Why the divide between Science and Religion... (priest, ritual, moral)

[michel]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

Why would you think that? A cursory reading of post #14 shows that you've done nothing of the kind. This thread is on "the divide between science and religion". You bemoan "the extremists on both sides", though plaintively and always punctuated by some smiley. So, I ask once again: who are these extremist scientists?

Well, I think if you read my previous post that I tried to define the extremists as those who will only accept concepts that stem from their beliefs; the 'extreme' scientist would therefore be one who refuses to accept anything in life without proof. Just as the extremist theologiam would be the one who insists on taking every passage in the Bible as absolute, and not to be interpreted.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by michel

Well, I think if you read my previous post that I tried to define the extremists as those who ...

I'm sorry, michel, but I'm really fairly proficient at reading and quite confident that I understood what you wrote. But I didn't ask you to characterize these extremist scientists, i.e., I didn't ask you what they were but who they were. Now, yet again, who are these extreme scientists that you position on one side of the divide? It's an easy question.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

I'm sorry, michel, but I'm really fairly proficient at reading and quite confident that I understood what you wrote. But I didn't ask you to characterize these extremist scientists, i.e., I didn't ask you what they were but who they were. Now, yet again, who are these extreme scientists that you position on one side of the divide? It's an easy question.

Ah, you mean you want their names and addresses ?

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Ulver

I think conflict is created between Science and Religion due to the balance of two principals. These two being Reasoning (questioning) and Faith (accepting) in Truth.

It's simple really. Religion is subjective, and science deposes of what is entirely subjectivistic and anecdotal.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by michel

Ah, you mean you want their names and addresses ?

No, michel, I wanted juvenile sarcasm employed to avoid/evade the question. Thanks for coming through.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

No, michel, I wanted juvenile sarcasm employed to avoid/evade the question. Thanks for coming through.

I had already replied to your question twice; you were using your tactic of perpetually repeating the question because the answer you got was prsumably not the one you wwere after. If you really are interested in a clarification of what I answered, then please ask me, and I will do my best to answer - which as far as I am concerned, until my sarcastic comment, I had been doing.

[Victor]

The example I gave in post #96 seems like a fellow scientist who is extreme.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...143#post215143

~Victor

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by michel

Well, I think if you read my previous post that I tried to define the extremists as those who will only accept concepts that stem from their beliefs; the 'extreme' scientist would therefore be one who refuses to accept anything in life without proof.

Your definition of extreme would count for anyone who was hearing a different idea. Think of it this way, by your definition of extreme, a scientist has to believe ideas that he hears without any proof what so ever. So I could come up to the scientist and say that gravity wont work tomorrow, but I have no proof, if he isn't extreme, he will believe me. =)

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by michel

I only know of one or two extremists Deut - I would define an extremist as one who has tunnel vision and refuses to accept that there is any validity in the belief that is contrary to his/hers.

So if I do not accept that there is any validity in the belief that the Sun orbits the Earth, I am an extremist?