Lemme jump back in here to clarify things a bit... my belief system is at best "non traditional" and based entirely on my own introspection and observation, I don't subscribe to any particular denomination and really only attend church when I see my folks.... I am in no way shape or form a proponent of the pseudo - science of "Intelligent Design", it's simply an attempt to inject Dominionist "values" into public schools.
I don't think accepting science and a belief system is a compromise of either, unless you're one who is an atheist or one who takes religious text as absolute empirical fact. Jim Davis wrote: >> -----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:288796 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
