Science has no tools to support any religious belief, nor does it have any tools to refute them. Science should not be viewed as some kind of opposition to religion. They simply have nothing to do with each other.
They have nothing to do with each other only if you limit your religion to being an “aesthetic stance”. For example, from the little she has said about it, I think Ruby and I see the world as basically working the same way. Our difference is that she sees it as enchanted and I don’t.
But most religions have the supernatural interceding in the real world, and they make claims about origins and the like. Science has disproved the bible story of creation. Some christians choose to deny the science and become fundamentalists while others admit that the story is fiction and adjust their religion accordingly. Likewise science can examine the question “does intercessory prayer improve medical outcomes?” And the results are, no it does not.
Downbylaw, you drastically altered my point when you wrote: “Neither the particulars that physicists work with, nor the methods they use are even slightly like what mystics do.”
I did not say that physics had merged with mysticism. I said it merged with metaphysics.
It’s not stellar, but wiki’s definition of metaphysics works well enough for our conversation:
“Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. …Prior to the modern history of science scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called “science” to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence."
So, no, I’m attempting any kind of stunt such as The Dancing Masters here (in fact I mentioned that New Age stuff was more than suspect).
In any case, I’m pleased to see that you are so confident that prayer doesn’t work.
Right. And quarks have a quality known as strangeness.
I really think you and some other folks might be looking at all of this through the wrong lens.
You seem to talk about God and/or the supernatural based on how you examine the nature of other things.
Another analogy:
Sam Popiel developed the Pocket Fisherman decades ago, and Ronco marketed it through one of those low-budget ads back in the 1970s.
It was a compact piece of crap with fishing line, and little else.
When his son Ron Popiel pointed out that calling this pathetic device “the perfect Fathers Day gift”
was wrong because you couldn’t really go fishing with it,
Sam replied: " It’s not for fishing. It’s for giving."
Hmm, well do you agree with this: certain fields of physics are so entwined with certain fields of mathematics that there is no particular boundary between them. But neither physicists nor mathematicians have methods or results like contemporary philosophy? Physics isn’t like metaphysics.
I really think you and some other folks might be looking at all of this through the wrong lens.
You seem to talk about God and/or the supernatural based on how you examine the nature of other things.
I suppose there are people who entertain ideas of a supernatural realm that has no consequences for the real world. I have no objection to them since I like fiction too. The people I am opposed to, and there are billions of them I’m afraid, are the ones who keep organizing our lives here in the real world on the basis of their religious ideas and producing bad outcomes. This will keep happening until we can convince a lot more people to not think that way.
Lemonglow is bringing up in his own way the NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) idea that was presented by Stephen Jay Gould. The point is that science and religion fulfill different cognizant concerns, have different emotional purposes, and answer different questions. They are different methods of inquiry, and should not really confront or answer to each other.
When I brought in the things I said about scientific things, it was in reply to Risselada’s statement about the increasing gap between what we know and what we know we don’t know. I said that “I’m fine with space being empty” in comparison to “cementing the gaps with religion.” So it sounds like I’m holding these ideas as opponents, when I am indeed making a NOMA argument. I don’t see the purpose of finding God in science, or finding science in God. There are areas in the soft sciences of psychology, sociology, anthropology, et al that showcase the way religion physically, emotionally, and intellectually affects us, but for my personal perspective they are only as interesting as they keep close to the observation of human nature — the actual religious implications or spiritual beliefs themselves I’m not so interested in.
It’s really hard to explain, but basically my general point is that I am an atheist not because I don’t believe in religion, but because I have honestly felt no emotional/cognitive purpose to. It literally just does not fulfill me in any way, and so if others find it important and meaningful, it’s not my place to contradict them. I don’t even have the energy or interest in the theological questions to be agnostic. I am fine with space being empty.*
*Or another analogy is that space is 3% background radiation: that 3% is the limit of human knowledge, and only a finite amount of that can we even discern signal from noise.
The place where I get worked up about issues science v religion are when religious people try to stop scientific progress to avoid disarming their beliefs. I suppose the same can be said by scientists confronting religious people, but that doesn’t happen as often and usually when it does it’s from one of those douchebag atheists that make a point of their atheism, which to me is just a waste of time. Assholes are assholes whatever their beliefs.
—PolarisDiB
Elegantly stated, Polarisdib. Just for the record, I find it an unpleasant experience, to put it mildly, to engage in any way with militant religious or atheist types.
I know part of our journey is to be more tolerant and find room in the tent for all,
but I mean, Jesus, these people. (pun intended)
Assholes are assholes whatever their beliefs.
Exactly.
It’s perfectly fine and reasonable to be open-minded about the possibility of things that exist outside the realm of what we consider to be empirical. That’s not the problem.
The problem with the Abrahamic traditions is the insistence that they alone possess the way to the truth. It’s incredibly dogmatic and ultimately quite ethnocentric (yes, that’s a euphemism for racism). Every ethnic group has creation myths that place its own group at the center of the world and as direct descendants of some kind of supreme being, but most groups have come to recognize such myths as helpful stories. Yet the Judeo-Christian tradition still holds on to this silly ethnocentric belief that the Jews are the chosen people and so on. This is silliness that no amount of rhetoric can justify. It’s incompatible with a truly loving worldview that encompasses all of humanity.
this ^ is what i’ve been trying to say since the beginning
it’s at the root of many of the world’s conflicts and may destroy us all yet
the bible god is a tribal god. we need to get past this if we want to live together in peace
i don’t see what’s so hard to understand
@BLUE K
Well, it is distinctive of christianity and islam that they have aggressively spread around the world. But ethnic nationalism linked to traditionalist religion can be found elsewhere too. For instance, the BJP which is a rightwing hindu nationalist party in India had been involved in communal religious violence such as what happened in Gujarat in 2002.
@ Downbylaw,
Yes, I understand what you’re saying. I’m not talking about ethnic nationalism as a byproduct of organized religion though. My point is that the very precepts of Abrahamic religions are ethnocentric in that they elevate regional/tribal creation myths of one ethnic group as the universal truth.
Right. And quarks have a quality known as strangeness.
Umm, no. One type of quark was named strange. It could have been named Sonic Hedgehog which a gene actually was named. Those are names and not qualities.
In any case, I’m pleased to see that you are so confident that prayer doesn’t work.
The only careful evidence is negative. It’s not been studied at length, but since there is not a method of action known whereby it might work, it probably won’t get a lot more research since funds are scarce and best spent where they have a better chance of producing useful results. We know enough that if a parent refuses medical treatment for a treatable disease and opts instead for “prayer”, then that parent should be convicted of child abuse.
The “Imagine” ideal is a nice idea, but lasts for about five minutes really until someone needs or wants something someone else has or there’s not enough of something to go around. Simple example, here in Victoria it seemed there was going to be a water shortage after years of drought and bitter rows were brewing…we’re now in flood, but it was easy to see how all that could have erupted very quickly in a fight to the death.
Was just listening to a report on the radio of young Indian girls, 11, 12, being spirited out of Australia to India to arranged marriages, this is particularly nightmarish for them as they’ve been exposed to freedom and possibility either having been born in Australia or lived here for some years. They are brutally forced into this on pain of brutality, or death. There is a thinly veiled rationale to do with a religious tenet/tradition but it’s far more about getting visas for new husband and family to come here to live.
It’s never really been about god and the spiritual has it? far more about accommodating, faciliting and advancing the material.
@BLUE
Yeah, that is probably what rubbed the Romans the wrong way. The roman persecution of the early christians is rather distinctive too. They tolerated a lot of other religions that they didn’t find to be too uppity.
@MEG
Events like those are horrible. Religion is so often used to perpetuate ideas and practices from hundreds or thousands of years ago—the appalling hands of long dead men choke us still.
Downbylaw: Yeah, I wrote that wrong. Might be because I know physics the way Madonna knows humility.
But lambda particles do have a quality known as strangeness because of the (actions?) of a specific quark called the Strange Quark.
The suggestion that any of the current “explanations” of how that stuff works are LESS fanciful or imaginative than a belief in prayer does try one’s patience.
But I think you see the point I’m getting at (which I have belabored by now).
It may turn out that the entire particle realm exists and behaves precisely as advertised, but that,
in my view, would constitute a realm no less bizarre or improbable than one designed by some creator.
So for now, if I’m told that prayer has no effect on the physical world, I would like to at least be accorded the respect not to to be instructed that gravitons DO have an effect.
Or that they even exist.
Turn about is fair play.
Has anyone ever fasted before for spiritual reasons? I’m doing it today as part of a community. We are fasting today and then breaking the fast together this evening.
This is only the second time I’ve really fasted before. Along with some of the other realizations I had this weekend, this is becoming a very opening and revealing experience.
Here’s some info about the fast some poeple in our community are doing:
http://missiodeichicago.com/docs/Fasting-An.Ancient.Practice.pdf
I think one possibility is that, as disturbing as it is, there’s something kind of appealing about this ultra-religious right and wrong dichotomy. It implies a world where there is justice, and I think a lot of people want that, even if they might not believe the specifics themselves.
It’s clear that people crave justice. Look at all of the courtroom TV show and crime dramas where people are obsessed with finding criminals and brining them to justice to pay for their crimes. Why do people want criminals to pay for their crimes? Well, I believe the original reason for most people isn’t because of hate for ciminals but for love for the people they are harming. The only reason we want a rapist, or a theif, or a muderer to pay for their crimes is because we love the people they harmed and there is a sense that the right must be made wrong. Even when people commit crimes against themselves that we love is when we want justice. The problem is that when people take vengeance upon themselves they are often just continue a cycle of injustice and hate and revenge.
Believing that God is just and will right every wrong shouldn’t lead people to violence and vengeance. What it should do is allow us to forgive people and refrain from taking vengeance in the knowledge that justice is in God’s hands. Christianity does not spread through war and violence. It spreads through people seeing Christian reaction of forgiveness and turning the other cheek when confronted by violence.
Only if there is lack of belief in a God who will make all things just can someone decide it’s apprpriate for them to take justice and violent vengeance into their own hands.
As far as our purposes in life, Riss, I think that God’s purposes, interests, and motivations are the same as our purposes, interests, and motivations. That’s why I feel hesitant to identify right and wrong, because everything that exists is part of the universe and is part of God’s plan and IS God himself.
If you are hesitant to identify right and wrong, then are you hesitant to identify my view as wrong when I say I disagree with you?
How can you make a stand for anything if you can’t identify anything being right or wrong? How can you ever make a declarative statement of any kind?
>>Has anyone ever fasted before for spiritual reasons?<<
Back when I was a more observant Jew, I used to fast a part of the High Holy Day of Yom Kippur. This is a day of atonement when we are supposed to reflect on our sins and seek forgiveness from God and people we’ve wronged. Not easy, but I did this for 20 years.
Has anyone ever fasted before for spiritual reasons?
Yes, but it depends on your definition of fasting – Catholics have a pretty lenient definition of fasting, and that’s that you get three meals, two of which are half-sized and you can’t snack or eat meat. That’s what I’ve done, but nothing more serious.
How can you make a stand for anything if you can’t identify anything being right or wrong? How can you ever make a declarative statement of any kind?
I just don’t think that everything is about right and wrong. I think that there are more helpful terms like “productive” or “nonproductive.” Or the more simple “good” and “bad!” I think that you and I have basically the same definitions of right and wrong – that they are universal and come directly from God. Since I’m not totally sure what’s up with God, I’m not really sure how to say what’s right and wrong. And yes, I am more than hesitant to identify your view as wrong! I haven’t even said that it’s bad or nonproductive! :)
Anyway, I am interested in talking a little more about the submission / dominance in marital relationships that you pointed out. I am really confused by the seeming contradiction when you say that both spouses are servants to each other, and then say that the woman is submissive to the man. What exactly does that mean?
Here’s how my relationship with my fiancee works: We’re both pretty smart (although I have to admit that she’s smarter than I am!), and we both have good ideas. When we make decisions, we do it together. I explain my ideas and opinions and she explains hers, and then we come to a consensus on what the best thing to do is. Sometimes her ideas are better, and we do what she wants – sometimes my ideas are better, and we do what I want. I’m very excited to be married to her, and to have such an intelligent and understanding partner to cooperate with.
Where, in that setup, is there room for her to submit to me? Does that mean she should just do what I want? or what? I like and agree with the idea that both spouses should be servants to each other, but I just don’t understand how the dominant / submissive dichotomy comes in.
For the record, my dad’s always saying the same things as you about being servants to each other and telling me that I need to be “dominant.” He doesn’t understand how I could want to marry someone who’s agnostic, or how we can have a successful marriage outside the Catholic Church.
btw it’s interesting to read this thread and see how people choose whether or not to capitalize “God” and “He.”
Risselada, you respond to this quote, but not to its point:
I think one possibility is that, as disturbing as it is, there’s something kind of appealing about this ultra-religious right and wrong dichotomy. It implies a world where there is justice, and I think a lot of people want that, even if they might not believe the specifics themselves.
The problem is in seeing the world in simplistic terms of black and white. This manichean perspective is common in people with strong religious beliefs. A good recent example is the maker of “Kony 2012” guy who wants to sweep in with guns blazing—if Kony is evil, then taking him out must be good, right? But, of course, the situation is not simple like that. Prior attempts to insert military force were making things worse, so it is by no means clear that doing so now would be helpful. The world is full of problems that do not have clean, clear, just solutions on the side of good.
Christianity does not spread through war and violence.
You ought to read more history before making such claims. European colonialism spread christianity around the world. This process was quite violent and there were plenty of wars. The colonizers tried to paper over the violence by proclaiming the virtues of their mission to take god to the people they were conquering.
This servant stuff is crap. Marriage is a partnership. People should be looking to be equals, not servants.
Ridiculous and backward.
Sorry to use such strong language, but as a woman I find this whole dominance thing as utterly de-humanizing.
And if you want dominance, get yourself a dog.
@DFFOO
btw it’s interesting to read this thread and see how people choose whether or not to capitalize “God” and “He.”
I have two thoughts on this. First, to capitalize implies a singular thing. I wouldn’t say “Cat” because there are actually many—I see two out my window now. People have concocted gods by the millions.
Second, this idea of capitalizing religion is just a ploy to sneak in some undeserved respect via punctuation. I’m not playing that game.
^ Downbylaw — the capitalizing is something that religious people do. I wouldn’t take offense at that. It’s just their viewpoint.
this idea of capitalizing religion is just a ploy to sneak in some undeserved respect via punctuation. I’m not playing that game.
Hmmm I don’t agree with that. Even if you’re a nonbeliever, if you’re referring to the biblical God, there is very emphatically only one, so there the capitalization makes sense. Ok, maybe capitalizing “He” is some sneaky respect, but the biblical God is definitely a specific, proper noun kind of thing.
Sometimes I’ll capitalize it, sometimes not, but it depends on what sense of God I’m referring to.
Then I’ll let you answer to Downbylaw for that, DFFOO… (takes cover)
^^^Oh, I don’t take offense. I find it slightly amusing. But if somebody raises the issue, I’ll explain why I do what I do.
Brad S.
I don’t think Lemonglow’s trying to say that physics and religion use similar methodologies. Instead, I take his point to be, however much we think we know about the universe through science, there is so much left unknown that, after a certain point, we are still left guessing and even taking certain assumptions on faith. Of course, religion takes everything on faith. Science has no tools to support any religious belief, nor does it have any tools to refute them. Science should not be viewed as some kind of opposition to religion. They simply have nothing to do with each other.