science and religion

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by gneognostic on November 7, 2009 at 8:45pm

"[Science and religion] are presented as alternatives that exclude each other. This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” -Pope benedict.

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."- the dalai lama

It's only insisting on a literal interpretation of scripture that leads fundamentalists to reject scientific explanations. To take what are so clearly parables as literal historical fact is simply comical - like a man in his thirties refusing to use condoms because he still believes babies are delivered by storks.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gary Walsh on November 7, 2009 at 10:50pm

Uh, no. Most religion is superstitious and irrational whereas science is rational and evidence based. Buddhism has a strong rational aspect, especially in schools such as Madhyamika, but even Buddhism as popularly practiced is rife with superstition.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on November 8, 2009 at 12:03am

Hi Everybody,

Don't forget that it is noted in the Book of Job circa 2nd Century BC That the world is a sphere that hangs from nothing in space. Others didn't catch on till much later.


Who discovered that the earth was round? - Yahoo Questions
Actually the ancient Greeks even manage to prove it.
It is said that the first person was Pythagoras mainly because in his theories he held that all celestial bodies are spherical.
But the first who provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth was Aristotle. He wrote that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their horizon is at an angle to northerners' horizon. Thus Earth's surface cannot be flat. Also, the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in most directions.
(Aristotle, De caelo, 297b24-31
Aristotle, De caelo, 297b31-298a10 )
The Earth's circumference was measured around 240 BC by Eratosthenes the most important Greek astronomer.
Eratosthenes knew that in Syene (now Aswan), in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. He estimated the distance from Syene to Alexandria as 5,000 stades, and estimated the Earth's circumference was 250,000 stades and a degree was 700 stades (implying a circumference of 252,000 stades). Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual circumference, 40,008 kilometres. Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel.
There you are! You have your answer!

I had posted a "Science in the Bible" discussion here... http://www.redefinegod.com/forum/topics/lets-rock-14-mad-science

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by gneognostic on November 8, 2009 at 12:03am

@gary, I think the quotes I presented demonstrate that religion can be evidence embracing. Many of the worlds greatest and most perceptive scientists, the giants whose shoulders we stand on, have been religious in various ways. Since the enlightenment, religion has closely aligned itself with scientific pursuits, as the study of the created world becomes its own kind of exegesis.

Still, you touch on an important point - at it's core, spirituality is the quest for subjective truths, things that science cannot answer because the answers are tied to an individual experience. "Beauty" for instance, is an irrational concept, but who can imagine a more important one?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by PH214 Lori T. on November 12, 2009 at 12:47pm

Laili,

I don't even know where to begin with that one! That's a great question. I don't think they will ever agree (despite what the Pope wants everyone to now believe). It's hard to take a subjective belief and interwine objective belief (i.e., science). For the most part, science has questions and conclusions, which many people can embrace. The subjective person will take the Bible for what it says and that is proof enough. I know most people are saying now that we can intertwine Adam and Eve with evolution. I'm very passionate about this theory, so I won't go into that. :) Personally, I think it's an attempt at trying to be PC so we don't make anyone mad.

Even Darwin knew that his evolution theory was just that - a theory. But, just like God creating the world, people will buy into the evolution doctrine.

That is a great question though!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on November 12, 2009 at 2:24pm

Gneo said...
"It's only insisting on a literal interpretation of scripture that leads fundamentalists to reject scientific explanations."

Some interest considerations...

The book of Leviticus contains many extraordinary commands to the Israelites, many of which probably seemed ridiculous for hundreds or thousands of years, until later scientific discoveries confirmed their wisdom.

Other examples include the direction of washing in running water, careful and sensible treatment of leprosy and the use of hyssop in cleaning (hyssop has since been found to have significant antibacterial properties).

While such discoveries were being made in the 19th century, the attention of some was drawn to these ancient texts, and the French scientist, Renouard asked: "Apart from the religious ceremonies connected with them, might it not be said that they are extracts from a modern work on hygienics?" Renouard, History of Medicine, translated by Dr. Comegys Probably the most impressive scientific insight in Leviticus is concerning blood. It wasn't until 1668, when Harvey discovered the role of blood in the human body that the horrendous practice of bloodletting was stopped. Until then, perhaps millions of people had died due to physicians trying to 'bleed' diseases out of them. Of course, many Hebrews knew the foolishness of this practice, as it was written in their ancient scripture:

Leviticus 17:11 (written 3000 years ago): "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."

The Scriptures declare that blood is the source of life. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled", and many died because of the practice. We now know that blood is the source of life. If you lose your blood, you will lose your life.

Leviticus 15:13 (written 3000 years ago): "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean."

The Bible said that when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water. Up until 100 years ago doctors washed their hands in a basin of still water, resulting in the death of multitudes. We now know that doctors must wash their hands under running water. (One of my favorites... Doctors were still washing in basins in the Civil War)

The Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who were dying after giving birth in hospitals.

As many as 30% of those giving birth died. The Doctor noted that doctors would examine the bodies of those who had died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next wards and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Doctor Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped down to 2%.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by david thurman on November 13, 2009 at 7:46am

Yes but both will be different than they are today. Science is moving away from Objectivism/Materialism/Determinism, in cognitive science. Descartes is dead and Fregian Philosophy is dead both are manifested in Religion and Science in a dominate way in our culture at this time. Not only is this viww incorrect it's unhealthy it divides the world into a body mind duality that has long history in religion. This is dying in religion as well, Post Modernist theolgy was a step and the new generation of theologians are starting to embrace a more embodied view of reality rather than the traditional disembodied duality of Body/Mind/Spirit so that's incredibly encouraging. It's no accident that the accention of women in our culture has happened at the same time. They bring a different perspective to the table that has a tendency to balance our analytical side.

I like to use the Word love and God interchangeably for clarity when i say disembodied. The notion of a anthropomorphic being is odd when you start to contemplate that. but then the question becomes What i that experience we call God for those who say they have experienced it. I might say it's the experience that gives our sense of dimension or depth of reality into infinity. The religious experience is to experience infinity rather than comprehend or believe in infinity. The word God fits nicely there and it doesn't need to be anthropomorphic. This is not fully explained in Science, I think it's alluded to in the NT but it's translated into a very dualistic world view by the church at this time. .

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on November 13, 2009 at 1:12pm

Again I go back to the basic premise. If this information was published several thousands of years "Pre-Science" it came from a source greater then ourselves, and our common knowledge. To me at least, it lends credibility to the theology of the "publication" as well.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on November 18, 2009 at 11:55am

Religion can be assessed by science but not the other way round, unless of course one has delusionally come to believe that their personal subjectivities can override objective assessments on behalf of the agreed-upon populous perspective and can convince them of that fact.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on November 18, 2009 at 1:22pm

"delusionally"- In the word's of the immortal Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

What would have been interesting is if you had read the article. It wasn't even written by a theist.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Roman Kozlowski on November 18, 2009 at 1:36pm

Jeff, OK you didn't like my word 'delusional', which I agree shows my bias. So here's my more neutral rendering of the statement omitting the word for you and others to reply to...

"Religion can be assessed by science but not the other way round, unless of course one has come to believe that their personal subjectivities can override objective assessments on behalf of the agreed-upon populous perspective and can convince them of that fact."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff H on November 18, 2009 at 1:49pm

Thank you for your revision. It shows class.

My comment would be this. If there exists an ancient writing, one that everyone agrees is thousands of years old, and it contains information that is now verified by science, I would stipulate that it lends that writing a modicum of credibility. I would cite as examples God's Levitical instruction to wash in running water, as well as the other observation that I've posted. One of my favorites is the notation in Job that the earth hangs in space, from nothing. I'm sure you're aware Job is one of the most ancient of stories in the Bible, and this is the earliest recorded observation of that fact. Fascinating, no?


Roman Kozlowski said:

Jeff, OK you didn't like my word 'delusional', which I agree shows my bias. So here's my more neutral rendering of the statement omitting the word for you and others to reply to...

"Religion can be assessed by science but not the other way round, unless of course one has come to believe that their personal subjectivities can override objective assessments on behalf of the agreed-upon populous perspective and can convince them of that fact."

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page