sighhswolf

Bender
IIDB Regular
User # 4865
posted November 06, 2002 02:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not find one rational, reasonable, relevant response in any of the posts which followed mine. I did find some very off-target and misrepresentative posts. More proof about the necessity of having an "open heart" (and I shouldn't have to define or explain this to all you overly intellectual types, but I guess I must - having an "open heart" does not mean casting aside reason, but casting aside preconceived stereotypes and doubt; if someone feels anger towards Protestants, and allows his anger to inform his opinion of all Protestants, then he likely will never be able to discern when and if a Protestant is a decent person, or at least it will make it much, much more difficult for him to do so).
Also, many eminent scientists were and are Christians - so, the argument some of you are presenting would say that these people are automatically unthinking and unreasoning, or happen to be so just in the case of their metaphysical beliefs? Why is that the case? Yelling really loudly, "Christians are all stupid, and religion is for imbeciles!!" is no argument.

I'm rather busy with some real (and semi-real) discussions, both elsewhere here at Infidels, and on some other boards. I think I'll just let this one go, as it sounds like it's going to be just another "Let's shout the Christians down!!" extravaganza, lacking any substance. Enjoy.


In Christ,

Douglas

In answer to the above post, I have a few comments.
In it's traditional form, christianity and other religious "faiths", make the assumption that the universe and everything in it have been designed and created and are guided in their everyday existence by a supernatural god, that is above the material world and is capable of altering reality as it sees fit.

Religionists ask us to believe that there is a mysterious plan originating from a supreme being, a plan which is knowable by humans only to the extent that it has been revealed to an exclusive few (and not individually to each and everyone of this supreme beings creations).
Questioning any part of this plan is strongly discouraged by the so-called representatives of this supreme being on earth.
And the favorite slogan is that there are some things that must be taken on "faith" and we poor humans with our inferior brain power and inability to grasp the "mysteries" will never understand the nature/actions of this supreme being.
Now I really cant argue with the statement that humans will never fully understand the nature of god, I find that to be a "truth" in religious doctrines, but not necessarily because of the reasons given by religion, but that is another topic within itself.

Science assumes that there are no supernatural, immaterial forces originating and emanating from a supreme being and that all forces which do exist within the universe behave in an ultimately objective or random fashion. The nature of these forces, and all other scientific knowledge, is revealed only through human effort in a process of discovery, documentation and eventual identification, leading to theories and eventual explanations that are understandable and consistant with natural physical laws.
The universe as a whole is assumed to be neutral to human concerns and to be open to any and all questions.
It is (just my personal opinion)presumptious of human beings who cater to religion, to believe that they are the center of intelligence in the universe and that they should and do get the most attention from this "supreme being", his favorite creations.
There have been many interpretations of the verse
"In my fathers house there are many mansions, I go therefore to prepare a place for you......."
I didnt look it up just paraphrased it from memory, but the point is that humans on this planet are extremely arrogant to assume that we are the only nobel life form in the universe.
And even more arrogant to believe that even if there was a supreme being who had created the entire universe and everything within it, that each and every single human being has complete access to this being individually at any time through prayer.
And the worst affront of all is the preaching of an "individual relationship with god".
I see that as being selfish, conceited and hopelessly irrational.

But Rightly as you have pointed out there are those scientists that believe that science and religion can co-exist peacefully, but my personal opinion is that the fundamental differences are much to great to be bridged and blended.

I like the explanation and example given by By Dr. Norman F. Hall and Lucia K. B. Hall in an article published in The Humanist, May/June 1986, pg 26

"In order to understand how scientific observations are made, let's follow a hypothetical scientist into her laboratory. Suppose this scientist's task is to measure the amount of protein in a biological fluid -- a common procedure in research laboratories, hospitals, and school science classes. The scientist will proceed by carefully measuring out into test tubes both several known volumes of the fluid and also several different volumes of a "standard" solution she has prepared by dissolving a weighed quantity of pure protein. The scientist will add water to bring all the tubes to the same volume and then add a reagent which reacts with protein to produce a blue color. After the solutions in all the test tubes have reacted for a specified period of time, the scientist will measure the intensity of the blue color with a spectrophotometer. By comparing the color intensity of the unknown solutions, she will be able to calculate how much standard protein is needed to produce the same color reaction as the unknown, and this, the scientist will conclude, is the amount of protein in the unknown sample.

What our hypothetical scientist has done is to perform a controlled experiment. She must report it honestly and completely, including a description or a reference to the method. She must also be prepared to say that all variables which could have affected the reported result, to the best of her knowledge , have been kept constant (for example, by using a water bath to maintain a constant temperature) or have been measured (as were the different volumes of the unknown solution and standard solution) or are random (measurement errors or perhaps proteinaceous dust motes from the surrounding air). This is the essence of the scientific method.

Clearly, such a controlled experiment would be impossible if our scientist were required to entertain the possibility that some factor exists that can affect the color in the test tubes but which can never be controlled in these ways -- a factor that cannot be held constant, cannot be measured by any physical means, and cannot be said to act randomly. But that is exactly what the religious, supernaturalist worldview does require. Untestable, unmeasureable, and nonrandom occurrences are commonplace in all supernatural religions and pseudosciences.

This fundamental incompatibility between the supernaturalism of traditional religion and the experimental method of science has been, nevertheless, remarkably easy to dismiss. The findings of science over the past three centuries have been eagerly welcomed for their practical value. The method, however, has been treated with suspicion, even scorn. It has been perceived as being responsible for revealing the material workings of ever more of the mysteries of life which used to inspire religious awe. From the point of view of the religious believer, it has seemed as though the goal of science has been to push belief in the supernatural to ever more remote redoubts until it might disappear entirely.

This is not, and cannot be, the goal of science. Rather, a nonmysterious, understandable, material universe is the basic assumption behind all of science. Scientists do not chart their progress with ghost-busting in mind. Naturalism or material monism is not so much the product of scientific research as it is its starting point. In order for science to work, scientists must assume that the universe they are investigatiing is playing fair, that it is not capable of conscious deceit, that it does not play favorites, that miracles do not happen, and that there is no arcane or spiritual knowledge open only to a few. Only by making the assumption of materialist monism will the scientist be able to trust the universe, to assume that although its workings are blind and random it is for this very reason that they can be depended upon, and that what is learned in science can, to some degree, be depended upon to reflect reality."

If scientists were to be held to the consideration of supernatural factors in experimentation, would Ben Franklin have just looked up and said, "Oh god is really angry throwing those bolts of energy around like that."
Viruses that are responsible for the deaths of millions would be named as punishment/retribution from god, that it is his will that the population suffers and dies rather than using scientific methods to discern the basic causes of the maladies and search for cures?
Yes these are extreme examples, but they illustrate what could and can happen when science is ignored in favor of superstition and mythology.

The "intellectual" has made your existance on this earth comfortable, with plenty of food, warm clothing, shelter, and medical care.
Discounting the biblical lifespan factor, it was only a few hundred years ago that your life span as a human male was around late 20's or 30's, today thanks to "intellectuals" and "scientists" you could with proper care be alive and well right up into the 90's or 100's with the average of 72 years.
I just think we should look at the reality of our world, and be grateful that there are those people who refused to take the word of god literally, refused to be bound by superstition,
refused to be enslaved by religious doctrines and used their "intellect" to make our world a better place.

"Yelling really loudly, "Christians are all stupid, and religion is for imbeciles!!" is no argument."

Agreed, yes I do agree with your statement above.
Amazing huh?
Religion has served it purpose and that was to help mankind to find and utilize the spiritual side of his nature, and it does exist, the spiritual side.
My personal belief is that the "spiritual" side of human nature is where the beauty resides.
Art, prose and poetry, music and an appreciation
for natural talent originates from that region.
And in that context I believe in the "spiritual"
part of our nature.
But that spiritual side has been invaded and put into bondage by religion, so that it is a perversion of all those beautiful things mentioned above and has been misdirected and misused by the perveyors of organized religion as it exists today.
Of course this is just my personal opinion, which means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme, but to belittle the "intellectuals" and to lump science and discovery into the realm of christianity is a mistake, and an insult to the work of those who have made our lives enjoyable
and comfortable due to their exploration and inquiring intellect and their ability to transcend the boundries of superstition and mythology and dispose of the fear of the unknown.

Imagine for a minute where we as a species would be at this point in our history without these
"intellectuals" and governed exclusively by religion.

Anyway just a few thoughts jogged after reading the post mentioned above.
Wolf