Sojourner553

Thank you for apologizing IntenSity.

I admit I felt frustrated that your attacks got the religious camp off the hook on these points I made in my first post:

That Kenneth did not explore the success/failure record of the metaphysical approach.

(1) Religious philosophies have an abysmal record of predicting the nature of reality, if measured against the findings of modern science. Just a few examples:

* according to Genesis, the earth was created on the First Day of Creation; with the sun and moon created on the Fourth day of Creation; the earth is flat and located at the center of the universe.

* demonic possession was responsible for all mental illnesses.

(2) Philosophies that relied on rational intellect, with no observation also have abysmal records....

Therefore in terms of discovering the laws of the NATURAL world, science, although not perfect, really has no successful competitors.

Since the metaphysical view has a lousy record of predicting the NATURAL world, this does not inspire a lot of confidence (by skeptics) of why its predictions are any better in the SUPERNATURAL realm.

The believer can always “hope” for the existence of the supernatural, but my point is currently science has not found any evidence of its existence -- and more important those who employ metaphysical methods cannot attain ANY consensus on what is the nature/meaning of the supernatural. That is why there are some 10,000 sects just within Christianity. (If my memory is right, the real number is 20,000 sects.)

____________________________________

IntenSity, my examples above were mainly to point out WHY it is important to draw Christians away from a fundamentalist viewpoint. Pointing out the inconsistancies of the Bible helps on this (which Kenneth was silent on).

As long as theists are tolerant and accept the scientific outlook re: the NATURAL world (Kenneth is helping in this) -- does it really matter they may also wish or "hope" for a life after death? I have known/read of wonderful Christians who were science minded. They are also major contributors/leaders in the tolerant high-tech society we live in today. Many moderate to liberal Christians dislike the fundamentalists as much as we do.

IntenSity, I hope you are not (or do not become) a fundamental atheist. Atheists can be just as dogmatic as their religious counterparts in following a narrow creed/ideology. The Marxist communists created their own version of a Dark Age in Russia with their desire for total control over society.

By the way, if interested, you can find the story of Lysenko at this site. It also has a section on Bertrand Russell's reaction to Russian communism:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/COMMUNIS.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/COMMUNIS.TXT</a>

also accessed as Section V, Chapter 20 at:

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

Sojourner

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner,
Thanks for your response.
Sorry you felt you had to paste your previous post again. I did not miss it: I just focused on the parts I disagreed with.

It boils down to this:
You say that eminent scientists have been known to be christians. Which is true.
Does that in itself prove that science does not conflict with christianity?
You Say Yes.
I say No.
Because humans have been known to be capable of holding two conflicting views at the same time.
This is made possible because it does not affect their everyday lives. For example, even when the bible says man was made from soil(weathered rock etc) a christian surgeon will not need to choose between whether he will be operating on soil or on organs made of cells(or whether to just pray and the sugery is made unnecessary). A christian pathologist (maybe after exhuming a body) will not be faced by a conflict. BECAUSE, in their practical lives, they apply their scientific knowledge, even though this conflicts with what their religions say.
This is why we can have religious scientists. Or those that say that the bible is symbolic. But the bible does not say it is Symbolic. It does not say that Bethlehem is symbolic and if it is symbolic, then what holds the story of Jesus above that of Dionysus for example?
I think xstianity broke off from other myths because they claimed their "story" took place on earth and was not just a myth.
You say:
No it does not matter to me. But it does not prove that religion does not conflict with science.
I have no problem with fundamentalists. I do not dislike fundamentalists as long as they do not violate my rights.
I am only concerned when the existence of liberals (on both sides)is twisted to mean that the two sides are compatible.

I hope my point is clear now. When people have overcome cognitive dissonance, either through rationalizations, denial or continuous ignoring one side, it means the people have overcome the conflict (and are able to live with the conflict) not that the conflict does not exist.
I rest my case.

Sojourner553

To IntenSity: But there are more categories or boxes than you allow for (to borrow Bede's term).

* Sure, some religious individuals believe every word of the Bible and refuse to resolve the conflicts in their day to day living. These individuals are called fundamentalists.

* Others resolve the conflict between biblical verses and science by assuming the problem is they are not properly "understanding" the meaning of the Bible.

* Others agree the Bible has errors/ contradictions, possibly from language translations errors, human error in recounting a tale (ie they will argue that it is normal for there to be mistakes as humans were transmitting the Bible from God), etc

*And others accept, to differing degrees, that outright myths have entered the bible

I have no hard facts to support this, but I strongly suspect the best religious scientists fall in this latter category.

________________________________________

IntenSity, I was raised in a conservative Baptist area, but my parents ALWAYS held the world was older than six days; the Flood story was a myth, etc. (Alright they also told me the Ham myth predicted why blacks had a history of slavery -- they missed that one-- and I was upset about it when I found out the truth.)

But overall, the Bible was viewed as instructing lessons in morality, not science. I remember my mother would pray (I do not make this up) that God would help her find a good Jewish doctor (as Jews made the best doctors). She was instinctively following Stephen Jay Gould's magisterium principle: the realm of reality uses science; the realm of morality uses religion. She hoped for good doctors in this life, God after death.

Now for the flip side. A lot of atheists (this would include atheist scientists) can have what I consider whacko beliefs -- visitations by aliens, seeding of life by alien life, and mystical New Age views. As long as these views fall outside the area they are studying, they can still produce good science.


So you need to drop this either/or thinking -- because beliefs fall along a graded continuum, not a black vs. white dividing line.

Sojourner

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Daydreamer

Care to back this up with statistics?

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner,
Your parents were christians - they chose to call myths what they found unrealistic. Many christians do that. It doesnt mean they are right and those who take it as literal truth (the so called fundamentalists) are wrong - unless you want to demonstrate that. It doesnt matter whether scientists are believers and vice versa unless they do not fit into an agenda one has (maybe a unitarian society or something).
Whether or not they produce good science is irrelevant.
It still doesn't mean that mysticism is consistent with science.
Christian beliefs fall along a graded continuum. That does not mean that christianity does not conflict with science.
It just means people interpret the scripture differently - pick and choose theology.

PS: To say I think in black and white is an ad hominem and a gross mischaracterisation. You do not know me well enough to make that judgement.

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Sojourner553

I have not made any studies or tallies of this no. It was based on general readings/sitings on tv, conversations.

*For example: Fred Hoyle was described as an atheist and a scientist, but I consider his 'panspermia' theory pretty whacky.

*There is a famous atheist mathematician that appears with Michael Behe to help him support his anti-Darwin/anti-evolution themes. (I saw him on a debate on tv once.) Maybe you don't consider math a "science."

*I saw an atheist physicist on tv talk about how he believed in alien visitations.

*I have talked to numerous self-proclaimed atheists – who were into whacky New-Age styled beliefs (including Gaia, etc) . True, many of them were not scientists. Napoleon (a military man/ politician not a scientist) was an atheist, and I remember he was into magnetism as a life-force.

Those were the examples that were in my head when I made that statement.

But this is MOST relevant! The philosophies of the Enlightenment stress natural observation over revelation, which have affected moderate to liberal religious individuals:

A little history might help (I haven’t got the time to summarize this):

“when the Renaissance scientist, Galileo, proposed to use the newly
invented telescope to look out into the sky to question whether the earth
moved around the sun, it was his "scientific" approach that greatly angered
the authorities. According to Galileo:

"I think that in the discussions of natural problems we ought to begin
not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations."


According to Pope Urban VIII, Galileo's approach to truth in natural matters had it exactly BACKWARDS! --Not only should one begin with the authorities on SPIRITUAL matters--but on matters OF THIS WORLD as well. The pope spoke angrily how Galileo dared to assert that:

"in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin NOT FROM THE
AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES but from sense experience and
necessary demonstrations." (emphasis mine)

The conventional wisdom held that the senses in such matters could NOT be
trusted! Indeed, it was argued that Galileo's telescope could "alter" the
TRUE appearance of things. The only "guaranteed" method of arriving at the
truth, was from theological reasoning, based upon the holy texts of scripture
and the doctrines of Church authorities, such as St. Augustine.

Early scientists such as Galileo had to justify that their endeavor to
understand "how" something worked added to our foundation of knowledge-- even
if this did NOT answer the ultimate questions of "why" --ie, the "CAUSES" of
why it happened. Thus, when Galileo studied the acceleration of fallen bodies, he wrote how,

"the cause of the acceleration of the motion of falling bodies is not
a necessary part of the investigation."

Likewise, when Isaac Newton came upon his law of gravitation, he had to
explain that it was not necessary to understand "why" it worked. Instead,
based upon his experimentation,

"it is enough that gravity really does exist, and acts according to
the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account
for all the motions of the celestial bodies and of our sea."

(as quoted by John D. Barrow, THE WORLD WITHIN THE WORLD, Oxford University
Press, 1990, p 86)

To validate the new scientific method, philosophers had to first establish the paradigm that relying on sensory information to understand "how" things worked was an EQUAL, (if not "better") source of knowledge--than relying on the authority/revelation of others. This paradigm "shift" had its beginnings in the Renaissance. Still, it was not until the Enlightenment in England, that philosophers laid down the foundation for the "scientific method".

John Locke, was one of the most important of these new "Enlightened"
philosophers. Locke argued that all of our thoughts and ideas are derived
from SENSORY experience-- ie from sight, touch, smell, etc. He determined
that most objects to which we give names are NOT represented in the mind as
distinct ideas (as Plato had argued)--but instead are clusters or groupings
of ideas learned from experience. These are then recombined in different
ways. Locke proposed that we should employ our senses, and then TEST the
results--to determine whether they are really true or not.

Locke's philosophy was not anti-religious. For it also assumed the
existence of a divine/spiritual realm-- and in the possibility that special
individuals could receive revelations from this source from time to time.
Locke's point, was that it was difficult for others to know whether or not
one actually had a "true" revelation or not. Therefore, revelation was not
a 100% reliable method for obtaining truth."

taken from:
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/PHILOSO1.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/PHILOSO1.TXT</a>

In short, my argument is that religious individuals who combine their religion with Enlightened philosophies CAN be scientific!

Of course, I do not know you well enough to characterize you on ALL issues, but on this ONE issue you are indeed acting as if everything is simplistically black vs white.

Sojourner

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

SmashingIdols

!!!!!! Warning: Threadjack !!!!!!

I agree with the following modifications:

Ultimately, the confrontation between religion and science is a confrontation between mind-control and free-thought.

This confrontation transcends political systems, and cuts to the very core of thought itself - do you think what you think because somebody told you it is correct [and you will suffer eternally if you question them], or do you think what you think because you have been given the tools of analysis, access to all of the data available, and have drawn your own conclusions?

Wow, major epiphany - in responding to that above, constructing what I felt and thought, I just discovered the core of free-thinking, and that in my heart of hearts I am a free-thinker! Wow! I seriously never knew this!

!!!!!! We now return to your regular thread !!!!!!!!

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner
I dont dispute that. But it(what they can be) remains irrelevant to our discussion.
Human potential has got nothing to do with the nature of their beliefs. Why cant you grasp this simple concept?
Can you please demonstrate how the kind of work people do is linked to the beliefs they hold?

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Sojourner553

IntenSity, You say you don't dispute religious people can be scientific. But you go on to imply I ONLY mean "future tense" by your use of the term "potential" . Obviously I meant it to apply to the "present" as well.

You have to drill into the details -- and I gave plenty-- to prove your point.

So how were Galileo and Newton not scientists?? You need to explain your position with examples/details.

For anyone can present a high level claim, if they don't drill down into the details...

I am the one saying there is NOT a perfect link or correlation. Obviously there is little science in fundamentalist societies. But there is a continuum of belief-- You keep going back to there only being two boxes.

I would think the burden of proof falls on you to show there is a positive correlation between "kind of work people do" and "beliefs they hold." Remember the adage, "Those who make extraordinary claims should have extraordinary proof." ?

Statistically, a high percentage of doctors (in proportion to the population) have been Jews. Is this correlation more likely the result of a CULTURE that promotes hard work and higher education. Or would you argue it is their RELIGION that makes them better doctors?

When you make simplistic statements (ie the religious outlook is inconsistent with science), you need to CONSISTENTLY apply this PLUS tie in its ramifications in other areas (in my example 'does being Jewish make one a better doctor?' Exactly how does that tie in with the religious outlook being anti-science?)

================================================== ========
Summary: You need to connect ALL the dots/data (rather than picking and choosing): This is the same standard science must adhere to for its theories to be considered truly scientific, as opposed to an ideology!

Ever hear of Popper's falsification test? Seems to me when I find just ONE example that cannot be explained by your hypothesis, this disproves your hypothesis. Maybe you can modify it to account for this data, but then the falsification test starts anew!

So many people I have talked to with a bias, use words such as "clear" and "obvious" before realizing they are unable to actually prove it.



Sojourner

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Kenny

Thanks! I'll see about pictures sometime after the wedding.

God Bless,
Kenny

P.S. Sorry I did not respond somewhat sooner. I got distracted by other things