Science and religion

[Doorsopen]

Building upon the information posted on this thread (heredity), and the thoughts of the individuals who have contributed to it (genetics), and at the risk of forgetting some of its less useful comments (natural selection), albeit very interesting in their specific context (evolution), I humbly submit that the scientific suspend some disbelief, and that equally the more religious attempt to cast a scientific eye over certain esoteric anomolies, in an attempt to reconcile the perceived seperation of Science and religion. Perhaps discover together the (dare I say) purpose of the original topic of this thread...

Naturally this thread has made for deeply gratifying reading for one who is perched on the fence (aren't we all?) between the two forces that drive our society- watching the battle to justify the more viable. It has been far more entertaining then watching a football match, which as best I could ever tell has NO purpose to speak of. Coming from the Humanities, I take the liberty of quoting Andre Malraux: "The 21st century will be spiritual...or it will not be"...

Can any science which draws foregone conclusions without attempting to search beyond its own paradigms be considered superior in reason to a sacred text which contains the nexus of knowledge? Why would such a field of study leave so vast a resource unconsidered? Is science then only a study of surface perceptions that fragments all aspects of our obervable experience? Or, does Science look through this illusion of surfaces to perceive the truth of our existence towards useful ends?

We do not need a new religion, as has been suggested quite early on in this post; we need to alter our perception, or more accurately: our understanding of what we perceive, in order to advance a knowledge of Truth.

If science casts aside the entire history of knowledge and in doing so, retreats into its archive of empirical data and religion clings to the dogma of its archiac interpretations of the same, both forms die.

A scientific reading of Genesis, to begin, reconcils this perceived seperation of Science (with a capital S) and religion (with a telling lower case 'r').

PS fundamentalists beware of preconceived notions

[Scattered]

Nicely, but ....
>Can any science which draws foregone conclusions
Not familiar with that science. Sort of contradicts science.
>Andre Malraux: "The 21st century will be spiritual...or it will not be"...
Very cool.
>our understanding of what we perceive
Here! Here! A little bit of new understanding will help too.

1) Who are we (and what are we worth)?
2) Where did we come from?
3) Why are we here?
4) Where are we going?
Both Christianity and evolution seek to answer these four questions.

Believe it or not, if you add one thing about genetics (re-combination) to current scientific knowledge, it would pretty much explain God and answer those questions, if not prove or disprove God's existence.
Enjoy

[Didymos Thomas]

1) Who are we (and what are we worth)?
2) Where did we come from?
3) Why are we here?
4) Where are we going?
Both Christianity and evolution seek to answer these four questions.

These is a terribly misleading oversimplification.
Evolution is an attempt to explain the development and existence of life.
Christianity, religion in general, does not make such a scientific attempt.

Believe it or not, if you add one thing about genetics (re-combination) to current scientific knowledge, it would pretty much explain God and answer those questions, if not prove or disprove God's existence.

I don't see how. Using science to investigate God is like using science to investigate the life of character from your favorite novel. Science is a tool that doesn't fit that bolt. And religion is similarly impotent with respect to influencing science.
The only thing science can do for us, from a religious perspective, is to further condemn the silliest of religious beliefs - like duality.

[Scattered]

>Evolution is an attempt to explain the development and existence of life.
Is not God said most emphatically to be life?
>Christianity, religion in general, does not make such a scientific attempt.
Yes, but is that not what people seek in religion.
>Using science to investigate God is like using science to
>investigate the life of character from your favorite novel.
That is assuming that God is a a fictional character like one from a novel. A true scientist will not make such an unsupported assumption.
>Science is a tool that doesn't fit that bolt.
I think I'm the first one to find the proper size scientific wrench to unscrew the unscrewtable.
>The only thing science can do for us, from a religious perspective,
>is to further condemn the silliest of religious beliefs - like duality.
Ha Ha. I wrote a paper on duality for phiolosophy that my instructor liked. I finally had gotten tired enough to write anything.
What surprised me was to show that the silliest religious belief (well, Christianity at least) is very well supported by science if you just add up a few facts and squeeze real hard. What would I calculate the probability? Somewhere between 20% to 90%.
Besides, without any God, religion is an expression of humanity's greatest aspirations. I would expect we will have to use science to achieve those that we can attain.
Note that though that I can use science to describe a God very very like the one described by Christianity, there is one difference. No one has ever seriously attempted to describe God without a big parcel of MetaPhysics. I can do it with only science. I haven't found anyone really ready for that. Test yourself. Who was more evil, Hitler or Stalin? If you can answer that without prejudice, maybe you could stretch to understand God.

[Didymos Thomas]

Is not God said most emphatically to be life?

If we take such a simple understanding of god, where god=life, then we do not need science to prove God's existence, such a thing would be patently obvious to everyone.

Yes, God is often said to be life, but God is often said to be many things. God is life, God is truth, ect - none of these statements are absolutely accurate, they all point to the inexpressible truth of God. That's the gist of how language around God usually functions.

Yes, but is that not what people seek in religion.

People can seek whatever they like, where ever they please. You can look for Death under a tree if you like.
People seek all sorts of things in religion - sometimes people seek alternatives to scientific explanations.

Doesn't mean that Christianity uses the scientific method to explain the development and existence of life. Religion tends to be concerned with coming to terms with the life we have.

That is assuming that God is a a fictional character like one from a novel. A true scientist will not make such an unsupported assumption.

Well, I'm no scientists. And God is like a fictional character from a book. Scripture is literature, by the way.
Any scientists who tells you he is studying the nature of God, in a scientific manner, is a mad man. What would he observe? What data would he collect?

What surprised me was to show that the silliest religious belief (well, Christianity at least) is very well supported by science if you just add up a few facts and squeeze real hard. What would I calculate the probability? Somewhere between 20% to 90%.

Christianity is not a religious belief.

And I am not sure what probability you are projecting.

Note that though that I can use science to describe a God very very like the one described by Christianity, there is one difference. No one has ever seriously attempted to describe God without a big parcel of MetaPhysics. I can do it with only science. I haven't found anyone really ready for that. Test yourself. Who was more evil, Hitler or Stalin? If you can answer that without prejudice, maybe you could stretch to understand God.

Depends on how you define metaphysics. And even then, you would have to answer some metaphysical questions, or at least make some metaphysical assumptions.

And I must doubt that you can arrive at God through any scientific exercise. But hey, I'll give it a hearing.

[Scattered]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

If we take such a simple understanding of god, where god=life, then we do not need science to prove God's existence, such a thing would be patently obvious to everyone.

Yes, God is often said to be life, but God is often said to be many things. God is life, God is truth, ect - none of these statements are absolutely accurate, they all point to the inexpressible truth of God. That's the gist of how language around God usually functions.

Well, I'm just a simple biologist so I note those things. Actually though, there is a depth of meaning there that is surprising.
One of the amazing things though is that if God does exist, it turns out that many of these platitudes will turn out to be very simply and literally true... at least about life if perhaps not truth... One of the reasons I wonder... See, I study life and my study of life processes was what led to the strange stuff I found. (I'll mention that I had no interest in studying Gods or religion, but a friend of mine pushed me into it. He hates religion. I was more than amazed at what I found by following the same thread of genetics that I have studied for so long.)

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

People can seek whatever they like, where ever they please. You can look for Death under a tree if you like.
People seek all sorts of things in religion - sometimes people seek alternatives to scientific explanations.

Ultimately, religion is mostly about morality. Morality is about survival. Something else a biologist might note.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Doesn't mean that Christianity uses the scientific method to explain the development and existence of life. Religion tends to be concerned with coming to terms with the life we have.

Yah, you have that right in trumps. Still, I think most things, the life we have included, are easier to understand and deal with if we understand them.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Well, I'm no scientists. And God is like a fictional character from a book. Scripture is literature, by the way.
Any scientists who tells you he is studying the nature of God, in a scientific manner, is a mad man. What would he observe? What data would he collect?

Yah, but many fictional characters have some ontogeny in fact.
If someone wants to understand God, perhaps they should start with the closest thing we know of, humans. Humans must be well understood before an understanding of God can be developed.
The key to this question has to do with events during re-combination. You might not think that that would say much about God, but it certainly does. God has the same problems that humans have and has solved many of them the same way that humans will have to.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Christianity is not a religious belief.

Uh.... OK, but I thought it was.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

And I am not sure what probability you are projecting.

The probability that God or more likely Gods, exist...(plural dependant on THE other QUESTION)

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Depends on how you define metaphysics. And even then, you would have to answer some metaphysical questions, or at least make some metaphysical assumptions.

Nope. No metaphysics. That's a hard part for most people to understand. Meta-physics means magic to me or something that science can never describe. This isn't even that hard to understand, though the idea that God isn't interested in magic does throw most people.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

And I must doubt that you can arrive at God through any scientific exercise. But hey, I'll give it a hearing.

Tell ya what, I don't answer that question directly these days, but if you were use Google or MS Live Search to search for instructions for Lobster Hunting, the first result could lead you to a detailed answer. No one has found a flaw in the reasoning so far.
I'll tell ya what, it freaked me out plenty when I found what I found... Still does.
It answers the 4 questions mentioned already, the third and fourth forbidden questions in science and the two objections to God...
1. Why do we have no evidence of God?
2. Why does God allow evil?
Yes that's pretty ambitious, but I answer clearly without resorting to the slight of meta-physics.

Gotta sleep. I hope you find it interesting.

[Didymos Thomas]

Yah, you have that right in trumps. Still, I think most things, the life we have included, are easier to understand and deal with if we understand them.

I'm not trying to ridicule scientific understanding - both religion and science have their value, and sometimes science and religion can inform one another. My point is that science and religion have essentially different functions,

Yah, but many fictional characters have some ontogeny in fact.

We might say they have ontogeny, but this ontogeny would not be something a scientist could pursue as the character is not available for observation. Their ontogeny would be the invention of the author.

God has a developmental history - but that is the domain of the historian and archaeologist and people of this sort, not developmental psychologists and developmental biologists. God's ontogeny is not the subject of science.

If someone wants to understand God, perhaps they should start with the closest thing we know of, humans. Humans must be well understood before an understanding of God can be developed.

Absolutely, to understand God you have to understand humans - after all, God, like all concepts, is a human invention. And science sometimes brings information to the table that is useful in developing this understanding of man. But this scientific influence is a very minor aspect of religion, just religion is a very minor influence on the progress of science.

The key to this question has to do with events during re-combination. You might not think that that would say much about God, but it certainly does. God has the same problems that humans have and has solved many of them the same way that humans will have to.

I have no idea what you mean, but I'm open to considering the ideas.

Uh.... OK, but I thought it was.

Christianity is not a religious belief. Christianity encompasses a variety of religious beliefs; not all Christians share the same beliefs, and Christians do not necessarily share any beliefs. A Christian is simply someone who finds value in the teachings attributed to Jesus.

The probability that God or more likely Gods, exist...(plural dependant on THE other QUESTION)

How could you make such a projection? Based on what?

Nope. No metaphysics. That's a hard part for most people to understand. Meta-physics means magic to me or something that science can never describe. This isn't even that hard to understand, though the idea that God isn't interested in magic does throw most people.

Ah, you meant magic. I was refering to the branch of philosophy. Yeah, I never bought the magic in religion, either.

Tell ya what, I don't answer that question directly these days, but if you were use Google or MS Live Search to search for instructions for Lobster Hunting, the first result could lead you to a detailed answer. No one has found a flaw in the reasoning so far.

I highly doubt a page dedicated to hunting lobster on the west coast is going to show how to arrive at God through scientific exercise.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Christianity is not a religious belief.

Correct. It is a support group/community of similar enough 'beliefs', sufficient consensus, to fall under the common definition of the religion (and its offshoots/branches), Xtianity. To be a Xtian of Xtianity, one need 'belief' in Jesus. Otherwise you (generic you) are a hypocrite and unworthy of acceptance in the religion.
You must be a host to the 'belief' to be included.

[Doorsopen]

Originally Posted by Scattered

Nicely, but ....
>Can any science which draws foregone conclusions
Not familiar with that science. Sort of contradicts science.

Sorry, using a literary device that has failed to communicate my idea clearly. Yes it does contradict Science. I become terribly frustrated reading opinions in favour of Science over Religion which are not based Scientific evidence. This was merely a statement to discredit such opinions.

You asked very early on about reading that discusses the relationship between Science and Religion. There are such texts in all periods. If you carefully study Vidic texts or Kabbalah even the Bible and search below the text, in the way that "a lover sees into the soul of his mistress" to quote a particular esoteric text...

It is hardly surprising that you have arrived at a certain understanding through your field of study. "All roads lead to Rome..." as the saying goes and God being in all things is to be found in all things. I take a personal interest in physics and find time and again that descriptions of the physical reality reveal a pattern entirely consistent with every esoteric teaching!

Your field of study, which concerns the nature of life, and the means by which its patterns are transmitted and transferred through that which we perceive as time in the generations of humanity will naturally reveal that aspect of God which is life.

[Scattered]

>>highly doubt a page dedicated to hunting lobster on the west coast is going to show how to arrive at God through scientific exercise.

... You went no further.... tsk tsk.
While that is the definitive web site of California diving, some people have noted that that is not what the site is about.... "the diving is just a cover".
Look again, but plan to be far more observant this time. It is there.

Hey, by the way. Think of this. Faith is a behavior obviously. What would biology refer to it in terms of instincts? See, the funny thing is that GOd needs fait too. It's just a question of what faith really is.