Religion and Science

[Green Eyed Lady]

LOL! Yeah, it would; however, I didn't say keep one's fingers still about everything. I just suggested keeping one's fingers still with regard to one's most deeply-held beliefs and the most deeply-held beliefs of others. That shouldn't be that difficult. There's plenty to talk about in the world without every having to go there, IMO.

I see. However, my "deeply-held beliefs" extend to every area of my life - to include politics, religion, social issues, personal conduct....everything. Therefore, if I were to keep silent regarding my deeply-held beliefs, I wouldn't be able to say a word!

If you are speaking about just religion, I'd say that would probably curtail some of the disagreements, but not as much as keeping our fingers still about politics, gay marriage or abortion! Heck. They even fight on the money boards.

[Spellbound454]

if you did hold any unconventional beliefs, you'd be classified as part of the "lunatic fringe" and mocked off of NMSNM so fast it would make your head spin.

You don't have to be outside of religion to be part of a lunatic fringe.....Its a human weakness that is apparent in all walks of life.

My post was about the recognition of said trait.....and not to be afraid to question that which appears to be inherently wrong.

Some us just want to get from one side of life to the other... without doing any harm.
We have no need to trail-blaze... we just take what is in front of us, make an assessment and proceed with good intention.

Many of the morals and ideals we have as part of society, were originally founded in religious doctrine...but religion 2000 years on.. it is not always pure.
We have to decide what is right... and we use our learned abilities.... to not stray too far from the given path.

Ordinary... is a good thing to be....

[Spellbound454]

Indeed, Spell. When you say 'think for themselves' I presume you mean the process of rationalising, however it's unclear as to whether faith is a product of rational thought at all.

Rationality deals with truths....and for many religion is a truth.

[Deleted]

“The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world”
Max Born

[Virgil Showlion]

We have to decide what is right... and we use our learned abilities.... to not stray too far from the given path.

I don't dispute this.

My grievance is that we mustn't embrace the fallacy that following the tenets of a religious morality is inherently different from following the tenets set out by a moral (or ethical, if you prefer) code that is not of religious origin.

Just as individuals with blind faith will vehemently claim there is no blindness in their faith (because they did X, Y, and Z, which to them seems as though it ought to justify their faith), those who defect to society's views—and we all do, to an extent—convince themselves that the progression is ordered and reasonable because they did X, Y, and Z, which to them seems as though it ought to justify the defection.

Like the man who concludes he's the richest person on the Earth after spending all day drudging to the many hilltops that surround his house and, upon looking down from all of them, observes no houses or properties bigger than his own. "Surely my assessment is sound," he concludes, "because I've done more work than anyone else I know to validate my thesis that I am indeed the richest man on Earth."

The typical causes of blind faith and of apostasy are more or less the same: fear, apathy, lack of enthusiasm, hard-heartedness, arrogance, and carelessness.

“The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world”

This coming from a physicist whose entire field of study is predicated on the notion that there is one immutable set of physical laws—one truth—governing our universe.

Physicists make lousy philosophers.

[Spellbound454]

My grievance is that we mustn't embrace the fallacy that following the tenets of a religious morality is inherently different from following the tenets set out by a moral (or ethical, if you prefer) code that is not of religious origin.

I'm not suggesting it does....This is where tolerance comes in to the equation.
Most religions will preach tolerance.... unless they have been polluted for a personal agenda.

The variable here, is human interpretaion. You can justify just about anything......if you have a mind to.......You can even use the scriptures to do it.
but we are just humans... we are not divine......and sometimes we are flawed.

Perhaps the real path is just somewhere in the middle.. and we should be wary of "fringes" of any type.....religious, political, personal.
Its the ability to recognise and question... which keeps us progressing.

Ethics and morality can also exist outside of religion. People can live perfectly reasonable lives without ever stepping in to a Church.
Its doesn't make them bad people....its not as polarised as that.

[chiver78]

adding the quote I'm answering....

Sept 10, 2012 17:32:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

“The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world”

This coming from a physicist whose entire field of study is predicated on the notion that there is one immutable set of physical laws—one truth—governing our universe.

Physicists make lousy philosophers.

how about a quote from the Dalai Lama? er, well, at least by the person who's running his Facebook page?

Dalai Lama
All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.

I don't ascribe to any particular religion, nor do I fault anyone who wishes to do so himself. I draw the line at it being implied that I am immoral because I do not ascribe, or if any particular religion is being forced into the laws that govern all of us.

this quote is a pretty close explanation for how I feel about the relationship between morality/ethics and religion.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2012 17:32:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

We have to decide what is right... and we use our learned abilities.... to not stray too far from the given path.

I don't dispute this.

My grievance is that we mustn't embrace the fallacy that following the tenets of a religious morality is inherently different from following the tenets set out by a moral (or ethical, if you prefer) code that is not of religious origin.

Just as individuals with blind faith will vehemently claim there is no blindness in their faith (because they did X, Y, and Z, which to them seems as though it ought to justify their faith), those who defect to society's views—and we all do, to an extent—convince themselves that the progression is ordered and reasonable because they did X, Y, and Z, which to them seems as though it ought to justify the defection.

Like the man who concludes he's the richest person on the Earth after spending all day drudging to the many hilltops that surround his house and, upon looking down from all of them, observes no houses or properties bigger than his own. "Surely my assessment is sound," he concludes, "because I've done more work than anyone else I know to validate my thesis that I am indeed the richest man on Earth."

The typical causes of blind faith and of apostasy are more or less the same: fear, apathy, lack of enthusiasm, hard-heartedness, arrogance, and carelessness.

“The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world”

This coming from a physicist whose entire field of study is predicated on the notion that there is one immutable set of physical laws—one truth—governing our universe.

Physicists make lousy philosophers.

Physicists and philosophers are not as far apart as one may think.

Physicists work lives or dies by experimental data that can be collected tomorrow. But over the last few decades, cosmology and foundational physics have become dominated by ideas that appear to take a page from science fiction and, more importantly, remain firmly untethered to data.

Concepts like hidden dimensions of reality (string theory) or hidden infinite possible parallel universes (the multiverse) are radical revisions of the very concept of reality. Since detailed contact with experimental data might be decades away, theorists have relied mainly on mathematical consistency and "aesthetics" to guide their explorations. In light of these developments, it seems absurd to dismiss philosophy as having nothing to do with their endeavors.

[Virgil Showlion]

Concepts like hidden dimensions of reality (string theory) or hidden infinite possible parallel universes (the multiverse) are radical revisions of the very concept of reality. Since detailed contact with experimental data might be decades away, theorists have relied mainly on mathematical consistency and "aesthetics" to guide their explorations. In light of these developments, it seems absurd to dismiss philosophy as having nothing to do with their endeavors.

Quantum mechanics and the various string theories reside entirely in the mathematical domain. The major string theories also have the notable drawback that they preclude their own experimental validation. (That is, the theories are by their very construction impossible to prove.)

What you're talking about is the domain of metaphysics, which is the attempt to assign tangible, philosophical and/or moral meaning to the mathematical models and empirical observations.

I agree that many physicists have dabbled in metaphysics. You'll never find a metaphysical theory published in a physics journal, though.

By "philosophy" in this case, I meant "moral philosophy". And I was being facetious. Physicists are no better and no worse at it than the rest of us.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2012 17:32:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

“The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world”

This coming from a physicist whose entire field of study is predicated on the notion that there is one immutable set of physical laws—one truth—governing our universe.

This does not make him wrong in his statement, of course.

[Virgil Showlion]

This does not make him wrong in his statement, of course.

It doesn't prove he's wrong, if that's what you mean.

We shouldn't take the comment out of scope. Born was German, born in Poland (to a Jewish family), and lived through both world wars. The Nazis felt they had the singular truth about what made a man a man. Mr. Born's comments are certainly understandable in that light.

In the same light, I doubt Mr. Born would claim that one man stabbing another in the back to steal his wallet wasn't an evil act, even though it had nothing to do with either man's beliefs about "the truth".

[Deleted]

Well - a minor point perhaps - his statement seems quite widely applicable. As hinted at with the example of the Nazis, such a view lends itself well to tyranny. There is much to be said for scepticism.

[Virgil Showlion]

There is much to be said for scepticism.

Skepticism has its uses, but it doesn't constitute a moral code. And like anything else, it's possible to "overdose" on it.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Sept 9, 2012 4:15:49 GMT -5 Reckless Roselia said:

Sept 8, 2012 23:04:34 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

I have to disagree Roselia, personally I think it explains itself. If science isn't pulling us all closer to the truth about God, what is?

Hello Aham,

I have changed my views slightly re: religion and science. Few years ago I believed that science and religion complemented each other and didn't contradict one another even when I had found the many contradictions in some of the holy verses re science. I used to ask the non-believers if they could explain why Einstein said 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' but no one could to my satisfaction. Because like I've said the words are simple but let's remember Einstein was a non-believer in the God you or I believe or have faith in. So what exactly does he mean?

Some people will say that science is pulling them away from God. I mean why do many Atheists have faith in science and not God? (I am using the term faith here loosely before someone pulls the trigger on me for that.)

I can't explain how someone can't believe in a higher power. I found this page. The way I see it and the way this authors sees it is that Einstein was confused about God. Being brought up Jewish, while studying Christianity, and spending a bit of time as an atheists will do that to a person though.

I am going to pull the facts out of this page and the quotes that are on it that sum it up for me. You can obviously read what this person thinks as well if you want by clicking the link.

www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html#.UE5Kv7JlTKw

In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God.

So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."4

As Spell pointed out he didn't believe in sub atomic particles either, and we have now just discovered the particle that exists in all matter, Higgs boson aka "The God Particle".

More from the link...

However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."5............

..............Albert Einstein received instruction in both Christianity (at a Roman Catholic school) and Judaism (his family of origin). When interviewed by the Saturday Evening Post in 1929, Einstein was asked what he thought of Christianity.

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."7

[Loopdilou]

It's pretty easy to not believe in a higher power, really, we just decide not to, just as a deist decides to believe. Not sure why that's a difficult concept to grasp.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Physicists and philosophers are not as far apart as one may think.

Exactly Apple, and that is along the lines as to why I stared this thread in the first place. A lot of our past knowledge was taken from us...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

Think about how much easier it would be to build the pyramids with the ability to float the stones. Also, consider that it's the year 5772 according to the Hebrew Calendar.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Sept 11, 2012 1:09:17 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

It's pretty easy to not believe in a higher power, really, we just decide not to, just as a deist decides to believe. Not sure why that's a difficult concept to grasp.

Because you can prove scientifically that a higher power exists. Beliefs stop you from understanding that. That's why I can't grasp it, so many atheists say they believe in facts.... hmm Not so much, I find anyway. Did you read the post about how Einstein tried to disprove the Universe had a start and couldn't?... Do you understand what the standard model is?

How about you show us where the math is wrong in the Higgs Boson.. 5000+ of the world tops minds seem to think they have something. What do you know that they don't?

[Loopdilou]

You can prove scientifically that a higher power exists? Perhaps you're reading other scientific treatises than I am, because last I checked that was patently false.

A) The fact that our Universe has a start proves absolutely nothing about the existence of a creator.

B) The Higgs-Boson doesn't have anything to do with God either, aside from its sensationalist nickname.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Right. Humans created themselves and there isn't energy flowing throughout the universe connected by A sub atomic particle.. Good day to you.

[Loopdilou]

Did I say humans created themselves? That'd be a smidge egotistical of me.. what would the Aliens think?

Neither one of your "scientific proofs" are proof of a higher power, simple as that. They are proofs of their respective theories, no more. I don't understand why people who believe in a higher power would be so reductive. The possibilities of how this universe came to be are endless and exciting! I rejoice in that.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

That's what you believe. But science says it started with the big bang(an orgasm if you will). Those are not the endless possibilities that you claim.. So again, good day to you, I refuse to continue this circular logic with you any further.

[Loopdilou]

What circular logic? And what happened before the big bang? Could there have been another universe and another? We might not know in my lifetime, but that doesn't make it any less inspiring. Nor does it require a higher power. Is a higher power possible? Sure, why not? But I won't believe in the multiple worlds theory until that is proven either, so why should I believe in an unproven higher power?

(And when I say "proven," I mean in the scientific theory sense of the word.)

[mrsdutt]

INNER said: Indeed, Spell. When you say 'think for themselves' I presume you mean the process of rationalising, however it's unclear as to whether faith is a product of rational thought at all.

To my analytical mind, the very meaning of the word faith can not be matched with the word rationalization. I do, however, get the point.

LOOP said: (And when I say "proven," I mean in the scientific theory sense of the word.)

Again, the word 'proven' can not be associated with the word 'therory'.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2012 19:56:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Skepticism has its uses, but it doesn't constitute a moral code.

Neither does a chicken. I don't believe I've read or written anything to suggest that either might.

Sept 11, 2012 1:24:09 GMT -5 Loopdilou said:

A) The fact that our Universe has a start proves absolutely nothing about the existence of a creator.

I think that would be a 'fact' in quite a loose sense of the word. On these matters the arrogance of science is astounding.

Sept 11, 2012 6:23:03 GMT -5 mrsdutt said:

To my analytical mind, the very meaning of the word faith can not be matched with the word rationalization. I do, however, get the point.

Yes, that wasn't intended to be controversial, rather a suggestion that people might not choose their faith; it might choose them, perhaps.

Good morning everyone.

[mrsdutt]

A good morning to you too INNER ;D

[Loopdilou]

And if the Universe was created by a Higher Power, what created the Higher Power?

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 11, 2012 7:06:59 GMT -5 @devianity said:

Sept 10, 2012 19:56:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Skepticism has its uses, but it doesn't constitute a moral code.

Neither does a chicken. I don't believe I've read or written anything to suggest that either might.

You'd be surprised (regarding the institutionalization of skepticism, not the chickens).

[Spellbound454]

Those are not the endless possibilities that you claim

They are now saying that it was a big freeze not a big bang, which if we are in a higgs field would make sense, as subatomic particles would start to align.
It wasn't until hundreds of thousands of years later... that atoms stated to form and that appears to have been accompanied by heat since the earliest parts of the universe we can see.... are hot.
I think its fasciniating as well....Dark energy, dark flow, dark matter....something is there... but nobody knows what it is.

There are, are as loopdilou says....endless possiblities....

[Deleted]

As we all know science and religion don’t always work well together, some would say never.
___________________________________

Not so: science deals with verifiable facts, religions deals with beliefs and moral codes. They are entirely compatible because they are entirely different. The only place they really clash is in the ‘story’ of creation. Stay away from that, and there should be few problems. Of course, the account of creation is a little hard to side step.

You can believe that the world was created in seven days and man in God’s imagine, I’ll take the big bang and evolution. We agree to disagree and go about our business in a civilized way.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

There are, are as loopdilou says....endless possiblities....

Or is there only one right answer, we just don’t know it yet Spell?(There's the circular logic) I know in the Math dept, you are write or wrong. Isn't that why they had to peer review the higgs find?

The right answer that builds on the other right answers we have right now, point to a particle in everything that energy flows through (or science proves that there is a power greater/higher than us). A freeze before the bang makes sense to me as well, there is usually always dinner and dancing involved in breaking the ice... ;D

As we all know science and religion don’t always work well together, some would say never.
___________________________________

Not so:

Exactly Robert. Religion and science don't have to be against one another. The thing about the creation story is if you look at it like a theory it doesn't differ MUCH from ours. If you didn't know how big the world was and, and you underestimated world population by 85% you might thing that humans started from a much smaller genes pool as well.

Think about this story in relation to the OP about superconductivity with magnetic fields...

Scotch Tape Turns Semiconductors Into Superconductors
www.geekosystem.com/scotch-tape-superconductors/