Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Science with Religion

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by baumgarten View Post
    No. I don't see how it would. Science can address one particular type of question, and religion can address another, completely different, type of question. They don't intersect, and they can't each be universally applied.

    Its not clear what the implications are -

    .... is both science and religion a partial representation of the truth respectively?

    .... is both science and religion processes for establishing the nature of two distinct and seperate realities that never meet?

  2. #22
    Science is a partial representation of the truth. Religion seems to be more of a normative discipline anyway. They simply don't do the same thing. They're not at all alike.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by baumgarten View Post
    Science is a partial representation of the truth. Religion seems to be more of a normative discipline anyway. They simply don't do the same thing. They're not at all alike.
    So outside the social codes established by religion, it has no ultimate significance?
    How do you explain many of the descriptions found in scripture that are not normative?
    What are those non-normative descriptions indicating?

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by lightgigantic View Post
    So outside the social codes established by religion, it has no ultimate significance?
    How do you explain many of the descriptions found in scripture that are not normative?
    What are those non-normative descriptions indicating?
    That is often open to interpretation. A Catholic, a fundamentalist (I usually discount this one's interpretation), and Baruch Spinoza will give you three different answers. Regardless, the supernatural is by definition something outside of science's inquiry.

    Religion is more synoptic than science. It predates science, and some scripture or oral tradition contains explanations of natural phenomena as a result. However, science is only concerned with those explanations that can be falsified. And when the claims of a religion are scrutinized in a scientific manner, their consideration ceases to be religious and becomes science.

    This is ultimately a matter of opinion, of course. It's a quibble over the definitions of a couple words. But I think my opinion is reasonable, because the scientific method is not a part of any religious ritual; and likewise no prayer is involved in the scientific method. Thusly you can choose to practice both, or one or the other, or neither. They are separate and independent.

  5. #25
    Baum

    I remember one seminar where there was a speaker who was part of the team that first designed computers (his associates had gone on to become highly influential persons in the field) - he made the statement that his associates displayed all the symptoms of rituals and totems in their activities - perhaps I am too hazy to get into t he details right now, but there is the notion that religion (in the sense of the paraphenalia for worship) automatically manifests when one encounters somethign that one considers greater than oneself (like in this case the future prospect of IT). This explains not only the nature of primitive jungle religions (seeing the thunder as god) and cargo cults, but also a lot of the hype that surrounds science.

    In otherwords this tendency to form "ideal catergories", even within the field of science, indicates the influence of theism.

    How do you explain religion as being synoptic yet somehow distinct and unable to approach what goes on in the name of science?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by lightgigantic View Post
    Baum

    I remember one seminar where there was a speaker who was part of the team that first designed computers (his associates had gone on to become highly influential persons in the field) - he made the statement that his associates displayed all the symptoms of rituals and totems in their activities - perhaps I am too hazy to get into t he details right now, but there is the notion that religion (in the sense of the paraphenalia for worship) automatically manifests when one encounters somethign that one considers greater than oneself (like in this case the future prospect of IT). This explains not only the nature of primitive jungle religions (seeing the thunder as god) and cargo cults, but also a lot of the hype that surrounds science.

    In otherwords this tendency to form "ideal catergories", even within the field of science, indicates the influence of theism.
    It indicates the influence of religion, not theism. Humans have a natural propensity for religious behavior, even the worship of deities. They also have a natural propensity for curiosity and rational thought. Your anecdote is neither surprising nor a refutal of the simple fact that anyone can choose to consciously repress any such propensity. My point lies in that one can do so selectively: you can repress this "scientific drive" without necessarily repressing the "religious drive," and vice-versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by lightgigantic
    How do you explain religion as being synoptic yet somehow distinct and unable to approach what goes on in the name of science?
    I described religion as more synoptic than science, not absolutely synoptic.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •