God, religion, Science and a Post-Modern View of Science

[JimBowie1958]

Everyone has to read this paper:
"Embryology in the Qur’an: Scientific-Linguistic analysis of Surat Almu'minoon"

By Hamza Andreas Tzortzis
Here is the abstract:

“This paper is an analysis of chapter 23 verses 12 to 14 of the Qur’an in light of modern embryology. This study will provide a linguistic breakdown of the relevant verses and correlate these linguistic items to modern science. To ensure a comprehensive understanding of this study, an overview of qur’anic exegesis will be provided to appreciate how the Qur’an is made accessible and intelligible to the reader. This study will also address various contentions, which attempt to challenge the credibility of the qur’anic discourse and its concurrence with modern embryology.
In chapter 23 verses 12 to 14 the Qur’an provides eight meaningful points describing the process of the developing human embryo:

We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid in a safe place. Then We made that drop of fluid into a clinging form, and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators.”

The paper pdf 7 MB:
www.iera.org.uk/downloads/Embryology_in_the_Quran_v1.1.pdf

Reading it, Be sure that the true religion and science never contradict.

Thank you AL for the link. I will read it sometime soon and have book-marked it.

I have a question for you if you dont mind.

What is the Quran's teaching on order within the universe?

Are there verses in that book that give any guidance in this matter, or perhaps from the Hadith?

 

[Si modo]

So often people say that science and religion are opposed to each other that it is almost considered a fact of the public domain. And yet were it not for the Judeo-Christian faith, science would never have had the influence on society that it has had in Western culture but now that our society is bleaching itself of all its Judeo-Christain values, science is returning to the mystical view that it had prior to the rise of Judeo-Christianity.

In the ancient world, the Atomist school of thought and the great philosophers like Socrates and Plato were viewed by the larger society as merely one more competing set of opinions that were on an equal level as the other competing world views that held the u niverse to be irrational and not subject to discovery through reason. Just because fire produced heat did not mean that something was going on with atoms necessarily, according to most, but was perhaps the product of fire elemental spirits. Spirits were attributed to almost everything from mountains to rivers to animals to the stars. So any materialistic analysis was at best presumptive if not foolish.

When Christianity was made the official religon of the roman Empire this began to change slowly. In Christianity, the universe is presumed to be rational since the Creator who made it was Himself rational and the universe would therefore reflect that rationality. So the views of the Atomists, Socrates and his disciples and the overall view of the universe as being capable of being expressed in human language became the root assumption in Western society.

Along with that change in world view that placed Reason as a tool alongside revelation for discovering Truth, the contention between the Protestants and Catholics caused an explosion of literacy among Westerners as people sought to be able to read the Bible themselves and deetermine what religion they would embrace, and this literacy made the whole public capable of reading of science as well and coming to understand it well enough that for many science replaced religion altogether as the principle source of Truths about our universe.

But today in our post-Christian, post0Modern society, the public is returning to a black-box view of science. Unable to understand any of it themselves, and not encouraged to even try by a growing number of scientists, more and more common is this view that science is just another form of faith system, but instead of priests or shamen, we have men in white coats who call themselves scientists and who are presumed to be oracles of Truth purely on a circular set of assumptions. Lacking this understanding the public is prey to all sorts of charlatans posing as scientists or doctors selling all sorts of snake oil.

Eventually the public will tire of this obedience to the science-priests and stop supporting the scientific exploration of our universe and Reality. Already in this election we have idiots asserting that space exploration and colonizing our moon and the planets of our solar system to be an insane waste of precious resources, and people are no longer alerted by scientific studies that show 'X' to be harmful in any way worse than what we accept on a daily basis anyway. They are becoming inurred to the contributions of science and reason.

The great irony here is that this is all happening just as science is on the cusp of its greatest acheivements and the ushering in of a virtual technological utopia of indefinate lifespans, plentiful resources that obsetes the requirement to labor and puts the knowlege of the universe at the finger-tips of anyone who can afford an occasional connection to the internet.

We need to rebuff this notion that religion, and Christianity in particular, is incompatible with science. Most Christians do NOT believe this to be the case, but that percentage is falling day by day. Science and the rest of society stand to lose the most in a democratic political system from this rebirth of irrational world views.

How does the right even come up with this bullshit. I'm astounded.

What you call "bullshit" is exactly what you think you support as far as the sciences are concerned. But, you just don't understand what the poster said.

Since the 1950s, the post modernists have been pressuring their views of what is "truth" and "correct" into the sciences. The post modernists reject the sciences' adaptation of Popper's logic of discovery. Popper's logic of scientific discovery eliminates, as best we currently know how, human influence on scientific discovery - eliminates opinion and stresses theories supported by data and observations.

The post modernists want human influence in the sciences - they find scientists to be too elitist and that elitism (which doesn't exist) is to be rejected. So, deanie-do, as you believe this post is bullshit, you are supporting intelligent design.

But, you poor thing, I doubt you knew that.

Now you do.

And, anyone who says the RC church is incompatible with science is speaking from ignorance. It's been a while since the RC church has accepted Darwin's evolution, just so you know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you think science does not include the scientific method?

What was practiced prior to the SM was just trial and experiment with no widely recognised formal process at all.


Lol, you are a bust.

BTW, since I already stated that we built on what the Arabs and others passed on to us, why do you mention it like your rebutting my statement?

Your history lesson is flawed in places.

Please share with me what those flaws are as you perceive them. I will happily correct any flaws you persuade me are indeed flaws.



I am not sure how you see this statement relating to what I have said.

The development of a formal scientific process was the beginning of a progressive march toward a technological utopia that some refer to as the 'technological singularity'. I personally subscribe to the soft model of AI enhanced researched controled by human beings with amplified intelligence rather than a strong AI that is unfettered by human decisions. Technological singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not think that we are anywhere near an end of the chain here, quite the opposite.

which means that some other civilization will build on ours.

If we are destroyed, life will continue, and sentience (if temporarily snuffed out) will be reborn and will rebuild with or without aid of any vestigial technology from us. That is the worst case scenario, pretty muich, but I dont think we need worry about any of that as long as we realize that in the very near future it will become virtually impossible for another nation, no matter how powerful, to impose its will on another determined nation. Technology will become so advanced that even the smallest of nation will be able to engage in assymetric warfare that coudl severely penalize even the most powerful nations, even nuclear powers.

We absolutely must learn to understand the world views of other groups of people and find ways to discover common ground to build peaceful co-existance on. Iran and the Taliban are only the most immediate examples, and many more will follow them.

We must not only change our enemies way of thinking about us but we need to also make changes in our way of thinking also. Or else we are going to doom all mankind to eternal warfare and bloodshed that ends in who knows what.

Probably the neo-communist Confucians of China.

More likely the Christian Progressives of China.

Most likely not.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why is it the case that in 1500 modern science was best practiced in the West while it had fallen into stagnation in the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs, the Indians and the Chinese?

And you call me "ignorant"? Love it.

Yes, I do call you ignorant, and arrogant and assinine.

Basically you are a waste of time.

What were the major contributions to science made outside the Euorpean world after 1500?

After that time modern science in Europe advanced so fast that the rest of the world was struggling decades behind Europe untill Japan finally caught up well enough to rival European powers in the early 20th century.

I know you like to posture, whine and engagein sarcasm but what FACTS do you have? I havent seen any yet from you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

More likely the Christian Progressives of China.

Most likely not.

You really dont have much familiarity with the underground church in China then.

Some estimate their numbers to be over 130 million.

Christianity in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The church is growing in China like wild fire and will likely become the majority within the next 40 to 50 years.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't know if you wrote that or you are quoting somebody, but seriously, you have no idea. Or else you do not surround yourself with scientists, or those of that bent...

There is no faith that you will die in space without oxygen. It is a proven scientific FACT.

Humans cannot live under water without breathing apparatus - FACT.

You cannot fly a plane without thrust and lift - scientific fact

I could spend the rest of the year giving examples....

An who has denied any of these?

Bullshit I am denying one of these.

You don't NEED lift to fly a plane. It is helpful in many circumstances, but is not necessary. Otherwise jets wouldn't be able to fly upside down and spaceships wouldn't be able to launch.

And that is a good example of one of the problems that people have today in the acceptance of science. Science has morphed from the exploration and advancement of knowledge into something akin to a religion where questioning the tenants are heresy. Never mind that all science is built on the overturning of previous truths and that almost all of science as we understand it today will, in fact, be shown to be completely and utterly wrong. Even these 'basic' things are not set in stone. That is how science works and to operate any other way is analogous to making it a religion.

My point is that changes in our CULTURE are undermining the common comprehension of science among the general population and this is going to impact the influence of science with future generations.

I was hoping to discuss what might be done to correct this, but it would seem the problem is rather recursive in that I appear to be trying to explain the problem to some people who predominately suffer from the malady I am trying to depict.

First - don't mind Jake or Dean, they lack any actual thought that does not involve bashing the political ideology they target. Hence the immediate reference to the GOP in a thread that has nothing to do with politics....


I contend that your original point is not correct. You place the shift with science in a cultural frame of reference but are forgetting the one very basic thing about science - its tendency to get ever more complex and discover more and more information. People today are not suffering from a scientific community that is not explaining modern science to them, they are suffering from a scientific community that CANT explain modern science to them. In the past, you might not have understood what a steam engine did or the science that caused it to function. Then, when someone sat down and gave you a 30 minute lesson, you suddenly understood all the basic tenants that steam power relied on. The microwave might have been one hell of a piece of magic and then you took a high school semester in physics and suddenly the microwave makes sense. String theory might be mysterious to you but if you devote your entire life and every waking moment to its study and understanding then, hey, you too can understand it. Unfortunately, everyone cannot study string theory their entire lives. You used quantum mechanics as a point earlier. Quantum mechanics is not well understood because it is extremely complicated and requires mountains of math to understand if you can even call it understanding.


Unfortunately, you want to discuss what can be done to correct this and I have bad news for you. The answer is NOTHING. There is nothing that can be done because the problem is simply going to get worse. People are flawed, do not like to be wrong and hate to ascribe to something that they do not understand (let alone agree with it out of course). Science is going to get ever more complex and require ever increasing devotion just to get to a place where you can start to understand it let alone advance it.


In relation to your connection with theology, I found the entire portion of your OP to be more hopeful than actual fact. Yes, Christianity has been the central religion that much of technology has risen around but to equate the two is correlation without causation. Religion in general has little to do with science and the two are separate. The fact that the west was Christian at the time of the rise of science is little more than chance and the change from a 'spiritual' control of events to natural laws would be more of a catalyst for BOTH science and Christianity rather than an effect of Christianity on science. As a matter of fact, there was a time when Christianity could not destroy science fast enough and tried to blot it out of the world. Fortunately, it failed.

 

[Toro]

1. Most science hangs all its theories on the nail of evolution.
2. For without this nail science too itself *has nothing*.
3. Evolution is the nail for which *all* science revolves, so I find it amusing when the people of science see me strolling around with a hammer.
4. The only thing science can do is cling to evolution, its their *bedrock*, its their *wellspring*, its their *everything*.
5. If science didn't have this one nail to cling too, then they would fold up like a tent.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

1. lol
2. rofl
3. roflmao
4. epic epic fail

 

[rdean]

You got to admit, "Post modern view of science" describes it pretty accurately.

They Republican view of science once we get past "modern" and return to the "Dark Ages".

 

[JakeStarkey]

An who has denied any of these?

Bullshit I am denying one of these. You don't NEED lift to fly a plane. It is helpful in many circumstances, but is not necessary. Otherwise jets wouldn't be able to fly upside down and spaceships wouldn't be able to launch.

And that is a good example of one of the problems that people have today in the acceptance of science. Science has morphed from the exploration and advancement of knowledge into something akin to a religion where questioning the tenants are heresy. Never mind that all science is built on the overturning of previous truths and that almost all of science as we understand it today will, in fact, be shown to be completely and utterly wrong. Even these 'basic' things are not set in stone. That is how science works and to operate any other way is analogous to making it a religion.

My point is that changes in our CULTURE are undermining the common comprehension of science among the general population and this is going to impact the influence of science with future generations. I was hoping to discuss what might be done to correct this, but it would seem the problem is rather recursive in that I appear to be trying to explain the problem to some people who predominately suffer from the malady I am trying to depict.

First - don't mind Jake or Dean, they lack any actual thought that does not involve bashing the political ideology they target. Hence the immediate reference to the GOP in a thread that has nothing to do with olitics....
I contend that your original point is not correct. You place the shift with science in a cultural frame of reference but are forgetting the one very basic thing about science - its tendency to get ever more complex and discover more and more information. People today are not suffering from a scientific community that is not explaining modern science to them, they are suffering from a scientific community that CANT explain modern science to them. In the past, you might not have understood what a steam engine did or the science that caused it to function. Then, when someone sat down and gave you a 30 minute lesson, you suddenly understood all the basic tenants that steam power relied on. The microwave might have been one hell of a piece of magic and then you took a high school semester in physics and suddenly the microwave makes sense. String theory might be mysterious to you but if you devote your entire life and every waking moment to its study and understanding then, hey, you too can understand it. Unfortunately, everyone cannot study string theory their entire lives. You used quantum mechanics as a point earlier. Quantum mechanics is not well understood because it is extremely complicated and requires mountains of math to understand if you can even call it understanding.
Unfortunately, you want to discuss what can be done to correct this and I have bad news for you. The answer is NOTHING. There is nothing that can be done because the problem is simply going to get worse. People are flawed, do not like to be wrong and hate to ascribe to something that they do not understand (let alone agree with it out of course). Science is going to get ever more complex and require ever increasing devotion just to get to a place where you can start to understand it let alone advance it. In relation to your connection with theology, I found the entire portion of your OP to be more hopeful than actual fact. Yes, Christianity has been the central religion that much of technology has risen around but to equate the two is correlation without causation. Religion in general has little to do with science and the two are separate. The fact that the west was Christian at the time of the rise of science is little more than chance and the change from a 'spiritual' control of events to natural laws would be more of a catalyst for BOTH science and Christianity rather than an effect of Christianity on science. As a matter of fact, there was a time when Christianity could not destroy science fast enough and tried to blot it out of the world. Fortunately, it failed.

FA_Q2 incorrectly yammers on about the relation of religion and science, and the role of science in the world today. The far christian right certainly can argue that it views "science" as the enemy as "science" views it as the enemy.

The fact is simple. Whenever one side or the other tries to "judge" the others by its own standards (faith, empirical testing), then it fails and does so miserably.

Those of us who are comfortable in both worlds, understanding their strengths and weaknesses, merely smile when the naysayers start braying. They are simply negative endorsements for being better religionists and scientists.

 

[Si modo]

Bullshit I am denying one of these. You don't NEED lift to fly a plane. It is helpful in many circumstances, but is not necessary. Otherwise jets wouldn't be able to fly upside down and spaceships wouldn't be able to launch.

And that is a good example of one of the problems that people have today in the acceptance of science. Science has morphed from the exploration and advancement of knowledge into something akin to a religion where questioning the tenants are heresy. Never mind that all science is built on the overturning of previous truths and that almost all of science as we understand it today will, in fact, be shown to be completely and utterly wrong. Even these 'basic' things are not set in stone. That is how science works and to operate any other way is analogous to making it a religion.

My point is that changes in our CULTURE are undermining the common comprehension of science among the general population and this is going to impact the influence of science with future generations. I was hoping to discuss what might be done to correct this, but it would seem the problem is rather recursive in that I appear to be trying to explain the problem to some people who predominately suffer from the malady I am trying to depict.

First - don't mind Jake or Dean, they lack any actual thought that does not involve bashing the political ideology they target. Hence the immediate reference to the GOP in a thread that has nothing to do with olitics....
I contend that your original point is not correct. You place the shift with science in a cultural frame of reference but are forgetting the one very basic thing about science - its tendency to get ever more complex and discover more and more information. People today are not suffering from a scientific community that is not explaining modern science to them, they are suffering from a scientific community that CANT explain modern science to them. In the past, you might not have understood what a steam engine did or the science that caused it to function. Then, when someone sat down and gave you a 30 minute lesson, you suddenly understood all the basic tenants that steam power relied on. The microwave might have been one hell of a piece of magic and then you took a high school semester in physics and suddenly the microwave makes sense. String theory might be mysterious to you but if you devote your entire life and every waking moment to its study and understanding then, hey, you too can understand it. Unfortunately, everyone cannot study string theory their entire lives. You used quantum mechanics as a point earlier. Quantum mechanics is not well understood because it is extremely complicated and requires mountains of math to understand if you can even call it understanding.
Unfortunately, you want to discuss what can be done to correct this and I have bad news for you. The answer is NOTHING. There is nothing that can be done because the problem is simply going to get worse. People are flawed, do not like to be wrong and hate to ascribe to something that they do not understand (let alone agree with it out of course). Science is going to get ever more complex and require ever increasing devotion just to get to a place where you can start to understand it let alone advance it. In relation to your connection with theology, I found the entire portion of your OP to be more hopeful than actual fact. Yes, Christianity has been the central religion that much of technology has risen around but to equate the two is correlation without causation. Religion in general has little to do with science and the two are separate. The fact that the west was Christian at the time of the rise of science is little more than chance and the change from a 'spiritual' control of events to natural laws would be more of a catalyst for BOTH science and Christianity rather than an effect of Christianity on science. As a matter of fact, there was a time when Christianity could not destroy science fast enough and tried to blot it out of the world. Fortunately, it failed.

FA_Q2 incorrectly yammers on about the relation of religion and science, and the role of science in the world today. The far christian right certainly can argue that it views "science" as the enemy as "science" views it as the enemy.

The fact is simple. Whenever one side or the other tries to "judge" the others by its own standards (faith, empirical testing), then it fails and does so miserably.

Those of us who are comfortable in both worlds, understanding their strengths and weaknesses, merely smile when the naysayers start braying. They are simply negative endorsements for being better religionists and scientists.

I totally agree with the fact that some of us have the ability to compartmentalize faith from science.

I, like you, chuckle whenever some anti-faith proselytizer tries a logical argument against faith. It's like trying to argue that blue is the best color. By definition, faith is a set of beliefs not based on facts. It's a plain goofy approach to an argument on the topic.

And, on the other hand, the bible thumping folks arguing (from ignorance) that ID is a scientific theory. Once again, by definition, it cannot be scientific because it is not a falsifiable theory.

And, the bigger picture for me is my strong distaste for authoritarians - they exist on both sides of the aisle, politically and socially.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Lets be honest, science from all ages has taken its thunder from God, trying to know and understand creation, all the while trying to undermine the creator, if you can't see this you are just self deceived.
2. On the other hand God doesn't criticize or worry about mankind figuring out the things of creation, knowing that the truth about creation isn't something that can be discovered by the minds of a simpleton human being.
3. What we see is countless discoveries about creation, then countless *re-thinks* about those discoveries.
4. If your honest and look at the *grand theory* with open eyes, you will see, most science is on a path to discredit God, and take away from God the creator role in the universe, which I am here to discredit humanity, in so trying, seeing its a fools gambit.
5. Why would I sit back and watch humanity make an ass out of itself, thats why I attacked Hawkins for saying what he said, he knows what science is trying to do, thats why he is coming out and directly attacking *FAITH*, and the Christian faith in particular.
6. Try to be honest folks, nothing gets past me, so stop the *BULLSHIT*!



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[JakeStarkey]

SirJames,

1. I speak for God before you do.
2. An excellent condemnation of creationism and their followers. I applaud you.
3. What you are seeing is an on-going scientific exploration of creation and its process.
4. The only "grand theory" of interest is the creationists and IDists who speak only for themselves when they think they are speaking for God.
5. The atheists are no more unified in thought and action then are religionists.
6. In fact, my friend, you deal in manure: your own.

 

[FA_Q2]

FA_Q2 incorrectly yammers on about the relation of religion and science, and the role of science in the world today. The far christian right certainly can argue that it views "science" as the enemy as "science" views it as the enemy.

The fact is simple. Whenever one side or the other tries to "judge" the others by its own standards (faith, empirical testing), then it fails and does so miserably.

Those of us who are comfortable in both worlds, understanding their strengths and weaknesses, merely smile when the naysayers start braying. They are simply negative endorsements for being better religionists and scientists.

Should I, instead, claim everyone else is incorrect because I throw insults at them and say so as you have? Would that be better?

Go troll somewhere else...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sorry I missed this response til now.

My point is that changes in our CULTURE are undermining the common comprehension of science among the general population and this is going to impact the influence of science with future generations.

I was hoping to discuss what might be done to correct this, but it would seem the problem is rather recursive in that I appear to be trying to explain the problem to some people who predominately suffer from the malady I am trying to depict.

...

I contend that your original point is not correct. You place the shift with science in a cultural frame of reference but are forgetting the one very basic thing about science - its tendency to get ever more complex and discover more and more information. People today are not suffering from a scientific community that is not explaining modern science to them, they are suffering from a scientific community that CANT explain modern science to them. In the past, you might not have understood what a steam engine did or the science that caused it to function. Then, when someone sat down and gave you a 30 minute lesson, you suddenly understood all the basic tenants that steam power relied on. The microwave might have been one hell of a piece of magic and then you took a high school semester in physics and suddenly the microwave makes sense. String theory might be mysterious to you but if you devote your entire life and every waking moment to its study and understanding then, hey, you too can understand it. Unfortunately, everyone cannot study string theory their entire lives. You used quantum mechanics as a point earlier. Quantum mechanics is not well understood because it is extremely complicated and requires mountains of math to understand if you can even call it understanding.

I agree the complexity of scientific Truth today is a bit more than the average layman can handle and that is a part of the problem. But more and more the average lay man is not concerned with understanding the underlying science at all anyway.

It is just black box, something they accept on the faith and authority of the scientific establishment.

Unfortunately, you want to discuss what can be done to correct this and I have bad news for you. The answer is NOTHING. There is nothing that can be done because the problem is simply going to get worse. People are flawed, do not like to be wrong and hate to ascribe to something that they do not understand (let alone agree with it out of course). Science is going to get ever more complex and require ever increasing devotion just to get to a place where you can start to understand it let alone advance it.

I think you are too pessimistic. The coming enhancement of human intelligence will make all scientific data available to anyone with a mere thought and we will get past this tight spot, methinks.

In relation to your connection with theology, I found the entire portion of your OP to be more hopeful than actual fact. Yes, Christianity has been the central religion that much of technology has risen around but to equate the two is correlation without causation. Religion in general has little to do with science and the two are separate. The fact that the west was Christian at the time of the rise of science is little more than chance and the change from a 'spiritual' control of events to natural laws would be more of a catalyst for BOTH science and Christianity rather than an effect of Christianity on science. As a matter of fact, there was a time when Christianity could not destroy science fast enough and tried to blot it out of the world. Fortunately, it failed.

You over look a number of things, IMO.

1. The other major civilizations on the globe at the time had far more resources than Europe did. The Turks, Arabs, Indians and Chinese were all more organized and better funded to do scientific research BUT THEY DID NOTHING compared to what Europe accomplished from 1500 to about 1900. In Europe the assumption that the universe was orderly rather than subject to astrology or jinn or evol curses etc did wonders to spur scientific research.

2. The literacy in Europe added many more brilliant minds from the general population and so there were more scientists per capita than elsewhere. This was due to the religious scriptural debate that was almost universal.

3. The scientific research you speak of was financed largely by Christians u0p until around 1900. Kepler was a Christian as was Galileo, desCarte, Leibnetz, Newton, Tesla, Farnsworth, Edison, etc. While some Christians did oppose science at various times for various reasons, for the most part 90%+ of the population saw no problem between religion and science.

 

[JakeStarkey]

FA_Q2 incorrectly yammers on about the relation of religion and science, and the role of science in the world today. The far christian right certainly can argue that it views "science" as the enemy as "science" views it as the enemy.

The fact is simple. Whenever one side or the other tries to "judge" the others by its own standards (faith, empirical testing), then it fails and does so miserably.

Those of us who are comfortable in both worlds, understanding their strengths and weaknesses, merely smile when the naysayers start braying. They are simply negative endorsements for being better religionists and scientists.

Should I, instead, claim everyone else is incorrect because I throw insults at them and say so as you have? Would that be better?

Go troll somewhere else...

I have appropriately returned your smugness without evidence.

The proofs are different, you know it, and can't be co-evaluated.

Admit that, and we are fine.

 

[FA_Q2]

FA_Q2 incorrectly yammers on about the relation of religion and science, and the role of science in the world today. The far christian right certainly can argue that it views "science" as the enemy as "science" views it as the enemy.

The fact is simple. Whenever one side or the other tries to "judge" the others by its own standards (faith, empirical testing), then it fails and does so miserably.

Those of us who are comfortable in both worlds, understanding their strengths and weaknesses, merely smile when the naysayers start braying. They are simply negative endorsements for being better religionists and scientists.

Should I, instead, claim everyone else is incorrect because I throw insults at them and say so as you have? Would that be better?

Go troll somewhere else...

I have appropriately returned your smugness without evidence.

The proofs are different, you know it, and can't be co-evaluated.

Admit that, and we are fine.

Smugness? Get lost. I was putting out a point of view. Stop being an ass.

As far as science and religion not being co-evaluated: THAT WAS PART OF THE POINT. Where in the hell did you pull the thought that science and religion have anything to do with each other from my posts. I have always stood by the idea that science - the study if nature - as being completely separate from religion - the belief in the supernatural. It was the OP that seemed to want to connect the two. I do not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you were smug (and still acting so), so I corrected it.

One is no more supreme than the other, because the proof criteria are different.

Now, you can believe that science is derivative from religious belief, but you can't prove it.

 

[HUGGY]

I totally agree with the fact that some of us have the ability to compartmentalize faith from science.

I, like you, chuckle whenever some anti-faith proselytizer tries a logical argument against faith. It's like trying to argue that blue is the best color. By definition, faith is a set of beliefs not based on facts. It's a plain goofy approach to an argument on the topic.

And, on the other hand, the bible thumping folks arguing (from ignorance) that ID is a scientific theory. Once again, by definition, it cannot be scientific because it is not a falsifiable theory.

And, the bigger picture for me is my strong distaste for authoritarians - they exist on both sides of the aisle, politically and socially.[/QUOTE]

That is schitzophrania. It should be treated by a professional mental health expert.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, you were smug (and still acting so), so I corrected it.

One is no more supreme than the other, because the proof criteria are different.

Now, you can believe that science is derivative from religious belief, but you can't prove it.

Again, cite where I ever put fourth that concept. Fact is, I never did.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then phrase what you are saying, if you believe I am getting it wrong.