Science vs. Religion

[Artaxerxes]

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

- F. Scott Fitzgerald

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Eventually. Gods seem like a pretty natural conclusion for those early humans, wouldn't be surprised if nearly all believed in something similar at least.  How magical and confusing a lot of the world must have been for them, the intensity of everything, the wonder and the horror, must have been cranked up  That's probably inevitable when living to 30 qualified you as elderly.

They knew no other existence, no other lifespan. The extreme elderly must have been rare and revered. The brain growing cognizant and fully self aware. Each day must have been a wonder, every new thing a marvel. Eventually, as language fully evolved there would have been a naming of names, for all features and plants in their immediate evirons, for all creatures great and small; for the weather, the seasons, the sun and moon and stars and the sky itself, that " majestical roof, fretted with golden fire". They ask questions of the world and listened to their hearts for answers.

[Rlyeh]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am not sure that is ever true. the human  mind is so flexible it will find a way to resolve competing  facts or data. It's main job is to ensure your survival and happiness/comfort.

How do you think they resolve it?  Dismissing various religious ideas.

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Depends on how one is defining "religion". 

Less than 10% is STILL > than 0. 

cormac

My post talked about belief and faith more than religion Organised religious attendance is declining slowly but so are most organised social  activities, including sports attendances as the patern of our lives changes and leisure time has more demands on it   Religion is defined as professing an adherence to any   specific religion whether or not one attends church regularly Generally most western countries have between 40-60%of peole identifying as members of a specific religion

My post also pointed out that less than 10% of modern humans are self  professed atheists  (actual figure seems to be around 5% but it varies a little )

Thats quite incredible in modern educated and secular societies 

it demonstrates the evolved importance of faith/belief as a positive survival mechanism for humans, and also that people still identify a psychological need for a belief in something more than just the material

In australia 52% of those in the last census identified themselves as christians, with another 8% identifying with other religions Ie in one of the most modern secular societies in the world today, 60% of adults still identify with a religion.  In sweden in 2016, 68%of people gave a formal association with christianity 

As of 2018 73%of Danes are christians and 4% are members of other religions

These are people who identify as members of a  religion. 

 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Artaxerxes said:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

- F. Scott Fitzgerald

What !! Only two? 

[Mr Walker]

46 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

How do you think they resolve it?  Dismissing various religious ideas.

The y do not resolve it by dismissing one form of thinking, but by accommodating both, and working out a functioning compromise.

ie  Using science and materialism for material well being; and faith and belief for psychological well being, and good health. 

As ive said before, one of the top neurosurgeons in america, a presidential candidate, and now secretary for urban infrastructure or similar, is a creationist who says angels gave him the questions for his final medical exam. Clearly his beliefs have not hindered him, and may even have helped him progress  in life, in one of the highest and most challenging sciences/medical areas possible

quote  

In 2000, the Library of Congress selected Carson as one of its "Living Legends." The following year, CNN and Time magazine named Carson as one of the nation's 20 foremost physicians and scientists. In 2006, he received the Spingarn Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the NAACP. In February 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Carson the Ford's Theatre Lincoln Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And in 2009, actor Cuba Gooding Jr. portrayed Carson in the television production Gifted Hand

https://www.biography.com/political-figure/ben-carson

To put it simply, another view is like my wife's She doesn't argue against the evidences for evolution, she simply chooses to believe tha t everything is created by god, and thus those evidences are a part of creation, thus neatly stepping around the problem    

Edited March 5, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Rlyeh]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

The y do not resolve it by dismissing one form of thinking, but by accommodating both, and working out a functioning compromise.

Read what I said again.  They dismiss various ideas.

 

Quote

ie  Using science and materialism for material well being; and faith and belief for psychological well being, and good health. 

As ive said before, one of the top neurosurgeons in america, a presidential candidate, and now secretary for urban infrastructure or similar, is a creationist who says angels gave him the questions for his final medical exam. Clearly his beliefs have not hindered him, and may even have helped him progress  in life, in one of the highest and most challenging sciences/medical areas possible

quote  

In 2000, the Library of Congress selected Carson as one of its "Living Legends." The following year, CNN and Time magazine named Carson as one of the nation's 20 foremost physicians and scientists. In 2006, he received the Spingarn Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the NAACP. In February 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Carson the Ford's Theatre Lincoln Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And in 2009, actor Cuba Gooding Jr. portrayed Carson in the television production Gifted Hand

https://www.biography.com/political-figure/ben-carson

To put it simply, another view is like my wife's She doesn't argue against the evidences for evolution, she simply chooses to believe tha t everything is created by god, and thus those evidences are a part of creation, thus neatly stepping around the problem    

What rubbish.  Ben Carson thinks Hebrews built the pyramids to store grain.  Tell me again how he completely accepts scientific evidence.

Here you have someone who picks and chooses what to accept when it comes to science.  So much for no conflict.

As for your wife, she's ignorant of the conflict.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Rlyeh

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

My post talked about belief and faith more than religion Organised religious attendance is declining slowly but so are most organised social  activities, including sports attendances as the patern of our lives changes and leisure time has more demands on it   Religion is defined as professing an adherence to any   specific religion whether or not one attends church regularly Generally most western countries have between 40-60%of peole identifying as members of a specific religion

My post also pointed out that less than 10% of modern humans are self  professed atheists  (actual figure seems to be around 5% but it varies a little )

Thats quite incredible in modern educated and secular societies 

it demonstrates the evolved importance of faith/belief as a positive survival mechanism for humans, and also that people still identify a psychological need for a belief in something more than just the material

In australia 52% of those in the last census identified themselves as christians, with another 8% identifying with other religions Ie in one of the most modern secular societies in the world today, 60% of adults still identify with a religion.  In sweden in 2016, 68%of people gave a formal association with christianity 

As of 2018 73%of Danes are christians and 4% are members of other religions

These are people who identify as members of a  religion. 

I am neither a member of an organized religion nor do I consider myself an Atheist. I’d say your pronouncements are completely irrelevant to my beliefs. 
 

cormac
 

 

[lightly]

On March 4, 2020 at 8:39 AM, XenoFish said:

Religious effects can be studied by neuroscience and psychological. 

Yes.  Very useful point X.      Practices like meditation,  and , for the believer, prayer, can bring can bring physiological and psychological benefits.

i guess those might be examples  of 'religion' and science " cooperating" ?  Or at least , coexisting?  So, ..those who's knee jerk reaction was that 'it' was never possible. ..may have jerked the knee a bit prematurely ? 

Edited March 6, 2020 by lightly

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, lightly said:

Yes.  Very useful point X.      Practices like meditation,  and , for the believer, prayer, can bring can bring physiological and psychological benefits.

i guess those might be examples  of 'religion' and science " cooperating" ?  Or at least , coexisting?  So, ..those who's knee jerk reaction was that 'it' was never possible. ..may have jerked the knee a bit prematurely ? 

The effects of meditation, mantra (basically affirmations), prayer, the effects of stuff like that can be studied. The biggest issue is "miracles". 

[jmccr8]

20 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

My post also pointed out that less than 10% of modern humans are self  professed atheists  (actual figure seems to be around 5% but it varies a little )

Hi Walker

Seeing as how you brought this up I have a couple of questions.

Given the numbers and earlier we used 700 million and 7 billion as working numbers so when it comes down to the number of, medical, mental, legal, criminal, divorces the majority of the occurrences given the industry processing capabilities would be believers percentages not-withstanding and yet you make it seem that such and insignificant percentage would be the biggest burden on the whole.How do you respond?

20 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

it demonstrates the evolved importance of faith/belief as a positive survival mechanism for humans, and also that people still identify a psychological need for a belief in something more than just the material

see above question

20 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

In australia 52% of those in the last census identified themselves as christians, with another 8% identifying with other religions Ie in one of the most modern secular societies in the world today, 60% of adults still identify with a religion.  In sweden in 2016, 68%of people gave a formal association with christianity 

By your number of 5% that leaves 35% of Australians  that you have not show data that reflects cause and effect within those studies and have you considered them in your perspective? Is it possible that people not unlike myself that have no faith/belief (to use your words) and are not atheist have very different patterns than either of the defined groups and what effect would that have on your perspective?

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Seeing as how you brought this up I have a couple of questions.

Given the numbers and earlier we used 700 million and 7 billion as working numbers so when it comes down to the number of, medical, mental, legal, criminal, divorces the majority of the occurrences given the industry processing capabilities would be believers percentages not-withstanding and yet you make it seem that such and insignificant percentage would be the biggest burden on the whole.How do you respond?

see above question

By your number of 5% that leaves 35% of Australians  that you have not show data that reflects cause and effect within those studies and have you considered them in your perspective? Is it possible that people not unlike myself that have no faith/belief (to use your words) and are not atheist have very different patterns than either of the defined groups and what effect would that have on your perspective?

jmccr8

I am afraid i don't know what you are asking in the first paragraph

Belief isn't a guarantee of happiness longevity, good ,health, well being etc.   it just adds considerably to your chances of happiness etc

The truth is, as always, a little bit complex.

Just belonging to a religion doesn't make a significance difference. BUT 

quote

Many people who seriously practice a traditional religious faith – be it Christian or other – have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.

The factor making the most difference is religious commitment and practice.

The intuitive is true! Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes – attend church nearly every week, read their Bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples – enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public and unbelievers.

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/divorce-rate-in-the-church-as-high-as-the-world/

quote

But mainstream sociologists would tell us that taking one’s faith very seriously—in word and deed—does indeed make a marked positive difference in the health and longevity of marriage. Based on the best data available, the divorce rate among Christians is significantly lower than the general population.

Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced.[1

W. Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that “active conservative Protestants” who regularly attend church are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.[2]

 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-divorce-rate-among-christians/

My comment about survivability was more on physical factors which increase the chance of a humans survival, then spread those genes because they survive and breed 

However, as above, it would also apply to marriage with  people who truly believe, and practice that faith in their lives. 

I didn't include all the statistics just the relevant ones 

Again not sure what you are asking in your last question. About 30%  of australians reply no religion in the census of 2016 52% christin 8% other religions   (total 90%

About 10% exercise their right to give no answer  (which is what i did)

While the census does not specifically ask if you are an atheist, the percentage of professed atheists in Australia is about 10%  which is one of the highest percentages in the world   

Edited March 6, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

19 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

I am neither a member of an organized religion nor do I consider myself an Atheist. I’d say your pronouncements are completely irrelevant to my beliefs. 
 

cormac
 

 

Well then, you are just like me  

For you it depends on what sort of spiritual faith/belief you have, which may not be specifically religious, nor include a specific god form .

Just having faith, and believing, in something beyond the material, and greater than yourself, can significantly improve longevity, physical/mental health,and well being, according to scientific studies world wide   

[Mr Walker]

19 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

I am neither a member of an organized religion nor do I consider myself an Atheist. I’d say your pronouncements are completely irrelevant to my beliefs. 
 

cormac
 

 

ps you fall in a common category of non atheist, but non religious.  These people  commonly make up 30-40% of western societies 

[cormac mac airt]

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Well then, you are just like me  

For you it depends on what sort of spiritual faith/belief you have, which may not be specifically religious, nor include a specific god form .

Just having faith, and believing, in something beyond the material, and greater than yourself, can significantly improve longevity, physical/mental health,and well being, according to scientific studies world wide   

No, if I were “just like you“ (at least here) I’d walk in front of an oncoming Mack truck and pray it was over quickly. I have no use for what I see, quite often, as your overly verbose posts filled with self-serving and self-important rhetoric. I have been taught, by those far more educated (and in multiple fields) than you, that one of the biggest and most egotistical lies one can tell themselves or others is “I am never wrong”. And you do such often enough, one way or the other, that I pity you. 
 

BTW, I have shown you to be wrong before so I’m not remotely as impressed as you seem to think others should be of your claimed intellect. Go annoy someone else as you’re not teaching me anything other than what publicly humiliating oneself would look like under the pretense of teaching others. 
 

Moving on. 
 

cormac

[Will Due]

Quote

What is this trait of the animal in man which leads him to want to insult and physically assault that which he cannot spiritually attain or intellectually achieve? In the half-civilized man there still lurks an evil brutality which seeks to vent itself upon those who are superior in wisdom and spiritual attainment. Witness the evil coarseness and the brutal ferocity of these supposedly civilized men as they derived a certain form of animal pleasure from this physical attack upon the unresisting

 

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Funny how you think spiritual knowledge is important.

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

No, if I were “just like you“ (at least here) I’d walk in front of an oncoming Mack truck and pray it was over quickly. I have no use for what I see, quite often, as your overly verbose posts filled with self-serving and self-important rhetoric. I have been taught, by those far more educated (and in multiple fields) than you, that one of the biggest and most egotistical lies one can tell themselves or others is “I am never wrong”. And you do such often enough, one way or the other, that I pity you. 
 

BTW, I have shown you to be wrong before so I’m not remotely as impressed as you seem to think others should be of your claimed intellect. Go annoy someone else as you’re not teaching me anything other than what publicly humiliating oneself would look like under the pretense of teaching others. 
 

Moving on. 
 

cormac

No you wouldn't. If you  were just like me you would be happy, content, and empowered.

You would never consider ending your life  

We are both non religious and not atheists so in that we are the same, but like all humans we are unique and individual 

I am not never wrong, just almost never wrong  

And i don't believe you have ever proven me wrong. That has only happened twice in 15 years on UM and i accepted my error both times 

It is more possible you simply think you presented a convincing argument against something i said.

  Errors of fact are easy to identify.

There  really is no way of establishing error of belief,  and no easy way of establishing error of values or opinions 

It's funny. You seem to think i should be embarrassed or humiliated by something  

I see no logical reason to feel either, and thus I am not .

There is nothing in my life or in my values etc which i cannot defend and feel proud of .

If there were  things i disliked about myself, or felt embarrassed or humiliated by,  i would get rid of them  or modify them .

  

[jmccr8]

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am afraid i don't know what you are asking in the first paragraph

Belief isn't a guarantee of happiness longevity, good ,health, well being etc.   it just adds considerably to your chances of happiness etc

The truth is, as always, a little bit complex.

Just belonging to a religion doesn't make a significance difference. BUT 

quote

Many people who seriously practice a traditional religious faith – be it Christian or other – have a divorce rate markedly lower than the general population.

The factor making the most difference is religious commitment and practice.

The intuitive is true! Couples who regularly practice any combination of serious religious behaviors and attitudes – attend church nearly every week, read their Bibles and spiritual materials regularly; pray privately and together; generally take their faith seriously, living not as perfect disciples, but serious disciples – enjoy significantly lower divorce rates than mere church members, the general public and unbelievers.

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/divorce-rate-in-the-church-as-high-as-the-world/

quote

But mainstream sociologists would tell us that taking one’s faith very seriously—in word and deed—does indeed make a marked positive difference in the health and longevity of marriage. Based on the best data available, the divorce rate among Christians is significantly lower than the general population.

Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced.[1

W. Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that “active conservative Protestants” who regularly attend church are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.[2]

 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-divorce-rate-among-christians/

My comment about survivability was more on physical factors which increase the chance of a humans survival, then spread those genes because they survive and breed 

However, as above, it would also apply to marriage with  people who truly believe, and practice that faith in their lives. 

I didn't include all the statistics just the relevant ones 

Again not sure what you are asking in your last question. About 30%  of australians reply no religion in the census of 2016 52% christin 8% other religions   (total 90%

About 10% exercise their right to give no answer  (which is what i did)

While the census does not specifically ask if you are an atheist, the percentage of professed atheists in Australia is about 10%  which is one of the highest percentages in the world   

Hi Walker

I am using my phone and can’t break down your post to respond to specific quotes.  When one looks at just the medical and judicial industries and the volume of work load it becomes obvious that the greater number of cases involves  believers and would be the burden on the whole so I find it quite the stretch to see how the benefits you claim are valid in terms of better living.

This evening when on my computer I will provide a better detailed response.

jmccr8

[cormac mac airt]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No you wouldn't. If you  were just like me you would be happy, content, and empowered.

You would never consider ending your life  

We are both non religious and not atheists so in that we are the same, but like all humans we are unique and individual 

I am not never wrong, just almost never wrong  

And i don't believe you have ever proven me wrong. That has only happened twice in 15 years on UM and i accepted my error both times 

It is more possible you simply think you presented a convincing argument against something i said.

  Errors of fact are easy to identify.

There  really is no way of establishing error of belief,  and no easy way of establishing error of values or opinions 

It's funny. You seem to think i should be embarrassed or humiliated by something  

I see no logical reason to feel either, and thus I am not .

There is nothing in my life or in my values etc which i cannot defend and feel proud of .

If there were  things i disliked about myself, or felt embarrassed or humiliated by,  i would get rid of them  or modify them .

  

Wrong again, you're on a roll: 

 

Quote

Posted July 13, 2018

  On 7/12/2018 at 2:57 AM, cormac mac airt said:

Again wrong. Homo includes Archaic humans and Anatomically Modern Humans, the latter of which include us. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans

Again no, anatomically MODERN humans. You are implying ALL humans and that is incorrect. 

No, classified as MODERN humans and even Neanderthals are borderline. Again you're implying something that is not true. Even in the case of H. Neandertalensis mitochondrial DNA is outside the normal range for H. sapiens sapiens. 

No one cares how YOU define humans, science has already done that and determined that all members of the genus Homo qualify as human. 

cormac

It does not happen often, but when I am wrong, I am prepared to admit to being wrong. As far as i can see, you are correct that the scientific definition of human includes all homo species (however the early ones are often not included  in descriptions of human types ) 

I think i was looking at genetic evolution.

All other forms of human are extinct. Only homo sapiens, Neanderthal, and Denisovan  genes are represented in humans today.  We are not descended from other homo types, nor are they genetically connected to us. 

Congratulations. I've only been technically wrong about anything  about 4 times In 14 years of posting. And i am more than happy to be corrected.   

I actually think  I knew this,  but was thinking about it  in another way.

I've certainly covered it enough times when teaching, and should have got it right first time.  

Many humans DO have Neandertal dna present in their genes, however, indicating interbreeding  so still not sure what you are saying there. 

As seen above you even admitted to being wrong. I wouldn't normally point it out but you quite often come across as a pompous ass so deserve to be taken down a peg or two. BTW, you then claimed to have only been wrong 4 times, more recently you've claimed 3 times and currently you are claiming 2 times so now that we can all see you can and will lie when it suits you we can take your pronouncements with a grain of salt, or a dump truck load as the case may be. 

cormac

 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by cormac mac airt
cleamup

[+Sherapy]

13 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

No, if I were “just like you“ (at least here) I’d walk in front of an oncoming Mack truck and pray it was over quickly. I have no use for what I see, quite often, as your overly verbose posts filled with self-serving and self-important rhetoric. I have been taught, by those far more educated (and in multiple fields) than you, that one of the biggest and most egotistical lies one can tell themselves or others is “I am never wrong”. And you do such often enough, one way or the other, that I pity you. 
 

BTW, I have shown you to be wrong before so I’m not remotely as impressed as you seem to think others should be of your claimed intellect. Go annoy someone else as you’re not teaching me anything other than what publicly humiliating oneself would look like under the pretense of teaching others. 
 

Moving on. 
 

cormac

Every post I see from MW in this section is the same he is hassling and stalking someone cuz they are tired of hearing how incredible he thinks he is In the retelling of the same tales over and over. 
 

He manipulates the threads to be all about him. 
 

MW, please stay on topic.
 

Thank you.

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Sherapy

[+Desertrat56]

19 hours ago, lightly said:

Yes.  Very useful point X.      Practices like meditation,  and , for the believer, prayer, can bring can bring physiological and psychological benefits.

i guess those might be examples  of 'religion' and science " cooperating" ?  Or at least , coexisting?  So, ..those who's knee jerk reaction was that 'it' was never possible. ..may have jerked the knee a bit prematurely ? 

I think it is more of an example of how our mind has some effect over our health, but nothing to do with science or religion.

[lightly]

3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think it is more of an example of how our mind has some effect over our health, but nothing to do with science or religion.

Well ya...but if faith,religion,belief (mind) can have a physical effect...couldn't that be considered a scientific result?

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Wrong again, you're on a roll: 

 

As seen above you even admitted to being wrong. I wouldn't normally point it out but you quite often come across as a pompous ass so deserve to be taken down a peg or two. BTW, you then claimed to have only been wrong 4 times, more recently you've claimed 3 times and currently you are claiming 2 times so now that we can all see you can and will lie when it suits you we can take your pronouncements with a grain of salt, or a dump truck load as the case may be. 

cormac

 

 

Mea culpa

That was one of the times   i was thinking of 

I must admit that was one of the couple of times I was wrong (and as i pointed out in that post it is possible there were a couple more i dont remember  )

However, i hadn't realised it was you i had this discussion with, because i was thinking of religious/faith based arguments. 

So you have actually proven me both right and wrong. I was wrong about you never proving me wrong, but i was right about me admitting when I am wrong   

And in 15 years of discussion and debate on Um I think being factually wrong twice (and possibly 4 times ) is a pretty remarkable record 

I found that whole human definition discussion  interesting 

My point was tha t i define as human all things with human attributes That includes some ancient primates/hominids but also will include artificial intelligences and dolphins or other primates if the y develop our level of self aware  consciousness. My point (which i stick by) is that humanity is not defined by species but by attributes Iike  compassion, spirituality etc.  I acknowledge this is not the scientific definition, but i maintain it is a more accurate one  to define humanity by. 

Otherwise, it is a bit like the old way of dividing human beings by gender and  race, and ranking some elements as superior to others.  eg we might not give AIs or dolphins or apes  the same rights as us, if we do not accept them as being us 

and sorry but no, it was not a lie, because lying requires an intent to be dishonest. As always i never had that intent. In this case I was just mistaken

Bad enough,(because i hate  getting anything wrong)  but not like lying.  

Edited March 7, 2020 by Mr Walker

[XenoFish]

3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think it is more of an example of how our mind has some effect over our health, but nothing to do with science or religion.

That's why both the placebo and nocebo effect are so interesting.