morality god and science a book

punkgothhippie · Post by **punkgothhippie** » 2002-11-15 06:54pm

I've started writing a book on Morality, Science, Religion, and the divine questions... I was wondering how many people would consider buying a book on a new perspective about this subject

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-15 06:55pm

punkgothhippie wrote:I've started writing a book on Morality, Science, Religion, and the divine questions... I was wondering how many people would consider buying a book on a new perspective about this subject

That does, of course, depend on the content.

punkgothhippie · Post by **punkgothhippie** » 2002-11-15 07:01pm

The content isn't much yet in the past hour and a half i have written nine pages. It is mainly telling my point of view on how science and religion relate, how they help eachother, and my view of what heaven hell and god are from a nuetral point of view...although i slightly lean towards science but I talk mainly about how if the cooperated with one another they would get much further in there studies and such. I describe how i think it should be done and what could be changed or improved. It points out my perspective of judgement, creation, evolution, and the divine questions. Along with describing God in general!!!

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-15 07:02pm

Not too many here, then.

punkgothhippie · Post by **punkgothhippie** » 2002-11-15 07:04pm

On a global scale do youthink i could make some money off of it. I don't think anyone of my age had ever written something worth reading on this subject.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-15 07:07pm

punkgothhippie wrote:On a global scale do youthink i could make some money off of it. I don't think anyone of my age had ever written something worth reading on this subject.

Maybe, maybe not.

punkgothhippie · Post by **punkgothhippie** » 2002-11-15 07:09pm

It's got a pretty good start to it. I don't exactly know where i am going to go with it but i was thinking about posting it on this site

Next of Kin · Post by **Next of Kin** » 2002-11-15 07:11pm

punkgothhippie wrote:It's got a pretty good start to it. I don't exactly know where i am going to go with it but i was thinking about posting it on this site

Nine pages!?! Maybe you should post an executive summary. How does it start? Not with "It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times..." I hope!

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-15 07:12pm

punkgothhippie wrote:The content isn't much yet in the past hour and a half i have written nine pages. It is mainly telling my point of view on how science and religion relate

They don't

how they help eachother,

Actually, they try to destroy each other. After two thousand years on the defensive, science is now kicking back some ass,

and my view of what heaven hell and god are from a nuetral point of view...

Well, what's that neutral point of view? The fact that you've never seen one or the other?

although i slightly lean towards science but I talk mainly about how if the cooperated with one another they would get much further in there studies and such.

It would be useless and actually harmeful. Science and religion do not mix, the same way State/religion are two separate identities.

I describe how i think it should be done and what could be changed or improved. It points out my perspective of judgement, creation, evolution, and the divine questions. Along with describing God in general!!!

It sounds like a fairy tale. Be sure to make a good background story

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-15 07:15pm

Olrik: Try seeing it as a different point of view, k?

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-15 07:20pm

If you're asking whether you could make money off of publishing it, then the answer is a definite yes. There are plenty of people (particularly Christians) who will readily cough up their money for it. Now if you're asking wheter any of us would buy that book, the answer is probably not.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-15 07:22pm

verilon wrote:Olrik: Try seeing it as a different point of view, k?

sssdnmoverilonoefnkcx

Alright, sheesh, I'll be a bit more open minded..

..Or not. SCIENCE RULES

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-15 07:24pm

*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...

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-15 07:25pm

The Dark wrote:*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...

Sometimes we like to call them atheists....

And Olrik: Science may rule, but yes, you need to try to be more open-minded. He's asking for opinions, not a breakdown of everythingthat's wrong with it. It may very well be something worth reading, but maybe not.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-15 07:31pm

verilon wrote:
The Dark wrote:*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...
Sometimes we like to call them atheists....

And Olrik: Science may rule, but yes, you need to try to be more open-minded. He's asking for opinions, not a breakdown of everythingthat's wrong with it. It may very well be something worth reading, but maybe not.

. I probably should have said atheist, but I've never heard of a Buddhist or Confucian fundementalist. I'll try to explain better next time I'm being sarcastic.

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.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2002-11-15 07:33pm

The Dark wrote:*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...

Extremists exist in every realm of thought.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-15 07:45pm

The Dark wrote:
verilon wrote:
The Dark wrote:*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...
Sometimes we like to call them atheists....

And Olrik: Science may rule, but yes, you need to try to be more open-minded. He's asking for opinions, not a breakdown of everythingthat's wrong with it. It may very well be something worth reading, but maybe not.
. I probably should have said atheist, but I've never heard of a Buddhist or Confucian fundementalist. I'll try to explain better next time I'm being sarcastic.

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.

It's not narrow mindedness that prevents them from working together, it's a fundamental difference in philosophy. Science seeks to adapt itself to the world around it - to find the best possible explanation for any given phenomena. Religion on the other hand seeks to adapt the world to it's dogma. It doesn't seek the best possible explanation, it seeks ways to make the current explanation fit what is observed. Ever since the rebirth of science thanks to Galileo, we have begun to make actual progress in understanding the way the world works - an understanding which is like the proverbial can of worms. Religion is desperately trying to stuff all those worms back into the original can. Science on the other hand, goes out and looks for a bigger can. Clearly, it will be science and not religion that is sucessful in the end.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-11-15 07:56pm

To 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.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-11-15 07:59pm

The Dark wrote:*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.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2002-11-15 08:40pm

Use a lot of psuedo-science that a person that shouldn't have been able to graduate from high school wouldn't understand that it doesn't make sense. As long as it's a longwinded book with lots of psuedo-science to back up the claims you'll make money off it. I might actually buy it so that we can all enjoy tearing it apart

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-15 10:06pm

The content isn't much yet in the past hour and a half i have written nine pages.

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

It is mainly telling my point of view on how science and religion relate, how they help eachother,

Based on this, I'd dismiss the book as dishonest, ignorant tripe. Science deals strictly with real things. Religion deals with imaginary deities, assumed afterlives and fictional heavens. The two have absolutely nothing in common save from the fact that religion sometimes tries to explain natural phenomena. In that regard, science does a much better job.

and my view of what heaven hell and god are from a nuetral point of view...although i slightly lean towards science but I talk mainly about how if the cooperated with one another they would get much further in there studies and such. I describe how i think it should be done and what could be changed or improved. It points out my perspective of judgement, creation, evolution, and the divine questions. Along with describing God in general!!!

All of the above would be pure speculation on your part. The most productive change for the world I could imagine would be humankind letting go of ridiculous religious fantasies and devoting all that time wasted on worship of invisible men to more tangibly beneficial exercises.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-15 10:08pm

Okay, why is everyone slamming on the fact that someone *might* have a different point of view out there?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-15 10:10pm

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.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-15 10:21pm

Durandal wrote: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.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-15 10:35pm

verilon wrote:
Durandal wrote: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.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

morality god and science a book

morality god and science a book

Re: morality god and science a book