I mean lets get some perspective on all these high highfalutin musings.
just say’n
Between this and the thread I started about the origins of the universe, I think we’ve found the problem. You literally state that you start from some place that personally appeals to you. That’s the opposite of science. It’s the opposite direction from gaining knowledge. It’s away from the unknown and uncomfortable. Hope you’re happy there.
Here’s a good start
It seems like axioms are based on intuition. They’re true by definition, and no further justification can be found. People can use science and logic to justify beliefs, but emotions tell us what to value.
Philosophicus
Well, we disagree. We can’t even use words in the same way. I saw this immediately when didn’t want to talk about definitions. I never said you can prove an axiom. How you would get that I “seem to think” that it is something that could even be thought, I don’t know.
The predictive success of many scientific theories demonstrates that science has predictive success. It’s one of the things I like about science.
Sherlock - So what has lead you to become a theist?
So it not through a revelation???
Sherlock just to be clear. You have not received personal revelation from god???
Sherlock - then how is it that you became a Christian and not of another faith??
I think religion and science should ultimately be reconciled.
Why?
Man of few words today CC? I’d like to hear what the new member says, so I won’t just give my answer. To flesh it out, we would need to answer questions about our own social psychology, the value of rituals and traditions, and how we pass on morals and ethics. But not everyone needs to be a PhD to participate in the discussion. Things like people enjoying getting together for shared meals and singing are valuable data.
Exactly, I’d seriously like to hear what he has to say. He brought it up and I can sit still and listen to others, if they take themselves seriously enough to make a sincere effort, quality is secondary, the will to challenge - debate - learn, that’s what matters. It’s a shame he hasn’t responded. I hope that one word question wasn’t offensive - never know, people have such thin skins these days.
Okay Lausten and pals, for a tangent check out this video.
<blockquote>Nick Lane: Matter and Energy at the Origins of Life - AHScon2016
Published by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYcy7i2w2BKpCQSPaD4p8Qg">ahsstudents</a> on May 3, 2016
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av98Brx23_4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av98Brx23_4</a>
</blockquote>
Lane is an excellent clear speaker and this one gets down to the Emergence of Biochemistry from Geochemistry.
Step one.
I think you'll find it fascinating, it has nothing to do with God, but everything to do with science and how it works and if you carefully listen to his story and what he has to say about his own knowledge and the challenge of serious science, where better understanding of the physical world is primary - and egos secondary - where there are no mistakes, only learning tools, and a better communal understanding is everyone's goal.Susan: "I think religion and science should ultimately be reconciled."I'm sorry Susan, I don't see how they could be.
I’ve even gone through some effort to write about that very point.
I was curious to hear what you were thinking, but you haven’t stepped up. If you’re curious why that seems impossible to me:
The Missing Key to Stephen Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”“… missing was a much more fundamental division crying out for recognition.
Specifically, the magisteria of Physical Reality vs the magisteria of our Human Mindscape. …”
Oh and the fact that they can never be reconciled doesn’t seem like a bad thing to me. More like acknowledging who we are.
Society needs religion of one sort or other - just as much as it needs down to earth, fact constrained science. After all they are totally different things. Religion blossoms in the arts, there’s a reason for that. Science is a different game altogether.
That’s what I like about your magesteria CC, you aren’t trying to reconcile them, or to excuse one or the other. The two complement each other. You can’t deny reality exists without redefining the word and part of reality is that our minds don’t fully know it.
God v Science question is inutile today. It was a question a few decades ago.
Susan Said; I think religion and science should ultimately be reconciled.I used to think that also and wrote many posts in defense of that approach, hoping to close the gap that has existed ever since science infringed on the idea of Gods ruling the universe.
Note that whereas science does not really acknowledge theism as scientific to begin with, religion is in direct conflict with science.
As theism was established long before the true investigative sciences, science posed a direct threat to religion. The story of Hypatia is a stark example of religious resistance to science and scientists.
Hypatia (woman astronomer)
Following the lead of Peter, a reader for the church, the Monks of Nitria pulled Hypatia from her seat and dragged her through the city to Caesarium, the Church of Caesar. There, they stripped her naked, and beat her with broken pieces of pottery and scraped the skin from her body. Even though she was now dead, they were not yet finished. They tore her body, limb from limb, and took it to a place outside the city called Kinaron. There, they burned the remains of this noble lady upon a great pyre.http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia2.htm
Reconciling science and religion…that’s not really a thing. Science works perfectly as it is. And it has not only no problem with religion, but nothing to say about religion. If God were to come down tomorrow and say, “Here I am”, science would respond, “Yeah, we got nothing here.” because science is the study of the natural. The supernatural, until it can be defined naturally, is beyond the scope of science by design.
And this means that science has no opinion about religion (though obviously some scientists do). Science is not concerned with religious teachings and stories, only observation and experimentation. If you can’t detect it and you can’t make predictions with it then it’s useless to science. Science doesn’t care what your beliefs are. It is the religious who have the problem when the facts don’t match up with their beliefs. So what would a reconciliation look like? If science were to remain what it is, the best method of discovery ever created, then religion, alone, would have to change. Religion would have to give up the beliefs which are contrary to the facts. They would see it as giving everything to science and getting nothing back. But from a scientific perspective, they wouldn’t “get” anything from religion. No matter how much religion gives up, this does absolutely nothing for science because, as I said, science isn’t concerned with religion.
I don’t think the word “reconciliation” describes that. There would be no “reconciliation” between science and religion. Religion would simply be accepting known reality as it is. It would have nothing whatsoever to do with science. I suppose religion would be reconciling their beliefs with known reality as described by science, but the reconciliation would be entirely one-sided. It wouldn’t be “between” science and religion. It would just be religion accepting reality.
Widdershins said; It would just be religion accepting reality.Perfect example is that two popes have declared "evolution to be fact" on advise of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
This is in direct conflict with the story of Genesis, but was justified as “evolution is true but only after divine creation of species”, which of course is not a logical argument in the face of the definition of evolution.