1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Who forbade to mix Religion and Science?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by questfortruth, Jun 10, 2019.

  1. dianaiad

    dianaiad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,544
    Ratings:
    +794
    Religion:
    LDS (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints)
    Well, not if one believes that God actually tells us stuff like this. You know, why He made it, what we need to do to be good people...

    I think that it would be presumptuous of us to decide that He could, and would, not communicate those things.

    Of course, that does raise many questions, but basically, most religions do have some hint/belief that God actually tells us things.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    592
    Ratings:
    +113
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    The attempt to heal the old separation
    between heart (faith) and mind (science).
    Everyone has the right to choose.
    But not a sinful choice! The God
    of the Bible cursed those who chose
    sin! Freedom is defined as action
    within God's laws. That is why even ordinary
    criminals are not free, but instead sit in prisons.
     
  3. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    45,008
    Ratings:
    +13,779
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    It is also about the lack of merits of either, as well as about how fallacious it is to talk of "religion" as a whole.

    But above all, it is about how unbelievably silly and insane it is to even consider presenting "religion" as a challenge or "necessary balance" for science.

    Far too often "religion" is used as code for "license to be irrational and expect to get away with it".

    We really should not suffer that anymore. All the more so if we happen to value religion, as I do.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  4. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian
    [/QUOTE]

    Folklorist Alan Dundes defines myth as a sacred narrative that explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form.

    Dundes classified a sacred narrative as "a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture by explaining aspects of the natural world and delineating the psychological and social practices and ideals of a society".

    Anthropologist Bruce Lincoln defines myth as "ideology in narrative form."
     
  5. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian

    Until the seventeenth or eighteenth century, mythology was used to mean a moral, fable, allegory or a parable, or collection of traditional stories, understood to be false.

    It came eventually to be applied to similar bodies of traditional stories among other polytheistic cultures around the world
     
  6. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    11,249
    Ratings:
    +5,331
    Religion:
    None
    We get sarcasm just fine. Creationists dont understand
    self parody. Or no, they understand how to do it.
    but they are dead serious!

    Creos say such stupid things as your "sarcasm",
    all the time!*

    Hence "Poe's Law"

    *should anyone think there is something too outlandish
    for even a creo to say, well, we give you "flash frozen
    mammoths" as a aby product of the 'flood", and, that
    the extra water from said flood was wafted to Neptune
    where it shines to this day as a warning beacon against,
    yes, incoming rogue angels.
     
    #46 Audie, Jun 11, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian
    What is Scientism?

    Excerpt:

    Scientism of Today
    Scientism today is alive and well, as evidenced by the statements of our celebrity scientists:

    “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” –Carl Sagan, Cosmos

    “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” –Stephen Weinburg, The First Three Minutes

    “We can be proud as a species because, having discovered that we are alone, we owe the gods very little.” –E.O. Wilson, Consilience

    While these men are certainly entitled to their personal opinions and the freedom to express them, the fact that they make such bold claims in their popular science literature blurs the line between solid, evidence-based science, and rampant philosophical speculation.

    Whether one agrees with the sentiments of these scientists or not, the result of these public pronouncements has served to alienate a large segment of American society.

    And that is a serious problem, since scientific research relies heavily upon public support for its funding, and environmental policy is shaped by lawmakers who listen to their constituents.

    From a purely pragmatic standpoint, it would be wise to try a different approach.

    Physicist Ian Hutchinson offers an insightful metaphor for the current controversies over science:

    “The health of science is in fact jeopardized by scientism, not promoted by it. At the very least, scientism provokes a defensive, immunological, aggressive response from other intellectual communities, in return for its own arrogance and intellectual bullyism. It taints science itself by association.” (13)
     
  8. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian
    Most kids are asking where babies come from by the time they are 8 years old.
     
  9. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    11,249
    Ratings:
    +5,331
    Religion:
    None

    I do not doubt that "scientism' does exist; there
    is no end to human silliness.
    It is though, imo, wildly overdiagnosed, as by one
    of out posters who claims it is allover RF, yet he
    will not (cannot) id any specifics.

    As for what Sagan said, you can take it as
    "scientism" if you are determined to. To me, it
    reads in more awkward prose as, "the sum of
    all there is or could be is called the cosmos."

    Sorry, but I also fail to detect "scientism" in the
    other quotes either.

    "We owe the gods" a saving rain for crops,
    a typhoon to repel the Mongols, a son in the
    family, recovery from snakebite?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian
    Perhaps those aren't the best examples.

    What is the goal of education? Is it to pass knowledge down to the next generation?

    Scientism is an accusation to denigrate science and scientists.
     
  11. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    11,249
    Ratings:
    +5,331
    Religion:
    None
    We do not require degrees to do anything. They are not
    capable of doing anything.



    Now of course what you meant to ask
    was whether one must have a degree in
    order to be able to "obtain" knowledge.

    Of course, the answer to said rhetorical
    question is no, and that the q was irrelevant
    and pointless.

    When one such as the opster posts about
    his grand knowledge exceeding that of anyone
    else, it is not inappropriate to ask about his
    formal education.
    The storied Einstein did have a solid educational
    background, after all.

    What we have with the op is the equivalent of a
    7 yr old seeing a chalkboard covered with equations
    who says it is all fake, and dumb.

    "What degrees in math do you hold, boy?"
    would
    be an appropriate question.

    The creationist-style answer from out clever child
    would be-
    Why? Coz math is done with numbers, and those are just
    squiggles!!


    Oh and btw... you need to money, to make money and
    you need education to obtain an education.

    If you do not believe me-

    Go sit in on a 400 level chemistry class and
    see how much you get out of it! :D
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian

    Soon every crackpot theory that had adherents enough to start a lobby would have to be included. Here's a probable list:

    1. Astrology would be granted equal time with astronomy.
    2. Pyramid power would be matched side-by-side with modern physics.
    3. Divining rod technology would be taken seriously for the benefit of future oil geologists and hydraulic engineers.
    4. The toxemia theory and Christian Science "negative thinking" theory of disease would get equal time with the germ theory.
    5. The flat earth theory would get equal mention with the space program.
    Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught As Science
     
  13. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    496
    Ratings:
    +189
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Science, such as cosmology, does include religion, but it is not called this. For example, dark matter and dark energy are inferred from large scale affects we observe within the universe. However, neither dark energy or dark matter have been proven to be real in the lab. Cosmology is still using an invisible and unproven set of godlike forces, that cannot be proven in the lab, to animate the heavens. Atheism conveniently does not call this a form of religion, even though the principles of science specifically require proof in the lab.

    If I attributed the same observational movement of the matter of the universe, not to dark matter and dark energy, but to the breath of God, but I could not show God's breath in the lab, atheism would react differently to the exact same scenario of no lab proof. They do not like strange gods before their gods. They will play by dual standards. If this was pure science, the dark energy and dark natter would be expelled, until lab proof appears. But faith in a foreign god makes this hard to do; selective gods.

    In terms of Einstein theories of Relativity, this theory has more of a connection to our visual observation field, than to tangible matter. Newton's theory dealt more with tangible matter. Getting hit in the head with an apple is different from observing the apple at the top of the tree that you cannot reach.

    Let me give a simple example of the contrast. If you look at a large mass objective such as a star, General relativity; GR, which deals with gravity, has space-time contracted the most in the center of gravity. Time slows the most in the center of gravity. This is basic. If we ignore the matter and draw a space-time grid this is how the math adds up.

    [​IMG]

    On the hand, the core of a star is where solar fusion occurs. This is the place where gravity causes matter to compress, phase change, and vibrate the fastest. It is also where energy emissions have the fastest frequency; gamma rays. The matter and energy in the center, is actually speeding up due to gravity; to faster frequency, even though Einstein GR says times should be slowing in terms of space-time. Time is not coordinating properly between the vibrational nature of matter, and a visual overlay grid model of space-time. They go in opposite directions.

    The core of the earth is supposedly made of solid metallic iron. However, the core of the earth is so hot that the iron should be a liquid. The pressure is causing the iron to remain a solid. At the level of distance, GR, says distance will contract, while Newtonian predicts the same thing; denser matter. Newtonian assumptions are better at inferring detailed analysis of district material phases.

    Although both theories have distance going in the same direction, time is going in the opposite for each theory. This implies two independent time vectors. Relativity and Newtonian each uses one of the two time vectors. Einstein found the second. The two time vectors, could have been inferred from Newtonian acceleration, due to gravity, which has dimensions of d/t/t or is one part distance and two parts time. Relativity needs a Newtonian time vector upgrade to get the second time vector. This way science can eliminate some observational faith based gods.
     
    #53 wellwisher, Jun 11, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
  14. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    11,249
    Ratings:
    +5,331
    Religion:
    None
    As noted it is real hard to find any examples.

    Education has a number of goals, but that is OT.

    In the absence of any sufficient knowledge of science
    in general, or of course "evolution" specifically, our
    anti science types concoct various issues and
    terms to use.

    I am well aware of the use of the word "scientism"
    as a pejorative. I was a bit surprised to see you
    joining in.
     
  15. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    11,249
    Ratings:
    +5,331
    Religion:
    None
    We do not doubt for a moment that you believe
    cosmology involves god / religion.
    It is what believers do; they believe things.
    And of course, they see "god" everywhere.

    Example:
    Autumn, strolling across campus with another girl.
    A nice leaf flutters to our feet, she picks it up.
    "Look", she says "It is a Sign from God, the three
    parts represent the Trinity!"
     
  16. Native

    Native Natural Philosopher

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,561
    Ratings:
    +192
    Religion:
    Animism
    Aren´t we a bit patronizing now?

    The advantage of being self-educated is the possibility to think freely and out of the squared boxes of consensus dogmatism and find new solutions.

    Long long before any of the modern scientific education system, all knowledge was based on personal philosophical thoughts and empirical observations and inspirations.

    In some scientific branches, for instants the subject of "cosmology" and it´s different theories, the scientists don´t understand what´s really going on. Which don´t hinder the scientists to add much speculative "garbage in and garbage out".
     
  17. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian
    To take a look at what scientism means?
     
  18. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian
    Up to about the 17 century anyway..


    So, in the context of a basic education system that recognizes the existence of knowledge and a body of professionals who have a consensus on some subjects, the introduction of "scientific creationism" into the science classroom would only open a can-of-worms. Soon every crackpot theory that had adherents enough to start a lobby would have to be included. Here's a probable list:

    1. Astrology would be granted equal time with astronomy.
    2. Pyramid power would be matched side-by-side with modern physics.
    3. Divining rod technology would be taken seriously for the benefit of future oil geologists and hydraulic engineers.
    4. The toxemia theory and Christian Science "negative thinking" theory of disease would get equal time with the germ theory.
    5. The flat earth theory would get equal mention with the space program.
    It would be easy to go on, but let's stop and detail this last one just to show how serious the issue really is and how similar the demands of these other theorists might be to those of the creationists.
     
  19. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    11,249
    Ratings:
    +5,331
    Religion:
    None
    Um, you were finding fault in people as ones
    displaying "scientism" and posting that it is
    somehow a big problem.

    Chimera, maybe, but big problem? Show me
    an example, and lets see if it is.

    One of our "philosophers" here sees scientism all over
    RF. Do you?
     
  20. sooda

    sooda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    8,633
    Ratings:
    +2,606
    Religion:
    Christian
    Scientism is defined as excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. Yes, I do see the scientism put down frequently on RF.
     
Loading...