Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Ian Barbour, 1923-2013

Just found out that Ian Barbour died on Christmas Eve. I encountered his writing in a course on Science and Religion that I took at St. Paul's College, the United Church affiliate college at University of Waterloo. I think it was Science and Religion (1968) but might have been the earlier (1966) Issues in Science and Religion. I forget the prof's name, but it was also the course where I first ran into process theology. It definitely shaped my thinking on the relationship between science and religion for a time, though perhaps not so much today.

 

Mendalla

 

Share this

Comments

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Link to the (rather brief) Wikipedia article on Barbour:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Barbour

 

Mendalla

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

I read the Wikipedia bio, and I agree that there are "theological implications of the Big Bang theory, quantum physics, evolutionary biology and genetics", but that's because science informed religion that it was waaay off base, followed by religion throwing a temper tantrum, before pretending that it was science's friend all along. If there is a field of "science and religion" then, and we know that science has informed religion, where has religion informed science?

 

My initial reaction is that the field of "science and religion" pales in comparison to the importance of "science and science fiction", because there, science fiction is predicting things and helps shape what future scientists (or engineers) dream up. Religion, well Christianity, only looks forward to destruction.

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Speaking of science and religion, here's the line-up of speakers at a UCCan event in Victoria, called "Epiphany Explorations".

http://epiphany.firstmetvictoria.com/

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Thanks, somegal, for the link the other day! I thought it was fitting to post here. Neat to see Bob McDonald from Quirks n' Quarks on the list.

somegalfromcan's picture

somegalfromcan

image

You're welcome Kimmio! It's gonna be good!

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

When Christianity does not grow (progress in what it believes to be true) are we locked up in conjectures? Temporal states ... that'sthinking in!

 

Now some theologian/philosophers will say that conjectures are just myths about things that we cannot fully know ... yet in my own experience ... never, never tell a  theologicl/philosophical authorities that some of their conjectures have errors of understanding in them. This could bring down the ax and you'll loose your head like John ... the common baptist! Infinite understanding is subtle right .... like gods other cheeks! Celestial Comedy or just Divine?

 

Does the vast sea of lo' peoples, wee population, have a better chance at observing the bottom line of a Utilitarian Philosophy? Consider one tier looks at sustenance living and the other looks at a financial bottom line. If the vast sea (marketplace) vapourizes and there is no one to work the dirt level (d'ithchiis) as minors in the higher perspective (Nous creation) does the hole thing become myth ... and there is "where it isn't anymore" ID moved!

 

Some intercourse of physical, mental and emotional (spiritual) nature are required or we become supernatural (something that is non-existent?). Is this scary to the hei terrors who fear loosing what they got by entitlement ... and not from an intelligent exchange (communication, communion, socialism)? This just would not be capital would it! Will the underdog win in the end ... feeding on the detrius? One woud have to understand bottom line metaphor and rising satyrs ... as construct of criticism ... in a religious sense of nothing negative can be stated ... that's simply out of the question! It doesn't however work.

 

Anyone read Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath? Fude for th'ought as a Ba sic infinite conjecture ... on ongoing mensa as outa sight of those that didn't wish to observe alien things. Learning was inhibited for sake of the few powerful to be raised for the fall. Consider Rob Ford's run for position; is this crazy or the 1/3 that say they will vote for corruption to repeat itself. Now is this warped intelligence at its best? Sometimes martyrdom waits for time to wind up this non-sense on pure emotions ... and thought as evil! Of course it depends a lot on how it was rot ... wrot' and observed by the receiving neurons on the other side of that Shadowed mire we call dirty socialism? We shouldn't relate to that should we? I look at it in negative light ... a sort of Shadow ... bu then people around me believe I'm beyond conjecture ... just the devil to understand because of rejected complexity. This eliminates the concern for the internalized and imaginary "i" ... an eclectic entity!

 

This really goes against those that take religious efforts to look into change, alteration and redaction as something really evolving. Such a pious and stoic stand will say something like Jesus spoke Shakespearean English when heh lived on hei times 1600 years previous ... a prescient vision moving quickly? Can spiritual people of black and white opposition to anything fluid see anything beyond their present condition?

 

Only the soul/mind/psyche is minor enough to see through de ithchiis in this Samarian myth that real gods give a damn about Utilitarian Philosophy. No one is clear of sharing this perspective as presently we are part and parcel of the surrounding environment ... until we change our overbearing attitudes (dismissing complexity). To an alien this is an odd dimension humans survive po'lye (poorly) in if you consider the paradigm, average Joe, common Janism, etc all in the pool and grossly unseen ... as we think it better to not know such things. This is expressed in little known things in biblical myth as Proverbs 1:8 that should be considered in process with Genesis 2. No desire to ... and one won't think ... there is a spectre of imbalances encountered in the pool and they all believe the other is crazy ... collectively this appears to be fact if you look at the place we're in! Physic mediums even mimic things they are not capable of ... and then there are exceptions ... people that see things the paradigm declares is just not real ... like a glimpse into the futuristic psyche as a futurist. That's just out've ere like twitters ... and moths against the flame.

 

Then I have hopes the prescience will pass into true light ... that may embarass those that ridgidly believed different from biblical redaction ... a hint of alteration and change? Great powers will state things as they desire and to hell with subtle truths ... an 'eLLesh underground movement like water in Jaqobean well ... this is grasped avaricely in arid regions ... except a'lass at the well head ... the lady of the po' L? You might need to do some Piscine (ephraim) to find the bottom line there ... a spin off of the palmed icon (Greek, Upsilon)! Back to the wilderness with Hebrews and law rinse in the sans ...

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

chansen wrote:

Religion, well Christianity, only looks forward to destruction.

 

 

Your qualification is an important one. Christianity (and, to some extent, Islam) is really the only modern, active religion that has this notion of an "end of the world" or Day of Judgement" and even many, if not most, Christians don't take the idea literally as a destructive one any more, but rather as an expression of a transformation of the world, whether at some future point or on an ongoing basis.

 

Eastern religions, for instance, tend to see existence as a cycle in which creation and destruction happen repeatedly (e.g. the birth, life, and death of each being) which is, to some extent, a valid way of viewing the universe even from a scientific standpoint. Stars are born, have their few billion years, then die, sometimes in spectacular fashion (supernovae). Planets go through life cycles, often tied to that of their stars. Even the universe goes through some kind of cycle of existence.

 

My personal take on science and religion/spirituality at this point is that they are different ways of expressing our relationship to the Cosmos but need not conflict, though they can and do if one takes religion in a traditional sense (my sense of religion is more like what many call "spirituality"). The former is about knowing and understanding Existence; the latter is about finding and acknowledging our place in that Existence and about celebrating the wonder and beauty that we find in that exploration. The former can inform the latter; the latter can motivate us in pursuing the former. If my personal religion had a holy symbol, it would be the spiral of a galaxy or a DNA helix or something like that.

 

However, this is very much the view of a person who has no belief in, or need for belief in, a supernatural personal Deity or afterlife or atonement. 

 

Mendalla

 

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

Such is the mental state of a character with thin connections (lithe communion) with all the information burried out there ...

MikeBPaterson's picture

MikeBPaterson

image

"Science fiction is predicting things"??? Chansen you get sadder, less interesting and more irrelevant post by post. I hope this year looks up for you.

 

Panentheism's picture

Panentheism

image

Barbour was  a great thinker in the field of Religion and Science. On my shelf are several of his books - one Religon and Science won a prize in 1999 - it was published in 1998.  I get it off my shelf continuiously.  Heard him at International conference on Whitehead and he was a clear thinker.  Chansen I think you would like his book.

 

Science and the Modern (1925).world by Whitehead, again a scientist, gives a historical overview and is very accesiable

 

My hard core scientist friends love both books.

 

The book Mendalla first read was a basic book in Philosophy of Science, taught in the UBC sciene dept.  Again while he revised parts of it it is a good guide to the issues. 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

MikeBPaterson wrote:

"Science fiction is predicting things"??? Chansen you get sadder, less interesting and more irrelevant post by post. I hope this year looks up for you.

 

 

I'm sorry, you're right. Science fiction doesn't predict or influence scientific progress! What was I thinking?!?

 

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Science fiction has had a mixed record on predictions. The communicator/cell phone is one where they nailed it and also influenced it (the flip phone was a clear attempt to emulate the communicator). However, a number of folks have pointed out that they largely missed the bus on the Internet and social media (e.g. Star Trek, even in NG and DS9, assumes big, centralized main-frame systems rather than networks or distributed systems), not really picking up on the potential until it was well underway.

 

That said, I increasingly feel like I really am living in the future I saw in s-f as a kid. Shanghai (esp. Pudong) and Dubai would look right in place in a 1930's pulp story set in the 21st century.  Personal computers and mobile devices, if anything, have leapt well beyond the expectations of s-f. Electric, self-driving cars and fast, efficient global mass transit, on the other hand, while starting to get there, clearly still need some work.

 

So, the predictive value of s-f is mixed, but it's influence has been great. With the number of s-f fans who are driven by that reading to go into science and engineering, it is almost inevitable that they will try to bring about the things they read about making s-f predictions almost self-fulfilling at times. Even in pure science, you have people like Sagan who openly admit that s-f influenced their choice of career (in his case, he waxes poetic about Edgar Rice Burroughs' Mars books in Cosmos).

 

Mendalla

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Sure it does. Myth influences culture. Science fiction, not always for good, either. Minority Report, Brave New World, 1984? All myths, taken too literally in all the wrong ways- without regard for looking into the wisdom the consequences of what might happen if the myth becomes real. While most people were saying "gee how awful that world would be", some said, "I have an idea, let's make it happen and make money off of it" I don't see how this particular type of "progress" is so good myself...but anyway.

http://paulmartinlester.info/images/mr_mall.png

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Mendalla, that's what I'm saying. That, and that SciFi has influenced science and engineering more than religion has, and that if there is a "religion and science" field of study, it isn't as informative or predictive toward science as the "science and science fiction" field of study.

 

Religion won't be able to stand that, because it'll instinctively insist that religion is more important than science fiction. The religious will have conniptions. See above.

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

If we're a bit more like the Jettsons...maybe it wouldn't be as bad. ;) I'm only kidding because of course, that would be a happy, colorful, cartoon world. I'll aim for looking toward a happier, fairer, real world- with all it's colorful diversity.

Panentheism's picture

Panentheism

image

Chansen I agree about the influence od S-F but while there are the fundamentalists out there the historical record of science and religion is also complex.  Religion has influenced science, just look at Newton.  There is a lively discussion of how religon influences science- by that I mean process philosophy - see adam scarfe on biology. And Barbour's work.  I have been to international conference on philosophy and sciene and the mutual interconnection.

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

The mutual interconnection is, I think, what Epiphany Explorations will touch on this year.

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

ScienceFiction, abstractions, imagination, myth are all disconnected in the general social mind ... due to fears presented by a powerful few ... perhaps a judy'n (Judah'n) punch as a poke about myth thus raising cane in the church as conserving things so they wouldn't learn anything different ... that would verge on hypo-crazy (subtle in sane ranges) or here say ... when tales of the grim reaper are told as a way out? Could this have a back lash on social order that could be unconsciously catastrophic ... so we didn't wish to see ends of greed? Avarice is too well received ...

 

If one doesn't know about the function of psyche how would you know how she responds as the mother lode gone amuck?

MikeBPaterson's picture

MikeBPaterson

image

 

As for religion's influence on science, I'd start with Descartes… and his "angel of truth". Religion was influential in Darwin's life as well. Both of these guys have done more for science than trekkies and the very poor science that's widely pedalled in popular science fiction.

 

For a more "classical" take on the predictive power of science fiction we could go to some of is formative creatives: Jules Verne, for example, had a whole lot of freaky stuff going on in the molten iron core of the planet, and loony stuff at the bottom of the ocean.

 

Science fiction writers crossed a fly and and a guy, and populated Mars with aliens. It had monsters creeping out of marshes. people-yaffling triffids and spacships demolishing cities. Surely zombie invasions owe a lot to science fiction (they have nothing to do with actual voodooism). Science fiction has helped to make people very unhealthily terrified of natuire and believe in alien abduction… very helpfully prophetic. What about radioactivity as a source of superpowered moremember triffids? Morlocks? Time travellers galore? Then we have the great unlamented L. Ron Hubbard to deal with. Science fiction has facilitated so much false, fanciful and idiotic advertising one could scream. Its impacts on society have been hopeless mislerading. Come on, Chansen: read something, go talk to a real scientist… think… your critical faculties are failing you. You are so far from objectivity and balance in your knee-jerk repetitions of tired, simplistic barbs that it's a joke.

 

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Panentheism wrote:

Chansen I agree about the influence od S-F but while there are the fundamentalists out there the historical record of science and religion is also complex.  Religion has influenced science, just look at Newton.  There is a lively discussion of how religon influences science- by that I mean process philosophy - see adam scarfe on biology. And Barbour's work.  I have been to international conference on philosophy and sciene and the mutual interconnection.

Pan, I think the important distinction is that the religious, more than religion, have influenced science. But back then, pretty much everyone was religious.

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

MikeBPaterson wrote:

As for religion's influence on science, I'd start with Descartes… and his "angel of truth". Religion was influential in Darwin's life as well. Both of these guys have done more for science than trekkies and the very poor science that's widely pedalled in popular science fiction.

And what did religion do to Darwin? It vilified him. Galileo, too. Religion loves to learn about the wonder that is nature, until that understanding of nature turns out to clash with the dogma.

 

The influence of religion on science, then, is not all positive. It's only positive where the science doesn't contradict religion.

 

MikeBPaterson wrote:

For a more "classical" take on the predictive power of science fiction we could go to some of is formative creatives: Jules Verne, for example, had a whole lot of freaky stuff going on in the molten iron core of the planet, and loony stuff at the bottom of the ocean.

Science fiction doesn't pretend to be an authority. It's entertainment. It's fantasy. I argue that religion is entertainment and fantasy as well, but religion has loftier claims for itself.

 

MikeBPaterson wrote:

Science fiction writers crossed a fly and and a guy, and populated Mars with aliens. It had monsters creeping out of marshes. people-yaffling triffids and spacships demolishing cities. Surely zombie invasions owe a lot to science fiction (they have nothing to do with actual voodooism). Science fiction has helped to make people very unhealthily terrified of natuire and believe in alien abduction… very helpfully prophetic. What about radioactivity as a source of superpowered moremember triffids? Morlocks? Time travellers galore? Then we have the great unlamented L. Ron Hubbard to deal with. Science fiction has facilitated so much false, fanciful and idiotic advertising one could scream. Its impacts on society have been hopeless mislerading. Come on, Chansen: read something, go talk to a real scientist… think… your critical faculties are failing you. You are so far from objectivity and balance in your knee-jerk repetitions of tired, simplistic barbs that it's a joke.

You saying I'm a joke does not make it so. You bring up L Ron Hubbard above as an example of the worst of science fiction's effects. Remember, Hubbard started out as a SciFi writer, but his worst act was starting a religion. A cult, really. A cult about alien body thetans and Lord Xenu, instead of your blood cult about Jesus and your Lord God. You really could not have picked a worse example.

 

Are you tired of losing arguments online, Mike? Because I really don't have time for this.

 

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Most s-f writers and commentators (save odd ones like Van Vogt who actually took him seriously) regard Dianetics-era Hubbard as a loon and largely write him off so, as chansen suggests, he is hardly one to cite as an example of what is wrong with s-f. He wasn't part of the s-f scene after about the 1950s even he did continue to write and produce novels sold as s-f into the 1980s. They were dreck of the first order for the most part.

 

On the broader level, there is mass-produced pablum that is barely s-f (zombie apocalypse largely belongs here with a few exceptions), s-f that is well-written entertainment, and s-f that considers and explores ideas about science, technology, and where society might go under certain conditions. There is militaristic s-f, pacifist s-f, erotic s-f, fascist s-f, socialist s-f, an so on. It is really a microcosm of literature and media as a whole in that way. If you read more of it, you might realize that Mike. I think you are equating modern s-f with the Hollywood poop that passes for s-f, when true modern s-f is really about authors like Peter Watts (who I am currently reading) and the late Iain Banks. The latter is the ideal but not always the norm. It is the reason why many scientists and engineers of the post-war period cite s-f influence.

 

Finally, let's not forget that it was an s-f writer (Theodore Sturgeon) who coined the rule that "95% of everything is crap". He did that partly because of people like you claiming s-f was crap when, in fact, there is just as much crap in any other genre of literature, even if some appear to be worse than others for producing it (paranormal erotica, I'm looking at you).

 

Mendalla

 

MikeBPaterson's picture

MikeBPaterson

image

Chansen: your point was something about the predictive brilliance of Scifi to which reality can only reply — in your dreams, Chansen.

 

As for your want of time, you seem to have tons of it when you're asmusing yourself without the effort of thought or focus.

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Mike, your points sucked. Refuting them wasn't hard.
.
And I never said that Sci-fi was great at predicting, only that some of it happened to be pretty accurate. And for every knee jerk rejection of anything religious, you do the same with anything atheistic.
.
But, in terms of this thread, I'm happy to let the readers decide who did better. Personally, I don't think you've learned to control your body thetans yet.

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

I remember reading Brave New World and 1984 and noticing some similarities to what was written.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

waterfall wrote:

I remember reading Brave New World and 1984 and noticing some similarities to what was written.


Definately. I also remember watching Minority Report and thinking "this is so cold and futuristic", but now we have Google Glass and more that will follow. This photo does not look like very far from now anymore. It was 12 years ago(Minority Report, what the photo is from) and this "mall" does not require suspension of disbelief.
http://paulmartinlester.info/images/mr_mall.png

Panentheism's picture

Panentheism

image

Yes there is distinction of religion and religious.  However, to get to be religious one has to have some buy in to religion.  I know that is a broad term, however, the point os some religious ideas have changed science for the better.

Panentheism's picture

Panentheism

image

"And what did religion do to Darwin? It vilified him. Galileo, too. Religion loves to learn about the wonder that is nature, until that understanding of nature turns out to clash with the dogma"

 

In the history of ideas this is simplistic.  There were counter voices from theology who welcomed Darwin.  Dig deeper into the history of Galileo and you will find much support of him - the issue was more political and theology did learn from him.  Yes. like all ideas, science has helped theology, and there also the inlfuence of theology on science that is positive.

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Okay, how has theology influenced science?

waterfall's picture

waterfall

image

chansen wrote:
Okay, how has theology influenced science?

 

Ha, I used to wonder that when I took my nursing classes. What did Philosophy and Sociology have to do with nursing?

 

For me it raised my integrity and opened up areas of understanding that would have remained unrelated to the needs of those I cared for.

 

I can easily see that theology would enhance and push all science to a higher standard and plumb the depths of any cold sterile equation..

 

.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Could it be that early scientists aspired to get closer to God, then to understanding God, and then to proving (or disproving God)?

chansen's picture

chansen

image

All right, so the good bits of Christian scripture can instruct you to be empathetic to those under your care. I'm sure you can get that message from other sources as well.

 

Again, how has theology influenced science?

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Kimmio wrote:
Could it be that early scientists aspired to get closer to God, then to understanding God, and then to proving (or disproving God)?

I have no doubt that Christian scientists have been looking for evidence for God for centuries. Darwin used to be a creationist. What he found, lead him away from that religious conclusion, toward one that had nothing to do with religion, but fit the facts.

 

Mormons have been looking for signs that native North Americans are related to a lost tribe of Israel. Take a guess how that's going.

 

None of this, I contend, is religion informing science. If anything, it's facts leading scientists away from religion's attempts to inform science.

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

That would be a good question to ask Bob McDonald and Michael Dowd at Epiphany Explorations if there's a Q&A after their talks. Obviously it has or they wouldn't be there.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Chansen, if there's ever an event at a UCCan in your area like Epiphany Explorations- seminars and talks on the subject- I would encourage you to go just to see for yourself. Not to be 'converted' but to learn more about a good number of the people (Christians) you're flat out criticizing before understanding. They don't believe in the same version of God you don't believe. At the least it might be more interesting and informative than going to a movie. Nothing wrong with going to a movie- just a suggestion.

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

Chanson,

In the 95% rule ... not all Christians are pious ... there is a wide spectre of where they come from ... even tho' the 95% may seem a chitty bang up!

 

There are some of us that would like to see a better world ... it is not going to happen here and now with the general god/ideal being avarice ... requiring success at all costs. Does the human condition push this? That's the pool we're in!

 

It is enough to made a person dyslexic ... or look at the mess we're in from out there ... an abstract trait of thinking many of the stoics couldn't approach ... they hate to stray from where they are ... just no give at all to get to a mediated place (state of learning?) a state of mind? Then if psyche stuff is imaginary and immaterial ... how would we know the substance of it?

 

Some appear to be born entitled ... that is to know it all without some gathering of what's out there ... sort of an OBI when you get into it ... causes obliteration and creation of different ways of thinking. Does the old thought disappear of just get tucked away in the recesses of the alien dimension? That could be occipital, occidental or just plainly occult to those that desire to know nothing ... and thus the Shadow of the paradigm ... scattered intelligence as fallout of greater space? This may be completely metaphorical however ... as Allah Gory spreads across the page. Did you know that blood and other offal stuff was once used to make ink? Some many things we don't know about what the unknown mind does to us ... as we respect only the desire ... once blended in you have a mediated state ... a rare case in this environment but fun to observe if you are of alien manna ... whay poly'neasians called unnatural ... the dimension of wisdom contrary to passionate states of blown souls ... people with stars in their eyes!

 

Is there another side? Most likely after the observation of excess emotion in this space! I can hardly wait to get thro' ID ... the primal state of power ...

MikeBPaterson's picture

MikeBPaterson

image

 

"A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."

                                      — Francis Bacon.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

"Mmmmmmmm.....Bacon!"

 - Homer Simpson

 

 

Aren't quotations great?

 

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

MikeBPaterson wrote:

 

"A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."

                                      — Francis Bacon.

 

Atheism and religion are not opposites, though they may well have been seen in that way in Bacon's day. There are atheist/non-theist religions (much of Buddhism) and religions that take no position on theism and welcome atheists (mine included). The proper opposite of atheism is theism but was that what Bacon had in mind? Context is needed.

 

Mendalla

 

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

I don't think science versus theology is an either-or position. It all depends on what kind of theology one pursues or believes in.

 

There are theologies like pantheism, panentheism, unitheism or holotheism where the natural world is part of God. The study of the natural world, then, is part theology. What's more, science is the most truthful part of theology. The rest is speculation.

 

Then there are, as Mendalla pointed out, atheistic or non-theistic religions. They regard the universe as spiritual, and the natural world as one with the spiritual world, which comes pretty close to the above mentioned theologies.

 

To me, science is, at least in part, theology.

 

Panentheism's picture

Panentheism

image

Re-Envisioning Nature: Science, Philosophy, Ethics
Featuring: Philip Clayton, Robert Ulanowicz, Georg Northoff, Melinda Herrold-Menzies, Ronny Desmet, Stuart Kauffman, John Cobb, Bruce Weber, Zach Simpson

Nine renowned scholars led a one day conversational conference on the intersection of Science, Philosophy, and Ethics, particularly with respect to nature and the environment. Each scholars presentation with followed by a time of open conversation and discussion. This conference is one in a series of conferences in preparation for the 2015 International Whitehead Conference.

ethics

Date Recorded: October 17, 2013
Location: Claremont School of Theology
Date Added: October 2013

Philip Clayton: Religion, Philosophy & Science
Robert Ulanowicz: Theoretical Ecology [slides]
Georg Northoff: Neuroscience and Neurophilosophy
Melinda Herrold-Menzies: Policy, Sociology, & Environment
Ronny Desmet: Philosophy of Science [paper]
Stuart Kauffman: Theoretical Biology
John Cobb: Process Theology
Bruce Weber: Biochemistry
Zach Simpson: Philosophy of Religion & Biology

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

Now if science as in old was observation ... would we need krist to see?

 

Is any blind love allowed or only observing passions; so one looks out for the other underfoot supporting the standoff as sentient? Is that chimerii ir just a Golden Observation like Henry Fonda in his final filmy appearance to mortals?

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

 

Double bo' per ...

 

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Hi chansen...

you wrote:
Religion, well Christianity, only looks forward to destruction.

Here, as elsewhere, you appear to be taking an aspect of the phenomenon and presenting it as the whole. A little like me saying Science has brought us, for the first time in human history, to the brink of planetary catastrophe. This is true of Science misappropriated and misdirected by human error, but not true of Science itself.

 

Science makes it plain that the continuation of our present course, the exploitation of creature and creation for the sake of profit and power, will bring... yep, destruction.

Isaac Asimov wrote:
The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.

Science, like religion, offers an available means to human being. Used it brings benefit. Misused it brings harm. Abused it brings destruction.

 

George

 

 

 

 

 

 

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

I there any way to move on for the stoic that appears like heh knows all that is and that's incorrect? More catharsis ... ID'll wash ...

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

That Isaac Asimov quote's a keeper.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

But the difference is, science gathers knowledge. Religion does not. It presents what it claims as wisdom, but not all of it is, and it provides no differentiation between the good and bad wisdom it presents. It's up to us to find the good and ignore the bad, and people like unsafe and airclean33 are prime examples of clinging to the bad, because, hey, Jesus.

 

As for the eventual destruction of the Earth, science has brought us to that conclusion by observation and extrapolation. Religion, again, isn't like that. Some jackass or collection of jackasses wrote Revelation, either because of a vision, or because they wanted to scare people. Science isn't trying to make you believe it by telling you the world will eventually be burned up by the sun - that's just what we expect. If anyone has a better reason to say that something else will happen, they can challenge the science. If their theory proves more accurate, that theory wins.

 

And here, religion loses, because religions win and lose support, not by which is more correct through careful peer review, but by which can coerce more converts by force, implied threat, or appeals to emotion.

 

Much like a wall between church and state, I do think we need a wall between church and science. I'm well aware that religion is eager to impose its will on science, but I've not come across a persuasive argument that religion has anything positive or unique to offer.

 

lastpointe's picture

lastpointe

image

There are religious zealots who have odd ideas. People who thi the earth is 65,000 years old being prominent.

And they are easy to ridicule

But at the same time there are scientists studying and espousing stupid things. The recent study that looked at underage teens with false id as an example.

Their conclusion? That underage kids with false id's are more likely to drink underage. Ya think?

I think chansen refers to deep thinker science with significant input to our knowledge base but he compares them to off they'll Christians. I expect if we compare off the wall Christians to off the wall science we get pretty similar weird ideas.

But if we compare deep thinkers to deep thinkers we get ...... Great thoughts and ideas on both sides.

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

Is dat off dew ahl, or just so grounded it's oppressed? That's the dirt, or what some call mire ... san' with "Na" fused and coated on one side with silver black ... reflective if you look at it from the proper side of dig Lass ...

 

Word's like that too if you perceive it adequately in all dimensions of intent ... this varies with the spectre-eM of humanity ... that's not so sane! Just look about yah ... what's the evidence? And the leaders of this call me  a wee bit off?

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Hi chansen...

 

Science has been co-opted by persons seeking power and profit. These persons, through incorporation, have polluted the air, the water, the land and the peoples who depend on them. These incorporated persons refuse what Science makes plain, continuation along the trajectory of power and profit will bring the planet to ruin.

 

I am not talking about the natural cycle of planetary systems, as you infer. I am talking about the misuse and abuse of Science by which harm and destruction are let loose.

 

There is no Monsanto without Science. There is no Pfizer without Science. There is no Lockheed Martin without Science.

 

I am not placing blame on Science. I am aware that Science may be perverted just as religion may be perverted.

 

Good science remedies bad science. Good religion remedies bad religion.

 

To make Science good and religion bad cannot be supported by appeal to Science. Nor can it be considered reasonable.

 

George

 

Back to Religion and Faith topics
cafe