I was going to respond to Orn's long and well stated post, but ironically (and not drippingly), you Vam came back and asserted the very thing I was stating. The timing couldn't be any better.
So, I'll start out by responding to you, Vam. No, I don't see science as being everything, or religion being nothing. I see science as a method for understanding things which can be empirically understood given our level of comprehension, and ability to measure and observe. From my godless heathen scientific viewpoint, I see religion as a useful social function, which helps establish social mores and traditions, record histories, and provide a general social purpose. Now, on to Orn's point. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Vamadevananda <[email protected]>wrote: > " Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and > resists (by default) changes to the ideology.” - chris > > I would suggest that that is why we have science and we have religion. > After all, where do you go if you are looking for completion ? We > have religion, so that we can go to it if we are looking for to > complete ourself ! > > If Chris means to reveal his own value system, by saying that he sees > science as being everything and religion as being nothing, or that > science is superior to religion ... I see no reason for quibble. I > could hold differently in this regard and I am sure he would the first > to permit me the freedom to have and hold " my " own value system ! > > On Jan 30, 12:59 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > “…Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists > > (by default) changes to the ideology.” – chris > > > > “I know of precious few religions that make such a claim. Almost no > > one claims to know what god actually is.” – orn > > > > “Christianity Judaism Islam Hindu Shinto Say again?” – chris > > > > OK, since you are not making a claim with the above question, I’ll > > assume that you meant to imply that those religions “claim > > completeness, and resists (by default) changes to the ideology.” If > > you didn’t mean to imply this, then one can ignore the rest of my post > > and you can clarify what, if anything, you were saying. > > > > To save time, I’ll go into the topic in detail so that most of my > > assumptions will not have to be ferreted out. > > I’ll also repost a little more of your original post for the context: > > “A notable difference between scientific thought and religious thought > > is that scientific thought does not in any way claim to be complete; > > it is ever evolving and growing as the volume of total observations > > grows. Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and > > resists (by default) changes to the ideology.” - chris > > > > As I’ve pointed out numerous times over the years, there is no > > religion (in the context of our current discussion) that is separate > > from the notions and thoughts of people. The same is true for science. > > You even used the terms ‘scientific thought’ and ‘religious thought’ > > above. So, with that as a given, we can continue. > > > > As a quick aside, I find it strange to take the role of an apologist > > for religion(s)…not adhering to a specific theology nor embracing > > faith nor revelation as stated earlier…and clearly not even being near > > the ‘creationist’ that you so rudely attempted to impose upon me. > > Continuing… > > > > As far as I know, there is no monolithic point of view of any of the > > theologies you listed Chris. I’m sure you have some thoughts about > > each as do I. Also, millions of other people have their own subjective > > views of each ‘religion’ (or, more accurately, ‘religious thought’) > > too…each having their own spin. Yes, I know that there are specific > > tenets involved. Some would embrace the ten commandments. Others would > > embrace sheria law. The list could continue for a long time, no? And, > > in almost every if not actually every case, there would be those who > > disagree with the tenets listed. This is what I mean by no monolithic > > view or thought about any religion. Yes, we do each have some vague > > set of beliefs about what these religions consist of…yet when > > examined, there is no full agreement at all about any of them. > > > > Your original claim had to do with a comparison between scientific > > thought and religious thought… making the proposition that they > > differed in that the former makes no claims as to being complete while > > the latter does. > > > > It is true that many scientists will change their beliefs if and when > > other scientists present a better model and/or experiment methodology > > showing a preferable reality. So, in this way scientific thought can > > change over time. There may be examples to the contrary, but that > > would be for a different topic. > > > > It is also true that some religious thinkers are rigid when it comes > > to some of their beliefs about reality. > > > > Now we come to your specific claim about ‘completeness’…a notion that > > is not clearly defined. So, I hope you will excuse me if my guess as > > to your meaning does not quite fit, OK? When you changed your terms > > from ‘religious thought’ to ‘religion’, a subtle difference was > > possibly introduced. By using ‘religion’, it may appear to be easier > > to imply and/or impose a monolithic point of view upon some nebulous > > ‘thing’ rather than individual thinkers. So, this is my first point… > > there is no pure religious thought just as there is no pure ideology > > when it comes to practice let alone human expression of their thinking > > thereof. I can list examples even though I’m in no way an expert on > > religion and I’m sure you could to. I have Muslim friends who > > completely disagree with the views and actions of the more radical > > ‘terrorist’ types…and I would hazard a guess that the reverse is true > > too. And here, I’m not even addressing other Muslim sects such as > > Sufis…who’s views are rejected by many too. The obvious examples in > > Christianity are legion. Every way of thinking exists…from Catholic > > views to Protestant, from Baptist to Charismatic, from Universalists > > to KKK members…all claiming to be ‘Christians’ when it comes to their > > belief systems. Jewish thinking can be found to be Orthodox or > > Reformed along with countless other verities of viewpoints too. I’m > > not an expert on Hindus but would hazard a guess that the same is true > > there as with Shinto thought too. > > > > So, since there is and *always* has been divergent thinking when it > > comes to theological ideology, clearly there can be no valid claim > > when it comes to any sort of ‘completeness’…that is as long as one > > doesn’t include the ‘completeness’ of human thinkers being different > > and always changing. > > > > Now perhaps you meant some sort of ‘official’ view of what any given > > religious thinking *should be*. This of course is a different issue. > > And, one could take the Catholic church and it’s pope as an example > > and point out many of the numerous changes in their tenets that have > > been promulgated over even the last few decades. Different Muslim > > Imams are known to do the same as are Jewish rabbis. Again, since my > > knowledge about religions in general is slim, I will only hazard a > > guess that the last two are similar. > > > > So, one can only conclude that in reality, ‘religions’ do not make the > > claims as to being ‘complete’ as you say they do Chris. Now I do > > understand that it is a common atheistic tactic to impose authority > > and thinking upon ‘religious thinkers’, but it just doesn’t match > > reality. > > > > Now you may have noticed that I originally said that I knew of > > ‘precious few religions that make such a claim’. And that the > > qualifier of ‘few’ was used because, in fact, I know of none but do > > not presume to know about all religions and their members and their > > religious thinking. So, there in fact may be some. I just don’t know > > of any. > > > > I followed this up with something I’m not sure has been addressed or > > not. And that was that “Almost no one claims to know what god actually > > is.” Perhaps Pat is one exception. Perhaps there is the religious > > thinker her and there who hold tight to some sort of belief as to the > > exact nature of the divine, but again, even the most central point of > > theologies includes an area always ripe for discussion and examination > > for those so interested. In fact, I do find such ‘changes’ in thinking > > over the ages to be quite similar to how scientific thinking evolves. > > One merely finds a preferable model to impose upon what is perceived > > to be real. > > > > I hope that you don’t decide to just attack my last paragraph instead > > of the rest of this post. I know this last isn’t fully thought out yet… > > but did want to address all of my original post. > > > > On Jan 29, 10:36 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Christianity > > > Judaism > > > Islam > > > Hindu > > > Shinto > > > > > Say again? > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:34 PM, ornamentalmind < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > “…Religion, on > > > > the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists (by default) > > > > changes to > > > > the ideology.” – chris > > > > > > I know of precious few religions that make such a claim. Almost no > one > > > > claims to know what god actually is. > > > > > > On Jan 29, 6:38 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Is this correct Chris? There is no faith required in an emprical > > > > > > stance? > > > > > > > > I don't think it is you know. We all belive that the Earth > revolves > > > > > > around the sun despite not having personaly conducted any > experiments > > > > > > ourselves. We belive instead the data from those who have > perfomed > > > > > > such experiments. > > > > > > > > So then I personly have no experiance of the above yet it is > > > > > > certianly what I belive to be true. I must belive it because I > trust > > > > > > the works of others, there is a little faith in that surley? > > > > > > > Aha!, he says...I've got him! But not so much, my friend. This is > the > > > > same > > > > > argument that's been bandied about forever; I'm surprised you don't > have > > > > my > > > > > response memorized. In scientific axioms, we do accept that the > data > > > > > provided by someone else is accurate. We have the option, however, > to > > > > > approach that experiment for ourselves, and measure and test those > axioms > > > > > using the scientific process. The hallmark of empirical observation > is > > > > > reproducibility, and we know that a billion times out of a billion, > > > > dropping > > > > > this rock in my controlled laboratory will result in it landing on > the > > > > > floor. Ah, but wait! Isn't it possible that on the billion and > first try, > > > > it > > > > > might float? We have a certain surety in our empirical processes > due to > > > > the > > > > > reproduction factor, but since we accept that our knowledge is not > > > > absolute, > > > > > we (or our proxies) continue to study and test the data, perform > more > > > > > complex observation, and keep a healthy sense of skepticism with > regards > > > > to > > > > > ALL of our learned scientific knowledge. > > > > > > > A notable difference between scientific thought and religious > thought is > > > > > that scientific thought does not in any way claim to be complete; > it is > > > > ever > > > > > evolving and growing as the volume of total observations grows. > Religion, > > > > on > > > > > the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists (by default) > changes > > > > to > > > > > the ideology. > > > > > > > > To love also, yes we can see and test emotions, but as every > teenager > > > > > > will know some times when a person say 'I love you' they may not > be > > > > > > telling the truth. I am loved, my wife oves me, of this I > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
