2
So...what are you trying to say here? That you agree with the points the author makes? That you want us to look at the specific comment you're linking to? That you just so happened to stumble across this link randomly, had a burning desire to share it with the world, and thought that making a thread here would be the best way to go about it? Drive-by copy/pastes don't exactly do much for in-depth discussion about a topic. 
If your objective is the first I listed, very briefly, I think you'd do well to find a better-written article to state your case. There are generalities, exaggerations, and stereotypes so large in there, I could practically drive a semi through them. It's true that there may be people of a religious persuasion who do hold most of the beliefs and opinions that the author implies, but none of those I've met do, and I certainly don't myself. As someone who's taken some three years of college-level physics courses, I'm finding it hard to see what these so-called "sins" amount to. Perhaps you'd like to explain yourself in more depth.
If your objective is the first I listed, very briefly, I think you'd do well to find a better-written article to state your case. There are generalities, exaggerations, and stereotypes so large in there, I could practically drive a semi through them. It's true that there may be people of a religious persuasion who do hold most of the beliefs and opinions that the author implies, but none of those I've met do, and I certainly don't myself. As someone who's taken some three years of college-level physics courses, I'm finding it hard to see what these so-called "sins" amount to. Perhaps you'd like to explain yourself in more depth.
A.K.A. Mongoose, for you HLP denizens
3
It's a talking point. I'd say it's true that the very nature of religion runs contradictory to the purpose and methods of science, and that religion - if not necessarily absent - must be suspended for scientific investigation (to remove God* from the equation, as it were).
*or the diety/ies of your choice
*or the diety/ies of your choice
4
I don't necessarily see that as being the case myself. It's true that some people of a religious persuasion may see science as somehow adversarial to religion, but I think it's far more sensible to look at them as being complementary. The purview of science is to determine the mechanics and processes by which the natural world works, while that of most religions is to deal with human spirituality, the supernatural, and the possibilities of an afterlife, all of which fall outside a strictly natural definition of the universe. In the past, and almost out of necessity, religion wound up overlapping on many of the scientific fields of today, simply because humanity didn't know enough to understand the processes involved, but now that we have a general wide-ranging view of our place in the universe as a species, I don't see that as being a real issue anymore.
Moving beyond that point, I also don't necessarily see a conflict of interest between holding religious beliefs and seeking scientific truths for their own sake. In fact, some people who have religious faith and work in science-related fields would probably say that doing so helps to strengthen their faith. Scientific progress has led us to learn much about the fundamental underpinnings of our universe; to some, those underpinnings might be viewed as signs of the glory/majesty/skill of the creator(s) of their choice. In a universal view that requires a Big Bang, there had to be something to trigger it (if one can even use the concept of "before" without the existence of space-time, I suppose...). I personally know several tenured professors in my own physics department who are practicing Christians (and to be honest, I was surprised at that number myself); heck, one of them received a papal medal for a book he authored on the relationship between scientific study and religious faith. As strange as it may seem to some, there are many who view obtaining true spiritual maturity as requiring the same sort of rational discourse that one would use in following the scientific method. There's a famous quote by Einstein that states, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind;" if you stop and think about it, I think it's a rather appropriate comment on the historical and present relationship between the two pursuits.
To finish up, if I may comment on the article again for the moment, what annoyed me the most about it is something I've seen far too often, the act of applying certain behaviors conducted by certain people under the label of "Christian" to all people who profess that faith. It would be the same as me saying that all Scots wear kilts, eat haggis all the time, and toss sheep. (I mean, I know you're all about that stuff, aldo, but that can't be true for all of your countrymen.) It's a statement borne out of ignorance, or even worse, of willful misapplication. There were at least seven or eight of those points that I not only disagreed with right off the bat, but actually saw as being counterproductive to Christian faith as I view it. When commenting on a certain group of people, it's generally a good idea to do so while fully understanding where they're coming from, instead of doing so based on your own opinion of where they're coming from. Otherwise, you wind up looking the fool to members of that group, just as that author did to me.
Moving beyond that point, I also don't necessarily see a conflict of interest between holding religious beliefs and seeking scientific truths for their own sake. In fact, some people who have religious faith and work in science-related fields would probably say that doing so helps to strengthen their faith. Scientific progress has led us to learn much about the fundamental underpinnings of our universe; to some, those underpinnings might be viewed as signs of the glory/majesty/skill of the creator(s) of their choice. In a universal view that requires a Big Bang, there had to be something to trigger it (if one can even use the concept of "before" without the existence of space-time, I suppose...). I personally know several tenured professors in my own physics department who are practicing Christians (and to be honest, I was surprised at that number myself); heck, one of them received a papal medal for a book he authored on the relationship between scientific study and religious faith. As strange as it may seem to some, there are many who view obtaining true spiritual maturity as requiring the same sort of rational discourse that one would use in following the scientific method. There's a famous quote by Einstein that states, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind;" if you stop and think about it, I think it's a rather appropriate comment on the historical and present relationship between the two pursuits.
To finish up, if I may comment on the article again for the moment, what annoyed me the most about it is something I've seen far too often, the act of applying certain behaviors conducted by certain people under the label of "Christian" to all people who profess that faith. It would be the same as me saying that all Scots wear kilts, eat haggis all the time, and toss sheep. (I mean, I know you're all about that stuff, aldo, but that can't be true for all of your countrymen.
) It's a statement borne out of ignorance, or even worse, of willful misapplication. There were at least seven or eight of those points that I not only disagreed with right off the bat, but actually saw as being counterproductive to Christian faith as I view it. When commenting on a certain group of people, it's generally a good idea to do so while fully understanding where they're coming from, instead of doing so based on your own opinion of where they're coming from. Otherwise, you wind up looking the fool to members of that group, just as that author did to me.A.K.A. Mongoose, for you HLP denizens
5
Nevertheless, the fundamental tenet of any religion is faith. Faith, surely, runs contrary to the principles of science - that is not saying that scientists cannot be religious, but religion cannot play any role in scientific thinking as it invalidates the whole process.
The supernatural, such as it is, cannot exist alongside scientific investigation. It creates an accepted unknown; it places a barrier that, however nebulous in definition, says 'do not look here'. If we say 'God triggered the big bang' (for example), then we are immediately abandoning the principle of science by substitution something which is simply stated to be inexplicable and unknowable to be true (and God - the concept - itself is as inexplicable as what went before the big bang. No-one can define, show, explain etc God/s or what came before by nature - and that surely is directly oppositional to scientific investigation).
The 'sins' of religion (I believe this particular link is really about the sort of fundamentalist Christianity that really just seeks to hold back humanity by attacking science in case it reduces the number of things we have rational non-supernatural explanations for) are when religion is applied against science; when a scientific explanation is attacked (not challenged) on the basis of some other religious explanation, for whatever reason.
You, I think, have put an example of what i mean - "signs of the glory/majesty/skill of the creator". to make that sort of assumption damages scientific investigation as it assumes causality; it's an easy explanation, and easy explanations rarely show the truth of the matter (any more than saying, say, a particularly nice valley was 'carved by Gods hand' rather than investigating the erosion, strata, et al).
I'd like you to tell me which particular points you disagree with, though. I've seen all 12 of these problems occur in various contexts, and methinks the author does make a very pertinent point that they must be challenged or restrained lest they stultify thinking.
The supernatural, such as it is, cannot exist alongside scientific investigation. It creates an accepted unknown; it places a barrier that, however nebulous in definition, says 'do not look here'. If we say 'God triggered the big bang' (for example), then we are immediately abandoning the principle of science by substitution something which is simply stated to be inexplicable and unknowable to be true (and God - the concept - itself is as inexplicable as what went before the big bang. No-one can define, show, explain etc God/s or what came before by nature - and that surely is directly oppositional to scientific investigation).
The 'sins' of religion (I believe this particular link is really about the sort of fundamentalist Christianity that really just seeks to hold back humanity by attacking science in case it reduces the number of things we have rational non-supernatural explanations for) are when religion is applied against science; when a scientific explanation is attacked (not challenged) on the basis of some other religious explanation, for whatever reason.
You, I think, have put an example of what i mean - "signs of the glory/majesty/skill of the creator". to make that sort of assumption damages scientific investigation as it assumes causality; it's an easy explanation, and easy explanations rarely show the truth of the matter (any more than saying, say, a particularly nice valley was 'carved by Gods hand' rather than investigating the erosion, strata, et al).
I'd like you to tell me which particular points you disagree with, though. I've seen all 12 of these problems occur in various contexts, and methinks the author does make a very pertinent point that they must be challenged or restrained lest they stultify thinking.
6
I suppose the thing is, you must remove God fro the equation, at the very least at first, because if you start allowing yourself a 'get out clause' for anything you don't understand then you can say 'God did it.'
The persecution of healers started because the Church didn't like the idea of someone other than God having the power to cure people, so science, right from the top, has always been at odds with it.
The persecution of healers started because the Church didn't like the idea of someone other than God having the power to cure people, so science, right from the top, has always been at odds with it.
Check out my music on my YouTube channel :
https://www.youtube.com/user/PRDibble/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/PRDibble/videos
7
Oh no... don't get me effing started on this... I took a bloody exam on it only a week ago...Flipside wrote:I suppose the thing is, you must remove God fro the equation, at the very least at first, because if you start allowing yourself a 'get out clause' for anything you don't understand then you can say 'God did it.'
The persecution of healers started because the Church didn't like the idea of someone other than God having the power to cure people, so science, right from the top, has always been at odds with it.
This is very... Christian isn't it? One big thing I've had with the whole 'Theist Religion' Thing was the fact that out of the many theist religions there is no concrete proof for (assuming they exist) which one does. All theist religions have some kind of 'God experienced' involved at least once, but could they not at least all get together and decide on which one does? Instead of saying 'Apollo is like sooo real! No way, Apollo don't exist man, Jehova for the win! Ah, what fools, there is only one God, and he is Allah!' If these Gods that have appeared to all of these people to say that they are the only one, and that all men should follow them (under several different aliases, with the godly omni-knowledge that would surely give foresight of what this would start) then the only other explanation would be that we are simply the pawns of the higher wills of another species of Sadists.
'Memory and imagination are but one thing, which for diverse considerations, have diverse names'
¦- F R E D E N T H U S I A S T -¦
¦- F R E D E N T H U S I A S T -¦
9
Don't bother! Get the all loving and obviously cos the book says so real Allah to do it!Flipside wrote:Oh yeah, if God exists, before he sends me to hell, I suspect I'll make at least one attempt to kick the evil minded b#stard in the boll##ks
'Memory and imagination are but one thing, which for diverse considerations, have diverse names'
¦- F R E D E N T H U S I A S T -¦
¦- F R E D E N T H U S I A S T -¦
11
Non-Interfering Magisteria is all very well and good, save that philosophy does a hell of a lot a better job at tackling all that metaphysical mumbo-jumbo than religion with all its dogma does.Top Gun wrote:I don't necessarily see that as being the case myself. It's true that some people of a religious persuasion may see science as somehow adversarial to religion, but I think it's far more sensible to look at them as being complementary. The purview of science is to determine the mechanics and processes by which the natural world works, while that of most religions is to deal with human spirituality, the supernatural, and the possibilities of an afterlife, all of which fall outside a strictly natural definition of the universe. In the past, and almost out of necessity, religion wound up overlapping on many of the scientific fields of today, simply because humanity didn't know enough to understand the processes involved, but now that we have a general wide-ranging view of our place in the universe as a species, I don't see that as being a real issue anymore.
Best instead to use science to explain the tangible and philosophy to explore the intangible, and leave religion (which attempts to do both, poorly) in the bin where it belongs.
13
Or kill the people who need it.ngtm1r wrote:"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
