Coolyo

I believe that God and science are so deeply related that we cannot comprehend it yet.

At the peak of human knowledge, which may still be millions of years away, we will be able to understand the relationship between God and Science.

We could explain explain the bible with science; we could even find the limitations (if any) of God.

At that point, two things could happen:
1. We realize that God, although we can scientifically prove his existence, is at a level that no human can possibly achieve.

2. We will not only find out what God does; we will find out how he does it, and how to do it ourselves. If that happens, there would be an unimaginably destructive war (between people, more people, and God) and everyone and everything would be annihilated.


God, for whatever reason (I can think of a few), will definitely try to avoid outcome number two. He will affect research or rain on experiments, anything in his power to prevent or just slow the ascension of science.

So basically, the field of science is doomed to be filled with errors, failures, and miscalculations.

Jinn

Your hidden assumption is that a God or gods actually exist. If that premise fails, then none of your conclusions can follow.

And frankly, I think the assumption that God exists is a bad one, particularly in the absence of any evidence.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

As a strictly theoretical exercise, I am more than comfortable to assume the axiom of god or God. If it's not a theoretical exercise, and we're using science or logic, god should probably be demonstrated first.

BTW, if we can't understand God, why do you understand His thought process?

levite

If God is, as the Judeo-Islamic conceptions suggest, truly the One and Only Infinite, Omnipotent, and Omniscient Source of All, then your great war scenario will never happen, nor will God have to obstruct the course of science in any way.

A truly Infinite, Omnipotent, and Omniscient being would realize that there is not actually enough time in our universe's projected lifespan for the human race to evolve to Infinite Consciousness and Nature. We would have to agglomerate ourselves into a single overmind consciousness, with the ability to survive the end of our universe, and continue evolving through the next one.

That being the case, it seems likely to assume that we would by then-- if we do continue to exist for that long, in that altered a form-- have evolved past a nature of violence, and second of all, we would realize that if we were on the brink of achieving near-equity with the One Source, given that the presumption about the One is that nothing can dislodge or replace Him/Her/It, our best bet would be union with the One.

And since Union with the Divine is essentially the ultimate mystical goal of the Judeo-Islamic systems, that sounds to me like a big "mission accomplished."

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

girldetective

What?! Explain the Bible with Science?! The Bible was written by men.
What if Science is God? God is Science?

*

There is no God.
We have a chip built in to ensure none of your scenario will ever happen.

__________________
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata

BogeyDope

The bible, the same one that endorses incest and claims the Earth is no more than 6-9,000 years old?

__________________
Focus. Control. Conviction. Resolve. A true ace lacks none of these attributes. Nothing can deter you from the task at hand except your own fears. This is your sky.

mixedsubstance

Sounds to me as though when someone doesn't believe in something, it's because 'they don't have evidence'.

A- How come we have to have 'proof' of something that is so Great and Powerful? God and Life are meant to be mysteries, mystical, and even contreversial. Coolyo's #2 fits well. If we all knew it, then what would be the point?
B- God has different definitions in different religions as such, with man-made stories (the Bible, Quran, Torah)...but yet the narrowed down definition of God that holds steady in all religions is that He is the Almighty- All Powerful- Infinite- Omnipotent- Superior Being. (Not to be confused with 'Saints' such as Jesus or Buddha- these were people who were merely connected with The One- they 'knew'- and so they were both loved and hated because of that- i.e. called saints or blasphemers).
Anywho, C- God doesn't have to be a BEING....or have a form of any sort....He just exists. Everywhere. At all times. Think of one thing in science that is the basis of science. What are all theories, laws, and principles based upon? Even in humans? In nature? In vehicles? In the water? It's non-desctructable, but it can be used and minipulated in infinite ways.

God + Science = Energy. Therefore, God IS Science and Science is God.

Levite, I love what you had to say. We WON'T come to some universal realization and unity with the One...Not in this lifetime. Not on earth. Not in this realm of existance. But there are a multitude of 'planes' of existance, that we did/do/will know. It's beyond our heads, but we can't deny what we can't understand. That's the whole point of our existance today.

__________________
Well, isn't that just kick-you-in-the-crotch, spit-on-your-neck fantastic?!?

*Without energy, there would be nothing.*

pan6467

It endorses and disendorses a lot more than just incest. The contradictions are quite fascinating to say the least.

But my thing is the 6-9000 yrs old.

When I was in Navy A school a preacher's kid and I were drinking buddies. I once asked him about dinosaurs and the big bang and evolution.... I have used that answer many times since because it does make sense, if you so desire to believe.... here was his answer:

In the Bible it states 7 GOD days not Earth days because there was no time on Earth yet, God hadn't made it he hadn't even made Heaven.

So the Big Bang could have been the creation of Heaven and Earth, but that time could very easily have been 1 day to him. So in theory BILLIONS of years to create the universe and Earth took him 1 day. It states that there was darkness and then there was light..... that sounds like an explosion.

Then there was a division of darkness and light..... again the particles blowing out from the explosion God created.

That was day 1.... again could have been a Billion man years but a single day to God.

The second day he made land between the waters.... again in man years this could have taken millions of years, to God it could have been but 1 day.

Then came plant life which again took millions of years to flourish.

On the third day the stars appeared because other galaxies and solar systems came into being.....

The fourth day was water animals and birds.... again who knows how long that "day" was for God... or what was truly created and evolved.

The fifth day came the land creatures... again, to God this could have been only one day but in his one "day" sea creatures evolved onto land and started becoming land creatures.... dinosaurs, amphibians and reptiles... along with mammals.

And then finally, man came, but maybe we had to evolve. Just like we have gone from caves to tribes to villages and so on.

Who knows? I think it is small minded to condemn anyone's beliefs. For all we know we are a computer simulation game..... or an atom of Fluorine.... in a piece of dirt on another planet.

I think it is funny that throughout history people fight over beliefs instead of allowing them to peacefully coexist. Atheists want to prove they are right so they use Science and try to degrade people who do believe in what they cannot by their logic. But Science is pure impuricism that totally excludes metaphysics or anything that is unknown to them.

Before man knew of atoms he had to understand molecules. Before man understood nuclear power he had to develop the theories and try them.... but if we go back even 150 years such talk of lighting a city or destroying Earth with the splitting of atoms would be laughed at. Or even explaining the 25 man made atoms, the different isotopes, the muons, the sub atomic particles..... and so on.

Most religious people will believe what their religion teaches them with little argument. It is based on "faith". These faiths have been passed down from generation to generation without changing much. No matter how attacked they have remained firm and unwavering.... while Science continues to prove then disprove itself and it finally figures out an answer and builds off of it.

Science can explain a lot of things but it cannot explain everything no matter how hard it tries because it does not know everything.

Religion and faith can explain some things but mostly it relies on just that one's faith and belief in that faith.

Perhaps both sides are so blinded by what they believe and what their faith tells them that they do not see somewhere there is a middle ground. Perhaps, there is both.... what we deem "Science" because our logical minds can eventually figure out a problem and a God, but not the old man in the clouds above us. Perhaps that "God" is merely another dimension, another reality we are unable to see.

Even the most intelligent minds man has ever known believed in a "God". And even the smallest of minds the world has ever seen believed Science to have all the answers.

Yet, some argue the other way around..... and in the end it all comes down to faith and belief.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

MSD

Yes, not believing in something is because of lack of proof. We have to have proof of thngs, otherwise we're just tossing out guesses, and any unsubstantiated guess is as good as another.

Nimetic

I saw this theory posted once before.

It's seems self-evident to me that all fields will include significant failures, errors and so on. What is the relevance of this?

Vigilante

I never discuss God with atheists, personally. Most atheists will find God to be a moot point, and I find atheism to be the same.

And now I do exactly what I said I never do...
As for God and science, I used to think that they might be intertwined, but nothing like above.

OP has already made the mistake of assuming that the bible is some factual reference. Things like the embellished story of the "flood" on a sumerian tablet, only it was a merchant who was washed downstream in a nile river flood, have in my mind dropped any literal factoid from the bible as pure fiction or at best thousands of years of building hyperbole. Take the morals and leave the details, as it were.

I believe in God, but IMO I do not think anyone has an inkling of God's nature. Calling "God" a "him" is similarly ignorant. Assuming God thinks as we do with anger and joy, may be as ignorant. I also am a firm believer in "anti-God" topics such as evolution, which again IMO is not anti-God at all, just anti-creation myth. Only rednecks and ignerts really think of evolution as against God. Even the pope recognizes evolution as a possible force of nature - and God.

My beliefs are based on one part faith and one part science. I would not believe in God as much had I not experienced some things that probably could be explained away by some creative atheist, but I chose not to think that way. I tried to explain many things away, but the irrational sometimes makes more sense than the rational.

That leads to my final analysis of this thought process: It doesn't matter. Trying to guess the nature of an infinite being that may be in infinite parallel universes, with infinite universes within each of those infinite universes, and for each of those an infinite number of outcomes, boggles the mind and leads me to believe that I should just live my life, and if there is indeed an afterlife, then perhaps I will know the truth then. If not, then at least I'll hopefully have a satisfactory understanding. The rest is just details, and in the end we will probably all be right and wrong at the same time, so forget it.

__________________
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill

asaris

I've never found the "God day" idea to be terribly convincing. It makes it sound like God has trouble telling time if he doesn't have a watch on. I'm alot more comfortable just sticking with St. Augustine and saying the whole thing is a metaphor.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Coolyo

I agree, especially the last paragraph. All of the stuff that I mentioned is definitely going to happen ages after I die, anyways...

Nimetic

This is a dead-end.

Maybe atheists should take a similar approach and not discuss science with those who are religious?

Vigilante

I would say that it would be more in line with this thought process if atheists don't discuss their view of futility of religion with religious people. Do you assume atheists are inherently scientific people?

Science, IMO has very little to do with (and by this I mean for or against) religion. By religion, I mean what we commonly experience here in western culture. Some religions exclude theories by their own ignorance or narrow-minded doctrine, but that doesn't mean "science" is out of the question. In fact I sometimes try to engage ignorant but curious people if they wish to discuss evolution vs creationism (on the side of evolution, just to clarify). I think it's good for people to think outside the box and quit thinking so black and white on that topic.

__________________
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill

Nimetic

I didn't jump in to discuss religion.

I started by asking the relevance of errors in science - and I ask again. What is the relevance.

Lets say that a study concludes that disease X is not caused by Y as initially thought, but is caused by Z instead... Does this invalidate modern medical research? I would say that it doesn't. Ditto for the fields more directly associated with "science".

So I'm questioning the OP point on that basis, in relation to science. Not in relation to religion.

ASU2003

Why would "God" use the rotation of the Earth to tell time? Wouldn't the rotation of galaxies or universes be more God-like? There is a component of time that could be different from our standard day.

Vigilante

I too agree that it is a metaphor.

Consider if you create "time", do you see from the view of time? One might agree that an omnipotent being can perceive things from the view of the creation, but if it is something you created to begin with, why view what you made from the limited view of the creation, when you can see the whole picture?

It's a story written from the limited view of a human. To me, it is a metaphorical story using translated words that may or may not be correct, from the view of a man that probably had little understanding of anything beyond day to day living. To take it literally is to take a fairy tale as gospel.

__________________
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill

new man

Basically, the field of religion is doomed to be filled with errors, failures, and miscalculations. Come up with a unified religious theory that is as proven and reliable and measurable as the law of gravity and we will have something to talk about. This was codified several hundred years ago, and has been repeatedly proven.

Coolyo

Why is there gravity in the first place?

Let's find out using the LHC !!!

...Oh, wait, it broke.

Nimetic

The key thing is to to build incrementally on past learning - while still questioning.

That, essentially, is science as I understand it. There is no big S science. There is no official leader in science. There is simply measurement, observation, hypothesis, rechecking and refinement in relation to the physical world. (And debate hopefully).

What else are we to do? Should we stop testing medicines? Should we go back to firewood for heating?

Having said that. Science is about the physical world. It is not much help in determining how to best live life - or decide questions of ethics and/or morality. These are basically outside of scope. For that we have philosophy and religion.

new man

It's interesting that while there are dozens or hundreds of theories and laws of science, there is no theory or law of religion.

filtherton

I think that there are folks in divinity school who would disagree with you.

Baraka_Guru

• Virtue theory
• Value theory
• Theories on truth
• Practical reason (moral reason)

These are just to name a few theories derived from metaphysical standpoints. Let's not forget that science and scientific laws came about as a natural evolution of metaphysical pursuits. I think this is why we can say religion and science are related. They aren't the same, but one came about as a result of the other.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Nimetic

Yup fair point BG.

But origin is not current day-to-day practice is it? And one could play devils advocate and argue the reverse - that divine beings were postulated independently in various cultures to explain the sun, the moon, diseases and other workings of nature.

My view again, is that science (I'll use the big broad brush) has a limited scope and within that scope it works. Theories or classifications in scientific fields are not infallible or perfect. They are deliberately subject to improvement and review. This is a positive thing.

Now on to religion... I have a feeling that these change over time also.

I recall that one particular subgroup has predicted the end of the world quite a few times, and that this has been subject to revision. Another group has allowed women to be ordained recently, although it goes against earlier practice.

So maybe - there is change within religions? And key figures in religions are known for arriving on the scene and changing the status-quo.

YamiYasha

my favorite philosopher of all time:

Paul Lutus
How we confuse Symbols and things (Religion vs. Spirituality)
On Believing (Science vs. Religion)

new man

Baraka,

Thank you for proving my point. These are not theories, they are conscious choices that people can choose to live by, ignore, or modify. I cannot choose to ignore the law of gravity. I cannot choose to change the freezing point of water from 32 deg fahrenheit. I cannot change the speed of light or change the composition of a molecule. However, I can choose to live a certain way. If you have two competing ideas, and both are equally valid but opposite or not linked, can they both be theories? Certainly not with evolution and creation design. Can you really call a chosen philosophy of living a theory? It certainly is not a law.

Baraka_Guru

new man,

I wouldn't go as far as to say that I have proven your point.

The human mind has been formulating theories long before we had come up with what we call the sciences (from a contemporary perspective). At its core, a theory is a system of belief that explains a set of claims. Before humanity had the benefit of scientific tools and procedures, this was generally how we sought truth. In a way, religious theories and scientific theories have the same root. Philosophers and writers would seek the truth behind "God's universe." This applied to the world around us, as well as how we think, feel, and make decisions. This is why you get molecular theories alongside moral theory.

I agree with Nimetic inasmuch as science is limited. Science only works to explain things on a molecular level, more or less. It deals with matter and antimatter. Until it can prove such things as why we make certain moral decisions and such, this remains deeply rooted in the realm of religion/philosophy, though the scientific community certainly has an interest, as it should. This is how science works. Studies of happiness have "entered the lab" (they've recently come up with a study that has ostensibly proven that happiness is contagious). We have literary theories, which explain how we act and how we exist as multifaceted human beings as demonstrated in textual representations. Not everything is cold, hard fact like freezing points and measures of viscosity. This is the difference between law and theory. A law is "knowing," whereas a theory is "believing." One knows something as fact, whereas the other believes something based on observation.

Science has a tough time with certain matters. Science hasn't even cut its teeth on many things that religion has been tackling for centuries. Moreover, it's important to bear in mind that religion is not a denial of science. That science sprung out of what the religious had been picking over all this time isn't simply fortuitous. Science and religion, in the best of scenarios, co-exist. One does not essentially work against the other.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

new man

Science and religion ultimately cannot coexist because science is based on proof whereas religion is based on mythology. Just because religion was tackling ideas for centuries does not mean that its efforts were fruitful. The best they could come up with was six days and a flood. It was only science that managed to drag some people kicking and screaming out of the dark ages. It was science that freed us from the creationist myth. Science can also measure the euphoric effects and chemicals in the brain that come from "feeling the spirit" and the effects of certain mood altering drugs. The whole crux of religion is that there is an ineffable spirit that surrounds us and binds us, and that we cannot understand it. Baloney. Religion is a tool to subjugate. It is not designed to answer questions, but to fit people's mindset into certain patterns of thought. Religious figure, paraphrased; "Fine, ignore me, I am just the messenger. But the big guy upstairs is gonna get ya. We killed the nonbelievers, god was on our side. New Orleans, was flooded, it's your sinful behavior. But if you repent and do what god told me to tell you to do, your soul will be saved".

Baraka_Guru

You are assuming that all religion requires a personal god. You are taking the worst of religion and using it to represent the whole. That would be like my saying how science has failed in the past, with such things as flat-earth theory, Freudism, the four bodily humours, astrology, and alchemy, so it therefore cannot be trusted, because it is only a matter of time before what we think is true is proven false.

Why have you done this? I'm curious.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

filtherton

Religion and science have been coexisting for quite some time. Since they tend to satisfy completely distinct needs they will ultimately continue to coexist.

All of the negative characteristics that I presume you attribute to religion might be more accurately attributed to human nature, and as such the complete abandonment of religion won't rid us of them. If you want to see completely secular ways that humans can be manipulated you need look no further than the marketing department of most any successful corporation.

I don't even know why the subjects of science and religion are framed as being fundamentally at odds. Certainly some religious folks have problems with some scientific ideas and some scientific folk have problems with some religious ideas, but by and large, from my personal, noninternet experience, most religious folks are pretty accepting of scientific ideas and most scientific folks are pretty accepting of religious ideas (not necessarily to the point of embracing them).

I think most scientist are utilitarians, and they can see the utility in religious ideas, even if they can't personally subscribe to them.

A critique of a subset of Christianity isn't all that useful as a critique of religion.

sprocket

Science and religion are simply different techniques to attain knowledge or explanation. Whenever they have differing accounts for the same phenomena there will always be conflict. The pattern so far does seem to be that religion, faith, or mysticism must eventually yield to the empirical methods of knowledge acquisition of science when ever they do cross swords.

Personally, I see religion and mysticism as sometimes causing or encouraging good things in people, for bad reasons, and hope that we can eventually discard the mystic silliness and all do good things for the right reasons.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

MSD

It's been days and I still can't figure out the reason for this post.

Walt

Religion has a VERY strong history of trying to violently suppress science as science is constantly disproving religious claims.

Abandonment of religion would put a stop to people feeling justified/compelled to commit atrocities in the name of religion. Religion has been the explicit and sole cause of literally millions of deaths in the last decade alone.


Religion cannot coexist with science, just as religion cannot coexist with true tolerance and respect for others. Scientific knowledge is the never ending, constantly evolving quest for answers based upon verifiable evidence. Religion is nothing more than superstition - its only supporting "evidence" is found in holy books. How do we know the books are correct and free from error? Because they say so.

__________________
Calmer than you are...

filtherton

This doesn't take anything away from my quote; I never said that they always got along great. Russia has a very strong history of marching across Poland, yet today they are coexisting.

Right. And guns kill people.

Your first sentence, aside from being demonstrably false (contingent upon what you mean when you say "true tolerance and respect"), is not supported by the sentences that follow. Science: never-ending quest for knowledge based on verifiable evidence. Religion: Lacks scientific evidentiary standards. Neither of these statements say anything about the ability of science and religion to coexist.

If one gives any actual weight to scientific evidentiary standards, one must grudgingly admit that presently, there is ample evidence of science and religion coexisting...

Baraka_Guru

Religion and science are not binary opposites.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Walt

Its not my intention from taking anything away from your quote. I agree that given moderation, religion may coexist with science...if the believer chooses to ignore certain truths. But most religions that I have studied all champion one book or another that they claim is the unfailing word of God and that it is not open to any interpretation. In otherwords, they do not allow moderation/moral progress and are not open to academic discourse. To question their legitimacy is heresy.

As science progresses, we learn more about the world and our biological capacity for morality/spirituality. As we learn more, we find that these holy books are intellectually bankrupt. Conflict then arrises: if these books are, infact, the word of God and they are fallible, then God is fallible (and therefore not God).

I say that religion is incompatible with tolerance and respect for two reasons (I will focus on Christianity and Islam for examples):

1) While both the Koran and the Bible offer beautiful tales of human compassion and morality, they also demand that non-believers be put to death, condone slavery, fratricide, genocide, etc. (Koran Sura 4:74-78, 9:73, 9:123)(Deuteronomy 13:7-11).

The tens of millions of people that have died in the last decade that I refered to in my last post? All were killed for religious motives. For those taking part in the slaughter, they were simply carrying out their beliefs to the letter. An example:

Palestine (Jews v. Muslims) the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croations; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus), Sudan-Darfur (Muslims v. Christians and animists) Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia/Eritrea (Muslims v. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists v. Tamil Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians), the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians), Mumbai (Muslims v. Hindus)

2) Islam and Christianity (and all major religions for that matter) believe that their religion is the correct one: they are Gods chosen people. If their faith is a path to salvation, they must concede that people with other beliefs are destined for eternal torment and hellfire. How can you truly respect someone when you know that their incorrect beliefs are going to be punished by an eternity in Hell?

Religion/God cannot hope to compete with science in explaining the physical world around us. Religion remains only partly relevant in questions of ethics and morality...and religion gives less than perfect answers for these.

Biological and anthropological science (particularly neuroscience) is beginning to give us insight into our inherent morality and our sense of "spirituality". In doing so, it is reminicient of chemistry destroying alchemy with scientific truth...I believe the same will true for religion in the near future.

__________________
Calmer than you are...

frogy

Hey, don't even try to compare this with my belief in the flying teapot... it's not as good as another.. my teapot is the almighty

filtherton

Sorry it took me a while to respond.

I don't disagree. Though it should be mentioned that many progressive religious folk take a broader view, in that they recognize that there is more than one path to heaven.

It should also be noted that anyone who claims to both follow the words in the bible and that the words aren't open to interpretation is full of shit. The act of reading is inherently an act of interpretation.

When these folks say the bible isn't open to interpretation what they are really doing is admitting that they aren't necessarily all that thoughtful when it comes to their personal religious beliefs. Given the dogmatic nature with which a lot of religion is passed down, who can really blame them?

I wouldn't say that they're intellectually bankrupt-- science isn't the only intellectual pursuit.

There are religious folk who don't look at the holy books as the infallible word of god.

These conflicts might be partly attributable to religious motives, but there were also other reasons. The struggle between Israel and Palestine could just as easily be thought of in the contexts of real estate and nationalism. So could the conflict in Northern Ireland. I think the attempt to attribute the origins of all of these conflicts to religion necessarily ignores other factors, like history and economics.

Religion plays a part, but one could just as easily raise a big stink about capitalism's role in each of these conflicts. What either explanation ignores is the fact that people are actually sentient beings, i.e. religion can't make someone do something.

I'm not sure about Islam, but I know that there are over 1500 different denominations of Christianity currently in play. While there is probably a lot of overlap in their particular beliefs, it isn't entirely accurate to say that all Christians believe that they are all god's chosen people. Some of them don't even believe in hell.

I won't argue with that. Though I would like to point out that science has absolutely zero to say with respect to morality, and that there aren't any perfect answers when it comes to ethics and morality.

Except that along with every scientific discovery comes more questions. Religion will always have room to occupy that space between what we think we know and what we don't yet think we know.

roachboy

i dont think this the distinction is a straightforward as you'd like to imagine.

since we're kinda vaguely alluding to euro-science since, say, the 18th century...think about the ways in which the assumptions behind basic classifications of the natural world and christianity intertwine--that objects are discrete one from the other, that they are endowed with essences is a transposition of the doctrine of the soul. that time enables a performance of characteristics already in a sense present at the register of a hardwired code from the outset is a consequence of putting the notion of essence into motion. that nothing is created in any strong sense in the world, that everything is already in a sense present such that one can focus on abstracting and comparing physical attributes of objects and not worry so much about systems or relations between systems....so an emphasis on things not pattern, not systemic relations---all further transpositions of the doctrine of soul/essence...that human beings are skull-bound, that they float about the social and natural worlds and their modes of interaction...that human beings interact with the world as detached spectators...that cognition is confined to the skull...that human beings enact will, which is more or less transparent....

it's strange to think about this, but in ecology folk weren't really thinking in terms of systems and system-level interactions until the 1950s. that systems tend to be formalized as objects, and so are understood as discrete, and that system characteristics can be inferred from descriptions of the operations of the parts---this assumptions are heavily ingrained and have only started to come apart quite recently.

it's easy to extend this kind of list.

so this very nineteenth century opposition (science/religion), treated it in a very 19th century way (two systems, discrete and opposed), enables one to play down the fundamental interconnectedness between western ways of knowing the physical and natural worlds and the conceptual frames that shape it, which were in the main dragged across from xtianity into the physical and natural sciences.

alot of quite recent work in embodied cognition/embedded cognition (take yr pick) is quite interesting both because it breaks with some of these basic assumptions (through the category of emergence, through that of complexity) AND because each of these breaks poses a pretty complicated second-order problem of how you go about generating descriptions that are not integrated back into this older way of seeing and thinking by the language which is used as a medium. in a sense, what happens is a variant of heisenberg's "uncertainty" principle--you cannot simultaneously know location and movement. this is a particular problem for english---if you read the sentences in this post (or any other one) and think about how the sentences stage what they purport to describe, you can see that the underlying features outlined above are symmetrical with how sentences operate (subject verb object....that each noun designates a discrete phenomena, the way in which linear time gets staged, etc.)

this seems to me a consequence of an institutional separation between the sciences and philosophy---but i digress...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite