Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 69
Thanks Tree49Thanks

Thread: Random thoughts about religion

  1. #51
    Established Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,082
    Thanks
    5969

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    Actually that's not quite true. I did graduate work in chemistry with two very religious people. Each of them handled these two often conflicting concepts in totally different ways.

    And for the record, as Ian has pointed out, it isn't so much religion/science conflict as it is the bible/science conflict.

    Anyway, one just blatantly admitted he used doublethink. In the lab and related he used one set of concepts, in church and related he used another. The fact that they were often diametrically opposed didn't seem to bother him a bit. That was strange.

    The other went the way of considering the bible to not be literally true but a guideline for life and such. Of course that left him very vulnerable to arguments about what parts had to be followed and what parts were stories that could basically be ignored and who got to decide.

    But each seemed to be able to live with it.
    And why wouldn't they ?
    As long as they do what they do and keep it themselves, they can ignore the conflicts, and maintain both contradicting world views, applying either one as they please. The problem always and only kicks in, when they take their religious version public,m and try to argue about it, being then confronted with the contradictions, trying to justify them, which scientifically will always - always - fail.

    The only analogy in science would be Quantum physics and Newtonian mechanics, which are highly efficient and applicable for their specific area of appliance, and well "proven" (different to biblical / religious concepts / pseudoscience).. yet do not mix very well, gravity just does not want to get fitted into quantum physics yet.

    But scientists in both areas, are aware of the flaw and contradiction, admit to it, and challenge everyone every day, to either find the magic formula that combines them, or to contradict any proven fact of either physics model.
    That's what differentiates a scientist from a priest.. the scientist will at all times rely on provable facts, trying to confirm or disregards any new theory based on experimental evidence, and is as happy either way, as long as it's fact based. the priest will very often say " the ways of the lord are mysterious".. and ends it's justification right there.

  2. #52
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    34,843
    Thanks
    17364

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    Has anyone ever met a bona fide Jew who told you their religion is great and so you should join them?

    It doesn't happen. If only other religions were so civilized.
    I couldn't agree more. It's rather why I exempt them from most of my more scathing critiques of religion.

  3. #53
    Burn it down Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    83,007
    Thanks
    22040

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Yeah...the problem with "religious" scientists is that they aren't. When faced with a situation where science disputes religion, they choose religion every time.
    Roger Bacon OFM (Latin: Rogerus or Rogerius Baconus, also Frater Rogerus; c. 1219/20 Ė c. 1292), also known by the scholastic accolade Doctor Mirabilis, was an English philosopher and Franciscan friar who placed considerable emphasis on the study of nature through empiricism. In the early modern era, he was regarded as a wizard and particularly famed for the story of his mechanical or necromantic brazen head. He is sometimes credited (mainly since the 19th century) as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method inspired by Aristotle and by later scholars such as the Arab scientist Alhazen.[4] His linguistic work has been heralded for its early exposition of a universal grammar.


    Please continue telling us how much more sciencey you are than him
    Thanks from Reality

  4. #54
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    Roger Bacon OFM (Latin: Rogerus or Rogerius Baconus, also Frater Rogerus; c. 1219/20 – c. 1292), also known by the scholastic accolade Doctor Mirabilis, was an English philosopher and Franciscan friar who placed considerable emphasis on the study of nature through empiricism. In the early modern era, he was regarded as a wizard and particularly famed for the story of his mechanical or necromantic brazen head. He is sometimes credited (mainly since the 19th century) as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method inspired by Aristotle and by later scholars such as the Arab scientist Alhazen.[4] His linguistic work has been heralded for its early exposition of a universal grammar.


    Please continue telling us how much more sciencey you are than him
    As far as I know, there are more famous atheists such as Sade known for extolling the 'virtues' of rape and sexual deviance than there are notable atheist scientists, almost all scientists have been religious since pure science is primarily a spiritual endeavor, as opposed to a purely utilitarian, materialistic one.

    I say this not from a "Christian perspective", just a general social perspective, as the materialist view of the world doesn't lend itself to science or anything creative or productive, just animalistic survivalism not much more evolved than that of apes, religions actually seem to be a cultural evolution above the more bestial nature of man, which were responsible for modern civilization and the pursuit of higher things such as art and science.

    Most modern incarnations of atheism are just offshoots of left-wing politics such as Marxist critical theory, which identified organized religions as part of the "classist" establishment (yet the same thinkers treat left-wing and Marxist ideology as absolute truth above question on pure blind faith despite its rather sketchy origin and founders).

    And for what it's worth, today the most influential science deniers are left-wingers attacking science for being "racist" and whatnot - essentially behaving just the same as fundamentalists and denying reality when it doesn't fit their worldview - only with their left-wing ideology taking the place of a religious one.

    Last edited by Reality; 6th October 2017 at 02:30 PM.

  5. #55
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    9,272
    Thanks
    5233

    From
    Between everywhere
    I have worked with many scientists and only three were religious, two Catholics and one Muslim.

    Counting the scientist from the middle ages and even into the 19th century is disingenuous since during those times not jumping through the holy hoops would result in burning at the stake, or at least loss of one's wealthy sponsors.

    And of course the poster boy for atheistic scientists, Einstein. And don't start posting truncated, out of context quotes of his on religion. I've been down that road many times.
    Thanks from Blues63

  6. #56
    New Member
    Joined
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    74

    From
    US
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    I have worked with many scientists and only three were religious, two Catholics and one Muslim.
    You're cherry-picking a literalist definition of 'religion'; most scientists are not atheistic materialists, particularly not those of any notable theories or accomplishment.

    Materialistic atheists have very little representation in science, only in radical philosophies such as Marx, de Sade, etc. Materialism doesn't lend itself to creativity or discovery, just utilitarian survivalism as in a Soviet dictatorship - which is also likely why no state atheist governments such as Soviet Russia or Maoist China had any significant scientific accomplishments.

    Counting the scientist from the middle ages and even into the 19th century is disingenuous since during those times not jumping through the holy hoops would result in burning at the stake, or at least loss of one's wealthy sponsors.
    That's quite an distortion, and you're only refering to whether or not their beliefs coincided with the state church - that has no bearing on whether their ideology was atheistic or materialistic.

    And of course the poster boy for atheistic scientists, Einstein. And don't start posting truncated, out of context quotes of his on religion. I've been down that road many times.
    He was not an atheist or materialist.

  7. #57
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    9,272
    Thanks
    5233

    From
    Between everywhere
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality View Post
    You're cherry-picking a literalist definition of 'religion'; most scientists are not atheistic materialists, particularly not those of any notable theories or accomplishment.

    Materialistic atheists have very little representation in science, only in radical philosophies such as Marx, de Sade, etc. Materialism doesn't lend itself to creativity or discovery, just utilitarian survivalism as in a Soviet dictatorship - which is also likely why no state atheist governments such as Soviet Russia or Maoist China had any significant scientific accomplishments.


    That's quite an distortion, and you're only refering to whether or not their beliefs coincided with the state church - that has no bearing on whether their ideology was atheistic or materialistic.


    He was not an atheist or materialist.
    I conclude from this post that you choose to use alternative definitions of words. Define what you mean by atheistic, materialistic and atheistic materialists. Further, define what you mean by stating that Einstein was neither an atheist or a materialist. If he wasn't an atheist then he must have been a theist, a believer in a god or gods. No so.
    Thanks from Blues63

  8. #58
    Established Member Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,803
    Thanks
    4546

    From
    Under a Southern Sky
    Francis Collins (Head of the Genome Project) could suspend rational thinking by accepting Christ when viewing a frozen waterfall. It had frozen in three layers, therefore according to Collins, it symbolised the Trinity and was a product of God. This highlights the earliest root of our need for religion-to explain what we can't rationalise through normal experience.

    The rest of us would take a step back and hope he wasn't armed if we heard someone say that thinking 'the only god here at work is 'Degrees below Celsius'. It is astounding that a brilliant man can take such leaps of logic, but there it is.
    Last edited by Blues63; 8th October 2017 at 05:37 AM.
    Thanks from RNG

  9. #59
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    33,687
    Thanks
    20982

    From
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    This seems to me to be a false dilemma. Why choose between alternatives when I can have both? It is somewhat like saying I have to choose between Sibelius and Fleetwood Mac.


    Why cannot I do both? In fact, Jewish law requires I make any effort I can, so if I know how to apply the Heimlich Maneuver, I am obligated to do so. I can certainly pray I do it correctly, but the religious obligation is mine to act. Thus, I have both science and religion.
    Then if god, who is omnipotent doesnít make the effort, doesnít it say he is not benevolent? If you know how to apply the Heimlich maneuver and you donít, what does that say about you

  10. #60
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    51,257
    Thanks
    24421

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Isalexi View Post
    Then if g-d, who is omnipotent doesnít make the effort, doesnít it say he is not benevolent?
    No, because he is not obligated. On the other hand...

    Quote Originally Posted by Isalexi View Post
    If you know how to apply the Heimlich maneuver and you donít, what does that say about you.
    ... I am obligated.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A few random thoughts on last night:
    By Rorschach in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 5th November 2014, 09:09 AM
  2. Random Thoughts
    By meridian5455 in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27th August 2013, 10:28 AM
  3. Replies: 123
    Last Post: 30th January 2012, 08:24 PM
  4. Random Thoughts
    By CrusaderRabbit08 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 178
    Last Post: 4th May 2010, 05:59 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed