What, then, of the relationship between religion and science?

[Dara]

.

[Dara]

Originally posted by Mentalese
Stephen Jay Gould speaks of "Non-Overlapping Magesteria," where the two realms of knowledge—or inquiry—stay within their own spheres, operating with mutual respect but maintaining a strict policy of non-interference. ...

Why did you post that here?

[Rob]

Originally posted by Mentalese
Oh, Rob, englightened mystic, please give to me your wisdom.

( sigh )

I stick to the English language, honey.

Well then, there's your first problem. The English language doesn't necessarily contain clear, concise descriptions of this concept.

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

I'm referring to 1a, a sentient being.

I don't care to argue against metaphors for reality.

There's your second, and more specific, problem - and the reason it's pointless to have this discussion with you. Admittedly, it's your forté, but your fondness for tossing out a term and then later defining it in a very narrow manner in order to avoid argument on any substantive level is a waste of time and energy.

Perhaps, though, you have a very small dictionary. In that case, you can safely ignore the comment in that last paragraph and take my advice to invest in a good one.

I have no problem with your ceaseless antipathy toward the standard western religious concept of god but your arguments against the general philosophical concept are as inconsequential and weak as those of the catholic church, for example...and certainly as doctrinaire.

When you've truly studied the question in depth, from both sides, and without a pre-conceived conclusion, get back to me. I'll listen.

[Rob]

Originally posted by Khamil
Do you have any evidence to support your claims? If mentalese is mistaken, then why don't you correct him?

I've read mentalese's rants on this subject previously. The "claims" I made in my post are accurate, based upon those instances. Indeed, mentalese made that clear in a subsequent post above.

[Rob]

Originally posted by Dara


Why did you post that here?

It was posted for the purpose of creating a straw man to knock over, and because once the straw is on the ground it would appear that science has the responsibility to attack religion. Personally, I don't have much difficulty with the tactic in this case, but the one-sided argument which follows it is simply a case of restrained perception.

[Rob]

Mentalese, here's a hint: god is not religion; religion is not god. They are two entirely different concepts. Religions USE and RE-DEFINE the god concept to justify more pedestrian pre-conceptions and conclusions without the restrictions of any logical system, for the most part. The real question would be found in an examination of the reason why gods are so useful to those who have an agenda they wish to have others follow. At any rate, we don't have a chicken and egg problem here. The gods came first, the religions followed to capitalize on the concept.

So if you have a problem with religion you're on safe ground in terms of logic. When you argue against the principle of a god, you aren't. There is no provable answer to the question one way or another, presently, but there is evidence for a god and no evidence that one does not exist. The only argument which can be made - and it's self-defeating - is that if one ignores existence in its entirety, then there is no reasonable argument for any kind of god and, therefore, one does not have to make an argument against the concept since it would be self-evident. If, as you've been fond of doing, you refuse to carry the results of current experimental physical science to reasonable conclusions, you can make any illogical assertion you please, much as those who restrict a view of history with a cutoff point on the historical timeline can make all sorts of illogical assertions about human societies. If that's your preference, you will assuredly find a way to convince yourself of your pre-conceived conclusions, but the cheap trick employed will not have resulted in anything at all substantive or useful.

[Mentalese]

I'll push past your hostile crap and stick to the relevant aspects of your replies.

(And by the way, Khamil was not referring to your claims about me. Khamil was referring to your alleged Knowledge of the Real Concept of God, oh, privileged mystic.)

A) Lack of disproof does not mean it's ok to believe.

B) If there's evidence for God, you need to show it.

And finally,

C) How, exactly, does physics prove God?

[thegenius85]

Somebody needs a whoopin.

[Rob]

Originally posted by Mentalese
I'll push past your hostile crap and stick to the relevant aspects of your replies.

You clearly don't understand the term 'hostile crap'...but it's clear that you want some.

(And by the way, Khamil was not referring to your claims about me. Khamil was referring to your alleged Knowledge of the Real Concept of God, oh, privileged mystic.)

I made no claim of knowledge of the REAL concept of god, though I clearly have one which is relatively realistic. I simply implied that yours was purposely weak.

A) Lack of disproof does not mean it's ok to believe.

That was one of the most illogical statements I've ever been privileged to read. Thanks for the laugh. FYI, lack of disproof is not a REASON to believe something but is also not a reason to claim that something is NOT believable. There is very little in this universe which is provable unless one refuses to accept what one does not WANT to accept. This is another example of your seeming inability to see anything which doesn't agree with your pre-conceived conclusions. You have to do better than this.

B) If there's evidence for God, you need to show it.

Look around you and ask why. Then, many years later, come back and tell us what you think.

And finally,

C) How, exactly, does physics prove God?

It doesn't PROVE the existence of some kind of god. It also does not disprove it in any way. It's not within the capabilities of current science to do either. In fact, no matter how much the science of physics can tell us about matter, it's not likely to ever be able to disprove a prime mover. Again, look around and ask yourself pertinent questions without working backward from your conclusion.

[franklet]

Originally posted by MilkyWhites
What Byte Inferno says is very true. Read Leviticus. It's...it's....interesting.

you two should really study YOUR history. isolated incidents of homosexuality being tolerated...tolerated...not accepted are scattered throughout history - but those same cultures espoused child abuse, unjust war, degradation of women, intellectual oppression, etc....so why are you highlighting one completely inconsequential note from their histories (and since you didn't get specifics i can't refute specifically - but most gay histories are overly biased) which may not actually be an accepted view?

homosexuality has never been a societal norm. that's not to say that it should not be. i think it should be as normal as heterosexuality - and less of a separation line, but enough happy hippy crap.

and stating the notion that science is just one aspect of reality - while implying that religion is some how the full on Monet.....that's just communist.

i don't understand what's so difficult for people to see - religion is a crutch, regardless of your faith - it's incomplete and imperfect - just forget about the larger questions and focus on thoughts that can be productive.

you know i never seem to be able to convey the breadth of what i'm thinking about religion. something always seems missing. oh well.

[Carol]

Originally posted by Mentalese
It is seldom remarked (though often observed in private, I daresay) that many, many people who profess belief in God do not really act the way people who believed in God would act; they act the way people would act who believed in believing in God.

*chuckle!* are you kidding me? seldom remarked on?? religious hypocrisy is old as religion is, and too much fun NOT to talk about. you can bet your life that people....from kids like me to the members of the academic community... have explored it in full hundreds of times over in different angles. mm.

[Mentalese]

"I made no claim of knowledge of the REAL concept of god, though I clearly have one which is relatively realistic. I simply implied that yours was purposely weak."

What the fuck are you trying to say, oh, purposely unclear writer?

"That was one of the most illogical statements I've ever been privileged to read. Thanks for the laugh. FYI, lack of disproof is not a REASON to believe something but is also not a reason to claim that something is NOT believable. There is very little in this universe which is provable unless one refuses to accept what one does not WANT to accept. This is another example of your seeming inability to see anything which doesn't agree with your pre-conceived conclusions. You have to do better than this."

Lack of disproof does not constitute proof. Lack of proof does constitute disproof. It is not symmetric.

"There is very little in this universe which is provable unless one refuses to accept what one does not WANT to accept."

Uhm, plenty of things are provable.

"Look around you and ask why. Then, many years later, come back and tell us what you think."

What a non-answer!

I asked why. I didn't come up with an anthropomorphic reponse. Why should I? I've decided that anthropomorphism is the key error behind theism.


"It doesn't PROVE the existence of some kind of god. It also does not disprove it in any way. It's not within the capabilities of current science to do either. In fact, no matter how much the science of physics can tell us about matter, it's not likely to ever be able to disprove a prime mover. Again, look around and ask yourself pertinent questions without working backward from your conclusion."

What's to disprove?


I rest my case.

[façon]

YAY...finally a flaming thread in which I am not involved.

Oops...perhaps I'd better avoid this topic to keep it that way.

[Rob]

Originally posted by Mentalese
Lack of disproof does not constitute proof. Lack of proof does constitute disproof. It is not symmetric.

It most certainly is symmetric. You are correct that lack of disproof does not constitute proof. You are absolutely incorrect that lack of proof constitutes disproof. This is the primary problem you demonstrate that you have with logic when it comes to this question. You need to work on it.

Uhm, plenty of things are provable.

Yes, "plenty" of things are provable. Most things are not.

I asked why. I didn't come up with an anthropomorphic reponse. Why should I? I've decided that anthropomorphism is the key error behind theism.

I didn't come up with an anthropomorphic response either. Re-read what I wrote and make a better argument. Anthropomorphism is not THE key error, but A key error behind, not theism, but the definition of the character of a supposed deity.

What's to disprove?

This is a clear statement of your inability to address a question, not a logical or scientific answer.

I rest my case.

You have yet to propose one.

[thegenius85]

Originally posted by franklet



i don't understand what's so difficult for people to see - religion is a crutch, regardless of your faith - it's incomplete and imperfect - just forget about the larger questions and focus on thoughts that can be productive.

Religion might be a crutch, but cowards don't end up in crutches -- and I've yet to meet a courageous atheist.