morality god and science a book

[haas mark]

Because it rests on the ambition to join religion and science, which is like trying to mix oil and water (respectively, of course). To write the book, he would have to profess some knowledge of science, when the material he wishes to include makes it clear that he would be misrepresenting science. That is fraud.

It's not "fraud." It's someone having a different perspective. I don't see him trying to be someoen he's not.

Did you even read what I wrote? By writing such a book, he is implicitly claiming to have some sort of knowledge of science. By trying to marry it to religion, he must be perverting the very basics of the scientific method. That means he is misrepresenting science.

Did you even read what he wrote? He is not trying to "marry" it as you say, but rather trying to have a completely off-base point of view. ANd technically, there are certain aspects, I am sure, where religion and science overlap. Problem is, he would have to go into every single religion, or at least many of the major ones.

[data_link]

So you're saying that because he obviously doesn't understand how incompatible science and religion are that he shouldn't publish his book? Well, you're probably right. Rabid creationists will just use it to gain some semblance of validity.

As I said, human knowledge and observation is like a can of worms. Religion is desperately trying to squeeze the worms back into the original can, while science has the wisdom to find a bigger can. Why don't you write a book about that?

[Utsanomiko]

It certainly isn't a new view-point. I've heard conceptual idealists balk about science and religon being the same for years. Any Joe Schmoe can stick two schools of thought together and make attempts to back it up.

Sure, he has the right to write it, just as much right as I have to analyze what he's presented and make a conclusion based on it. there's a big difference between the conclusions "OMFG!! *Gag*! That is so retarded, I could tell before you even spoke!!" and "From what I can tell, it doesn't sound like it's very significant or enlightening."

Alot of it also depends on realative scale of evidence. If punkgothhippie says he's got a view on science and relgion, some people will be optimistic on it's chance of originality or validity. If some guy pops in here with his first post as "Fucking Roswell aliens and their Goddamn lackey Gerald Fucking Ford can take their tax cut RIGHT BACK WHERE THEY FUCKING FOUND IT!!!", who's going to come in and slap our hands for 'not being open-minded enough?"

As the saying goes, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but some are just plain stupid. Sometimes some are just less obvious. And as for me? I'm keeping my eyes peeled for more substantial evidence before making a more definitive conclusion on this book.

[The Dark]

*Sigh*

And here I thought only religion had fundamentalists...I guess it merely reinforces my opinion on the condition of humanity to find that there are science fundamentalists as well...

It's the first time I'm called a fundamentalist.. I'm embarassed..

Anyway, do tell me where exactly you think science profits from an association with religion, and which religion, for that matter.

*Sighs and reaches for asbestos underwear* I hate doing this, but I can't explain this well in my own words, so I'll provide a link and then try:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm

OK, here goes: the ultimate goal of religion is to detach oneself from selfish desires and the ego. In this way, a person may more totally devote themself to seeking out their answers, whatever they may be. It is essentially a method of becoming aware of values and goals, whether they necessarily relate to a divine Being or not (since Buddhism and Jainism do not have deities, religion does not require a divine Being). This increased detachment from ego will lead to decreased attempts to interpret data in a self-serving way, and more balanced experimental analyses. Unfortunately, most current Christian scientists are not religious, but merely dogmatic. I would like to use just one quote from the passage I linked to, since it sums up the point:

science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.

[punkgothhippie]

Personally, I don't see the divide between science and religion as being that black and white. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." While each can exist without the other, neither one can currently explain everything about existence. I hope for both to better themselves during my lifetime, and that eventually the narrow-mindedness that prevents them from cooperating will be eliminated.

That is almost my train of thought but i go deeper into it than that

[punkgothhippie]

Does your book have any real world evidence backing it up? Although Christians may take up the book, other people definetly will ridicule it if it doesn't have any support.

I've got a pretty good library of religous and scientific books. And i make referances to other peoples views. I also go into other theories and quote from them.

[Durandal]

Did you even read what he wrote? He is not trying to "marry" it as you say, but rather trying to have a completely off-base point of view. ANd technically, there are certain aspects, I am sure, where religion and science overlap. Problem is, he would have to go into every single religion, or at least many of the major ones.

I don't see where either could possibly "overlap," depending on your definition of the word. If religion went the way of the Doe-Doe tomorrow, science would still live on. The two are not dependent upon one another in any way. Science has never held a theory which involves anything but natural, observable mechanisms, so religion plays no role in it whatsoever.

[punkgothhippie]

I hope you got a good editor. Your grammar skills need serious work.

I don't actually use such horrible grammar when i am writing. Although i do want a good editor.

[punkgothhippie]

I don't see where either could possibly "overlap," depending on your definition of the word. If religion went the way of the Doe-Doe tomorrow, science would still live on. The two are not dependent upon one another in any way. Science has never held a theory which involves anything but natural, observable mechanisms, so religion plays no role in it whatsoever.

In almost every way possible science and religion overlap in the fact that they are both trying to answer the divine question's that man asks: Where do we come from?, How did we get here?, and what happens when we die? Those are some of the essential questions man asks themselves and others around them. AND religion and science overlap in such a great way that the pope himself has admitted on more than one occasion that evolution is more than just a hypothesis. On top of that The Pope has a whole section of the church devoted to furthering the studies in different scientific theories of how things came to be. Moreover my perspective is that if more religious groups and science based groups would come together and combine theories we could find more answers to more of the questions asked...

[Colonel Olrik]

In almost every way possible science and religion overlap in the fact that they are both trying to answer the divine question's that man asks: Where do we come from?, How did we get here?, and what happens when we die? Those are some of the essential questions man asks themselves and others around them.

Science answers questions by measuring facts and forming theories, which in turn are validated or invalidated by predictions anf finding of new facts. When this did happen with religion? Religion "science" is the antithesis of the scientific method.

religion and science overlap in such a great way that the pope himself has admitted on more than one occasion that evolution is more than just a hypothesis.

So, the fact that the Pope is intelligent enogh to concede Evolution is right makes religion and Science overlap. I presume that all the religious myths proven wriong by science in the past, present and future are, for you, examples of science and religion overlaping..

On top of that The Pope has a whole section of the church devoted to furthering the studies in different scientific theories of how things came to be.

If the studies are conducted by honest scientists, then the Pope is furthering science and human knowledge, and being pragmatic. If they are trying to produce any kind of science based on the Bible, then their work is useless. Not harmful, because nobody really cares, but useless.

Moreover my perspective is that if more religious groups and science based groups would come together and combine theories we could find more answers to more of the questions asked...

Again I ask, why?

[Durandal]

I don't actually use such horrible grammar when i am writing. Although i do want a good editor.

I'd suggest using good grammar in all your writing, from IM conversations to BBS posts, to books and essays. You'd be surprised at how much better-sounding your stuff turns out when you consistently apply the rules of grammar.

In almost every way possible science and religion overlap in the fact that they are both trying to answer the divine question's that man asks: Where do we come from?, How did we get here?, and what happens when we die?

Which is what I said, but that doesn't mean that they're related in any way beyond that. Furthermore, science has done a much better job of answering those questions than religion. It boils down to facts vs. pure speculation, a category which virtually every religion falls into. The goal may be the same, but the methods are polar opposites.

And science has already told us what happens when we die. Our biological processes cease.

Those are some of the essential questions man asks themselves and others around them. AND religion and science overlap in such a great way that the pope himself has admitted on more than one occasion that evolution is more than just a hypothesis. On top of that The Pope has a whole section of the church devoted to furthering the studies in different scientific theories of how things came to be. Moreover my perspective is that if more religious groups and science based groups would come together and combine theories we could find more answers to more of the questions asked...

That's been tried before. It's called "Intelligent Design Theory," which is a wholesale slaughter of the scientific method, and the descriptor "theory" is a perversion of the scientific meaning of the term. Religion brings nothing of use to scientific endeavors. It brings only speculation and fallacy.

[Colonel Olrik]

OK, here goes: the ultimate goal of religion is to detach oneself from selfish desires and the ego.

People understand that's better to be good towards others, and that being selfish is considered a bad thing. You don't need to be religious to have moral.
I hope you're not claiming religion ultimate goal is to make us all monks..

In this way, a person may more totally devote themself to seeking out their answers, whatever they may be. It is essentially a method of becoming aware of values and goals, whether they necessarily relate to a divine Being or not (since Buddhism and Jainism do not have deities, religion does not require a divine Being).]

1) Values and goals do not concern science. Science is about Facts and Theories that fit the facts. You can be a phedophile and still a far better scientist that an abstinent monk.

2) Secularists have values, and goals. Scientists have them. How does the fact of being religious contributes anything to the matter?

This increased detachment from ego will lead to decreased attempts to interpret data in a self-serving way, and more balanced experimental analyses.

Validation by peers. If someone creates data from his ass, the scientific method will prove it false. Unlike religious and new age pseudo-science, I might add, where "scientists" can write a thesis about the most ludicrous things and be accepted without second review, applauded by his revolutionary ideas.

Unfortunately, most current Christian scientists are not religious, but merely dogmatic. I would like to use just one quote from the passage I linked to, since it sums up the point:

science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.

LMAO!!

Please forgive science of only trying to be realistic. Those damn facts and theories, they are made to be accurate and not to be nice and cozy.

That phrase just proved my point that science and religion do not mix.

[Durandal]

science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.

Part of science is making predictions! Of course science can tell us what "should be." How do you think we make rockets work?! Pure guess-work?

[Colonel Olrik]

science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.

Part of science is making predictions! Of course science can tell us what "should be." How do you think we make rockets work?! Pure guess-work?

Humm, I took the phrase as having another meaning. I think it is a rant about the amorality of science. That it lacks values, so it's incomplete.

Complete bullshit, of course

[Durandal]

Oh right. "Science can't answer all my questions so it's completely wrong and needs religion!" What a load.

[LordShaithis]

Apologists, please point out one thing about the real world that religion has revealed, if you expect any of us to regard it as anything but a way to make insecure people worry less about death.

[pecker]

Apologists, please point out one thing about the real world that religion has revealed, if you expect any of us to regard it as anything but a way to make insecure people worry less about death.

You're never get an answer to that question. By definition, religion answers the questions science can't.

[data_link]

Apologists, please point out one thing about the real world that religion has revealed, if you expect any of us to regard it as anything but a way to make insecure people worry less about death.

You're never get an answer to that question. By definition, religion answers the questions science can't.

And we repeat, what answers has it given us? Why is it that people spend so much time trying to apoligize for all the harm religion causes? Why is it that people try to justify religion as anything other than a seriously fucked-up fairy tale? Why do people try to justify religion as being inherently godd when there is absolutely NO evidence that would possibly lead a rational person to this conclusion? WHY?

[pecker]

Apologists, please point out one thing about the real world that religion has revealed, if you expect any of us to regard it as anything but a way to make insecure people worry less about death.

You're never get an answer to that question. By definition, religion answers the questions science can't.

And we repeat, what answers has it given us? Why is it that people spend so much time trying to apoligize for all the harm religion causes? Why is it that people try to justify religion as anything other than a seriously fucked-up fairy tale? Why do people try to justify religion as being inherently godd when there is absolutely NO evidence that would possibly lead a rational person to this conclusion? WHY?

Down, boy. In theory, religion is good. However, not many things that work in theory work in real life.

And you're confusing the internet with the real world. Religion hardly every tries to justify itself outside of some weirdies and websites.

[Antediluvian]

Apologists, please point out one thing about the real world that religion has revealed, if you expect any of us to regard it as anything but a way to make insecure people worry less about death.

You're never get an answer to that question. By definition, religion answers the questions science can't.

Any answers that religion may give to such questions are false.

[data_link]

You're never get an answer to that question. By definition, religion answers the questions science can't.

And we repeat, what answers has it given us? Why is it that people spend so much time trying to apoligize for all the harm religion causes? Why is it that people try to justify religion as anything other than a seriously fucked-up fairy tale? Why do people try to justify religion as being inherently godd when there is absolutely NO evidence that would possibly lead a rational person to this conclusion? WHY?

Down, boy. In theory, religion is good. However, not many things that work in theory work in real life.

And you're confusing the internet with the real world. Religion hardly every tries to justify itself outside of some weirdies and websites.

Bullshit. Religion constantly tries to justify itself, and has been doing that since well before the internet existed. I can't even go to school without hearing some damned moron trying to tell me that I need to have a spiritual experience every day to keep the doctor away. I ask you again - why does it keep doing this when every reasonable person knows it's complete bullshit?

As for your comment about religion being good in theory, I would like to see evidence of someone who has actually published any such theory in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[LordShaithis]

You're never get an answer to that question. By definition, religion answers the questions science can't.

1 - List some of these questions.

2 - Explain why science can never answer them.

3 - Explain why the religious answer is more likely to be true than any arbitrary answer I might choose to make up.

Religion has nothing to offer humanity, save for comfort at the expense of truth.

[XPViking]

And we repeat, what answers has it given us? Why is it that people spend so much time trying to apoligize for all the harm religion causes? Why is it that people try to justify religion as anything other than a seriously fucked-up fairy tale? Why do people try to justify religion as being inherently godd when there is absolutely NO evidence that would possibly lead a rational person to this conclusion? WHY? - data_link

Easy. Because people naturally defend their beliefs, since people tie their belief system as a part of who they are. How hard is that to understand?

XPViking

[Durandal]

Am I the only one who's getting tired of this "in theory, religion is good" bullshit? Why not just say, "In theory, Nazism is good"?

Religion asserts, with certainty, the existence of things for which no objective evidence exists, and it claims validity by stating that these assertions cannot be proven wrong. In other words, religion is a giant lie. Lies are hardly ever good things.

[punkgothhippie]

In theory everything is good. It is perception that ruins things that ,in theory, could be good. our damned morals are what ruins the good in things. All that my book is doing is being the devils advocate. It is here to stir up conversatoin and ask more questions. It's here to further make you think what if it was that way where would i be if it was that way. And further more it plays both fields it is for science and it is for religion it is for science and religion it goes through theories and hypothesis and just gives what i think answers and further questions can be. The main thing it is meant to do is draw attention to it'self. It is something new and inventive. From my point of view at least. How many 16 year olds have you met that are getting there first book being published about scinece religion and morality with a slite twist of government into it it's nearing 60 pages right now and it is going to be around two hundred with two seperate section todays view purely fact based and then the first half which is completely opinion based...