For those who think science and christianity can tolerate each other

[FunctionalAtheist]

If science and religion address separate realms of knowledge, and can possibly coexist, then we end up with

God created man in his own image (religious knowledge)
Man is an ape (scientific fact)

Therefore god is an ape!

Discuss!

 

[LuisDantas]

Religion isn't so much about knowledge as it is about expression of values and use of certain kind of knowledge, IMO.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Religion isn't so much about knowledge as it is about expression of values and use of certain kind of knowledge, IMO.

Yes. But there are those that claim both are sources of knowledge, or in my terms standards of truth.

How can a person believe we are created in god's image, and believe that we are apes, and not believe that god is an ape?

I'm trying to point out inconsistency in the view that both religion and science are sources of knowledge.

For those that believe religion is about values and not knowledge, this post takes no issue.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes. But there are those that claim both are sources of knowledge, or in my terms standards of truth.

Yes, there are. And that is just silly. Boggles the mind.

How can a person believe we are created in god's image, and believe that we are apes, and not believe that god is an ape?

In that specific case, I believe most who do center on the idea that humanity has some sort of divinely-originated soul.

I'm trying to point out inconsistency in the view that both religion and science are sources of knowledge.

For those that believe religion is about values and not knowledge, this post takes no issue.

Ok then.

 

[Glaurung]

If science and religion address separate realms of knowledge, and can possibly coexist, then we end up with

More accurately, religion is not so much concerned with the facts concerning the functioning of the material world, but the spiritual truths expounded by the religion and how to align oneself to that truth.

That's not to say that people haven't and don't try to fit the facts of our material world to fit under their interpretation of their religious convictions. But most of the time it's simply a problem of interpretation rather than the religion itself. YEC for example, is mostly confined to fringe protestant groups in America.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

More accurately, religion is not so much concerned with the facts concerning the functioning of the material world, but the spiritual truths expounded by the religion and how to align oneself to that truth.

That's not to say that people haven't and don't try to fit the facts of our material world to fit under their interpretation of their religious convictions. But most of the time it's simply a problem of interpretation rather than the religion itself. YEC for example, is mostly confined to fringe protestant groups in America.

But then what is the standard of this spiritual truth? A standard, like a yardstick, or a thermometer, or a photograph, or a rational argument, that reveals the truth. For something to be 'true' it should be discernible by any one who applies the appropriate standard. If different people get different answers, using the same methodology, then is it really truth? Or is it opinion at best, supposition, or something else?

Now if one's purpose with religion is truly to align oneself, then I find that acceptable, not particularly rational or irrational. However, when one attempts to align others, based on 'truth' that can't be demonstrated by a standard, I have issues.

For instance, I personally can't for the life of me understand homosexuality. But when I compare that with trying to control other peoples lives based on my own 'truth', I find that both irrational and immoral.

If I understand religion as some kind of objective truth, I can justify anything without demonstrating the knowledge. Just look at one or two of the posters on this site that are 100% sure of themselves without anyone else having any idea where there so called knowledge comes from.

Thanks for responding.

 

[psychoslice]

I feel we are like the shadow of god, that is while we believe we are separate, when we are enlightened and realize that we are One in God, then we are truly the image of God, the image is all there is, there is not anything that isn't the image.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is our souls and our capacity for rational thought and free will that are created in His image, not our physical bodies.

 

[Glaurung]

But then what is the standard of this spiritual truth?

That depends on what your beliefs are. Obviously my standard is going to be different from others.

then is it really truth? Or is it opinion at best, supposition, or something else?

I'm using the word truth to talk about the principals and beliefs of which those of a religion believe to be true. You've got to understand the context of the word here. Asking me if those truths are true is a misunderstanding of what I'm actually talking about.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I feel we are like the shadow of god, that is while we believe we are separate, when we are enlightened and realize that we are One in God, then we are truly the image of God, the image is all there is, there is not anything that isn't the image.

If I imagine the best person I could be, and I act like him, then I am just as good as any religious person every wanted to be.

But it is not being one with an objective morality or god that produces this image of man's divinity. It is being one with the subjective communal moral judgments of humanity, which have changed and grown and improved over the centuries, that produces the enlightened man.

The image of enlightenment never assumes it knows all, never sees in black and white. It always sees in shades of gray.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

It is our souls and our capacity for rational thought and free will that are created in His image, not our physical bodies.

Fair enough. Thanks

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

That depends on what your beliefs are. Obviously my standard is going to be different from others.



I'm using the word truth to talk about the principals and beliefs of which those of a religion believe to be true. You've got to understand the context of the word here. Asking me if those truths are true is a misunderstanding of what I'm actually talking about.

It's a subjective truth? Rather than an objective truth? I can understand that so long as it is used to align oneself, and not used to attempt to align another. My issue is with those who somehow perceive their subjective truth as somehow objectively applicable to others.

 

[Glaurung]

It's a subjective truth? Rather than an objective truth?

No, I'd dare say most Christians, Muslims and Jews believe their religions to be objective truths.

What I'm saying is that, whatever they assert, within the context of talking about those religions, they are the truths of those religions. Whether or not their tenets are actually true is another question.

My original point is that for the most part, religious truths are not terribly concerned with the facts that science is concerned with. Conflict occurs, when you are dealing with interpretations of certain religious truths that are probably errant.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If science and religion address separate realms of knowledge, and can possibly coexist, then we end up with

God created man in his own image (religious knowledge)
Man is an ape (scientific fact)

Therefore god is an ape!

Discuss!

I love the way you put that!

Unfortunately I personally disagree. Comparing religion and science is comparing apples and oranges. The conclusions may differ, but there are different ways of coming to those conclusions.

Actually, I would even say that religion ISN'T a method for conclusions, philosophy is. Philosophy's method differs from that of science; one uses logic and the other uses experiment. In reality, they both should never contradict or else they are not defining the same reality (and therefore there is something wrong in the method itself), and that is true. But the same conclusion can't (always) be reached by the other method, reason being they use two different premises.

If religion has a method, it is more similar to philosophy's method than science's method. The conclusions reached should never contradict, but at the same time a conclusion from religion can't (always) be reached by the method from science.

In that way, religion is an approach to describing another layer of the description of things. It's hard to pinpoint what specific layer because there would be so much disagreement by the religious community. While that layer will therefore remain undefined, most will agree that layer is termed the spiritual layer. Science is the physical layer.


As for philosophy vs religion, in my opinion, philosophy is conclusions reached on the logic layer of reality, the mind, knowledge, logos. And like I said, most would term the layer religion's conclusions are reached on are the spiritual. The reason why philosophy and religion are nearly, if not completely indistinguishable is the same reason the psyche and the soul are nearly indistinguishable. There are some that would and there are other that wouldn't think of the psyche as different from the soul. Us perceiving the physical world moreover the other two have soft touches on the other two and so it is not clear, they are both abstract and both very distant, so they appear similar and perhaps they are exactly the same.

When religion starts defining physical reality, that's when it stops making sense, because religion's method is incorrect for physical reality and is only correct for spiritual reality. In that way man's species can be ape and his being can be in God's image.

 

[Thana]

If science and religion address separate realms of knowledge, and can possibly coexist, then we end up with

God created man in his own image (religious knowledge)
Man is an ape (scientific fact)

Therefore god is an ape!

Discuss!

I know that you know that 'Made in His Image' doesn't mean literally made to physically look like him or have His physical characteristics so I don't know why you wrote this.

 

[George-ananda]

God created man in his own image (religious knowledge)
Man is an ape (scientific fact)

Therefore god is an ape!

Seriously dude

 

[s2a]

If science and religion address separate realms of knowledge, and can possibly coexist, then we end up with

God created man in his own image (religious knowledge)
Man is an ape (scientific fact)

Therefore god is an ape!

Discuss!

Grasp a hold of the idea that Belief has nothing at all to do with fact.

Belief is a choice.

When belief coincides with fact, then you have trouble

 

[oldbadger]

For those who think science and christianity can tolerate each other

The above statement is flawed, because 'science' and 'christianity' can't feel or think.
Try :-
For those who think Scientists and Christians can tolerate each other
..... and immediately it becomes easy for me to identify that the above groups can be the same people, or separate and tolerant.

That was easy...

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Grasp a hold of the idea that Belief has nothing at all to do with fact.

Belief is a choice.

When belief coincides with fact, then you have trouble

If belief is a choice, can you choose to believe in Santa Clause?

If that isn't belief, what is?

 

[s2a]

If belief is a choice, can you choose to believe in Santa Clause?

Of course you can.

If that isn't belief, what is?

Any "belief" that causes you to believe that "wishing" makes things happen, or may/should come true if you wish it to be so, really, really hard.

Like Santa...

Just don't tell all those earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, asteroid strikes, war, volcanoes, et al... that some things just happen, and that all the wishing in the world can will not prevent, without killing someone else in your/their place.

Amen.