Who forbade to mix Religion and Science?

[sooda]

Please show what Native American story there is about the scablands being the result of ancient floods.

The rejection of Bretz's concept was, in part, because Bretz could not propose a source for the massive amounts of water needed to produce the landscape. If there was no water source, then science was correct in setting aside the concept.

The channeled scablands were scoured by more than 40 cataclysmic floods during the Last Glacial Maximum and innumerable older cataclysmic floods over the last two million years.

These cataclysmic floods were repeatedly unleashed when a large glacial lake repeatedly drained and swept across eastern Washington and down the Columbia River Plateau during the Pleistocene epoch.

The last of the cataclysmic floods occurred between 18,200 and 14,000 years ago.

continued

Channeled Scablands - Wikipedia

 

[sooda]

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."

That's pretty much correct...and you will note that none of those definitions/explanations require the definition of 'mythology' as used here, pretty much meaning 'false drivel and fairy stories that should be utterly dismissed as unworthy of examining.'

Because they ARE worth examining, and studying. What mythology is NOT, is a text on how volcanoes operate and why Yellowstone National Park may or may not erupt in the next century or so. Even if it is called 'vulcanology.'

Just as an examination, by ultra sound and x-rays and tectonic collection devices is a very good way of examining Yellowstones possible geological effects, that examination is a lousy way to examine the ways of the native Americans who have lived around there for millenia.

It's a really good idea, too, to not utterly close oneself off from learning things BECAUSE the 'other side' is the 'other side.'

One might think about the scab lands of eastern Washington, and how long it took scientists to get over their distaste of catastrophic geological events (such as floods) so that they could figure out that the ancient flood stories of the native Americans might be accounts of actual events; that the scab lands really are the result of one...and more than one...catastrophic flood, such as is spoken of in mythology. Accepting that sometimes this happens is NOT the same thing as swallowing the tale of Noah whole.

One must be very careful NOT to utterly dismiss information from the 'other side,' BECAUSE it is from 'the other side.'

One must be very careful about what one does with it, but...???

But religion is religion. Science is science. One does not use a teaspoon to measure how hot a Death Valley summer is.
One does not use a kitchen scale to measure the age of a tree. Nor does one throw that scale away. It IS useful for its proper purpose.

....and you should not dismiss one of these out of hand just "because."[/QUOTE]

American Indians have no single unifying mythology, Pretty much every tribe has its own story.

You want to teach children tribal lore in schools instead of biology and chemistry?

Americans are already way behind in science and math.

The Scablands were created a million years ago. There were NO American Indians.

 

[ecco]

The same people who resist the coupling of spirituality and rationality (against religious superstitions and empty ritualism) are those who resist the integration of intuitive science and the spiritual cult.
Such people promote religious dogma and stagnation and are the enemies of human progress.

In your humble opinion.

 

[ChristineM]

....????
Of course it does. "Science" (defined here as a system of opinion/belief that does not include religious/theistic based explanations for anything) and religion (or 'supernatural' 'mythology' or 'faith') both attempt to answer the same questions.


It's just that you like the one and disparage the other.

As for 'faith,' the scientific method works with faith all the time. Sheesh.

"Faith,' means 'trust.'

"Science" works on probabilities...which requires faith. There is very, very little absolute knowledge out there, and scientists will be the first to tell you that.


As for 'mythology,' I do wish you would actually work with the definitions that belong to the words. "Mythology" means, basically, 'creation stories" for the culture in which they occur. There is no requirement that mythology be false. In fact, most mythology, even if not scientifically factual, ends up being 'true,' in that it teaches morals and cultural ideals important to the group.

As for science not dealing with the supernatural....that's the biggest load of bunkum I've seen posted here yet. OF COURSE it deals with the 'supernatural.' The whole point of scientific learning and experimentation is to look at the unknown and make it 'known,' or understandable in terms of natural laws as presently accepted...or if that can't be done, to adjust our understanding of physical laws so that we can fold these events within them.

There is, IMO, no such thing as 'supernatural.' Only 'natural' things we don't know about yet.

To determine that 'science' is somehow too good, or too 'smart,' or whatever to LOOK at this stuff is to utterly stop learning.

I have no more patience for those 'scientists' who refuse to look at anything with so much as a hint of 'God did it' or "I dunno.." than I do with the young earth creationist flat earthers who refuse to look past Genesis.

[/QUOTE]

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science did not define the definition, linguists did.

Nope, the scientific method does not work for faith, for a start how can you peer review and validate what is in an individual's mind?

Yes faith means trust,it does not mean it is true or valid

Science works on accuracy and verification, see definition above

Mythology : a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.

Myth : a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events

Sorry,i work with accepted definitions, i do not make them up to suit my sensibilities.

Bunkum tell science and world renowned universities that
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Particularly note the section entitled

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations​

Just because you confuse what is as yet unknown with supernatural is not my problem nor the problem of science.

To determine what??? Again you are confused as to what science is

Show god exists and then science will no doubt investigate some of the claims made for god. As it stands there is nothing to investigate and i have no patience for deliberate ignorance.

 

[siti]

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.

The problem with revelation...whether or not it is really God speaking...is whatever information is passed on through revelation has to pass through the limited intellectual capacities of the human receiver...so my point remains valid even if God really speaks to us I think. How could an incomprehensible deity convey 'his' 'thoughts' to humans except in terms that limit the description (but not the reality) to what the human intellect would be able to understand? So any 'why' answers, whether 'revealed' or 'discovered', must confine our conceptions of 'God's motives' within human limitations. Presumably, it therefore remains presumptuous to presume that any such answer is not presumptuous but somehow, in some respect or to some extent, definitive and complete. That 'the Lord moves in mysterious ways' is presumably about as much as we can honestly presume about the 'why' of anything God does without presumptuously limiting God's motives to human levels of understanding. I presume.

 

[gnostic]

We hear the term scientism from the same folks who say evolutionism. It is a derogatory term because 'isms' are usually defined as foolish or unfounded beliefs.

Some creationists have associated evolution with communism, Marxism, Nazi, and other forms of dictatorship, too.

The complete absurdity of these claims only demonstrated the narrow-minded of creationists and their clumsy effort of deception.

 

[dianaiad]

The difference is plain.
Scientists publish. If their conclusions don't convince other educated people in their field those people can use the same method to publish their own opinions.
Consensus is built, albeit sometimes slowly, especially when data is hard to collect.

This is in stark contrast to the religious method. A "prophet" claims to have information about the unknowable. If he's sufficiently charismatic to gain a following, he's started a new religion. Or maybe a new denomination of a religion that already exists. But there is nothing like peer review, because the "evidence" is indistinguishable from a delusion. Religionists just make unsupportable claims and rely on their own authority to support the claims. Human authority, claiming to speak for God or something.

There is a sort of peer review in religion. One could listen to a Muslim describe his opinion of Hinduism, a Catholic describe his opinion of LDS, a Protestant describe his opinion of Shinto, etc. Etc.
I do listen to religious people describe other religions. And I came to the firm conclusion that religion is fiction. It's all well and good as long as nobody tries to force their subjective and unsupported opinions on me.
But religious people, such as Mormons, often do.
Tom

No we don't.

We'll teach you what our beliefs are, but if you think that a knock on the door and a question "would you like to more?" is 'forcing subjective and unsupported opinions' on you, then you have a real odd definition of 'force.'

 

[dianaiad]

The problem with revelation...whether or not it is really God speaking...is whatever information is passed on through revelation has to pass through the limited intellectual capacities of the human receiver...so my point remains valid even if God really speaks to us I think. How could an incomprehensible deity convey 'his' 'thoughts' to humans except in terms that limit the description (but not the reality) to what the human intellect would be able to understand?

You don't think that the Creator of the universe would be able to do this? Is it your opinion that people are so much smarter than God, even in our incomprehension, that we can limit what HE can do?

........now that, I think, is presumption.[/QUOTE]

 

[columbus]

No we don't.

We'll teach you what our beliefs are, but if you think that a knock on the door and a question "would you like to more?" is 'forcing subjective and unsupported opinions' on you, then you have a real odd definition of 'force.'

How about when Mormons spent millions of tax free dollars trying to get Californians to vote to add marriage inequality to their state constitution?
Oh yeah. Mormons have definitely tried very hard to force their religious beliefs on us gay people.
I thought that they should have lost their tax preferred status. If they want to do politics, register as a PAC and be honest about it.
But no. They've got enough political clout to keep their tax exempt status and spend the money buying political advertising on TV in another state.

Sorry pumpkin. You may not personally be my enemy. But the LDS definitely is.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

Please show what Native American story there is about the scablands being the result of ancient floods.

Oh, for the love of...

The Innuits have one. The Blackfeet have one. the native Americans around Yellowstone have one...well, that one is about a flood averted because the people became righteous...there are quite a few flood myths in ancient American tribes, understandable given the sort of flooding that is natural on the Missouri, the Mississippi, the Snake and the Colombia, never mind the constant filling and catastrophic draining of Lake Bonneville (leaving the Great Salt Lake behind). Are you going to claim that there were no such stories?

Why? That's as silly as claiming that natural phenomena do not prompt mythology in any group of people. Given that mythology is often an attempt to explain misunderstood natural events, that would be extremely silly. I mean, really; is it even possible that there would be no flood stories in northern American native narratives? What...that they would all completely ignore such events?

The rejection of Bretz's concept was, in part, because Bretz could not propose a source for the massive amounts of water needed to produce the landscape. If there was no water source, then science was correct in setting aside the concept.[/QUOTE]

Except of course that BECAUSE the idea would SEEM to support a catastrophic flood (and hence MIGHT support the world wide flood narrative, though of course it doesn't) then nobody looked for such a source. That source was, for all intents and purposes, found accidentally. Those who would actually LOOK for it were treated like the lookers for Bigfoot. Credibility killer.

The same thing happened with the Big Bang, which got it's name because Hoyle was making fun of it.............and a big part of his objection was that the 'Big Bang' might SEEM to support the 'something out of nothing' creation stories beloved by Abrahamic theists. Scientists simply don't want to go there, even if the evidence takes them in that direction.

Finding the source of the flood waters was....wow...

An accident and everybody tiptoed around it. EVEN THOUGH that particular set of floods had absolutely nothing to do with any world wide deluge; for one thing, there were several of 'em.

The thing is, scientists shouldn't be afraid that evidence gathered MIGHT lead them into something that MIGHT support a theistic narrative. For one thing, it can't. Having a catastrophic event occur doesn't mean that God threw thunderbolts.

Having an ice dam hold back a lake....and suddenly fail, sending catastrophic floods of water to the Pacific, and then recur several times as the ice age ebbed and flowed...does NOT mean that Noah had a dock there.

 

[sooda]

No we don't.

We'll teach you what our beliefs are, but if you think that a knock on the door and a question "would you like to more?" is 'forcing subjective and unsupported opinions' on you, then you have a real odd definition of 'force.'

The Planet Kolob | Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs
www.top10craziestmormonbeliefs.com/a/93
Dec 15, 2011 · The planet Kolob and the song about it. Kolob is a star or planet described in Mormon scripture. Reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, a work published by Latter Day Saint (LDS) prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. According to this work, Kolob is the heavenly body nearest to the throne or residence of God.

 

[siti]

You don't think that the Creator of the universe would be able to do this? Is it your opinion that people are so much smarter than God, even in our incomprehension, that we can limit what HE can do?

........now that, I think, is presumption.

No I don't really think that - I just like the word presumptuous...it kinda sounds like we are preparing to enjoy a feast...don't you think? Pre-sumptuous...

But I think you are missing my point...what I am saying is that whatever we understand about what God has revealed (if God has revealed anything at all) is necessarily limited by the human mental faculties we are endowed with - isn't it? How could that not be the case? And how, then, could God reveal anything to our mental faculties that our mental faculties are incapable of processing? So "God's Word" then becomes a 'guide' for our mental (and perhaps in turn, spiritual) faculties to go as far as they can in appreciating the ultimately ineffable, indescribable grandness of "God" not a defining, delimiting encapsulation of what God is or what God does - let alone why. (John 1:18; 1Timothy 6:16). Any of those 'answers' must be couched in terms that are accessible to the human intellect - that's presumably why Jesus (as the 'Word' embodied) is "the Son of Man" as well as the "Son of God" - there is no way a book (no matter what its source) written in human language can possibly exhaust the reality of God (if there is one). There is no way a human, no matter how s/he acquires the information, can possibly apprehend the motives of a divine creator (if there is one). I think...but its fine if you think its presumptuous to limit the human understanding of God to what humans can understand... maybe that's true...maybe it is presumptuous...but how can a human honestly see it any other way than through human eyes?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The attempt to heal the old separation between heart (faith) and mind (science). Everyone has the right to choose.

This is the day they become the wings of One Bird. The bird of Knowledge needs both the wings of Faith and Science to fly.

Both should be embraced with the whole enthusiasm of our hearts.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

This is the day they become the wings of One Bird. The bird of Knowledge needs both the wings of Faith and Science to fly.

Here's one that seems to be "running on faith"...

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Here's one that seems to be "running on faith"...

This is what happens when it is balanced with faith and science.

Regards Tony

 

[siti]

This is what happens when it is balanced with faith and science.

Looks like what happens when you mix Icelandic rock music with pictures of our Kiwi friend @adrian009 's backyard if I'm not mistaken...

But I take your point - there's more to understanding the world than either religion or science...human society probably needs both to fly gracefully - but the question is what kind of 'religion'...and I suppose what kind of 'science'...

Science (so far) is really good at slicing reality into little bits and explaining how the bits work...not so much about how it all works together...

Religion is more inclined towards putting the bits together...but so far seems to me to be putting 2 and 2 together and making 5...

So...(and I hope I'm not straying too far from the OPs question)...maybe what we need is a more circumspect and ecological (in the broadest sense) kind of science - and then we might be able to build a kind of religion that is moderated in its claims by a genuine appreciation of the uni-ty of the uni-verse rather than a blind 'apprehension' of the 'otherness' of deity. Does any of that make sense to anyone?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But I take your point - there's more to understanding the world than either religion or science...human society probably needs both to fly gracefully - but the question is what kind of 'religion'...and I suppose what kind of 'science'...

The Loving progressive types that cares for all people, all creatures, our planet and creation as a whole.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Religion is more inclined towards putting the bits together...but so far seems to me to be putting 2 and 2 together and making 5...

Personally I see that Faith is the motivation, or inner force that drives us to come up with the right scientific answers.

In regards to the OP, I see those that did not want to mix science and religion, are those that wanted to, or still want to to, control specific ways of thinking.

Regards Tony

 

[Sapiens]

Personally I see that Faith is the motivation, or inner force that drives us to come up with the right scientific answers.

I would call that a non sequitur.

 

[dianaiad]

How about when Mormons spent millions of tax free dollars trying to get Californians to vote to add marriage inequality to their state constitution?
Oh yeah. Mormons have definitely tried very hard to force their religious beliefs on us gay people.

What. You think only gay people have the right to say what they think, fund political action groups and advocate for their own positions?

.......and it didn't WORK, now, did it? So, given that, would you like to revisit the 'forced on' thing again?

Or is freedom of speech only applicable to those with whom you happen to agree?

The thing is, columbus, at the time it was VERY much feared (and gay marriage advocates made it very clear that this is what they wanted to do) that the government would force the church to celebrate gay marriages in the Temples, and to recognize them theologically...this, in a state where gays ALREADY had all the rights of straight married couples. Every one of them.

Certainly I ran into quite a few people who wanted to do precisely that. Scared ME spitless, and I don't have a problem with gays getting married and having those rights.

I just don't want YOU guys to force (and I do mean 'force,' as in, legally mandate with nasty consequences if we don't comply) YOUR marriage ideals on us. We had enough of that sort of thing back when we were polygamists. If there is any group of people on the planet who has a right to be paranoid about this sort of thing, it has to be us.

Good grief; the federal government went so far as to confiscate all the church property and assets, (including those of private people, using the excuse that since we didn't have a 'paid' clergy, then everybody was clergy and thus everything belonged to the church and was thus eligible for confiscation by the feds, so that nobody who had more than $50,000 worth of assets, including land, could keep it).

I kept getting told that the government wouldn't 'force' us to perform gay marriages in our temples....but given our history and what the government DID do?

What did you expect us to do? Roll over and let you guys determine our beliefs, our doctrines, and punish us with fines if we said 'no thank you?"

No.

Thank you.

You go get married. Have a nice life. You are married, until death do you part, with all the fun that goes with that. Be happy.

Get all the tax advantages. I'll make your cake and my daughter will photograph your wedding. No problem. We've both done that.

But do NOT tell us, when you don't agree with our beliefs, that we have to adhere to YOUR beliefs and allow you to marry in our temples.

Not going to happen....but it almost did.

......and in terms of polygamy, it DID happen. Do NOT tell me that we wouldn't have been forced....because we would have been. We have been. You are so darned convinced that you are the persecuted minority here, bub, but YOU didn't get put in jail because you decided that you wanted 'marriage' instead of 'domestic partner' (or whatever California called it) with PRECISELY THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS.

My great grandfather was, however, and my great grandmother had to give birth to her first baby while hiding in a cabin in the woods, alone, because the feds wanted to arrest her. The baby died.

Do NOT start bleating to me over this.

I have no, repeat, NO, sympathy for gays who claim that MORMONS tried to force anything on them, when what we were doing is attempting to keep the government, YET AGAIN, from dictating to us what OUR doctrine/belief/marriage customs should be.

If I seem to be over reacting, I'm not a bit sorry.

You may get married. Enjoy. I have no problem with it.

WE don't have to recognize your marriage theologically, or 'seal' them in a Temple. Win/win.

But it almost wasn't, and back when Prop. 8 was being fought, it was a very close thing. Almost every single gay marriage advocate I spoke to at the time had two things to say:

1; that the government would NOT force the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints to perform gay marriages in Temples or to recognize gay marriage theologically.

2: that forcing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints to perform gay marriages in Temples, and to recognize gay marriage theologically, and to 'not discriminate' against gays in church employment, even when it would be legal for the church to 'discriminate' against hiring an adulterer or a murderer or....say, in a position teaching Institute or Seminary (church theological classes), an evangelical preacher who hates Mormons.

I hope you can see that the two statements are mutually exclusive.

and I?

dial it back, columbus. You got what you wanted. You were not 'forced' to do anything. Political action committees advocating for a change in a law is NOT 'force.'

Having the feds come in, steal your land and money and break up families, causing death, destruction, famine and poverty? THAT'S force.

You haven't faced that.

We have.

We just didn't want to see it happen again.

Get over it.