but not one devoid of the basic tenants of the Judeo-Christian religion.

Are you just making assumptions, or do you have some reasoning to back this up? What of Asian cultures without those tenets?

Therefore, I posit that science is superfluous.

You also posit that everything other than food water and shelter is then superfluous, including religion and government. You misunderstand what I meant by a superfluous teleology. Science is not teleological, religion is. Science is not superfluous with regards to either utility or veracity, religion is. As with lifes necessities, there are a great many things that are superfluous, including science and religion.

the basic tenants of the christian religion, excluding the worship of that particular god, are the same tenants of all societies.

Why is that?

Because the tenants of Christianity which i assume you refer, (no stealing, killing, violence, be generous, kind, and loving) are the basic morality of all humans, and in fact we have seen them at work in social units of animals. Humans have included those tenants in all their major religions because they are universal to humans, not because the religion has infused them into society.

Cart before the horse.

Interbane wrote:

but not one devoid of the basic tenants of the Judeo-Christian religion.

Are you just making assumptions, or do you have some reasoning to back this up? What of Asian cultures without those tenets?

Comment: For some time I have expressed unhappiness with certain methods of quoting others in discussions. I wish to repeat my objections: #1 I find the quote without attribution to be very offputting. We are supposed to give attribution to sources of material should we not also give attribution when we quote others. I think, if nothing else, that is a courtesy so that others following a discussion know who is being responded to.

#2 A fragmentary quote which is not evey a complete thought is impossible to be respoinded to. I will be happy to respond to quotes with attributions and expressing complete thoughts.

interbane wrote: Stahrwe wrote:

Therefore, I posit that science is superfluous.

Interbane responds:
You also posit that everything other than food water and shelter is then superfluous, including religion and government. You misunderstand what I meant by a superfluous teleology. Science is not teleological, religion is.

Do you make your stuff up? I do not:

Teleology and science
See also: Four_causes#The_four_causes_in_modern_science

[b[Physics[/b]
It has been claimed that within the framework of thermodynamics, the irreversibility of macroscopic processes is explained in a teleological way.[9] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Max Planck, and Alfred North Whitehead, among others, have claimed that least action principles are teleological. The immediately future state of the system depends on the whole path of the system, including future states.[10]

Chemistry
Teleological arguments in the field of chemistry have once again often centred around the fitness of materials to form the complex molecular bonds of life. For example, Lawrence Joseph Henderson, an American bio-chemist, advanced such a view in the early 20th century.

Biology
Teleology is a recurring issue in evolutionary biology,[11] much to the consternation of some writers.[12]

A central clue to teleological sentences is statements along the lines of "in order to", whereby a species did X "in order to" to achieve Y (circumvent obstacles or predators etc.). Some past biology courses incorporated exercises requiring students to rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleologically (e.g. Y occurred as a result of X). Nevertheless, evolutionary writings are replete with teleological sentences. These issues have recently been discussed by John Reiss.[13] He argues that evolutionary biology can be purged of such teleology by rejecting the analogy of natural selection as a watchmaker; this analogy has been promoted by writers such as Richard Dawkins.[14]

Other authors are more skeptical. James Lennox has argued that Darwin was a purposeful teleologist,[15] and biologist philosopher Francisco Ayala has argued that all statements about processes can be translated into teleological statements, and vice versa, but that teleological statements are more explanatory and cannot be disposed of.[16] Karen Neander has argued that the modern concept of biological 'function' is dependent upon selection. So, for example, it is not possible to say that anything that simply winks into existence without going through a process of selection has functions. We decide whether an appendage has a function by analysing the process of selection that led to it. Therefore, any talk of functions requires natural selection and selection cannot be reduced in the manner advocated by Reiss and Dawkins.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology# ... nd_science

Interbane wrote:Science is not superfluous with regards to either utility or veracity, religion is. As with lifes necessities, there are a great many things that are superfluous, including science and religion.

I assert again that science is superfluous. Science is an academic study. Knowledge of it is totally unnecessary to live a peaceful, and happy life, admittedly at a relatively primitive level, but it is not a necessity.

Do you make your stuff up? I do not:

So you're now supporting Intelligent Design? Teleological claims made in science are the exception, not the rule. Science as a whole is most certainly not teleological.

I assert again that science is superfluous.

I knew I would have to dumb down my response for you. To say that something is superfluous is to say that it is not needed, unnecessary, etc. Which means that before we use the word, we must specify the referent and the subject of need.

In the case of internal combustion. Gasoline is needed, so is oxygen. In the case of explaining how a tree grows, it is not necessary to reference aliens.

When we speak of living a good life, only a few things are necessary, religion and science are not included.

When we speak of explanations for our universe, science is needed, but religion is not.

So yes, you're absolutely correct, science is unnecessary for many many things. Including hunting chipmunks. Religion is also not necessary for hunting chipmunks.

Back to the original subject we were discussing, you said "On this point I claim that religion is superior to science as religion has an explanation for everything while science does not."

The subject was to do with explanations of the universe, not 'quality of life'. Unless you wish you change the subject. If so, then speak up, but don't attempt to change the subject by stealth. This is another example of apologetics deceit.

Interbane wrote:In order to fix the citations please note that the following quote was from a post by stahrwe

Do you make your stuff up? I do not:

Now, Interbane is responding with a new comment:
So you're now supporting Intelligent Design? Teleological claims made in science are the exception, not the rule. Science as a whole is most certainly not teleological.

I did not invent the material about science and teleology. It seems to me that much of science is in fact teleological. Also, I am not a supporter of ID. I am a YEC.

This is a Stahrwe comment continued from a previous post:

I assert again that science is superfluous.

This is Interbane commenting on my intelligence:

interbane wrote:I knew I would have to dumb down my response for you. To say that something is superfluous is to say that it is not needed, unnecessary, etc. Which means that before we use the word, we must specify the referent and the subject of need.

OK, let me be more clear, I believe that a society can flourish in peace and harmony without an scientific knowledge at all. On that basis I assert that science is unnecessary. On the otherhand, a society cannot exist in peace and harmony without a moral imperative. That moral imperative cannot come from within the members it must be external and from my perspective that means religion. You must understand that I am not referring to an industrial society.

interbane wrote:In the case of internal combustion. Gasoline is needed, so is oxygen. In the case of explaining how a tree grows, it is not necessary to reference aliens.

When we speak of living a good life, only a few things are necessary, religion and science are not included.

When we speak of explanations for our universe, science is needed, but religion is not.

We have been through this before, Science is unable to account for the origin of the universe therefore, at some point it defers to religion, on that basis it must be deemed to be inferor to relgion because it is incapable of answering questions which religion can answer.

interbane wrote:So yes, you're absolutely correct, science is unnecessary for many many things. Including hunting chipmunks. Religion is also not necessary for hunting chipmunks.

My comment relates to society, not hunting.

interbane wrote:Back to the original subject we were discussing, you said "On this point I claim that religion is superior to science as religion has an explanation for everything while science does not."

The subject was to do with explanations of the universe, not 'quality of life'. Unless you wish you change the subject. If so, then speak up, but don't attempt to change the subject by stealth. This is another example of apologetics deceit.

Actually, the subject is NECESSARY BEING and my original question is why science causes you to reject the idea of a necessary being. On that basis, I haven't changed the subject. Nor was I or am I still interested in defending the idea of God in this particular discussion. I would just like an understanble explanation as to why people with a scientific bent in this age reject a necessary being? That was not the case in pervious scientific eras, nor is it universally true today.

I would just like an understanble explanation as to why people with a scientific bent in this age reject a necessary being?

You've already been answered, many times by many people.

It seems to me that much of science is in fact teleological.

That belief is axiomatic to intelligent design. Read this. When you get to the part that says "In the natural sciences, the abandonment of teleology in the classical sense of the term goes back even further...", I'll be happy to discuss the topic. But not in this thread, and not unless you take the time to educate yourself on the subject.

That moral imperative cannot come from within the members it must be external

Can you support this claim? It's mistaken. Morality can come from within the members. In fact, that's precisely where it has come from.

Science is unable to account for the origin of the universe therefore, at some point it defers to religion

This is a false dilemma. Although science cannot yet account for the origin of the universe, the default is not religion. In fact, religion is ineffective at explaining anything about our universe. There is no support for any of the claims. Therefore, the claims can be dismissed.

On that basis, I haven't changed the subject.

On the basis of macaroni, you haven't changed the subject. On the basis of what we were referencing when discussing superfluous teleologies, you indeed changed the subject. What was once "an explanation of our universe" stealthily became "a necessity for humans to survive." You are guilty sir, stop equivocating. It all still falls within the thread of necessary being.

science does not defer to religion on anything.

science is a method of understanding the world around us. Applied by many different people, in many different situations, many of which are not guys in lab coats. Science, lacking any anthropomorphic features, is entirely incapable of deferring anything. ScienTISTS may have conceded that they don't know a thing and throw up their hands saying "goddidit", but that does not equate, in any way, with an inability of the scientific process to explain a problem.

refer to my earlier post about Newton and Laplace.

What is science?

Science is studying the world, making a prediction based on previous experience, and testing to see if your prediction is correct (boiled down to simplest terms).

Therefore, if you are a hunter/gatherer, and you remember where the berries are ripe this time of year... that is scientific.

If you guess that berries might fall out of the sky if you do a certain dance, that is religion.

If you observe that sharp things are able to stab, then make a spear, and kill a wild boar with it, congratulations! that is applied science!

If you make up a story about a spirit who will provide all the wild boar you will ever need, more's the pity. You have just used religion to try to provide for yourself.

Fundamental difference between scientific and religious:

Science: If i do a dance, it will rain. Do dance. No rain. Experiment FAILS. Do not repeat.

Religion: If i do a dance, it will rain. Do Dance, No rain. Maybe i wasn't faithful enough. Repeat as necessary, with more faith.

You can come up with stupid ideas in science, but the key is "Hey, that didn't work! Lets try something else."

So, no. Science is not superfluous. You use it every time you recognize a berry-producing plant and mark it's location in your memory to check later. Natives in africa who have only rarely seen a westerner use scientific method to stay alive. They use religion to scare the crap out of themselves.

http://cudm.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/hy ... sychology/

Something to think over. Still working on a conclusion that appropriately ties the thesis to the main subject matter. I'm sure it's in here (rolling my eyes backwards) somewhere!

The question of this thread is whether God exists as a necessary being.

Modern science has deposed the traditional faith in a supernatural entity. This poses the question whether faith can evolve, to present a conception of God that is compatible with modern science. Science imagines the universe as consistent and coherent. Any talk of God therefore needs to be compatible with the consistent and coherent description of the universe provided by science. This requires critical analysis of religious texts, to find what ideas within them are compatible with modern knowledge. Monotheistic faith has greater potential to respond and adapt to circumstance than atheist views give it credit for. However, this potential is not generally matched by capacity, with religious authorities holding to obsolete supernatural narratives. Monotheism evolved during the scientific enlightenment with the theory of deism, that God started the world and left it to run according to the laws of science. But this starter god lacks a teleology, a necessary role in evolution. The theory of evolution left the deist God in an unnecessary spot, lacking any place in the moral purpose of the universe.

If talk of God is to be necessary, then it has to be of a God that explains the universe in a coherent story. Science has deposed supernaturalism, so God has to adapt to science by working through nature alone. Science imagines it can consign all mythological language to the trash pile of history. However, there is much within myth that gives meaning and purpose and belonging and understanding to human life. In assessing the scope of truth, science cannot simply exclude myth. Yes, science is correct in demanding evidence as the basis for assent to claims, but no, science cannot prove that all mythical claims lack evidence.

My own view on the reconciliation of science and religion, of reason and faith, is that human faith traditions are grounded in scientific observation of what works to build community. As well, faith sets events against a framework of time and eternity, change and perpetual truth. A big part of the 'perpetual truth' of human history has been in scientific observation of the world, the cycles of time, and observation of the stars. Mythically, this scientific framework for religion appears in natural observation, such as the Milky Way in its permanent presence in the sky. The Milky Way galaxy appears in the Bible as the river of life. It also appears in eastern myth as the milky ocean, churned by gods and demons as it rests on the turtle at the bottom of the world, known in Indian mythology as Kurma.

Such myths can be analysed to find correspondence with modern scientific knowledge. For example, the Milky Way as it appears in the Bible sits within a richly coded language of metaphor and parable. Analysis of the text can show a natural cosmology around the Milky Way as the river of life, with the vision of human reconciliation with the universe depicted in terms of the return of the tree of life. The tree of life is an ancient religious myth, featuring as the norse Yggdrasil. Starting from the assumption that the Bible is referring to a story with some common points, myths of the tree of life and the river of life can be combined in a way that is compatible with modern knowledge. The biblical vision of the tree of life describes it as the stars of the zodiac. The intersection of the zodiac with the Milky Way provides a natural basis for the Chi Rho X cross of Christian faith. Setting these archetypal symbols together, as the tree and river of life, produces a syncretism between faith and reason, seeing the symbols of faith as describing natural events. Plato prefigured this interpretation in the Timaeus, where he grounds identity and difference in astronomy, in the observation of the relation between the changing solar system and the unchanging galaxy.

johnson1010 wrote:the basic tenants of the christian religion, excluding the worship of that particular god, are the same tenants of all societies.

Why is that?

Because the tenants of Christianity which i assume you refer, (no stealing, killing, violence, be generous, kind, and loving) are the basic morality of all humans, and in fact we have seen them at work in social units of animals. Humans have included those tenants in all their major religions because they are universal to humans, not because the religion has infused them into society.

Cart before the horse.

Johnsons1010, have you ever watched animals? They steal food from each other all the time. Some animals eat their young. Chickens peck each other to death.

The whole idea that human morality has a genetic origin is not supported by observation in the animal kingdom.

Additionally, my prior point that morality must have an external source referenced a test which I have not seen addressed. I will state that it is possible I missed the response and if so accept my apology, but in case it has not been addressed I will restate the question:

Is it acceptable practice to shoot looters on sight?

So we all understand, by looters I mean people who have broken into stores during riots and are stealing items which are not necessities; TV's, DVD players, IPODS, etc. not food, water, milk.