\"Bleached Faith\" (Religion)
by xeno6696 
, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, October 04, 2009, 18:37 (5527 days ago)
I recently came across this book, written by a devout Jewish Lawyer with the above title. His rejection of "Intelligent Design" is actually based on religious reasons, and some of his points echo with my previous couple of postings. -In regards to Intelligent Design, (Not "Design"), he has this to say: "Intelligent Design puts God in a witness protection program, speaking of an unnamed intelligent agent, who limits himself to performing minor tasks, such as the construction of a bacterium's flagellum. By reducing the Almighty to "the God of the gaps," it removes religion from the realm of faith and values, the precise area where science is inadequate." -Connecting to my previous postings where I talk about my own path of winding though mythos, the God preached by ID is one stripped of everything that in my opinion, makes religions great and inspiring. Though one might argue that studying the world is unraveling the "secrets of the master," I've essentially seen both dhw and David dismiss the "hocus pocus" of religion. [EDIT] What do we have left after we dismiss the "hocus pocus," and what actually remains when this dust settles? And how can we tell "hocus pocus" from something real? If we can describe something via materialistic means, it is no longer "hocus pocus." We all however agree that there is no way to discern where God ends and where we begin; so clearly God is securely held away from materialistic scrutiny; so why do some people insist on justifying God in a materialistic fashion? (ID)-What do we do with this weakened God? Part of my Teutonic heritage stems from a time when the gods were fierce and terrible; they were real and touchable entities that one could commune with. The one presented by ID gives us no validation for any of our religious traditions; it is a different philosophical viewpoint, but it does nothing to justify our existence, tells us nothing about each other that we didn't already know, and still--doesn't actually answer any question about our origins. Its a religious skepticism that doesn't seem to know what it wants outside of replacing our culture's focus on materialism; except that all of its arguments are an attempt to use materialism to justify God--which when you think about it, is an internal contradiction. "We want to destroy materialism, but to do so, we have to use materialism." We have our asymptote again; you can't pick and choose the parts of materialism you want to have and don't want to have. Religion and science approach the boundary of human existence but they will never meet. I don't mean this in the manner that says you can't be a religious materialist as Newton or Galileo, only that there is a discrete boundary and role for science and religion, and that these two entities do not study the same things.-[EDITED]
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
\"Bleached Faith\"
Matt quotes "Bleached Faith", in which the author says that according to ID, God "limits himself to performing minor tasks, such as the construction of a bacterium's flagellum. By reducing the Almighty to "the God of the gaps", it removes religion from the realm of faith and values, the precise area where science is inadequate."-Matt writes that the God "presented by ID gives us no validation for any of our religious traditions; it is a different philosophical viewpoint, but it does nothing to justify our existence, tells us nothing that we didn't already know, and still ... doesn't answer any question about our origins. It's a religious scepticism that doesn't seem to know what it wants outside of replacing our culture's focus on materialism."-You have yourself made a distinction between Design and ID, because ID is sometimes used as a cover for Creationism and Christianity. When this happens, ID illustrates the exact opposite of the above. Its proponents use Design to "prove" the existence of God, and from there they proceed to their religious agenda, which provides all the faith and values you could ask for. I would therefore like to answer what I see as a criticism of Design rather than of ID. This whole subject, though, raises important issues of motivation, and perhaps we each need first to explain just what it is we're looking for. My own motivation is to find out whether there is or is not a God, and if there is, what is its/his/her nature. No-one can answer these questions from knowledge, but we can all exchange views, and I find this a stimulating and, I must add, generally enjoyable occupation. -And so to Design, and the first question concerning the existence or non-existence of some intelligent outside power. The bacterium's flagellum is one of thousands of examples that can be used to suggest that there is a designer at work. It can be argued that the more complex the organ, the stronger the case for design. Personally, I cannot reject the design argument, but my non-disbelief in design is not strong enough to produce belief in a designer. The same applies to my non-belief in chance. That's why I'm an agnostic.-However, this is only the first step. If you do not exclude a designer, you can speculate about its nature. This, of course, is where culture plays its part, since different cultures have different concepts, but in my neutrality I'm not prepared to accept any culture on trust. Here I depart from some of your premises, because I'm not concerned with validating religious traditions, or with justifying our existence. I'm only concerned with what might be the truth. The three main monotheistic religions, for instance, emphasize the almighty power and ultimate benevolence of God. I look at the world he/she/it may have created, and I see random suffering everywhere. I can't reconcile this to benevolence. I can, however, associate it with Deism, and so if I did believe in some kind of designer, it would probably be a deistic one. I would see no point, however, in worshipping such a God.-The speculation doesn't end there. If there is a designer, it may be of a totally different form from our own. I don't understand the nature of consciousness, I'm not prepared to dismiss all psychic experiences as nonsense or fakery, and I'm not prepared to dismiss the common elements of religion as delusion. And so I acknowledge the possibility of something we generally call a soul. This raises the theme of an afterlife with all its ramifications. Again I don't believe in it, but again I acknowledge that there are too many blank spaces for me to form a clear, convincing pattern.-It's true that Design (but not necessarily ID) takes religion out of the realm of "faith and values". For me, faith and values do not provide truth, but I suspect that we are unlikely in our lifetime, or maybe in any lifetime, to find the truth. If people are able to take the leap of faith either in a designer of their conception or in the creative skills of chance and natural laws, good luck to them. I would only plead that since no-one "knows" the truth, they should be tolerant towards one another. As far as values are concerned, I don't trust the religious people who claim to know God's will. I'm all for humanistic values. As for science and religion not studying the same things, I agree, but in my view religion should not run counter to the findings of science ... and that is what gives the design argument its important role in religion: it helps to make what you call the "two entities" compatible. -[You wrote, under ID, "I do continuously hope that I bring something of interest here." You do indeed!]
\"Bleached Faith\"
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, October 08, 2009, 00:08 (5524 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > You have yourself made a distinction between Design and ID, because ID is sometimes used as a cover for Creationism and Christianity. When this happens, ID illustrates the exact opposite of the above. Its proponents use Design to "prove" the existence of God, and from there they proceed to their religious agenda, which provides all the faith and values you could ask for. ...-A strong misconception on the ID movement: the majority of its writers are members of traditional monotheisms, Behe--Catholic, Dembski--Baptist. In most cases when you analyze the movement as a whole it is a group of people that are trying to reconcile the deep problems about God that started during the Enlightenment, and the resulting secularism that grew around it. Darwinism, as they call it, is the linchpin of secular thought and without it materialism falls. It is just the opposite as you say: Few, if any started out as atheists or agnostics, but simply are trying to find material evidence that would justify belief in a God. More on that later...-> However, this is only the first step. If you do not exclude a designer, you can speculate about its nature. This, of course, is where culture plays its part, since different cultures have different concepts, but in my neutrality I'm not prepared to accept any culture on trust. Here I depart from some of your premises, because I'm not concerned with validating religious traditions, or with justifying our existence. I'm only concerned with what might be the truth. The three main monotheistic religions, for instance, emphasize the almighty power and ultimate benevolence of God. I look at the world he/she/it may have created, and I see random suffering everywhere. I can't reconcile this to benevolence. I can, however, associate it with Deism, and so if I did believe in some kind of designer, it would probably be a deistic one. I would see no point, however, in worshipping such a God. > -As I said previously: religion is about human experience, not about the material world. Bbella's view is more similar to mine; I don't think there is a beginning or end to the Universe at large. Even the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of all time. All religions are about how to deal with human suffering. Material explanations were never really as important. Genesis was only one of how many books? Most religions spend time discussing how we should act towards each other as a people; God(s) is/are typically only the central glue to this picture. A UI-type of deity doesn't do the same thing religion-wise that all these other things DO perform. It's only a mediocre explanation for how life and our universe came to be. -> It's true that Design (but not necessarily ID) takes religion out of the realm of "faith and values". For me, faith and values do not provide truth, but I suspect that we are unlikely in our lifetime, or maybe in any lifetime, to find the truth. If people are able to take the leap of faith either in a designer of their conception or in the creative skills of chance and natural laws, good luck to them. I would only plead that since no-one "knows" the truth, they should be tolerant towards one another. As far as values are concerned, I don't trust the religious people who claim to know God's will. I'm all for humanistic values. As for science and religion not studying the same things, I agree, but in my view religion should not run counter to the findings of science ... and that is what gives the design argument its important role in religion: it helps to make what you call the "two entities" compatible. > -You... sort of missed my mark. Science and religion aren't compatible but complimentary. They both describe parts of the human experience; religion, that esoteric and immeasurable part of ourselves that defies outside attempts to understand it, and the outer, exoteric, material world by science. At the center, lies man.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
\"Bleached Faith\"
by David Turell , Thursday, October 08, 2009, 00:40 (5524 days ago) @ xeno6696
I look at the world he/she/it may have created, and I see random suffering everywhere. I can't reconcile this to benevolence. I can, however, associate it with Deism, and so if I did believe in some kind of designer, it would probably be a deistic one. I would see no point, however, in worshipping such a God.- > > You... sort of missed my mark. Science and religion aren't compatible but complimentary. They both describe parts of the human experience; religion, that esoteric and immeasurable part of ourselves that defies outside attempts to understand it, and the outer, exoteric, material world by science. At the center, lies man.-One of my most interesting authors, I've mentioned before, Gerald Schroeder, 40 years a Ph.D. particle physics researcher, 30+ years an Old Test. studies in the most ancient form of Hebrew, has a new book: "God, According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along". He has reinterpreted the OT to show a form of Jewish Process Theology. I'm not finshed with it, but we have the right to argue with Him, He has the right to change his mind. He actually studies His created beings and changes his approach. He recognizes that we have free will and make bad choices. That makes him Theistic, not quite all-knowing, but still all-powerful. It gets rid of the problem of evil since we are free to be evil. He set evolutin in motion, but stepped in to kill off the dinosaurs with an asteroid. He is not a strict fundamentalist: Noah's flood was Mesopotamian.-I don't know if either of you can accept this approach, but he is trying to combine physics and Torah. Of course, his co-religionist, Stephen Jay Gould felt science and religion were two separate magesteria and should be two views of our reality.
\"Bleached Faith\"
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, October 08, 2009, 18:39 (5523 days ago) @ David Turell
I look at the world he/she/it may have created, and I see random suffering everywhere. I can't reconcile this to benevolence. I can, however, associate it with Deism, and so if I did believe in some kind of designer, it would probably be a deistic one. I would see no point, however, in worshipping such a God. > > > > > > You... sort of missed my mark. Science and religion aren't compatible but complimentary. They both describe parts of the human experience; religion, that esoteric and immeasurable part of ourselves that defies outside attempts to understand it, and the outer, exoteric, material world by science. At the center, lies man. > > One of my most interesting authors, I've mentioned before, Gerald Schroeder, 40 years a Ph.D. particle physics researcher, 30+ years an Old Test. studies in the most ancient form of Hebrew, has a new book: "God, According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along". He has reinterpreted the OT to show a form of Jewish Process Theology. I'm not finshed with it, but we have the right to argue with Him, He has the right to change his mind. He actually studies His created beings and changes his approach. He recognizes that we have free will and make bad choices. That makes him Theistic, not quite all-knowing, but still all-powerful. It gets rid of the problem of evil since we are free to be evil. He set evolutin in motion, but stepped in to kill off the dinosaurs with an asteroid. He is not a strict fundamentalist: Noah's flood was Mesopotamian. > > I don't know if either of you can accept this approach, but he is trying to combine physics and Torah. Of course, his co-religionist, Stephen Jay Gould felt science and religion were two separate magesteria and should be two views of our reality.-David, I thought you didn't like Process Theology? I've said for some time here that I thought Process arguments were one of the best theological responses to science. Process theologians modify their theology so that it reconciles what has been discovered in science instead of clinging to old dogmas. -I actually didn't know that my view was shared by Gould. I know it's not necessarily unique, though most people I've met are much more exclusionary towards the materialistic and non-materialistic ends of the spectrum.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
\"Bleached Faith\"
by David Turell , Thursday, October 08, 2009, 19:09 (5523 days ago) @ xeno6696
David, I thought you didn't like Process Theology? I've said for some time here that I thought Process arguments were one of the best theological responses to science. Process theologians modify their theology so that it reconciles what has been discovered in science instead of clinging to old dogmas. > > I actually didn't know that my view was shared by Gould. I know it's not necessarily unique, though most people I've met are much more exclusionary towards the materialistic and non-materialistic ends of the spectrum.-I only said above that Schroeder is seemingly accepting process theology in his reinterpretation. He is presenting a very flexible God. I'll finish the book and see where I stand with his new ideas.
\"Bleached Faith\"
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 01:35 (5519 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 01:45
> One of my most interesting authors, I've mentioned before, Gerald Schroeder, 40 years a Ph.D. particle physics researcher, 30+ years an Old Test. studies in the most ancient form of Hebrew, has a new book: "God, According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along". -I have just read Schroeder's chapter on life and death. He accepts that consciousness and mind are at the quantum level. He uses Pin van Lommel's Lancet article on NDE to make his point, as I did 5 years ago. Of course then, the afterlife is also at that level. He quotes Robert Sapolsky, Stanford U prof. of neurology:" Despite zillions of us neurologists slaving away at the subject, we still don't know how the brain works". (Sci. Am. March 2003, pg.71)-A quote of Schroeder's re' the Big Bang: "The idea that there is a non physical aspect to brain-mind interface accords with our understanding of the act of creation itself. The big-bang creation of our universe was exactly that. Some totally metaphysical nonthing, either God according to the Bible or a quantum fluctuation according to NASA, created the physical universe from absolute nothing. The metaphysical became manifest as the physical. This being the case for our cosmic origins, positing a nonphysical (that is, a metaphysical) aspect for the consciousness of our minds is merely an extention of the scientific understanding of the totality of existence." pg. 148-A nod to Vic Stenger. He and NASA agree. Both theories are non-falsifiable and therefore non proveable. Perhaps both are right: God made the quantum fluctuation. Comments any one?
\"Bleached Faith\"
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 16:34 (5510 days ago) @ David Turell
> One of my most interesting authors, I've mentioned before, Gerald Schroeder, 40 years a Ph.D. particle physics researcher, 30+ years an Old Test. studies in the most ancient form of Hebrew, has a new book: "God, According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along". He has reinterpreted the OT to show a form of Jewish Process Theology. I'm not finshed with it,-Finished the book. In the final portion he makes the case for a rather benevolent Hebrew God, contrary to the usual interpretation, that this 'earlier' version of God is a rather fierce God, and is finally developed into a more loving God in the New Test. (This analysis by Karen Armstrong)
\"Bleached Faith\"
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 22:51 (5510 days ago) @ David Turell
> > One of my most interesting authors, I've mentioned before, Gerald Schroeder, 40 years a Ph.D. particle physics researcher, 30+ years an Old Test. studies in the most ancient form of Hebrew, has a new book: "God, According to God: A Physicist Proves We've Been Wrong About God All Along". He has reinterpreted the OT to show a form of Jewish Process Theology. I'm not finshed with it, > > Finished the book. In the final portion he makes the case for a rather benevolent Hebrew God, contrary to the usual interpretation, that this 'earlier' version of God is a rather fierce God, and is finally developed into a more loving God in the New Test. (This analysis by Karen Armstrong)-I applaud any attempt to revalue old myths, but it doesn't seem like that difficult of a stretch. Really only a minor shift in valuation. Odin and Loki could also be described as "fierce" but by modern morals "barbaric" or "cruel."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
\"Bleached Faith\"
Me: As for science and religion not studying the same things, I agree, but in my view religion should not run counter to the findings of science ... and that is what gives the design theory its important role in religion: it helps to make what you call the "two entities" compatible.-Matt: You...sort of missed my mark. Science and religion aren't compatible but complimentary. They both describe parts of the human experience; religion, that esoteric and immeasurable part of ourselves that defies outside attempts to understand it, and the outer, exoteric, material world by science. At the center, lies man.-Actually, you...sort of missed my mark too, but we're probably still aiming in more or less the same direction. Compatible and complementary are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Imagine the headline: "World Renowned Scientists say God is a Delusion. Evolution is the Creator of Life". The Archbishop of Canterbury would look pretty stupid if he stood up and said: "Material explanations aren't that important. We only deal with the esoteric and immeasurable part of ourselves that defies outside attempts to understand it." Without their god or gods, religions lose their foundation and their authority. And so if religion appears to be in conflict with science, I'd say it needs to answer science with science (unless you wish to confine it to the intellectually blinkered). Therein lies the importance of the design theory. It provides increasingly necessary support for what underlies the immaterial, non-scientific experiences you describe. As I've said before, science should ignore religion, but religion should not ignore science.-Earlier you argue that "religions are about how to deal with human suffering", and "how we should act towards each other as a people; God(s) is/are typically only the central glue to this picture." Well, I'm afraid that without the glue, the religious picture falls apart. All you need is humanism. But I agree completely that a UI ... in the sense of some vague, impersonal thingummy ... gets us nowhere and does nothing for us. However, while you have ... in my view quite rightly ... been attacking Intelligent Design (as opposed to Design) for its religious agenda, it's the agenda (as opposed to the science) of the Discovery Institute that actually answers your criticism as well as that made by your "Bleached Faith" author: i.e. that ID "removes religion from the realm of faith and values". If ID is used as a gateway to or defence of Christianity, it helps to provide or bolster the faith and values that might otherwise be lost to the abiogenists. Of course, you're acting the "devil's advocate" again, but the advocacy is getting just a little confusing!
\"Bleached Faith\"
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, October 08, 2009, 23:05 (5523 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, point taken on everything above here:-> Earlier you argue that "religions are about how to deal with human suffering", and "how we should act towards each other as a people; God(s) is/are typically only the central glue to this picture." Well, I'm afraid that without the glue, the religious picture falls apart. All you need is humanism. -In strict terms, the number of humanists in the world is vastly outnumbered by the number of persons subscribing to religions. Gods are used as that glue for the majority of people. I didn't mean that in the universal sense, only in the observed sense. Whether or not we can create a moral system without Gods has no effect on the way the world actually operates in the realm of morals. ->But I agree completely that a UI ... in the sense of some vague, impersonal thingummy ... gets us nowhere and does nothing for us. However, while you have ... in my view quite rightly ... been attacking Intelligent Design (as opposed to Design) for its religious agenda, it's the agenda (as opposed to the science) of the Discovery Institute that actually answers your criticism as well as that made by your "Bleached Faith" author: i.e. that ID "removes religion from the realm of faith and values". If ID is used as a gateway to or defence of Christianity, it helps to provide or bolster the faith and values that might otherwise be lost to the abiogenists. Of course, you're acting the "devil's advocate" again, but the advocacy is getting just a little confusing!-Well, my goal wasn't to be confusing; only to toss out an interesting argument against ID that I hadn't seen before.-You mentioned motivations earlier, in regards to our purposes for being here at this site. -That was an interesting question because I can't really think of one outside of engaging in high-stakes philosophy. I think I've pretty much accepted that in my framework, knowledge is paramount, and those things that cannot be known--cannot be known. And reasoning about things that cannot be known (as an endeavor by the human race) is as futile an exercise as being a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. -In terms of the DI and its "science," one must ask what experiments it is actually conducting, in order to "find the designer." It offers interpretations of scientific evidence, but I can't even remember the last official paper any of those gents published. Interpretations aren't science, but philosophy--you give them too much credit. My problem is that interpretations are opinion, and though opinion can lead you to knowledge, we've already agreed that what they seek is unknowable.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
\"Bleached Faith\"
Matt: Reasoning about things that cannot be known [...] is as futile an exercise as being a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.-Great line! I've only repeated it for the sake of repeating it! But if your motive for being on this site is "engaging in high-stakes philosophy", even allowing for your being the devil's advocate, we need to establish a bit of consistency in the arguments. As usual, though, there's a danger that I've misunderstood you, so please take all that follows as an attempt to clarify rather than to criticize. -You agree with Stephen Jay Gould (incidentally, David, I thought he was an agnostic), who "felt science and religion were two separate magisteria and should be two views of our reality". I'm not going to oppose Gould, because I don't know the details of his argument, but earlier, in reply to my statement that ID tried to make religion and science compatible, you also wrote: "Science and religion aren't compatible but complementary." -However, in your post of 8 October at 23.05 you wrote: "I've said for some time here that I thought Process arguments were one of the best theological responses to science. Process theologians modify their theology so that it reconciles what has been discovered in science instead of clinging to old dogmas." What is the difference between science and religion being compatible, and religion being "reconciled" to what has been discovered in science? I'm picking on this because it's so central to all the arguments about abiogenesis and evolution. The difference between your two approaches seems to me to obscure rather than clarify, which is certainly not the aim of "high-stakes philosophy".-I have a similar problem with your idea that religions are about "how to deal with human suffering", and "how we should act towards each other", together with your downgrading of gods as "only the central glue to this picture". Most religions are based on the relations between a god or gods and humanity, and it's not just a matter of suffering and morals but ... as your "Bleached Faith" author remarks ... of "faith and values". Science is supposed to be neutral, but many scientists are not, and if they challenge the very existence of God (e.g. through misinterpretation of Darwin or belief in abiogenesis), the faith and values will fall apart unless religion can come up with a scientific counter argument. In this context, I can't see how religion and science can be called separate "entities" (your word) or "non-overlapping magisteria" (Gould) ... they have to be joined at the hip if religion is not to lose its credibility. One up for process theology ... but you can't go for that AND for your separate entities! -In my view, there's absolutely no need for any of this confusion. Both approaches can be "reconciled" or "made compatible" by removing the rigid divisions in Gould's and your formulae. So let me now set up my own target for you to knock down!-Science is concerned with the material world. Religion is concerned with systems arising out of belief in a god or gods. Science should be independent of religion, but religion should be compatible with the generally accepted findings of science. Too simple?
\"Bleached Faith\"
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, October 11, 2009, 13:24 (5520 days ago) @ dhw
Matt: Reasoning about things that cannot be known [...] is as futile an exercise as being a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. > > Great line! I've only repeated it for the sake of repeating it! But if your motive for being on this site is "engaging in high-stakes philosophy", even allowing for your being the devil's advocate, we need to establish a bit of consistency in the arguments. As usual, though, there's a danger that I've misunderstood you, so please take all that follows as an attempt to clarify rather than to criticize. > -Which apparently I am wont to do! >_<-Oh, and the line was lifted from my Judo/Ju Jitsu instructor back in high school. It's more funny in a martial context!-> You agree with Stephen Jay Gould (incidentally, David, I thought he was an agnostic), who "felt science and religion were two separate magisteria and should be two views of our reality". I'm not going to oppose Gould, because I don't know the details of his argument, but earlier, in reply to my statement that ID tried to make religion and science compatible, you also wrote: "Science and religion aren't compatible but complementary." >-It seems my usage of complementary hinges on the confusion. I refer back to the use of colors on a color wheel. This time it's in dealing with a range of human existence. Science and religion are on that same spectrum, but at opposite ends, religion say, is purple, and science is yellow. In computers we use the RGB color model, and the way it is set up, when you mix two complementary colors together, you just get gray. In any color model, putting two complimentary colors together on the same sheet, say yellow on purple, is the most eye-catching kind of combination; you can clearly see yellow for yellow or purple as purple. There's little need for reconciliation, until you try to blend them together. -> However, in your post of 8 October at 23.05 you wrote: "I've said for some time here that I thought Process arguments were one of the best theological responses to science. Process theologians modify their theology so that it reconciles what has been discovered in science instead of clinging to old dogmas." What is the difference between science and religion being compatible, and religion being "reconciled" to what has been discovered in science? I'm picking on this because it's so central to all the arguments about abiogenesis and evolution. The difference between your two approaches seems to me to obscure rather than clarify, which is certainly not the aim of "high-stakes philosophy". > -Hopefully, my above analogy cleared this mess for you; if not, I can reformulate. -> I have a similar problem with your idea that religions are about "how to deal with human suffering", and "how we should act towards each other", together with your downgrading of gods as "only the central glue to this picture". Most religions are based on the relations between a god or gods and humanity, and it's not just a matter of suffering and morals but ... as your "Bleached Faith" author remarks ... of "faith and values".-Your problem might disappear when you consider this question: What are the times in the majority of peoples' lives that they use religion the most? In my experience both with my extended family and at the hospital, God is who you turn to when you no longer have any hope; a loved one is ill. People might go to church regularly, but the people who admit to "communing with God" when not in dire need is rather small. -Human existence is synonymous with suffering, and religion steps in to help alleviate that problem. We're afraid of death, no problem, when I die, I'll be in heaven with Grandma. We want to punish those who do wrong, so we have some variation on Hell or purgatory. Anyone in western civilization who doesn't know at least some story about Christ, also realizes that his works were about exactly this phenomenon; alleviating suffering. I'm not downgrading Gods here, but pointing out what exactly their central role actually is for the majority of people. We can say the Bible is a record of man's dealings with God, and we can also say that it is a tool used to answer human questions--direct from "the source." - > In my view, there's absolutely no need for any of this confusion. Both approaches can be "reconciled" or "made compatible" by removing the rigid divisions in Gould's and your formulae. So let me now set up my own target for you to knock down! > -For the record, you agree that they study different things. How that isn't a rigid division is baffling. -> Science is concerned with the material world. Religion is concerned with systems arising out of belief in a god or gods. Science should be independent of religion, but religion should be compatible with the generally accepted findings of science. Too simple?-No, just right; here I realize we're barking up different sides of the same tree. The only time a reconciliation needs to happen between the two, are either when science implicitly challenges a religious claim, or when a religious claim challenges science. Otherwise they coexist.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
\"Bleached Faith\"
Matt: The only times a reconciliation needs to happen between the two, are either when science implicitly challenges a religious claim, or when a religious claim challenges science. Otherwise they coexist.-The challenge is often explicit, but yes, we've reached agreement. Just a few brief comments to clear up the remaining twiddly-bits. The fact that religion and science study different things is not a rigid division. I can think of very few subjects of study that don't overlap with others, which is why interdisciplinary studies are now so essential to many forms of research. My objection was to the Gould concept of non-overlapping magisteria, to which you had agreed. They have to overlap if religion is to maintain its credibility. I didn't object to your use of "complementary" (though your colour example was an interesting use I didn't know about), but to your rejection of "compatible".-I certainly shan't disagree when you say that religion steps in to help with the problem of suffering, though I think it does a great deal more than that. The point I was making was that if its God were toppled, religion could not fulfil any of its tasks ... alleviating suffering, establishing moral codes, giving purpose to life, and believe it or not in some cases actually providing a source of joy. That is why a scientific threat to the "authenticity" of God has to be met by a scientific response ... but we have already agreed on that too. (N.B. I'm not saying that you need God to accomplish those tasks, but that religion needs God to accomplish them in its own way.)-It's interesting how many of the discussions on this forum (not just those in which you participate) revolve around difficulties of communication. Even with seemingly clear terms like evolution, abiogenesis, paranormal, natural, agnostic, we find huge areas of uncertainty opening up, because they mean different things to different people. Words are, of course, an indispensable tool, but no-one should be fooled into thinking that they're anything more than symbols. In similar vein, I love Magritte's painting of a pipe, entitled "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" [this is not a pipe]. It's worth a hundred pages of philosophy.
\"Bleached Faith\"
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, October 12, 2009, 13:21 (5519 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-> Matt: The only times a reconciliation needs to happen between the two, are either when science implicitly challenges a religious claim, or when a religious claim challenges science. Otherwise they coexist. > It's interesting how many of the discussions on this forum (not just those in which you participate) revolve around difficulties of communication. Even with seemingly clear terms like evolution, abiogenesis, paranormal, natural, agnostic, we find huge areas of uncertainty opening up, because they mean different things to different people. Words are, of course, an indispensable tool, but no-one should be fooled into thinking that they're anything more than symbols. In similar vein, I love Magritte's painting of a pipe, entitled "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" [this is not a pipe]. It's worth a hundred pages of philosophy.-I fully agree; that's why I spend so much time trying to figure out motivations and intent. In person, if we were at a pub chatting philosophy over a beer, we could read each other's facial expressions and vocal tone. It's part of the reason my posts are books... I try to fill in as many of those gaps as I can. I also try to define terms (or at least try to remember to define terms) whenever possible.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
\"Bleached Faith\"
by David Turell , Sunday, October 11, 2009, 21:33 (5520 days ago) @ dhw
> (incidentally, David, I thought he was an agnostic),-dhw: you are correct. I had the mistaken idea he was an atheist, since his father, Leonard was an avowed Marxist, and they usually were atheists. His father made a great impression on him. I should have checked his biography more carefully.