Science vs. Religion

[+Desertrat56]

6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So, as I walk about my coronavirus imposed isolation in my home, this thought came to me...

The question posed... Can religion and science coexist, depends on which way it is worded.

Religion can coexist with science. Theres been numerous examples given.

However Science can NOT coexist with religion. Or, rather, science will insist that religion isnt real.

So a person who's life is based in religion can USE science. 

But, a person who's life is based on science/facts will be unable to coexist with religion.

Depends on how you read the question.

Have you never met a scientist  who is also religious?  I have.  Yes it works both ways, a scientist can decide that science is proof of a god because of the symmetry and reason of it.  I don't understand why you would think all scientists cannot coexist with religion.  Is it your version or perception of religion that is so narrow or is it your misunderstanding of science?

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Normally such people will also still act within their native culture. And you just suggested that culture is, in part, based on religion

Actually I was not thinking of native cultures, who have completely different social norms than europeans.  I was referring to the specific religion of Florence's family, which in the UK even more than the US has been the defining element of social norms. 

[+DieChecker]

9 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Have you never met a scientist  who is also religious?  I have.  Yes it works both ways, a scientist can decide that science is proof of a god because of the symmetry and reason of it.  I don't understand why you would think all scientists cannot coexist with religion.  Is it your version or perception of religion that is so narrow or is it your misunderstanding of science?

No, I'm saying the Abstract... The Philosophy... of science cant accept religion.

Those scientists who believe, would be considering the question from the believers side. If they looked at it from the science side, they would dismiss the idea.

I've never heard of someone who collected empirical evidence of God's existance, and converted from athiesm, based on that evidence alone.

I am very scientific, and yet believe in God. Due to personal experiences.

Edited March 20, 2020 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Actually I was not thinking of native cultures, who have completely different social norms than europeans.  I was referring to the specific religion of Florence's family, which in the UK even more than the US has been the defining element of social norms. 

More so, she was a British Aristocrat. She had to go against social convention on several fronts. Would, say a Italian woman have had as much trouble? Or, a Polish woman, or a Greek woman, or a Russian woman? Had to say, but British people of that period were VERY culturally conservative.

[+Desertrat56]

17 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

No, I'm saying the Abstract... The Philosophy... of science cant accept religion.

Those scientists who believe, would be considering the question from the believers side. If they looked at it from the science side, they would dismiss the idea.

I've never heard of someone who collected empirical evidence of God's existance, and converted from athiesm, based on that evidence alone.

I am very scientific, and yet believe in God. Due to personal experiences.

The philosophy of science is Not "nothing is true until proven", it is "how do we understand the world or universe we live in".  I think religion has Nothing to do with whether god exists or not.  You are talking apples and describing oranges.  And you do not know that there has been no scientist who started out as an atheist and became a believer in a deity.  So, talk existence of god, or talk religion they are not the same thing, even though currently they are both dependent on belief.  Even so, only some religions refute science, most accept it and use it, as only some scientists refute the existence of god and some accept it as part of why they are able to think and use science.

Edited March 20, 2020 by Desertrat56

[+Desertrat56]

18 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

More so, she was a British Aristocrat. She had to go against social convention on several fronts. Would, say a Italian woman have had as much trouble? Or, a Polish woman, or a Greek woman, or a Russian woman? Had to say, but British people of that period were VERY culturally conservative.

Any woman during that time who lived in a country that was ruled by the pope's religion or some other permutation of christianity would have had the same issues socially, Italy, Poland, Greece. but I know nothing of Russia at that time.  British were owned by the pope until King Henry VIII and even then he still insisted on a state religion so yes socially it was a religion that determined the rules. 

[+DieChecker]

6 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

The philosophy of science is Not "nothing is true until proven", it is "how do we understand the world or universe we live in". 

I'd not disagree. But, regardless using God, or religion, as evidence isnt going to convince someone who is evidence based.

Many atheists, I think, would disagree with your definition, and insist such has to be evidence based.

Quote

I think religion has Nothing to do with whether god exists or not.  You are talking apples and describing oranges.  

I'd, again, not disagree. But would comment that any belief system, down to a single individual, can be considered a religion. A belief in a divinity requires a religious belief, IMHO.

Quote

And you do not know that there has been no scientist who started out as an atheist and became a believer in a deity.

I did say that I'd never heard of it. If you have an example, please post it. 

Quote

Even so, only some religions refute science, most accept it and use it, as only some scientists refute the existence of god and some accept it as part of why they are able to think and use science.

That goes to my original post on from what angle the question is viewed. You're saying religions often accept science, which is what I already said.

But is there secular science that says God is real?

Religion has no problem believing in science... the evidence is unquestioned (by most?).

Science though, has no confirmed evidence that any supernatural being exists.

[+DieChecker]

11 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Any woman during that time who lived in a country that was ruled by the pope's religion or some other permutation of christianity would have had the same issues socially, Italy, Poland, Greece. but I know nothing of Russia at that time.  British were owned by the pope until King Henry VIII and even then he still insisted on a state religion so yes socially it was a religion that determined the rules. 

How about the USA? Australia?

Regardless, she wasn't taken out and stoned, or burned. She was close enough to the culture/religion of the day she not only was accepted, and trained. But was sought after for advise by kings and presidents.

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Well, you wrote a fine, logical, rebuttal. But, is it anything other then a personal opinion?

Anything other than a personal opinion? I thought my post was a combination of a considerable amount of factual material and my own personal opinion about how those facts bear on our topic.

Regardless, my position is no less a personal opinion than to interpret her reported experience as an interaction with something supernatural rather than a rare but not unprecedented psychological phenomenon. That category of experience is not even rare if we think of these two examples as definiing the far end of a spectrum of human experiences of similar kind, but usually less dramatic.

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

and draws up a convoluted theory to explain their position.

Someone whose explanation is that the Creator of the Universe personally intervened in history to improve medical care by first helping the British prosecute the Crimean War, having pursued that goal by revealing himself to one woman alone, persuading her that she's on a mission from God,  should be careful whose theory they call "convoluted."

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

To say she only used religion as an excuse to be allowed to follow science simply doesnt add up given what we know about the entirety of her life.

I didn't characterize her overcoming opposition as anybody finding an "excuse" for anything.

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

She simply embodied religion AND science.

She practiced science and she practiced religion. Simply? It seems to me we are having this discussion because her personal involvement with each of those domains was anything but "simple." Hence the absurdity that I mentioned, which view you needn't share, of course.

Edited March 20, 2020 by eight bits

[lightly]

This is all too complicated ?  ...for my simple mind anyway,   I think DieChecker presented an excellent example of a person who united religion and science in her life. ..in her life science and religion Coexisted and Cooperated .   

The word Religion...for many, immediately conjures up prejudices and biases ?  There  have been, and are,  many examples of persons who held, and hold, both scientific knowledge and some sort of ...for lack of a better word, spiritual,  belief ? 

It seems slightly difficult to find much agreement when trying to address a topic named Science Vs. Religion ?   

No offence X.  

[jmccr8]

7 hours ago, lightly said:

This is all too complicated ?  ...for my simple mind anyway,   I think DieChecker presented an excellent example of a person who united religion and science in her life. ..in her life science and religion Coexisted and Cooperated .   

The word Religion...for many, immediately conjures up prejudices and biases ?  There  have been, and are,  many examples of persons who held, and hold, both scientific knowledge and some sort of ...for lack of a better word, spiritual,  belief ? 

It seems slightly difficult to find much agreement when trying to address a topic named Science Vs. Religion ?   

No offence X.  

Hi Lightly 

For some it is a bigger problem than it is for others, for me there is no conflict because I think we are creators, realize potential,. dream and realize greater potential each of us exceeding our forefathers in some ways if we apply ourselves. We can manipulate ourselves and our environment to adapt both for our benefit and for the most part it is for the good of the whole.

jmccr8

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, eight bits said:

Anything other than a personal opinion? I thought my post was a combination of a considerable amount of factual material and my own personal opinion about how those facts bear on our topic.

Oh, what you wrote is true, of course. But it doesn't prevent her from, in her own words and actions, being religious. Or, also, in her own words and actions, following the scientific method.

You tried (or so it seemed to me) to create a context in which to dismiss (?), her religious nature. You state she was a genius, and imply that to do what she did, she must have faked being religious. Though her own words strongly suggest this was not the case.

Quote

Regardless, my position is no less a personal opinion than to interpret her reported experience as an interaction with something supernatural rather than a rare but not unprecedented psychological phenomenon. That category of experience is not even rare if we think of these two examples as definiing the far end of a spectrum of human experiences of similar kind, but usually less dramatic.

True. Her reported vision could have been a mental phenomena. 

But religion is a active thing she followed her entire life. Even if we assume she was mentally having issues, to her it was religion. And she believed in it.

And yet, she practiced science better then many, if not most, scientists of the day.

Quote

Someone whose explanation is that the Creator of the Universe personally intervened in history to improve medical care by first helping the British prosecute the Crimean War, having pursued that goal by revealing himself to one woman alone, persuading her that she's on a mission from God,  should be careful whose theory they call "convoluted."

All religion is convoluted. In that it requires belief in the unprovable. 

A debunk of recorded history that puts in what amounts to "if this, then..." statements, could be considered convoluted also.

Quote

I didn't characterize her overcoming opposition as anybody finding an "excuse" for anything.

I'd say you were characterizing her as using a false belief in religion to help move her science forward. Was that not what you meant? Perhaps "excuse" was the wrong word?

Quote

She practiced science and she practiced religion. Simply? It seems to me we are having this discussion because her personal involvement with each of those domains was anything but "simple." Hence the absurdity that I mentioned, which view you needn't share, of course.

She was extraordinary, I'll give you that. She wasnt common, in her beliefs, or science, for the time.

So, given that... I'd agree it is "absurd", in that she was a very rare individual.

But, regardless... she united religion (if only in her own way), and science, in moving forward to many benefits to mankind.

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

You tried (or so it seemed to me) to create a context in which to dismiss (?), her religious nature. You state she was a genius, and imply that to do what she did, she must have faked being religious. Though her own words strongly suggest this was not the case.

Hi Diechecher

Not to your detriment of intent I find myself agreeing with eightbits in the nature of the discussion and in a sense we could see her as a female Jesus given temperament of the culture at the time.A good person is a good person no matter where a person stands in viewing them and she stood up against the norm and should be appreciated for their commitment to realize a potential that was probably intended to change how people thought.

jmccr8

[psyche101]

13 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Well, I'd encourage you to read up on her, and then return and comment again. Her life was steeped in religion. More so then either of her parents. She sought out religious leaders for training and advise. And later provided religious leaders with training and advise.

Religion was her motivation, science was her weapon against illness.

That's how she wants to tell the story. That's all. It's not religion and science coexisting. It's a personal view. Sister Kenny wasn't even a sister by religion, but gained the title through military, and made quite an impact herself. Is encourage you to have a look at her life. My ex wife was from Nobby, there is a statue commemorating her life there. 

Interesting little place. The iconic Dad and Dave cartoon characters were based on real people that lived there too. The shed still stands. Tiny town though. 

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

You state she was a genius, and imply that to do what she did, she must have faked being religious.

I'm baffled how you get fake from genius, for either woman.

There's no secret that I have a particular view of human unconscious contents, generally similar to the one held by Carl Jung. Jung isn't at all unusual in holding that unconscious content will sometimes do extraordinary things to express itself when repressed. Unconscious content includes as yet undeveloped talents and potential skills.

Ordinarily, repression is something an individual does to their own "disapproved" thoughts and attitudes. Here, it is social repression, both in the form of active discouragement and also the passive absence of relevant opportunity for women within the social order. Some of that social repression may even have been internalized to become garden variety self-repression. Regardless, the result is to prevent expression of unconscious content, and that sets the stage for something extraordinary to occur.

Without apology, I do not believe that supernatural beings communicated with these women. That is very different from believing they faked anything. On the contrary, because I am familiar with relevant history (e.g. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience), I have tremendous confidence that they had the experiences they report, and interpreted them as they said they interpreted them.

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Even if we assume she was mentally having issues, to her it was religion.

That sounds as if you're tagging me with describing Joan or Nightingale as mentally ill, at least marginally ("having issues"). That's not so.

Both women were pious within the bounds of the established and conventional religion of their place and time. Their "religious experience crisis" had lasting effects on them and their attitudes toward their cradle religion. How could it not? That's not a "mental issue" or sign of illness. That's coming to terms with your life experience as you've lived it. That's a healthy thing to try to do.

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I'd say you were characterizing her as using a false belief in religion to help move her science forward. Was that not what you meant? Perhaps "excuse" was the wrong word?

I believe that she and Joan were mistaken in their belief about what really happened to them. Other people have similar experiences that motivate them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, but some of them interpret the experiences as secular, or if religious, then a different religion than Joan's or Nightingale's (which are actually two religions today, but fairly similar and in Joan's time in full communion with each other).

Once again, however relevant these women's experiences are to the topic, neither one is a simple example or a typical example of a religious person who achieved greatness in the secular sphere.

[+DieChecker]

44 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Once again, however relevant these women's experiences are to the topic, neither one is a simple example or a typical example of a religious person who achieved greatness in the secular sphere.

Given what you posted, would you believe anyone could be a simple case? Or, would all be extraordinary by default?

[jmccr8]

46 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I'm baffled how you get fake from genius, for either woman.

There's no secret that I have a particular view of human unconscious contents, generally similar to the one held by Carl Jung. Jung isn't at all unusual in holding that unconscious content will sometimes do extraordinary things to express itself when repressed. Unconscious content includes as yet undeveloped talents and potential skills.

Ordinarily, repression is something an individual does to their own "disapproved" thoughts and attitudes. Here, it is social repression, both in the form of active discouragement and also the passive absence of relevant opportunity for women within the social order. Some of that social repression may even have been internalized to become garden variety self-repression. Regardless, the result is to prevent expression of unconscious content, and that sets the stage for something extraordinary to occur.

Without apology, I do not believe that supernatural beings communicated with these women. That is very different from believing they faked anything. On the contrary, because I am familiar with relevant history (e.g. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience), I have tremendous confidence that they had the experiences they report, and interpreted them as they said they interpreted them.

That sounds as if you're tagging me with describing Joan or Nightingale as mentally ill, at least marginally ("having issues"). That's not so.

Both women were pious within the bounds of the established and conventional religion of their place and time. Their "religious experience crisis" had lasting effects on them and their attitudes toward their cradle religion. How could it not? That's not a "mental issue" or sign of illness. That's coming to terms with your life experience as you've lived it. That's a healthy thing to try to do.

I believe that she and Joan were mistaken in their belief about what really happened to them. Other people have similar experiences that motivate them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, but some of them interpret the experiences as secular, or if religious, then a different religion than Joan's or Nightingale's (which are actually two religions today, but fairly similar and in Joan's time in full communion with each other).

Once again, however relevant these women's experiences are to the topic, neither one is a simple example or a typical example of a religious person who achieved greatness in the secular sphere.

Some times we agree so much it leaves me speechless.thanks

jmccr8

[eight bits]

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Given what you posted, would you believe anyone could be a simple case? Or, would all be extraordinary by default?

My understanding is that surveys show a substantial proportion of working scientists (and more generally workers in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics - STEM fields) who also profess pious religious belief or practice. I'm OK with the reliability of those data.

You could think of my circle of friends as a "focus group" within the sphere of such surveys. As luck would have it, there are a reasonable number of STEM people within that circle. Some STEM friends believe in God, some don't. All of them do interesting secular things, sometimes exciting things (some in the group have had their work mentioned in the news now and then). But I'm confident that my friends would agree that among us, there's nobody of the stature of Joan of Arc or Florence Nightingale.

There's nothing about anybody's religious or irreligious stance within the group that strikes me as "extraordinary." Put it all together, and I'm almost certain that there are plenty of "simple cases," the same confidence I have that Joan and Nightingale are anything but simple cases.

[lightly]

8 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Lightly 

For some it is a bigger problem than it is for others, for me there is no conflict because I think we are creators, realize potential,. dream and realize greater potential each of us exceeding our forefathers in some ways if we apply ourselves. We can manipulate ourselves and our environment to adapt both for our benefit and for the most part it is for the good of the whole.

jmccr8

Hi j ,  always good to see you. . and hear your thoughtful views

[Mr Walker]

On 3/20/2020 at 11:22 AM, joc said:

That's why I gave up Romantic Love and Religion for Lent...not to mention cleaning out the clothes dryer...

I do that every cycle, to get rid of the lint    

[Mr Walker]

On 3/20/2020 at 12:08 PM, Hammerclaw said:

"Wot?!?!? Is It Lent, again slready?"

Must be. The y had "pancake tuesday" quite a while back    (traditionally a time to use up all the stuff you aren't allowed to eat in lent ) 

[Mr Walker]

On 3/20/2020 at 9:02 PM, eight bits said:

The story is fine. There is a complication, though. Florence Nightingale was a genius. Like Joan of Arc.

Both lived in societies that systematically confused cognitive capacity with genital architecture. In order for their respective abilities to express themselves at all, the women's gifts had to be packaged in a form that would punch through the social barriers against women behaving as normal human beings, never mind exceptional performers.

The need could well have been not only to persuade others to get out of the way, but to persuade the women themselves that they really were exceptional human beings, and so "had permission" to behave in an exceptional way for a woman. In their cases, exceptional for a man, too. Exceptional, full stop, what genius means.

Both chose the same vehilcle: religious mysticism. That's a whole different world from piety or conventional religious adherence.

Neither woman's public achievements depended on anything religious or mystical, but both women used the "aura" of the "numinous" to attain their positions from where action was possible. They overcame irrational opposition, some of which was religiously supported, so that the women could get on with secular accomplishments commensurate with their abilities.

Yes, that's within the scope of the announced topic, but it's absurd to say it's just another example of an outstanding scientist who is also "religious."

 

 

Interesting observation Any evidence for this ?

Not denying it but I think the y were just ordinary women touched and driven by god.

I doubt they had the conscious political awareness you  show here, to use their devotion to get a job done.

  I tend to believe they were genuine and just as the y presented themselves   Of course historically you have made similar comments about other women who claimed to be touched or empowered  by god or in contact with "him"  You have mentioned that, in your opinion,  the y were suffering from  a medical condition like epilepsy OR the y were faking it to give themselves power to achieve their goals  Not in a selfish way, necessarily but because this was needed to do what the y believed needed doing 

Is it REALLY so hard to believe they experienced a real contact with  a being who motivated and empowered them ?

And of course many men make the same claims and the y were often in power and powerful, not needing either self  validation or social validation The women are notable only because they were women, in a time when most women had no power or authority,  and so these cases are  more noted than  similar examples  among men.  

Edited March 22, 2020 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Interesting observation Any evidence for this ?

So far as I can tell, there's no disagreement in this discussion about the observable facts of either case. There is ample evidence that the type of visionary experience in question can be elicited in human beings by natural means (I often post about Tanya Luhrmann's work at Stanford and more recently I mentioned earlier work by William James). Most of that evidence was unavailable to  either woman at the time she formed her opinion about the unobservable cause of her experiences (their life dates were ~1412-1431 and 1820-1910 respectively).

Further, there is ample clinical evidence about the ordinary effects of psychological repression. There is no disagreement here in the face of ample historical evidence that each woman experienced chronic determined social pressure consistent with attempts to induce  repression.

My principal claim was that neither woman was a "simple" example of the coexistence of secular concern and religious piety in the same personality. I believe that I did present sufficient evidence to justify my confidence about the complexity of the two cases. Introducing an invisible third party who sometimes intrudes upon a normal but occasional human cognitive performance can only make these two cases even more complicated than when only well-known natural mechanisms and undisputed facts are taken into account.

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

you have made similar comments about other women

And men. I've posted in earlier threads about Napoleon Hill being requested by a spectral Abraham Lincoln to engage in visionary contact with Lincoln and others. You and I have discussed Richard Bucke's "cosmic consciousness" episode and his subsequent studies of the phenomenon throughout history - predominantly among men, I've also posted about Tennyson who could elicit these things while awake more-or-less as routinely as you dream lucidly... I never shut up about Carl Jung and Philemon.

The source of the women's difficulties was other people's foolish underestimation of their capabilities because they were female. Their response to that situation was human, not female.

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You have mentioned that, in your opinion,  the y were suffering from  a medical condition like epilepsy OR the y were faking it

It is my already stated opinion that they were sincere in their reports. Their achievements are objective facts. I haven't discussed epilepsy in connection with them, full stop.

Throttle back the speed reading.

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

And of course many men make the same claims and the y were often in power and powerful, not needing either self  validation or social validation

Well, Julius Caesar was powerful and an epileptic, and there is some suspicion that he used ancient popular opinions about that condition to reinforce his "social validation." It was thought to be evidence of - wait for it - personal contact with the gods. He also portrayed himself as a descendant of Venus, hence divine himself. There is no evidence that he was insincere in his professed beliefs. Based on his writings, it's fair to say that he enjoyed ample self-validation.

There are other forms of opposition than sex discrimination. Throughout history, both men and women have done what it takes to overcome the opposition that they face, regardless of its source or motivation.

None of which is rebuttal to my principal claim that Florence Nightingale cannot be offered as a simple case of a pious scientist.

 

Edited March 22, 2020 by eight bits

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

So far as I can tell, there's no disagreement in this discussion about the observable facts of either case. There is ample evidence that the type of visionary experience in question can be elicited in human beings by natural means (I often post about Tanya Luhrmann's work at Stanford and more recently I mentioned earlier work by William James). Most of that evidence was unavailable to  either woman at the time she formed her opinion about the unobservable cause of her experiences (their life dates were ~1412-1431 and 1820-1910 respectively).

Further, there is ample clinical evidence about the ordinary effects of psychological repression. There is no disagreement here in the face of ample historical evidence that each woman experienced chronic determined social pressure consistent with attempts to induce  repression.

My principal claim was that neither woman was a "simple" example of the coexistence of secular concern and religious piety in the same personality. I believe that I did present sufficient evidence to justify my confidence about the complexity of the two cases. Introducing an invisible third party who sometimes intrudes upon a normal but occasional human cognitive performance can only make these two cases even more complicated than when only well-known natural mechanisms and undisputed facts are taken into account.

And men. I've posted in earlier threads about Napoleon Hill being requested by a spectral Abraham Lincoln to engage in visionary contact with Lincoln and others. You and I have discussed Richard Bucke's "cosmic consciousness" episode and his subsequent studies of the phenomenon throughout history - predominantly among men, I've also posted about Tennyson who could elicit these things while awake more-or-less as routinely as you dream lucidly... I never shut up about Carl Jung and Philemon.

The source of the women's difficulties was other people's foolish underestimation of their capabilities because they were female. Their response to that situation was human, not female.

It is my already stated opinion that they were sincere in their reports. Their achievements are objective facts. I haven't discussed epilepsy in connection with them, full stop.

Throttle back the speed reading.

Well, Julius Caesar was powerful and an epileptic, and there is some suspicion that he used ancient popular opinions about that condition to reinforce his "social validation." It was thought to be evidence of - wait for it - personal contact with the gods. He also portrayed himself as a descendant of Venus, hence divine himself. There is no evidence that he was insincere in his professed beliefs. Based on his writings, it's fair to say that he enjoyed ample self-validation.

There are other forms of opposition than sex discrimination. Throughout history, both men and women have done what it takes to overcome the opposition that they face, regardless of its source or motivation.

None of which is rebuttal to my principal claim that Florence Nightingale cannot be offered as a simple case of a pious scientist.

 

Interesting comments again and in general i dont disagree  However you dont present any evidences that THESE particular women did not have genuine encounters rather  than  them being some form of psychological delusion (That fits your belief that such physical  encounters are impossible because gods arent real )

The problem is that you use the ample evidence of underlying psychological causes inSOME cases  to ASSUME that all cases are the same and that these women had a similar form of delusion It disallows the possibility that the y had real encounters with a god form Youassume the following

The source of the women's difficulties was other people's foolish underestimation of their capabilities because they were female.

It might be more likely that people assumed their claims were hysterical because the y were women Or that because the y were women they needed to make such claims for validation and empowerment  of their causes  But as you point out,men make the same  claims   with no need for gender  based validation or empowerment 

Sorry if you misunderstood me Epilepsy was raised by you  years ago as a likely cause of visions etc in a number of  religious prophets and women, including Ellen white  and Joan  of Arc

I said 

""you have made similar comments about other women"

followed by 

"You have mentioned that, in your opinion,  the y were suffering from  a medical condition like epilepsy OR the y were faking it "

it was these comments from  quite a few years back that i remember vividly, because you for some reason were very passionate about it  and it caused our first disagreement .  I believe the mostlikely thing is that those women and some others had a real genuine physical contact with the same entity which i know.

  I have NO psychological issues yet i have the same form of experiences  and even physical contacts, as those women and others through history. I know mine are real and not delusions so I can accept the likelihood that other peoples are also real.   Of course i cant be certain  about other people's experiences,  but neither can you be certain the y are caused by some psychological issue or need, and not contact with a powerful independent entity. Your disbelief in such entities is not  a good enough reason to dismiss them out of hand.  

you have offered nothing to demonstrate that Florence Nightingale   was anything OTHER than a pious scientist Only conjecture based on your own world views and beliefs 

I thought maybe you had some evidences from  her life and medical records to support your view 

(it is, after all, a possible explanation, but it needs evidential support ) 

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 3/20/2020 at 6:32 AM, eight bits said:

Yes, that's within the scope of the announced topic, but it's absurd to say it's just another example of an outstanding scientist who is also "religious."

Are the scare quotes around 'religious' just noting that she doesn't fit firmly in the established religions?  Agreed, she was a genius, as was almost every scientist that we still hear about today who lived over a century ago, many of whom were religious.  How is her genius 'a complicating factor' as to whether she was 'religious' or not though? 

As an example, in the preface of Florence Nightingale on Mysticism and Eastern Religions, the author says, "Her heterodox theological views mellowed with age, so that she became doctrinally more conventional in her old age.  She was utterly consistent throughout her life in believing that, since faith is the basis of practical activity in the world, we are called to cooperate with God by studying His world, social and physical, to discover its laws and then intervene for good."  Would you say based on that quote, mainly the last sentence, that either you don't believe this statement is a true description of her views, that it doesn't qualify as 'religion', or both?

She is not really 'just another' example of anything, agreed, but not seeing where DC asserted that.  Nightingale does seems like a pretty good example of both 'science and religion' coexisting pretty cleanly though, and there does seem to be evidence that DC is not absurd when he says that she used science to improve medicine for religious reasons.