Science and Theology: Incompatible?

[willowdreams]

==============================

I really hope I am not being offending to you, willowdreams. But I couldn't help but recognize something I feel you should note. Do you see any contradiction between your request above and you complaint below. Are you doing what you are asking others not to do?

no, I see no contradiction. I stated that it was my opinion that this is as spiritual as you can get. Maybe you do not see it as I do. Carl Sagan once said there was magic, then explained what it was.

Books.

“A book is made from a tree. It is an assemblage of flat, flexible parts (still called "leaves") imprinted with dark pigmented squiggles. One glance at it and you hear the voice of another person, perhaps someone dead for thousands of years. Across the millennia, the author is speaking, clearly and silently, inside your head, directly to you. Writing is perhaps the greatest of human inventions, binding together people, citizens of distant epochs, who never knew one another. Books break the shackles of time ― proof that humans can work magic.”

if you want to hear his words:

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkQEnRDhPUU[/media]

Spirit world is something as if after death? Ghosts? Ghostly images? We see things in light years. The stars we see now? Many of them probably are 'gone' now. Look at what we can see of the 'big bang'. We are looking BACK in time.

I see nothing wrong with what I am saying, I do not ask everyone to see things as I do. But I see nothing contradicting me. Asking religious people to keep religion out of science classes? I see nothing wrong with that. But someone on this forum posted about cameras and spirit world and I responded.

I guess if you go to a religious school, catholic school for instance or a muslim school, then yes I reckon religious teaching will be in every class, but public schools, religion needs to remain out of our science classes.

I am not sure of what you mean by my contradicting myself by saying that, and saying what I said in response to the person posting about cameras and spirit world. (thats where the second post of mine you posted on, was coming from).

Edited May 9, 2014 by willowdreams

[aka CAT]

With respect the question asked in the OP title, there is no law stating that a theology must be unreasonable, so I would suggest a synthesis of faith and reason is perfectly reasonable. That is not to suggest that I view any particular faith as 'reasonable'.

I'm not sure we can confidently claim religion/faith and science have different purposes, as in both the practitioner seeks to explain what is unknown. One difference between them is the methodology used in seeking that explanation. I would agree with Emma and others that the different methodologies cannot be successfully combined to produce a discipline which, like science, is based on rational, empirical, observations.

Science and religion/faith certainly are able to co-exist - but I would argue they cannot "work together" as PA and others have argued. This is not because they ask different questions - as I do not believe they do - but because the practitioner is required to make different, and incompatible, fundamental assumptions about the universe before applying the methodology each discipline employs to answer the questions they seek answers to.

Do you see any conflict with a MD of faith doing all that is humanly possible of him for a trusting patient?

If not, why shouldn't his medicine be accompanied by prayers for another's well being?

Such prayer lets some people be more effective.

Edited May 9, 2014 by aka CAT

[Leonardo]

Do you see any conflict with a MD of faith doing all that is humanly possible of him for a trusting patient?

If not, why shouldn't his medicine be accompanied by prayers for another's well being?

Such prayer lets some people be more effective.

If your argument is that a positive state of mind can impact a person's health, or recovery from ill-health, then I have no disagreement. If your argument is that prayer is effective because some supernatural force/entity exists which acts on prayer, then we have a disagreement.

There has never been established a causal relationship between prayer and any beneficial outcome of some situation relevant to that prayer.

As I said previously, it is the difference between believing what you see and seeing what you believe.

[willowdreams]

Do you see any conflict with a MD of faith doing all that is humanly possible of him for a trusting patient?

If not, why shouldn't his medicine be accompanied by prayers for another's well being?

Such prayer lets some people be more effective.

I have seen a lot of pple in prayer, I was raised christian and taught to pray before stressful times.

As I grew, and i knew I did not 'believe', I realized that prayer was something akin to meditation, a form of relaxation.

If prayer works for a doctor before surgery, and he wishes to have his 'moment/s of silence', then by all means, let a doctor have it, but if I am being operated on, that doctor better have a medical degree to back him up!! He better have gone to school and did more then 'book learn', I want some experience under his belt. Prayer doesnt 'heal'. If it did, all those children in third world countries would be healed by now and no longer starving to death.

(I seen them comercial documentaries, i saw all those pple prayer for those little starving kids, and they are still starving)

[aka CAT]

We don't get to say who are real Christians or not [...] But true Christians [...]

We cannot say, but you can? You wish!

Why is that everyone who would rid others of God

presumes to be Him? I define a real, true, Christian

as one who strives to follow Christ's example, while

you uphold hypocrites as model.

NAB - Matthew 4:10

“

Get away, Satan!

It is written:

‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship

and him alone shall you serve’.”

[aka CAT]

There has never been established a causal relationship between prayer and any beneficial outcome of some situation relevant to that prayer.

Your claim is without basis.

If prayer works for a doctor [...]

Prayer works for many, myself included.

If it works, it works. And the end result is good.

The example provided wasn't that of a person

who feigns to care and, yet, does nothing. So,

do not digress from a point in fact: Bad examples

can be found everywhere in and of all walks of life,

but to such persons the wise do not entrust their

health--mental, physical nor spiritual.

Edited May 9, 2014 by aka CAT

[theotherguy]

Meditation, prayer, centering, all this stuff reduces stress and encourages calm and confidence, which will improve health in general. That's the spritual side of medicine. Prayer isn't quite as reliable when it comes to repairing tissue damage or chronic disease. For those, surgery and medicine come into play. That's the scientific side of medicine. Prayer is a preventative, medicine is a curative. I'll grant that in some cases, prayer and meditation have seemed to help with cancer, serious disease, and some injuries. Those cases, I believe, make up no more than a small minority of all successful outcomes.

[Arbenol]

We cannot say, but you can? You wish!

Why is that everyone who would rid others of God

presumes to be Him? I define a real, true, Christian

as one who strives to follow Christ's example, while

you uphold hypocrites as model.

NAB - Matthew 4:10

“

Get away, Satan!

It is written:

‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship

and him alone shall you serve’.”

How many strawmen can you pack into one small paragraph?

Respond to what I say, not what you think it means?

[MyOtherAccount]

Books.

I have been all over the world in my capacity of the only Mobile Publishing Consultant ever. I probably don't need to learn anything more about book making nor the wonders the work brings about. www-01.sil.org/acpub/

You completely missed my point:

You commented telling people what they could do with expressing their "spiritualism" Then in the next comment you exposed your "atheism".

Furthermore, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. --Ecclesiastes 12:12

Neither religion nor science can be regulated to this place or that place. Both you carry around with you and use on a daily basis, if you ascribe to them at all.

If a kid is about to take a Earth Science's exam in school, the Supreme Court says he can silently pray prior to doing so. If the choir is to be on stage for a school assembly, those who collectively want to pray an Islamic prayer can do so (in the U.S.) Rightly, school sponsor religious activity is not okay. Meet you at the pole is more than appropriate.

Newton watched the movement of the cathedral chandelier during his Christian instruction and worship, and desired to explain it mathematically.

============================

Atheism is usually found in the list of world religions...

The faith you exercise in believing there is not god, spiritual people use for believing there is. Either requires faith. And faith is not a byproduct of science. Thereby using science to affirm your belief that there is no god seems like a delusional act to me.

============================

Atheists have too protested inside and outside churches, by the way:

http://www.atheistrev.com/2012/05/atheists-to-protest-north-carolina.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/the-stream-officialblog/2014/4/7/women-atheists-protestmormonchurchconference.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=atheist+protest+at+churches&rlz=1C1VASU_enUS556US556&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=zbduU8OBEvbIsAT1vICgBA&ved=0CDsQsAQ&biw=1135&bih=826

And in what takes place in homes:

http://christiannews.net/2013/05/24/atheist-group-plans-to-protest-texas-homeschool-convention/

[willowdreams]

I have been all over the world in my capacity of the only Mobile Publishing Consultant ever. I probably don't need to learn anything more about book making nor the wonders the work brings about. www-01.sil.org/acpub/

You completely missed my point:

You commented telling people what they could do with expressing their "spiritualism" Then in the next comment you exposed your "atheism".

Furthermore, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. --Ecclesiastes 12:12

Neither religion nor science can be regulated to this place or that place. Both you carry around with you and use on a daily basis, if you ascribe to them at all.

If a kid is about to take a Earth Science's exam in school, the Supreme Court says he can silently pray prior to doing so. If the choir is to be on stage for a school assembly, those who collectively want to pray an Islamic prayer can do so (in the U.S.) Rightly, school sponsor religious activity is not okay. Meet you at the pole is more than appropriate.

Newton watched the movement of the cathedral chandelier during his Christian instruction and worship, and desired to explain it mathematically.

============================

Atheism is usually found in the list of world religions...

The faith you exercise in believing there is not god, spiritual people use for believing there is. Either requires faith. And faith is not a byproduct of science. Thereby using science to affirm your belief that there is no god seems like a delusional act to me.

============================

Atheists have too protested inside and outside churches, by the way:

http://www.atheistre...h-carolina.html

http://america.aljaz...conference.html

https://www.google.c...iw=1135&bih=826

And in what takes place in homes:

http://christiannews...ool-convention/

I think pple can be of any faith they choose to be, and they can practice it as they see fit as long as they are not harming other pple (obviously you should understand what I mean by this).

I do not think religion needs to be in science class, nor should be. I do not care about the 'moment of silence', that is really fine, though I do not see any point in it. It makes no sense to me.

I do not think religion BELONGS IN SCHOOL. Period. (and yes I am talking about public schools, obviously those schools that parents send their kids to that includes religious teachings, is fine.).

If a person is religious and wishes to pray before meals or classes, who cares? Let them, and I do not think we should chastise them for it. But they should not expect others to do it with them, nor expect special treatment to do it. I went to a public school the daughter of a preacher (my best friend actually), prayed before everything (or so it seemed). she expected no special treatment nor was given any. She prayed on her own time before meals, she would pray before a test while the teacher was passing out the test. This was her, on her own time and silently.

I was also raised by a strict faith, I did not salute the flag either, as it is considered a great sin to do so (according to the faith I was raised in). I was not to make a great public expression of this as it was MY faith and not theirs. I just remained silent during the salute, but eventually that stopped happening (flag thing) and did not have to be concerned with it.

Of course, I was taught NOT to proclaim public displays of my faith, but to let my actions speak for me. SInce pple like to quote scriptures here:

Matthew 6:1

Matthew 6:2

though to be honest, I will again say I am an atheist, and I promise you, i will not enter your home and tell you how to believe, I will not picket your church and demand you teach evolution instead of creation in bible/sunday schools, I will not go to your religious schools and tell you to teach anything I think is right.

But when it comes to tax funded public schools.

Religion does not need to be in our science classes unless you have your own person faith, in which case, it is person and kept to yourself.

I will not apologize for that belief, nor will I deny I mean exactly what I say.

as for the spiritual aspect I had mentioned earlier, it was in response to cameras catching the spirit world, and i ment it as 'imagery' with words, when explaining myself again later to you, i used carl sagans words with 'books' being magic.. he meant it not as in literal hocus pocus magic, but.. aww shucks, YOU know what it was meant as.

I meant spirit world with telescopes as in our capturing stars and such which many are now no longer there, we are seeing them as they once was, as if they are ghostly images.

I should not have to repeat anything concerning that anymore, as you shoudl NOW know why i brought up the books and spirituality.

but i firmly believe in religion being NOT in science classes. In this instance I must admit, I believe in how bill nye does, he is just better and voicing it then I am.

[MyOtherAccount]

I really appreciate your taking time to relate a clearer explanation of all of this. I totally respect all of it and respect you for determining your own beliefs. I too am from that group which, in my case, discourages pledges (swearing to anything but God) "...let your Yes be yes and your No no."--not as stern I suppose. But then I have been a part of many a group.

Now for a laugh! I have been killing the fruit flies that came with a bunch of bananas, when I saw your animated bug I made a stab at it. lol I about died laughing when I realized it wasn't real!

Thanks again...

[Frank Merton]

We don't get to say who are real Christians or not. This is just a denial that people who share your core ideology could have such abhorrent beliefs. But true Christians have supported eugenics, been engaged in slave trading and, today, would deny rights to people who's lifestyles they don't approve of. We can't dismiss them as Christians because we don't like some of their other beliefs.

Whilst eugenics as been rightly discredited, in it's day it had supporters from all ends of the social spectrum.

Eugenics has been shouted down: I don't see that it has been discredited and I see no way it could be discredited. It has long-term idealistic objectives and so what if the "end does not justify the means," that is just a slogan that no one obeys anyway.

The problem is in the objectives pursued, which of course reflect the opinions (prejudices?) of those controlling the process. Society as a whole decided that it was better to let natural processes and random events control things. That is hardly sensible.

We are now rapidly approaching the point where parents and doctors will be able to practice eugenics. That is more scary than a governing agency doing it if you think about it. Right now Vietnam is having to go to all sorts of extremes to make sure female babies are not preferentially aborted -- what about when they are able to determine the sexuality or politics of the baby?

I am not saying I favor eugenics. I only say it is a difficult issue. The link with Darwin though is kinda silly. I don't know that he ever talks about anything of that sort, and would involve artificial selection, not his natural selection.

[aka CAT]

Frank,

The trouble with the quote above is that it misrepresents Christians as slave-

trading Supremacists when nothing could be less like Christ or anything in the

New Testament of the bible. The source of such anti-Christian hate speech

I cannot believe rational. I don’t know why such vitriol is tolerated here in view

of this section’s sub-heading:

'Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs' board guidelines Please always respect

the beliefs of other members - the bashing of specific religions, countries, races

or belief systems is strictly disallowed.

Worse, “those [truly] controlling the process” whereof you speak are more far

reaching than you imagine. Their link with Darwin has to do with the pairing of

"natural selection" with "survival of the fittest" for the benefit of a privileged few.

That, with respect to DeWitz, is topic for another thread.

Peace be with you.

Edited May 11, 2014 by aka CAT

[Arbenol]

Frank,

The trouble with the quote above is that it misrepresents Christians as slave-

trading Supremacists when nothing could be less like Christ or anything in the

Go back and review our conversation. Afterwards, if you still believe that my comment maligns all Christians then your comprehension skills are a little lacking.

[Frank Merton]

The connection between slavery and Christianity is interesting. My impression is that the early Christians did not have slaves and if they were slaves accepted it as part of rendering unto Caesar.

Soon after Christianity came to power slavery in the ancient sense disappeared. It was replaced a few hundred years later by serfdom, which was seen as people being attached to the land and hence to whomever owned the land, with a variety of traditional limits and prerogatives.

The invention of modern slavery was I think mainly racist, combined with the perverted idea that a Christianized slave was better off than a pagan or animist free person. That Fascists attempting to enslave most of Europe would claim survival of the fittest as an excuse is just part of their insanity and can be dismissed readily enough.

[aka CAT]

"Fascist," yes; "true Chrisrtian," never--

a "true Christian" is never a "Fascist."

Edited May 11, 2014 by aka CAT

[Frank Merton]

"Fascist," yes; "true Chrisrtian," never--

a "true Christian" is never a "Fascist."

I suppose not, even though many of them thought they were just as strongly as Christians today.

[Arbenol]

I suppose not, even though many of them thought they were just as strongly as Christians today.

And that's the point, Frank.

We can look at the past through contemporary moral lenses and state that eugenics and slavery are abhorrent practices.

But when slavery was acceptable and eugenics was en vogue, they were supported by all kinds of people. To say that "true" Christians wouldn't do this is true now (as it is for many of every faith and atheists alike), but is absolutely not true in its historical context.

[MyOtherAccount]

And that's the point, Frank.

We can look at the past through contemporary moral lenses and state that eugenics and slavery are abhorrent practices.

But when slavery was acceptable and eugenics was en vogue, they were supported by all kinds of people. To say that "true" Christians wouldn't do this is true now (as it is for many of every faith and atheists alike), but is absolutely not true in its historical context.

In philosophy we call that the evolution of social conscience.

[Frank Merton]

It is an indicator to me that mankind is making progress in ways other than just technology and science. The moral structure of belief systems and of the political debate is advancing. It doesn't perhaps seem it and there are clearly backward parts of the world but overall attitudes have become more humane and more tolerant over more and more of the world.

[Arbenol]

It is an indicator to me that mankind is making progress in ways other than just technology and science. The moral structure of belief systems and of the political debate is advancing. It doesn't perhaps seem it and there are clearly backward parts of the world but overall attitudes have become more humane and more tolerant over more and more of the world.

Couldn't have said it better.

It's a truth that, I believe is self evident.

[MyOtherAccount]

It is encouraging to me as well. (I really don't like being around people who say things are going to hell, especially not when it is said in a sermon.) Well, it is time I turn horizontal, again. I hope I won't need the sleeping hammer. It hurts!

[aka CAT]

A true Christian is one who is true to Christ's teachings.

One who is true to His teachings is never a fascist.

Therefore, it is false to claim a "true Christian" a fascist.

To insist otherwise is to be false.

[Rlyeh]

A true Christian is one who is true to Christ's teachings.

One who is true to His teachings is never a fascist.

Therefore, it is false to claim a "true Christian" a fascist.

To insist otherwise is to be false.

You first premise is correct but the second one is wrong.

A true Christian can very well be a fascist. In fact various definitions fascism is quite compatible with Christianity.

[Frank Merton]

Now my reaction to that is that a "true fascist" is not ever a true anything else, as fascism is not true.