Science and Religion

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

However, I do know when I find an untruth being told. Whether it is intentional or not, I can not be an expert, as you have rightly stated, only God is the reader of hearts. However, I do believe the untruth either results from an incomplete study (sounds like a cunundrum because I already stated that 100% can't be known, and people believe complete to mean 100%, and rightly so) of the scriptures, or from a willful disavowal of some part of the scriptures.

We can continue in the other thread. Our discussion really belongs under that heading. Maybe you can start by pointing out some specific things I might be missing. For now, I am just saying that our message is nullified when conveyed with animosity.

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Its in the paragraph following the ellipses, but to restate: ...unless you have some right to judge that your interpretation is the "true" one. You do this by saying that South's knowledge is incomplete. This is a great example of how conflicts occur between religions, and sets up the primary moral debate about the efficacy of religion: they all claim others are "false religions" based on the claim that only they have a true connection to God.

Thus it is up to each individual to do an examination of them. I could examine them (against site rules) and show their fallacious stands, but this has already been done pretty publicly. Look at any website that discusses the origins of most of the "christian" holidays. Check out websites on the "christian" doctrine on the trinity. Wait, check out Hypography for this past one as it has already been discussed.

This is useful for the evolutionary success of each sects power structure, and is enforced by saying that others are being led astray by Satan or whatever, but it sure results in some morally reprehensible behavior in the name of God.

Agreed, people killing people today in the name of God seems pretty reprehensible. This too seems unscriptural to me. Perhaps others could show how such acts identify true religion from false religion.

The following deals with why I feel a need to differentiate between human philosophy and religion.

I really don't know why you're hung up on this except to try to argue that religion is superior to philosophy. It seems to be based on that text you keep talking about, being a "definitive" statement on truth, but its not clear that that is important, in fact its easy to point out many "philosophies" that are based on bodies of work that are raised to the level of sacred by some over-zealous followers like Objectivism (Buffy ducks). The point being that the distinction between the two is quite gray, and subject to, well, Subjectivism.

You've also kind of skipped over the whole issue of people choosing different books, which merely seems like a similar activity to the "irrationality" of coming up with "wrong" interpretations of the contents thereof.

Again, who are you to say that either of these choices/decisions is "rational?"

Undecidable,
Buffy

You might want to go back and review my points on this again. Particularly I will again suggest you fully review the religion vs. philosophy thread I have linked you to a couple of times.

[catholiboy]

The sad erality of the situation is that we cannot go and say "this religious belief is definitely true"; instead, we keep on reconciling, reconciling, reconciling, reconciling, reconciling, reconciling, reconciling, RECONCILING our beliefs with the natural world.
WHO SAID POLITICS WAS AN EXTENSION OF PHILOSOPHY?
Politics is perhaps the least philosophical thing in the world. Philosophy just stabnds back occasionally and DICTATES what happens in politics...there is a subtle difference.
and how many tuimes will i need to mention noumena?...

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Thus it is up to each individual to do an examination of them. I could examine them ... and show their fallacious stands... Look at any website that discusses the origins of most of the "christian" holidays.

And that's my point: there are many interpretations with people who believe that their interpretation is just as correct as you think yours is. You can certainly say "that's my opinion" but when you start to say that "other opinions are irrational" you are falling into judgement, and its intellectually dishonest to call your method "logic" (one of the main themes of this thread).

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

The following deals with why I feel a need to differentiate between human philosophy and religion....You might want to go back and review my points on this again. Particularly I will again suggest you fully review the religion vs. philosophy thread I have linked you to a couple of times.

'Kay, did. To quote you from there:

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

I believe that religion has to be based upon something spiritual, that can't be explained only through science, but through a belief in some high ethereal power. After all someone who worships nature believes that there is some higher power called mother nature, right? If not, then I would say that they are simply worshipping a man, or rather the philosophy of a man.

Where did you get the idea that I do not include such in my so called "philosophy?" In this thread you've expanded your definition that it have some "scripture" so I think you're moving the goal posts in order to keep your own "philosophy" superior to that of others.

More importantly of course, this definition says that a religion is based on something "that can't be explained only through science," which would seem to *preclude* any arguments about "truth" based solely upon "rationality:" they have to be based upon *belief* which is a part of a persons...individual philosophy!!!

I would ask you to answer the question you set up and explain--given the distinctions you've made--what is the "need to differentiate between human philosophy and religion?" It seems to me to be a distinction being made only to say that one is a "valid" spiritual guide and the other is somehow "wrong" or at the very least "insignificant."

Insignificantly,
Buffy

[cwes99_03]

READ THE WHOLE THREAD BUFFY.

I don't know what more to say to you, girl.

I've said it enough. Now read it.

And please if you would like, resurrect it. Discuss it further. That was the point of it being there a year ago. You seem to have a lot to say about it, but you refuse to participate in it, or thus far even to read it. I read and began participating in your religion vs. religion thread. Why don't you reciprocate?

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Likewise, when viewing a religion, (as opposed to a philosophy) you have an authority (a text) by which you can agree on. Thus two reasonable people looking at that authority can come to the same rational conclusion.

On this, I strongly disagree. If a text were simply an unambiguous set of rules, you'd have something. However, every religious text I've ever read has been as much poetry as law. Even well intentioned, rational people will differ on their interpretation of poetry: indeed that is the whole point of poetry.

I also point out that history is full of well-intentioned rational people coming to different conclusions about various religious books. Lets say I have a scriptural interpretation of a book, but I find there are people out there who disagree, have their own. Do I claim or believe that they are irrational, and I am rational? Of course, this seems rather childish and arrogant, it presupposes that I am more capable of rationality then anyone who has ever disagreed with me.

Lets not forget that our problems are compounded: there are at least a handful of self-consistant but mutually exclusive "authorities" out there. You can't possible follow all of them. And again: people disagree on which is the true authority. To claim that anyone who disagrees with my particular choice of holy book is irrational is to presuppose that I am more capable of rationality then my peers.

There are however some pretty hard standards by which a rational person can be defined. They hinge on having an accurate text only. An accurate text can be scientifically determined.

How do you scientifically judge the accuracy/value of poetry? Don't most(maybe all) holy books contain a large portion of poetry?
-Will

[Spiked Blood]

Religion and science are not compatible because science is ever changing(to deal with an ever changing universe) whereas religion is static.

Also? You are not me. The bible is the dumbest pile of bullshit ever forced on a society. You are not me. I am NOT my father, God would not judge nor condemn me for his sins. You are not me. God would NOT have a chosen people based on their birthline. You are not me. God would NOT advocate murder.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

Religion and science are not compatible because science is ever changing(to deal with an ever changing universe) whereas religion is static.

My understanding of scripture is constantly changing, and has also been stood on its head this year.

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

Also? You are not me. The bible is the dumbest pile of bullshit ever forced on a society. You are not me. I am NOT my father, God would not judge nor condemn me for his sins.

You are right. But his actions could affect you negatively, or even his attitude could affect your mental upbringing (as is often the case), assuming you refer to the tenth commandment. (Exodus 20:5)

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

You are not me. God would NOT have a chosen people based on their birthline.

Ahem... (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8; the book of Ruth)

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

You are not me. God would NOT advocate murder.

Good one. And I am reassured that people can 'judge for themselves' as it says. If you refer to Old Testament punishment, my rationale is that Israel had to be preserved as a society so that Messiah could come and pay for the world's sin. In ancient times, there weren't many options available in the way of law enforcement. And there weren't any international treaties to aid diplomacy. Survival of the fittest and a means to an end. [/2cents]

[cwes99_03]

OK, we have two divergent lines of discussion here on this thread. Perhaps we should tackle them one at a time.

1) Buffy and I and a couple of others are interested first in deciding whether there is a definite difference between religion and philosophy. My stance has been that there is and that it hinges on two things.
First, it needs to refer to a divine (higher) power above and beyond the human intellect. This allows for a great number of religions such as Gaism (sp?) and what not.
Second, it needs to have a text. For a religion to be shared among a people, it needs a definition of rites, doctrines, etc. Without such things, no two people can correctly identify themselves as like observers of a religion. This is to say that a religion can't be a religion if only one person worships in that way, because then it becomes a philsophy of one and only one person.
Philosophy buffs will agree that for a particular philosophy to be shared among many, it needs to be written down. Thus many people can say they share Rousseau's or Spock's philosophy on raising children.
For this very reason philosophy is a fairly scientificly assignable process. There is a text that makes certain claims. These claims can then be tested and verified, or at the very least be proven to only work part of the time or one of many other scenarios. But it can be tested scientifically.

2) The second argument, which I think must follow the first, is whether or not two people can agree on a religious text and its teachings. This is, I believe, a scientific process. If two people can't agree, then either one is right and the other wrong, or the text itself is not very useful as a text. Of course, I have already acknowledged (and science must acknowledge) that new understanding of events and data occurs all the time. So two people may not be able to agree on every fine point, but there must be some agreement on the coarse points.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

OK, we have two divergent lines of discussion here on this thread. Perhaps we should tackle them one at a time.

1) ...Second, it needs to have a text. For a religion to be shared among a people, it needs a definition of rites, doctrines, etc.
2) The second[?Third?] argument, which I think must follow the first, is whether or not two people can agree on a religious text and its teachings. This is, I believe, a scientific process. If two people can't agree, then either one is right and the other wrong, or the text itself is not very useful as a text. Of course, I have already acknowledged (and science must acknowledge) that new understanding of events and data occurs all the time. So two people may not be able to agree on every fine point, but there must be some agreement on the coarse points.

Of course I have a contention, which is you have made no mention of oral traditions. For example, the Native Americans passed their religious stories and philosophies by word of mouth for centuries without the aid of a written language. As I understand it, all written texts come from oral traditions.