@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt is simply what is the truth about the object of our discussion. The one who more accurately describes what is real about the object of our discussion has a better understanding. Another brought up the example if we were talking about a duck, as long as we were accurately describing the duck what is said is true, but if we say things not true about the duck we are in error.
I'm sure that makes sense to you Kelly.
To me, all things created by mankind's imagination sit in the same pot and share the same irrelevance to all the important questions.
@pettytalk saidThat's an answer to a different question: one that I did not ask. I asked you this: Why must we find a middle ground between science and religion?
Many scientists have.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
Just a thought! Seems that we have an Hellene mentality. Just as I began posting here, I noted that some of my fellow club members were duking it out with LML and divegeester, but here and now, have joined forces to fight a non Hellene. By Hellene I mean atheists, and non Hellene is someone religious. Typical behavior of the ancient Greek city states always fighting one another, until an outside invader comes knocking at their door.
I think "religions" only inform us about the psychology and anthropology that underpin the human condition. I don't think theology tells us anything about the universe; instead, it tells us about the various brands of speculation humans have engaged in as they've pondered the currently unknowable answers to questions about the universe.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
To say the least, I find the idea of multiple Big Bangs, and multiple Big Crunches very interesting. Come to think of it, I wonder if everything repeats itself in an identical manner. Same galaxies, same stars, same planets, moons, asteroids and comets? Does the earth form again and again, in the same position in the same solar system, and in the same identical way, size and composition? Does life occur on earth every time, and in the same sequence? The same animal species, same plant life, same tectonic plates, same continents, same oceans, same mountains hills and plains same rivers and lakes, same civilizations, same nations, same races, and same people, the same history? ......and on and on.
Does the universe have consciousness, and with it recalls having existed before? If the universe does not have consciousness, then how can it bestow on mankind something which it does not possess? How many more questions can be raised on this idea of an eternal universe which lives on through an infinite number of this cycle of a Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch? Or was it first a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang? Something on the order of a silly question... which came first, the chicken or the egg?
@pettytalk saidIf the universe does not have consciousness, then how can it bestow on mankind something which it does not possess?
Does the universe have consciousness, and with it recalls having existed before? If the universe does not have consciousness, then how can it bestow on mankind something which it does not possess? How many more questions can be raised on this idea of an eternal universe which lives on through an infinite number of this cycle of a Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch? Or was it ...[text shortened]... a Big Bang? Something on the order of a silly question... which came first, the chicken or the egg?
On what basis would you assume that consciousness must have been "bestowed" by something that has consciousness?
@fmf saidNo.
We must find a middle ground between science and religion
Must we?
The conflict between the two comes mostly from people who insist on using religious tools to solve questions that are best suited for science - usually, about properties of the physical universe.
If they stop doing that, it does not mean they're renouncing their religious beliefs. I just means they're becoming mindful about using the right tools for the inquiry at hand.
Edit: they may have to give up some of their religious beliefs, such as a 6000 year old earth. But they should do a fresh take on the Bible and realize that the authors clearly did not intend it to be a rigorous scientific treatise in the first place. Duh!
@bigdogg saidReligion and science share the same truth all distinctions between the two come from worldviews, not truth itself. If something is true it is true in both. Theist and Atheist live in the same world and everything true is true to both of them as well. The trouble is that people have worldviews, so when examining conclusions that challenge their worldviews, are a challenge to the whole way they look at everything, that is not an easy thing to do, and do fairly.
No.
The conflict between the two comes mostly from people who insist on using religious tools to solve questions that are best suited for science - usually, about properties of the physical universe.
If they stop doing that, it does not mean they're renouncing their religious beliefs. I just means they're becoming mindful about using the right tools for the inquiry at h ...[text shortened]... the authors clearly did not intend it to be a rigorous scientific treatise in the first place. Duh!
@pettytalk saidIn religious circles that is called reincarnation, so nothing new here, science picks up another religious narrative, slaps new jargon on the idea and call science.
To say the least, I find the idea of multiple Big Bangs, and multiple Big Crunches very interesting. Come to think of it, I wonder if everything repeats itself in an identical manner. Same galaxies, same stars, same planets, moons, asteroids and comets? Does the earth form again and again, in the same position in the same solar system, and in the same identical way, size an ...[text shortened]... a Big Bang? Something on the order of a silly question... which came first, the chicken or the egg?
@kellyjay saidThis "argument" ~ which you have been trotting out for years ~ does not achieve what you think it achieves.
Religion and science share the same truth all distinctions between the two come from worldviews, not truth itself. If something is true it is true in both. Theist and Atheist live in the same world and everything true is true to both of them as well. The trouble is that people have worldviews, so when examining conclusions that challenge their worldviews, are a challenge to the whole way they look at everything, that is not an easy thing to do, and do fairly.
@kellyjay saidI think religion is, at the core, much more about personal truth - i.e. "what is my purpose?" - than it is about objective facts about the physical world.
Religion and science share the same truth all distinctions between the two come from worldviews, not truth itself. If something is true it is true in both. Theist and Atheist live in the same world and everything true is true to both of them as well. The trouble is that people have worldviews, so when examining conclusions that challenge their worldviews, are a challenge to the whole way they look at everything, that is not an easy thing to do, and do fairly.
As has been pointed out by others in this forum, many people tend to argue that 'you ought to believe as I do based on [x, y, z arguments]' but they themselves didn't find belief that way. They had a powerful, personal experience that led them to belief.
So I am not at all certain that religion and science share the same truth.
@pettytalk saidIf one assumes infinite time and finite matter, then everything repeats in all possible configurations, endlessly.
To say the least, I find the idea of multiple Big Bangs, and multiple Big Crunches very interesting. Come to think of it, I wonder if everything repeats itself in an identical manner. Same galaxies, same stars, same planets, moons, asteroids and comets? Does the earth form again and again, in the same position in the same solar system, and in the same identical way, size an ...[text shortened]... a Big Bang? Something on the order of a silly question... which came first, the chicken or the egg?
