@bigdogg saidThis is a good post.
I 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.
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 e ...[text shortened]... at led them to belief.
So I am not at all certain that religion and science share the same truth.
@bigdogg said
I 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.
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 e ...[text shortened]... at led them to belief.
So I am not at all certain that religion and science share the same truth.
@FMF This is a good post.
I agree. I would only add that organized religion tends to be about a shared or collective personal truth, whereas philosophies and mystical forms of religion tend to be individual.
@moonbus saidFinding a "collective personal truth" is difficult, as evidenced by the many schisms and splintered denominations seen in organized religions.
@bigdogg said
I 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.
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 ...[text shortened]... ollective personal truth, whereas philosophies and mystical forms of religion tend to be individual.
This is the price of trying to have it all - a personal truth that makes inner sense, and a feeling of a shared truth everyone agrees on.
Maybe it's sensible to agree on a few core truths and allow flexibility on the minor details. In other words, not in the "inerrantist" direction.
1 edit
@bigdogg saidFinding a "collective personal truth" is difficult
Finding a "collective personal truth" is difficult, as evidenced by the many schisms and splintered denominations seen in organized religions.
This is the price of trying to have it all - a personal truth that makes inner sense, and a feeling of a shared truth everyone agrees on.
Maybe it's sensible to agree on a few core truths and allow flexibility on the minor details. In other words, not in the "inerrantist" direction.
This is the function of dogma which also serves to [1] extinguish untidy doubt, [2] define the in-crowd and the out-crowd, and [3] put flesh on the bones of discrediting their competing dogmas.
@bigdogg saidReligion and science look at things differently, but what I said is still correct. With science as Dr. Lennox points out goes into the details about the Ford engine in a car, science's approach looks into mechanical engineering, thermal dynamics, and the overall physics of the processes alone, but Henry Ford also is a part of why a Ford engine that exists which is agency. Both answers are true, neither competes with the other. The same can be said about many things, the more we know about the processes, what it does, and why, the more we can appreciate any agency involved.
I 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.
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 e ...[text shortened]... at led them to belief.
So I am not at all certain that religion and science share the same truth.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidHenry Ford also is a part of why a Ford engine that exists which is agency.
Religion and science look at things differently, but what I said is still correct. With science as Dr. Lennox points out goes into the details about the Ford engine in a car, science's approach looks into mechanical engineering, thermal dynamics, and the overall physics of the processes alone, but Henry Ford also is a part of why a Ford engine that exists which is agency. ...[text shortened]... we know about the processes, what it does, and why, the more we can appreciate any agency involved.
We know that it was Henry Ford who designed and built the Ford engine and motorcar.
Never mind who "designed and built" the universe, we don't even know if anything DID design and build it.
One cannot deduce that there must be an anthropomorphized God simply because the Ford Motor Company had Henry Ford.
@bigdogg saidCollective personal truths provide an essential psychological service: a sense of purpose in a shared goal. In this respect, they sometimes overlap with political parties, and it is no surprise that certain political parties can find themselves in an unholy alliance with Evangelical agendas.
Finding a "collective personal truth" is difficult, as evidenced by the many schisms and splintered denominations seen in organized religions.
This is the price of trying to have it all - a personal truth that makes inner sense, and a feeling of a shared truth everyone agrees on.
Maybe it's sensible to agree on a few core truths and allow flexibility on the minor details. In other words, not in the "inerrantist" direction.
'Inerrantism' in a political party has a different name, however ....
@moonbus saidIndividuals can share the same outlook on life, it is very demeaning to dismiss the individual and place them into a group, then label it something very nasty. Do you take a side in the conflict in the Middle East and think anything goes for the side you favor which everyone that maybe, or are there lines you will not accept no matter what? If you have lines that you think should never be crossed, don't you think you should allow others to express their views without saying things like an unholy alliance?
Collective personal truths provide an essential psychological service: a sense of purpose in a shared goal. In this respect, they sometimes overlap with political parties, and it is no surprise that certain political parties can find themselves in an unholy alliance with Evangelical agendas.
'Inerrantism' in a political party has a different name, however ....
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@fmf saidThe answer you seek was already stipulated in the post from which you have sought fit to question. As they say, it was under your nose all along, but could not see it. It's all about dust, materialism, which is a must in the physical universe. Earth dust is stardust.
That'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?
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground...."
"For decades, science popularizers have said humans are made of stardust, and now, a new survey of 150,000 stars shows just how true the old cliché is: Humans and their galaxy have about 97 percent of the same kind of atoms, and the elements of life appear to be more prevalent toward the galaxy's center, the research found."
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@kellyjay saidConflict is a necessity of life to which we can all contribute. Man was made for conflict, just like the gods.
There is no conflict between science and religion it is a conflict of worldview. Check out the religious beliefs of Noble prize winners in science, you will find a large percentage Theists.
Don't you believe in Satan, who was created for heavenly conflict with his own maker? A reflecting worldview of the the battle of evermore....good against evil. A common worldview on conflict.
These days, science-minded people like to call it the survival of the fittest. Is it a better fit to be good, or to be evil? Are the good better fitted for survival? There are some who believe that by being evil (bad) their survival has a higher probability. Then there are those few which believe that their survival odds are greater by helping others survive.
2 edits
@pettytalk saidNo, I do not believe conflict or evil are necessary, good does not require evil to exist, but evil is only a deviation of good, and people can live in harmony without conflict it is desired and the "ought to" in human life. Not science-minded people, just people who look at life and put power before what should be as the driving morals of life, power, sex, money, and status are all drivers that put one's self above others and many times at great cost to others. If this world and its activities are all you see, I understand why you'd think that way, but there is much more to life than living and dying, what profits a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? Faith, hope, and love I believe are far better than power, sex, money, and status.
Conflict is a necessity of life to which we can all contribute. Man was made for conflict, just like the gods.
Don't you believe in Satan, who was created for heavenly conflict with his own maker? A reflecting worldview of the the battle of evermore....good against evil. A common worldview on conflict.
These days, science-minded people like to call it the survival of ...[text shortened]... en there are those few which believe that their survival odds are greater by helping others survive.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@bigdogg saidYour argument would have some justice in it, if you compared apples with apples, and not with oranges. The religious 6,000 years old earth thinkers should be compared with old science thinkers. Old science held that the earth was immovable and at the center of the universe. A flat earth was also widely accepted by the "science" of those early years, when man was just learning to crawl, scientifically.
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!
Why don't you update your thinking to our times, and then make comparisons.
Science does not have all the answers for us, nor does religion, when we have a mind of our own which is tightly closed, and will not allow possibility to enter and be seriously considered. It's very possible that we are all being fooled. The ultimate reality? The absolute reality.
When there are no more possible questions to pose, then we will be on the threshold of absolute reality....the absolute truth.
"Science," through time, has been historically proven to be false, over and over again, by science itself. Religion and science are always questionable with each new generation, which question their faith, and their science, based on the new flickering starry-eye scientific revelation. Religion and science are very close to each other, in time, and as the times run.
The Vatican has its own observatory in Arizona, and it's looking out into space at the stars, but, I suspect, also keeping an eye out for that flying army of angels led by Jesus Christ on a white horse, with a two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. I also suspect He will use it to, rigorously, cut out both, religion and science. Duh!