> -----Original Message----- > From: denstar [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:51 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: This saddens me > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Jim Davis wrote: > I'm basically picking on the usage of two words, "religion" and > "compromise". > > You seem to rail against the idea of a metaphysical reality, is all. > Claiming the two (physical and metaphysical) cannot coexist without > "giving up pieces of themselves", as it were.
An you seem to be defining neither. What is metaphysical? How does it differ from physical? My most definitions science simply doesn't allow for the metaphysical - for if the "metaphysical" were covered by scientific investigation then it would be either be a) "physical" or b) you would be compromising the definition of science. > You're positing only niche religions can coexist with Science? Are you > mad? :-) ALL religion can coexist with science - there's no question about that since, well, they DO. ;^) I'm saying that religion (as I've defined it) cannot reconcile with science without compromise. There's a vast, important difference between these two statements. Science and religion can "get along" by (simplistically) agreeing to disagree. There's no shame in that. > > "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." > > Ah, in the US of A. See-- I love religion, and science, and > philosophy, so my mind don't jump to "western" religions when I hear > da word "religion". :-)P We can even be clearer - forget the US, forget general definitions. World religion basically comes down to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Chinese Traditionalists and Buddhists - they account for about 80% of the population. Another 14% are "non religious" (with over 2% of that declared atheists). So (roughly) 94% of the world population falls into several broad categories with everybody else falling into a general mishmash of "niche" (no other single religion has more than 0.5%). Trolling WikiPedia I also found another clarification that attracted me: a list of "long established, major world religions, each with over three million followers": Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Vodou So "Western" or not - the story is similar. > I'm just being silly- I get (and got) what you mean, and I agree-- > fundamentalists are, um, difficult. To say the least - but in many senses fundamentalists are also the easiest to deal with: you know where you stand. You don't have to feel out the compromises made in an attempt to reconcile religion because there are none! ;^) > So I'm countering your statement (and basically just saying the cup is > half-full) that most mainstream religions in the US cannot coexist > with science without compromising values, by stating that if both are > "interpreted" right, there is no loss for either. Isn't "interpreted" just a synonym in this case for compromise? If you need to "interpret" for reconciliation then how is that different? > And not just saying "if they are, in some future world utopia type > deal", I'm stating they are right now, as both are "interpreted" > deals. "True reconciliation" being a not exactly clear term, of > course. But still-- there's got to be a lot of Christians (for > instance) who can finger out a way to interpret both the Bible > (whatever version, this is just an example) and the Principia > Mathematica (interesting choices, neh?;]) in a manner that doesn't > invalidate (some of?) either system. Now "invalidate" is the word that needs to be defined. ;^) But I would again counter that so many Christians are able to reconcile science because of compromises - the "figgering" you're talking about. There's no shame in it, but it must be done. As I recounted in the message to Maureen: is the Sun older than plant life on Earth? If you're a Christian and you say "Yes" then you've compromised the teachings of your faith. Perhaps, to your point, you've not violated it's "core" but that's nitpicking. I never said that the compromise had to be fundamental or destructive - but I still maintain that it has to happen. > So to sum it up, within your narrow definition of Religion, I'll give > you a "win" for "compromise". I'll also give you a "win" in the > "self-correction is the fundamental aspect of Science", even though > you never addressed my examples of "Scientists" who suffer the same > affliction you attribute to main-stream Religion in the US. HA! I'm > such a dork. I was just watching some t.v. station where the > religious dude was like "send us your money"... *sigh* you're right, > the situation is dire. We're fuxored! =] The simple answer to the scientists question is just that any particular scientist is not science. Anecdotal evidence is just that - anecdotal and not definitive. Bringing up closed minded scientists and claiming a failure of "Science" is just as non-productive as bringing up John Salvi and claiming a failure of "Christianity". My favorite quote in this respect still comes from Isaac Asimov's "Extraterrestrial Civilizations" when describing disputes in Science: "Such disputes can be quite nasty and polemical at times, for scientists are quite human, and any given individual among them can be, at times, petty, mean, vindictive - or simply stupid." But "Science", by design, works to eliminate the influence of negative individual traits. It's self-correcting - perhaps not quickly or efficiently self-correcting, but self-correcting nonetheless. > Damnit Jim, I like ya man, hope I haven't burnt you out. [= Not at all. As I get older (or, more specifically, as my kids get older) I'm becoming vastly more pragmatic in my explorations. When I was young I did the whole "searching" thing... my bookshelf is chockablock with religious texts, new age polemics and "enlightened" works. I may not appreciate them as I once did but I keep them nonetheless because I fully expect my kids to take similar paths. But right now I'm pragmatic. I'm working against the fact that religious views are putting my children's secular education in jeopardy and are undermining the fundamental ideals of my country by eliminating basic rights from those I love. But in addition to the practical issues there's also an important distinction here: I don't need the other stuff. The metaphysical stuff, the religion, the "higher purpose". I won't gainsay anybody that does - each to his own (as long as they mind their own damn business) but I don't. The world - the real, natural, testable, observable world, is full of such wonders, such majesty and joy that all the rest of that is (no pun intended) immaterial. (Not to stretch this out, but it does frustrate me to know end when people assume that atheists or humanists are "missing" something - that they are somehow less happy because of their materialist views. That's a myth that doesn't deserve surive.) 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:288792 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
