Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:17 pm
axisage: "one of the ways in which religion takes a beating is with the in-group / out-group aspect of it. but i see the same thing happen with the in-group / out-group of science versus religion."
Could you explain what you mean here? Are you referring to the exclusionary structure of religion? There are different standards to which religion excludes beliefs compared to science. Religion excludes beliefs which are different from what is written in a book. Science excludes hypotheses that have been experimentally tested and shown to be false. Science does not condemn people who believe in these falsities to suffer in eternal hell. It simply says, to the best of our current understanding, some things are false. The apparent exclusion comes into play when someone believes in something that science indicates is false. Science cannot be blamed for this any more than visible light cannot be blamed for falling within a specific range of wavelengths.
Given the rigor involved in discerning the truth using this method, it’s foolish to reject it’s findings because you believe in something different, especially when that something different isn’t held to any standards of discerning veracity. At the very least, incorporating the findings of science into your current beliefs is a reasonable solution. Religion has learned this the hard way, after many instances of opposition. Consider the essay from the Pope in '96, "Truth cannot contradict truth".
axisage: "both, to me, are systems of approaching an understanding of the world, and i enjoy them both immensely. while religion focuses on allegory and myth, science takes what is observable, studies it, and makes calculable assumptions."
Both science and religion can use allegory and myth to explain their findings. The difference is the method of acquiring this understanding. To gain a perspective on how religion has come to discover the world is to consider the authors of the bible. What methods did they use to verify their accounting of genesis? Was it divine influence during the writing process, where the holy spirit entered their brains and caused them to write what they did? Was it merely their imagination, coupled with their best guesses?
If you read Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”, you’ll notice he uses metaphors and analogies and as many explanatory devices as he can to help you understand his accounting of how certain aspects of the universe work. The methods used by him to gain this understanding are entirely seperate from the methods used to explain them to others. To gain understanding, the scientific method is used, which has rigorous standards to which one must abide. That the authors of the bible use allegory and myth to explain their understanding, that doesn't answer the question; what methods did the authors of the bible use to gain their understanding?
Understanding how the world works is different from understanding people and relationships. Religion may have insight here, but it is merely the wisdom of other men(unless you create your own religion based on your own wisdom). Most people assimilate this wisdom and assume that it is more than mortal wisdom, that it’s instead divine wisdom. If this is the case, we are full circle back to this wisdom being an explanation of reality, with a claim to objectivity.
Could you explain what you mean here? Are you referring to the exclusionary structure of religion? There are different standards to which religion excludes beliefs compared to science. Religion excludes beliefs which are different from what is written in a book. Science excludes hypotheses that have been experimentally tested and shown to be false. Science does not condemn people who believe in these falsities to suffer in eternal hell. It simply says, to the best of our current understanding, some things are false. The apparent exclusion comes into play when someone believes in something that science indicates is false. Science cannot be blamed for this any more than visible light cannot be blamed for falling within a specific range of wavelengths.
Given the rigor involved in discerning the truth using this method, it’s foolish to reject it’s findings because you believe in something different, especially when that something different isn’t held to any standards of discerning veracity. At the very least, incorporating the findings of science into your current beliefs is a reasonable solution. Religion has learned this the hard way, after many instances of opposition. Consider the essay from the Pope in '96, "Truth cannot contradict truth".
axisage: "both, to me, are systems of approaching an understanding of the world, and i enjoy them both immensely. while religion focuses on allegory and myth, science takes what is observable, studies it, and makes calculable assumptions."
Both science and religion can use allegory and myth to explain their findings. The difference is the method of acquiring this understanding. To gain a perspective on how religion has come to discover the world is to consider the authors of the bible. What methods did they use to verify their accounting of genesis? Was it divine influence during the writing process, where the holy spirit entered their brains and caused them to write what they did? Was it merely their imagination, coupled with their best guesses?
If you read Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”, you’ll notice he uses metaphors and analogies and as many explanatory devices as he can to help you understand his accounting of how certain aspects of the universe work. The methods used by him to gain this understanding are entirely seperate from the methods used to explain them to others. To gain understanding, the scientific method is used, which has rigorous standards to which one must abide. That the authors of the bible use allegory and myth to explain their understanding, that doesn't answer the question; what methods did the authors of the bible use to gain their understanding?
Understanding how the world works is different from understanding people and relationships. Religion may have insight here, but it is merely the wisdom of other men(unless you create your own religion based on your own wisdom). Most people assimilate this wisdom and assume that it is more than mortal wisdom, that it’s instead divine wisdom. If this is the case, we are full circle back to this wisdom being an explanation of reality, with a claim to objectivity.