warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Using one for the needs of the other would be like bringing a hammer to a Brit Milah (Jewish circumcision ceremony)
Are Science and Religion Incompatible?
- Thread starter Mark1031
- Start date
Using one for the needs of the other would be like bringing a hammer to a Brit Milah (Jewish circumcision ceremony)
General Pilates
Warlord
It very much depends on the denomination, or a certain group within that denomination that you're talking about. Whole religions aren't Luddites.
bathsheba666
Fast 'n Bulbous
Define God as bad or good.
If bad - why? He was working for his universe's general good.
If good - why? He was a mass murderer and warped in his outlook.
You'd come up with two opposite definitions.
But if you exploit the token of "don't murder", you can surely say, that he was bad, based on that token.
The subjective good that could result for the universe, was no excuse to commit something against the non-subjective prohibition.
ghostmaker650
Warlord
That too... but more towards how he claims one system doesn't have the "knowledge" while his somehow does.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
That's why the right answer is "They don't have to be, but some people make them incompatible by trying to use religion to answer questions about the natural world."
But human being represents nature as well. You can make observations and get insights into the natural world through the psychic change of consciousness and in simmilar ways...
Edit: there is an instrument called intuitive mind which is a higher layer or subtle form of mind where you get the knowledge by simply observing an object- its called direct perception of truth( I think thats how Einsteins Theory of relativity came about)
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Insights such as "my feet are cold" and "my stomach feels funny", sure.
To get clear answers as to how things work (i.e. the chemical interactions in your stomach for example), you need the scientific method.
Eh, I don't think so. You can't "observe" a phenomenon and figure out how it works just by looking at it - unless it's something very simple. You can get IDEAS as to how it MIGHT work, which is what Einstein did.
you only need some instinctive capacity- not even developed mind- to recognise these...
You are making mistake if you think that clarity and clear observations can be found and made only in scientific process. There is phenomena called inner light by which descend you can achieve much more then just cutting something to pieces to see how it works...
Again what I think or what you think is not important. The important is how it realy is.
Most higher religions/spiritual paths will offer you possibility of realisation of Truth in its Highest form. If during this process you come to know that you do not have only the physical mind but have some much higher instruments at your disposal it whould be only natural that you will have significantly higher capacity in observation, understanding etc. as well...
holy king
Deity
yeah, we are mainly talking about worshiping of Balinies Goddes of Plenty here...
well, i havent read all of the thread, but most of what was in the middle of it was everyone arguing with a jew, whose religion is like 1% of the world's religious people.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
I think one of the most telling anecdotes is something that's reportedly a problem in Catholic seminaries right now. As reported by a former Catholic priest, many of the candidates become atheists along the way.
These are usually people who've had close ties with the church all their lives, and could claim many deep personal experiences with God. The issue is that seminary requires very careful reading and reflection on the Bible. And quite a few of them can't seem to square the contents of the Bible with their teachings and experience. Ultimately they often conclude that the Bible can't possibly be correct, and are stuck with serious questions about their faith. Yet by then they've spent so much time in the church world they couldn't imagine life if they withdrew from seminary. It's a very interesting story to hear; I'll see if I can dig it up.
Well that certainly is concise. This is basically my position in three sentences.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I took an excellent year-long Western Civ class in college taught by 3 professors. The religion prof was an ex-Jesuit priest who had lost his faith in just that way.
Regarding the OP, I don't think that science and religion have to be incompatible. The RCC learned long ago to not be dogmatic about science. I have even discussed the matter with some evangelists who rationalize evolution and even the Big Bang as being the work of their god.
Regarding the OP, I don't think that science and religion have to be incompatible. The RCC learned long ago to not be dogmatic about science. I have even discussed the matter with some evangelists who rationalize evolution and even the Big Bang as being the work of their god.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Okay, give me an example of one semi-complex natural phenomena that was fully explained and described using that technique (inner light, or whatever it is)
Why don't doctors sit around using that "inner light" to figure out what made somebody sick? They don't, because it wouldn't work.
If you can provide a good example I could potentially change my mind though.
Exactly, and the best tool we have to figure out how natural phenomena work is the scientific method.
Why not use the best tool we have for the job?
How successful has your "inner light" technique been at determining how natural phenomena work? 0%?
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
@bathsheba
Mockery is mockingly mocking.
@ghost
Pardon?!?
Who are you to decide, what "religion" knows?
(Or, simply said, I see this as just another "G-d can't be, cause He can't".)
@warpus
What was "before" Big Bang???
What caused it???
Can science answer THAT???
It's still very much "material", but can you EXPECT an answer on something that was "before the time itself"?
This is as stupid, as to ask "who created G-d?"
Determinism is a hoax, learn some MODERN physics.
Mockery is mockingly mocking.
@ghost
Pardon?!?
Who are you to decide, what "religion" knows?
(Or, simply said, I see this as just another "G-d can't be, cause He can't".)
@warpus
What was "before" Big Bang???
What caused it???
Can science answer THAT???
It's still very much "material", but can you EXPECT an answer on something that was "before the time itself"?
This is as stupid, as to ask "who created G-d?"
Determinism is a hoax, learn some MODERN physics.
Oh, I am not a priest and I am not trying to convert your mind. Also I am not the yogi and I have only tiny bit of knowledge of this phenomena through my consciouss spiritual life. However if you come across some books written by someone with deep spiritual knowledge there you can read some very complex stuff explained by using that very method or I could say written from above the mind. My favorite is perhaps Aurobindo Ghose aka Sri Aurobindo. http://sabda.sriaurobindoashram.org/index.php
The science and doctors do not use these methods becouse they do not study them. In fact they are obviously not even aware of these. Or consider them only perhaps a remote possibility at best. But neither past impotence of religious attaintments or present incapacity of the science doesnt prove these to be wrong.
It may actualy be true that as you pointed out before only through science you will know the detailed chemical compositions or how many craters there are on the moon etc. but that doesn mean this kind of knowledge is the best way how to handle "natural phenomena".
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
You're missing one very important fact about science: it works. Science makes testable predictions, such as "force depends on mass and acceleration", and we test them, and they work. Science hasn't made a testable prediction about everything yet, as not everything is yet testable. But all confirmed science (Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, to some extent relativity, quantum mechanics) works.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
@IO
Not sure, if it's at me, but anyways.
The part of science that I'm not at peace with, is exactly the UNCHECKABLE stuff, that "describes" events that no one ever was or will be able to test, like dinos and bigbang.
The WORKING science is totally OK, cause we CAN test it and VERIFY or DISQUALIFY.
But the problem I fight very strongly, is to consider UNPROVABLE ideas as FACTS.
Also, this includes "extrapolating" short-term evolution into the one of billions of years, which we have no way to actually FIND OUT, WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS.
I'm not gonna change my stand on this, and I'm VERY scientific in that:
PROVE or LEAVE, not ASSUME.
But I would NOT want to start THAT discussion all over, simply no WISH for it.
Period.
Not sure, if it's at me, but anyways.
The part of science that I'm not at peace with, is exactly the UNCHECKABLE stuff, that "describes" events that no one ever was or will be able to test, like dinos and bigbang.
The WORKING science is totally OK, cause we CAN test it and VERIFY or DISQUALIFY.
But the problem I fight very strongly, is to consider UNPROVABLE ideas as FACTS.
Also, this includes "extrapolating" short-term evolution into the one of billions of years, which we have no way to actually FIND OUT, WITHOUT ASSUMPTIONS.
I'm not gonna change my stand on this, and I'm VERY scientific in that:
PROVE or LEAVE, not ASSUME.
But I would NOT want to start THAT discussion all over, simply no WISH for it.
Period.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
No, it was not. I have no problems with people who dispute the untestable (or even just untested) science. However, there are people in this world who disagree with proven science, seemingly just because they don't like or understand it. I'm not sure if that applies to anyone in this forum, but it just might. As to my stance on science vs. religion, I've already stated it: science and religion are separate spheres, and as long as they stay separate, they are entirely compatible.
Similar threads
