Veritass' Religious Science Thread #2: Why Can't We Have Both God And Science?

[Ayatollah So]

Two flavors of agnostics:
1) It is not knowable whether God exists. Same counter as before: this athiest does not know enough to say what is knowable.

But you do? You know that he cannot know what he claims?

 

[The Last Conformist]

There's no god. Loki told me.

 

[Veritass]

But you do? You know that he cannot know what he claims?

Please stop anthropomorphizing God; He doesn't like it.

My argument had nothing to do with me knowing about what the hard agnostic claims. I am merely pointing out that if the hard agnostic claims that it is unknowable whether God exists, then he is the one claiming to be able to speak for the knowledge of all humanity.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I am merely pointing out that if the hard agnostic claims that it is unknowable whether God exists, then he is the one claiming to be able to speak for the knowledge of all humanity.

Well yeah - that's the whole point of hard agnosticism ain't it?

It does seem like a tall order, trying to identify absolute limits of human knowledge and saying "God is on the other side of these limits." But then, if we say that no one will ever be able to identify absolute limits of human knowledge, we just claimed to identify an absolute limit of human knowledge

 

[MrCynical]

Please stop anthropomorphizing God; He doesn't like it.

I don't know if you're Christian, but if you are then it is perfectly sensible to anthropomorphise God, since he apparently made us in his image. He should therefore bear at least some human characteristics, and hence we should indeed anthropomorphise him. After all, he seems to have deitomorphised us (OK, that's probably not a word).

 

[C~G]

In overall the approach of science is from biocentric to androcentric while religion is from androcentric to biocentric.
In sense of religion, nothing could exists without the possibility of human existence while scientiests claim something would exist.
Of course these views meet each other in some point and that is where people try to find.
The equality of biocentric and androcentric view without denying the value of either one in the event horizon.

I believe the key isn't really overall about evolution in sense but the human consciousness or might I say the reason why consciousness exists and how we perceive it.
The issue is about the nature of our soul, about our identity.
And I believe ultimately believers will always have something to believe into wherever science takes them.

My believes are such that we aren't anything but parts of machinery and we as parts have identity crisis as being parts of this machinery we call nature and that creates us need to run simulations in our mind about how to sustain the burden of what we see. So we create the unseen in order to bear the seen and adapt into the changes in it. Brains are the ultimate theather for these sights.

Religion and science? They are survival strategies for both of community and for invidual. You can combine them but religion currently is kind of stunned by sudden change of society and the quickness of progress when it comes to science so they are binded to age old dogmas. As said I'm agnostic in sense that the question really doesn't interest me but I laugh that example christianity could rise again from the ashes to be a really major force but it fails to do so. Another reform is probably coming leading the mainstream away from the current church and the old approach slowing down science is only left for cultists.
Maybe the view which explains that for society the science is the gas and religion is the brakes so it doesn't try to drive too fast into unknown destination, is the right one.

My believe could be simply summarized by this phrase that I use sometimes as sigline:
"Image of God from Machine."

 

[Sidhe]

There's no harm in labelling someone as a theist or a scientific atheist or scientifically religous, polytheist or a Christian, so long as people keep in mind that no view point has the high ground when it comes to belief, and neither is any more logical than the other. There is no danger in mixing science with religion, a little bit of knowledge and a little bit of faith is better than a whole load of baloney wrapped up in paper.

 

[Eukaryote]

My religon is backed up by science and science is backed up by my religon, you just have to look for them backing each other up, that and watch a few documentries. The argument that religon doesn't make sense scientificly is just an excuse that was put into thier head, it's ignorance!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God. I believe in theomorphic humans.

 

[Archbob]

Because God created with a Psychological defect so humans will inadvertantly always turn to religion.

Generall defects are bad and anyone with defective mutations will be weeded out by evolution. However, religious people are surviving better than ever. I'd say its more of an enhancement rather than a defect.

Besides its hard to get people to fight and die for you in the name of nothing.

 

[Veritass]

...but religion currently is kind of stunned by sudden change of society and the quickness of progress when it comes to science so they are binded to age old dogmas.

Religions are only stunned to the extent that they believe that "the Truth" was revealed at some time in the past and that everything that happened since is just noise. I would venture that fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are a little more stunned because their last scriptures were written at a time that pre-dates the industrial revolution. I would venture that the Bahá’ís are a little less stunned, as they believe Bahá’u’lláh brought new revelation in light of the industrial revolution. My own Science of Mind church believes that we are constantly expanding our consciousness, individually and collectively, and we are not stunned at all.

 

[C~G]

My own Science of Mind church believes that we are constantly expanding our consciousness, individually and collectively, and we are not stunned at all.

I absolutely agree with you. And of course I meant the older religions and not churches that are found later times.
Church like you currently are in will have probably lots of members in the future as older religions just fade away or reform into more of cult organizations because they cannot adapt to the change.

 

[The Last Conformist]

In overall the approach of science is from biocentric to androcentric while religion is from androcentric to biocentric.
In sense of religion, nothing could exists without the possibility of human existence while scientiests claim something would exist.
Of course these views meet each other in some point and that is where people try to find.
The equality of biocentric and androcentric view without denying the value of either one in the event horizon.

Again, in English?

 

[C~G]

In overall the approach of science is from biocentric to androcentric while religion is from androcentric to biocentric
In sense of religion, nothing could exists without the possibility of human existence while scientiests claim something would exist.

Science is about saying that everything starts from somewhere else than humans and it serves other purpose than just the human life while religions tend to start everything from humans and their creation myth.

Of course these views meet each other in some point and that is where people try to find.
The equality of biocentric and androcentric view without denying the value of either one in the event horizon.

The last verse is poetic one which I just added for the spicy effect. It means that humans try to combine currently these approaches so they wouldn't feel threatened by either one, so they don't face any kind of identity crisis.

Again, in English?

I'm sorry, did you understand it now?

This is the second time you The Last Conformist refer to my english skills, I try to improve them all the time, failing miserably.