Comments on: Science and Religion http://riseofthephx.com/2010/07/19/science-and-religion/ Web musings in the Valley of the Sun. Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:54:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Gregg http://riseofthephx.com/2010/07/19/science-and-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-200 Gregg Sat, 20 Nov 2010 20:19:30 +0000 http://riseofthephx.com/2010/07/19/science-and-religion/#comment-200 I think we are in concert on the topic, in fact it is amazing to me the rhetoric one can hear shouted from the bleachers of science and religion, when most of the true furthering of both happen on/in the field of each respectively. It holds true, that if the sophists are not held in check then free thinkers, both in religion and science, will be persecuted from above. Look to Socrates for an example. His only axiom was the we know nothing with certainty and he paid with his life for that one belief. I think we are in concert on the topic, in fact it is amazing to me the rhetoric one can hear shouted from the bleachers of science and religion, when most of the true furthering of both happen on/in the field of each respectively. It holds true, that if the sophists are not held in check then free thinkers, both in religion and science, will be persecuted from above. Look to Socrates for an example. His only axiom was the we know nothing with certainty and he paid with his life for that one belief.

]]> By: Ivan Leger http://riseofthephx.com/2010/07/19/science-and-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-198 Ivan Leger Fri, 19 Nov 2010 20:01:54 +0000 http://riseofthephx.com/2010/07/19/science-and-religion/#comment-198 I agree, though I am not impartial on the matter. As far as i am concerned, the dogmatic assertions from both secular scientific and religious "authorities", in reality, reflect a limited understanding of both science and religion. One need not presume mutual exclusivity. One view is generally open to the infinite possibilities of science while denying a preexisting purpose for their preexisting discoveries. The other is generally open to the infinite possibilities of God, while denying a tangible science behind His mysteries. I think, that reconciliation is fully possible if we are willing to consider that: 1) The term supernatural may only mean "beyond our current and limited understanding of natures laws". 2) God does not operate outside of such laws (no magic). The implication here is that the common concept of God may alienate the scientifically inclined (It is hard to suppose a greater purpose in something scientific, if it requires them to turn off their minds to believe it). This, in effect, leaves them to find another, more suitable, alternative to God (a problem all its own). It can also stifle the potential of the religious minded, in that, trying to understand what they may consider to be magic, is at best fruitless, and at worst, blasphemous. At the core if it, I think it boils down to a question of tangibility. How knowable is God really? How does He work? What is His true relationship to man? I think these questions can only be answered if we first ask ourselves, "What do I really think I know about God and what is the basis of this understanding?" As long as we presume our current understandings to be sufficient, then there can be no true reconciliation. It took a while for many to accept the notion of a spherical and heliocentric earth, too. I believe that the glory of God is intelligence and that one day we will find that there is no contradiction between science and religion. The only contradictions come from our imperfect understanding of both. IMHO What think ye? Great thought provoking topic, Greg! Thanks, Ivan I agree, though I am not impartial on the matter.

As far as i am concerned, the dogmatic assertions from both secular scientific and religious “authorities”, in reality, reflect a limited understanding of both science and religion. One need not presume mutual exclusivity. One view is generally open to the infinite possibilities of science while denying a preexisting purpose for their preexisting discoveries. The other is generally open to the infinite possibilities of God, while denying a tangible science behind His mysteries. I think, that reconciliation is fully possible if we are willing to consider that:
1) The term supernatural may only mean “beyond our current and limited understanding of natures laws”.
2) God does not operate outside of such laws (no magic).

The implication here is that the common concept of God may alienate the scientifically inclined (It is hard to suppose a greater purpose in something scientific, if it requires them to turn off their minds to believe it). This, in effect, leaves them to find another, more suitable, alternative to God (a problem all its own). It can also stifle the potential of the religious minded, in that, trying to understand what they may consider to be magic, is at best fruitless, and at worst, blasphemous.

At the core if it, I think it boils down to a question of tangibility. How knowable is God really? How does He work? What is His true relationship to man? I think these questions can only be answered if we first ask ourselves, “What do I really think I know about God and what is the basis of this understanding?” As long as we presume our current understandings to be sufficient, then there can be no true reconciliation. It took a while for many to accept the notion of a spherical and heliocentric earth, too.

I believe that the glory of God is intelligence and that one day we will find that there is no contradiction between science and religion. The only contradictions come from our imperfect understanding of both. IMHO

What think ye?

Great thought provoking topic, Greg!

Thanks,
Ivan

]]>