritual Being", etc.)
(2) The claim that God is the Creator of the universe.
(3) The claim that God has lovingly created the best of all possible worlds.
Hardly anyone can really complain about #1. But every time some specific properties are attributed to God (e.g., #2 and #3), these attributions generally make the existence of that particular conception of God less scientifically credible, and some combinations of properties are just flat-out irrational.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-19-2018 at 07:24 AM..
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.
Silly silly silly