The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Wild Card => Topic started by: AlohaDawg on June 12, 2006, 11:22:43 pm
-
Here is an interesting take on the whole Religion and Science discussion (http://www.wirednews.com/news/technology/0,1282,37692,00.html)
This is an interesting story. Can anyone find the speech he gave?
Also: This thread is clearly marked as to the nature of it's content. If you think you might get heartburn over it, don't read it or take some Mylanta and then read it.
-
That is certainly an interesting article. I find it admirable that such a man can advance our knowledge of science, yet still abide to his own personal faith. This reminds me of the supposed trend in the very-top scientists to believe in God; they've seen the way the world works down to the smallest detail, and supposedly see creative design as the only answer. Then again, I was told this by my Science teacher who I suspect of being Christian, so I doubt this is entirely true. Some evidence to prove/disprove this would be helpful.
-
I think he makes a very good point when he speaks about how science is not about to render human experience obsolete. Something that annoys me all the time is people who expect science to answer all the deep philosophical questions for them and then apply science in ways that just don't make sense (the most grating example of this I can remember right now, though it's probably one of the most trivial, is the Doom movie 'The last ten percent of the human genome encodes the soul'). Science is good for facts, it will tell you that eating hell of pizza is probably going to make your lifespan much shorter but it can't tell you that making your shoes from freshly skinned babies is a bad idea.
Judy: I've never heard that myself but it sounds semi-reasonable. In the lab I'm in at the moment the majority of people are either athiests or just not in your face religious. That said I know people who work there who are religious and they are as good scientists as anyone else there. I don't think being religious has any bearing on whether or not you are a good scientist, it's just another preconception that you basically have to ignore becuase as a scientist your job is to find the facts and they don't really care what your opinion is. I think cats are better than dogs but if I found evidence that dogs' brains were more advanced than cats' I couldn't ignore that because I like cats and if I feel like I would have to it would probably be appropriate for me to work in a different field that wasn't going to interfere with my preconceptions.
I think the pitting of science against religion is an idea that was made up by people who like science or are religious but more importantly have a grudge against the 'other side' and want to see that everyone who shares their views on one issue shares their prejudices on another.
-
Science... can't tell you that making your shoes from freshly skinned babies is a bad idea.
Well if science doesn't have a problem with it...
Sorry Doc to make a trivial response to a well thought out post. Please forgive me.
~Paul
-
No forgiveness necessary Paul, just beware they can be quite expensive. (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=031223)
-
My take on the whole science and religion thing is that I love both of them, although it is more likely I would become a religious scholar than a scientist. That is probably just due to my own proclivity, although I am fascinated by the Jesuits. Not that they are flawless, but the whole warrior/scholar/priest thing is kind of cool.
My personal understanding of the universe as I experience it is that we are created by God to seek knowledge about His creation. We are given to the tools to seek and explore creation and in so doing, we explore Him. In the same way, we are given the powerful gift of examining ourselves, and because we are created in His image, we are exploring His gifts to us, and, in a remote way, Him.
We are not Him, however, and so there will always be challenges to expand our knowledge - what are elemental particles made of? What is at the end of space? How did the Universe begin?
I think that advancement of Scientific knowledge, hand in hand with advancement of moral thinking and the ethical application of our knowledge, discoveries and inventions lead us toward God himself; and like a parent playing hide-and-seek with a child, He will be as delighted as we when at last we find Him.
-
You guys! What if it's MIDI-CHLORIANS?!!
-
midichlorians. oh my goodness.
-
You guys! What if it's CHOOP and the alien ship finally brought him back to us?!
-
Midichlorians + Aliens = Lightsabre duels to keep them from taking Choop (and Elvis) away again?
-
You guys! What if it's MIDI-CHLORIANS?!!
It's not impossible. Just highly unlikely. But, think about it, really, how much difference is there between "May God bless and keep you" and "May the force be with you"?
-
(kind of the whole idea there, dawg)
-
(kind of the whole idea there, dawg)
Of course, but I don't expect people <HERE> to grasp that universally.
-
Of course, but I don't expect people <HERE> to grasp that universally.
Cuz we're all heathens! Satan Satan Satan!
-
He said it, not me. But he is into pushing buttons, especially mine.
Actually it's not all and it's not heathens. I have definitely sensed that there is a mindset where ideas, concepts, etc. are stripped of their religious overtones intentionally because that makes the idea or concept more acceptable. And I am sure there are more than one actual Atheist here who prefers their world that way - which is their right.
That's what I was referring to.
-
"Well, I tell you, if I have been wrong in my agnosticism, when I die I'll walk up to God in a manly way and say, Sir, I made an honest mistake."
(Henry Louis Mencken / 1880-1956)
-
Hey, I don't mean to press buttons, especially yours. Sorry to rankle.
My statement above is a curt distillation of the whole conflict between science and religion/theology/faith, and a representation of my own struggle to reconcile the two. Frankly, I don't want it to be midi-chlorians, whatever 'it' is in the first place. I'm an atheist, but I'm no fool: I can see that there's something more than just conciousness, that we're more than just awake. I just don't believe in a singular higher power, nor in multiple higher powers.
I just don't want to find out it's something measurable by any corporeal means. Should that happen, spirituality as we know it will be wiped away and a new and terrible -ism will darken the sky.
-
The 'he' was Carlos, an expert button-pusher.
I still believe our ability to reason and investigate is a gift meant to eventually lead us to God. Also, I don't think we'll find God to be corporeal - and -isms are purely human inventions as you know, and you are right to fear their power because they come from the minds of men and not God.
Pure, honest Faith will never be replaced by an -ism of any kind. Let me get this right. You are an atheist who believes that there is a 'meta-consciousness' beyond the state of being awake but that that consciousness (or the source of it) is not a higher power or group of higher powers. Is it biological or perhaps an unexplored dimension of reality. the innerspace of the mind kind of thing? Or maybe a Castaneda kind of shamanistic thing? Your statement is intriguing but I'm having trouble visualizing what you're describing.
-
Sadly, meta-conciousness is probably the best word for it. I'd explain it better, but I honestly have no idea how. It won't fit into any metaphor I can invent.
-
I am a Jew and a man of faith and I put more trust in the findings of science than the writings of any holy book.
This is because I have more faith in God having created the observable universe and man's ability to observe it than I have in man not having fucked up their holy books over hundreds and thousands of years.
No scientific study has ever told me that following the commandments is a bad idea, and I have trouble conceiving of one that would, so there's really only conflict if you have a bug up your behind about taking your manmade books literally.
-
I am a Jew and a man of faith and I put more trust in the findings of science than the writings of any holy book.
This is because I have more faith in God having created the observable universe and man's ability to observe it than I have in man not having fucked up their holy books over hundreds and thousands of years.
No scientific study has ever told me that following the commandments is a bad idea, and I have trouble conceiving of one that would, so there's really only conflict if you have a bug up your behind about taking your manmade books literally.
I can't add to or argue with that.
-
I agree with AlohaDawg there in that last post. But what I most love about that last post is the 'last edited' note, which makes me imagine him sitting there writing and rewriting a response until he realized that there was nothing to add. (Please, don't tell me you just fixed a typo, I like my story better.)
-
Nope, you're right, I wrote a few minutes, posted it, re-read Ben's post, realized I had added nothing and nuked it.
-
Interesting.
To jump in late, I'm a big believer in the idea of "separate worlds" -- that is, that science and religion are basically separate, provide humans with different kinds of insight, and don't need to be in conflict. The purpose of science is to observe the empirical nature of the world, use those observations to create generalized theories, and then apply those observations and theories into improvements to human life (technology). The purpose of religion is to suggest answers to those questions which cannot be answered via observation of the empirical and to provide guidance and support to those in search of meaning, comfort, and community. (In doing so, religion heavily overlaps with philosophy and ethics, but conflating them is a fallacy, for reasons I've discussed at great length before.) The overlap comes in the mind of individuals and the idea that, for better or worse, our sense of meaning will be informed by our empirical observations of the world, and our use and development of technology will be informed by our beliefs and moral codes.
I've always been a little confused by the need to single out cases where scientists were also people of faith -- because, honestly, what difference should it make? The biggest fallacy that seems to be in place with our thinking about this issue is the idea that our spiritual and philosophical beliefs somehow influence the evidence that can be empirically observed -- as if, say, someone who believes in a supreme Creator has to dismiss the vast array of evidence for evolution out of hand, instead of considering the possibility of evolution as a mechanism of the Creator's work. As a scientist, your job is to observe and use empirical evidence to suggest conclusions, no matter what non-empirically-established opinions you may hold. There isn't even any dichotomy there.