Addressing conflict between religion and science

[greylorn]

Geeze, Greylorn, I take some stock in Darwinism, and I claim an IQ of at least 5!

But thanks for your thoughts on this one. Very good clarifications. And as I beleive I told JD, I do admire his mind, if not his premises. And neither am I an atheist as anyone reading my rants can plainly see.

And I apologize if I’ve slighted any of your posts by not throwing thoughts at them. I thought I actually supported one of your consideratoins, but it might have been a dream. Maybe I can get some friends to say it was so and call it a revelation, and then where would you be?

RF,
Now I don’t want you to get too rankled over this, but after reading your stuff, I think that your I.Q. is actually higher than 5.

You can fix your Darwinian problem by reading Michael Behe’s, “Darwin’s Black Box,” or even better, my book.

Once upon a time I had a friend who professed to be a Darwinist, despite also being a Christian. We got into some fearsome snits until I realized that he was using the word “Darwinism” as a synonym for “evolution,” rather than as a very poor explanation for the phenomenon.

A few nights ago I had a dream wherein someone actually supported my ideas. Woke up in a cold sweat, terrified that the world had gone mad. Was that you?

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you.

Yes, I am always learning. I love riding through the plains of “pompous” grass on my lovely horse.I know that adherents of Catholicism believe that. “Know” is reserved, or ought to be, for another kind of knowledge. Yet it is used as a substitute word for “believe” as a rationalization.

Rf:

Sorry, RF. I used the word “know” in a different sense. I meant that you should know considering where you come from.

Of course that is so. But it hasn’t been around as long as God. And while religions are about God, God is not about religion. But at least that is a step above psychology by itself.

Once again, I’d rather not throw out the stated desires of Christ (God), or his specific acts of establishing a family of lesser-angels here on earth, by cutting the first piece of wood for the building of a Church.

I as well have a deep veneration for some of the mystics of the Church. Some of their work is on my desk right now, in fact. And yes, I am familiar with that “train” of thought. I used to ride it and have some great conversations with the other passengers. And great ones with those on platforms at stops or other trains. But maybe the crux here is not the nature of Mary, but that nature of Man in the ways of symbol making.

I’m not so sure that that is ‘symbol making.’ Rather, I think that believing that Mary and the Saints are taken up to the third level, appears to put them in a unique situation to speak directly to God. The simple prayer, “Hail Mary,” is not a prayer of supplication so much as it is a prayer hoping for the continuance of what it is supposed that Mary did while on earth, pray for us sinners. We’ll take any help we can get.

Oh, get real. Do you think that non-Christian faiths, or non Abrahamic faiths don’t have revelations?

I am speaking specifically: the Catholic Bible is a compendium of seventy-three books, covering thousands of years of man’s history, written by forty-three, or so, writers, who lived, in many cases separate and distinct lives. The Protestants leave out only the six Deuterocanonicals. What does anyone else have that is similar to that?

We? Is that the Royal 'We?" It isn’t pride; it’s reportage. I would like to meet this “We.”

You bet: you don’t think I’m going to go into a knife fight with just my bare hands, do you!?

And please forward me a list of the intellectuals you and I aren’t among, please.

Just hang around. You can’t miss them.

God bless,
jd

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Rf:

Sorry, RF. I used the word “know” in a different sense. I meant that you should know considering where you come from.

I know better now that I Know where I come from.

Once again, I’d rather not throw out the stated desires of Christ (God), or his specific acts of establishing a family of lesser-angels here on earth, by cutting the first piece of wood for the building of a Church.

Those are “stated desires” only from the surmise that the words of the Bible refer only and exactly to what you think they do according to what you accepted from a third party(s) and what to many is but a paradigm mutated over a chain of hand me downs from the Iron Age and before.I submit that despite protestations of alleged Divine guidance (what else would a church say?) the actual meaning of those words has been lost to formalism. There is some good work on the preservation/degradation of information in organizations. That might be useful to many. I have to follow my best out-of-the-box considerations as my conscience guides. I cannot accept the “meanings” as put forth, and yet revere the Story as having as a Source the most profound of meanings. And some superfluous material.

I’m not so sure that that is ‘symbol making.’

It necessarily is.

Rather, I think that believing that Mary and the Saints are taken up to the third level, appears to put them in a unique situation to speak directly to God. The simple prayer, “Hail Mary,” is not a prayer of supplication so much as it is a prayer hoping for the continuance of what it is supposed that Mary did while on earth, pray for us sinners. We’ll take any help we can get.

Well, you are not taking mine. But maybe later when it sinks in. Or somebody’s. I have no stake in it other than offering clarification if you wish it. I’m taking your statements as a request for response. If I’m wrong, I apologize and will cease.

I am speaking specifically: the Catholic Bible is a compendium of seventy-three books, covering thousands of years of man’s history, written by forty-three, or so, writers, who lived, in many cases separate and distinct lives. The Protestants leave out only the six Deuterocanonicals. What does anyone else have that is similar to that?

I understand your necessary attachment to the Bible. But others don’t have that and can see that there are other Holy Books available and live by them as best they can. And usually that is for the exact reason you live yours. Similar in that they are considered to be the Word of God are the Guru Granth Sahib, regarded as a living being, the Tao Te Ching, the Vedas, The Upanishads, The Bhagevad Gita, the Koran, and the works of the Sufi Master, and the words of the Proponents of non dualism. Etc.You can’t see the value in that because of the investment in your belief and what you believe is at stake. It is not that way at all. But if it serves you for now, that is well and good and proper. I’m not saying any of this to change what you believe, but as a contrast so that you can more clearly see what you are doing.

You bet: you don’t think I’m going to go into a knife fight with just my bare hands, do you!?

So you claim authority as King JayDee?

Just hang around. You can’t miss them.

Well, I’ve met a few who suit my standards, but I thought it would be an opportunity for you to introduce me to your friends. Greylorn says he thinks my IQ is higher than 5, so maybe I can learn from somoene who’s even much higher than that!

Best,

RF

 

[Asemodeus]

There are a few things that I am surprised haven’t been mentioned.

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
2. Out of body experiences.
3. So, how to account for the excellerating expansion of the universe? There is an a type of energy that is causing this, dark energy. It is said to compose 73% of the total mass-energy of the universe. It is also yet to be detected by any laboratory tests.

The existence of dark energy actually makes a creator god irrelevant. A basic principal of astro-physics is that for a flat universe, the sum total energy of that type of universe is zero. Gravity acts like negative energy to get it to zero. For a closed or curved universe, there would be a need for energy outside of the universe in order to create those types of universes. So for curved and closed, there supports a need for something outside to influence the universe, where as a flat universe doesn’t need anything in order to exist.

We know the curvature of our universe through geometry and the calculation of dark energy. Dark energy is the energy of empty space, the stuff between non-stuff. Our universe is a flat universe, with zero sum total energy. That sort of universe doesn’t require a creator god to exist, so the idea becomes irrelevant to the advancement of human knowledge.

Quantum mechanics has also solved the problem, "Why is there something, rather then nothing?’

“Simple. In order to have something, you need nothing. Nothing is a requirement for something, and god is the exact opposite of nothing.”

1. People have had the experience of leaving their bodies. How do we know this wasn’t a hallucination? Because some of the people who have left their bodies have reported observations made during their out of body experience that show they were able to obtain information that was unavailable to them if they were really just hallucinating. And the information has been verified. So to the person who posted that we can’t know whether or not we can go on living without the body, the truth of out of body experiences may contradict what you say. I’m not saying that it is absolute proof that we can survive death, but it lends credibility to that idea in a very substantial way.

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence, because it relies on the hampered and faulty reasoning of humans. These NDE’s usually happen during times of distress to the body, like with car crashes and heart attacks. Relying to find the truth based on nothing but the testimony of deluded humans in a state of shock is hardly compelling and should be dismissed as such.

Which oddly enough, is what most of the bible is based upon, anecdotal evidence and testimony.

 

[ADouglass]

The existence of dark energy actually makes a creator god irrelevant. A basic principal of astro-physics is that for a flat universe, the sum total energy of that type of universe is zero. Gravity acts like negative energy to get it to zero. For a closed or curved universe, there would be a need for energy outside of the universe in order to create those types of universes. So for curved and closed, there supports a need for something outside to influence the universe, where as a flat universe doesn’t need anything in order to exist.

We know the curvature of our universe through geometry and the calculation of dark energy. Dark energy is the energy of empty space, the stuff between non-stuff. Our universe is a flat universe, with zero sum total energy. That sort of universe doesn’t require a creator god to exist, so the idea becomes irrelevant to the advancement of human knowledge.

Quantum mechanics has also solved the problem, "Why is there something, rather then nothing?’

“Simple. In order to have something, you need nothing. Nothing is a requirement for something, and god is the exact opposite of nothing.”

Anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence, because it relies on the hampered and faulty reasoning of humans. These NDE’s usually happen during times of distress to the body, like with car crashes and heart attacks. Relying to find the truth based on nothing but the testimony of deluded humans in a state of shock is hardly compelling and should be dismissed as such.

Which oddly enough, is what most of the bible is based upon, anecdotal evidence and testimony.

You obviously haven’t thoroughly examined the evidence of veridical perception during NDEs. Here, try watching this. youtube.com/watch?v=DzpKJ9R0Z1M

Tell us what you think about the video. Can you say… strawman?

 

[cho_pilo]

I think science begins with faith… i will accept proven sciences do not start with faith, but the unproven ones do.

 

[Pieman333272]

Quantum mechanics has also solved the problem, "Why is there something, rather then nothing?’

“Simple. In order to have something, you need nothing. Nothing is a requirement for something, and god is the exact opposite of nothing.”

That isn’t true. Only nothing comes from nothing. Quantum Mechanics can’t test this because even it takes place inside the Universe where there obviously is something. Nothing comes from nothing, and God is immaterial but omnipotent - capable of creation from nothing. You obviously know nothing about Catholic philosophy.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

RF,
Now I don’t want you to get too rankled over this, but after reading your stuff, I think that your I.Q. is actually higher than 5.

Wow. Now I’m ging to get the big head syndrome and have to buty a wheelbarrow to cart my nogin around in…

You can fix your Darwinian problem by reading Michael Behe’s, “Darwin’s Black Box,” or even better, my book.

OK

Once upon a time I had a friend who professed to be a Darwinist, despite also being a Christian. We got into some fearsome snits until I realized that he was using the word “Darwinism” as a synonym for “evolution,” rather than as a very poor explanation for the phenomenon.

Somehow that makes sense.

A few nights ago I had a dream wherein someone actually supported my ideas. Woke up in a cold sweat, terrified that the world had gone mad. Was that you?

No, it was my mischief-making doppelganger. Critter slipped its leash again. But I do like the intricate tickings that seem to be emanating from your head. Who’da thought that ears could work as speaker cones?

 

[JDaniel]

I know better now that I Know where I come from. Those are “stated desires” only from the surmise that the words of the Bible refer only and exactly to what you think they do according to what you accepted from a third party(s) and what to many is but a paradigm mutated over a chain of hand me downs from the Iron Age and before.I submit that despite protestations of alleged Divine guidance (what else would a church say?) the actual meaning of those words has been lost to formalism. There is some good work on the preservation/degradation of information in organizations. That might be useful to many. I have to follow my best out-of-the-box considerations as my conscience guides. I cannot accept the “meanings” as put forth, and yet revere the Story as having as a Source the most profound of meanings. And some superfluous material. It necessarily is. Well, you are not taking mine. But maybe later when it sinks in. Or somebody’s. I have no stake in it other than offering clarification if you wish it. I’m taking your statements as a request for response. If I’m wrong, I apologize and will cease.I understand your necessary attachment to the Bible. But others don’t have that and can see that there are other Holy Books available and live by them as best they can. And usually that is for the exact reason you live yours. Similar in that they are considered to be the Word of God are the Guru Granth Sahib, regarded as a living being, the Tao Te Ching, the Vedas, The Upanishads, The Bhagevad Gita, the Koran, and the works of the Sufi Master, and the words of the Proponents of non dualism. Etc.You can’t see the value in that because of the investment in your belief and what you believe is at stake. It is not that way at all. But if it serves you for now, that is well and good and proper. I’m not saying any of this to change what you believe, but as a contrast so that you can more clearly see what you are doing.So you claim authority as King JayDee?Well, I’ve met a few who suit my standards, but I thought it would be an opportunity for you to introduce me to your friends. Greylorn says he thinks my IQ is higher than 5, so maybe I can learn from somoene who’s even much higher than that!

Nah.

God bless,
jd

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Nah.

God bless,
jd

:ROTFL: Thanks, JD; nice chatting with you!

 

[Spirithound]

Good suggestion. Here’s a simple example of an extremely fundamental gap between religion and science, from Physics 301a.

Everything in the universe is a form of something which physics has identified, and can often quantify, called energy. Although energy as a word is part of the vernacular, it has a very specific meaning in physics. The science of physics is based upon the study and quantification of various energy forms, which include light, radiation, motion, gravitational potential, electric charge, a few other things, and of course matter.

The behavior of energy follows three fundamental principles known as the Three Laws of Thermodynamics. The first of these laws includes the declaration that the amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This law is in profound fundamental conflict with the religious belief that God created all things.

Some apologists argue that God created the energy and then decided not to create any more. Not a good argument, because as the differences between Old and New Testaments clearly show, God can change his mind and his personality.

It has been argued that the First Law only applies to the physical universe. I find it a weak argument.

This law, strictly interpreted, requires an eternal universe, and a complete lack of God’s (name removed by moderator)ut to it. I don’t think there are many people who posit an eternal universe, and so we should not feel compelled to hold that God had no (name removed by moderator)ut to the universe. Why not take the sensible position that a physical law only accounts for physical properties, and allow that God sometimes interferes in a pool of energy that is too large for us to measure anyways?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

This law, strictly interpreted, requires an eternal universe, and a complete lack of God’s (name removed by moderator)ut to it. I don’t think there are many people who posit an eternal universe, and so we should not feel compelled to hold that God had no (name removed by moderator)ut to the universe. Why not take the sensible position that a physical law only accounts for physical properties, and allow that God sometimes interferes in a pool of energy that is too large for us to measure anyways?

Because while I may not agree with Greylorn on the particulars, which may yet turn out to be a linguistic circumstance, he is right. And in fact there are in fact many who post an eternal universe. A) physics itself declares that time is an illusion, a human construct necessary for our modality of experience, but not absolutely true of totality. B) There are and have been metaphysical/philosophical systems which posit that God and Universe are One and do so on a mystical basis not incongruent with Catholic mysticism as far as I can tel, again, language being adjusted.

 

[cho_pilo]

How can we resolve this problem? Do you all agree if we say that there is no contradiction between God and science, only between people of different religious persuasions? If not, please give a brief statement of reasons so we could discuss further.

 

[lynx]

How can we resolve this problem? Do you all agree if we say that there is no contradiction between God and science, only between people of different religious persuasions? If not, please give a brief statement of reasons so we could discuss further.

No. Science inherently believes only things that are supported by evidence. Belief in God is supported faith (no evidence necessary, faith is blind). One can analyze religion from a scientific perspective, but it is not meant to be. Scientific fact should technically have no bearing on religious faith. If the Pope said that man and dinosaur walked on the earth at the same time then that’s what Catholics would have to believe, regardless of science. When religion is held to the same rigorous standards of current scientific method then there will be a resolution. But, to do so would remove the faith component, making the endeavor worthless.

 

[cho_pilo]

No. Science inherently believes only things that are supported by evidence. Belief in God is supported faith (no evidence necessary, faith is blind). One can analyze religion from a scientific perspective, but it is not meant to be. Scientific fact should technically have no bearing on religious faith. If the Pope said that man and dinosaur walked on the earth at the same time then that’s what Catholics would have to believe, regardless of science. When religion is held to the same rigorous standards of current scientific method then there will be a resolution. But, to do so would remove the faith component, making the endeavor worthless.

Do you agree that not all atheists have any scientific background or understanding of basic science?

 

[lynx]

Do you agree that not all atheists have any scientific background or understanding of basic science?

It’s possible.

 

[cho_pilo]

It’s possible.

And if there were no God, there would be no atheists?

 

[lynx]

And if there were no God, there would be no atheists?

Not quite. If there was no concept of a God(s) there would be no Atheism or any religious thought for that matter.

If there was no God, atheism would be correct. But, if the concept still existed then religion would continue.

 

[ADouglass]

Do you agree that not all atheists have any scientific background or understanding of basic science?

Though the question wasn’t directed at me, I will answer. I knew an athest who claimed he hadn’t read a book in years. Upon further questioning, scientific knowledge wasn’t requisite for his faith. Truly, you can be as ignorant as a person who barely passed highschool, and still be an atheist. This comes as a blow to those who think you must be refined to come to the conclusion of atheism. No, you will have to rely on something besides that to prove to others that your mind is refined. Here is a common way people become atheists: I don’t want to follow my religion’s moral teachings; if there is no God, then I am not obligated to follow my religion; what evidence is there that there is no God?

I’m not saying all atheists become so that way, but I know many examples of it. My brother being a prime example, and he btw does have a very profound understanding of science as well as a particularly gifted mind. He denied a miracle that happened right in front of him btw, even though he couldn’t explain it. Here is his only possible explanation: multiple people hallucinating the same thing at the same time.

I would say start a thread that discusses the conflicts between atheism and science, but atheist threads are not allowed currently. Like I said earlier, people should be aware of the unseen parts of the universe. The evidence just keeps adding up and adding up. Anyone who has made a legitimate study of it will come to know God.

 

[lynx]

Though the question wasn’t directed at me, I will answer. I knew an athest who claimed he hadn’t read a book in years. Upon further questioning, scientific knowledge wasn’t requisite for his faith.

Clarification, for his **lack **of faith. One does not need to have faith to have no faith.

Like I said earlier, people should be aware of the unseen parts of the universe. The evidence just keeps adding up and adding up. Anyone who has made a legitimate study of it will come to know God.

The unexplained does not fall to existence of God. No legitimate study will prove His existence. God according to scientific methods will never work.