Can Science and Religion be reconciled? (ritual, rejecting, Creator, Darwin)

[Green Gaia]

Here is fine... :lol:

I suppose your definition of "religion" and ideas about what that should be would determine the answer to your question. Some in the UU church probably do not look at it as a religion, and prefer to think of it as a philosophy or spiritual journey. Most members of the UU church today come from other religions, so calling UUism a religion is Ok with some of them. Like just about everything in UUism, it's up to the individual. We do not believe that all UUs should have identical beliefs.

From UUA: What role does science play in your church?

We accept the teachings of science and the scientific method. UUs believe that the scientific principle that states there is always more truth to be discovered about our world, also applies to religion.

[Master Hoomer]

Science and religion were once intertwindd and will be again....

Occam's razor really doesnt say much....but I know people like to point to it..lol...

MODERN science increasingly re affirms ancient religious ideas.....

such as the religious idea that everything is in a state of constant flux...modern science knows this....a person's dna mutates thousands of times in 1 day.....

Science recently posited multi dimensional reality ....reigion posited this before the bible.....

Science speaks of the the small influencing the large...the butterfly effect......hermeticism spoke of this first.....

Science and religion are not seprate..and never were......and one day will be returned to a harmonious state.....

[Death]

Originally Posted by Master Hoomer

Occam's razor really doesnt say much....but I know people like to point to it..l

Occam's razor is the tool to choose between competing theories or reasoning by removal of unnecessary terms. For instance, life on earth by chemistry, or by god controlling chemistry...god is not known to exist, chemistry is, nobody knows how exactly this god would effect chemistry, and adding it explains nothing, as God happens to be inscruitible.

So for that reason it's removed, as the one based in nature and chemistry work as we know these things exist.

such as the religious idea that everything is in a state of constant flux...modern science knows this....a person's dna mutates thousands of times in 1 day.....

I can't find one reference to DNA in any religions predating the discovery of DNA. Same applies to QM. Unless of course, you mean things dying and changing, but pretty much everyone realises this, it's self evident and obvious.

Science recently posited multi dimensional reality ....reigion posited this before the bible.....

Really? Where?

Science speaks of the the small influencing the large...the butterfly effect......hermeticism spoke of this first.....

Again, this is obvious, as any child who plays with lego could explain.

Science and religion are not seprate

Wrong, look up the definitions of religion and science, you will notice they are quite seperate.

one day will be returned to a harmonious state.....

I doubt it, religion only survives by nature of it's deities being inscruitible, not real. Science describes what's real, religion wants to describe things it wishes existed.

[Master Hoomer]

Originally Posted by Death

Occam's razor is the tool to choose between competing theories or reasoning by removal of unnecessary terms. For instance, life on earth by chemistry, or by god controlling chemistry...god is not known to exist, chemistry is, nobody knows how exactly this god would effect chemistry, and adding it explains nothing, as God happens to be inscruitible.

So for that reason it's removed, as the one based in nature and chemistry work as we know these things exist.

Originally Posted by Death

Occams razor: This principle became known as Occam's Razor, a problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms.. the simplests answer is the truest...

this really holds water? REALLY?

I can't find one reference to DNA in any religions predating the discovery of DNA. Same applies to QM. Unless of course, you mean things dying and changing, but pretty much everyone realises this, it's self evident and obvious.

I said everything was in a state of flux..I used the exmple of DNA as something everyone would be familiar with..I could have said a person's epidermis..and mentioned how people lose skineverday and it is replaced....another example in scince of constant flux of reality..there are MANY more......

Really? Where?

ThSefer Yetzirah for ONE....the tree of life in Kabbalism can be used as a model of 5 dimensional space..and since there are realy 4..there are20 diimensional space in kabbalism...better yet there are actually infinite dimensions in kabblah

Again, this is obvious, as any child who plays with lego could explain. ...

lego explains the butterfly effect?

Wrong, look up the definitions of religion and science, you will notice they are quite seperate.

Once women weere thought to be incapable of rational thought...you afgree with this?
Dictionary definitions change and are fallable...

I doubt it, religion only survives by nature of it's deities being inscruitible, not real. Science describes what's real, religion wants to describe things it wishes existed.

WHAT is real????
What truly IS real....science makes MODELS it does NOT deal in absolutes

the observed cannot be removed from the observer

[Master Hoomer]

[quote="Death"]

Originally Posted by Master Hoomer

Occam's razor really doesnt say much....but I know people like to point to it..l

Occam's razor is the tool to choose between competing theories or reasoning by removal of unnecessary terms. For instance, life on earth by chemistry, or by god controlling chemistry...god is not known to exist, chemistry is, nobody knows how exactly this god would effect chemistry, and adding it explains nothing, as God happens to be inscruitible.

So for that reason it's removed, as the one based in nature and chemistry work as we know these things exist.

Occams razor: This principle became known as Occam's Razor, a problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms.. the simplests answer is the truest...

this really holds water? REALLY?

such as the religious idea that everything is in a state of constant flux...modern science knows this....a person's dna mutates thousands of times in 1 day.....

I can't find one reference to DNA in any religions predating the discovery of DNA. Same applies to QM. Unless of course, you mean things dying and changing, but pretty much everyone realises this, it's self evident and obvious.

I said everything was in a state of flux..I used the exmple of DNA as something everyone would be familiar with..I could have said a person's epidermis..and mentioned how people lose skineverday and it is replaced....another example in scince of constant flux of reality..there are MANY more......

Science recently posited multi dimensional reality ....reigion posited this before the bible.....

Really? Where?

ThSefer Yetzirah for ONE....the tree of life in Kabbalism can be used as a model of 5 dimensional space..and since there are realy 4..there are20 diimensional space in kabbalism...better yet there are actually infinite dimensions in kabblah

Science speaks of the the small influencing the large...the butterfly effect......hermeticism spoke of this first.....

Again, this is obvious, as any child who plays with lego could explain. ...

lego explains the butterfly effect?

Science and religion are not seprate

Wrong, look up the definitions of religion and science, you will notice they are quite seperate.

Once women weere thought to be incapable of rational thought...you afgree with this?
Dictionary definitions change and are fallable...

one day will be returned to a harmonious state.....

I doubt it, religion only survives by nature of it's deities being inscruitible, not real. Science describes what's real, religion wants to describe things it wishes existed

WHAT is real????
What truly IS real....science makes MODELS it does NOT deal in absolutes

the observed cannot be removed from the observer

[Death]

Originally Posted by Master Hoomer

Occams razor: This principle became known as Occam's Razor, a problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms.. the simplests answer is the truest...

this really holds water? REALLY?

Wrong, it's the simplest answer which explains everything the best, you have a strawman version of it, likely thanks to the film "contact".

I said everything was in a state of flux..I used the exmple of DNA as something everyone would be familiar with..I could have said a person's epidermis..and mentioned how people lose skineverday and it is replaced....another example in scince of constant flux of reality..there are MANY more......

So how is this profound? It's obvious from watching a windy field, let alone microscopic things.

ThSefer Yetzirah for ONE....the tree of life in Kabbalism can be used as a model of 5 dimensional space..and since there are realy 4..there are20 diimensional space in kabbalism...better yet there are actually infinite dimensions in kabblah

No, explain to me how they actually describe dimensionality please, not just say they do. It sounds like you're shoehorning what you'd like it to mean on what it does actually say.

lego explains the butterfly effect?

It shows how the existence of smaller things, or their absence can change an overall larger system.

Once women weere thought to be incapable of rational thought...you afgree with this?

Red herring.

Dictionary definitions change and are fallable...

Oh well, i guess if definitions can change we shouldn't use them and use yours, of course! :roll: The dictionary definitions are quite accurate, as well as neutral.

WHAT is real????
What truly IS real....science makes MODELS it does NOT deal in absolutes

the observed cannot be removed from the observer

A verifiable existence, something which objectively exists regardless of subjective thoughts on the matter. Not imaginary.

[Master Hoomer]

:lol: right this could go on forever...

I see no point in it...
So why bother....
Science accepts reality is an illusion it appears your faith in science is so srong it must be true.....

Personally I think science has its faults ..it has its good points...
A model works because you want it to work...
But then as a person faithful of scince do you actually deal with the nature of conciousness? no I doubt it....

Do I wish to continue this conversation..no not really whats the point...your mind has already decided..I could show you a cup..you wouldnt drink from it....

c'est la vie..up to you and up to me...
I realise you will think I am an idiot...but thats the price I pay I guess.. :lol: :shock: :shock:

spiritus domni replevit orbem terrarum

[ONEWAY]

:?: OK. Religion and Science, is it compatible? Well, first science would not be here if it were not for a creator, so the question may well be is there a creator? Absolutely! Now, before you sign out from reading on, let me ask you have you investigated each side of the question? To evolutionists, which believe there is no creator, your paradigm is shattered. FIRST, Darwin said that if evolution were to stand, there would be abundant fossil evidence for the transition from one species to another, macroevolution; however, there has not been one. Lucy, the nebraska man, and all other findings that were accumulated all have been found to be non-transitional fossils, hence they were completly ape, or pig,etc. All species have stayed within there kind: a snake is still a snake; a chicken (which according to fossil evidence says they should not exist) is still a chicken, etc. Not one transition in support of evolution to date, investigate you will see. SECOND, evolutionists try to fit all there findings with evolution, creationists all try to fit there findings with creation, however science (Neither evolution nor creation) looks at its findings objectively. Guess what? Science is finding evidence that is supporting creation. Seek and you will find. By the way faith is not blind, believing in something without thoroughly looking at the facts, is where one goes blind.

I'm not trying to offend, but loving lead all to the truth (Romans 10:9-10)

God bless

[ONEWAY]

Originally Posted by Engyo

Alaric -

If you want to get semantic about "truth" there are lots of places we can go. I participated in a seminar on healing racism once. I found that it is posible for two people involved in an exchange with each other to believe two separate and seemingly incompatible versions of what happened. Nevertheless, each version of the exchange is true, FOR THE PERSON THAT EXPERIENCED IT. For lack of a better term, this can be called perceptive truth.

I can say something to someone else, with no racist intent, no disrespectful intent and no hateful intent. Yet the person hearing my speech perceives that I have such intent. Whose perception is more true? Both agree on the exact words used during the exchange, yet there are at least two truths happening simultaneously. I say at least two, because if a 3rd person observes this exchange, he or she may have a different perception than either of the participants. Yet each version is true, for that individual.

These are different, obviously, from scientifically demonstrated objective "truth". I find that religious truth exists primarily in its effect on the individual's perceptions, thus placing it in the realm of perceptive truth, rather than objective truth.

Is that True?

[Alaric]

Originally Posted by ONEWAY

:?: Not one transition in support of evolution to date, investigate you will see.

The entire fossil record supports evolution, Oneway - you can see the species evolving over from one fossil to the next plain as the nose on your face. Psychology supports it, biology supports it - do you realise that kids have traits from their parents, that you are physically attracted to attractive people, and that thoroughbred race horses didn't come from a herd of wild thoroughbred race horses on the Asian steppe thousands of years ago?

But that's too easy. The question I have is: is your belief in Christianity based on scientific evidence? If someone proved that something is the Bible was wrong, would you stop believing until some Christian disproved it? You would be constantly going from belief to disbelief and back again. You would also have to admit that people who thought the scientific evidence supported atheism would be as justified in their belief as Christians or anyone else. I mean, it can be quite easy to reinterpret what the Bible says to allow for evolution. Would your belief be changed in any way if the world was older and God worked through evolution?