On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Jim Davis wrote: > >> From: denstar
>> "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. I think that we're splitting hairs here. How many religions can you fit on the head of a pin? Unless we're going by some kind of system like "you must have X followers to be considered a religion" and X is a relatively high number. I liked your "(some) religion", I thought that was a good, um, compromise? =] What about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian-Universalism#General_beliefs_of_UUs I mean, really, I'm just railing against the broad strokes you paint religion with. It doesn't have to be in conflict, or require compromise, as far as Science goes. IMO. >> 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. Exactly. I think your definition of religion is excluding the fact that religion can be just about anything. Even if we stick to your terms, and say it has to have followers+ and dogma and whatnot to be legit. I'm arguing that there is nothing in the "idea" of religion that, by it's very existence, prohibits it from complimenting and indeed, being in harmony with Science, or other aspects of life. > 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. I think some of my subtext was more text than sub. =] The above thought is one of my points, and I think it's a true-ism. (Depending on your definition of institution.) > 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." Heh. I actually like that better. Seems much easier to refute. Are you honestly telling me you cannot come up with a theistic religion that fits with science? I mean, forget googling for an existing one, you don't think you could formulate a harmonious one-- that it's impossible (without compromise)? Maybe a God who appears to do almost nothing? Or a God who does everything, but "everything" is so much it's moot, sorta? I'm pretty sure I could come up with a few different scenarios... perhaps God is a scientist! Would a scientific God jive with Science, in your book, no compromise needed? Or whatabout Science being the "face of God", and Religion is a part of Science, and Philosophy is a part of science, and they're all one big happy family, not so much compromising as complementary? (Philosophy probably trumps the other two, but I'm biased towards thinking, I think.) > Arguing about accepted terms and syntactic specifics just muddies the > conversation without moving it forward in my opinion. If the terms are accepted I doubt there would be any arguing, by definition. Ha! Now that sentence was funny. Seriously tho, I did like the "theistic religion and science" better. "Religion" is one of those potentially muddy, broad terms. "Science" might not be too different. By moving to that bulkier language, clarifying these terms, we start to see that Religion doesn't hold a monopoly on wrong-headed-ness. Any idea can become what's "bad" (in your opinion) about Religion. Science is just as vulnerable to the effect, is my general gist here, I guess. It's Human Nature, not Religious Nature (even if we limit it to theistic religion). Most might need some form of adjustment, or compromise, to jive with "the facts as we know them", but it's not a rule. >> > 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. Whoah there cowboy, I thought the exact problem we were discussing was that of finding a religion that could be compatible. Ah, yes, a theistic religion. Even with that constraint, I think you'd have to admit that there's nothing preventing such a religion from existing. There is no inherent incompatibility between science and god(s), I posit. >> > 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. See, this is the kind of compromise I thought you were getting at, and I just don't think it's a requisite. Maybe for most, it would have to be, but for sure not all. I think, personally, what we need to be on guard against, is... well, inflexibility. Those ideas that we seat so deeply that they are more like muscle memory than thought, if that makes sense. But on the grand scale, I'm with you, I see what you mean, and yes, I get your point. I'm just not down with the idea that there *has* to be compromise, and that one could not come up with a "god" who was down with science-- or perhaps the scientific method, or whatever you want to define it as. I'm quite sure that theistic religion and science *could be* compatible, without compromise. Can you grant me that much? If not, can you give some type of thought experiment that demonstrates why not? I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong in thinking so, although in this case I don't think I am. But I could be. =] -- There is a difference between happiness and wisdom: he that thinks himself the happiest man is really so; but he that thinks himself the wisest is generally the greatest fool. Francis Bacon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:288498 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
