Redundancy: Science or Religion
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
I agree... But when do we stop focusing on the mystery and start creating one?
DAMN RIGHTS! I live my life very morally, and don't steal when no one's looking. Not cause God is actually watching, cause I am. I am the only God of my life. I take responsibility for what I do, make my own decisions, and deal with the consequences.
This is true. But as an athiest, the label I often have stamped on me is frustrating, just the same as theists probably get sick of the label they often have stamped on them. Not giving you an excuse really, just a reason.
Inspector
I would also have to disagree with your statement that there is not ANY evidence to be found in nature. Perhaps the evidence is abundant, yet, we simply classify them as other things
Perhaps, but everything which has been discovered so far indicates that there is nothing outside the realm of natural occurrence which might suggest divine intervention. In that case, we would need to categorize all natural occurrences as divine intervention.
God most likely would not allow us to examine our world rationally and logically if He thought for a moment it would lead us to conclude that He didn't exist. And of course, that is where much of scientific discovery is leading us.
Raithere
Who knows.
I liked your examples, although they are subtle in context and would be open for interpretation and further examination.
Perhaps if the discovery of God were more along the lines of a 'diamond bullet through the middle of your forehead' type of discovery. In other words, He might appear before everyone announcing His existence in a dramatic, almost biblical, brimstone and fire entrance and then go on reiterating our purpose to Him.
Would that kind of evidence facilitate a paradigm shift for science and religion ?
Tiassa
Both would flourish.
Interesting. Do you think they might combine forces and work towards common goals or remain at odds with one another in an attempt to undermine ?
I would also have to disagree with your statement that there is not ANY evidence to be found in nature. Perhaps the evidence is abundant, yet, we simply classify them as other things
Perhaps, but everything which has been discovered so far indicates that there is nothing outside the realm of natural occurrence which might suggest divine intervention. In that case, we would need to categorize all natural occurrences as divine intervention.
God most likely would not allow us to examine our world rationally and logically if He thought for a moment it would lead us to conclude that He didn't exist. And of course, that is where much of scientific discovery is leading us.
Raithere
Who knows.
I liked your examples, although they are subtle in context and would be open for interpretation and further examination.
Perhaps if the discovery of God were more along the lines of a 'diamond bullet through the middle of your forehead' type of discovery. In other words, He might appear before everyone announcing His existence in a dramatic, almost biblical, brimstone and fire entrance and then go on reiterating our purpose to Him.
Would that kind of evidence facilitate a paradigm shift for science and religion ?
Tiassa
Both would flourish.
Interesting. Do you think they might combine forces and work towards common goals or remain at odds with one another in an attempt to undermine ?
Re: Determinism?
Question; is infinite reduction a concept that applies to reality or is there an inherent limitation?
Not much time today to go beyond this simple point but I thought I'd bring it up.
Happy Turkey Day!
~Raithere
While I agree with much of what you said, I must address the fact that the vinyl recording system was developed by science as well. The difference lies not in the fact that CDs were developed by science but the fact that the digital resolution of CDs is detectible to the human ear. If the resolution were beyond that of human hearing we would detect no differene (if there is such a point of focus that is). The question is whether the Universe is analog or existence occurs in discrete packets. From what we know it may, in fact, be quantized (quantum theory) however, this could simply be a limitation of our ability to detect phenomena beyond a certain point.
Question; is infinite reduction a concept that applies to reality or is there an inherent limitation?
Not much time today to go beyond this simple point but I thought I'd bring it up.
Happy Turkey Day!
~Raithere
Various
Religion will eventually fall in line. It can't help it. Christianity, for instance, must adapt or disappear. Over the next couple generations the challenge for Christians will be to adapt so that Christianity is able to match social progress. At present, as we see with the HIV crisis, American teen-pregnancy crisis, and the Creationist assertion, that Christianity is not prepared to deal reasonably with the world. Christians across the nation and around the world are struggling to deal with new data despite their doctrinal challenges. In 1992, in a vital political campaign in Oregon, homosexuals could not have preserved their most basic civil rights without the open endorsements of various church bodies, including Catholics, Quakers, Lutherans, and a particular strain of Baptists. Sure, the vote was still strong against gays, but it is obvious that some have figured out how to make new conditions (e.g. acceptance or at least tolerance of homosexuality) work within the confines of their own faith. Of course, many people are at odds with their churches one way or another, which blurs the lines between faiths as various Lutherans hop over to the Episcopals, and Baptists might join the Missouri Synod. But in the long run, hard-hearted Christianity will become, like the Latin mass, a mere curiosity.
Islam is a different problem; it's 600 years younger than Catholicism and right on schedule. 600 years ago, Christians were murdering people in droves for their faith, living under theocracies and wrangling between warlords. I tend to think Islam can modernize in certain ways; there are obviously Muslims who function just fine in modern society.
About the only thing I can guarantee of religion in 500 years is that Sufism will be stronger than ever. The more real information they get hold of, the better.
Raithere
True, but the latest-greatest from science (e.g. CD's) is not the greatest. Progress is not always progressive.
Still, I think the point holds, but thank you.
Surely enough, the closer examination revealed the tiniest distortion only in those three channels that occurred well beyond the human range of hearing.
It's a cool story, I guess, if you record a lot. But what is more applicable here is the lesson we learn from science: what we do not hear has a tremendous effect on what we do hear.
Beyond that, I'll think on the question. Tryptophan for everyone!
thanx,
Tiassa
(Q)
Religion will eventually fall in line. It can't help it. Christianity, for instance, must adapt or disappear. Over the next couple generations the challenge for Christians will be to adapt so that Christianity is able to match social progress. At present, as we see with the HIV crisis, American teen-pregnancy crisis, and the Creationist assertion, that Christianity is not prepared to deal reasonably with the world. Christians across the nation and around the world are struggling to deal with new data despite their doctrinal challenges. In 1992, in a vital political campaign in Oregon, homosexuals could not have preserved their most basic civil rights without the open endorsements of various church bodies, including Catholics, Quakers, Lutherans, and a particular strain of Baptists. Sure, the vote was still strong against gays, but it is obvious that some have figured out how to make new conditions (e.g. acceptance or at least tolerance of homosexuality) work within the confines of their own faith. Of course, many people are at odds with their churches one way or another, which blurs the lines between faiths as various Lutherans hop over to the Episcopals, and Baptists might join the Missouri Synod. But in the long run, hard-hearted Christianity will become, like the Latin mass, a mere curiosity.
Islam is a different problem; it's 600 years younger than Catholicism and right on schedule. 600 years ago, Christians were murdering people in droves for their faith, living under theocracies and wrangling between warlords. I tend to think Islam can modernize in certain ways; there are obviously Muslims who function just fine in modern society.
About the only thing I can guarantee of religion in 500 years is that Sufism will be stronger than ever. The more real information they get hold of, the better.
Raithere
True, but the latest-greatest from science (e.g. CD's) is not the greatest. Progress is not always progressive.
Still, I think the point holds, but thank you.
Quickly, for the hell of it: I don't remember any of the names here, but a story I picked up from Mojo or Tape Op (I can't remember which) is about a recording engineer who had a problem with three of the channels on his board. He tried to fix it, couldn't get it figured out, but he was the only one at the session who was hearing it. He called the manufacturer. They sent out a tech. All diagnostics checked out okay. This did not make sense; he knew what he was hearing. So he called the board's designer, a guy whose name escapes me, referred to as the "father of the modern soundboard". The old man came out to see his baby, and agreed that something was not right. Despite the instruments, two exceptionally qualified people now disagreed with the scientific result. So the old man took the board back to his lab where he hooked up more sensitive gear and sought out the problem.
Surely enough, the closer examination revealed the tiniest distortion only in those three channels that occurred well beyond the human range of hearing.
It's a cool story, I guess, if you record a lot. But what is more applicable here is the lesson we learn from science: what we do not hear has a tremendous effect on what we do hear.
Beyond that, I'll think on the question. Tryptophan for everyone!
thanx,
Tiassa