> -----Original Message----- > From: denstar [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 1:50 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: This saddens me >
> > No matter how well it works for you (or for the millions like you) a > belief > > in a higher power does not equal religion. Religion codifies truth as > a > > matter of faith, science as a matter of investigation. > > "Truth" is a funny deal. "Religion" is a funny deal. Let's just > focus on an easy one: did you mean that you can't believe in a higher > power and also believe in science? (whatever that means... guess even > this isn't simple. Believing in science? Heh.) Never. I've been clear (and careful) here: you must have compromise to reconcile religion and science. Faith and science are much more easily dealt with on an individual level. > What if you had a religion that codified investigation as a matter of > faith? Or some such strange deal. Like Science as a matter of fact, > to complete the flip example. You can always escape the ramifications of the question by adjusting definitions. Attacking the definition of science is at the heart of many attacks on our school curricula and will probably always be. Changing the definition of religion doesn't alter the problem, it just makes it harder to talk about. For example it's reasonable to say that any institutionalize system of thought, deeply held, is "religion". In that case the argument is moot: science IS religion by that definition. However it solves nothing: defining science as a kind of secular religion doesn't alter the point of discussion - it just forces us to use bulkier language. My argument must then become "theistic religion and science are not compatible without compromise." Arguing about accepted terms and syntactic specifics just muddies the conversation without moving it forward in my opinion. > > Again, compromise can make religion and science happily coexist, but > they're > > not naturally compatible. It may be that one brand of religion (or, > more > > likely, a cobbled-together, uncodified spiritual world-view) is more > > compatible with science but that doesn't mean it's reasonable to say > "there > > should be no problem". > > I don't agree. Perhaps Einstein was a bad example, since he disliked > distant spooky actions and a gambling god, but, you know, whatever. > Poor example. Maybe some, more eastern-ish type deal would be a > better example. Taoism, for instance. Is that a religion? Does it > not fit pretty well with the big S? Again - the problem I'm discussing is not finding a religion that could be compatible. Although traditional Taoism isn't it (it's a polytheistic religion steeped in ritual and magical thinking - an amalgam of tribal and traditional beliefs largely incompatible with science). "Pure Taoism" - just the teachings of the Tao Te Ching really can't be, in my opinion, considered a religion. There's no codification, no organization, no method or practices or worship, etc. - it's a philosophy in the best sense: a way of thought that, if followed, should lead. In this sense Taoism is more like science that religion in that it doesn't provide answers so much as a method of moving through life thoughtfully. It doesn't provide the rigor of the scientific method, but in some ways it's prototypical of it. Unfortunately very little of this aspect enters into Taoist religious practices. > > Saying so dismisses as ridiculous one of the most serious issues > facing our > > society. > > I don't dismiss how bad wrong-headed-ness is, I'm dismissing the idea > that there cannot be co-existence. Harmony, even. Maybe that's what > you meant by compromise, and if so, right on, I was assigning a > different value to the word compromise. What is compromise if not finding peace amongst challenging ideals? I've got devoutly Catholic gay friends: they compromise their religion for their sexuality and are much happier for it (generally). Others consider the more outlandish Bibical accounts (Noah's Ark, Genesis, etc) as nothing more than parables but hold fast to the absolute truth of the crucifixion and resurrection - again compromises. We've seen doctors that strongly hold with the germ theory of disease but don't believe in Evolution - that's a compromise. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:288436 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
