User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 126

  1. #61
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    There are plenty of God fearing/God loving scientists in the world. There is no inherent contradiction in turning to religion in matters of "ought" and science for matters of "is". (For those who claim that nutrition, economics, or well-being psychology, answers "ought", I think you miss the basic assumptions involved there. There is certainly good guidance, but the primary aims in each of these things is not something that I believe ought to be "objectively" calculated.)
    I dunno, it seems to me that because theistic explanations of the universe were supposed to be end-all explanations, most forms of belief save very vague forms of pantheism and deism are at odds with science. And I think that Mr. Tyson is right when he discusses how falling back on the God of the Gaps kills the inquisitive spirit necessary for science.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  2. #62
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I dunno, it seems to me that because theistic explanations of the universe were supposed to be end-all explanations, most forms of belief save very vague forms of pantheism and deism are at odds with science. And I think that Mr. Tyson is right when he discusses how falling back on the God of the Gaps kills the inquisitive spirit necessary for science.
    They were never meant to be explanations at all. Not in the modern sense. They're just stories for ancient people, to give them a sense of narrative and place in the world, and that the gods had a purpose for them. It is always more about the people themselves, rather than the cosmos as a whole. They didn't gather around fires or sacred sites to "hear an explantion". It was meant to be more personal or tribal. This is something that both modern religion and science don't get. We all want to define or understand things through a larger global or cosmic lens. Rather than a cultural lens. And then we judge or use the ancient world by this larger standard too. As if they cared just as equally, and were proposing "serious" explanations and science.

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I dunno, it seems to me that because theistic explanations of the universe were supposed to be end-all explanations, most forms of belief save very vague forms of pantheism and deism are at odds with science. And I think that Mr. Tyson is right when he discusses how falling back on the God of the Gaps kills the inquisitive spirit necessary for science.
    I think this reflects the choosing-to-end-thought stereotype that people have of religion. Some of it is fair, especially given some of the effects of religion in the last two decades. But religious thought hasn't always been this way. Einstein, Newton, Schrodinger and others had deep spiritual sides in addition to their accomplishments in science (I would even say that their spirituality contributed to their motivation to ask the questions they did).

    The "God of the Gaps" and "vague deism" aren't the only options. For me, spirituality has nothing to do with explanations or predictions or things of this sort, but is rather a guide in processing other aspects of life (admittedly difficult for me to put into words). For lack of better words, I think of spirituality as a form of processing and creating "meaning." There are plenty of articulate and deep writers on spiritual matters (from my tradition there are Gandhi, Vivekanda, and Krishnamrti to name a few). I think you would be hard pressed to say that the core of their messages are disputed by science.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  4. #64
    You're fired. Lol. Antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    3,437

    Default

    Based on the definition of religion, I'm not sure I agree.
    Excuse me, but does this smell like chloroform to you?

    Always reserve the right to become smarter at a future point in time, for only a fool limits themselves to all they knew in the past. -Alex

  5. #65
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I think this reflects the choosing-to-end-thought stereotype that people have of religion. Some of it is fair, especially given some of the effects of religion in the last two decades. But religious thought hasn't always been this way. Einstein, Newton, Schrodinger and others had deep spiritual sides in addition to their accomplishments in science (I would even say that their spirituality contributed to their motivation to ask the questions they did).

    The "God of the Gaps" and "vague deism" aren't the only options. For me, spirituality has nothing to do with explanations or predictions or things of this sort, but is rather a guide in processing other aspects of life (admittedly difficult for me to put into words). For lack of better words, I think of spirituality as a form of processing and creating "meaning." There are plenty of articulate and deep writers on spiritual matters (from my tradition there are Gandhi, Vivekanda, and Krishnamrti to name a few). I think you would be hard pressed to say that the core of their messages are disputed by science.
    I mean, sure, I can't prove it's not true. If that's sufficient for you, all the more power to you. That will endear you to most people.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  6. #66
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Voodoo you do, do so well

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    They were never meant to be explanations at all. Not in the modern sense. They're just stories for ancient people, to give them a sense of narrative and place in the world, and that the gods had a purpose for them. It is always more about the people themselves, rather than the cosmos as a whole. They didn't gather around fires or sacred sites to "hear an explantion". It was meant to be more personal or tribal. This is something that both modern religion and science don't get. We all want to define or understand things through a larger global or cosmic lens. Rather than a cultural lens. And then we judge or use the ancient world by this larger standard too. As if they cared just as equally, and were proposing "serious" explanations and science.
    In Voodoo we become the god. We don't just pray to the god, we actually become the god.

    And Voodoo is the religion of Haiti, the first Black Republic. The first Republic of freed Black slaves.

    And naturally the Americans hated the first slaves to free themselves and form a Republic and so they demonised the religion of Haiti, called Voodoo, and called the practitioners of Voodoo, Zombies. And even today the Americans demonise the religion of the free slaves in a whole genre of books and movies, and call them the, "Living Dead".

    I myself am influenced by Voodoo when, instead of admiring a tree, or writing a poem about a tree, I become a tree.

    And so we love the Voodoo you do, do so well.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I mean, sure, I can't prove it's not true. If that's sufficient for you, all the more power to you. That will endear you to most people.
    Prove what is not true? If you are still seeing religion as merely a belief system, I think you missed my point.

    Yes, it is true that our view of what is true or false shapes what we do. But this is not the only factor in decision making.

    What should shape our desires? What ought our life long goals be? Why should we respect our fellow human beings? What ought we value? Are we to follow only our moment to moment impulses, or should we reflect on what ought to be done? If we are to reflect, what informs our reflection?

    You may claim that science informs these questions, and I would agree. But if you claim that science alone informs these things, I would disagree.

    Perhaps this joke will illustrate my point:
    Before assigning a punishment, a judge asked a convicted prisoner why she poisoned her husband. She said, "Because I put some poison in his food." The judge persisted, "Yes. Why did you put poison in his food?" She replies, "Because poison would kill him."

    Judge: Yes. Why did you want to kill him?
    Convict:Because then he would be dead.
    Judge:Why did you want him dead?!
    Convict:Because he'd no longer be living.
    Judge:Why?!!!
    Convict:Because that's what happens when someone is poissoned.
    Judge:<sigh>

    Science, in many ways, answers the questions I mentioned in a manner similar to how the convict answered the judge in that joke. They are true answers, and relevant to the facts of the situation, but altogether unsatisfying.

    Religious thinkers from those of the caliber of Thomas Aquinas, to local pastors address the questions I mentioned in more direct and satisfying ways. There are many writers from many traditions (incuding atheistic ones) who address these concerns. The approaches offered through scientific training, although informative, are ill-equipped for spiritual matters. To call what religion offers in such matters a "God of the Gaps" is to completely miss the point(and I don't believe this is what Dr. Tyson was implying either).

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #68
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536
    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Religious thinkers from those of the caliber of Thomas Aquinas.
    Please, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that heretics should be killed. And they were.

    And Saint Thomas Aquinas told us that he was looking forward to heaven, because there he could look down and enjoy the suffering of the souls in hell.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Please, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that heretics should be killed. And they were.

    And Saint Thomas Aquinas told us that he was looking forward to heaven, because there he could look down and enjoy the suffering of the souls in hell.
    Well, I wasn't saying I agreed with any particular tradition. I pointed to Aquinas because of his degree of influence. Besides, it was a minor point. My main point is that there are a set of questions for which science is not well equipped.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    I think science has, from a certain point of view, become largely like a religion. It's followers have pretty unbending beliefs as to how the world got here, what makes it work, and to figure out this stuff, they walk through every step of the scientific method, almost as if following a religious ritual, to arrive at an answer.

Similar Threads

  1. Why Science is so Hard to Believe
    By Hard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 03-17-2015, 03:38 PM
  2. [Other] What is your favorite quote...
    By jck221 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-09-2014, 05:43 PM
  3. Is religion a science?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-02-2013, 11:27 PM
  4. Science is nothing more than magic that actually works.
    By onemoretime in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 08-06-2012, 09:20 AM
  5. Is your Religion your Race?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 12-24-2009, 04:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO