Time to face up to the truth of religion?

[Obelix]

Of course we have. Why do you think science and religion (for want of a better word) are mutually exclusive?

 

Because they are fundamentally incompatible in how they treat the process of understanding the Universe.

 

Don't you think nature has had something to do with some of your above list? We might need a telescope (science) to see the beauty of the Horsehead Nebula, but it was created by nature.

 

Nature is such a wooly term that you can twist to how you want. So no - it's nothing to do with neture. It was created by physics. But it surely wasnt anything to do with some god(ess)

 

And please stop being disparaging about people who have beliefs different to yours...

 

Well when they accord me the same I might. But I wont hold my breath.

[unbeliever]

Because they are fundamentally incompatible in how they treat the process of understanding the Universe.

 

 

 

Nature is such a wooly term that you can twist to how you want. So no - it's nothing to do with neture. It was created by physics. But it surely wasnt anything to do with some god(ess)

 

 

 

Well when they accord me the same I might. But I wont hold my breath.

 

The forum really needs a like button. ^^^^

[petemcewan]

Obelix,

 

 

I’m not particularly religious myself. But what gets my pip is some of the comments which passes as- allegedly- serious religion bashing.

Now unpick this one. I have met well educated catholic people who refer to evolution as a theory-using theory in its sense of plausible but unproven. I have the suspicion that such views arise from a disordered view of creation. Accordingly, God is not the first cause .God is the perennial cause. The material world down to the smallest subatomic particle is held in existence by God’s active will. Existence is a continuous miracle. It is their belief-and I’m not going to disrespect it.

The great thinker A. N. Whitehead put it,”Every event on its finer side

Introduces God into the world”. Max Planck ended his ,”scientific autobiography “ with the following: “Religio and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an increasing never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief ,and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be : On to God “ !

Science & Christian Belief . C. A. Coulson. F.R.S (First published by Oxford University Press. 1955)

Fontana Books. (1958).

Wherever men and women waver about the value of reason ,the growth of science is

an insistent reminder of its worth. I do not have a problem with science.

What I do have problem with is “scientism and positivism”.

 

N.B . Apologies, I don't how that stupid smiley got there.

Edited December 7, 2016 by petemcewan

[unbeliever]

Obelix,

 

 

I’m not particularly religious myself. But what gets my pip is some of the comments which passes as- allegedly- serious religion bashing.

Now unpick this one. I have met well educated catholic people who refer to evolution as a theory-using theory in its sense of plausible but unproven. I have the suspicion that such views arise from a disordered view of creation. Accordingly, God is not the first cause .God is the perennial cause. The material world down to the smallest subatomic particle is held in existence by God’s active will. Existence is a continuous miracle. It is their belief-and I’m not going to disrespect it.

The great thinker A. N. Whitehead put it,”Every event on its finer side

Introduces God into the world”. Max Planck ended his ,”scientific autobiography “ with the following: “Religio and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an increasing never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief ,and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be : On to God “ !

Science & Christian Belief . C. A. Coulson. F.R.S (First published by Oxford University Press. 1955)

Fontana Books. (1958).

Wherever men and women waver about the value of reason ,the growth of science is

an insistent reminder of its worth. I do not have a problem with science.

What I do have problem with is “scientism and positivism”.

 

 

What is this supposed to mean? Really what does it add to the debate?

A couple of anecdotes and some hand-waving about the meaning of "theory".

[retep]

Obelix,

 

 

I’m not particularly religious myself. But what gets my pip is some of the comments which passes as- allegedly- serious religion bashing.

Now unpick this one. I have met well educated catholic people who refer to evolution as a theory-using theory in its sense of plausible but unproven. I have the suspicion that such views arise from a disordered view of creation. Accordingly, God is not the first cause .God is the perennial cause. The material world down to the smallest subatomic particle is held in existence by God’s active will. Existence is a continuous miracle. It is their belief-and I’m not going to disrespect it.

The great thinker A. N. Whitehead put it,”Every event on its finer side

Introduces God into the world”. Max Planck ended his ,”scientific autobiography “ with the following: “Religio and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an increasing never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief ,and against superstition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be : On to God “ !

Science & Christian Belief . C. A. Coulson. F.R.S (First published by Oxford University Press. 1955)

Fontana Books. (1958).

Wherever men and women waver about the value of reason ,the growth of science is

an insistent reminder of its worth. I do not have a problem with science.

What I do have problem with is “scientism and positivism”.

 

N.B . Apologies, I don't how that stupid smiley got there.

 

Ask a scientist.

[unbeliever]

Ask a scientist.

 

An 8 followed by a closing bracket ) is interpreted by the forum as a smiley. You have to put a space or check "Disable smiles in text".

[RootsBooster]

Cyclone,

 

The search for truth and meaning occurs throughout a man's life.

To abandon its pursuit would be to drown in a slough of despond.

 

"The search for truth and meaning" is quite an ambiguous phrase. What is it you're actually referring to?

 

---------- Post added 07-12-2016 at 21:20 ----------

 

I’m not particularly religious myself. But what gets my pip is some of the comments which passes as- allegedly- serious religion bashing.

 

The thing I often notice about these kinds of threads is that there's always a few who complain about "religion-bashing" but rarely ever any posts that actually fit this description. You get the odd few post & run comments like "Only idiots believe in fairy tales" but these types of people don't tend to take part in any further discussion.

[Obelix]

Obelix,

 

 

I’m not particularly religious myself. But what gets my pip is some of the comments which passes as- allegedly- serious religion bashing.

 

You mean you've seen comments that are religion bashing?

 

Now unpick this one. I have met well educated catholic people who refer to evolution as a theory-using theory in its sense of plausible but unproven. I have the suspicion that such views arise from a disordered view of creation. Accordingly, God is not the first cause .God is the perennial cause. The material world down to the smallest subatomic particle is held in existence by God’s active will. Existence is a continuous miracle. It is their belief-and I’m not going to disrespect it.

 

I am. It's a distinct lack of critical thinking and ability where they use faith as a crutch to cover their unease at being unable to understand something, or their unwillingness to accept something they find deeply disturbing.

 

Thats not religion bashing btw. That's well considered criticism of their position.

 

If I was bashing religion I'd call them unmitigated fruitcakes.

 

The great thinker A. N. Whitehead put it,”Every event on its finer side

Introduces God into the world”.

 

Citation please for "great thinker"

 

Aristotle was a great thinker but he got mechanics wrong. Copernicus was a great thinker but heliocentricity was rather wrong too (but was right in one crucial aspect). Newton was wrong - but so subtly wrong it took 250 years an a Swiss paten clerk to put it right.

 

Thats scientific wrong. It's testable, falsifiable and correctable.

 

AN Whitehead is so howlingly fruitcakery not valid in any form of science wrong that it's not even qualifiable as being merely wrong.

 

Religion wise, he's probably correct. This is why religion and science are such uneasy bedfellows they end up setting fire to the bed so they dont have to lie it together.

 

 

Max Planck ended his ,”scientific autobiography “

 

Why the quotes? If you think it's wrong, say why and defend it with arguments. Don't put snide little quotes and a nudge and a wink and indicate it's a bit daft because every time you do I'll call you out for running away from the debate.

 

Wherever men and women waver about the value of reason ,the growth of science is

an insistent reminder of its worth. I do not have a problem with science.

What I do have problem with is “scientism and positivism”.

 

Is that one of your quotes or someone elses? I need to know where to point the flame thrower...

Edited December 7, 2016 by Obelix

[RootsBooster]

 

Why the quotes? If you think it's wrong, say why and defend it with arguments. Don't put snide little quotes and a nudge and a wink and indicate it's a bit daft because every time you do I'll call you out for running away from the debate.

 

 

 

Is that one of your quotes or someone elses? I need to know where to point the flame thrower...

 

That tactic, throwing out wise-sounding quotes with no substance instead of putting forward an argument or any reasoning, it's textbook Christian apologetics tactics. There are many courses available which teach this as a valid method of argument, so the apologist is left feeling (quite smugly) that they are speaking on a level above that of somebody who is dealing with reason and logic.

 

I'm not saying that Petemcewen is a Christian apologist but it wouldn't surprise me if he's picked this habit up unknowingly, through reading similar discussions and responses online.

[Anna B]

You mean you've seen comments that are religion bashing?

 

 

 

I am. It's a distinct lack of critical thinking and ability where they use faith as a crutch to cover their unease at being unable to understand something, or their unwillingness to accept something they find deeply disturbing.

 

Thats not religion bashing btw. That's well considered criticism of their position.

 

If I was bashing religion I'd call them unmitigated fruitcakes.

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

Several well respected scientists had a belief in God or some greater power, so science and belief can and do co-exist.

 

I am not a church goer, but I rather object to your comments in the highlighted paragraph, where you presume to know the minds of people who do, or might think differently from you.

As you are so far removed from any belief at all, I don't know how you can presume to know what motivates people's beliefs, but speaking for myself; (the only mind I have intimate knowledge of,) you are way off target. None of what you say is my experience.

 

You come across as arrogant and aggressive, not very nice traits, but ones that seem to abound with militant atheists. A little humility and an open mind would do you good. You are hardly a good advert for your cause and how it affects people.