NationStates Jolt Archive

I know there are some people who see essentially no quarrel between science and patriarchal religions, but I am not one of them. As two competing systems to explain Nature, they can and do clash on important issues (such as origin of the Universe, evolution of humans, even social morals).


So to clarify:

Science - As the whole scientific endeavor including the questions, the method, the results, theory/law development and applications such as technology.

Patriarchal Religions - Systems of beliefs with a very specific all-powerful Father God, claims to the exclusive Truth. Usually some kind of afterlife reward for insiders and punishment for outsiders. Includes the holy texts, theological system and any social implications.

Which system will prevail in, say, a hundred years?

I know there are some people who see essentially no quarrel between science and patriarchal religions, but I am not one of them. As two competing systems to explain Nature, they can and do clash on important issues (such as origin of the Universe, evolution of humans, even social morals).


So to clarify:

Science - As the whole scientific endeavor including the questions, the method, the results, theory/law development and applications such as technology.

Patriarchal Religions - Systems of beliefs with a very specific all-powerful Father God, claims to the exclusive Truth. Usually some kind of afterlife reward for insiders and punishment for outsiders. Includes the holy texts, theological system and any social implications.

Which system will prevail in, say, a hundred years?

That depends on if we keep electing Republicans.

I know there are some people who see essentially no quarrel between science and patriarchal religions, but I am not one of them. As two competing systems to explain Nature, they can and do clash on important issues (such as origin of the Universe, evolution of humans, even social morals).


So to clarify:

Science - As the whole scientific endeavor including the questions, the method, the results, theory/law development and applications such as technology.

Patriarchal Religions - Systems of beliefs with a very specific all-powerful Father God, claims to the exclusive Truth. Usually some kind of afterlife reward for insiders and punishment for outsiders. Includes the holy texts, theological system and any social implications.

Which system will prevail in, say, a hundred years?In a hundred years? They'll both still be here. In a thousand, there will still be science, and probably a whole new set of religions. Religion is too much of a crutch for a large part of humanity for it to die out.

Wow, it seems no fundamentalists are on currently.

That depends on if we keep electing Republicans.
RAmen to that. *bows*

They're both limited by human capacity for understanding, and I think they both fulfill different functions. 600 years ago it would have made little difference if a person thought that the stars were balls of flaming gas, or if they thought they were pin holes in the fabric of the night.

And if humanity doesn't wake up to itself, it will make just as little difference 60 years into our future:headbang: .

600 years ago, suggesting that the Earth revolved around the sun could earn you a quick demise as a heretic.

Christianity is at its zenith, its got nowhere to go but down.
We find more and more new discoveries that give us clues to how the universe began, everyday.

With each new step, science proves tiny pieces of the Bible wrong.

Recently, they found fish fossils with vestigal legs, thus proving, life emerged from the sea, grew legs and lungs, and became mammals.

The bible is a farce, and good for proving and explaining nothing.
The only reason people still cling to it, is out of fear and plain ignorance.

RAmen to that. *bows*

Mmm, Ramen :D

Mmm, Ramen :D

Fuel of grad students.:rolleyes:

Fuel of grad students.:rolleyes:

Mm, yeah. I wish I could afford other food lol :p

Mm, yeah. I wish I could afford other food lol :p

Well there is always free food at seminars.

Dunno. Ask the Ancient Egyptians what they think about it.

Seeing as all religions are competing for the same thing, and there still isn't one true religion, I don't see why science and religion must fight to the death. Seeing as science has provided humanity with untold material benefits, and humans are instinctively greedy to a fault, I think I can see which one would 'win' such a 'battle'. But I don't see any battle. You say that science and religion can't co-exist, and yet I see respected scientists all over the place who follow religion... well, religiously.

600 years ago, suggesting that the Earth revolved around the sun could earn you a quick demise as a heretic.Actually, that was slightly later. The church hadn't accepted the ptolemeian world view as dogma yet 600 years ago.
It's why Copernicus didn't get into nearly as much trouble as Galileo.
The trouble didn't start untill the church made certain science part of their dogma and then suddenly science moved on. You can't go back on something you proclaimed as absolute truth. And of course there were other problems that made them crack down on dissent.

I know there are some people who see essentially no quarrel between science and patriarchal religions, but I am not one of them. As two competing systems to explain Nature, they can and do clash on important issues (such as origin of the Universe, evolution of humans, even social morals).


So to clarify:

Science - As the whole scientific endeavor including the questions, the method, the results, theory/law development and applications such as technology.

Patriarchal Religions - Systems of beliefs with a very specific all-powerful Father God, claims to the exclusive Truth. Usually some kind of afterlife reward for insiders and punishment for outsiders. Includes the holy texts, theological system and any social implications.

Which system will prevail in, say, a hundred years?

Thats a toughie.

"Something that can benefit us vs Something that has brought us misery, destruction and reasons to kill one another"

The cynic in me wants to vote for B, but you know, i *do* believe humans have the capacity for rationality...

Dunno. Ask the Ancient Egyptians what they think about it.

Seeing as all religions are competing for the same thing, and there still isn't one true religion, I don't see why science and religion must fight to the death. Seeing as science has provided humanity with untold material benefits, and humans are instinctively greedy to a fault, I think I can see which one would 'win' such a 'battle'. But I don't see any battle. You say that science and religion can't co-exist, and yet I see respected scientists all over the place who follow religion... well, religiously.

I doubt that these scientists will disagree that on some issues the two systems cross paths and have a duke-it-out-session. The essence of this thread!

Thats a toughie.

"Something that can benefit us vs Something that has brought us misery, destruction and reasons to kill one another"

The cynic in me wants to vote for B, but you know, i *do* believe humans have the capacity for rationality...

Ah! Another cynic! Years ago, my history teacher proclaimed me a cynic at my grand ol' age of 15 years.

So you don't think science has the ability to enhance misery-making and people-killing? Like social darwinism and nuclear bombs? Just being a cynic, my friend;)

Ah! Another cynic! Years ago, my history teacher proclaimed me a cynic at my grand ol' age of 15 years.

So you don't think science has the ability to enhance misery-making and people-killing? Like social darwinism and nuclear bombs? Just being a cynic, my friend;)

Science assuredly has that ability. So does religion. Religion hath provided the motive, often, and science the tools.

Are the tools more evil than the motives?

I know there are some people who see essentially no quarrel between science and patriarchal religions, but I am not one of them. As two competing systems to explain Nature, they can and do clash on important issues (such as origin of the Universe, evolution of humans, even social morals).


So to clarify:

Science - As the whole scientific endeavor including the questions, the method, the results, theory/law development and applications such as technology.

Patriarchal Religions - Systems of beliefs with a very specific all-powerful Father God, claims to the exclusive Truth. Usually some kind of afterlife reward for insiders and punishment for outsiders. Includes the holy texts, theological system and any social implications.

Which system will prevail in, say, a hundred years?

If you are asking which system will probably have the greatest number of human adherents, then I have to ask where the hell you've been. Religion will, hands down, no question. Religion agrees with people, so people agree with religion.

If you are asking which system will actually provide humanity with the most concrete benefits, again...where have you been? Science provides humanity with more benefits in a week than all of religion has provided across the entire span of human history. (Note: there is a distinction between religion and human beings who happen to hold religious beliefs. Think that over before you go apeshit over that last statement of mine.)

If there is one thing we all should have learned by now, it is that no system of belief is made more "true" by increasing the number of humans who follow it. For instance, the majority of Americans believe in Bigfoot, but their belief does not in any way impact whether or not Bigfoot really does roam the Northwoods in the dark of night. Whether or not a system of belief will dominate in the minds of humans has nothing to do with whether or not the principles espoused by that system are accurate. The forces that are described by naturalism have been at work, and will continue to work, regardless of human understanding or belief, just as the forces described by superstition will be equally imaginary and impotent regardless of how many people drink the Kool-Aid.

If there's a second thing we all should have learned by now, it is that the popularity of a human belief system rarely has much to do with concrete realities about the universe at large. It's far more about our social interactions and our collective and individual psychology. Science does not satisfy the psychological desires of many (perhaps most) human beings. Not sure why, but there it is. As long as the psychological needs/desires exist, religion will exist.

The Triumph of Science would be contingent upon Man not descending every now and then into another Dark Age. Libraries and stuff don't take kindly to being burned.
Considering the record of Homo Sap., one might as well hope for world peace or continuous balanced budgets.

On another level: Science explains the how of Man, not the why. Of course, Religion is 90% supersition, but I predict its victory with utmost confidence and serenity. I even would do so if religion were 100% superstition.

If you are asking which system will probably have the greatest number of human adherents, then I have to ask where the hell you've been. Religion will, hands down, no question. Religion agrees with people, so people agree with religion.

If you are asking which system will actually provide humanity with the most concrete benefits, again...where have you been? Science provides humanity with more benefits in a week than all of religion has provided across the entire span of human history. (Note: there is a distinction between religion and human beings who happen to hold religious beliefs. Think that over before you go apeshit over that last statement of mine.)

If there is one thing we all should have learned by now, it is that no system of belief is made more "true" by increasing the number of humans who follow it. For instance, the majority of Americans believe in Bigfoot, but their belief does not in any way impact whether or not Bigfoot really does roam the Northwoods in the dark of night. Whether or not a system of belief will dominate in the minds of humans has nothing to do with whether or not the principles espoused by that system are accurate. The forces that are described by naturalism have been at work, and will continue to work, regardless of human understanding or belief, just as the forces described by superstition will be equally imaginary and impotent regardless of how many people drink the Kool-Aid.

If there's a second thing we all should have learned by now, it is that the popularity of a human belief system rarely has much to do with concrete realities about the universe at large. It's far more about our social interactions and our collective and individual psychology. Science does not satisfy the psychological desires of many (perhaps most) human beings. Not sure why, but there it is. As long as the psychological needs/desires exist, religion will exist.

Of course I agree. But I will go on a limb here and propose that science can also fulfill the religion-like needs of people in the future. As science itself heads towards a more systems-level, integrative paradigm, it may be better placed to win the hearts and minds of people who need to believe in something which is not too fragmented or technical to understand.This is helped by the proliferation of popular science books, talks, exhibitions and documentaries.

I believe the scientific endeavor can also take a leaf out of the few thousand-year Patriarchal religious systems to find out what makes them spread so quickly and so addictive for so many. The use of unsupported infinitives, deliberate diametric-opposites, social adaptations among many things. They believe that they are popular because they are true, but we know that they are popular because they are effective at becoming popular. Some of this can be learnt and absorb into scientific communications and pedagogy.

Unhindered by dogma or hubris, legendary for accuracy, testability and fruitfulness the scientific endeavor definitely has the potential to replace Patriarchal Religions as we know them today. Perhaps they will never really be gone.

But they will have to be on the run.

Of course I agree. But I will go on a limb here and propose that science can also fulfill the religion-like needs of people in the future. As science itself heads towards a more systems-level, integrative paradigm, it may be better placed to win the hearts and minds of people who need to believe in something which is not too fragmented or technical to understand.This is helped by the proliferation of popular science books, talks, exhibitions and documentaries.

I believe the scientific endeavor can also take a leaf out of the few thousand-year Patriarchal religious systems to find out what makes them spread so quickly and so addictive for so many. The use of unsupported infinitives, deliberate diametric-opposites, social adaptations among many things. They believe that they are popular because they are true, but we know that they are popular because they are effective at becoming popular. Some of this can be learnt and absorb into scientific communications and pedagogy.

Unhindered by dogma or hubris, legendary for accuracy, testability and fruitfulness the scientific endeavor definitely has the potential to replace Patriarchal Religions as we know them today. Perhaps they will never really be gone.

But they will have to be on the run.

En bref: you hope for science to copy the metaphysical fuctions of religion.
But then, you'd have to accept metaphysical reasoning and logic within science.
Science would then become religion, and soon enough, dispense with its science-side altogether...

It may be unreasonable, but most people care more about why than how.

Of course I agree. But I will go on a limb here and propose that science can also fulfill the religion-like needs of people in the future. As science itself heads towards a more systems-level, integrative paradigm, it may be better placed to win the hearts and minds of people who need to believe in something which is not too fragmented or technical to understand.This is helped by the proliferation of popular science books, talks, exhibitions and documentaries.

Obviously I happen to think that science can satisfy "spiritual" needs, since it more than does that for me.

But I've heard lots of people talk about how they would have no reason to live without God, and how they'd have no reason to refrain from killing people if there were no God. I have three options when confronted with these claims: assume these people are clueless about what they really want/need, assume they are lying, or assume they really are wired that way. I'm a fairly humble person, so I choose to assume that they are both aware of their own needs and also being honest with me. This leaves me with the conclusion that they are genuinely unable to find meaning or morality by themselves.

Will science ever find a way to help these people? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it will be able to do so within the next hundred years. If they really have no internal sense of value or morality, how are we supposed to install one for them?


I believe the scientific endeavor can also take a leaf out of the few thousand-year Patriarchal religious systems to find out what makes them spread so quickly and so addictive for so many. The use of unsupported infinitives, deliberate diametric-opposites, social adaptations among many things. They believe that they are popular because they are true, but we know that they are popular because they are effective at becoming popular. Some of this can be learnt and absorb into scientific communications and pedagogy.

The problem is, religions have the advantage of not being constrained by reality. They can go with whatever claim or stance is most convenient or the most friendly to people. For science to remain science, it's going to have to remain honest. People don't like that.

People don't like hearing that all human beings will die, and that their own existence is finite. They do like hearing that they will get to live forever in a special magic kingdom in the sky.

People don't like hearing that we need to curb our gluttony and stop driving SUVs and quit cutting down trees. They do like hearing that an all-powerful Creator made this planet for our pleasure, and that he flat-out ordered us to dominate every other creature on it.


Unhindered by dogma or hubris, legendary for accuracy, testability and fruitfulness the scientific endeavor definitely has the potential to replace Patriarchal Religions as we know them today. Perhaps they will never really be gone.

But they will have to be on the run.
Nah. The Peter Pan complex will keep them around indefinitely. Most people don't ever want to grow up, and as long as God is willing to be their Big Sky Daddy they won't have to.

I know there are some people who see essentially no quarrel between science and patriarchal religions, but I am not one of them. As two competing systems to explain Nature, they can and do clash on important issues (such as origin of the Universe, evolution of humans, even social morals).


So to clarify:

Science - As the whole scientific endeavor including the questions, the method, the results, theory/law development and applications such as technology.

Patriarchal Religions - Systems of beliefs with a very specific all-powerful Father God, claims to the exclusive Truth. Usually some kind of afterlife reward for insiders and punishment for outsiders. Includes the holy texts, theological system and any social implications.

Which system will prevail in, say, a hundred years?
Since religion, including patriarchal ones, do not serve to explain Nature, there is no real conflict. They will both be well and thriving in 100 years.

The Triumph of Science would be contingent upon Man not descending every now and then into another Dark Age. Libraries and stuff don't take kindly to being burned.
Considering the record of Homo Sap., one might as well hope for world peace or continuous balanced budgets.

On another level: Science explains the how of Man, not the why. Of course, Religion is 90% supersition, but I predict its victory with utmost confidence and serenity. I even would do so if religion were 100% superstition.

The original poster started by saying that he realises that some people see no quaral between science and religion, and indeed I am that person; I'm also the person responsible for makeing the next broad generalisation so please forgive me.

It seems to me that the majority of people that acknowledge there is such a concept as science vs religion are not of the religious persation(it should be clear by now that I am religious) which is pretty astounding to me.

So mankind has had superstiouse and religion really from the begining, it shows no sign of dwindling and in fact seems to be getting stronger in some places. As a scientist ask why? Perhaps the electrical/chemical soup that is our brains are built that way. Why? perhaps there is some benifiet that we should be religious, or that mankind thinks like it does. It isn't going away it must be a natural built-in part of the human condition. Come on scientist, ask why?

En bref: you hope for science to copy the metaphysical fuctions of religion.
But then, you'd have to accept metaphysical reasoning and logic within science.
Science would then become religion, and soon enough, dispense with its science-side altogether...

I don't see how you are making that leap. The way I understood it, he was saying that science could (theoretically) come to satisfy the psychological needs of human beings. It already does that for some human beings, so it's pretty clear that this is possible. Nothing about that requires that science embrace any of the superstitious elements of religious dogma, nor does it require that science stop being science.


It may be unreasonable, but most people care more about why than how.
Neither of which is answered by religion. Science can at least tell us how, and often can tell us why. It just isn't always going to tell us what we WANT to hear, the way religion does.

Science explains the how of Man, not the why.
1) It's the 21st century. Let's please get over this "man" thing, and refer to the human species in a more inclusive way. If Man feels the "why" of his existence is not explained by science, then I guess he should borrow some class notes from Woman...

2) I don't know where this canard came from, about science not answering the "why" questions. Science answers more "why" questions than any religion has ever done.

Try asking, "Why do humans have thumbs?" Religion throws up its hands and mumbles something about how God made us that way and that was His plan and yada yada, and you know nothing more than when you started. Religion gives you a half-assed guess, and not even a NEW guess. It gives you the half-assed guess made by some people who lived thousands of years ago.

Science can map the development of the thumb across its evolution. Science can tell you why a thumb would be helpful to certain species but not to others, and why certain species might develop thumbs before others. Science can tell you how the thumb was refined and perfected by natural forces. Science can even tell you why your thumb is sore right now, and can suggest ways in which you might cause your thumb to stop being sore.

And that's just thumbs. Science can tell us a great deal about why humans are the way we are. More importantly, the answers that science gives us can be used to make predictions about what may happen to us in the future. Many of sciences answers to "why?" can be used clinically, to improve our lives and our abilities to ask these annoying questions about ourselves.

En bref: you hope for science to copy the metaphysical fuctions of religion.
But then, you'd have to accept metaphysical reasoning and logic within science.
Science would then become religion, and soon enough, dispense with its science-side altogether...

It may be unreasonable, but most people care more about why than how.

Agreed. I am proposing that speculations of why can be made from the how, using scientific models as a starting point instead of religious axioms.

This is not a new idea, of example there was a documentary on Discovery Channel that speculated on possible results of biological evolution a few million years in the future. This is not strictly science, but a type of speculation that is based on it.

Just enhance the presentation, not the essence of science. The narrative is a powerful way to do it, and Patriarchal Religions are the Kings of the narrative.

I know there are some people who see essentially no quarrel between science and patriarchal religions, but I am not one of them. As two competing systems to explain Nature, they can and do clash on important issues (such as origin of the Universe, evolution of humans, even social morals).

I couldn't really vote in the poll because it seems like a false dichotomy. I don't think there is a good argument (at least I havn't seen one posted yet) that one will "prevail" over the other.

While science comments on the natural world, it doesn't say anything about morals (as you've mentioned here), relationships, laws, etc. While its important, its relatively narrow compared to the scope of things people think they need in their daily lives. As long as people need someone to tell them what to do, how to behave, what happens when they die, etc. religion will exist as well.

And as long as science continues to work under the general scientific assumptions (naturalistic world, contingency, etc.) then religion will have an edge as it claims to be transcendent. Its very easy for religious nuts to say "oh, demons put the dinosaur bones there." In essence, its just as easy to deny science as it is to deny religion.

1) It's the 21st century. Let's please get over this "man" thing, and refer to the human species in a more inclusive way. If Man feels the "why" of his existence is not explained by science, then I guess he should borrow some class notes from Woman...

2) I don't know where this canard came from, about science not answering the "why" questions. Science answers more "why" questions than any religion has ever done.

Try asking, "Why do humans have thumbs?" Religion throws up its hands and mumbles something about how God made us that way and that was His plan and yada yada, and you know nothing more than when you started.

Science can map the development of the thumb across its evolution. Science can tell you why a thumb would be helpful to certain species but not to others, and why certain species might develop thumbs before others. Science can tell you how the thumb was refined and perfected by natural forces. Science can even tell you why your thumb is sore right now, and can suggest ways in which you might cause your thumb to stop being sore.

And that's just thumbs. Science can tell us a great deal about why humans are the way we are. More importantly, the answers that science gives us can be used to make predictions about what may happen to us in the future. Many of sciences answers to "why?" can be used clinically, to improve our lives and our abilities to ask these annoying questions about ourselves.

*smug smile*

Why then, oh proud atheist, pray tell me, why are we alive?

*serious face*

The 21st century followed the 20. And some day, you'll have a 22nd ( assuming Man doesn't blow the planet up ). Our racial record being what it is, odds are we'll be in the middle of just another Dark Age.

*snarling face*

The belief in Progress is the belief for fools. As you said, its the 21st century. The Age of Reason lies in the dead past. People want rituals - not lectures. Superstition was more popular than fact, is more popular than fact, and will always be more popular than fact.

Why then, oh proud atheist, pray tell me, why are we alive?

Perhaps you should phrase it in such a way that they can't ambiguously interpret it. Sure, everyone knows what you mean when you ask that (what is the transcendant purpose for existence), but a lot of the time instead of admitting that science doesn't and can't answer it, they will attempt to simply give a naturalistic explanation for why we're alive. It doesn't really answer the question that you're asking, just the ambiguous form of it.

Perhaps you should phrase it in such a way that they can't ambiguously interpret it. Sure, everyone knows what you mean when you ask that (what is the transcendant purpose for existence), but a lot of the time instead of admitting that science doesn't and can't answer it, they will attempt to simply give a naturalistic explanation for why we're alive. It doesn't really answer the question that you're asking, just the ambiguous form of it.

I know they will do what you predict.
Which is yet another reason why I predict patriarchical religion to be unbeatable winner.
And I know what I asked ;)

While science comments on the natural world, it doesn't say anything about morals (as you've mentioned here), relationships, laws, etc.
Again, who the hell comes up with these ideas?

Science has TONS to say about values and morals and relationships and laws! And what it has to say tends to be far more accurate and useful than what religious dogma tells us.

Science is how we know that people with different skin colors have more in common than they have differences. Science is how we know that men and women are equally intelligent, rational, and capable. Science is how we know that behavior is caused by natural forces, not by evil spirits or demons. Science is how we know that human sexuality is complex, beautiful, and natural in many different forms. Science is how we know that no human being has an "objective" moral worth that is greater than any other human. Science is how we know that human values are shaped by our interactions with one another, and that these values CAN be changed as our awareness changes.

Science lets us learn about how our own minds work. It tells us about how we interact, why we interact, and how our interactions will shape us. Science tells us about the value of our surroundings, our fellow humans, and our fellow lifeforms on Planet Earth. Science tells us the importance of balance and cohabitation, both with each other and with our surroundings.

It's true, science isn't going to provide you with a sense of "us versus them." Science won't tell you that you are always right because you obey the Right God. Science won't reassure you that you will live forever if you just do what Science tells you. Science won't give you a cute little book of Right and Wrong, giving little rules about everything from growing your crops to selling your oxen. Science won't tell you which sexual practices are WICKED WICKED WICKED. Science will give you information, and will allow you to make informed and rational choices, but it won't tell you what your ultimate goal should be.

But, frankly, if you honestly need some outside force to be your conscience, don't you think it's probably past time for you to commit yourself to an institution?

It's true, science isn't going to provide you with a sense of "us versus them." Science won't tell you that you are always right because you obey the Right God. Science won't reassure you that you will live forever if you just do what Science tells you. Science won't give you a cute little book of Right and Wrong, giving little rules about everything from growing your crops to selling your oxen. Science won't tell you which sexual practices are WICKED WICKED WICKED. Science will give you information, and will allow you to make informed and rational choices, but it won't tell you what your ultimate goal should be.



Because you wont give an us vz them, because you wont tell us we're always right, because you wont give us a cute little book, because you wont give us ultimate goals, Homo Sap. wont chose you over bearded priests with gentle voices and bloody ideas.

Your problem is that you wont see Man for what he is, but only for what you would want him to be... Religion does both - AND persuades the individual to admit to the mistake, and feel guilty about not living up to the ideals of others.

Homo sap isn't rational.

*smug smile*

Why then, oh proud atheist, pray tell me, why are we alive?

*serious face*

Um, are you serious?

Are you people STILL stuck on that question? Am I supposed to be stumped by that?

Geez, read a freaking book. Physics is a great start, if you want to know the many reasons why life is an energetically efficient solution on this planet. Biology can come in once you've passed the abiogenesis point (since, obviously, the study of living things can only be applied to living systems), and it can help you understand why life would exist in particular forms as opposed to other forms. If you want to get really specific about human beings, you can move into human psychology and physiology, and learn more about why your particular consciousness takes the shape that it does.

I think most people aren't actually asking, "Why are we alive?" They are asking, "What is the great cosmic purpose behind my existence?" I've got some news for you: the Cosmos does not have feelings about you, one way or the other.

EDIT: One more thing. I'm not an atheist. It's cute that believers like to assume that.

Because you wont give an us vz them, because you wont tell us we're always right, because you wont give us a cute little book, because you wont give us ultimate goals, Homo Sap. wont chose you over bearded priests with gentle voices and bloody ideas.

So you are saying that scientists are non-humans? Wow, cool!


Your problem is that you wont see Man for what he is, but only for what you would want him to be... Religion does both - AND persuades the individual to admit to the mistake, and feel guilty about not living up to the ideals of others.

I see "Man" as an out-dated and boring excuse for lazy people with no imagination. What lazy, unimaginative "Men" choose to do with their time is not particularly intersting to me.

I am, however, interested in the human species, many of whom are not at all boring or unimaginative.


Homo sap isn't rational.
I don't know why you are trying to tap homosexuals for their sap, or why you would be concerned with the rational or irrational nature of non-hetero tree blood.

I am talking about homo sapiens in this case, a form of animal life that is quite capable of producing what we classify as rational thought. Humans often decline to do this, but we also often decline to eat pork...this does not mean that humans, as a species, are non-pork-eating.

Obviously I happen to think that science can satisfy "spiritual" needs, since it more than does that for me.

First, I would like to thank you for your insightful post, which is presented more clearly than I could have.:)

But I've heard lots of people talk about how they would have no reason to live without God, and how they'd have no reason to refrain from killing people if there were no God. I have three options when confronted with these claims: assume these people are clueless about what they really want/need, assume they are lying, or assume they really are wired that way. I'm a fairly humble person, so I choose to assume that they are both aware of their own needs and also being honest with me. This leaves me with the conclusion that they are genuinely unable to find meaning or morality by themselves.

Will science ever find a way to help these people? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it will be able to do so within the next hundred years. If they really have no internal sense of value or morality, how are we supposed to install one for them?

I suspect one reason why science did not appeal psychologically with many is its fragmented and technical nature. Being an incremental study approach, this is unavoidable at the cutting edge, but where the data has hit the textbooks, it is not hard to weave the data into a narrative, a religious-like "oral tradition" if you will. This makes the science more accessible to the general public, and can become the basis of their beliefs. Definitely not at the detail level of the scientists, but sufficiently clear and wide-ranging to interest the regular folk. And scientific knowledge is already inherently consistent, which may allow the readers to see the inconsistency of religious systems.

The problem is, religions have the advantage of not being constrained by reality. They can go with whatever claim or stance is most convenient or the most friendly to people. For science to remain science, it's going to have to remain honest. People don't like that.

I agree. However I suspect many people believe that if the speculation is big enough, the belief system is more important. Science can speculate as big or bigger than all religious systems combined. True that sometimes science can do no better, but certainly no worse than speculations from religions. People like big stories, we just give it to them, with a big "if" disclaimer of course.

People don't like hearing that all human beings will die, and that their own existence is finite. They do like hearing that they will get to live forever in a special magic kingdom in the sky.

People don't like hearing that we need to curb our gluttony and stop driving SUVs and quit cutting down trees. They do like hearing that an all-powerful Creator made this planet for our pleasure, and that he flat-out ordered us to dominate every other creature on it.

Nah. The Peter Pan complex will keep them around indefinitely. Most people don't ever want to grow up, and as long as God is willing to be their Big Sky Daddy they won't have to.

Whatever religion can promise to people, science can too, to a more modest extent. What is different is that science can actually deliver the goods. As long as science is fruitful, religions will have dwindling appeal.

Science assuredly has that ability. So does religion. Religion hath provided the motive, often, and science the tools.

Are the tools more evil than the motives?


A tool is just an object. It has no inherent morality and depends wholly upon who's hands it's in. A gun for instance, can be the symbol of oppression or freedom. All depends on who's finger is on the trigger.

So you are saying that scientists are non-humans? Wow, cool!


I see "Man" as an out-dated and boring excuse for lazy people with no imagination. What lazy, unimaginative "Men" choose to do with their time is not particularly intersting to me.

I am, however, interested in the human species, many of whom are not at all boring or unimaginative.


I don't know why you are trying to tap homosexuals for their sap, or why you would be concerned with the rational or irrational nature of non-hetero tree blood.

I am talking about homo sapiens in this case, a form of animal life that is quite capable of producing what we classify as rational thought. Humans often decline to do this, but we also often decline to eat pork...this does not mean that humans, as a species, are non-pork-eating.

What I'm saying is that a human who is too slow, dim, and duncical to accept the supremacy of irrationality ends up as discarded bones in a midden.
( freely adapted from Francis Prior, Britain BC)

I'm afraid your interest in humanity is a bit on the train-spotter level. How it must bewilder you that your interesting facts meet with the utter ennui of your semi-fellow-man. When you tell what you see to others, you produce yawns.

The bearded priests with melifluous voices and bloody ideas will always triumph over you. As they have done over the last 5000 years, and will do over the next 5000 years. When they tell what they see to others, others obey them.

I know they will do what you predict.
Which is yet another reason why I predict patriarchical religion to be unbeatable winner.
And I know what I asked ;)

I think you mean that science cannot make teleological speculations. I know scientists don't like to think this way, but there is no inherent reason why the endeavor cannot make such speculations.

What is the purpose of life then? Is it ultimately to preserve the existence of our physical planet, by keeping it cool, by developing intelligent life that can protect it from the expanding sun in 5 billion years? What are the smaller questions that we can ask to test this speculation?

We can use scientific methods to understand Patriarchal Gods, even. If we were made to worship God through song for example, why are so many people tone-deaf? Why is Britney Spears a star? Scientific thought does not preclude imaginative speculation. It is only very picky about how you test it.

"What is the great cosmic purpose behind my existence?" I've got some news for you: the Cosmos does not have feelings about you, one way or the other.



Bwahhahaha-- can I sig that??

Science is how we know that no human being has an "objective" moral worth that is greater than any other human. *snip*

And which scientific principle is this? How has science demonstrated that no one has an objective moral worth that is greater than another?

While science comments on the natural world, it doesn't say anything about morals (as you've mentioned here), relationships, laws, etc. While its important, its relatively narrow compared to the scope of things people think they need in their daily lives. As long as people need someone to tell them what to do, how to behave, what happens when they die, etc. religion will exist as well.

Science has a moral dimension. When is a person dead for example; can you bury an overdose teen because his heart stopped? Is he really dead or will he wake up later?

Although heavily subspecialized, science as an endeavor covers all aspects of our lives, not a narrow scope as you claim. It can and does tell people what to do, how to behave, and has equal potential to speculate on the afterlife as religions do.

I think you mean that science cannot make teleological speculations. I know scientists don't like to think this way, but there is no inherent reason why the endeavor cannot make such speculations.

What is the purpose of life then? Is it ultimately to preserve the existence of our physical planet, by keeping it cool, by developing intelligent life that can protect it from the expanding sun in 5 billion years? What are the smaller questions that we can ask to test this speculation?

We can use scientific methods to understand Patriarchal Gods, even. If we were made to worship God through song for example, why are so many people tone-deaf? Why is Britney Spears a star? Scientific thought does not preclude imaginative speculation. It is only very picky about how you test it.

You know, the problem is, Science has never been any good when it comes to answering the questions my sons asked when they were little. The cute little books, on the other hand, do a splendid job of answering them. One day, I hope to have cute little granddaughters. And I know the questions they will ask.

I know quite well the difference between physics and metaphysics.
I know that transference between those realms is impossible.
Appearently, some folks who speak here hope to simply avoid the metaphysics.

But it is exactly the metaphysical questions that people really want to have answers on. In that regard, my cook of 40+ years of age is no different than an infant.

Science has a moral dimension. When is a person dead for example; can you bury an overdose teen because his heart stopped? Is he really dead or will he wake up later?

Although heavily subspecialized, science as an endeavor covers all aspects of our lives, not a narrow scope as you claim. It can and does tell people what to do, how to behave, and has equal potential to speculate on the afterlife as religions do.

Thats bioethics. Bioethics isn't a field of science, its a field of philosophy.

Strictly speaking, natural sciences don't tell me if its okay to bury a person alive or not.

Thats bioethics. Bioethics isn't a field of science, its a field of philosophy.

Strictly speaking, natural sciences don't tell me if its okay to bury a person alive or not.

Strictly speaking, science doesn't tell me what okay is in the first place.

63 for sciences
7 for my stands.

Thanks to these 7 people, ignorant and confused.
I love you, you are the reason to be for my state.
I need more people like you to rule the universe and make a descent pension for my retirement.

Again, what the use of sciences? You understand zilch in these magic matters, and it's dangerous.
Let the patriarch decides what's good for you,
I just finish to re-write some Holy Scriptures just to prove my point.

Now let's pray for thus who expect too much vanity from sciences even when the invoice is a bit exagerated.

Jesuites
The Holy Father of your children
The Patriarch of all knowledges
The Ruler of your after-life
The Lover of your wives

What I'm saying is that a human who is too slow, dim, and duncical to accept the supremacy of irrationality ends up as discarded bones in a midden.
( freely adapted from Francis Prior, Britain BC)

I'm afraid your interest in humanity is a bit on the train-spotter level. How it must bewilder you that your interesting facts meet with the utter ennui of your semi-fellow-man. When you tell what you see to others, you produce yawns.

The bearded priests with melifluous voices and bloody ideas will always triumph over you. As they have done over the last 5000 years, and will do over the next 5000 years. When they tell what they see to others, others obey them.

Man are you a super-cynic. ;)

Melifluous voices - can be learnt and adapted to further the cause of scientific endeavor.

Bloody ideas - Not that I like to think of it this way, but to quote Ace in Starship Troopers "Who brings a knife to a nuke fight anyway. Sir?"

What I'm saying is that a human who is too slow, dim, and duncical to accept the supremacy of irrationality ends up as discarded bones in a midden.
( freely adapted from Francis Prior, Britain BC)

And what I am saying is that none of us gets out alive. Recognize "the supremacy of irrationality"? What supremacy? Irrationality isn't any more or less powerful than rationality. You put far too much significance on human thought processes. The sun will continue to rise and set regardless of what you think about it, and the universe will continue to opperate according to its nature regardless of how nutty some humans are. :)


I'm afraid your interest in humanity is a bit on the train-spotter level. How it must bewilder you that your interesting facts meet with the utter ennui of your semi-fellow-man.

Actually, I almost never encounter that reaction. More often, the people who don't understand what I am talking about will get passionately defensive or angry with me. Science pisses everybody off these days.


When you tell what you see to others, you produce yawns.

From some, sure. From others, not so much. Why should the yawns matter more to me than any other reaction? I'm much more interested in what entertains ME, just as everybody else is interested in what entertains THEM. Nothing wrong with that, and no particular reason why we need to agree.


The bearded priests with melifluous voices and bloody ideas will always triumph over you.

Not really. They've never yet managed to get in my way. They fuck over plenty of OTHER people, which certainly pisses me off at times, but they've never managed to bother me directly. According to their melifluous voices, I am the one who is thwarting and oppressing them. :)


As they have done over the last 5000 years, and will do over the next 5000 years. When they tell what they see to others, others obey them.
You have odd notions of what does and does not constitute "supremacy" and "triumph." You seem to really wallow in the idea of being oppressed and ruled by irrationality and silly people, which is fine and dandy if that's your personal kink, but I'm not particularly interested in that. You can go right ahead and preach about how I'm a fool or a dreamer or a sinner or whatever you like...the "priests" like to do that, too, and I've long since gotten over it.

Thats bioethics. Bioethics isn't a field of science, its a field of philosophy.

Strictly speaking, natural sciences don't tell me if its okay to bury a person alive or not.

Agree. The natural sciences can tell you if he is alive or not though. Can you use prayer or religious revelation to determine that? Reliably enough?

religeon has nothing legitimately to do with "explaining nature". that IS the realm of science.

but it has everything to do with encouraging people to want to avoid causing harm. which is equaly as important.

patriarchal ism is of course absurd, but the possible, even probable existence of nontangable wills, wishing us well, is not. nor is the simple reality that the more harm there is floating arround the more likely we are each and all to suffer as a resault and the more harm and sufferring any of us cause the more there is floating arround.

too much of organized belief does self defeat this valid purpose with a lot of mumbo jumbo arbitraryness, especialy chauvanistic patriarchalisms like christianity and islam.

but this does not invalidate, or even relate to either the realities of moral responsibility nor the existence of awairnessess who'se existence can be experienced primarily by internal or at least nontangable modes of perception.

=^^=
.../\...

Man are you a super-cynic. ;)

Melifluous voices - can be learnt and adapted to further the cause of scientific endeavor.

Bloody ideas - Not that I like to think of it this way, but to quote Ace in Starship Troopers "Who brings a knife to a nuke fight anyway. Sir?"

It's been a very long time since I read that book. 1990 or summat. Isn't Ace the guy who ended up being lashed and then kicked out of the Regiment?


Anyway, the other day I was reading Britain BC, by Prior.
Who made the observation that religiousness cant be avoided, for it is a defining homo sap trait. On the other hand, organised religion isn't an absolute given.

It may greatly annoy new-agers, but Druidism ( or any form of organised religion in Britain) cannot be supposed to have any existence before 150BC. ( It may even be a reaction to outside invaders, like the Ghost Dance movement around 1890 .)

A further aside. Have you ever heard Khomeiny speak? He pretty much hypnothised me when I heard him - and I don't even speak Farsi!

Agree. The natural sciences can tell you if he is alive or not though. Can you use prayer or religious revelation to determine that? Reliably enough?

Actually "life" is an arbitrary decision. We simply have a general concensus on what is "alive" in medicine and natural sciences. I could make an equally valid and arbitrary classification for what is "life" using religious revelation.

For example, a cell is "alive" but a virus is not. "Life" is also an arbitrary legal classification in different countries, depending on when and where it is legal or illegal to take someone off life support, given that they are "alive."

In any case, I can't use prayer or revelation to determine anything medical or anything regarding the natural world. I'm not sure if life is the best example, but I understand what you're saying. I'd pick a cardiogram over a prayer.

And what I am saying is that none of us gets out alive. Recognize "the supremacy of irrationality"? What supremacy? Irrationality isn't any more or less powerful than rationality. You put far too much significance on human thought processes. The sun will continue to rise and set regardless of what you think about it, and the universe will continue to opperate according to its nature regardless of how nutty some humans are. :)


Actually, I almost never encounter that reaction. More often, the people who don't understand what I am talking about will get passionately defensive or angry with me. Science pisses everybody off these days.


From some, sure. From others, not so much. Why should the yawns matter more to me than any other reaction? I'm much more interested in what entertains ME, just as everybody else is interested in what entertains THEM. Nothing wrong with that, and no particular reason why we need to agree.


Not really. They've never yet managed to get in my way. They fuck over plenty of OTHER people, which certainly pisses me off at times, but they've never managed to bother me directly. According to their melifluous voices, I am the one who is thwarting and oppressing them. :)


You have odd notions of what does and does not constitute "supremacy" and "triumph." You seem to really wallow in the idea of being oppressed and ruled by irrationality and silly people, which is fine and dandy if that's your personal kink, but I'm not particularly interested in that. You can go right ahead and preach about how I'm a fool or a dreamer or a sinner or whatever you like...the "priests" like to do that, too, and I've long since gotten over it.


To make a long story short - victory and supremacy consist of sticking the bones of other folks into museums - or middens. Nothing else matters.

religeon has nothing legitimately to do with "explaining nature". that IS the realm of science.

but it has everything to do with encouraging people to want to avoid causing harm. which is equaly as important.

patriarchal ism is of course absurd, but the possible, even probable existence of nontangable wills, wishing us well, is not. nor is the simple reality that the more harm there is floating arround the more likely we are each and all to suffer as a resault and the more harm and sufferring any of us cause the more there is floating arround.

too much of organized belief does self defeat this valid purpose with a lot of mumbo jumbo arbitraryness, especialy chauvanistic patriarchalisms like christianity and islam.

but this does not invalidate, or even relate to either the realities of moral responsibility nor the existence of awairnessess who'se existence can be experienced primarily by internal or at least nontangable modes of perception.

=^^=
.../\...

Agree. Which is why this thread is about Science vs Patriarchal Religions which claim exclusivity to the Truth to the extent of punishment for non-believers. It is my hope that future integrative sciences will provide the some explanatory power to phenomena such as consciousness.

Actually "life" is an arbitrary decision. We simply have a general concensus on what is "alive" in medicine and natural sciences. I could make an equally valid and arbitrary classification for what is "life" using religious revelation.

For example, a cell is "alive" but a virus is not. "Life" is also an arbitrary legal classification in different countries, depending on when and where it is legal or illegal to take someone off life support, given that they are "alive."

This is a little misleading. Yes, we have arbitrarily defined what the term "life" refers to. We have decided that a certain set of traits are required for a given thing to be labeled as "alive." This is a semantic decision, and one could just as easily decide that the word "alive" should be used to refer to supernaturally-defined qualities.

However, religion cannot determine the physical qualities of a thing (if any). Religion also cannot measure the supernatural qualities of a thing (if any). Superstition does not allow for us to test anything, or to measure anything, because superstition involves forces that are (by definition) beyond our ability to measure and study. Thus, religion could DECLARE a definition for "life," but this would be quite different from a scientific (and therefore testable) definition of life.

In other words, science concludes that viruses are "not alive" because viruses have been investigated and found to lack several traits that are required for our definition of "alive." Science didn't just arbitrarily decide, "viruses are non-living, because we say so." Science also admits that it is possible for future evidence to establish that viruses ARE alive...we never know what we may find out in the future, as our techniques and our technology improve.

In any case, I can't use prayer or revelation to determine anything medical or anything regarding the natural world. I'm not sure if life is the best example, but I understand what you're saying. I'd pick a cardiogram over a prayer.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at. Religion can STATE that "X = life, Y = not life," but it's not going to provide you with any means to test that statement. Religion will tell you that "God says X = life," but there's never going to be a way for you to test or verify that claim. If somebody is okay with accepting religion's statement, so be it...but I, too, will take the cardiogram over the prayer. :)

Agree. Which is why this thread is about Science vs Patriarchal Religions which claim exclusivity to the Truth to the extent of punishment for non-believers. It is my hope that future integrative sciences will provide the some explanatory power to phenomena such as consciousness.

They may, but for now I see patriarchal religions as having an edge. Even though religions aren't really qualified to comment on the natural world, patriarchal religions do it anyway. And believers are apt to take a 6000 year old earth as seriously as natural sciences. Whereas natural sciences lack the dogmatic aspect to fight back; they can't claim that those who don't adhere to a 4.5 billion year old earth are going to hell or anything.

Agree. Which is why this thread is about Science vs Patriarchal Religions which claim exclusivity to the Truth to the extent of punishment for non-believers. It is my hope that future integrative sciences will provide the some explanatory power to phenomena such as consciousness.


Hypothetical question.
How long, in your estimate, until ergs of energy will become really expensive?
The thing is, even maintaining a database of existing knowledge takes energy.
Which isn't going to be freely available for another century.

Future Science strikes me as an impossibility - unless it be a science that can be practised, disseminated and preserved without the utilisation of energy. *shrug* One can expect advances in sheepholding.

What I'm expecting is ( in the long term ) a retreat to a non-technological society.

To make a long story short - victory and supremacy consist of sticking the bones of other folks into museums - or middens. Nothing else matters.

Are you saying that a violent priest with a million angry followers armed with Holy Books can defeat a twitchy teen with a finger on a nuke? A nonchalant twitchy teen, I might add. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that a violent priest with a million angry followers armed with Holy Books can defeat a twitchy teen with a finger on a nuke? A nonchalant twitchy teen, I might add. :rolleyes:

Sure. How many teens can actually design, build, arm and aim a nuke?
How many priests can convert a teen?

Hypothetical question.
How long, in your estimate, until ergs of energy will become really expensive?
The thing is, even maintaining a database of existing knowledge takes energy.
Which isn't going to be freely available for another century.

Future Science strikes me as an impossibility - unless it be a science that can be practised, disseminated and preserved without the utilisation of energy. *shrug* One can expect advances in sheepholding.

What I'm expecting is ( in the long term ) a retreat to a non-technological society.

So now you're saying that a violent priest with a million angry (sheep-farming)followers armed with Holy Books will defeat a million nonchalant (sheep-farming) teens armed with solar-powered bowcasters? :rolleyes:

Anyway, the last I checked, my thumbdrive didn't need batteries... I hope...:eek:

Religion deals in spirituality. Nothing more.

Science deals in the nature of our environment.

Since when were the two incompatible?

When Religion stats trying to mess with science that's bad but science trying to rationalise everyything is just as bad.

Try reading the first few Genesis as a metaphor. Sounds remarkably like Big Bang/Evolution theory...

EDIT - slight oopsie

Sure. How many teens can actually design, build, arm and aim a nuke?
How many priests can convert a teen?

You are asking how many Dr. Evil's it takes to convert a teen into a nuke-designing, building, arming, aiming teen?

One.

Religion deals in spirituality. Nothing more.

Science deals in the nature of our environment.

Since when were the two incompatible?

When Religion stats trying to mess with science that's bad but science trying to rationalise everyything is just as bad.

Try reading the first few Genesis as a metaphor. Sounds remarkably like Big Bang/Evolution theory...

EDIT - slight oopsie

What if spirituality is a function of Nature. An emergent property at the systems-level of a person. That spiritual experiences can be affected by things such as drugs, electrical stimulation or brain injury.

You are asking how many Dr. Evil's it takes to convert a teen into a nuke-designing, building, arming, aiming teen?

One.

Ohh yeah the old look at all the violence and war done in the name of God argument.

As we all know mankind is a very peacefull species, and if it wasn't for religion then we would definatly not find other reasons to disagree, attack, do violence and kill each other.

Damn us, damn us all to hell for our foolish ways, and damn God for making us like it, and damn and blame everything else apart from ourselfs, coz we do not have the self control to master our own thoughts or desires!

Blame God, blame your perants, blame the other side. You are perfect!

What about non-patriarchal religions?

Ohh yeah the old look at all the violence and war done in the name of God argument.

As we all know mankind is a very peacefull species, and if it wasn't for religion then we would definatly not find other reasons to disagree, attack, do violence and kill each other.

Damn us, damn us all to hell for our foolish ways, and damn God for making us like it, and damn and blame everything else apart from ourselfs, coz we do not have the self control to master our own thoughts or desires!

Blame God, blame your perants, blame the other side. You are perfect!

Err... did you misunderstand? Here Dr. Evil is the science baddie. BogMarsh was claiming that only the baddest baddies win, which are the angry priests with melliflous words and bloody ideas.

What about non-patriarchal religions?

You mean like Buddhism and Hinduism?

Err... did you misunderstand? Here Dr. Evil is the science baddie. BogMarsh was claiming that only the baddest baddies win, which are the angry priests with melliflous words and bloody ideas.

Yes yes sorry I responded to the wrong post. My fault I'm an idiot!:rolleyes:

Yes yes sorry I responded to the wrong post. My fault I'm an idiot!:rolleyes:

Nope you're cool dude. ;) Anyway who is into leather is cool in my book. :D

You mean like Buddhism and Hinduism?

Don't know enough about either. I was thinking of, say, Tantric belief systems or certain Native American cultures.

Don't know enough about either. I was thinking of, say, Tantric belief systems or certain Native American cultures.

Do they have any issues with scientific findings? Or have a Hell for non-believers?

Nope you're cool dude. ;) Anyway who is into leather is cool in my book. :D


AHahh aaahhhhh black and shiny!:p :cool: ;) :)

Do they have any issues with scientific findings? Or have a Hell for non-believers?

I've seen Tantrists use science to support their beliefs. But that may just be selective. I don't know what their view is on science generally. I do not believe they have a hell for non-believers (just lousy sex maybe). I've also seen Tantrists refer to Hinduism as patriarchal, as an aside.

Some advocates of Native American spiritual beliefs have exhibited skepticism about some aspects of science. Read Vine Deloria Jr's seminal book "Evolution, Creationism and other Modern Myths".

You mean like Buddhism and Hinduism?
Both of those are patriarchal religions.

Both of those are patriarchal religions.

They are polytheistic, no? They include Mother God figures as well. Not sure about Hinduism but there is no Hell specifically for non-believers in Buddhism.

They are polytheistic, no? They include Mother God figures as well. Not sure about Hinduism but there is no Hell specifically for non-believers in Buddhism.
How many female Buddhas have there been? How many female Dali Lamas? Have you studied the gender-based practices outlined by Hinduism?

Yes, they are patriarchal religions. Polytheistic belief systems can be patriarchal. Belief systems with female dieties can be patriarchal. Hell, the Catholics have the Virgin Mary as a semi-diety, and they're constantly setting new records for patriarchy! :)

That depends on if we keep electing Republicans.

:)

Hell, the Catholics have the Virgin Mary as a semi-diety, and they're constantly setting new records for patriarchy! :)

Ouch! Quite the punchline :D

But you are right though. Do people go to Hell for using condoms?

Thats a toughie.

"Something that can benefit us vs Something that has brought us misery, destruction and reasons to kill one another"

The cynic in me wants to vote for B, but you know, i *do* believe humans have the capacity for rationality...

Very simplistic.

Religion has been used by people to justify their evil, but religion has also pointed people to higher ideals, and made them reach for good.

Science has given us beneficial technology, but it has also made it easier to destroy people on a larger scale.

Ouch! Quite the punchline :D

But you are right though. Do people go to Hell for using condoms?
From what I have gathered, people go to Hell for doing anything that doesn't result in More Catholics.

I doubt that these scientists will disagree that on some issues the two systems cross paths and have a duke-it-out-session. The essence of this thread!

I will. I am both a scientist and a religious person. There is no conflict whatsoever between science and religion, unless one tries to use religion to pin down the workings of the natural world. That, to me, is not the purpose of religion - it is the purpose of science. Science, on the other hand, cannot be used in the supernatural realm, in the spiritual realm. Thus, since they are meant for two completely different areas, there is no reason for them to "cross paths". Only in being misused can either cross the path of the other.

I think most people aren't actually asking, "Why are we alive?" They are asking, "What is the great cosmic purpose behind my existence?" I've got some news for you: the Cosmos does not have feelings about you, one way or the other.

The question is not always as personal as that. It doesn't have to be me-centric. It could just be, "What is the greater purpose behind the universe as a whole? Why does the universe work the way it does? Is there a Creator, and if there is, why did said deity create these things?" Even if science gets down to the very basic laws of the universe, science can never answer why they are what they are - because such an answer would have to come from outside the universe - outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

EDIT: One more thing. I'm not an atheist. It's cute that believers like to assume that.

*shrug* Whether you like it or not, when you attack any and all religious beliefs, you come off as a militant atheist.


I suspect one reason why science did not appeal psychologically with many is its fragmented and technical nature. Being an incremental study approach, this is unavoidable at the cutting edge, but where the data has hit the textbooks, it is not hard to weave the data into a narrative, a religious-like "oral tradition" if you will. This makes the science more accessible to the general public, and can become the basis of their beliefs. Definitely not at the detail level of the scientists, but sufficiently clear and wide-ranging to interest the regular folk. And scientific knowledge is already inherently consistent, which may allow the readers to see the inconsistency of religious systems.

Science is not supposed to be the "basis of" any beliefs. The minute you take it into the area of beliefs, it ceases to be science and delves into other forms of philosophy, including (possibly) theology.

But, frankly, if you honestly need some outside force to be your conscience, don't you think it's probably past time for you to commit yourself to an institution?

Um, no? Not really.

I feel quite sane and rested in the fact that I can rely upon a Higher Power. It doesn't make life any more merciful, I assure you, but it all becomes worth the suffering.

*shrug* Independence and post-modern 'freedom from all' is overrated, IMO. True freedom, as Saint Augustine believes, comes from complete obedience in the Lord. So, if I really want to be free, I'll quite earnestly pursue this 'outside force' and His holiness.

Oh, yes, the forthcoming war between science and religion. Religious and scientific fundamentalist have been selling this boogeyman for millennia. Forgive me if I don't shore up my windows.

Patriarchal Religion? As good as dead. Once that masculine supremacy thing and authoritarian monotheism have been taken care of, however, Religion will probably run smoothly alongside Science for a good while to come.

But, frankly, if you honestly need some outside force to be your conscience, don't you think it's probably past time for you to commit yourself to an institution?
Pssht. Anyone who considers these sorts of things for long enough will end up in an institution anyway. Might as well do the decent thing and blame the ridiculous boogieman rather than pull the psychiatrists in with you.

Science has a moral dimension. When is a person dead for example; can you bury an overdose teen because his heart stopped? Is he really dead or will he wake up later?

Although heavily subspecialized, science as an endeavor covers all aspects of our lives, not a narrow scope as you claim. It can and does tell people what to do, how to behave, and has equal potential to speculate on the afterlife as religions do.

Then Science has become your religion. The very word, science, means knowledge. Knowledge is the gathering of information, and in itself carries no moral connotations one way or the other. If your view of science is translated into some kind of moral code, then you're acribing a metaphysical character to it, thus transforming it into a belief system of its own.

I will. I am both a scientist and a religious person. There is no conflict whatsoever between science and religion, unless one tries to use religion to pin down the workings of the natural world. That, to me, is not the purpose of religion - it is the purpose of science. Science, on the other hand, cannot be used in the supernatural realm, in the spiritual realm. Thus, since they are meant for two completely different areas, there is no reason for them to "cross paths". Only in being misused can either cross the path of the other.

Hey, a primary source... How rare is that?

And for the record, I agree 100%.

*smug smile*

Why then, oh proud atheist, pray tell me, why are we alive?

We are alive because we are alive. The problem is, people still think there has to be a "why", it's cosmic arrogance. Man makes gods to explain himself, not the other way round.

I haven't voted because I do not believe that either of the two given choices is accurate. I believe that Science is a tool for gathering knowledge about our Universe, and Religion is the means by which we learn about the things beyond our scientific grasp.

It seems to me that to exclude one to support the other is a sign of a person who has little more than an axe to grind, and isn't going to get you anywhere.

People in the Rennaissance were having exactly this same debate. Who won? Nobody. Why? Because this is not a win/lose proposition. To say that Science can only exist in the absence of religion is to ignore reality. Most scientists are people of religion. Just look at Einstein, considered to be one of the greatest scientisis of all time. To him, the beauty of the universe was a testimony to the existence of God.

Science is an evolving thing. To presume that science has all the answers is to say that there is no need for further research, all questions have been answered. Clearly this isn't true, and new discoveries are made each day, and old theories discarded. At what point in history have scientists ever held al the answers? Isn't it arrogant to assume that they do now?

Science is a great and wonderful tool, and it is a gift from God. Why is this such an offensive proposition?

Science ... unlike it has reproducability and observable facts on its side.

Deny reality all you like ... the rest of us will laugh at you.

Science ... unlike it has reproducability and observable facts on its side.

Deny reality all you like ... the rest of us will laugh at you.

Who was denying it?

Both of those are patriarchal religions.
Buddhism doesn't even have a god. I could have sworn that to be a patriarchal religion, one needed an all-powerful father figure. Which excludes Hinduism as well.

Buddhism doesn't even have a god. I could have sworn that to be a patriarchal religion, one needed an all-powerful father figure. Which excludes Hinduism as well.
What, with being patri-archal and all, instead of matri-archal.

I believe that Science is a tool for gathering knowledge about our Universe, and Religion is the means by which we learn about the things beyond our scientific grasp.

What religious methodology though? That is reliable enough? I think biology and the social sciences can even help explain religious' explanations! Which is more inclusive?

Most scientists are people of religion. Just look at Einstein, considered to be one of the greatest scientisis of all time. To him, the beauty of the universe was a testimony to the existence of God.

I disagree. Voltaire, Darwin, Huxley, Watson, Feynman, Sagan, Hawkings and Dawkins are not religious, among many more. Einstein was a Pantheist of sorts, he believed in Spinoza's God. This thread is about Patriarchal religions like Christianity and Islam.

Science is an evolving thing. To presume that science has all the answers is to say that there is no need for further research, all questions have been answered. Clearly this isn't true, and new discoveries are made each day, and old theories discarded. At what point in history have scientists ever held al the answers? Isn't it arrogant to assume that they do now?

Never said that Science knows or can even know everything. Just proposing that what it can deliver on its claims heck of a lot better than religious claims.

Science is a great and wonderful tool, and it is a gift from God. Why is this such an offensive proposition?

This is to believe that scientists are just technicians to serve your priests. I believe scientists can and do speculate larger than this Universe or any other possible (or impossible!) Universes. Existence may be more bizarre in reality than any construction that the Religious authorities can dream up. Or ever dream up.

Science. I'm not fond of patriarchy, especially enforced by religious code.

There is no conflict whatsoever between science and religion, unless one tries to use religion to pin down the workings of the natural world.

What with the ID debate? It never happened, this tape will self-destruct in 5 secs. ;)

Science, on the other hand, cannot be used in the supernatural realm, in the spiritual realm. Thus, since they are meant for two completely different areas, there is no reason for them to "cross paths". Only in being misused can either cross the path of the other.

Hmm, understanding the brain can help us find out why some people see ghosts. Or fall into trances. These were realms of the supernatural and spiritual, but not any more. You mustn't forget that physical ailments used to be considered of supernatural sources, heck, some people still seek faith healers today!

This thread is about Patriarchal religions like Christianity and Islam.
Why only Christianity and Islam? What about religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. I'd reckon Hinduism and Buddhism are as nonscientific as Christianity and Islam. For example there is little to none scientific evidence for the existence of reincarnation, polytheist gods, Hindu creationism, etc.

Buddhism doesn't even have a god. I could have sworn that to be a patriarchal religion, one needed an all-powerful father figure. Which excludes Hinduism as well.

Depends how we are defining patriarchal religions. By one definition, they need a patriarch as god. By another definition, if their instutions are patriarchal, even if their god is not a patriarch, they are still patriarchal.

Why only Christianity and Islam? What about religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. I'd reckon Hinduism and Buddhism are as nonscientific as Christianity and Islam. For example there is little to none scientific evidence for the existence of reincarnation, polytheist gods, Hindu creationism, etc.

Agreed. Are there active groups of anti-evolutionist anti-cosmology Buddhists/Hinduists? I don't think there is a Hell specific for non-believers in either system.

Not that I encourage people to embrace the ideas of Reincarnation or Polytheism.

Agreed. Are there active groups of anti-evolutionist anti-cosmology Buddhists/Hinduists? I don't think there is a Hell specific for non-believers in either system.

The Buddhist/Hindu theory is that life is defined by suffering and Hell is actually life on earth. In Hinduism if you committ evil you will be reincarnated as a lower life form (a human of a lower caste, an outcaste, or animal, or plant). In Buddhism if you commit evil you will be reincarnated over and over again so basically you're stuck in "hell on earth." In Hinduism if you live virtuously you can be reincarnated as a higher life form until at one point of great virtue you merge with God. In Hinduism if you live virtuously and gain enlightenment you can be freed from reincarnation, and attain the permanent heavenlike state of Nirvana. I think according to Hinduism and Buddhism, all humans, even non-believers, are governed by these divine laws.

So there isn't a specific "fiery pit of hell" but the theories get quite wacky in both Hinduism and Buddhism. As for evolution, mainstream Hinduism and Buddhism both accept it. Then again, so does the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Church, just about every traditional 'patriarchal church' out there.

Christianity and Islam are both quite diverse and it is inaccurate to categorize thousands of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish subsects into a oversimplified category called "Patriarchal Religions" defined as "Systems of beliefs with a claims to the exclusive Truth."

In actuality not many Christians or Muslims believe that their religion is the only true way to heaven. Not many Christians and Muslims believe science is incompatibel with religion either.

The Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and all traditional Protestant Churches believe that anyone can make it to heaven, as long as a person is virtuous, even if he or she does not join the Christian faith. Muslims believe non-Muslims can go to heaven, if Allah judges them to be virtuous and deserving to be in heaven. Jews don't believe in the existence of hell period. Hindus and Buddhists also believe that anyone, regardless of faith, can achieve enlightenment/nirvana.

Only a few biblical fundamentalists, and mostly found in the USA, are truly at odds with science. In general Christians, Muslims, Hindus, are quite comfortable with the progress made by science. Their religions might be non-scientific, but certaintly not anti-scientific.

The Buddhist/Hindu theory is that life is defined by suffering and Hell is actually life on earth. In Hinduism if you committ evil you will be reincarnated as a lower life form (a human of a lower caste, an outcaste, or animal, or plant). In Buddhism if you commit evil you will be reincarnated over and over again so basically you're stuck in "hell on earth." In Hinduism if you live virtuously you can be reincarnated as a higher life form until at one point of great virtue you merge with God. In Hinduism if you live virtuously and gain enlightenment you can be freed from reincarnation, and attain the permanent heavenlike state of Nirvana. I think according to Hinduism and Buddhism, all humans, even non-believers, are governed by these divine laws.

So there isn't a specific "fiery pit of hell" but the theories get quite wacky in both Hinduism and Buddhism. As for evolution, mainstream Hinduism and Buddhism both accept it. Then again, so does the Roman Catholic Church, Anglican Church, just about every traditional 'patriarchal church' out there.

Christianity and Islam are both quite diverse and it is inaccurate to categorize thousands of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish subsects into a oversimplified category called "Patriarchal Religions" defined as "Systems of beliefs with a claims to the exclusive Truth."

In actuality not many Christians or Muslims believe that their religion is the only true way to heaven. Not many Christians and Muslims believe science is incompatibel with religion either.

The Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and all traditional Protestant Churches believe that anyone can make it to heaven, as long as a person is virtuous, even if he or she does not join the Christian faith. Muslims believe non-Muslims can go to heaven, if Allah judges them to be virtuous and deserving to be in heaven. Jews don't believe in the existence of hell period. Hindus and Buddhists also believe that anyone, regardless of faith, can achieve enlightenment/nirvana.

Only a few biblical fundamentalists, and mostly found in the USA, are truly at odds with science. In general Christians, Muslims, Hindus, are quite comfortable with the progress made by science. Their religions might be non-scientific, but certaintly not anti-scientific.

I agree completely with almost everything you say, and that is that I have never met a Bible-believing Chrsitian who thinks a 'non-Christian' can go to HEaven, Christian theology is extrmely specific, Christ said "I am the Way, the Trith, and the Life, no man cometh unto the Fatehr but through me I am rather well versed, as I ama Christian, however, directly, no science and my faith are not at odds, and in fact, much of what the Bible says is scientifically supported (or has large pockets of genuine scientific support)

"I am the Way, the Trith, and the Life, no man cometh unto the Fatehr but through me"
In other words, go to the father by walking the path, seeking the Truth and living the Life. Jesus personally isn't a necessary factor in that statement.

I am rather well versed, as I ama Christian, however, directly, no science and my faith are not at odds, and in fact, much of what the Bible says is scientifically supported (or has large pockets of genuine scientific support)

I like this guy. He is funny.

What religious methodology though? That is reliable enough? I think biology and the social sciences can even help explain religious' explanations! Which is more inclusive?

You may "think" that, but religion is, by definition, beyond the scope of science, as it deals in the supernatural.

This thread is about Patriarchal religions like Christianity and Islam.

Neither of which are necessarily patriarchal, at least not in the way the OP seems to have meant.

Never said that Science knows or can even know everything. Just proposing that what it can deliver on its claims heck of a lot better than religious claims.

But only within its realm. If you start trying to apply science to religious matters, you have stepped outside its boundaries, and will have to weaken the process to use it there.

What with the ID debate? It never happened, this tape will self-destruct in 5 secs.

What part of "unless one is misused" did you miss?

Hmm, understanding the brain can help us find out why some people see ghosts. Or fall into trances. These were realms of the supernatural and spiritual, but not any more. You mustn't forget that physical ailments used to be considered of supernatural sources, heck, some people still seek faith healers today!

You don't understand the meaning of the word supernatural. Supernatural does not mean, "Cannot be explained yet." It means outside of nature. If ghosts exist, they are not outside of nature. People falling into trances is not outside of nature. People wrongly tried to label these things as supernatural, but they never were.

God, on the other hand, is, by definition, outside of nature, and thus outside the realm of science. Science cannot address God's possible existence (or non-existence), nor can it address God's features if God does exist.
supported (or has large pockets of genuine scientific support)

People falling into trances is not outside of nature. People wrongly tried to label these things as supernatural, but they never were.

Until science came along with a mechanistic explanation, most people believe they are supernatural. Many still do.

God, on the other hand, is, by definition, outside of nature, and thus outside the realm of science. Science cannot address God's possible existence (or non-existence), nor can it address God's features if God does exist.

Depends on your definition of God. Pantheists don't think God is outside of Nature. Anyway using (or abusing if you prefer) science to glorify the various Patriarchal Gods is a common practice nowadays. I've seen people use the complexity of biochemical pathways in cell to support the existence of God. I've even seen Voyager photos of the outer planets used in a Islamic prayer show to demonstrate the vastness of Allah's Universe.

You don't understand the meaning of the word supernatural. Supernatural does not mean, "Cannot be explained yet." It means outside of nature. If ghosts exist, they are not outside of nature. People falling into trances is not outside of nature. People wrongly tried to label these things as supernatural, but they never were.

God, on the other hand, is, by definition, outside of nature, and thus outside the realm of science. Science cannot address God's possible existence (or non-existence), nor can it address God's features if God does exist.
That confuses me. Why must God be outside of nature? Surely God and nature are one and the same?

Science - logic
Religion - faith.


I will choose logic thanks.

Science - logic
Religion - faith.


I will choose logic thanks.Would you choose logic if you didn't have faith in it? :p

Until science came along with a mechanistic explanation, most people believe they are supernatural. Many still do.

Yes, and some people believe the Earth is flat.

People have misused the word supernatural to mean, "I don't understand it," kind of like people in mathematics often use the word nonlinear to mean, "OMFG, this scares the heck out of me." The fact that the word has been misused does not change its actual meaning. Nothing that exists in nature can be considered supernatural.

Depends on your definition of God. Pantheists don't think God is outside of Nature.

If their gods are not outside of nature, then their gods are not supernatural, and can be examined through science.

Of course, pretty much every God is said to either control, or simply not be bound by the rules of nature, which would make them supernatural.

Anyway using (or abusing if you prefer) science to glorify the various Patriarchal Gods is a common practice nowadays. I've seen people use the complexity of biochemical pathways in cell to support the existence of God. I've even seen Voyager photos of the outer planets used in a Islamic prayer show to demonstrate the vastness of Allah's Universe.

That isn't really "using science". It is a matter of personal reflection. Some look at the complexity of the universe and see it as the beauty of God's creation. Some look at it and see an ordered universe that doesn't require a God. But the method of science is never used to come to either determination. Scientists who either believe in or disbelieve in God do so outside of their science.


That confuses me. Why must God be outside of nature? Surely God and nature are one and the same?

God as Creator must exist outside of Creation. God as an omnipotent being must not be bound by the laws of the universe. Thus, those who believe in a God matching either description believe in a supernatural God - one that exists outside of nature. That doesn't mean that God does not control nature, it just means that God's existence is not in any way bound by nature.

Any who believe in "gods" as nature are simply worshipping aspects of nature to which they have applied a persona.

Science - logic
Religion - faith.

I will choose logic thanks.

You seem to think it is an either/or dichotomy. It is not.

Any who believe in "gods" as nature are simply worshipping aspects of nature to which they have applied a persona.
To what extent does anyone worship God other than as a persona they have generated?

My understanding is that the Omnipotent Creator God a given person worships is just another of these personas with the aspect being nature itself. The evidence of personal experience of the almighty suggests the same sort of oneness of being as in non-theistic and naturist religions. That God exists thus seems to have a reasonable degree of backing, but that the persona generated through the concept of God is an accurate reflection of the physical state of its object has considerably less so.

To what extent does anyone worship God other than as a persona they have generated?

My understanding is that the Omnipotent Creator God a given person worships is just another of these personas with the aspect being nature itself. The evidence of personal experience of the almighty suggests the same sort of oneness of being as in non-theistic and naturist religions. That God exists thus seems to have a reasonable degree of backing, but that the persona generated through the concept of God is an accurate reflection of the physical state of its object has considerably less so.

You know making a statement more complicated than it needs to be is a sign of a weak argument.

You know making a statement more complicated than it needs to be is a sign of a weak argument.
Nice to see you too.

Nice to see you too.

Come on, are you telling me you couldn't have said that more concisely and more clearly? I think you could have.

There's a great book called On Writing Well that does a good job of exploring this subject. It's well worth the read.

God as Creator must exist outside of Creation. God as an omnipotent being must not be bound by the laws of the universe. Thus, those who believe in a God matching either description believe in a supernatural God - one that exists outside of nature. That doesn't mean that God does not control nature, it just means that God's existence is not in any way bound by nature.

Any who believe in "gods" as nature are simply worshipping aspects of nature to which they have applied a persona.

Commonly believed to be outside the Universe, yes, but there is no inherent reason why God cannot BE the Universe, like what Einstein believes.

God need not be bound by Nature, but should be indicated or at least suggested by Nature. If no sensory data points to God and only "feelings" or speculations, then anyone anywhere can paint God as any entity with any characteristic. It is completely arbitrary and unverifiable with anything.

Commonly believed to be outside the Universe, yes, but there is no inherent reason why God cannot BE the Universe, like what Einstein believes.

God need not be bound by Nature, but should be indicated or at least suggested by Nature. If no sensory data points to God and only "feelings" or speculations, then anyone anywhere can paint God as any entity with any characteristic. It is completely arbitrary and unverifiable with anything.

What if the 'sensory' data is internal? You make the assumption that our evidence of God must be external in order to not be arbitrary, but assuming there is a God, couldn't he just as easily evidence Himself/Herself/Itself to each person in a wholly personal and scientifically unverifiable way. There would be nothing arbitrary about that. You limit what you're willing to consider and then argue from that position. Others do not necessarily share those limits.

Would you choose logic if you didn't have faith in it? :p

I don't have faith in it. Logic is merely evaluating a situation by what evidence has been gathered. It can change in an instant.

Things change, and I would rather not hold faith to something that won't.

What if the 'sensory' data is internal? You make the assumption that our evidence of God must be external in order to not be arbitrary, but assuming there is a God, couldn't he just as easily evidence Himself/Herself/Itself to each person in a wholly personal and scientifically unverifiable way. There would be nothing arbitrary about that. You limit what you're willing to consider and then argue from that position. Others do not necessarily share those limits.

This reminds me of "A Beautiful Mind" when the doc tells Nash "You can't rationalize this."

"Why not? Why can't I"

"Because your mind IS the problem."

Sure I can "feel" God everyday. He's in his early twenties, wears cool shades, a white short sleeve shirt and winks to me often, laughing at Christians and reminding me to be patient. He doesn't say much and doesn't answer anything from anyone. I know he is God, but how can I be sure that he is God? And not my imagination? How can you be sure? Who can verify this even inter-subjectively?

Oh yeah and He doesn't mind porn or interstellar travel. Just so you know.

I agree completely with almost everything you say, and that is that I have never met a Bible-believing Chrsitian who thinks a 'non-Christian' can go to HEaven, Christian theology is extrmely specific, Christ said "I am the Way, the Trith, and the Life, no man cometh unto the Fatehr but through me
Actually the type of Christians you are acquainted with are not the mainstream opinion in the world, and are just a fundamentalist minority. Most traditional churches hold that non-believers can reach heaven through virtuous living alone. Most traditional churches, most notably the Eastern Orthodox Church, only pronounce the fate of members, and do not claim to know the fate of non-members. Mainstream protestants like Methodists, Anglicans, etc also acknowledge the possibility of non-Christians going to heaven.

Actually the type of Christians you are acquainted with are not the mainstream opinion in the world, and are just a fundamentalist minority. Most traditional churches hold that non-believers can reach heaven through virtuous living alone. Most traditional churches, most notably the Eastern Orthodox Church, only pronounce the fate of members, and do not claim to know the fate of non-members.

Are you authoritative on this though? I mean I hope you are right of course. :) Many Christians I meet are happy to remind me of the Fire and Brimstone. Some have issues with evolution and one even has issues with Science in general.

Come on, are you telling me you couldn't have said that more concisely and more clearly? I think you could have.
I'm not one to credit myself with skills that are still in development. Hence why my CVs tend to suffer somewhat. >_>

Yes, the point could probably have been made with greater clarity and precision than I gave it. But, as you know, the transition between thought and speech is not always one which I make very well.

I guess I'll try again then.


Doesn't everyone worship a persona of God they create themselves? It seems like that's the only way to relate to an infinite God.

The very notion of God is itself at first a personification. People come to look for it through investigation of 'Spiritual Experience' and seek God as a means of placing an identity on the source of this phenomenon.

Descriptions of God as the omnipotent Creator are a part of this identity search. They occur after the initial experience as a result of information gathering.

However, others have had similar experiences and sought different explanations - in doing so, some have even learned to have them regularly. People in more naturist, non-theistic religions frequently have experiences that involve them in a oneness with the world around them. The similarities between these and the revelatory sensations of converts lead me to suggest that they are of the same vein.

To me and many others, the concept of a God outside of nature is thus an unusual one. God is the result of a personal search for understanding based on an event that I see occurring quite often in those with an acute awareness of nature. Why, then, should the result be something unnatural? The evidence provided by the personal experiences to me better supports the notion of God as a persona of nature itself and all aspects thereof than of something altogether unnatural.


Meh... Told ya. Whether that's any clearer or more concise is still unsure. Oh well.

I don't think either will 'win'.

I think Patriarchal religion will dissapear, but not be replaced by atheism and science.

I think 80% of the world's population will still be religious, but they'll be more pluralistic and see faith as a 'personal' thing rather than something they have a right to force on other people.

In the short term however, there's a risk of patriarchal religion winning out in America and in a few other places in the world. That's why we all desparately need to vote in 2006...to get the patriarchal nuts out and tell them 'Your idea of religion is not ours, and you don't speak for God in the least'.

This reminds me of "A Beautiful Mind" when the doc tells Nash "You can't rationalize this."

"Why not? Why can't I"

"Because your mind IS the problem."

Sure I can "feel" God everyday. He's in his early twenties, wears cool shades, a white short sleeve shirt and winks to me often, laughing at Christians and reminding me to be patient. He doesn't say much and doesn't answer anything from anyone. I know he is God, but how can I be sure that he is God? And not my imagination? How can you be sure? Who can verify this even inter-subjectively?

Oh yeah and He doesn't mind porn or interstellar travel. Just so you know.

You can't verify it. That's why it's called faith. You want God to be something objective and it simply can't be. Your assumption, your questions, your points, all rely on God not existing or at least not communicating with us. If this is true, then what difference does it make because we have no ability to be accurate on the matter, whatsoever. However, one must accept your primary assumption first and it's an inherently unscientific assumption and that was the point that Dempublicents1 was making. There is no way to address my concept of God (and hers, thought not entirely the same) without science moving into a realm where it does not belong. Our concept of God will never cross paths with science unless someone abuses one or the other.

You can't verify it. That's why it's called faith. You want God to be something objective and it simply can't be. Your assumption, your questions, your points, all rely on God not existing or at least not communicating with us. If this is true, then what difference does it make because we have no ability to be accurate on the matter, whatsoever. However, one must accept your primary assumption first and it's an inherently unscientific assumption and that was the point that Dempublicents1 was making. There is no way to address my concept of God (and hers, thought not entirely the same) without science moving into a realm where it does not belong. Our concept of God will never cross paths with science unless someone abuses one or the other.

??? :confused: I am so super-lost. So your concept of God is completely personal and introspective? With no visible indications in Nature. Not a Patriarchal Religion then?

Then, there is no issue. :)

??? :confused: I am so super-lost. So your concept of God is completely personal and introspective? With no visible indications in Nature. Not a Patriarchal Religion then?

Then, there is no issue. :)

Visible indications are still entirely subjective. That's the point. You're trying to make this scientific when it cannot be by definition. It's a philosophical viewpoint that does not rely on emperical evidence or contain ANY falsifiable (in the natural world) hypotheses. The basis of Christianity or Judaism is exactly that. It's a faith-based unfalsifiable religion.

Visible indications are still entirely subjective. That's the point. You're trying to make this scientific when it cannot be by definition. It's a philosophical viewpoint that does not rely on emperical evidence or contain ANY falsifiable (in the natural world) hypotheses. The basis of Christianity or Judaism is exactly that. It's a faith-based unfalsifiable religion.
And the world would be a much better place if people could realize this simple truth

Are you authoritative on this though? I mean I hope you are right of course. :) Many Christians I meet are happy to remind me of the Fire and Brimstone. Some have issues with evolution and one even has issues with Science in general.

Oh yes I am right;)

Am I correct to assume you are living in the USA? The USA has a big problem with religious fundamentalists. Nowhere else in the world are there such serious debates over evolution and science. "dogmatic religion" simply does not exist in most of Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Evolution and Scientific truth in general are simply not questioned in those places. In Italy, in England, both the Catholic Church and Anglican Church have repeatedly stated that it is downright ludicrous to teach anything but Evolution THeory in the classroom. Pope called evolution a "fact" many times.

The current Pope Benedict XVI states: "Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith." link (http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=80888)

"Fire and brimstone" is an American thing, and in the rest of the world hell is not thought of that way. Centuries ago Catholics believed hell was a burning pit but today the Catholic Church define hell only as "separated from God's love", and rejects any physical definition of hell. Eastern Orthodox Christian churches have for thousands of years defined hell as being "separated from God's love." The Orthodox never believed in a fiery hell to begin with, and the Orthodox believed that the concept of "fire and brimstone" was a false, heretical Catholic teaching. Mainstream Protestants such as Methodists agree with the Catholics and Orthodox today; mainstream Christians all acknowledge that a physical hell is strictly allegorical.

Clearly, this thread/poll is rather skewed with a limited American view on things, and only deals with the conflicts here in the USA, without a real knowledge and wider view of science and religion in the world. This thread, I think brings up a fair point about the conflict between science and certain religious communities in certain places. In the past there have been a lot of conflicts between religion and science. In the USA there are still some.

religion and science are not necessarily in conflict, and in most of the world, they're not. For billions of people, these two systems coexist harmoniously. All-encompassing terms like "Patriarchal religion" oversimplify and mischaracterize the issue. The "science-vs-rreligion" issue is quite diverse and nuanced, and in the end, it has already been resolved with neither science nor religion losing out.

I'm not one to credit myself with skills that are still in development. Hence why my CVs tend to suffer somewhat. >_>

Yes, the point could probably have been made with greater clarity and precision than I gave it. But, as you know, the transition between thought and speech is not always one which I make very well.

I guess I'll try again then.


Doesn't everyone worship a persona of God they create themselves? It seems like that's the only way to relate to an infinite God.

The very notion of God is itself at first a personification. People come to look for it through investigation of 'Spiritual Experience' and seek God as a means of placing an identity on the source of this phenomenon.

Descriptions of God as the omnipotent Creator are a part of this identity search. They occur after the initial experience as a result of information gathering.

However, others have had similar experiences and sought different explanations - in doing so, some have even learned to have them regularly. People in more naturist, non-theistic religions frequently have experiences that involve them in a oneness with the world around them. The similarities between these and the revelatory sensations of converts lead me to suggest that they are of the same vein.

To me and many others, the concept of a God outside of nature is thus an unusual one. God is the result of a personal search for understanding based on an event that I see occurring quite often in those with an acute awareness of nature. Why, then, should the result be something unnatural? The evidence provided by the personal experiences to me better supports the notion of God as a persona of nature itself and all aspects thereof than of something altogether unnatural.


Meh... Told ya. Whether that's any clearer or more concise is still unsure. Oh well.

It's less concise, but it's much more clear and contains a lot more ideas. Sorry for editting you, but I think it's in all of our interests to make our language more inclusive and less equivocable.

Visible indications are still entirely subjective. That's the point. You're trying to make this scientific when it cannot be by definition. It's a philosophical viewpoint that does not rely on emperical evidence or contain ANY falsifiable (in the natural world) hypotheses. The basis of Christianity or Judaism is exactly that. It's a faith-based unfalsifiable religion.

You know I don't disagree with you. I just get annoyed when the "name" of Science gets used to glorify Patriarchal religion. You say it's an abuse, but it gets done often and people buy it.

If faith is purely introspective and subjective then no one should coerce any one or kill anyone for it. You're right it's a abuse, but it gets done often and people buy it.

I guess you're saying that Science won't help here neither, since it's speculations become as nebulous (but no less!) as religion when in religion's department.

Oh yes I am right;)

Am I correct to assume you are living in the USA? The USA has a big problem with religious fundamentalists. Nowhere else in the world are there such serious debates over evolution and science. "dogmatic religion" simply does not exist in most of Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Evolution and Scientific truth in general are simply not questioned in those places. In Italy, in England, both the Catholic Church and Anglican Church have repeatedly stated that it is downright ludicrous to teach anything but Evolution THeory in the classroom. Pope called evolution a "fact" many times.

The current Pope Benedict XVI states: "Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith." link (http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=80888)

"Fire and brimstone" is an American thing, and in the rest of the world hell is not thought of that way. Centuries ago Catholics believed hell was a burning pit but today the Catholic Church define hell only as "separated from God's love", and rejects any physical definition of hell. Eastern Orthodox Christian churches have for thousands of years defined hell as being "separated from God's love." The Orthodox never believed in a fiery hell to begin with, and the Orthodox believed that the concept of "fire and brimstone" was a false, heretical Catholic teaching. Mainstream Protestants such as Methodists agree with the Catholics and Orthodox today; mainstream Christians all acknowledge that a physical hell is strictly allegorical.

Clearly, this thread/poll is rather skewed with a limited American view on things, and only deals with the conflicts here in the USA, without a real knowledge and wider view of science and religion in the world. This thread, I think brings up a fair point about the conflict between science and certain religious communities in certain places. In the past there have been a lot of conflicts between religion and science. In the USA there are still some.

religion and science are not necessarily in conflict, and in most of the world, they're not. For billions of people, these two systems coexist harmoniously. All-encompassing terms like "Patriarchal religion" oversimplify and mischaracterize the issue. The "science-vs-rreligion" issue is quite diverse and nuanced, and in the end, it has already been resolved with neither science nor religion losing out.

Well written. :)

You know I don't disagree with you. I just get annoyed when the "name" of Science gets used to glorify Patriarchal religion. You say it's an abuse, but it gets done often and people buy it.

If faith is purely introspective and subjective then no one should coerce any one or kill anyone for it. You're right it's a abuse, but it gets done often and people buy it.

I guess you're saying that Science won't help here neither, since it's speculations become as nebulous (but no less!) as religion when in religion's department.

That's the point. Nebulous, if we want to call it that, is a trait of the space that religion and philosophy properly occupies, not of religion and philosophy itself. When someone's religious beliefs cross into the emperical plane they must either ignore science and rally in ignorance or embrace science and accept that their beliefs can and should change. When science crosses into the realm of religion (in a more pure sense, not the realm where people place religion) then science runs the risk of destroying the fundamentals on which it is based. They quite literally run the risk of making science LESS useful

In this thread and in many others, you will see many people who will willingly abuse the position of science, claiming it can replace religion, or abuse the position of religion, using it to discount science, but these people do a disservice to the discipline they are trying to promote and are not representative of all or necessarily a majority of people who ascribe to patriarchal religions, science or both.

Well written. :)
Thank you.:)

To what extent does anyone worship God other than as a persona they have generated?

That all depends on whether there is a God, and how much we can know about said deity. That isn't a question I can answer for you.

My understanding is that the Omnipotent Creator God a given person worships is just another of these personas with the aspect being nature itself.

If the aspect is "nature itself" then the aspect cannot be the Creator of said aspect, anymore than my computer can be its own creator.

The evidence of personal experience of the almighty suggests the same sort of oneness of being as in non-theistic and naturist religions. That God exists thus seems to have a reasonable degree of backing, but that the persona generated through the concept of God is an accurate reflection of the physical state of its object has considerably less so.

*shrug* That's what happens when only personal experience can be relied upon. Personal experience is, well...personal, and thus subjective. We may all be experiencing the same objective entity - I believe we are - but our experience is different due to our own perception.

Commonly believed to be outside the Universe, yes, but there is no inherent reason why God cannot BE the Universe, like what Einstein believes.

*Being* the universe would mean two things:

(a) God did not create the universe.
(b) God is bound by the rules of the universe, is thus part of it, and thus is nothing more or less than the universe.

God need not be bound by Nature, but should be indicated or at least suggested by Nature.

The only way for scientific measures to ever get an indication of God would be for God to be bound by nature. If God is not bound by nature, then anything God does would be measured, by science, as part of nature, because nature is all that we can measure.

If no sensory data points to God and only "feelings" or speculations, then anyone anywhere can paint God as any entity with any characteristic. It is completely arbitrary and unverifiable with anything.

It isn't arbitrary - just personal. You certainly cannot "verify" my personal experience of God, any more than I can "verify" yours. But I don't need yours.

I know he is God, but how can I be sure that he is God? And not my imagination? How can you be sure? Who can verify this even inter-subjectively?

How *you* can be sure is your own matter. I don't have to be sure of *your* perceptions - only my own. Why do you need outside verification?

That depends on if we keep electing Republicans.

Well, in that case, my beloved country sinks with the religious nutjobs.

I believe religion can co-exist with science perfectly well, I just believe that fundamentalist nutsacks that try to apply religious allegory in opposition to science help to heap scorn religion.

Well, if i can base any scientific facts on Angels and Demons, people can create a "big bang", as long as there is a strong form of energy. So, in the real world, this could only happen with some ginourmous energy, OUT OF NOTHING!! so science needs god to exist, or one of its greatest theries would be impossible.

Well, if i can base any scientific facts on Angels and Demons, people can create a "big bang", as long as there is a strong form of energy. So, in the real world, this could only happen with some ginourmous energy, OUT OF NOTHING!! so science needs god to exist, or one of its greatest theries would be impossible.

One might suggest that you make an attempt to actually understand the theory, before spouting gradeschool BS.

I think Jocabia, you have posted well, but to further refine the debate, let me up the ante :)

That's the point. Nebulous, if we want to call it that, is a trait of the space that religion and philosophy properly occupies, not of religion and philosophy itself. When someone's religious beliefs cross into the emperical plane they must either ignore science and rally in ignorance or embrace science and accept that their beliefs can and should change. When science crosses into the realm of religion (in a more pure sense, not the realm where people place religion) then science runs the risk of destroying the fundamentals on which it is based. They quite literally run the risk of making science LESS useful

Though the distinction between empirical space and pure philosophical space is clear to you, I hesitate to see it as such a hard boundary. In the hypothesis-driven Science system, many ideas originate from a purely speculative, subjective philosophical space. For these ideas to take root as a scientific question, classically it should ask questions that can be empirically tested. But not always, sometimes it seeks internal mathematical self-consistency first(such as general relativity) before the techniques available to test it empirical are even available. Many aspects of quantum physics are at this stage. I cannot in my mind relegate this aspect of doing science squarely into philosophy.

In this thread and in many others, you will see many people who will willingly abuse the position of science, claiming it can replace religion, or abuse the position of religion, using it to discount science, but these people do a disservice to the discipline they are trying to promote and are not representative of all or necessarily a majority of people who ascribe to patriarchal religions, science or both.

I should further clarify the semantics of this thread. I am asking whether the Science-based worldview will be more prevalent among the general population in a hundred years, or the Patriarchal Religion-centric one. Which will be the subset of the other? Religions "borrowing" the concept of an Eternal God to amass social effect? Or Science "serving" the priests purely as a technical endeavor?

In today's world, with scientists often discussing their spirituality and religious authority figures name-dropping scientists or using science-derived data to glorify their belief system, the philosophical boundaries between Science and Patriarchal Religion, obvious to an academic like yourself, may be non-existent to the general public. The recent controversies over ID or stem cell research for example - religious authorities have certainly intervened aggressively, even though this should be in the realm of Science. By your reckoning they shouldn't clash, but they do. My question is that when they do clash, which side are you more inclined towards?

*Being* the universe would mean two things:

(a) God did not create the universe.
(b) God is bound by the rules of the universe, is thus part of it, and thus is nothing more or less than the universe.

The only way for scientific measures to ever get an indication of God would be for God to be bound by nature. If God is not bound by nature, then anything God does would be measured, by science, as part of nature, because nature is all that we can measure.

I disagree with this view. Not sure if you are familiar with the concept of Emergence, but here goes. God can be an emergent property of sum component interactions in the Universe. Just because things are made of nuts and bolts doesn't mean they are bound to the rules of simply nuts and bolts. If organized into a complex system, nuts and bolts can fly into the sky. Or dive into the deepest ocean. At the organization level of God, though She is made up of the Universe, She has properties that we cannot, as components of the Universe, be clear about. She doesn't have to be outside.


It isn't arbitrary - just personal. You certainly cannot "verify" my personal experience of God, any more than I can "verify" yours. But I don't need yours.

How *you* can be sure is your own matter. I don't have to be sure of *your* perceptions - only my own. Why do you need outside verification?

I don't have any quarrel with purely introspective views of spirituality like that. However I would strongly argue that Patriarchal Religions do not operate in this manner. They believe that their religious rules are in fact objective or at least intersubjective, and they must in order to give their belief system credence and social power.

I think Jocabia, you have posted well, but to further refine the debate, let me up the ante :)



Though the distinction between empirical space and pure philosophical space is clear to you, I hesitate to see it as such a hard boundary. In the hypothesis-driven Science system, many ideas originate from a purely speculative, subjective philosophical space. For these ideas to take root as a scientific question, classically it should ask questions that can be empirically tested. But not always, sometimes it seeks internal mathematical self-consistency first(such as general relativity) before the techniques available to test it empirical are even available. Many aspects of quantum physics are at this stage. I cannot in my mind relegate this aspect of doing science squarely into philosophy.



I should further clarify the semantics of this thread. I am asking whether the Science-based worldview will be more prevalent among the general population in a hundred years, or the Patriarchal Religion-centric one. Which will be the subset of the other? Religions "borrowing" the concept of an Eternal God to amass social effect? Or Science "serving" the priests purely as a technical endeavor?

In today's world, with scientists often discussing their spirituality and religious authority figures name-dropping scientists or using science-derived data to glorify their belief system, the philosophical boundaries between Science and Patriarchal Religion, obvious to an academic like yourself, may be non-existent to the general public. The recent controversies over ID or stem cell research for example - religious authorities have certainly intervened aggressively, even though this should be in the realm of Science. By your reckoning they shouldn't clash, but they do. My question is that when they do clash, which side are you more inclined towards?
I think you bring up good points, but to stay on-topic, I'll just address those that apply to the thread (however, I'd love you to start another thread around the others). You assume that one or the other must be more prevelant or at least you assumptions seem to be predicated on the idea that they MUST conflict. I think what we'll see in the future is the people who try to make these two conflict become less and less mainstream. There is no coming war. As we do with extreme fundamentalists now, on both sides we will start to marginalize those that throw out reason on both ends of the spectrum. Those of us happily in the middle allowing science and religion to remain seperate and equal will be happily trotting along because we were in the right place all along.

We have a Christian Armenian in Civil Engineering who gets along well enough with a Muslim from Turkey. They're both big believers in the merits of science, too.

I personally strongly dislike most religion I run into, but these guys seem okay.

I disagree with this view. Not sure if you are familiar with the concept of Emergence, but here goes. God can be an emergent property of sum component interactions in the Universe. Just because things are made of nuts and bolts doesn't mean they are bound to the rules of simply nuts and bolts. If organized into a complex system, nuts and bolts can fly into the sky.

Even when flying in the sky, nuts and bolts are bound by the rules that control nuts and bolts.

At the organization level of God, though She is made up of the Universe, She has properties that we cannot, as components of the Universe, be clear about. She doesn't have to be outside.

From a theoretical standpoint, anything that exists within the universe can be empirically measured. If those properties are part of the universe, we can eventually figure them out.

I don't have any quarrel with purely introspective views of spirituality like that. However I would strongly argue that Patriarchal Religions do not operate in this manner. They believe that their religious rules are in fact objective or at least intersubjective, and they must in order to give their belief system credence and social power.

You have repeatedly used Christianity as an example of a patriarchal religion, have you not? Both Jocabia and I are Christians. If you were only referring to Christianity in its much more organized form, then I won't necessarily have an argument with you, although even the more organized versions are largely moving away from any reason to conflict with science.

Even when flying in the sky, nuts and bolts are bound by the rules that control nuts and bolts.

A bag of nuts and bolts itself cannot sustain flight. Nuts and bolts organized into a flying machine can. Just like no one cell in a human body can sustain movement at 20 km/h, nor can a dish full of human cells, but runners can make that speed. My emphasis - organization resulting in new properties.

From a theoretical standpoint, anything that exists within the universe can be empirically measured. If those properties are part of the universe, we can eventually figure them out.

One of the central pillars of Science is not the answer but the question. Sometimes we don't know how to ask the right question or use the right approach. Emergent properties at a higher organizational levels than the whole human civilization? Some genius may provide a conceptual framework to see it, but certainly non-obvious (analogy Force vs Space-Time curvature). Some of these emergent properties may never even be imagined.

You have repeatedly used Christianity as an example of a patriarchal religion, have you not? Both Jocabia and I are Christians. If you were only referring to Christianity in its much more organized form, then I won't necessarily have an argument with you, although even the more organized versions are largely moving away from any reason to conflict with science.

Of course I would be happy if you are right. I know academics have a more nuanced position in almost any issue, being well read enough to have an informed, and rarely extreme, opinion. Just a poll to see what the snap reaction of other NS Generalites would be.

A bag of nuts and bolts itself cannot sustain flight. Nuts and bolts organized into a flying machine can. Just like no one cell in a human body can sustain movement at 20 km/h, nor can a dish full of human cells, but runners can make that speed. My emphasis - organization resulting in new properties.

The problem is that your point doesn't contradict mine. There are still underlying rules that govern these things. Nuts and bolts, put together into a machine, can fly because the underlying rules of physics allow for that.

*Anything* that is within nature is bound by nature's rules. There is no way around it, unless you go for a non-deterministic universe, in which case science is useless.

One of the central pillars of Science is not the answer but the question. Sometimes we don't know how to ask the right question or use the right approach. Emergent properties at a higher organizational levels than the whole human civilization? Some genius may provide a conceptual framework to see it, but certainly non-obvious (analogy Force vs Space-Time curvature). Some of these emergent properties may never even be imagined.

*May* not, but *could*.

Of course I would be happy if you are right. I know academics have a more nuanced position in almost any issue, being well read enough to have an informed, and rarely extreme, opinion. Just a poll to see what the snap reaction of other NS Generalites would be.

I'll have to check what it's looking like, then. I didn't answer the poll because my answer would basically be "neither".