SCIENCE VS RELIGION

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Rick Keeney
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:40 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Rick Keeney » Wed Nov 12, 2014 9:30 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Lori, ah, you do notice I am dissing my people, not yours.


Which borders on the idiotic.

So much for charity, huh Franklin?

User avatar
Steve Barber
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:02 am
Contact:

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Steve Barber » Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:43 am

Rick Keeney wrote:
FrankChurch wrote:Lori, ah, you do notice I am dissing my people, not yours.


Which borders on the idiotic.

So much for charity, huh Franklin?


No, Frank was correct. He was criticizing believers, not atheists. I don't see anything idiotic in that. Frank is -- and has been -- as critical of the Fundies as you, Lori and Ezra are.
All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Lori Koonce » Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:34 am

Steve Barber wrote:
Rick Keeney wrote:
FrankChurch wrote:Lori, ah, you do notice I am dissing my people, not yours.


Which borders on the idiotic.

So much for charity, huh Franklin?


No, Frank was correct. He was criticizing believers, not atheists. I don't see anything idiotic in that. Frank is -- and has been -- as critical of the Fundies as you, Lori and Ezra are.


Frank can correct me if I'm wrong, but while the criticism is coming from all sides, the conclusions based on it are quite opposite.

Ezra speaks well for himself and I will!l continue to let him do so. I will just say this where Frank sees a force greater than himself I do not at this point. If and when that evidence has both been found and proven to be as factual as any other piece of scientific proof can be.... Let's just say that I'll think twice about my position.

User avatar
Rick Keeney
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:40 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Rick Keeney » Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:46 pm

Steve Barber wrote:
Rick Keeney wrote:
FrankChurch wrote:Lori, ah, you do notice I am dissing my people, not yours.


Which borders on the idiotic.

So much for charity, huh Franklin?


No, Frank was correct. He was criticizing believers, not atheists. I don't see anything idiotic in that. Frank is -- and has been -- as critical of the Fundies as you, Lori and Ezra are.


I am assuming it's alright to clarify, since Steve isn't wearing his Moderator avatar in that last post. Besides, I'm not trying to argue, rather I think I didn't bother to explain myself very well in my original post.

I don't think it's idiotic to alienate those who are arguing on your side, but I think it's close.

Saying that the Christian Church is the most anti-Semitic, for example, alienates people like me who understand that Fundamentalists-for all their many flaws-are anything but anti-Semitic (no Bible verse, outside of John 3:16 is more ingrained in a Fundamentalist than Genesis 12:2-3.) Not the ones I used to worship with, those 800 + persons; nor the thousands I served in the 1990s as a Christian Resource professional, serving hundreds of churches and parishioners all across the midwest. In my experience the Fundamentalist church is staunchly pro-Israel.

So I feel these generalities are ill-conceived, uncharitable, and incorrect, and they bring validity into question. Problem being, Frank makes a lot of those kinds of statements. To the point that I get confused about his actual stance, or if we're even talking about "Science v. Religion" anymore. That's my fault, I suppose. I can't keep track of it all.

Respectfully,
Rick

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:11 pm

Spong said that about fundies, not me. I agreed with him.

Science has nothing to say about God because Religion is philosophy, not science. Different studies. Poetry is different than a non fiction essay.

One scientific fact our side does use is the fact that perfect alignment of our planet led to it surviving and giving life to humans. Any small change would either burn us to cinders or freeze us blue and dead.

The sun is just close enough, but far away. We have water, we have the right plants. We have humans with very weird ways of communicating, one such communication is belief in a higher force.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Lori Koonce » Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:53 pm

Frank

You missed what I said totally. There is a rigorous amount of testing that has to happen before we can take any scientific theory to be any thing more than supposition. I feel that if God exists, the proof that is given should be able to stand up to to the same standards that other scientific theories have gone through and pass muster.

User avatar
Rick Keeney
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:40 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Rick Keeney » Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:19 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Spong said that about fundies, not me. I agreed with him.




Now you know he was mistaken about one point.

User avatar
Rick Keeney
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:40 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Rick Keeney » Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:20 pm

Interesting quote from a scientist at Drake University, "Science is agnosic." He's also a Christian.

Douglas Harrison
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 12:26 am

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Douglas Harrison » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:32 am

FrankChurch wrote:Science has nothing to say about God because Religion is philosophy, not science. Different studies. Poetry is different than a non fiction essay.

Philosophy is concerned with the rational and gave rise to science, not to religion. What religion dictates, philosophy challenges: theology is not metaphysics.

Also, while most essays are not poetic, I think a poem can be an essay and vice versa.

Frank Church wrote:One scientific fact our side does use is the fact that perfect alignment of our planet led to it surviving and giving life to humans. Any small change would either burn us to cinders or freeze us blue and dead.

The sun is just close enough, but far away. We have water, we have the right plants. We have humans with very weird ways of communicating, one such communication is belief in a higher force.

A philosopher would be quick to point out that the zillions of races that never came into being are unable to contemplate their poor fortune. Or God's disfavour, for that matter.

D.

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:12 am

The last few posts have been interesting.

Keeny---may I suggest you check out a book called Constantine's Sword by James Carrol? It's a history of the, shall we say, problematic relationship Christianity has had with Judaism since the former was born. I agree with the rather limited statement that the "Christian Church" is the most anti-semitic, but that does not mean christians are. We're talking about a systemic problem with institutions. See for instance Martin Luther's exegesis from an uber-tolerant theologian to one of the most virulent anti-semites of his time. Christianity is naturally the most anti-semitic because it saw itself as the replacement of Judaism, and when Judaism did not agreeably "bow to the inevitable" the resentment, institutionally developed and propagated, grew terrible. AFter all, the Jews had to convert (except for 144,000 of them) before Jesus would come back. Anti-semitism is a logical consequence.

Frank: your science, as usual, is bass-ackwards. The "sweet spot" to which you refer, our planet's position vis a vis the sun, wasn't "put there" for us. We happened to evolve because the Earth is where it is, but even that was not a guarantee. But your bias is evidenced by one phrase that cracked me up"


The sun is just close enough, but far away.


No, the sun isn't close to us, we're close to it. That geocentric, anthropecentric view comes out in some of the most innocent of phrases, but no, we are not the center of the universe or of anything but our own sense of self-worth. You're indulging---like most believers---in telec reasoning, that we are the purpose of all that went before. We're not. We're an accident. For all we know, if you want to talk about "purpose", we may be little more than host carriers for micro-organisms which really rule the world, and that our "purpose" is no greater than that.

The basic conflict between science and religion boils down to this: if religion claims "the world is this way because of this" and science comes along and says, "no, it's this way because of that, and here's the evidence" and religion says "we don't care what you say, it's in our book and you're wrong" then you have the conflict. We don't even have to get near whether or not god exists to have a nice little brush war over whether the sun revolves around the earth or the other way around.

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:00 am

In my experience the Fundamentalist church is staunchly pro-Israel.

As addendum, from my reading this is true but not out of any sense of tolerance. In many if not most cases, the so-called fundamentalist churches are pro-Israel as part of a desire for prophecy fulfilled. Israel must exist before Christ returns. We heard a lot of this under Bush, since many of his major supporters from that quarter were rather vocal about it, so much so it was even a question to the president at a press conference. He looked rather embarrassed, as I recall, and more or less ducked the question.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Ezra Lb. » Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:55 am

Science has nothing to say about God because Religion is philosophy, not science.

You're whistling past the graveyard Frank. But what else can you say? Every truth claim made by religion and put to the test has been shown to be false. All you're left with is "philosophy". You think your point of view is a strong defense but in reality it's an expression of ultimate defeat.


The distinction between "fundamentalism" and so-called "liberal" christianity is more apparent than real. Belief without evidence, i.e., "faith", is always bad.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:10 pm

One of the best debates Hitchens did, with Douglas Wilson, who frankly (no pun--maybe) kicked atheist butt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMXZs5YXvWw

Christians do good things but their religion poisons everything. Wow.

User avatar
Ben W.
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:07 pm

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Ben W. » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:22 pm

Ezra Lb. wrote:Belief without evidence, i.e., "faith", is always bad.



You do realize that's the equivalent of me saying the complete absence of faith invariably leads to oppressive totalitarian regimes and rampant sociopathic deviancy that would put Stalin and Jeffrey Dahmer to shame, right?

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Re: SCIENCE VS RELIGION

Postby Chuck Messer » Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:03 am

You do realize that's the equivalent of me saying the complete absence of faith invariably leads to oppressive totalitarian regimes and rampant sociopathic deviancy that would put Stalin and Jeffrey Dahmer to shame, right?


No Ben, that's a false equivalency. Closer would be if Ezra said, "Belief without evidence, i.e., "faith", invariably leads to oppressive theocratic regimes and rampant mass murder that would put Hitler to shame." THAT would be equivalent. Whatever one might think about Ezra's position, that is not at all what he meant. You may have encountered people who jump, like Superman leaping a tall building with a single bound, to that kind of extreme conclusion, but that was not the case here.

Chuck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 3 guests