[ughaibu]

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...lie_Review.pdf

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by ughaibu

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...lie_Review.pdf

Thanks.

Of course, it is easy to avoid many of the more specific concerns of traditional Christian theology. Did the serpent really speak in the Garden of Eden, for example? (I’m told that this issue still divides certain sects of the Dutch reformed church.) But in their big, abstract, de-natured contemporary forms—the forms in which they feature in Leslie’s book, among other things—these issues can seem to be simply there.

But it’s easy to be misled by familiarity. The concerns in question are easily visible if we think of analogous examples further from home, geographically, ideologically or historically. Think of the talking snake, after all, or “creation science”. For my part, I’m attracted by the thought of a future in which the question whether god exists seems just as silly. I’m suspicious of the whole theological game, even in its de-natured forms; and not impressed by the argument that these must be serious questions, because we get undergraduates to think about them.

We’ve also noted that even when religion isn’t in the same game as science, it is only saved by pragmatism if it turns out to be useful. So, finally, to the question I’ve been deferring. Is religion good for us? Does it improve our lives? This is a huge issue, of course, and an urgent one.

It would not be hard to replace the word "religion" with "belief in god."

[InfiniteNow]

Via Swans on Tea today (and in a "Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon" way, further via Physics and Physicists):

Swans on Tea Faith and Ignorance

"Richard MacKenzie of the University of Montreal has written a rather thought-provoking and lengthy article as a rebuttal to a talk given by Lawrence Krauss. In it, he is disputing Krauss’s assertion that:

Faith is not the enemy.
Ignorance is the enemy. "

<...>

"The bottom line is that direct observation shows that faith does not obstruct scientists from doing science. That said, there are many who portray themselves as scientists who, due to their faith, are doing a brand of science which is an indignity to the word. I have in mind particularly those whose principal goal in science is to advance a faith-based agenda. One must wonder whether these individuals, who probably have a reasonable amount of scientific talent, might not be doing respectable science if their scientificity had not been stronger, or their religiosity weaker.

Does faith obstruct non-scientists from learning science? I would argue that it does, for several reasons."

See the paper for more.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3670v1 (.pdf)

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Thanks.








It would not be hard to replace the word "religion" with "belief in god."

Huh? Isn't religion a whole lot more than believing in the existence of God? My Webster Dictionary says religion is belief and worship of God or gods. It goes on to say religion is "a specific system of belief or worship, etc., built around God, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, etc."

Simply believing in the existence of God, does not meet the requirements for religion. Personally, I think it is pointless to worship a God, because if there is a God, I don't believe the God can be malnipulated by prayers and pious acts. On the other hand, using science to know of God, that is the stuff of the universe and organizing forces, means we can make better choices, and that is a good thing. Here the focus is not science and the study of nature, not religion. See the difference?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Simply believing in the existence of God, does not meet the requirements for religion.

<...>

See the difference?

Of course, I do, but you need to keep my comments in the context in which they were made. Did you read the link to which I was responding?


Also, can we try to avoid making this YET ANOTHER thread about your belief that nature is god? We've beaten that horse so many times it's really starting to stink up the place, and I'm not sure there's enough FeBreeze in existence to resolve that.

[HydrogenBond]

The God concept, if taken as a concept, is boundless. It is both infinite and infinitesimal to use two math concepts. It has eternal and instantaneous attributes of time, etc. Based on that, the God concept has played a role in shaping the human mind to be able to think abstractly. It is not designed for concrete thinking, but for abstract thinking.

What abstract thinking does is expand the mind beyond concrete boundaries. Invention does not logically follow from concrete boundaries. It requires a leap beyond the concrete into an abstraction. Einstein's relativity would not follow from concrete thinking of the time. It required an abstract leap. The God concept is the most comprehensive abstraction since by its very nature it is designed to include almost everything at its extreme limits.

Religion often tries to make the boundless abstract concept of god concrete by defining a person. This personification is not always logical, so others throw away the supreme abstraction. If one is not creative, these two approaches may not make any difference. You can let other people think for you, and simply parrot it back. But if you are creative and like to think more independently, you need frontiers that are open farther than the eye can see. This where what shall be exists or where the new cage ends.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

...We've beaten that horse so many times it's really starting to stink up the place, and I'm not sure there's enough FeBreeze in existence to resolve that.

not enough FeBreeze

Good one. Rat own.