Science vs. Religion

[+Sherapy]

35 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Trying to relate what Faith and belief feels like to someone who has never known them is like trying describe how romantic love feels to an eight year old. For some things there is no substitute for experience. Whatever their reality, whether apparent or genuine, there are undeniable placebo effects to good thoughts and emotions.

I am not speaking on behalf of faith or belief or define love as there are many ways to love, I am just sharing inspired by dies post and adding too it that it is commonplace in the healthcare field to find a coping style to deal with sickness. That the idea of their is something bigger going on here, which some label “god”  can be used to nurture a mindset that respects, values and upholds ones dignity no matter what illness they have or what time they have left. . Many in terminal situations feel they have no value or purpose and are treated as a burden, many struggle to find quality of life, where I and many like me see them as integral and viable and seek meaning and purposes regardless of the time one has left.
 

The something bigger going on here is that a match between caregiver and patient is often seen as unique and meant to be, it breaths new life into those involved. 
 

Just my two cents.

Edited March 19, 2020 by Sherapy

[+joc]

46 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Trying to relate what Faith and belief feels like to someone who has never known them is like trying describe how romantic love feels to an eight year old. For some things there is no substitute for experience. Whatever their reality, whether apparent or genuine, there are undeniable placebo effects to good thoughts and emotions.

I remember sitting on the limb of the Willow Tree in our back yard in West Texas kissing the 5 year old girl who lived next door.  I was six.  So...tell me when did you discover romantic love? 

[+Hammerclaw]

18 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I am not speaking on behalf of faith or belief or define love as there are many ways to love, I am just sharing inspired by dies post and adding too it that it is commonplace in the healthcare field to find a coping style to deal with sickness. That the idea of their is something bigger going on here, which some label “god”  can be used to nurture a mindset that respects, values and upholds ones dignity no matter what illness they have or what time they have left. . Many in terminal situations feel they have no value or purpose and are treated as a burden, many struggle to find quality of life, where I and many like me see them as integral and viable and seek meaning and purposes regardless of the time one has left.
 

The something bigger going on here is that a match between caregiver and patient is often seen as unique and meant to be, it breaths new life into those involved. 
 

Just my two cents.

Two cents? No, priceless. That is your unique gift, the ability to feel and project empathy, genuine compassion, offer friendship, the light in you that shines from within. If you can't see it, staring in the mirror, just look at your reflection in the eyes of one of your patients and see the real you. My post was directed at DC, not yours. I'm on a phone and it's easier and faster not to quote.

[+Hammerclaw]

11 minutes ago, joc said:

I remember sitting on the limb of the Willow Tree in our back yard in West Texas kissing the 5 year old girl who lived next door.  I was six.  So...tell me when did you discover romantic love? 

A little crush isn't romantic love, but I had them off on in public school. Romantic love is when a woman becomes your religion.

[+Sherapy]

22 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Two cents? No, priceless. That is your unique gift, the ability to feel and project empathy, genuine compassion, offer friendship, the light in you that shines from within. If you can't see it, staring in the mirror, just look at your reflection in the eyes of one of your patients and see the real you. My post was directed at DC, not yours. I'm on a phone and it's easier and faster not to quote.

Aww thanks my beloved friend. 

Thank you for your long hours and putting yourself in harms way to help many get the essentials that they need at this time. 
Please take care of yourself.

[+Sherapy]

20 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

A little crush isn't romantic love, but I had them off on in public school. Romantic love is when a woman becomes your religion.

Wow! Exactly, that is the best definition of romantic love I have ever heard. 
 

 

[+joc]

35 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

A little crush isn't romantic love, but I had them off on in public school. Romantic love is when a woman becomes your religion.

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

[+DieChecker]

27 minutes ago, joc said:

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

I cleaned out the dryer the other day. It was making a bad noise, so I took it apart into its 6 largest pieces. Found a lot of change, rocks, buttons, screws, and a dried out bird that must have crawled in the output duct. Put it all back together and works fine now.

Mechanical Engineering degree not wasted... 

[+Hammerclaw]

44 minutes ago, joc said:

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

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

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

My kids are homeschool. We read a good example of religion and science working together the other day.

Florence Nightingale... She used science to improve medicine in numerous ways, but did so for religious reasons.

Bettie Page took her clothes of and posed for bobdage photos because it pleased people and she figured God made her beautiful so it was all good. His plan. 

Not that I'm complaining mind you.

But people can shoehorn God into anything. 

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Bettie Page took her clothes of and posed for bobdage photos because it pleased people and she figured God made her beautiful so it was all good. His plan. 

Not that I'm complaining mind you.

But people can shoehorn God into anything. 

Are you saying Florence didnt use science?

Or, that you doubt the story of her inspiration? 

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Or, that you doubt the story of her inspiration? 

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."

 

 

Edited March 20, 2020 by eight bits

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Are you saying Florence didnt use science?

Or, that you doubt the story of her inspiration? 

I personally doubt that God had any role. As well traveled, well schooled, well funded individual, the woman that Florence Nightingale became was the sum of her experiences. She saw desperate people wounded in poor conditions and did something about it. She decides that it was how she would honour her faith. 

[+Desertrat56]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Are you saying Florence didnt use science?

Or, that you doubt the story of her inspiration? 

The problem with that story that I see is that it could be made up to fit someone's agenda or it could be true, that she felt god  led her to help as many people as possible.  The thing is, it Does Not Matter now why she did what she did.  So any story using god as her inspiration has an agenda and any story that just mentions what she did and the results of that probably only has the agenda of teaching about who accomplished what and how. 

[+Desertrat56]

4 hours ago, 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."

 

 

That makes a lot of sense to me.  Even now women are still judged first by their anatomy then by their accomplishments.  In the 80's american medical schools still taught that a woman's brain was comparable to a gooses brain rather than acknowledging that it was a HUMAN brain.  That was supposed to be science, but it wasn't, it was another way to keep women in their place because a lot more women were going to medical school.

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, 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."

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

It's not absurd, unless one wants it to be so, and draws up a convoluted theory to explain their position.

AFAIK, Florence never stopped being religious. Her last works published, after her death, were exclusively religious in nature. 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.

She simply embodied religion AND science.

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

The problem with that story that I see is that it could be made up to fit someone's agenda or it could be true, that she felt god  led her to help as many people as possible.  The thing is, it Does Not Matter now why she did what she did. So any story using god as her inspiration has an agenda and any story that just mentions what she did and the results of that probably only has the agenda of teaching about who accomplished what and how. 

I'd argue it does matter. It goes to the entire root of the discussion. Can religion and science coexist....

Religion always has an agenda. That didnt prevent Florence from correctly, logically, and reasonably, using science, writing scientific papers, and presenting scientific facts.

Edited March 20, 2020 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I personally doubt that God had any role. As well traveled, well schooled, well funded individual, the woman that Florence Nightingale became was the sum of her experiences. She saw desperate people wounded in poor conditions and did something about it. She decides that it was how she would honour her faith. 

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.

[+Desertrat56]

6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I'd argue it does matter. It goes to the entire root of the discussion. Can religion and science coexist....

Religion always has an agenda. That didnt prevent Florence from correctly, logically, and reasonably, using science, writing scientific papers, and presenting scientific facts.

Right and I have said before that there is no VS between them unless it is extremists, like the australian who made the Ark museum with lots of anti-science or the science nerds who insist that god can't be measure so can't be proved (usually those people are not scientists).  I don't adhere to any religion and I see the human controller making the rules of religions up, not being divinely inspired.  Then I see people like Florence Nightingale and Mother Teresa and I don't think religion had anything to do with anything they did, it was their belief outside of those religions.  They were led to do things that most people, even priests and "holy" men, would not do.  It had Nothing to do with any religion and everything to do with them and their relationship with something no one else can understand.

[+DieChecker]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Right and I have said before that there is no VS between them unless it is extremists, like the australian who made the Ark museum with lots of anti-science or the science nerds who insist that god can't be measure so can't be proved (usually those people are not scientists).  I don't adhere to any religion and I see the human controller making the rules of religions up, not being divinely inspired.  Then I see people like Florence Nightingale and Mother Teresa and I don't think religion had anything to do with anything they did, it was their belief outside of those religions.  They were led to do things that most people, even priests and "holy" men, would not do.  It had Nothing to do with any religion and everything to do with them and their relationship with something no one else can understand.

It is true that Good People will do good. Cant argue with that. 

Religion is just a way of framing philosophy with the authority of a divine figure. That's always going to contribute to the thinking of someone who follows that religion.

So, it is illogical to say it had nothing to do with it. Florence could have easily ignored the "vision"/"calling" she had, and lived the life of a spoiled aristocrat, but she didnt.

[+Desertrat56]

Just now, DieChecker said:

It is true that Good People will do good. Cant argue with that. 

Religion is just a way of framing philosophy with the authority of a divine figure. That's always going to contribute to the thinking of someone who follows that religion.

So, it is illogical to say it had nothing to do with it. Florence could have easily ignored the "vision"/"calling" she had, and lived the life of a spoiled aristocrat, but she didnt.

As for Florence, it was pointed out earlier that there were even religious reasons why she should not do what she did, so no, that is not a valid point.  She went against her family and her religion, but not against her belief that she was given guidance by god.  The same can be said for Mother Teresa.  The catholic church did not support her like they would have supported a man but she did what she felt was her god given path.  And even Joan of Arc went against the religious leaders to do what she felt was necessary and felt she was doing god's will, so NO religion had nothing to do with any of it, it was someone's personal relationship.

[+DieChecker]

12 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

, so NO religion had nothing to do with any of it, it was someone's personal relationship.

Ah, I get your point. It's a bit of a "fine" point in my opinion.

She was still expressing her belief in God, and  I suspect she still followed 99% of Christian norms. Those she fought against were mainly cultural norms, I'd suggest. 

[+Desertrat56]

Just now, DieChecker said:

Ah, I get your point. It's a bit of a "fine" point in my opinion.

She was still expressing her belief in God, and  I suspect she still followed 99% of Christian norms. Those she fought against were mainly cultural norms, I'd suggest. 

Perhaps, but my experience is that people who actually have a relationship with what or who they believe to be god do not act within the parameters of a religion, even when they profess to follow a religion, they are not really working within the confines of it.  Confines is probably the best word to describe religion in my opinion.  As for the cultural norms, where do you think those came from? 

[+DieChecker]

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.

[+DieChecker]

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

Perhaps, but my experience is that people who actually have a relationship with what or who they believe to be god do not act within the parameters of a religion, even when they profess to follow a religion, they are not really working within the confines of it.  Confines is probably the best word to describe religion in my opinion.  As for the cultural norms, where do you think those came from? 

I'd agree  that many who go exclusively off their relationship with God will go outside, sometimes Way Outside, their original religion. However,  that's how new denominations, and new religions (Mormonism?) come about.

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

Even if we suggest Florence was a religion of one, that's still God inspired work she did her entire life.