Sciences vs. Religion

[Pendragon]

Who was it that said if Jesus came back today they'd crucify him again?

They certainly would. Because people haven't changed all that much. They dislike being told to live in a peaceful manner, or to love their neighbor as themselves.

In God I trust. In the majority of those who claim to be the Children of God, not so much.

Gal.5 [15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

This is the reason many do not trust religion because those who claim it fight all the time among each other while professing to believe the same things.

Science is there is provide answers on what is already here, to question how we reached this point, and discover things to improve the future. My belief that God made everything doesn't conflict with this view. Science has never discovered anything that wasn't here and just waiting to be discovered. Sometimes they have used the raw materials to create new things, but it is discovering how to manipulate what is already here.

Energy, I am reliably told, cannot be created or destroyed but it can be used. Example: Using water to generate electricity. The energy is there in the form of rushing water. Using turbines turned by the water, that energy is transformed into electricity.

God Bless

Pen

[Oedipus]

They certainly would. Because people haven't changed all that much. They dislike being told to live in a peaceful manner, or to love their neighbor as themselves.

In God I trust. In the majority of those who claim to be the Children of God, not so much.

Gal.5 [15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

This is the reason many do not trust religion because those who claim it fight all the time among each other while professing to believe the same things.

Science is there is provide answers on what is already here, to question how we reached this point, and discover things to improve the future. My belief that God made everything doesn't conflict with this view. Science has never discovered anything that wasn't here and just waiting to be discovered. Sometimes they have used the raw materials to create new things, but it is discovering how to manipulate what is already here.

Energy, I am reliably told, cannot be created or destroyed but it can be used. Example: Using water to generate electricity. The energy is there in the form of rushing water. Using turbines turned by the water, that energy is transformed into electricity.

God Bless

Pen

Behind this is the ontological principle, of course - and the conclusion drawn somehow, that science hasn't created anything devalues it; or that is the implication I read... Since you believe in transfiguration of matter: what if the foundations of the principle itself (shaky, we may be assured, even at the present!) were - transfigurated into water? Than, this cascading new waterfall would be a sight: these are the waters of knowledge, flowing into their old basin of error.

[Ecurb]

Yet that's nothing like what you said. Shall I refresh your memory?
"We are not only in a post-religious age (in my case, I don't think any of my grandparents were religious, let alone my parents), but we are also in a post-modern age."

Not even slightly related to science.

But your goalpost-shifting is acknowledged. I agree that science is indeed more or less post-religion.

Nice of you to see sense at last.

This post demonstrates two weaknesses in The Atheist's posting style. First, he quotes me out of context. That's the problem with the "quote and respond" method of argumentative posting favored by many internet regulars. If anyone is interested (which I doubt) he or she can go to the post The Atheist quoted (#280) and see that the context is in a discussion of "As for "science vs. religion", it's a silly discussion." In addition, the interesting portion of my post (coming just after the part The Atheist quoted) is, "Modernist faith in grand scientific theories that can represent all knowledge and explain everything has been replaced by the notion that master narratives of that sort reflect the prejudices of dominant institutions and point of views of particular scientific paradigms. Localized and contingent theories have gained cache; reality only exists from a particular perspective, within a particular paradigm." So as faith in universal religious truths has declined over the last century, so has faith in universal scientific truths.

The Atheist then claims I shifted the goal posts. The metaphor is revealing. Posting about anything (philosophy, literature, religion) is compared to a competitive game (acc. The Atheist), like football, in which there are winners and losers. However, since my point is now clear, perhaps we can talk about something else.

As for Morpheus' idea that all normative ethical systems are "subjective" -- I agree and disagree. I remember saying earlier in this thread that God created humans (although we created Him first). In other words, the nature of humans is to be culturally (as well as biologically) constituted creatures. We are created by our cultures -- most dramatically (for example) by language. To speak more directly to Morpheus' point: it is reasonable to "objectively" call something a grammatical error, even though our grammar is culturally constituted and somewhat arbitrary. Likewise, it is reasonable to call something objectively morally unacceptable, but only within a particular, culturally constituted context. Even we atheists have had our ethical systems shaped by Western Religion -- and so it is (in part) that God created us.

We cannot reason our way to normative ethics. AS GK Chesterton once wrote, "You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.” Logic is the science of non-contradiction, and the traditional tool of philosophers. As we fans of literature are probably aware -- we can also approach ethics analogically. "What would Jesus do?" is the Christian analogical approach to ethics. Atheists might admire Jesus, or they might admire other literary figures. Emulating them constitutes the analogical approach to ethics.

[missylovalova]

Can not co-exist?

Let me explain God in simple mathematics (without surpassing the laws of maths or science).

(I can also explain it using numerous different methodologies but I believe this extremely summarised and simplified explanation will be sufficient)


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12……....…

Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one.

But in truth……..

Only one number does exist

The number "1"

E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

That is because "1" explains itself and every other number. In fact, every number is a repetition (more precisely a reproduction) of the number "1".

Not only does it explain every whole number but it also explains every type of number.
For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".

50% =
1/2 =
0.5 OF 1

"1" is the core of our mathematical numeric system. This is also the reason why binary system (the language of computers) is so successful.

What's so special about "1" is it is also complete

1 = 100%

In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end.
In maths this is signified with brackets ( )

( <------bound, beginning

) <------end, finish

*****(We do not use the brackets because we consider it common knowledge.)
In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths. That is why brackets are done first in arithmetical equation
e.g
(3+2) x (3+1) = 20
or
(5) x (4) = (20)
5x4=20


One is 100% completely bounded and ended to itself.

(1) or (100%)


Hence this instantly means "(1)", the number "1" is the finite because of is finite restriction.

ANYTHING that can be calculated is.

There is also another restriction of the number (1)

That is because by itself can not do much.

It needs a medium or a language to communicate.

x, ÷ , √ , Etc are all fancy and group methods of doing the core symbols of maths.

Addition and subtraction

Just like (1),

(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.

Example

3x2 =6

(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)

So inside every (1) we have (+|-).
E.g
Man = (1)
And he has (+|-) within himself.

Scientifically we know we are living in 1 (E=mc2)

My question is say we calculated everything that exists in our (1) universe.
Hypothetically lets say
everything = (100)

What would be

1 + (100) = ?

It can not be 101
Reason
Everything has already been calculated and it equalled (100)

Let me rephrase the question

from my brief explanation above what would be

1 + (finite)
1 + (maths)
1 + (1)
1 + (universe)
1 + (everything)
1 + (100%)
1 + (E=mc2)
1 + (+|-)


????

It must be something outside of the bound and end (brackets)
Our concept of this is called
Absolute Infinity
∞
Something beyond all bounds and ends

So in an equation
1 + (1) = ∞
Or as explained before the core language of (1) is maths (+|-)

The theory of Absolute Infinity
1 + (+|-) = ∞

What so special about this equation?

It explain outside of our brackets
God is complete 1
100%
Yet he is incomprehensible
∞

It explains that we have the option I'd either choosing a + path or - negative

If on the day of judgment "=" our good deeds out way our bad
1 + (+>-) = + ∞
You will end up in eternal positive or heaven
Respectively
1 + (+<-) = - ∞
Hell

God 1 = ∞
Created +
Everything (+-)
__________________

Quote: “If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light.”

So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.
1 + (1) = ∞
__________________

Mathematics studies the (+ | – ) laws to understand the (1) value.

Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | – ) laws.
__________________

Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.

The equation covers this aspect quite easily….

A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.
It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.

+ ( + | – ) This is the equation of Quantum mechanics,

And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies
__________________

Prisca Theologia

+(+|-) Atheist, understand natural law exist and Quanta

(1=∞) Pantheist, the universe is God

(1= ∞) Buddha said, look within yourself (1) and find your personal (∞) nirvana.

1 + (+|-) = ∞ Christianity,
father 1 = ∞
holy spirit +
son (+|-)

(holy spirit is the deliverer of the law, the son is earthly bound (+-) son

Islam
Surah 112
Say he is one
1
on all whom depend +
he begets not,
nor is begotten
(+|-)
and none is like him ∞

__________________

Cantor actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)

I'm merely saying the same thing.
It doesn't matter if you call this concept Allah, God, Absolute Infinite. Whats important to understand is that a concept beyond anything calculable (including all the potential infinities) does exist, as Cantor proclaimed

Like a boss.

[YesNo]

Who and where was that claim made? I've never seen atheism claim anything, and I've taken great pains to point out that atheism embraces lots of non-science types - david Icke's an atheist and he's not exactly a science fan. Wiccans & Buddhists are mostly atheist, but don't call for sceintific enquiry of their claims.

If you think anyone has made a claim anywhere that rationality and the scientific method has any relationship to atheism, please post the evidence of get off the claim.

Just because some individual atheists use the scientific method doesn't mean its a trait of atheism. Just as I don't judge all christians by Jack Chick/Benny Hinn/etc.

The Wikipedia article on science vs religion shows how atheists through the "conflict thesis" attempt to pit science against religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio...on_and_science

This has been going on since the 19th century and persists even though the conflict thesis "has lost favor among most contemporary historians of science". I agree with you that atheism should not be linked with "rationality" and the "scientific method", but I don't think that is how atheists such as Dawkins see it.

[MorpheusSandman]

...it is reasonable to "objectively" call something a grammatical error, even though our grammar is culturally constituted and somewhat arbitrary. Likewise, it is reasonable to call something objectively morally unacceptable, but only within a particular, culturally constituted context.

Yes, but, as you point out, such objectivity is only possible in a context where there is mutual, social agreement on what is correct and incorrect. In poker, a king is higher than a queen according to the agreed-upon rules of the game; the rules themselves are arbitrary, not based on anything objective in reality, but they make the game possible to be played. If someone wants to question WHY a king is higher than a queen, a player has no recourse but to point to the rulebook and say "because it says so and we agree." It's these fundamental rules that I referred to as being subjective, mutually agreed-upon. If society agrees that murder is wrong, then we can, in a sense, say that a willfull murderer is immoral objectively, but that objectivity is founded upon a purely subjective standard; primarily that, as I outlined earlier, it's better to live than die, and it's better to live and work together than in conflict with each other. Murder violates those subjective, social, mutual agreements, and that's how it can become "objectively" wrong.

But this kind of objectivity that requires subjective, socially assumed standards is quite different than saying that, eg, the sun is objective, in that it's something outside the self that exists and that we have access to via our senses. A great many people confuse these two different kinds of objectivity, and they reinforce it by thinking that the "rules of the game" themselves are divinely objective, emanating from some source outside themselves; and it makes them very uncomfortable to realize that these "rules" are no such thing, that they are free to choose to agree with them or not, and that they vary tremendously from society to society, from historically until now. This seems, to me, to be at the core of the drama behind Hamlet, in that Hamlet has this sudden realization that everything people think of as "is," as being "objective truth," is as subjective, relative, and manipulated (and manipulatable) as fiction itself.

We cannot reason our way to normative ethics. AS GK Chesterton once wrote, "You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.”

I love Chesterton. Probably my favorite "philosopher," Eliezer Yudkowsky, said about the same thing here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nf/the_parable_of_hemlock/

Quoting: "The Bayesian definition of evidence favoring a hypothesis is evidence which we are more likely to see if the hypothesis is true than if it is false. Observing that a syllogism is logically valid can never be evidence favoring any empirical proposition, because the syllogism will be logically valid whether that proposition is true or false. Syllogisms are valid in all possible worlds, and therefore, observing their validity never tells us anything about which possible world we actually live in. This doesn't mean that logic is useless—just that logic can only tell us that which, in some sense, we already know. But we do not always believe what we know. Is the number 29384209 prime? By virtue of how I define my decimal system and my axioms of arithmetic, I have already determined my answer to this question—but I do not know what my answer is yet, and I must do some logic to find out."

[MorpheusSandman]

The Wikipedia article on science vs religion shows how atheists through the "conflict thesis" attempt to pit science against religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relatio...on_and_science

ATTEMPTED to pit science against religion? Draper's book that coined the phrase was a history of such conflicts. There was no "attempt" to pit them against each other, there was a document of the ways in which they HAD conflicted with each other. Even today, the conflict between evolutionary science and creationism is an example of such a conflict. You keep claiming that there IS no conflict between religion and science while seemingly glossing over/ignoring these very real conflicts. I don't get it; selective blindness? The theological attempts to reconcile the two seem to me to be desperate maneuvers from theists who realize they're losing the conflicts and, in fear of losing even more, are attempting to say there ARE no conflicts. Kinda like the bully who, as soon as the bullied starts turning the tables, extends his hand and laughs it off saying he was only kidding around. Even the concepts that have attempted to reconcile them, like Non-Overlapping Magisteria, seem grossly out of step with how religion actually functions historically and today: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions...ondisprovable/

[The Atheist]

This post demonstrates two weaknesses in The Atheist's posting style. First, he quotes me out of context.

Please don't lie; my quote was completely in context.

Just to go back to the humour for a second; there are few things funnier than a bloke caught with his pants down trying to convince everyone it's actually a new fashion.

But hey, keep trying.

[The Atheist]

The Wikipedia article on science vs religion shows how atheists through the "conflict thesis" attempt to pit science against religion:

Which has nothing to do with the point I made.

Is goalpost-shifting an Olympic sport now?

Couple of superb candidates in this thread.

[Pendragon]

Behind this is the ontological principle, of course - and the conclusion drawn somehow, that science hasn't created anything devalues it; or that is the implication I read... Since you believe in transfiguration of matter: what if the foundations of the principle itself (shaky, we may be assured, even at the present!) were - transfigurated into water? Than, this cascading new waterfall would be a sight: these are the waters of knowledge, flowing into their old basin of error.

Again may I ask you to not tell me what I am thinking?! Nothing was even implicated that I felt what science HAS created things out of things that are here are worthless. There are elements that can only be found by scientific research, they are not immediately noticeable. 102 Nobelium for example reads "no isotopes" on the Periodic Table. If science never made anything of value I wouldn't be typing this on a Toshibia Laptop.

[Oedipus]

Again may I ask you to not tell me what I am thinking?! Nothing was even implicated that I felt what science HAS created things out of things that are here are worthless. There are elements that can only be found by scientific research, they are not immediately noticeable. 102 Nobelium for example reads "no isotopes" on the Periodic Table. If science never made anything of value I wouldn't be typing this on a Toshibia Laptop.

"Science is there is provide answers on what is already here... Science has never discovered anything that wasn't here and just waiting to be discovered. Sometimes they have used the raw materials to create new things, but it is discovering how to manipulate what is already here."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/implication

[YesNo]

Which has nothing to do with the point I made.

Is goalpost-shifting an Olympic sport now?

Couple of superb candidates in this thread.

What point were you trying to make? I'm perfecting willing to consider atheism to be both unscientific and irrational.

[Oedipus]

What point were you trying to make? I'm perfecting willing to consider atheism to be both unscientific and irrational.

Thanks for the laugh.

[The Atheist]

Thanks for the laugh.

Aaargh! You beat me to it!

[MorpheusSandman]

I'm perfecting willing to consider atheism to be both unscientific and irrational.

You just shocked everyone reading this thread.