Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Big topic, yes? But I think I justify it by the end of my little manifesto here. If anyone's interested, I think you'll enjoy it.

A. First I'll show how the two can't be unified, citing elements from both society and acedemic scholarship within scientific study. It is this method that I'll describe that is predominantly used to attempt the unification, but leads only to further division.
B. Same treatment from the religious end of things.
C. I'll approach what I consider to be the only logical pursuit of a solution.


A. Science

The following is an example that will be used as indicative of a larger trend:

Francis Collins was the research leader of the Human Genome Project. He is also a devout born-again Christian. He recently wrote a book titled The Language of God. Primarily, it is a book detailing the current state of our understanding of genetic evolution. It doesn't mince words or facts, it doesn't sacrifice scientific data for the pursuit of Intelligent Design or (even worse) Creationism. It is simply the hard line of evolution, put forth intelligently and, to all but the most hardcore theists, irrefutably.

Then where does God play a role? He attempts, after his rather exhaustive genetic catalogue, to find the places in which evolution can't provide an explanation. His attention rests on moral behavior, and how the Moral Law of Man seperates us from other evolved animals. Thus, a higher moral being. This is what might be referred to as a "God of the Gaps". In other words, whatever we can't currently explain through science, is God. Hundreds of years ago, Creationism was God's answer to evolution. Darwin ended that, and current theories add to his base. Other similar examples abound throughout history. Beyond that, he ignores the fact that biochemical sciences do in fact provide explanations, or at least plausible theories, for the "evolution" of morality in humanity. Moreover, I would comment that there is far from one stagnant Moral Law in humanity, and the infinite number of variations of the definition of "morality" should be enough to debunk such a theory.

One would be just as likely to find a pseudo-religious biochemist explaning current improvements in the study of moral development in humanity, only to turn to theories of Intelligent Design to look for God.

This is usually the (fruitless) pattern, of scientists feeling the need to slant their findings toward their own philosophies, requiring truly discerning readers to find the good and the bad according to our own beliefs.

They also attempt a literal transfusion of current science into archaic doctrines. This requires either fuzzy logic (like the Moral Law) or requires that the doctrines of religions bend to accomodate new sciences. The fundamentalists won't be happy.

...

I am not advocating the abolishment of ideas that transcend the material world. Science hasn't yet been able to explain everything, and likely never will. And there are even avenues of study such as human consciousness which may indeed exist beyond what we would consider to be strictly "material". Research is, of course, inconclusive currently, but plausible theories exist to support this notion (and others that refute it, of course).

More than anything, I would advocate the abolishment within research and, indeed, even scholarly readership (us, the readers) of anything that could be considered a belief or philisophical stance when considering rational arguments for or against a position. We need not get rid of our beliefs...merely set them aside when dealing with something that is not directly related. "Evolution could have easily been set in motion by God," I often hear (or similarly baseless justifications). Fair enough. Now, "Why is this?" is the appropriate response.

In other words, we need to be open to changes in faith based on reason, or even vice versa so long as the justification is intellectually sound. As scientists, as religious blievers, as thinkers....the operative word is "free".

Now, of course, this is almost asinine in practice. We won't convert the fundamentalists throug scientific studies. The JIA's in the world (sorry for the KMC reference) will never be swayed by reason, be it of a scientific or even simply a common sense position. They aren't the target. But just as we supposedly have an accepted scientific method within the science community, more emphasis from both researchers and religious/scientific scholars has to be to eliminate (and then publicly expose) bias based upon personal belief structures that don't have to be present in the face of a particular argument (like Collin's treatise on genetic evolution, which is otherwise the height of the field).

Basically, it's a retort against blind faith. Or for that matter, "blind" anything. Faith is not necessarily wrong, or bad, nor does it always contradict reason. But if it does, that is when the change needs to occur.

I hesitate to use myself as an example, but I feel it makes a point. I believe in reicarnation, a decidely "non-material" phenomenon (at least as we currently understand it). But not because I was raised to believe it or because some Eastern philosophy seemed to make logical sense. I have been able to find ample empirical evidence that it is at least a scientifically plausible explanation for recorded phenomenon, which I will readily share with even non-believers in the confidence that even if they don't agree with me, they can't claim the scientific high ground based on my blind faith in something I can't credibly provide evidence for. And if I am ever provided evidence against my claims, I'll readily submit (and already do) that I may be wrong....and that, ultimately, I do not know everything.

This is as much a personal challenge to myself and to others, as a theory of how scientific study should be conducted....as I don't have the necessary stature to broadcast it on anything except a personal level.

B. Religion

First I have to show where religion fails utterly from a rational perspective before I can explain how it can be reinterpreted to be an empowering and unifying force that not only can act as a belief structure, but doesn't need to hinder scientific pursuit.

We don't even need to go into science to debunk much of religion. I could make a chart with two columns. Jesus the Nazarean on the left, and his Egyptian predecessor Horus on the right. Then list the similarities in their lives, their stories, public ministry, miracles they performed, birthdays, etc. The list would take much more than a page.

Fair enough. One example. But then I could do that with at least 6 others precursors to Jesus, and dozens (if not hundreds) of smaller individual myths that predate and influenced Christianity in some way. The similarities extend to the other books of the Bible, not just the life of Jesus.

Nor is Christianity the only affected religion. Islam can claim similarly pagan descent. Most Western traditions follow suit. Even the less polarizing Eastern religions were sometimes the product of many reinterpretations, varied influences after the "birth" of the religion, and similarities in the stories, figures, and ultimately the teachings of other traditions. Buddhism (particularly Mahayanan Buddhism) and Christianity, for example, bear resemblance to each other in many ways because of the trade route that opened between the two regions of the world that housed each religion shortly after the "birth" of Christianity. This brought about cultural exchange as well, with the religions infused in those cultures.

These are merely examples. There are many respectable threads dedicated to this on KMC and other sources as well, so I won't delve into it further. Much more about these similarities are out there for those willing to find them. And further scientific inquiry into this realm all but demolishes the concept of God as he exists in most Western traditions. Eastern religions generally suffer less damage, as belief structures such as Taoism and aspects of other religions can be assimilated into Pantheistic notions of the universe, a viable scientific study, or even of the illusory nature of the material world and the presence of consciousness.

...

Anyone who disagrees with me in the above paragraphs likely won't be able to take the next step with me. I must, of course, bring my own bias to the discussion (which I have tried hard to remove so as to provide only what I consider to be rational arguments) and that includes a non-belief in the Christian faith, which I believe to be perfectly reasonable and even uplifting given where I am about to go with the discussion.

...

The fact that there are numerous stories that bear similarities to one another doesn't have to be a negative blow to religious stories (myths, if you will). It can be a unifying force in which we are able to perceive the aspects of our humanity that bind us together within a coherent whole, rather than seeing ourselves as a divisive mass with countless different systems of belief. Those last two sentences underlie the crux of my argument from a religious perspective.

The savior/hero story can be broken into manageable chunks that pervade innumerable myths that have been used to aid humanity. The hero undergoes trials and through his hardships he/she acheives a goal. This goal can be a transcendent revelation (Buddha's Middle Path on Enlightenment), a physical gift for humanity (Prometheus' fire), or a sacrifice (Jesus sacrifice to unify human and divine and provide us a "Middle Path" through his humanity/divinity to be in heaven). And, at the heart of the greatest myths lies a unification.

For example: Jesus' death and resurrection are only a scant few steps removed from, say, the Unity of All that is the Tao. Human becoming divine Divine, and unifying the two within one person, or the unity of all opposites within the Tao. Seen as metaphor, rather than literally, it can be an empowering tool that helps us understand that we have the "divine" within us, the ability to reconcile all opposites, and truly be at harmony with the world around us....be it good or evil, religious or scientific. This is one example from among thousands, spanning all myths, religions, belief structures, and creeds. Is there not power in that?

It is merely a phase shift in our understanding of religion that recontextualizes the stories so that they unite us in a universal pursuit of unconditional love, tolerance, acceptance, and happiness.

Once this occurs, there isn't even a schism with science to unify. The two do not become mutually exclusive, and one can be readily integrated into another. And we do not need to sacrifice our "beliefs", history, culture, and unifying stories simply for the sake of modern science, because "faith" no longer contradicts reason.

The problem comes when we become so dogmatic. Seen as literal fact, rather than metaphoric paths to the truth, and suddenly you have religion being used to condemn others to Hell because they are "wrong" in their beliefs. Or terrorizing the world. Or advocating hatred of any sort. I don't need to make a catalogue of religious evils brought about in the name of literal belief. You've all seen them.

For anyone who needs further explication on these matters, I would recommend the works of Joseph Campbell. Not an enemy of religion, he is merely an amazingly eloquent expert on mythology and religion, one who is able to find the magnificence in the stories and bring their meanings to the world without any pretense of religious affiliation or even ulterior agenda. I borrow from his work often to make my points. But please understand, I'm not simply endorsing him because his beliefs are mine. They aren;t...at least not entirely. This thesis (if that's what it is) is mine. His work merely helps me support part of it, hopefully for the greater good.

C. Summary

- Traditional methods of "merging" religion and science have proved to be unfulfilling and largely fruitless at best, and scarily misleading at worst.
- Scientific study (and personal study of any sort) needs to remove religion from the equation unless it is specifically attempting to deal with religious issues. Otherwise, credible data tends to become misleading or logical holes begin to be created in the attempt to merge disparate elements of a person's findings and their beliefs.
- Religion, in large part, needs to be reinterpreted metaphorically, and through this it can become an even more powerful and unifying force than it currently is. Otherwise, it creates division in all of its nasty forms.
- Faith need not be abandoned entirely. It must merely make concessions to reason, a force that (within us humans) should take precedence given our experience on the planet thus far through history.

D. Notes

- There will be those that disagree with part or all of my statements. This is, in large part, a good thing, and a necessary step toward anything resembling rational discourse on important topics.
- I'm busy, but I'm around. Leave your thoughts, comments, critiques, etc. in this thread or even PM me if you want.
- These words are, necessarily, opinions, and nothing more. I provide as logical an argument as I feel I am capable of (without being so verbose as to become boring and monotonous).
- I intend no disrespect or ill will toward any person of any faith. I feel this is necessary to say because, while the intent of this is entirely positive, I cannot account for the various interpretational differences that may occur from others.

*waits for the screaming and bloodshed*

So in other words...

Science: While not advocating that there should be no belief in anything beyond the materialistic, scientists of religious inclination should be pragmatic in their views and objective in presenting their results.

Religion: Should be seen as more of a road map to a common destination rather than a literal set of instructions on life, history and origins; and again pragmatism should overarch one's beliefs.

It's not exactly a novel concept for a thread... but it does nicely sum up multiple other threads.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So in other words...

Science: While not advocating only materialistic belief, scientists of religious inclination should be pragmatic in their views and objective in presenting their results.

Religion: Should be seen as more of a road map to a common destination rather than a literal set of instructions on life, history and origins; and again pragmatism should overarch one's beliefs.

Shut up you. It's deeper than that! Read something besides the summary!

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Shut up you. It's deeper than that! Read something besides the summary!



Actually I read the science part quite closely, but only skimmed the religion part because it seemed relatively familiar. doped

I mostly agree with what you're saying I suppose (but voted for Too Many Words 313). I'd be somewhat interested in reading the empirical evidences for reincarnation, and knowing if any of it has been reproducible or peer-reviewed.

Also with the concept of unifying to a collective pursuit of unconditional love etc... it somewhat contradicts trying to avoid the unproven immaterial. Love, or any emotion, as far as can be shown physically is merely complex neurochemical interactions in the brain.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Actually I read the science part quite closely, but only skimmed the religion part because it seemed relatively familiar. doped

I mostly agree with what you're saying I suppose (but voted for Too Many Words 313). I'd be somewhat interested in reading the empirical evidences for reincarnation, and knowing if any of it has been reproducible or peer-reviewed.

Sure thing. I think I may have made a thread about it a long time ago, but it was likely as I was learning a lot about it, so the material might be incomplete. I'll send you some of the stuff (or at least sources) that I've encountered.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Also with the concept of unifying to a collective pursuit of unconditional love etc... it somewhat contradicts trying to avoid the unproven immaterial. Love, or any emotion, as far as can be shown physically is merely complex neurochemical interactions in the brain.

Possibly. And I'd actually agree about the neurochemical interactions, at least until the point of conscious awareness of it, at which point it becomes an entirely different discussion.

But even if they are no more than physical phenomenon, I don't think any reasonable person is going to object to the pursuit of them. If I were trying to identify their nature, my arguments would fall well short. But, regarding them as general constants among mythologies, they seem more-than-adequate unifying points to build a basis of understanding from.

Also, yeah yeah....too many words. Hell, I'll even vote for it. But I think it still has merit. X paraphrased the summary section well enough, but to make the points in the first place I had to provide some valid evidence and examples. To omit them would've been an inadequate defense of my points.

Still, I'll pare my verbage down in the future, regardless of how blindingly brilliant it is.

That's a very intelligent proposal I think

Verbiage. 313

It was long, but justifiably so in order to build a solid argument. Although I really don't think this is the place where you'll receive much rational discussion of this -- the same place where people claim to have studied evolution, post things directly from Wikipedia unreferenced, claim a whale shark is half-whale and half-shark and then change their claim after being told it's not to that they have a similar appearance but aren't related and therefore evolution is false (ignoring convergent evolution), while repeatedly stating evolution makes things "better" and that chimps should have evolved into humans by now.

Also expect JIA to post a few dozen verses in whatever color he's currently using.

no spark notes? Jk I'll read it in the morning when I'm not high.

It's really long.

Nice presentation, Digi, if just a teeny, tiny bit wordy.

Reminds me of a thread I started about a year ago, taking things from a different angle but basically covering the same topic...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=400142& amp;highlight=title%3A%28science+god%29+userid%3A7
6837

Here is what I think science and religion need for an unification....


For science :


I don't think science need much change in the way it is conducted. Actually if a truly scientific posture is maintained then I believe it is easier to eliminate some mistaken conclusions normally used as arguments against theories or hypothesis which raise a spiritual or religious perspective(in the way they are interpreted by people). It must be noted that sometimes those spiritual interpretations of science are really invalid or they are going to far beyond what can be affirmed(even theoretically).


When I pointed our that a truly scientific posture should be maintained I was referring to the common opinions of people or the scientific community that are usually taken as absolute scientific conclusions. There is sometimes the situation where some theories which look too different are taken as refuted. Even if informally refuted sometimes there is a general common opinion that leads everyone to think that a "scientific analysis" toke place to make the refutation.


Lets take as example the theory of relativity. Einstein didn't win the Nobel prize because of it. The was no flaws of his part, but all the thing about curved space times and non-linearity of time(which was against a basic Newtonian concept) made the scientific community too afraid to recognize it, even if it was the truth. This is an example where a scientific posture was not maintained.


There are situations where the scientific rigor extrapolate beyond what can be called science, but it doesn't mean in anyway there should be a less rigorous treatment when doing science. We only must know when a conclusion is scientific, or an expression of a personal philosophical view of the world(i. e. scientism) like materialism, mechanicism, etc. Of course, this can work in both ways like to accept some more spiritual perspectives precipitately like it was previously noted.


For religion :


Religion if interpreted less literally would be easier "unifiable". Many things should be viewed metaphorically in a more philosophical context. In Eastern religions, there is emphasis on philosophical perspectives than in particular narratives and histories. In other religions, the religious truth depends too much on narratives and literal interpretation. When the spirituality of a religion is too dependent on these narratives it becomes an empirical testable theory of the world, like science is. So it becomes mutually exclusive with science. We have ways to verify if the world has 6000 or 7000 years, we can test if human beings descended or not from apes, etc.


Spirituality doesn't need to be so dependent of empirical testable facts. Spirituality is like morality, those are unfalsifiable concepts which can't normally be verified empirically. So it is not unreasonable for spirituality to follow the same rules.


Anyway I don't deny the possibility of verifiable phenomena of religious or spiritual nature. Actually that is a way an unification of religion and science can be done.

Originally posted by Mindship
Nice presentation, Digi, if just a teeny, tiny bit wordy.

Reminds me of a thread I started about a year ago, taking things from a different angle but basically covering the same topic...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=400142& amp;highlight=title%3A%28science+god%29+userid%3A7
6837

Interesting thread. To briefly comment on it: My deconstruction of God based on evidence has never been about the universe's origin. If they want to think that a higher intelligence sparked the Big Bang, so be it. I won't argue, though I don't agree. Where the problem comes is anything like a Judeo/Christian God, whose "spirit nature" apparently intercedes into the material world from time to time. If so, we should be able to produce evidence of his possible existence, since he has presumably had influence on the material world. We haven't. Ever. It would also defy the nifty laws of causality that "He" so handily set up for us.

The other problem is that if God exists outside of time and space in some way, he is just that...outside Time and outside Space...the world we live in. And therefore he's unable to produce effects which would have direct affect on Time/Space. Appeals to his infinite nature and omni-benevolence and such appeal to faith, not reason, and do nothing to reconcile this problem. You still have a perfect being who is utterly impotent to create material change. And if you take this "perfect being" and say it's infused in our universe, the problem of credible evidence jumps right back into it.

So no, to posit an answer to your thread's question, it's never going to be reconciled through traditional means...at least not through any means that I can forsee.

I don't see how anyone can have faith on a religion yet be ready to alter their religious beliefs at any time based on scientific proof that comes along and disproofs some of the teachings the religion professes. Furthermore, I find the concept of faith (in a religious context) quite irrational by itself.

Decent, yet not exactly pioneering, thread otherwise.

Also, I'd agree with Atlantis except on his claim of spirituality and morality being "unfalsifiable concepts which can't normally be verified empirically". The latter especially (morality) has many plausible theories involving socio-biological findings that are far more believable than a moral intuition given to us via some supreme being.

As for spirituality, I'd simply recant that reason and spirituality should be in accord, and don't always have to be at odds with one another. If they are in disharmony somehow, it's time to changes one's beliefs.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I don't see how anyone can have faith on a religion yet be ready to alter their religious beliefs at any time based on scientific proof that comes along and disproofs some of the teachings the religion professes. Furthermore, I find the concept of faith (in a religious context) quite irrational by itself.

Decent, yet not exactly pioneering, thread otherwise.

Perhaps I should have re-worded it, because I see your point. Faith implies something that is not directly verifiable by any known means, so if one has "faith" then it follows that it would transcend rational arguments to the contrary. Replace it with the conept of "belief" in an idea perhaps, and eliminate the need for faith altogether, and you have a better understanding of what I was getting at.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Perhaps I should have re-worded it, because I see your point. Faith implies something that is not directly verifiable by any known means, so if one has "faith" then it follows that it would transcend rational arguments to the contrary. Replace it with the conept of "belief" in an idea perhaps, and eliminate the need for faith altogether, and you have a better understanding of what I was getting at.
Well faith in x religion and belief in x religion are essentially the same thing. I don't see where the two terms differ in this situation.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Well faith in x religion and belief in x religion are essentially the same thing. I don't see where the two terms differ in this situation.

I'm using faith as belief in an irrational idea, belief being a step down from that. For example, JIA has faith that transcends anything we tell him. Many, more logical Christians have a belief in their God that wouldn't necessarily hold if they were presented with strong evidence to the contrary.

Under those definitions, faith and reason are a contradictory force...it's what a lagre part of the thread is dedicated to eliminating. Belief and reason wouldn't necessarily be at odds however.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm using faith as belief in an irrational idea, belief being a step down from that. For example, JIA has faith that transcends anything we tell him. Many, more logical Christians have a belief in their God that wouldn't necessarily hold if they were presented with strong evidence to the contrary.

Under those definitions, faith and reason are a contradictory force...it's what a lagre part of the thread is dedicated to eliminating. Belief and reason wouldn't necessarily be at odds however.
Regardless, any belief, faith, whatever you might call it in something that has literally no proof is "an irrational idea". This isn't what I was originally arguing about but I'll go with it.

You can call it what you like. The difference is the degree of the person's belief, and whether or not it is something that they will allow to change within themselves. Treating beliefs as, say, probable hypotheses would be preferable to the current state of dogmatic affairs we find in many religions.

I'm sorry.....but faith or belief is not irrational at all.

Most scientific discoveries in our history came about because a person had "faith" or "belief" in an idea. These are called hypothesis. This is the first step of the scientific method. Even if an idea can not stand up to the scientific method, it does not make it irrational at all. Before any hypothesis in history was tested, it too did not stand up to the scientific method yet.........didn't make it irrational. If no evidence to support a hypothesis presents itself, the idea still is not irrational. Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence. The only ideas that can be considered irrational or illogical are those that directly contradict known scientific fact or mathematics.

since the evolution/creationism thread is popping......I'll use this example:

Belief in a god or designing intelligence is not irrational or illogical. There are no facts that this directly contradicts.

Belief in creationism is irrational and illogical. It is so because the story of creationism has:

- a human being being constructed from dirt. We know today that even the most basic building blocks of life are not present in dirt....even the simplest of proteins.

- a woman is made from the rib of a man. Every cell in the human body contains the same DNA, be it from a rib, nerve or internal organ. You can infact make a person (clone) from a single cell......but it will be genetically identical to the original person. It will not vary in structure at all.....much less gender.

those are plain ol' facts. The scientific method has been applied........any person who wishes to test the validity of these facts can do so. The result will always be the same. Since the notion of creationism does directly contradict known facts, any belief or faith in it would be irrational and illogical.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
I'm sorry.....but faith or belief is not irrational at all.

Most scientific discoveries in our history came about because a person had "faith" or "belief" in an idea. These are called hypothesis. This is the first step of the scientific method. Even if an idea can not stand up to the scientific method, it does not make it irrational at all. Before any hypothesis in history was tested, it too did not stand up to the scientific method yet.........didn't make it irrational. If no evidence to support a hypothesis presents itself, the idea still is not irrational. Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence. The only ideas that can be considered irrational or illogical are those that directly contradict known scientific fact or mathematics.

since the evolution/creationism thread is popping......I'll use this example:

Belief in a god or designing intelligence is not irrational or illogical. There are no facts that this directly contradicts.

Belief in creationism is irrational and illogical. It is so because the story of creationism has:

- a human being being constructed from dirt. We know today that even the most basic building blocks of life are not present in dirt....even the simplest of proteins.

- a woman is made from the rib of a man. Every cell in the human body contains the same DNA, be it from a rib, nerve or internal organ. You can infact make a person (clone) from a single cell......but it will be genetically identical to the original person. It will not vary in structure at all.....much less gender.

those are plain ol' facts. The scientific method has been applied........any person who wishes to test the validity of these facts can do so. The result will always be the same. Since the notion of creationism does directly contradict known facts, any belief or faith in it would be irrational and illogical.

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the "Absense of evidence...." line....I'd have a decent number of nickels (maybe a dollar!). It's still the "God of the Gaps" I talked about initially. Whatever we can't explain, it could possibly be God. Sure, possibly. But scientific hypotheses that have any credibility have evidence for them....a lot of it. The verifiable evidence for anything resembling the Judeo/Christian God? Still at a depressing zero. If you want to believe in a God figure, go right ahead. I can't "disprove" him (I'm actually relatively confident that there's those who could, but I'm not familiar enough with the work out there on the subject to say definitively). But a belief with nothing even resembling evidence....that's exactly what I call irrational faith, and exactly the problem. It's not a probable belief based on some form of reason, it's an improbable hope.

And are we really dragging the creationism controversy into this thread?

Anyway, I'm aware of the definition of "hypothesis". It's what we should consider ALL of our beliefs, both scientific or spiritual. Some are far more likely hypotheses, but labeling something a "belief" suddenly takes out the idea that you could be wrong.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard the "Absense of evidence...." line....I'd have a decent number of nickels (maybe a dollar!). It's still the "God of the Gaps" I talked about initially. Whatever we can't explain, it could possibly be God. Sure, possibly. But scientific hypotheses that have any credibility have evidence for them....a lot of it. The verifiable evidence for anything resembling the Judeo/Christian God? Still at a depressing zero. If you want to believe in a God figure, go right ahead. I can't "disprove" him (I'm actually relatively confident that there's those who could, but I'm not familiar enough with the work out there on the subject to say definitively). But a belief with nothing even resembling evidence....that's exactly what I call irrational faith, and exactly the problem. It's not a probable belief based on some form of reason, it's an improbable hope.

And are we really dragging the creationism controversy into this thread?

Anyway, I'm aware of the definition of "hypothesis". It's what we should consider ALL of our beliefs, both scientific or spiritual. Some are far more likely hypotheses, but labeling something a "belief" suddenly takes out the idea that you could be wrong.

you are correct on the God of Gaps remark but remember who the people you are dealing with are. The religous folk base their remarks on nothing at all.......something their parents told them when they were a kid, right along with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. There is no basis for it in reality. To counter, you must always make sure your stance is 100% based in reality and fact to avoid stooping to their level of stating "opinions" and "beliefs" as facts..........otherwise you are no better than they are.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
I'm sorry.....but faith or belief is not irrational at all.

Most scientific discoveries in our history came about because a person had "faith" or "belief" in an idea. These are called hypothesis. This is the first step of the scientific method. Even if an idea can not stand up to the scientific method, it does not make it irrational at all. Before any hypothesis in history was tested, it too did not stand up to the scientific method yet.........didn't make it irrational. If no evidence to support a hypothesis presents itself, the idea still is not irrational. Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence. The only ideas that can be considered irrational or illogical are those that directly contradict known scientific fact or mathematics.

since the evolution/creationism thread is popping......I'll use this example:

Belief in a god or designing intelligence is not irrational or illogical. There are no facts that this directly contradicts.

Belief in creationism is irrational and illogical. It is so because the story of creationism has:

- a human being being constructed from dirt. We know today that even the most basic building blocks of life are not present in dirt....even the simplest of proteins.

- a woman is made from the rib of a man. Every cell in the human body contains the same DNA, be it from a rib, nerve or internal organ. You can infact make a person (clone) from a single cell......but it will be genetically identical to the original person. It will not vary in structure at all.....much less gender.

those are plain ol' facts. The scientific method has been applied........any person who wishes to test the validity of these facts can do so. The result will always be the same. Since the notion of creationism does directly contradict known facts, any belief or faith in it would be irrational and illogical.
There is a difference between having faith in some religion and having a hypothesis on a certain subject like the creation of the world. Believing in angels, paradise, satan, etc. is indeed as I said, quite irrational.

Hey you wrong. There is paradise........................ its called Bora Bora

And Fiji

Thanks for the reference Digimark. Ths could help in future debates.

Originally posted by backdoorman
There is a difference between having faith in some religion and having a hypothesis on a certain subject like the creation of the world.

for the record, I despise all religion no matter their beliefs......the very idea of religions have less to do with faith than it has to do with power.

that said.....

You would say it is irrational for a person to believe in a god who created the entire universe..........but would not consider it irrational to believe that matter and energy just popped into being from nothingness? I'm starting to hate you dude.......making me defend ideas held by religious nutjobs. While their beliefs are most likely not true, that does not make them irrational or any less valid than any beliefs you yourself have. Again, you do us all an injustice when you stoop to the Christian's level of stating your own personal beliefs, opinions and agendas as absolutes instead of relying soley on fact to defend any stance you have. You're like the KKK showing up to a protest. Yeah......you want to help but we don't want your kind of help.

There can only be unification once the enlarge egos of both sides shrink. Religion and Science are like water and oil...because there are people who want it that way.

I'm open to idea....bring it.

My religion and science harmonize together perfectly.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
for the record, I despise all religion no matter their beliefs......the very idea of religions have less to do with faith than it has to do with power.

that said.....

You would say it is irrational for a person to believe in a god who created the entire universe..........but would not consider it irrational to believe that matter and energy just popped into being from nothingness? I'm starting to hate you dude.......making me defend ideas held by religious nutjobs. While their beliefs are most likely not true, that does not make them irrational or any less valid than any beliefs you yourself have. Again, you do us all an injustice when you stoop to the Christian's level of stating your own personal beliefs, opinions and agendas as absolutes instead of relying soley on fact to defend any stance you have. You're like the KKK showing up to a protest. Yeah......you want to help but we don't want your kind of help.
What the hell? When did I say I believed "matter and energy popped out of nothingness"?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
you are correct on the God of Gaps remark but remember who the people you are dealing with are. The religous folk base their remarks on nothing at all.......something their parents told them when they were a kid, right along with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. There is no basis for it in reality. To counter, you must always make sure your stance is 100% based in reality and fact to avoid stooping to their level of stating "opinions" and "beliefs" as facts..........otherwise you are no better than they are.

Actually, what you're proposing is just exchanging one evil for another. It would be saying "You're wrong, but I'm obviously 100% right because of this evidence". Nothing's 100% factual, without possibility of error. Nothing. To think that it can be so is to simply exchange one fanatic dogma for another, rather than treat your "beliefs" (if that's what we're calling them), whether they are scientific or religious, as "probable explanations" rather than facts. Highly probable hypotheses, not gospel.

I would offer evidence based on reason, making something highly probable, or so close to a certainty that to not believe it would be rationally flawed. Which, compared to the dearth of evidence for numerous religious beliefs, is a triumph of intelligent reason over dogmatic speculation.

So if a religious person wants irrefutable facts, I won't deliver. I can merely show with nigh-certainty many intelligent and provable reasons why the God of Christianity or other Western traditions doesn't exist. That should be enough for most, if they are willing to let obvious reason and their intellect overcome their ingrained irrational faith. But to do any more would make me simply the newest fundamentalist, not a free thinker.

If everyone did treat their beliefs as opinion, rather than irrefutable Truth (capitolized to denote the entire concept), we wouldn't have terrorist bombings, lynchings, and all other forms religious persecution.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Thanks for the reference Digimark. Ths could help in future debates.

What reference? Anyway, you're welcome.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
There can only be unification once the enlarge egos of both sides shrink. Religion and Science are like water and oil...because there are people who want it that way.

I'm open to idea....bring it.

My proposal simply changes the ingedients, if you will. Religion isn't Oil by the end. It's....well...something that doesn't repel science.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Nothing's 100% factual, without possibility of error. Nothing. Beware of absolutes. shock

Only a Sith deals in absolute.

Originally posted by Mindship
Beware of absolutes. shock

Hehe...yeah, the irony of my own statement only hit me after I couldn't edit it anymore. Nice catch.

So I take back the 100%...but only by a little. Sort of. Um, yeah...gotta keep my options open. But not completely open. Only mostly.



Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
Only a Sith deals in absolute.



Actually....well. I don't want to get into SW stuff. I'd talk forever, and it would end up so far away from the purpose of this thread it wouldn't even be funny.

Long story short, a Jedi in the ongoing books (Jacen Solo) saw beyond the illusion of opposites and was "unified" in the Force, above the influences or even belief in a Light-Dark dichotomy. It was exciting for me, because it represented something that I believe in on a much more earthly level (it could easily relate to Taoism). Now a friend tells me he goes Sith in the newest book series. A depressing turn of events, as it represents a philosophical departure from something that I considered to be a transcendant moment for the series.

Originally posted by Mindship
Beware of absolutes. shock

Absolutely.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hehe...yeah, the irony of my own statement only hit me after I couldn't edit it anymore. Nice catch. It's a catch-22, if nothing else. Does it reflect reality or just the limits of language?


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Absolutely. I rest my case.

Originally posted by Mindship
...I rest my case.

Don't let it go to your head.

Absolutely not.

Science and religion did not really conflict up until the age of enlightment, and most of the conflict was localized.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Science and religion did not really conflict up until the age of enlightment.

Religion has no problem with science as long as they do what they are told to do: just ask Galileo.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Religion has no problem with science as long as they do what they are told to do: just ask Galileo.
That was the church. . . since when did one religion represent all?
Infact, Patriarchical Monotheism is a recent oddball amongst religion, and the conflict came because the church wanted political power.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That was the church. . . since when did one religion represent all?
Infact, Patriarchical Monotheism is a recent oddball amongst religion, and the conflict came because the church wanted political power.

"since when did one religion represent all?" In there minds, or in reality?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"since when did one religion represent all?" In there minds, or in reality?

Excuse me?

I was talking about religion in general, Christianity is not the sum of all religion nor is it the worst.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Excuse me?

I was talking about religion in general, Christianity is not the sum of all religion nor is it the worst.



I assumed you were talking about the renaissance.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
- Traditional methods of "merging" religion and science have proved to be unfulfilling and largely fruitless at best, and scarily misleading at worst.
Yes.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
- Scientific study (and personal study of any sort) needs to remove religion from the equation unless it is specifically attempting to deal with religious issues. Otherwise, credible data tends to become misleading or logical holes begin to be created in the attempt to merge disparate elements of a person's findings and their beliefs.
It has.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
- Religion, in large part, needs to be reinterpreted metaphorically, and through this it can become an even more powerful and unifying force than it currently is. Otherwise, it creates division in all of its nasty forms.
Debatable...actually no.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
- Faith need not be abandoned entirely. It must merely make concessions to reason, a force that (within us humans) should take precedence given our experience on the planet thus far through history.

It has, except for with conservatives, who simply die out.