How to Reconcile Science and Religion

[cbayer]

I know that some see this as more beating a dead horse, but I continue to be very interested in this intersection, and I really enjoyed this writer's take on it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-wallace/how-to-reconcile-science-_b_1404660.html

Paul Wallace
Science & religion teacher, writer
Posted: 04/12/2012 3:39 pm

Last month in these pages, Jason Rosenhouse wrote about reconciling science and religion. In his concluding paragraph he said,
Many Christians have resolved [this issue] to their own satisfaction. The literature defending "theistic evolution" is large and erudite. I can understand, though, why so many people are not impressed with such efforts... They seem like so much armchair philosophy, as though the writer thinks the task of reconciliation is accomplished when a logically possible scenario containing both God and evolution, no matter how implausible, is produced.

He's right. If one approaches science and religion as logical systems that must be rationally reconciled, then reconciliation is really hard. In particular, if one approaches any religion scientifically, as a set of logical propositions (and nothing more) and considers them as so many data points (and nothing more), then reconciliation is probably impossible. Even if it's not, whatever meta-system that emerges is likely to be a monstrous and uninspiring thing.
On the other side, many religious people tend to think of science as essentially religious in nature. These folks think believing in evolution (say) requires faith just like believing in Jesus Christ (say) requires faith. But that's just not true, unless one stretches the word "faith" until it means nothing at all.

Both sides, it seems, are trapped within their native categories. Many scientists think religion is just science done badly, and many religious people think science is basically a religion.

more at link

[rrneck]

1. Can we not

be in awe of everything within us as well as outside us? Can we not study both with equal precision and skepticism?

We're stuck between the two. We can't hide in one to avoid the other.

[cbayer]

3. Agree. I think we can, as long as we keep exchanging ideas.

[rrneck]

7. And not charge for them.

But you expected me to say that.

[cbayer]

8. What! We can't charge for science?

Man, that's going to be tough. I don't think the scientists are going to like that one bit.

[rrneck]

11. Shit.

I didn't think of that.

:rofl.

[JoePhilly]

2. Which "Religion" are we talking about?

There are 100s of Religions and they disagree on many points.

And so, if we plan to "reconcile" Religion and Science, first we might need to reconcile the many differences between the religions.

In a sense, each of those Religions is an alternative theory.

[cbayer]

5. From my reading, I think it's the inclusive concept of religion, as opposed to science

and has little to do with the differences between religions.

His question, to me, is "is it possible for both to exist and both to contain substance?".

I have reconciled that, as I think have many others. But there are many people who can't reconcile it, and that prevents movement towards the middle.

Much of what we get caught up in when we debate this is language based, and he suggests we need a new language to discuss this rationally. That concept intrigues me.

Just my two cents.

[skepticscott]

9. No, the real question is

What religions can exist without having to make truth claims about the physical world that are in conflict with all available evidence? Most have a great deal of difficulty with that, and resent science explaining things more prosaically that they used to have the supernatural corner on.

And what "movement towards the middle" does science need to make? What part of religion's exclusive province has it intruded on inappropriately?

[saras]

4. If you're not a fundamentalist, there's nothing to reconcile.

The only part of science that is religious in nature is that you have to have faith in Occam's razor.

You have to believe, because these can't be proved or disproved, that the world is consistent and predictable over time and space, and that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the most correct. These are the irrational beliefs that are necessary to build rationality on.

I'd really love to hear some DU atheists debate Native American religion instead of always bashing at Christianity. That could get downright interesting.

[cbayer]

6. I posted a thread today about a Native American group winning a court case

in which confiscated marijuana was to be returned to them for use in religious ceremonies.

Seemed like an interesting intersection of religion and the law, but no takers.

[skepticscott]

10. Since when is "faith" or "beleif" in Occam's razor needed?

What scientist ever said that? The explanation that requires the fewest assumptions and conditions isn't always going to be the one that turns out to be correct, despite what you say, but it is the best place to start, since every assumption and condition you add reduces the probability for a given explanation under the same supporting evidence.

And nothing in science is ever proven or disproven, so your next statement is just a silly strawman. That the universe is consistent and predictable over time and space is by no means regarded as certain, either. It is simply the most useful way to approach scientific inquiry until we know differently, and it leads to useful results.

[Silent3]

13. If someone comes along talking about Native American religion...

...and in the course of doing so says things I'm skeptical of, I'll express my skepticism. If I discuss Christianity more often, it's simply because I'm more familiar with it (I was raised Catholic), and Christianity calls more attention to itself in my life and in this DU group.

[AlbertCat]

21. If someone comes along talking about Native American religion...

Indeed.

I find religions interesting... from an historical and anthropological and psych perspective. (I have a fondness for Hinduism)

But we here talk about Christianity more because it is everywhere in Western Culture.

[WolverineDG]

12. I've never seen the disconnect nt

[AlbertCat]

22. I've never seen the disconnect

I've never seen the connection...

Except that human desire to know what's going on around us.

Religion filled that gap for centuries...millenia...

but it has been obsolete since the Age of Reason... some would say since the Renaissance. Science has an excellent track record and is much more useful. Even Christians use electric lights.

[cbayer]

23. Even Christians use electric lights? What in the world does that mean.

Hate to break it to you, but for many around the world, religion is not by any means obsolete not matter how you may wish it to be.

For many it still explains many things that science is no where close to explaining. And it always will, imo.

As to science's excellent track record, it's hit and miss at best. I think the development of the atomic bomb, while a scientific breakthrough, was a bit of a mis-step for humanity in general.

[skepticscott]

29. What things does religion"explain"

that science "is no where close to explaining"? Since there are "many", name us 5. And instances where religion simply tells people what they want to hear or what makes them feel good are not instances of "explaining", so don't even go there.

As far as science being "hit or miss", look around the room you're in. If you get rid of all of the things that wouldn't be there if not for the achievements of science, what would be left? What things within its purview has science "missed" on? And the development of the atomic bomb was a not a "mis-step for humanity". Knowledge and technology are simply tools, and like all tools, they can be used for good or ill. It is religion, not science that loudly trumpets its ability to instill morals and ethics. If you have a problem with the morality of how the atomic bomb was used, put that failure squarely where it belongs: on religion.

If anything is "hit and miss", it's religion..and mostly miss, at that.

[SamG]

44. Are we still waiting for an answer to your excellent question:

"What things does religion"explain"that science "is no where close to explaining"?

Don't hold your breath on that one.

[cbayer]

46. Are you taking the position that science has explained everything?

Because that would be ludicrous wouldn't it.

You may be taking the position that everything that can be explained, can and will be explained at some point by science, but how could you be so sure of that.

[eqfan592]

51. Speaking personally, I have no idea how far science can and will go.

It's a question that we simply aren't capable of answering at this time. Trying to find an answer to everything is the goal, because we are a naturally curious species and we will always push ourselves to further understand the universe that we are a part of, but the question of the attainability of that goal will not likely be answered in our life times.

[SamG]

54. I'm not telling YOU anything. (I'm wiser than ever to try!)

Mr. Clean Hippie asked you to give examples of explanations that religion offers where science does not, (you claim).

I merely advised Mr. Clean Hippie to not hold his breath waiting for 5 examples.

I'd be satisfied with 2 examples where religion explains something that science cannot.

That should be easier. One might be the origin of the Universe, and life on Earth. Another might be why the Catholic church suppressed and imprisoned the man who offered proof of a heliocentric solar system. Two easy questions for someone who claims religion offers explanations that science cannot. (Actually, social science does offer explanations as to why the church suppressed the teachings of Galileo, but that science is 20th century science, having to do with the functioning of the human mind and the phenomena of cognitive dissonance in the imperfect human mind.)

The simple answer to your defensive and diverting question, (has science explained everything?) is: NO Science, actually is a disciplined practice of discovery and problem resolution through the use of the human mind, (imperfect as it is). Science is not a dogma, nor a doctrine, nor a revelation of a clear set of facts. Science is the most noble way we flawed human beings, using our less than perfect minds, have between us to find out and describe and explain what isf the universe in which we live. Unlike religion, nothing within the discipline of science is entirely final, nor entirely accurate to the last decimal point. The nature of the discipline of science requires perennial open-mindedness to further revision. Science is, at best, somewhat ambiguous. Religious belief, by contrast, attempts to state final and definitive answers and explanations.

[cbayer]

57. I suggest that your response here is a beautiful illustration of the point this author

is trying to make.

"Science's categories are products of its frontal vision. They are (relatively) well-defined. And science progresses by narrowing its focus, by dividing the world into parts. It puts those parts back together, to be sure, but it never takes its eye off distinctions.

On the other hand, theology's categories are (relatively) poorly-defined, its vision anything but frontal. We cannot address God directly, but always obliquely, always indirectly. The language of theology reflects its object's shifting presence in our lives: glancing, peripheral. That's just the nature of the thing: Once you nail it down, it's dead. Or, as a friend of mine once put it, "Any box you put God in becomes a casket."

You can't use the same language to describe the two areas. If you try to do a side by side comparison, you will fail.

[skepticscott]

60. YOUR response is as clear a showing as there could be

that religion explains nothing.

[skepticscott]

59. No one has said that, so stop trying to deflect the question

with a ridiculous straw man.

The question, in response to your claim above, was: What things does religion"explain" that science "is no where close to explaining"?

Either answer it, or admit that you can't and that your claim was just made-up bullshit.

[deucemagnet]

49. I would take it one step further.

Religion has made claims that have been proven false by science in the past. Even if religion could explain something that science couldn't, how could we trust it with a track record of being wrong on the creation of the universe, geocentric theory and evolution?

[cbayer]

50. Science has made claims that further scientific inquiry has proved false

in the past as well.

So what?

[eqfan592]

52. You can't honestly tell me you don't see the difference there, right?

The difference is that science doesn't make claims that involve absolute truth. That is why the highest regard any hypothesis in science can reach is theory. Now there comes a point when a theory is so well supported that it would take a monumental upheaval in our understanding of the universe for it to be turned around (like evolution), but it will still always remain a theory, because we have to allow for that possibility, no matter how slim. That is not a strike against science, but rather it's strength..

Religion cannot claim a similar strength because it tends to speak in absolute truths with little or no evidence to support them. It doesn't allow for falsifiable, and that is its greatest weakness.

[cbayer]

53. Good points. I was only replying to his assertion.

[SamG]

56. If you fail to see the difference in technique of inquiry between the two...

supposed "disciplines", I think you fail to understand the nature and discipline of scientific thinking.

A scientist is, by his/her very nature, and by the discipline of the profession s/he has chosen, a "skeptic". A scientist CANNOT accept even the most obvious of scientific fact without substantial proof.

A follower of any religion, by contrast, is asked, no demanded to take certain elements of faith, simple as that, "on faith", without a requirement for any proof whatsoever.

[cbayer]

58. I am trained as a scientist, so I understand it quite well.

There are many who are able to embrace both science and religion because they see them as two totally different things. One does not have to believe one excludes the other.

As I noted above, that is the point this author is trying to make. If you try to make a side by side comparison, you will fail because you have to be truly *bilingual* to reconcile them.

If you can't do that, that's fine and that's what forms your opinions on religion. But to assume that no one can would be wrong.

[SamG]

63. Well, I hope you can become as "bi-lingual" as I am.

I speak two languages with equal fluency, and neither competes with the other, indeed each compliment each other.

The analogy of bi-lingualism fails on the surface. Speaking a language, or properly understanding the definitions of any terms in one or the other, has little, actually very little to do with speakers of one language understanding the meanings of speakers of the other.

Religious thought and expression, by contrast to the nature of scientific thought and expression, refuses to confirm similar human experience, insisting, instead, upon a unique experience for the religious believer, one that scientists cannot possibly grasp.

The author, (not you) is probably mono-lingual, and has no idea how utterly silly his attempts at a comparison are.

In some Eskimo languages, there are more than a dozen words for snow, each with a different specificity and connotation. Those "snow" words are not interchangeable, except that they all must be translated to English as one or two or perhaps three terms, or to long descriptive clauses, (e.g. snow that falls in the night, snow that hurts the face as it flies by, etc.).

Religion uses a sort of English, when compared to science using a sort of Eskimo language. Religious folks try to equate all events on one plain, scientists look deeper, as do the Eskimos in describing their winter storms, giving more clues to each other as to the totality of their experience. Religion stops short, it's snow, scientific thought would have no problem with going beyond just 16 or so ways to describe snow.

If you want to insist that religious thought has more to say than science can offer, please give us a commonly understandable example. An Eskimo would ask the same of an English speaker in talking about that simple common experience of snow.

[cbayer]

66. The author is a scientists and a theist, so I think he has some credibility here.

Again the broad assumptions about the limitless variety of religious people symies the conversation. If anything, I would suggest that religious language is more varied in it's attempts to communicate what an individual believes or has experienced, and, therefore, more like the Eskimo language your describe.

But the bottom line is that the languages are different and, for those of that do reconcile science and religion, there may be a need to use a different set of words.

In no way do I wish to insist that religious thought has more to say than science, but I would say that it also says something and for some it is equally or even more important in their lives.

Evolution is evolution. Most everyone knows what that word means and that makes its easier to discuss.

But a religious experience may be extraordinarily different from person to person and will demand a much more complex language.

My husband is multilingual and often uses terms from one language or another when he can't really describe something in english the way he wants to. They do not compete with each other, but they do complement each other.

[deucemagnet]

65. I think you're just going to have to agree to disagree with the atheists on that point.

I remember in grad school I saw a flyer advertising a seminar for med students who were having trouble reconciling science with their faith. It was right then that it struck me that you cannot, at least not without being intellectually dishonest with yourself at some level. Every important decision in our lives --which university to go to, which car to buy, whether or not to get married, which job to take -- is a heavily weighed decision based on all the evidence we can gather. That same level of scrutiny directed at the existence of any god would and should ablate faith. I, like all of the other atheists in this forum, don't think that the existence of a god should be exempt from that scrutiny, and I don't think you'll change any minds.

[cbayer]

68. I could not disagree more and I don't think you speak for all atheists, so you and I may

need to agree to disagree, but that's as far as it goes.

You are right about those critical life decisions being based on all the evidence one can gather. For some, that evidence is spiritual or even deistic.

Having had extensive discussions with many atheists in this forum (as well as being married to one), I can assure you that while you do speak for some atheists here, you most assuredly do not speak for all of them.

It's not my goal to change any minds. It is my goal to build bridges and form coalitions to fight what most (if not all) of us agree is the dangerousness of religion.

[deucemagnet]

73. I think I do speak for all atheists in the respect that we all share a disbelief in a god or gods.

My assertion was that all atheists dare to question the existence of god. Now, I'm not appointing myself the spokesperson of all atheists, but if I can't speak for them in that regard, then I'm completely misunderstanding the definition of the word.

[cbayer]

74. But that's not what you said.

I agree that all atheists share a disbelief in a god or gods, but not all atheists feel the need to challenge what others may believe or even say that they are wrong because they can't produce proof.

Most atheists I know enjoy a good debate about religion, but they don't take the position that they are absolutely right and anyone who sees it differently is absolutely wrong (or worse).

[deucemagnet]

77. I re-read both my post and the post I replied to,

and I do not see where I asserted that "all atheists feel to need to challenge what others may believe or even say that they are wrong because they can't produce proof".

Buy hey, whatever. If you think I overstepped my bounds needed to be chastised for speaking for all atheists, then consider me scolded and let's drop this.

[cbayer]

78. I apologize if I misread it and fully agree to drop it. It's petty.

See you around the pool!

[deucemagnet]

61. Scientists aren't afraid of trial and error,

nor are they afraid to question previously established findings, whether it is to disprove or improve upon them. If religion were as open to questioning and criticism and were as willing as the scientific community to accept new findings when supported by evidence, I think that you'd have a point. Religion, however, teaches dogma, which is accepted on faith and never questioned. In fact, the religious don't like their dogma challenged by science very much, as Galileo and the Dover school board could attest to. And, even when these things are grudgingly accepted by the religious over time, as the heliocentric theory has and evolution is in the process of becoming, it just creates a blind spot that the religious do not like to talk about.

I posted this video in A&A, but you should watch it if you have time. It isn't a preachy atheist lecture, it's a TED talk about the importance of doubt and trial and error, and how dogmatic thinking is dangerous. From my impression of you from reading your posts, I think you'll like it.

[cbayer]

62. There are many forms of religion and some of them teach inquiry as a basic tenet.

If you want to speak about specific religious beliefs, like fundamentalism, I would agree with you. When you extrapolate broadly to all religion, you miss the boat.

I love TED lectures and promise you I will watch this one when I am in a location with a better connection (or I may just try to find an audio version of it).

I also agree with you that dogma is dangerous but would argue that it is not unique to religion and can be found in politics and science as well.

[SamG]

64. So what is it exactly about "religion" that allows for both...

closed-mindedness and open-mindedness in the same broad faith?

What rules apply to one and not the other? Why can both be described by the word "religion" if one operates in a way more open-minded, more curious, more inquiring, while the other refuses such open-minded thought?

How can both be accurately described as a "religion" when the two follow opposite rules? Is there not any unifying factor that allows both to be described as "religion"?

"Eric and Paul Explain It All"

[cbayer]

69. Exactly. It's a very broad term that does not take into account the extensive variability

and there in lies part of the problem with language.

[deucemagnet]

67. I can extrapolate to all forms of religion that claim the existence of a supernatural god or gods,

because if they direct their basic tenet of inquiry at the existence of that god and are intellectually honest with themselves, they will find nothing to support the claim.

[cbayer]

70. No, you find nothing to support that claim and will probably reject any *evidence*

offered by someone else because it is not scientific.

That is what forms your view, and I wouldn't dream of telling you you are wrong. But it doesn't mean it's the only way of seeing the world.

[deucemagnet]

71. I'm glad you specified *evidence*,

because you are correct in you are correct that I would reject anything that is not a verifiable fact or observation, but let me as a question, if I may, and I am not trying to goad you in any way. Would you use this unscientific *evidence* in any important life decision? Say, choosing a surgeon or making a risky financial investment?

[cbayer]

72. I might or I might not.

I think many people have an intuitive sense that they rely on heavily when making important decisions, particularly if the hard evidence is conflicting or comes down equally on both sides.

The surgeon issue is a really good one. While people generally want a surgeon who is technically superior, they may hedge on that if said surgeon has a really bad bedside manner. When you move away from a surgeon and towards a less procedurally based medical specialities, the importance of bedside manner becomes even more important in why people choose a certain doctor.

Now bedside manner is really hard to quantify and is defined very differently by individuals. So it can't be scientifically measured or scored.

People make decisions like that all the time and sometimes they make it after praying or some other religious act because they feel it gives them insight they can't get otherwise.

[deucemagnet]

75. Well, thanks for your answer.

Although I disagree with your assertion that bedside manner can't be scientifically measured or scored. At the very least, we can semi-qualitatively evaluate it (eg "good" or "bad&quot . Perhaps I gave bad examples, because a lot of factual evidence would be available in these cases as well, but thanks for your answer.

[cbayer]

76. And thanks for the conversation. I have enjoyed it.

[skepticscott]

81. And still no answer

You made a claim about religion, and were asked to back it up. Can you or can't you?

And please don't say that you answered below. You didn't.

[WolverineDG]

26. I don't see them as opposites or being mutually exclusive

as for religion being "obsolete," hardly. And Science does not have an "excellent" track record.

[LTX]

82. "Except that human desire to know what's going on around us."

In broader terms, that would be the need to impose an explanatory construct. That particular need is a common denominator in both science and theology, but neither has satisfactorily explained its source. To date.

In broader terms still, it seems to me that the inexplicability of the immaterial is the area of overlap between science and theology. I tend to think that it will be a synthesis of both modes of inquiry that will ultimately provide, if not discrete answers, a least a path towards such answers.

[Silent3]

14. So if someone can't reconcile science and religion...

...it must be that he/she doesn't understand one or the other or both well enough? It could only be misunderstanding or "mistranslation" that leads to seeing conflict?

We must discard the idea that science and religion conflict, seeing any "apparent" conflict is purely our own problem?

[laconicsax]

15. That's how you win a Templeton. n/t

[trotsky]

17. LOL - Bingo! n/t

[longship]

16. Ooo! Can't resist this one!

I do not agree with Stephen Jay Gould's non overlapping magisteria (NOMA). It's utter rubbish. The reason that it's rubbish is that religion cannot keep their dirty little fingers out of the scientific pie. I see little evidence that religion doesn't poison the pie for everybody.

Sorry to be so blunt here, and I would not be so blunt if it were not for religion's absolutely abysmal history with regards to science. I will give as evidence, just this week, the bill passed into law in TN which specifically cites evolution and global warming (seemingly second to evolution on the fundie demon list) as science to which teachers are to question when they teach.

No! They are not non-overlapping magisteria. No matter what, religion will always try to put their filthy fingers into the scientific pie.

I want my pie devoid of the dirt of faith. Faith has no value in science. Authority has no value, either... except... The only authority is nature herself.

I respect people's religious beliefs only to the extent that they do not bridge that gap.

Let us keep it that way.

[AlbertCat]

20. I do not agree with Stephen Jay Gould's non overlapping magisteria (NOMA). It's utter rubbish.

Indeed.

If there is a soul... what is it? where is it?

If Mary didn't die, but just shot up into heaven... where did she go?

If some god affects the physical world, but is not part of it, how is that accomplished?

These are all scientific questions.


But the main thing about religion is, it is ancient GOVERNMENT, designed to give some authority and to compel some to follows laws.

Science is not government.

[tama]

27. Not all

authoritarian hierarchies of past have been theocracies. And public schools teach science, not for example meditation, smoking pot, dropping acid and shamanistic drumming to reach ASC. They teach and uphold laws against certain drugs based on science (or rather misuse). Governement bureaucracy is full of scientists from most if not all academic disciplines (often corrupt scientists representing the interests of corporations), and most countries have state funded universities, student loans etc. Politicians get elected by hiring professionals skilled in science of psychological manipulation of general public. Governement is not 100% science but science and scientific institutions are integral part of modern states.

[cbayer]

24. While the TN law is really reprehensible, it doesn't say what you are saying.

What's with the "filthy little fingers" analogy. There is a branch of religious people in this country that are extremists and want to inject their beliefs into the law and schools.

Once again, your broad brush inflammatory language which lumps all religion together is really offensive.

Perhaps, as the author points out, the problem is with the language we use.

[trotsky]

25. That "branch" you and many other progressive Christians like to pretend is insignificant...

has succeeded in many state legislatures in getting their religious beliefs taught in public school science classrooms.

The members of the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives push their agenda daily.

So while you strain to bash someone for "broad brushing" as they describe what the MAJORITY OF US CHRISTIANS believe and support because you can't stand to acknowledge the fact that they are just that - they're getting away with it.

[tama]

28. What's the pie?

Nature herself?

If the pie is nature, you are now saying that it is controlled by natural philosophy aka physics and other fields of science, and the pie of nature must be defended from dirty fingers grabbing a slice?

But if only authority is nature herself, when and how did she choose science and science alone to speak for her and represent her, passing that authority to scientific institutions with authoritarian hierarchies, peer review process, fight for funds, technocracy and all that jazz now claiming monopoly and patent right over nature?

[longship]

42. Science delivers the goods

Not to make a materialist argument here. But I couldn't resist the Carl Sagan quote.

Name a system of learning which has done what science has. Religion hasn't. The newage folks haven't.

The reason science succeeds is because it isn't static. Science isn't a belief, no matter what people say. It is a methodology which itself has evolved in such a way that enables people to reveal the workings of nature. There is nothing else like it, and if there were, we'd just call that thing science.

Your talk of authority is silly. Anybody can participate in science. It is an entirely open enterprise; it has to be otherwise it wouldn't work. You have the next big theory? Good! Publish it. The only authority is the universe itself. That is why science works so well. It is a meritocracy. There are famous scientists, but their authority is limited by their achievements.

Concerning grabbing the pie, religionists spew rubbish, like the age of Earth is less than 10,000 years. Many of their religious claims are outright falsified. I have no problem with religion but they don't seem to be able to stay out of politics, government, and yes, science. There is no room for myth in any of those disciplines.

[tama]

43. Agreed

when talking about science as an ideal, as open and anarchic process not limited to academic hierarchies and positivist philosophy.

Science as social phenomenon with academic hierarchies and other hierarchic institutions has it's ugly authoritarian sides. And it is a sad observation by many, that there is a strong correlation between positivism and behaving like an authoritarian asshole - which correlation can be studied and explained scientifically. Science as social and individual phenomenon can be self-corrective process only by being self-referential, which is by definition introspective relation - and as positivism rejects introspection and intuition, it is in constant danger of taking theories and positivist projection of science dogmatically and religiously.

[skepticscott]

45. PoMo Crapola

Your emperor has no clothes.

Bottom line: Science works. Really well. If it didn't, you wouldn't be reading this, or doing most of the other things you do every day. Straw men about it being less than perfect or subject to human biases and foibles don't change that, although I realize it's all you have (other than Sheldrake blahblahblah quantum blahblahblah positivism blahblahblah).

[tama]

47. Technology works

Turning science into technocratic Deus ex Machina to serve religious needs does not. Your emperor has no clothes.

[skepticscott]

48. Technology that would be impossible

without the understanding provided by science.

BTW, the clothes that you, me and everyone else is wearing would also be impossible without that understanding.

Nice try, though. You must have dug pretty deep to come up with "technocratic Deus ex Machina to serve religious needs". But rounds are over.

[tama]

79. Rounds are over? nt

[PassingFair]

18. One is fact and one is fiction.

I have been reconciled to that for a long time.

[trotsky]

19. Yes, simple.

You just tell science it isn't allowed to ask certain questions. Because that strategy has worked so well for religion in the past!

[tama]

30. There are more that two sides

I'm currently reading Maxwell's Deamon by Bayer (http://www.amazon.com/Maxwells-Demon-Warmth-Disperses-Passes/dp/0679433422) and the author or lucid and entertaining book tell's about his childhood mystic experience of "Now" on a train near the house in Switzerland where Einstein spent much time, and continues to discuss how the mystery of "Now" haunted also Einstein all through his life.

The spiritual aspect of religion and the wondering and imaginative aspect of science have no problems together, they are aspects of same movement.

Those who claim that reconciliation is not possible, both biblical literalists and positivist believers in scientism, cannot be reconciled and they draw their energy from conflict and power games. Neither can nor should speak for religion or science they distort and misrepresent. They reflect each other and want to draw everybody else in their bivalent game of us-against-them.

[cbayer]

31. Tama, I love your last paragraph and couldn't agree more.

What do you think about his suggestion that we need new language to find the point of reconciliation.

I like it, but not being very good at that sort of thing, wouldn't know where to start.

I would love to start replacing some of the dog whistle terms with things that we could all agree mean the same thing and would aid us in discussion.

[tama]

33. You can start

Last edited Fri Apr 13, 2012, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)

new language from yourself by just practicing it. Much harder to expect and demand others to do it.

For English speakers these can help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime
http://wik.inormous.net/index.php?title=Rheomode

In my native language "rheomode" is allready much more speakable than in English, e.g. 'It is raining.' translates to 'Sataa.', which is a full sentence of VP without any NP, and old Finnish grammar used to classify such sentences as "natural force - expressions". Our verbs inflect also in "indefinite person" as full sentences without subject and object and as sort of quantum superposition of personhood. Expression "Ollaan" does not translate into language with only "decoherred" person expressions without losing the coherent unity of single verb, but the meaning is something like "Inclusive all without clear boundaries participating mutually in being" or less exactly "Let's just be.".

Many native American languages are also very rheomodish to my knowledge. They are worth studying if possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violent_communication

[Silent3]

32. Power games?

You're completely blinded by your absurd obsession with power games -- and it's such a convenient way to hermetically seal yourself safely away from all criticism. It's easy to be right about anything at all so long as any attempt by anyone else to say you're wrong conveniently becomes a "power game".

Am I getting emotional about this? Damn right I am. It's frustrating when you know there isn't a single rational argument you can use to break through the annoying self-protective walls someone has constructed around themselves while they go on smugly babbling nonsense.

[tama]

34. Power games?

You're completely blinded by your absurd obsession with power games -- and it's such a convenient way to hermetically seal yourself safely away from all criticism. It's easy to be right about anything at all so long as any attempt by anyone else to say you're wrong conveniently becomes a "power game".

Am I getting emotional about this? Damn right I am. It's frustrating when you know there isn't a single rational argument you can use to break through the annoying self-protective walls someone has constructed around themselves while they go on smugly babbling nonsense.

[Silent3]

35. "And so are you!" is the best you've got?

Pathetic.

[tama]

36. We have a saying:

"The forest responds the same way as one shouts there." Related DU expression is "Thou project too much".

And yes, my answer to cbayer above was much better, and yes, this language that I'm being used by loves to "corrupt" English language and deconstruct the imperialistic aspects of imperialistic language of imperialistic culture. You create an image of me which is really nothing but projection of your own limitations and expectations, which are products your cultural and linguistic conditioning, but that's not all of you and I really hope that even for a fleeting moment you really tried to comprehend instead of understand, meaning try to see and feel also from my point of view. And emotions come and go, but are you those emotional reactions and the thoughts that you feed to those reactions, or the space where thoughts and emotions happen?

[Silent3]

37. Where's the projection? I'm not accusing you of playing power games...

...like you in your paranoia think everyone who is disagreeable to you is doing.

You do know what "projection" is, don't you? I won't bother to try to define the word. That would be way too imperialistic.

There, there... let the word mean whatever your childlike imagination wishes it to be! I won't try to take it away from you!

[tama]

38. Thank's for the compliment

childlike imagination likes to play with words instead of being bossed and caged by the them. And all the greatest scientists and artists cherish childlike imagination. But I'm afraid I'm often too adult-like, too serious, too worried about everything to be really deserving the compliment.

And no, you are not disagreeable to me. There are causal chains that produce reaction mechanisms that are not pleasing and fun - not to you and not to me - and it's good to be aware of them and occationally point them out. And then let them pass. Because we are much more than those causal chains. I'm not just a self-image made of linguistic propositions, I'm each of these organs, these cells, these magnetic fields that surround them, each emotion, eachs sensation, all that I sense, this whole body. How much of yourself, of your body do you sense? How well do you feel yourself?

[Silent3]

40. Not all aspects of "childish" are positive...

...such as childish insistence that words can mean whatever you want them to mean, and considering anyone who disagrees with you to be "a big meanie" (which you dress up as "imperialistic" or "playing power games", but it amounts to the same thing).

You've embraced the immature, undisciplined side of childish, in a negative, no-it-doesn't-make-you-like-Einstein way.

[rrneck]

55. That "us against them" is a tribal response

based on emotion.

People project attachment onto things and each other spontaneously and usually without thinking about it. Creating that response and directing it can be very lucrative.

The object of the projection is of no consequence. That's why atheism seems like a religion to many. They can see that emotional attachment. It annoys the hell out of atheists because nobody likes being told how they feel. Nor does anyone like having their feelings delegitimized, which annoys the hell out of believers.

I think reconciliation is simply acceptance.

[tama]

80. acceptance has no ends

and it does not make life that easier. But thanks anyway.

[Humanist_Activist]

41. One deals in reality, the other fantasy and mindgames...

they aren't compatible and can't really be reconciled. Rather you have people holding different standards in their own heads for their various beliefs, rather than being consistent. Take belief in a god on faith, but require evidence to believe in psychics, for example.