Science and religion

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Whether it's inherently reasonable to a theist does not make it rational, because a theistic point of view holds reason secondary to God -- unless you feel that God is beholden to the laws of nature.

If our ability to understand life rationally is marginalized by the fact that apparent laws can be changed by God at his discretion, then our experiential understanding of the universe just crumbles apart. I mean how can you ever tell the difference between an ordinary new experience and a miracle? When is something simply different from what you've seen before (but still beholden to the laws of nature) and when is something a miracle by God?

I mean this by way of analogy, not offensively: People with schizophrenia have great difficulty distinguishing what is real from what is not real -- so they hear voices, they think that the radio or TV are talking directly to them, or that animals are talking to them, and the distinction between thought and experience gets blurred. Because of this, their thought becomes disorganized and they can have great difficulty functioning.

For us to presume that the universe does not submit to reason because some power ("God") can capriciously make exceptions to apparent laws -- yet we can never know when he's doing it -- means that we no longer have any basis to discriminate the rational from the irrational.


If so, then there's no point in even trying. Reason and empirical experience are then meaningless.

They are not exactly meaningless. Wee all accept that we are real, and it is us rather than God for whom meaing is an object. That does not mean we cannot correctly presume that a God powerful enough to make all this, the firmament, and beyond -would not have the ability to make and break all conditions at once. Not our problem. Our problem is local. It is not the question of what we can know of God based upon a naturally, rationally understandable world. What we know of the world speaks of the world and not of God. In every respect we are forced to live as though God does not exist to live at all. Theology is not responsible for human progress but for human retardation. When we reach the limits of our knowledge then anything can be. Where anything can be, God is kicking back. I would like to believe in a single cosmos. This view is clearly impossible to accept without offending some one; so everyone should talk about what they know. And then let it go. If science works in this world it will serve my purpose.

[Aedes]

I basically agree with you. What it boils down to, I guess, is that if you're not a theist, the whole idea of a "miracle" is a rationalization of things that we simply don't rationally understand. So what differentiates a "miracle" from a new discovery or a new experience? Nothing other than the convenience that what's called a miracle is that which supports a preexisting belief system.

So if I look at a cloud and it resembles the face of Jesus, and not 5 minutes later I come 2 inches from being killed by an icicle that falls from a roof, it must be a miracle. But if the face in the cloud resembles Bart Simpson or Elvis, then that near miss is just a coincidence.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I basically agree with you. What it boils down to, I guess, is that if you're not a theist, the whole idea of a "miracle" is a rationalization of things that we simply don't rationally understand. So what differentiates a "miracle" from a new discovery or a new experience? Nothing other than the convenience that what's called a miracle is that which supports a preexisting belief system.

So if I look at a cloud and it resembles the face of Jesus, and not 5 minutes later I come 2 inches from being killed by an icicle that falls from a roof, it must be a miracle. But if the face in the cloud resembles Bart Simpson or Elvis, then that near miss is just a coincidence.

I might ask why people add rational to religion when religions have only added prejudice to the rational. Where do they get to be in any kind of race for our attention? Have they added so much to life? Have they founded some moral truths to match their moral precepts? God as a conclusion of religion is not every where all of the time as in our nightmares, but is no where, none of the time for the purposes rational discussion. God needs to be served a paper, and told, you show up there at then, and be disputed with, in a rational manor. As it is, we either believe in God; or we do not. What evidence is that? And as you suggest above, coincidence is not evidence. As a coincidence, I offer that I knew a man nearly killed in the fashion you suggested. And absolutly no lesson can be learned from it. It just happened, and then it was done.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Fido

I might ask why people add rational to religion when religions have only added prejudice to the rational.

Have you read Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche? Reason, or to be reasonable or rational, is one of the most unquestionably prized attributes in our society. To be rational is good, to be irrational is bad. That hasn't been appropriated by religion so much, but most other prized attributes like kindness, generosity, altruism, piety, humility, do have religious overtones.

I think many people in religion, including the main thrust of medieval philosophy (scholasticism), feel that anything worth its salt has to be rationally sound. And so thanks to Maimonides, Aquinas, and the scholastics, reason has been incorporated into theology, which is basically just philosophy within the boundaries of a religious tradition. Of course this is not the only school of thought, and everyone from mystics to philosophers (Spinoza and Kierkegaard are good examples) deny that religion must be rational or that it can be rational.

As a coincidence, I offer that I knew a man nearly killed in the fashion you suggested. And absolutly no lesson can be learned from it. It just happened, and then it was done.

Yup. Coincidence + free association = meaning in our "rational" minds.

[Peter]

My take on the relationship between science and religion is this.

When mankind originally developed language, our first response to our environment was in the form of myths and legends - telling stories about why the sun rose each morning, why the crops grow, etc. The Greek myths are the best known of these but every human society had its set of mythical stories which explained why the world is as it is. Originally these stories formed one undifferentiated group but with the growth of civilisation and a separate literate class, tribal legends began to be separated into different categories such as stories about the origin of the world, practical information, religion, etc.

In the relatively recent past, the development of rationalism and the success of science have led to the original mythical descriptions of the physical world (such as the medieval description of the world as a flat plane covered by a circular sky) have had to be abandoned. As a result at the present time even religious people for the most part reject the mythical accounts of the origins of our world which are given in Genesis and other legendary sources. Evolution is one area where the scientific, naturalistic account of our origins has yet to win complete popular acceptance against the more primitive, mythical stories.

There are some areas, however, which are not susceptible to the scientific method. These include questions of moral values, aesthetic considerations, the significance of individual human lives and life in general. Scientific facts are often relevant to the debate in these areas but the key questions themselves need to be decided by methods other than those of science. It is therefore no accident that it is in these areas that the older, myth-based approaches to knowledge continue to persist in the form of organised religions.

My opinion is that although the value-based questions mentioned above are not suitable to the scientific method of hypothesis formulation and empirical testing, it is nevertheless possible to take a rational rather than a mythical approach to them. It is regretable that rationalism does not have the prestige in the public mind which is accorded to science (because of the latter's practical usefulness). It is largely for this reason that the majority of the population continue to place a misguided trust in organised religion as their source of insight into those important questions of life which do not come within the remit of the scientific method.

Peter

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Have you read Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche? Reason, or to be reasonable or rational, is one of the most unquestionably prized attributes in our society. To be rational is good, to be irrational is bad. That hasn't been appropriated by religion so much, but most other prized attributes like kindness, generosity, altruism, piety, humility, do have religious overtones.

I hape you are not saying that religion is responsible for morality, and yes, I have read Nietzsche on the subject and disagree with his conclusions. Morality is responsible for the success and durability of religion. But reason alone is capable of terrible evil. The most rational people given to science and philosophy were able to rationalize horrors in war and in the mass extermination of their fellow humans, men, women and children. Human beings whose reason dominates their emotions are hardly human, and yet our culture elevates and trains such people. I think we need to value perspective, what emotions give to each of us should be prized in every society.

I think many people in religion, including the main thrust of medieval philosophy (scholasticism), feel that anything worth its salt has to be rationally sound. And so thanks to Maimonides, Aquinas, and the scholastics, reason has been incorporated into theology, which is basically just philosophy within the boundaries of a religious tradition. Of course this is not the only school of thought, and everyone from mystics to philosophers (Spinoza and Kierkegaard are good examples) deny that religion must be rational or that it can be rational.

The difference between our religion and Islam is that they rejected a rational understanding of God. I don't think we accept such a thing. I expect that in this country few Catholics even read Aquinas when his is the accepted philosophy of the church. All that was rejected for protestantism which is our particular form of spiritualism. And that says what Islam says, that God is beyond our understanding. I don't think that was what Jesus or the prophets were saying. I rather believe they were saying God was beyond our control, while our own behavior, upon which we would be judged, is not beyond our control. Reason is an attempt to control, or at least predicate the behavior of God based upon reason. It is a monumental presumption, that the ordered world we live in was the result of a well ordered God. I think we are better off rejecting this notion of God and finding better reasons for our own good behavior. The fact is, that most people, even those who pray the loudest, and vote their beliefs live in two worlds. They go where they light of God shines on them, and then return to their worlds. They do not pray for miracles when they get sick, but go to a doctor and then pray. God gets the credit, and they get the bill. I don't think humanity can be understood without seeing the large capacity each person has as a container of contradictions. Most of the heat generated in any dispute with people is from that point where contradictions between what people know and what they believe are revealed. People do not want to think they are hypocrits, or false, or ignorent. If their religion supports the world of desires where evil is punished and goodness rewarded, they do not feel so bad about living in another world six days out of seven where evil always wins.

Yup. Coincidence + free association = meaning in our "rational" minds.

And association is the beginning of rationalization. Thanks

[sadek]

If you do not beleive that religion and science are related to eash other you can find more on this link
Miracles - Radio Dijla Forums

There are real miracles and I beleive in it.

[krazy kaju]

Science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

One uses a rational approach to explain natural phenomena while the other attempts to do the same using irrational and unprovable arguments.

The truth is that no philosopher has ever been able to successfully deduce the existence of God. Many have provided 'proofs' for the existence of some supreme deity, but all have failed in the light of evidence showing otherwise.

[Didymos Thomas]

Does religion necessarily include the belief in "god"?

[krazy kaju]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Does religion necessarily include the belief in "god"?

OOOOOOHHHH good question.

I don't think many atheists actually have a problem with religions like Buddhism.