RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 4:35:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Creationism that produces and promotes accounts of natural history that differ radically from conventional accounts—made up of so-called ‘biblical’ or ‘young-Earth’ creationists, ‘anti-evolutionists’ and ‘Flood geologists’—is herein called ‘theodicic creationism’.

As I said, a massive incompatibility.

But not with religion generally, just some odd types within a religion. Moreover, I fail to see a connection between any form of Creationism and the Theological problem of evil. But if you think you've got one, trot it out. Posting unsourced quotes won't do.

Oh fuck no, I sourced this earlier in this thread. Maybe you should pay attention.

Maybe if you posted it you could find it easily.

K.



Milesnmiles -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 4:47:16 PM)

The main problem with a question like this is the definition of terms.

What science, what religion are we talking about?

Do I think that the flying spaghetti monster is compatible with science?
No I don't but that doesn't mean that there isn't a religion that is compatible with science.

And what about science, science tends to be very fluid and has gone down many dead ends only to return to follow a different course.
So science doesn't seem to be a very solid foundation to build a course of life on.

Personally I believe in God and feel that science is a way of better understanding God and his ways, rather than the two being incompatible.



Real0ne -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 4:52:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

So I presume you have given up, hence conceded your position that God is a criminal simply because God is the creator.

Is that what you think? [sm=modxiiswatching.gif]



Seems your position is indefensible, I keep waiting for you to level a defense and you dont, what else can anyone think?



Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 5:16:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

The main problem with a question like this is the definition of terms.

What science, what religion are we talking about?

Do I think that the flying spaghetti monster is compatible with science?
No I don't but that doesn't mean that there isn't a religion that is compatible with science.

And what about science, science tends to be very fluid and has gone down many dead ends only to return to follow a different course.
So science doesn't seem to be a very solid foundation to build a course of life on.

Personally I believe in God and feel that science is a way of better understanding God and his ways, rather than the two being incompatible.

Peon mentioned The Tao of Physics earlier in the thread. Following up on that, we have confirmed only recently in the 21st century that mass is frequency, that the universe arises from the vibrating pure energy of void space. Not to put too fine a point on it:

The masses of particles are -- not are like, or similar to, or metaphorically suggested by -- they are the tones, the frequencies, of these vibration patterns in dynamical voids... These are very hard, rigorously tested, battle worn consequences... so, I mean, as scientific facts, as hard as they get... there really is that rigorous sense in which mass is frequency.

Source: Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate Lecture Series, March 2005, MIT

But this is only news to us. The Spanda Karika, a Saivite text, said the same thing more than a thousand years ago, namely, that the universe arises from the action of Spanda Sakti (spanda: vibration, sakti: pure energy), the vibrating pure energy of the Void. In Brahmanism, the universe arises from Saraswati playing the strings of a musical instrument, the metaphor of sound representing the vibration of the energies. In a similar vein, and for the same reason, the letters of the Sanskrit alphabet are called the matrikas, the Mothers. We find the metaphor again in Genesis, where God "speaks" the worlds into being, and in Psalm 33 ("By the word of the Lord were the heavens made").

So it would seem that science is only just beginning to catch up with what some religions have known for millenia. And while there will always be quacks, in both science and religion, it benefits no one to throw out the baby along with the bathwater.

K.



heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 5:41:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Oh right because it's so important for all of this to make perfect sense.

Not to you, evidently.

K.




So everything in the Bible makes perfect sense?
What would Mencken say about the world being created in six days? How about talking snakes and humans who live hundreds of years?

As I said, I didn't write it... I told you what I think it means. I don't think it makes sense but I think it means what I said.



heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 5:46:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

it's contradictory to believe in both free will and an omniscient, omnipresent God


There is no ocntradiction what so ever, I suggest you look up the meaning of the words you use, as you are applying them incorrectly.


Why don't you just tell me why you think there isn't a contradiction?



so rather than look up the words to see what they actually mean you would rather blindly continue arguing for the sake of arguing. Good luck with that.


You made an assertion that you refuse to explain or support in any way... how am I supposed to NOT blindly argue?



tamaka -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 6:10:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

it's contradictory to believe in both free will and an omniscient, omnipresent God


There is no ocntradiction what so ever, I suggest you look up the meaning of the words you use, as you are applying them incorrectly.


Why don't you just tell me why you think there isn't a contradiction?



so rather than look up the words to see what they actually mean you would rather blindly continue arguing for the sake of arguing. Good luck with that.


You made an assertion that you refuse to explain or support in any way... how am I supposed to NOT blindly argue?


If the world was a small preschool classroom, the teacher might be able to 'be' (everywhere) in the room and 'know' (everything) going on in the room ... which has nothing to do with the fact that the children are throwing crayons at each other in the writing corner.



Milesnmiles -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 6:30:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata



Peon mentioned The Tao of Physics earlier in the thread. Following up on that, we have confirmed only recently in the 21st century that mass is frequency, that the universe arises from the vibrating pure energy of void space. Not to put too fine a point on it:

The masses of particles are -- not are like, or similar to, or metaphorically suggested by -- they are the tones, the frequencies, of these vibration patterns in dynamical voids... These are very hard, rigorously tested, battle worn consequences... so, I mean, as scientific facts, as hard as they get... there really is that rigorous sense in which mass is frequency.

Source: Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate Lecture Series, March 2005, MIT

But this is only news to us. The Spanda Karika, a Saivite text, said the same thing more than a thousand years ago, namely, that the universe arises from the action of Spanda Sakti (spanda: vibration, sakti: pure energy), the vibrating pure energy of the Void. In Brahmanism, the universe arises from Saraswati playing the strings of a musical instrument, the metaphor of sound representing the vibration of the energies. In a similar vein, and for the same reason, the letters of the Sanskrit alphabet are called the matrikas, the Mothers. We find the metaphor again in Genesis, where God "speaks" the worlds into being, and in Psalm 33 ("By the word of the Lord were the heavens made").

So it would seem that science is only just beginning to catch up with what some religions have known for millenia. And while there will always be quacks, in both science and religion, it benefits no one to throw out the baby along with the bathwater.

K.



The The Dancing Wu Li Masters was also mentioned and I have read them both and they were pretty much cutting edge at the time but physics waits for no one.

The bible talks about the word of God going forth and I have also thought about that being "the vibration of the energies" and how the interference patterns of those vibrations might create the nodes that we call quarks.

An interesting thought, just saying. ;-)




Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 6:52:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

So everything in the Bible makes perfect sense?

Not on the surface, certainly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

What would Mencken say about the world being created in six days?

Well, we wouldn't have to ask Mencken even if we could.

What man of intelligence, I ask, will consider that the first and second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven . . . I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history. ~Origen, First Principles 4:3

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

As I said, I didn't write it... I told you what I think it means. I don't think it makes sense but I think it means what I said.

Okay, fair enough. Let's set aside my previous objection. The fact remains that what you think it means simply doesn't correspond with the text. Common belief aside, Genesis doesn't describe a creation ex nihilo. Before (a temporal reference) the acts of creation everything is formless, void of order, void of structure. Genesis describes the calling forth of form from the formless, the separation and organization of the waters of the deep. There isn't even the slightest hint of space and time being created (see Origin, above). What is being created is rational comprehensible order. Or in the Greek of John:

En archē ēn ho Logos

K.



mnottertail -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 7:00:17 PM)

Not in any sense in the real world regardless of surface, for instance, the genealogies that differ on Jesus from David on, in Matthew and in Luke.



Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 7:40:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Not in any sense in the real world regardless of surface, for instance, the genealogies that differ on Jesus from David on, in Matthew and in Luke.

Not in any sense what, precisely?

K.



heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 7:41:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
If the world was a small preschool classroom, the teacher might be able to 'be' (everywhere) in the room and 'know' (everything) going on in the room ... which has nothing to do with the fact that the children are throwing crayons at each other in the writing corner.


Teachers also didn't magically create the students, the classroom, the concept of misbehavior, or whatever it is that is causing their misbehavior (at least, not knowingly, which God as an omniscient being that is also the creator must have done). I don't know what you mean by 'be everywhere' exactly, but I don't think human beings are able to literally do that. Maybe a teacher who is skilled in classroom management can make the students THINK he or she is everywhere, but it's an illusion.

I don't think it's at all helpful to think of God in human terms... which is why the whole 'gun manufacturer' thing that RealOne or someone else posted earlier also falls apart. There's a difference between making guns that you know are probably going to lead to school shootings, and knowing which exact gun you make is going to fall into the hands of the very person you definitely know is going to shoot up a school. Meanwhile, you also have the power to prevent this from happening (by using your magic), but you choose not to because you want to pretend that the person has a choice in something that you already know for sure they will do.



heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 7:54:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Okay, fair enough. Let's set aside my previous objection. The fact remains that what you think it means simply doesn't correspond with the text. Common belief aside, Genesis doesn't describe a creation ex nihilo. Before (a temporal reference) the acts of creation everything is formless, void of order, void of structure. Genesis describes the calling forth of form from the formless, the separation and organization of the waters of the deep. There isn't even the slightest hint of space and time being created (see Origin, above). What is being created is rational comprehensible order. Or in the Greek of John:

En archē ēn ho Logos


Even if it was formless, void of order, void of structure, it seems to me that there is still some concept of a 'before creation'.

If you're saying that time and space are simply there, along with God, then it seems to me that all things were NOT made.



Lucylastic -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 8:05:06 PM)

I have to say I found this to be a remarkable read...
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/01/how-a-quarter-of-the-cow-genome-came-from-snakes/



Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 8:45:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Even if it was formless, void of order, void of structure, it seems to me that there is still some concept of a 'before creation'.

Sure, but "before" places the event in time. That said, I'd be willing to accept the proposition that "before" and "after" are metaphors and that time is only a contrivance of our minds, because if time can have a beginning (and an end) it can't be fundamental.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

If you're saying that time and space are simply there, along with God, then it seems to me that all things were NOT made, unless you want to say that time and space are not things.

Are you thinking of John 1:3?

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Seems pretty clear to me that "all things" means all things that were made were made by him. Genesis doesn't record the creation of space, time, or the waters of the deep from which the new creation was formed and ordered.

K.



dcnovice -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 9:02:32 PM)

quote:

if this hasn't already been brought up its worth noting, throughout history, scientists across a variety of disciplines saw their study of nature as a way of seeking to understand god.

Folks may have have heard this already, but what the hell.

A scientist* some decades/centuries back was asked what could be said about God by looking at creation.

His reply: "an inordinate fondness for beetles." [:)]

I've always rather liked that.

* I think the guy was named Haldane, but I'm too tired to look it up.



heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 9:19:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Are you thinking of John 1:3?

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Seems pretty clear to me that "all things were made by him" means all things that were made were made by him. Genesis doesn't record the creation of space, time, or the raw material (the waters of the deep) from which the new creation was drawn and formed. They're a given. To say that heavyblinker made a table doesn't imply that he made the wood.


I don't know why it should be clear that 'all things' actually means 'all things except the raw materials which btw were already there'. If it was perfectly clear, then I wouldn't be able to google 'did God create time and space' and find so many resources claiming that He did. In fact, the only point of agreement I could find was that the only 'thing' (which is not actually a thing but something that transcends 'thingness') that God definitely didn't create is Himself.

And yes, I didn't create the wood... but then again I'm also not God-- I have limits.
So you're saying God has limits? Is He really God if that's true?

Even if it's somehow true/possible that time and space have always existed or that God is actually subject to linear time, it doesn't mean Creation doesn't act as a sort of parallel universe in which time is non-linear. If 'all things that were made' means the things that are contained only within the parallel universe that is Creation, then all of them could have been made at once (in the beginning-- the moment when God in his linear time universe created our non-linear time universe). This seems likely if we are to believe that God knows all, created all and has the power to influence/change/do/be anything. How can you know the future if it doesn't already exist (at least for you) in some sense?

The biggest issue here is that we're talking about a magic sky wizard, so the answer could be non-linear time and parallel universes, it could be magic, it could be anything. How does God know things that haven't even happened for Him yet? Because He's God! And it goes on and on like that forever.



heavyblinker -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 9:39:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
the same goes for those who use physics to explain metaphysics, and natural to explain supernatural demand corporeal evidence to prove incorporeal data sets which it never fails is 'always' the case and unfortunately inescapable in these discussions I can only presume because so many people do not understand the lines in the sand exist much less where those lines are to be found.


Okay, then I'm pretty sure that the reason God was able to 'be' in this pre-space/pre-time state and create the world is because of magic.

Happy?


I dont know the conditions of space and time that you describe actually ever existed, do you have any supporting evidence of such?


Of course not.
Where is your evidence that God exists?

you know if the best you can do is continually dodge counterpoints you might consider posting to a different thread


I didn't dodge anything-- I told you flat out that I didn't have any evidence.
But it's not like a lack of evidence ever stopped people from believing in God, so why does that even matter?

I said that I thought the verse we've been agonizing over implies that God existed before everything else, including time and space. Obviously I have no idea what this state would be like or whether or not it ever existed, but that's because I'm not God, the Bible isn't a science textbook and talking about omnipotent beings means you're going to be dealing with a lot of unknowns.



Kirata -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/13/2017 10:32:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

I don't know why it should be clear that 'all things' actually means 'all things except the raw materials which btw were already there'.

Because that's what John 1:3 says, and Genesis corroborates it. Rinse and repeat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

If it was perfectly clear, then I wouldn't be able to google 'did God create time and space' and find so many resources claiming that He did.

Ah. Well that settles that then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

Even if it's somehow true/possible that time and space have always existed or that God is actually subject to linear time, it doesn't mean Creation doesn't act as a sort of parallel universe...

Personally, I tend to favor the view that time is a contrivance of our minds, and I'll pare my comment on your speculations about parallel universes and linear versus non-linear time down to one word: Parsimony.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

The biggest issue here is that we're talking about a magic sky wizard

Some religions in some parts of the world have held their sacred texts closely because they knew it would be impossible for those without any experience of the numinous to understand them, to know what they were talking about, to recognize what was allegory or metaphor. The texts would end up being either taken literally or ridiculed. And they were right, of course. We see that demonstrated ever day.

K.



tamaka -> RE: Are Science and Religion incompatible? (1/14/2017 9:39:28 AM)

In case anyone is looking for an excuse to make a trip out here to Boston.

https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/event/2017-brian-greene-lecture



Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875