[Ben_Edict]

Thankyou. My point, in a nutshell. Science and religion are trying to answer different questions hence each can embrace the other. It's only when the bible is used as a literal device to deny scientific thoery that the two come into conflict.

Second this.

Ben

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 12:44 PM ----------

Interestingly that first part that says faith and science can not be in conflict has been the teaching of the church for 1500 years:

---------------------------------

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are."

Biblical text should not be interpreted as properly literal, but rather as metaphorical, if it contradicts what we come to know from our God-given reason. To do so is heretical.

St Augustine – De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408 AD]

--------------------------------------------------

Sound familiar?

Yes, that is what myself and others have written again and again here. There is no conflict between science and religion - they deal with different matters, which as a whole may be seen to form the full view.

Ben

[Ratmagiclady]

Second this.

Yes, that is what myself and others have written again and again here. There is no conflict between science and religion - they deal with different matters, which as a whole may be seen to form the full view.

Ben

There is of course, 'theory,' and then there's 'practice' on this point: while the Church philosophically may not have a problem with 'pure' science, ...in its dogmas and teachings, it's got quite a history of saying that dogma overrides objective facts, (for instance, teaching people that contraceptives don't work, don't help protect against STDs, for instance, ...claiming that LGBT people are 'objectively disordered' when science just doesn't bear this out... Which isn't so much 'rejecting' science so much as abusing it with 'scienceyness:' bending things to suit dogma, much like so many others. Even telling people to blame homosexuality for the church's own systemic abuses of children, when there's actually no correlation there.) Then they'll turn around and say that that policy you've quoted means that whatever they say *is* in accord with science, more of that 'We're not doing this thing we're doing.'

Philosophically, of course, yes, they say there's no essential conflict, nor do I think there has to be. Nor are they the 'worst offenders' in this regard by any stretch, but they're hardly an impeccable font of reason on all points: religious *authorities* of certain kinds are clearly threatened by scientific facts, ..at least ones they aren't *controlling* and handing down, so to speak.

To their credit, a lot of the Church has turned around on the climate change issues, though they still claim that because a lot of Pagans are environmentalist, that environmentalism constitutes 'paganism' and inveigh against what they both trivialize and mischaracterize. Of course, they still bear a good bit of the responsibility for all the *delay* we couldn't afford in dealing with these issues.

Maybe they've got a way to go on the social sciences.




.

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 08:34 AM ----------

Very interesting Ratlady, another long rambling rant against anything religious. I think you do some good with these, there are most likely some die hard anti religous people here that are now taking a second look at religion, just based on your recommendations against it.

Interesting 'logic,' Rupert, ...all you can say about that is that it was a 'long rambling rant against anything religious,' then go right ahead and once again attack me over my *religion:*

The real state of affairs, of course, is that whether I'm here or not, people are pretty much fleeing these religions wholesale, leaving a rather radicalized and irrational lot behind. The much-remarked upon 'Spiritual Not Religious' category is the *big* and growing demographic shift.

You wouldn't be including your fine pagan religion in your rant would you? I bet the scientific view is much more attuned to rock and wood worship than I can imagine ....right?

You do realize that what you say there is what some hostile *Christians* claim Pagan religion is? (Regardless of the *facts,* tellingly-enough?)

No, the scientific view of a rock or some wood isn't in conflict with Pagan religion, ..even if we *did* 'worship rocks.' The fact that I've already corrected you on this at least once, of course, shows one reason why people so *resent* the hateful irrationality *your* type of religion tries to force on the public, our government, and our private lives. When you don't like the facts, you just ignore them and claim you know 'the truth' anyway.

Let's put it in a neutral hypothetical. Say someone believes that radio waves are 'the spirit of the God Wahoo.' Science can't really address that. If the cult of Wahoo, however, claims 'Our leader receives transmissions of astronomical data directly by radio waves from Wahoo... Which means red-headed people are of inferior intelligence' ....science can show there's no such transmission, science can show that the 'astronomical data' is nonsense, and science can show there's no such correlation regarding redheads.

See the difference?

Probably not, I know.

I can easily see where you despise any mainstream religions...they all say you are a filthy sinner bound for hell. I guess rocks don't do a lot of talking....right again?
Regards!

Do squirrels?

You simply *claim* I 'despise any mainstream religions,' ...This is hardly the case. I have some sharp criticisms of what some are using them to do with our public life, yes. And people, not just me, are *very* tired of literalists and authoritarians like you abusing people and lying about them, then claiming you have some special authority that's beyond question.

A lot of people very much *resent* the disproportionate influence of certain hatemongering, aggressively-ignorant people using these religions to divide our society, insult human intelligence, and insist that there's nothing we can or should do about real and pressing problems but scapegoat people, even accept second class status ourselves. Certainly, if you look at our *politics and public life* and how you guys behave here, you wouldn't think there were an awful lot of 'Christian moderates' around, ...Or that they must somehow tacitly approve of how the Religious Right has been trying to take things all this time.

Of course, really, many are just tired of the hypocrisy. Whatever their faith.

Of course, while you've been sitting here defaming Pagan religion and calling me 'sick,' 'evil,' and a pervert, an Evangelical youth minister most famous for leading a 'crusade' to get a Wiccan school run out of Rossville, Illinois, 'to protect children' ...just went up on rape charges for having been molesting a boy in his program, ...and is being investigated for child pornography.

Maybe you've got some 'higher truth' on that one? Yes, Rupert, people do resent this insanity you push. And, I think, resent the more 'mainstream' denominations which simply mildly-support it, while more-*politely* dehumanizing people who have done you no harm.

[Rupert]

Another long rambling rant of jibberish defending homosexuals and bashing Christians, headed for my Industrial Compactor. Thanks to your trash here on the Forum, I am now under investigation, as well as my friend George, for "Compactor Abuse".

So, after all that jibberish, what you were saying is that a lot of homosexuals are perverts? And....that you can see a cow in every can of condensed milk, proving you can tell us the source of matter?
Next question, Magic Ratlady, worshiper of rocks,....where did the cow come from?
Regards!

[Ratmagiclady]

Another long rambling rant of jibberish defending homosexuals and bashing Christians, headed for my Industrial Compactor. Thanks to your trash here on the Forum, I am now under investigation, as well as my friend George, for "Compactor Abuse".

So, after all that jibberish, what you were saying is that a lot of homosexuals are perverts? And....that you can see a cow in every can of condensed milk, proving you can tell us the source of matter?
Next question, Magic Ratlady, worshiper of rocks,....where did the cow come from?
Regards!

QED, Rupert. QED.

You claim that your lies about others are 'absolute truth' and simultaneously claim you can't understand and yet 'know' all these awful things you *make up* about people... While defending hypocrisy, bigotry and hate.... With abuse.

This is not some 'essential conflict between science and spirit,' ....it's

...You, really.

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 03-28-2010 at 08:14 AM.

[Rupert]

QED, Rupert. QED.

You claim that your lies about others are 'absolute truth' and simultaneously claim you can't understand and yet 'know' all these awful things you *make up* about people... While defending hypocrisy, bigotry and hate.... With abuse.

This is not some 'essential conflict between science and spirit,' ....it's

...You, really.

It's ....it's......Come on Ratlady, I'm waiting for your omniscient answer. How can I learn and become knowledgeable without your input? Do you think it is fair to leave me hanging like that? I bet in your sick mind, you were visualizing poor old Rupert "twisting in the wind".......waiting for your superior intelligence to enlighten my Squirrel-like brain........right? How cruel, and yet you try to say I am cruel...and unusual too!
Regards

[Ratmagiclady]

It's ....it's......Come on Ratlady, I'm waiting for your omniscient answer. How can I learn and become knowledgeable without your input? Do you think it is fair to leave me hanging like that? I bet in your sick mind, you were visualizing poor old Rupert "twisting in the wind".......waiting for your superior intelligence to enlighten my Squirrel-like brain........right? How cruel, and yet you try to say I am cruel...and unusual too!
Regards

Fascinating.

[Rupert]

Fascinating.

God bless you Ratlady........Errr, I mean Rock bless you! Whatever!
Regards!

[RolloR]

It's funny how the person who proposed the Big Bang Theory was an active Catholic Priest.

He didn't seem to get himself stuck in a "Science VS Religion" argument like all the people reading The Bible or Science Documents, which he taught both as a priest/professor.

Politics is what complicates things.

[wildman]

OK.

Looked at all the posts at least briefly

The Evolution vs Creationism thing:

We look at this very complex ordinary physical world we live in. It is indeed something of great beauty, subtlety and complexity. In fact of such a level of complexity that it may always remain substantially beyond human reason to understand.

Given this, how do we explain the existence of this physical world? It must require an ultimate creator. That is God.

What would this God have to be like in order to create this physical world? A few qualities that come to mind:

He/she must possess absolute goodness, omnipotence, immortality, omniscience, the ultimate source of all creation and the giver of all meaning to human existence.

We take a very complex world that we can only ever, perhaps, understand very incompletely and explain it's existence by postulating the existence of something else that is by definition completely beyond human comprehension.

That is we explain something that is very difficult to explain by postulating the existence of something else that is impossible to explain.

How does this explain anything?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The real reason why some religious groups don't like evolution is not because evolution threatens their belief, but because they need to keep their internal cohesion by manufacturing external threats. It's an old mass manipulation tactic.

[Rupert]

The real reason why some religious groups don't like evolution is not because evolution threatens their belief, but because they need to keep their internal cohesion by manufacturing external threats. It's an old mass manipulation tactic.

I don't know about you, and the world you live in, but in my world I have no need to manufacture threats. I see disasters and tragedy at every turn, and every horizon has a dark cloud hanging somewhere in the mix.
Manufacturing things seems more in your line of thinking......things like "missing links" out of lizards a damn cat drug up.......
Regards

[wildman]

The real reason why some religious groups don't like evolution is not because evolution threatens their belief, but because they need to keep their internal cohesion by manufacturing external threats. It's an old mass manipulation tactic.

If a group already rejects evolution why would the group continue to feel the need to preach to the choir?

Perhaps they do not feel their faith threatened by evolution but they do feel that evolution threatens something. If so what? Do they feel that evolution is a threat to their cohesion? If so wouldn't that be because they feel that evolution threatens their faith?

Or perhaps you mean the group is manipulated by the clergy and the clergy has it's own agenda apart from the group?

Also why do these groups feel the need to go outside their groups and try to influence the wider society by changing the science curriculum in the public schools?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you I'm just not sure what you are getting at.

[*isteve]

If a group already rejects evolution why would the group continue to feel the need to preach to the choir?

Perhaps they do not feel their faith threatened by evolution but they do feel that evolution threatens something. If so what? Do they feel that evolution is a threat to their cohesion? If so wouldn't that be because they feel that evolution threatens their faith?

Or perhaps you mean the group is manipulated by the clergy and the clergy has it's own agenda apart from the group?

Also why do these groups feel the need to go outside their groups and try to influence the wider society by changing the science curriculum in the public schools?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you I'm just not sure what you are getting at.

If you accept that one aspect of your "truth" is open to debate, then it casts doubt on everything else you pass off as the "truth". The trouble with literalism is that its all or nothing.

Either the bible is the literal truth, or it isn't. If the basis of your authority is the former, then every argument to the contrary is a direct threat to that authority.

And that wont do.

[Ratmagiclady]

I don't know about you, and the world you live in, but in my world I have no need to manufacture threats. I see disasters and tragedy at every turn, and every horizon has a dark cloud hanging somewhere in the mix.
Manufacturing things seems more in your line of thinking......things like "missing links" out of lizards a damn cat drug up.......
Regards

I think what 'seems' to you is by your own description not a very realistic place. Frankly, Rupert, I think you infest it with your own idea of demons, and that's why you see 'darkness and threats' everywhere.

No one said this world of wonders was entirely *safe.* If it was, there'd indeed be no need for anything or anyone to evolve. Trying to force it to be static and then blaming 'devils' when that isn't reality is just further removing yourself from any ability to cope.

Willful ignorance of this sort *creates* disasters.

Gives fear and blindness way too much power over you, and scapegoating others for this state of affairs may *feel* a little powerful, but it's never enough, is it?

[Rupert]

I think what 'seems' to you is by your own description not a very realistic place. Frankly, Rupert, I think you infest it with your own idea of demons, and that's why you see 'darkness and threats' everywhere.

No one said this world of wonders was entirely *safe.* If it was, there'd indeed be no need for anything or anyone to evolve. Trying to force it to be static and then blaming 'devils' when that isn't reality is just further removing yourself from any ability to cope.

Willful ignorance of this sort *creates* disasters.

Gives fear and blindness way too much power over you, and scapegoating others for this state of affairs may *feel* a little powerful, but it's never enough, is it?

So now old Rupert creates earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, plagues, droughts, mass bombings, wars, and disease....you better be a little more respectful Ratlady, I'm a damn dangerous guy!

Lizards...I still don't do lizards....I leave that for you guys, you are so good at that sort of thingy.
Beast Regards