Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a pretty good thread. I made it through 10 pages before stopping to reflect. There are some heavy hitters responding. I am humbled.
The Truths seem to be in danger of deifying science in the cause of practicality. I don't object. I just try to understand. There is a flavor of persecution in there and a sense of "give up" on reconciling science and faith. Doesn't the pursuit of science imply faith in science? Maybe this will at least revive the thread.
Ah! Welcome! I didn't think this thread could be resurrected, but maybe miracles do happen...
10 pages demonstrates an above average interest to consider more than just the average. I did what I could to at least explain my point of view as best I could from the beginning, in light of all manner of reaction as maybe the first 10 pages reflects. Curious about yours, since I certainly had no intention of "deifying" anything. How's that? Maybe I can help your attempt to better understand if you clarify what you mean just a bit. Also where and how you detect "a flavor of persecution."
I wouldn't say I have a sense of "give up" when it comes to reconciling science and faith, because I continue to watch for all efforts to do just that, but I must admit I'm not optimistic any efforts that may still come my way will prove any better. Have you got reason to feel otherwise?
I hesitate to call it the "pursuit of science" as well. I prefer to call it the pursuit of truth. Not that science is the only manner in which we can separate fact from fiction, but I do believe science is well worthy of consideration when it comes to where we turn for truth. One definition of science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
I know there are other ways, but to my way of thinking, none compare to science given the criteria I consider most important when it comes to understanding our universal truth. Not whatever anyone may deem to be THEIR truth which of course can vary as much as the day is long. I'm referring to the truth that we can recognize as fact, reality, for each and every one of us.
the universe is a collection of a bunch of stuff.
a collection of stuff doesn't create itself.
any more than a batch of cookies bakes itself.
or the batch of cookies creates the baker.
swapping out the Creator for the universe doesn't work Arach.
that's what the statements in the post above sound like, just substituting the universe for the Creator.
and you state your personal agenda right there in the same post, it is to get rid of God, in your own words "the deity thing goes away."
it's like revisionist history. wipe it out. erase it. call it something else. claim it never existed.
this is the religion and spirituality forum. In paths of religion and spirituality, God and spirit and divinity and the sacred are recognized, acknowledged, discussed, and embraced.
the universe is not religion and spirituality. it is a collection of stuff.
making god go away is not religion and spirituality. it is your personal emotion-driven aversion to god and intolerance of god. intolerance to the point of seeking to annihilate it and remove it and erase it. it is an extreme form of intolerance, to try an annihilate that which you have an aversion to.
No doubt this is the sort of reason and logic we've all contemplated as long as we can remember contemplating what for most of us is ultimately incomprehensible, but the flaw in your logic that forever leaves me wonder about the truth of your conclusion is as follows...
If a collection of stuff doesn't create itself, then how did whatever created the bunch of stuff get created?
I suspect the batch of cookies commenting in this thread hasn't quite yet got all the facts, reason and logic to properly conclude the answer to this sort of ultimate question. Not even a cookie as sharp as you!
Science is not irrelevant to conversations about religion and spirituality, but certain posters bring it into far too many discussions.
You yourself brought (your version of) medicine into a conversation just about 24 hours ago.
Where science can be useful to religion and spirituality is in situations where unanswered questions can be studied by (for example) archaeologists. The Shroud Of Turin is a good example.
But yes, science is brought into religion far too often, and frankly, it's fake science by religionists that is often what is brought into the discussion (such as "creation science").
Very true. What is relevant or appropriate for one person can be something else for another person, and what may be too often or not often enough is a very subjective matter as well. For me, science and religion are linked in a great many ways that simply can't be denied if separating truth from fiction is the goal. Ultimately that is the issue or question. What is the goal?
If the goal is to hold hands and share the same feelings, faith or religion with others who feel the same way or believe the same things, then no doubt this thread and forum are not the best fit by any means. If the idea is to evaluate the truth of these matters from a more objective standpoint, then I'd say that was more my intent when I started this thread the way I did.
Put another way, if you want a ballet, you don't go to a rodeo...
Very true. What is relevant or appropriate for one person can be something else for another person, and what may be too often or not often enough is a very subjective matter as well. For me, science and religion are linked in a great many ways that simply can't be denied if separating truth from fiction is the goal. Ultimately that is the issue or question. What is the goal?
If the goal is to hold hands and share the same feelings, faith or religion with others who feel the same way or believe the same things, then no doubt this thread and forum are not the best fit by any means. If the idea is to evaluate the truth of these matters from a more objective standpoint, then I'd say that was more my intent when I started this thread the way I did.
Put another way, if you want a ballet, you don't go to a rodeo...
Well put. And it's why I have pointed out to some posters that this is not a praise forum. There are such forums. And even here, I have virtually never gone up into the christian subforum. I'll leave them alone there.
Real, objective science (as the old saying goes) let's the chips fall where they may.
I think about a medicine that I had been taking for several years related to acid reflux. At the same time I had been having heart issues that were quite limiting for me. One day I read a study out of Stanford University (no slouch in academics) which seemed to link (not definitively) the medicine with heart issues. I stopped taking the medicine, and the heart issues were far more mild and far less frequent after that. "I got my life back". I'm sure if the company that produced the drug did a study, their results would have been far more favorable to their drug. I'm sure if someone who hated the drug company did the study, the result would have been far more unfavorable for the drug. The study seemed balanced.
Naturally, we all have some biases. But when I hear christian posters here use the phrase "christian archaeologists", all sorts of red flags go off since there would appear to be a bias to support their christian beliefs. I was taking an inservice on multiculturalism, and one of the questions that came up with a discussion between several Black men was whether they were "a Black man" or "a man who happens to be Black". I'd never thought of that. But as the men discussed their different views...well, it was quite thought provoking. Some people can force themselves to be more and more objective; others can't quite separate their personal beliefs from the science. And I would say the same thing about scientists who were active atheists. How objective are they?
The other place I saw this was in the education field when we started getting more and more into standardized testing data. I saw people who would basically lie about the results. I saw people who would "put the best face" on the data. And I saw people who would say, "Facts are facts. And the data says..."
I've asked this question once or twice before of christians: "What would you do if tomorrow you learned conclusively that Jesus was just a man who died on the cross and was not resurrected?" The answer I always got was...silence.
Well put. And it's why I have pointed out to some posters that this is not a praise forum. There are such forums. And even here, I have virtually never gone up into the christian subforum. I'll leave them alone there.
Real, objective science (as the old saying goes) let's the chips fall where they may.
I think about a medicine that I had been taking for several years related to acid reflux. At the same time I had been having heart issues that were quite limiting for me. One day I read a study out of Stanford University (no slouch in academics) which seemed to link (not definitively) the medicine with heart issues. I stopped taking the medicine, and the heart issues were far more mild and far less frequent after that. "I got my life back". I'm sure if the company that produced the drug did a study, their results would have been far more favorable to their drug. I'm sure if someone who hated the drug company did the study, the result would have been far more unfavorable for the drug. The study seemed balanced.
Naturally, we all have some biases. But when I hear christian posters here use the phrase "christian archaeologists", all sorts of red flags go off since there would appear to be a bias to support their christian beliefs. I was taking an inservice on multiculturalism, and one of the questions that came up with a discussion between several Black men was whether they were "a Black man" or "a man who happens to be Black". I'd never thought of that. But as the men discussed their different views...well, it was quite thought provoking. Some people can force themselves to be more and more objective; others can't quite separate their personal beliefs from the science. And I would say the same thing about scientists who were active atheists. How objective are they?
The other place I saw this was in the education field when we started getting more and more into standardized testing data. I saw people who would basically lie about the results. I saw people who would "put the best face" on the data. And I saw people who would say, "Facts are facts. And the data says..."
I've asked this question once or twice before of christians: "What would you do if tomorrow you learned conclusively that Jesus was just a man who died on the cross and was not resurrected?" The answer I always got was...silence.
I don't believe you. I have asked that question hundreds of times, maybe 1000's, in my life. Because I was atheist so young I was always asking it I guess. In fact, its one of my primary questions to see if I am dealing with a mentally mature person.
I don't believe you. I have asked that question hundreds of times, maybe 1000's, in my life. Because I was atheist so young I was always asking it I guess. In fact, its one of my primary questions to see if I am dealing with a mentally mature person.
Very true. What is relevant or appropriate for one person can be something else for another person, and what may be too often or not often enough is a very subjective matter as well. For me, science and religion are linked in a great many ways that simply can't be denied if separating truth from fiction is the goal. Ultimately that is the issue or question. What is the goal?
If the goal is to hold hands and share the same feelings, faith or religion with others who feel the same way or believe the same things, then no doubt this thread and forum are not the best fit by any means. If the idea is to evaluate the truth of these matters from a more objective standpoint, then I'd say that was more my intent when I started this thread the way I did.
Put another way, if you want a ballet, you don't go to a rodeo...
What you said. On a related note, I sometimes wonder if the "can't discuss science" card is played prematurely, as more of a barrier wall to hold back the waves. If someone comes along and says "I believe the world is flat," and someone else answers "Ummmm, no it really isn't, and here's why...", is that science and therefore not allowed? That's an obviously blatant example (one hopes!), but at what point do "things learned through science" become simple facts? If things like expanding knowledge, describing reality, and pursuing truth are goals, at some point it becomes hard (if not impossible) to avoid the best means we have found to date of achieving those goals.
I can modify my to I don't remember one not answering. so lets compare that to your modification (assuming you will be politically correct here) You don't remember one answering you.
then compare
I don't remember one not answering
vs
"I don't remember anyone answering (more specifically ...doing anything but going silent.)
I can modify my to I don't remember one not answering. so lets compare that to your modification (assuming you will be politically correct here) You don't remember one answering you.
then compare
I don't remember one not answering
vs
"I don't remember anyone answering (more specifically ...doing anything but going silent.)
What you said. On a related note, I sometimes wonder if the "can't discuss science" card is played prematurely, as more of a barrier wall to hold back the waves. If someone comes along and says "I believe the world is flat," and someone else answers "Ummmm, no it really isn't, and here's why...", is that science and therefore not allowed? That's an obviously blatant example (one hopes!), but at what point do "things learned through science" become simple facts? If things like expanding knowledge, describing reality, and pursuing truth are goals, at some point it becomes hard (if not impossible) to avoid the best means we have found to date of achieving those goals.
BINGO ...
heelva good answer again!!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
