> -----Original Message----- > From: denstar [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:09 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: This saddens me > > > 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?
Which is exactly the problem with the question. On many levels it is non-sensical. Science is one thing: there is pseudo-science, splinter beliefs, quacks and frauds but "science" is easily defined and understood. "Religion" isn't. There are thousands of religions, the definition is infinitely malleable and can be personal. But the bottom line is MOST people know what you mean - if you begin to drill into the syntax all you do is muddy the argument with extraneous language. But, to be clear, I'll assume this definition for my statements. When I say "religion", this is what I mean: "A codified, communal system of beliefs concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a supernatural deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe presented as ultimate, unchanging truth." If all you're looking to do is "win" the argument you can continue doing what you're doing. Yes, I'm sure that you could prove me "wrong" by finding (or inventing) some niche religion that invalidates my statement - but it doesn't change the reality of the problem. You'd be technically correct (to many people the best kind of correct) but it won't advance the argument. The fact still remains that the overwhelmingly vast preponderance of religion is NOT compatible without compromise. Personally I don't care about individual, or even small scale, success: I'm speaking to the larger picture. To get around the syntactic arguments I can expand the statement: "Concerning widely-adopted, mainstream, religion (defined above) in the United State true reconciliation with science is most likely impossible without compromising either the religious or the scientific values." To be even more general however it's not only religion: ANY codification of truth that does not allow that truth to be altered is incompatible with Science. > What about this: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian-Universalism#General_beliefs_of_UUs Did you not read further? The most common criticism against UU is that it simply is not a religion. I appreciate the idea (in fact one of my best friends is a UU minister) but it's a stretch to call it religion (a statement that he wholeheartedly agrees with in fact). UU is much more like many Eastern philosophies: advice (not rules) for living better. At the very least it doesn't fit my definition above as there is no codified belief and neither the supernatural or divine is necessary to it. But again (and again and again) this isn't about finding some niche religion that "works" - this isn't about being technically correct. This is about the broader issues. If everyone were Universalists we wouldn't be having this conversation. > 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. And I'm railing against the broad strokes that you paint. That because you, personally, have reconciled the two that it means they must therefore be reconcilable on a large scale, in today's world. That because a solution with no boundaries is imaginable it should be considered practical. Continually saying that they can be reconciled because you're compromises have allowed you to does nothing to address the problem. You're accusing me of painting the problem as intransient - I accuse you of treating it as ridiculous. > 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. Then we can't have a conversation. If one parameter in the equation is infinitely plastic then nothing can be said. You have to bound the argument or it's not worth having. > 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)? Doesn't interest me, honestly. My invention of a religion that might be compatible may be an interesting thought experiment but it provides no value - nothing that's useful to reconcile actual religion in the actual world. > 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). I don't agree. Self-correction is the fundamental aspect of Science. I know of no religion (definitely none that meet my definition) that allow for this. Science accepts "wrongness" as a matter of course: in fact the goal is rarely to find "truth" but rather to become "less wrong". > Whoah there cowboy, I thought the exact problem we were discussing was > that of finding a religion that could be compatible. Ah, yes, a Not at all - I'm not in the market for religion so I see no value in shopping for (or generating) one. This discussion started because 25% of Americans don't believe in Evolution - one of, if not the, most important tool we have for understanding the natural world and life on Earth. Essentially all them hold this opinion because their compromising Science to satisfying religion. This is purely practical to me, utterly pragmatic. I don't care about finding a religion - I only case about the religions causing this issue. > 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. "Most" in this case is "nearly all" - and that's all I really care about. > 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'll happily grant you that - but it's definitely not the argument I was making (or honestly one that I care about). If you leave the terms undefined then anything is possible, I'm restricting myself to pragmatic concerns only. 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:288511 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
