Science and Religion go hand in hand

[genius]

The trouble is that some churches have some ridiculous points of view. The Bible, itself, defines day (with the evening being the start of and act of creation and the morning being the completion of an act of creation) differently than 24 hour days. Hell is a mistranslation (look it up)intended to control the masses. The Bible never supported the concept of the Trinity. Paul was giving advise to groups of people for how to fit in and not get arrested two thousand years ago. They were stoning Christians back then. His advise wasn't intended to be taken out of context.

Sometime, read "Letters From the Earth" by Mark Twain. He was religious but he took down a lot of religious nonsense. Einstein and other great scientists believed in God too.

[Dookus]

1. No, sorry

they don't. There are countless things in the Bible that are scientifically inaccurate.

And why should the Bible be the gold standard? What about all the thousands of other religions that exist or have existed?

Einstein very clearly did NOT believe in "a personal God", as he wrote.

[Melodybe]

4. God does not play dice with the universe: Einstein

then how can he play dice?

I am just playing devils advocate though, Einstein chose to believe in something rather than nothing. I myself believe in something. Be it a personal god then maybe not, but I believe that there is structure to the universe and everything in it.

[K-W]

11. That statement was not meant to be religious.

He simply meant that the universe must have order, a belief he held entirely seperately of his religious views.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Yeah, And.. Einstein was Wrong.

Einstein couldn't get around quantum physics. Didn't like it, didn't like it's weird implications.

His position paper that he came up with, with Rosen and Podolsky, attempted to show that quantum physics had to be wrong because if it was true, at least one of several very weird phenomena would be implied as part of the description of the universe we live in... including "Spooky action at a distance", or non-locality (instantaneous superluminal quantum interconnectedness) ..Well, aside from the fact that quantum physics has been verified time and again, in the past decade non-locality, as per Bell's theorem, has been verified experientially as well. So, as much as religious folk like to bandy about that quote, it looks like Einstein was wrong, wrong, wrong on Quantum Physics.

Personally, I think that "dice" probably exist, "the universe" maybe -in one of several senses-, but... "god"? Nope.

[K-W]

19. He wasnt wrong per se

Seemingly chaotic data doesnt prove a chaotic basis to the world. While Einstien was very wrong to write off the study of quantum mechanics as insigificant to his studies, making his studies obsolete, his statement about order in chaos has certainly not been proven wrong.

What quantum theory has proven is that things are alot more complicated than Einstein thought, he thought that he was onto the end of physics, it turns out physics has a very long way to go.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Yeah. I look at the world and I see order, order, order...

(/sarcasm off)

Hail Eris. I'm done with this thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. I believe the structure is imposed from within--->outward

via the act of perception, not the other way around.

[K-W]

24. How is that more likely than an ordered universe?

You are just changing the location of the unexplained order, not explaining it. Either way our concept of order doesnt currently mesh with data. If everything is fundementally chaos order shouldnt really exist anywhere.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. It's more likely because it gels with experientially validated theory

specifically quantum theory. The wave function doesn't collapse until it is perceived.

And, yeah, I'm changing the location of the unexplained order... But It's to a location that I can find, and I know exists, at least as much as I know anything- I know I Am, and I know that I'm here. Can't say the same for "God".

[K-W]

46. Theories cannot be validated per se

they can only fail to be disproven.
You are going above and beyond what has been proven by quantum theory.

Quantum theory doesnt disprove order, it disproves our previous concept of order. Whether or not there is an order deep down is a belief and cannot be proven or disproven, so please do not claim that it has been.

You may know that you are there, but science doesnt know that. You are simply twisting your concept of order to fit with your concept of quantum mechanics and creating a system that makes sense to you, which is fine, we all do that, but dont make claims that your system is right and someone elses is wrong. If science has taught us one thing it is that our conception of the world shoudl always be considered a theory waiting to be disproven and replaced by a better theory and that truth is an ideal we can probably never reach.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. I'll make whatever claims I feel like, thanks..

But I don't think I did that. If you follow this thread up to it's root, you will clearly see the words "I Believe" in my first post.

"they can only fail to be disproven.
You are going above and beyond what has been proven by quantum theory.
Quantum theory doesnt disprove order, it disproves our previous concept of order. Whether or not there is an order deep down is a belief and cannot be proven or disproven, so please do not claim that it has been."

I'm not really sure what you're so uptight about, here. If you're so sure that reality is such a rock-solid affair, you've got nothing to worry about.. Certainly not the "claims" of someone like myself. But, beyond that, you've just said nothing can be proven, essentially, at the most fundamental level. (On that we probably agree more than you know.) Secondly, are you asserting that quantum physics doesn't have a special, fundamental role for the act of observation? Whether or not the act of observation truly collapses the wave function, that's sure as hell what seems to be going on.. (Either that, or, if you want to get all Wheeler about it, the universe splits in two) If I'm so flatulatingly wrong, please explain to me your interpretation of the famous two-slit experiment, o swami.

[genius]

5. Check your translation. If you are reading English, you can't criticize

the Bible. Einstein also wrote about his belief in God.

[Dookus]

15. really?

so it's a translation error that says Pi=3? A translation error that the Sun was "stopped" in the sky during Joshua's battle? (Note: the bible doesn't say the Earth stopped moving - it said the SUN stopped moving)

It was a translation error that said an iron axe head floated on water?

It was a translation error that said rabbits chew their cud?

It was a translation error that said bats are birds?

Damn...

[DrWeird]

22. Do you speak ancient Hebrew?

Well then, you can't just say errors in the Bible are "translation errors" whenever it helps your case.

[genius]

89. Bible scholars check translations word by word using the Hebrew and Greek

I used to belong to a church where everyone checked the Hebrew and Greek over and over again because they wanted to be accurate in their reasoning. Accepting that the Bible has more to say than the translations would indicate does not in any way put down the other major religions of the world. All religions have value.

By the way, if you want to see proof of God's existance, try doing a fire walk some time. Seeing proof that there is something beyond obvious reality is an important experience for a lot of people.

[sangh0]

6. He didn't say the Bible goes hand in hand with science

He said RELIGION goes hand in hand with science.

Einstein very clearly did NOT believe in "a personal God", as he wrote.

Neither do most religious people.

[Dookus]

8. let's see...

he says "religion goes hand in hand with Science" and then gives examples from the Bible.

It's reasonable to assume he's equating the bible with religion.

As to Einstein, first and foremost, what he believed is absolutely irrelevant. But secondly, he very clearly did NOT believe in a God that in would be recognized by any major religion today. People can refer to God as a metaphor without actually believing in one.

I don't know about most religious people, but I know christians believe in a personal God.

[sangh0]

27. A lion is a cat, but not all cats are lions

he very clearly did NOT believe in a God that in would be recognized by any major religion today

Not true, but even if it were, so what? Does one's personal vision of God need to be endorsed by a major religion in order to be considered religion?

I don't know about most religious people, but I know christians believe in a personal God.

Maybe the ones you know, but not all Christians believe in a personal God. In fact, it's a matter of debate within the Christian population. That's why many make such a big deal over whether or not one "accepts Jesus Christ as your Savior"

[Dookus]

42. Really?

a personal god refers to a god that interacts in the affairs of man. Are you saying many christians don't believe in that? Then why pray? Why did Jesus urge people to pray if it's pointless?

[sangh0]

48. Not all Christians believe God interacts in the affairs of man

It's an integral part of the religious debate between those who think that getting into heaven depends on "good acts" and those who think it's "God's grace"

Then why pray? Why did Jesus urge people to pray if it's pointless?

Just because prayer won't get God to help you or anyone else, that does not necesarily mean that it's useless.

[Dookus]

53. sangh0

You simply cannot redefine "religion" to the point where it has no meaning.

It is a basic tenet of Christianity that God intervenes in the affairs of man. Sending Jesus to earth is the prime example.

[K-W]

55. Indeed, it is a good example of a modern trend in spirituality

As religious 'facts' get disproven from science, one defense is to try and obscure the beliefs in ones belief system by making the faith aspects very vague.

[sangh0]

58. Who redefined religion?

I posted my opinions concerning Christianity, and I've said nothing about how the word "religion" is defined. Please dont confuse "religion" with "Christianity" (if that is indeed what you're doing here)

It is a basic tenet of Christianity that God intervenes in the affairs of man. Sending Jesus to earth is the prime example.

There are many Christians who interpret that differently than you realize. Some Christians believe that Jesus's appearance was the result of God's "master plan" and not the result of God's desire to interfere with the affairs of man. Some Christians see creation as the building of a cosmically spiritual machine, and Jesus' appearance as part of the "machines" normal operation.

Christianity is far more diverse than many Americans give it credit for, and I hold the fundamentalists responsible for that. If you were to travel around the Middle East, you find all sorts of Christian sects with beliefs that would probably astound you.

[Dookus]

60. The fact

that you can find esoteric examples doesn't change the fact that God's intervention on Earth is a basic tenet of every major denomination of Christianity.

Redefining everything to the point of meaninglessness is silly.

[sangh0]

63. I see

IMO discussions of religion are often influenced by the very American idea that Christianity, as it's practiced in the US, is the same as religion, and that it's reasonable to limit our examinations to religion as it's practiced in the US. If you think my viewpoint is based on esoteric examples, it may be because we have some very different points of view wrt religion.

Most Christians do not live in the US, and the way they practice their religion, and their religious beliefs, can be quite different than what you see here in the US. Throughout it's history, Christianity has proven to be very adaptive and has a long history of incorporating the religious practices and beliefs of other peoples in order to persuad those people to become Christians. That's how the Virgin Mary, who is barely mentioned in the Bible, became such an important part of the Catholic practice.

I suspect that what you call "redefining religion" is merely the result of our approaching this issue from different places.

[K-W]

66. Ive never heard anyone anywhere ever claim that.

Ive been in America for my entire life and Ive never met a single person who thinks all religious people are christians. You are the one who is misunderstanding america, not america of you.

Nobody here thinks that, understand? That is not the issue here.

You are trying to make religion a word that is not tied to irrational beliefs, which is impossible, religion is defined by irrational beliefs. It doesnt matter whether you are a christian, a muslim, or a buddhist.

That is what you are discussing here, not whether all religion is christianity, that claim was never made by anyone, so please stop debating it.

[sangh0]

70. I didn't say "People think all religious people are Christians"

I said some people confuse discussion about religion with discussions about Christianity. I'm sorry for the confusion.

You are trying to make religion a word that is not tied to irrational beliefs, which is impossible, religion is defined by irrational beliefs.

Religion is not defined by irrational beliefs. Believing that it is is an irrational belief, which might explain why you have provided no reason for believing that religion is based on irrational beliefs.

Can you describe the irrational beliefs that Buddhism is based on?

[K-W]

74. You said that one post ago.

"IMO discussions of religion are often influenced by the very American idea that Christianity, as it's practiced in the US, is the same as religion"

That is what you said. I dont see any other way to read that other than that you think some americans think that all relgion is christianity.

As far as your very confused definition of religion, religion must, by definition include concepts that are believed only because they are tenets of the religion and not because they are rational.

Buddhism is a very spiritual religion and holds many irrational beliefs. The concept of rebirth is obviously an irrational belief, it is not based on observations, it is just believed. Even if you are more of a Zen Buddhist who has discarded rebirth as a belief, you believe there is a state of existance that can be reached through practicing buddhism. This is a belief based not on fact or logic, but on faith, and thus irrational.

[sangh0]

75. Not the same

"IMO discussions of religion are often influenced by the very American idea that Christianity, as it's practiced in the US, is the same as religion"

is not the same as

"People think all religious people are Christians"

In one sentence, the subject is "religious discussion". In the other, the subject is "religious people"

BTW, you didn't answer my question: Can you describe the irrational beliefs that Buddhism is based on?

[bloom]

69. "every major denomination"

I don't think it's silly to redefine ones religion based on what one knows. I know that's not what you said - but I believe that is what a lot of people do. In fact, I think it is what ALL seriously religious people do.

[jimshoes]

14. Einstein hedged a little when

asked about his belief in God with this statement "I believe in Spinoza's God etc..." (see full text below).

While the argument over his birthday present had been going on, the theory of relativity had been used to pull him into a religious controversy from which there emerged one of his much-quoted statements of faith. It began when Cardinal O'Connell of Boston, who had attacked Einstein's General Theory on previous occasions, told a group of Catholics that it "cloaked the ghastly apparition of atheism" and "befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His Creation." Einstein, who had often reiterated his remark of 1921 to Archbishop Davidson-"It makes no difference. It is purely abstract science"-was at first uninterested. Then, on April 24, Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, faced Einstein with the simple five-word cablegram: "Do you believe in God?" "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists," he replied, "not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Years later he expanded this in a letter to Solovine, the survivor of the Olympia Academy. "I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza," he wrote. " I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason."

http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~lesikar/einstein/Spinoza.html

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Listen, I'm sorry...

but you keep making these assertions.

"Einstein very clearly did NOT believe in "a personal God", as he wrote.
Neither do most religious people."

Maybe YOU don't. But "Most religious people" DO. Something like 60 percent of the American People believe that the Bible's take on "Creation" is LITERALLY TRUE... frightening as that statistic may be. So, you think that "most religious people" don't believe in a personal god? Which religious people are you hanging around? Because I don't think they're representative.

[sangh0]

31. Surprisingly, many religious people are NOT Americans

I don't know about most religious people, but I know christians believe in a personal God.

There are plenty of Hindus in India who would disagree with your assertion that most of the religious people believe in a personal God. And don't get me started on the Buddhists, who don't necesarily believe in ANY God at all.

So, you think that "most religious people" don't believe in a personal god? Which religious people are you hanging around? Because I don't think they're representative

Hindus and Buddhists, and they are more representative of the worlds religious population than American Christians.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Okay-- fair enough. But for the purposes of debate here

I consider "religion", particularly as it relates to "god" (singular) to imply western-style religon. Particularly in terms of Albert Einstein's quote.

Buddhism, as I understand it, isn't so much a religion as an cogent analysis of the problem of being combined with a set of prescriptions on how to deal with it. There is no "god" in Buddhism, at least as I understand it.

[sangh0]

40. I don't accept that limitation

I think limiting this to western style religions is part of the reason why so many of the non-religious have a mistaken perception of what religion is and what the religious believe.

And Buddhism is most certainly a religion, even if it does not require a belief in God's existence. It is a non-theistic religion.

[Warren DeMontague]

That's all well and good, but..

for the purposes of political discussion in the United States, everything I've said stands.

And, in the context of Einstein saying "god", I think it's safe to assume he meant some variation on the judeo-christian diety.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. Dupe

n/t

[22181]

2. An interesting read...

One night I was driving and listening to public radio and they were interviewing this man who was talking about biblical stuff as history, not just as dogma. At first I thought he was a historian, not a religious person. Turns out, he's a bishop.

I'm not religious but I bought one of his books to read, just to see what his views were. I used to be a Christian, but got turned off to religion because "Christians" as a whole are some nasty, mean, ugly and bigoted people. In his book I could see a glimpse of religion that I could handle, but at this point I haven't really moved beyond that.

Here's a website about him:
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/

His books call for a reformation of Christianity. Here's a passage that he wrote about Darwin:

Next came Charles Darwin who related human life to the world of biology more significantly than anyone had heretofore imagined. He also confronted the human consciousness with concepts diametrically opposed to the traditional Christian world view. The Bible began with the assumption that God had created a finished and perfect world from which human beings had fallen away in an act of cosmic rebellion. Original sin was the reality in which all life was presumed to live. Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation out of which human life was still evolving. Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin as the Church had taught for centuries; we were evolving, and indeed are still evolving, into higher levels of consciousness. Thus the basic myth of Christianity that interpreted Jesus as a divine emissary who came to rescue the victims of the fall from the results of their original sin became inoperative. So did the interpretation of the cross of Calvary as the moment of divine sacrifice when the ransom for sin was paid. Established Christianity clearly wobbled under the impact of Darwin's insights, but Christian leaders pretended that if Darwin could not be defeated, he could at least be ignored. It was a vain hope.

Another interesting passage he wrote:

It is my conviction that such a moment is facing the Christian world today. The very heart and soul of Christianity will be the content of this reformation. The debate which has been building for centuries has now erupted into public view. All the past ecclesiastical efforts to keep it at bay or deny its reality have surely failed and will continue to do so. The need for a new theological reformation began when Copernicus and Galileo removed this planet from its previous supposed location at the center of the universe, where human life was thought to bask under the constant attention of a humanly defined parental deity. That revolution in thought produced an angle of vision radically different from the one in which the Bible was written and through which the primary theological tenets of the Christian faith were formed.

[LostInAnomie]

3. Correct me if I am wrong...

... but Einstein was an atheist throughout his life until he was towards the last few years of his life. A last minute recant seems cowardly to me.

[sangh0]

7. It was not a "last minute recant"

Even you acknowledge it was in the last YEARS of his life.

[LostInAnomie]

9. Sounds like it to me...

... a lot of atheist live their whole life not believing because they don't fear death. Toward the end they get scared because they know the end is near and hope a frenzy of faith will save their souls.

[K-W]

17. I suppose it happens, it certainly isnt alot of atheists though.

Some atheists when confronted with the stress of dying might reach out to religion for comfort. I suppose it depends on the particular religion as to when the cutoff time is for adopting it, I dont see how this is different than people in any stressful situation reaching out to religion.

You are oversimplifying things greatly. Catagories in belief systems are horribly unsatisfactory. Especially in our society, beliefs differ with each indidvidual. Most people have some spirituality, including athiests, they have some belief system, defined or otherwise, often god comes and goes into it as they try to reconcile what they are taught and told with what they observe and with waht they believe.

Einstein had spirituality and spent his life trying to define exactly what it was he believed in, like many people. His belief system was constantly changing as is almost everybodies.

[Dookus]

13. You are wrong

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.

[DrWeird]

10. Look, scientifically the Bible's full of crap.

You'll never reconcile the literal interpretation of the Bible with science. Nor should you try to.

[Endangered Specie]

25. Ther is No scientifically speaking when it comes to the Bible...

The bible deals in morality and ethics, its not a science or history text.


Religon and Science are two different fields that coexist in completely seperate realms, trying to transplant one to another realm is futile.

[DrWeird]

32. Agreed.

To try and stretch those six days of genesis into 4.5 billion years so it fits what actually happened is ridiculous.

[Endangered Specie]

49. If a genesis day is longer than a normal day...

How come Sunday ain't longer?

[genius]

88. According the the Genesis definition, a day could be a billion years.

[handywork]

12. I know a lot of people that do this...

You basically have to if you are going to take the bible literally...

You twist what it says to fit what you want it to mean. 7 days could be 7 million years and on and on. Things like this piss me off. it says 7 days and that is what it means. That is why I think the bible is crap and I think even less of the people who try to squeeze their beliefs into it.


www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

[Endangered Specie]

21. The Bible is NOT meant to be read literally

Doing so is like reading Aesops Fables literally, you completly miss the context and end up thinking forest animals speak fluent English.

Just because something is literal fiction (story telling) does not mean its without merit.

[K-W]

26. Religious people dont think the bible is fiction. EOM

[DrWeird]

29. The smart ones do.

Anybody who believes literally that Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark actually existed have some screws loose.

It's rather obvious that they're parables, not non-fiction accounts of actual historical events.

[Endangered Specie]

33. well, its obvious from your perspective...

(not saying your wrong), just trying to point out that, from their viewpoint, they are right and you have screws loose.

To defeat their argument, we introduce a few bite of fact (like trying to stuff 2 of every animal plant bacteria fungi and virus on a ship and have food for 40 years, not to mention keeping them from eating each other after the flood).

Dont just say their wrong, offer a little evidence, its not hard.

[DrWeird]

41. Look, I shouldn't have to prove Noah's Ark didn't happen.

First off, nobody would dispute that the older "Epic of Gilgamesh" is mythological. And the Biblical story is pretty much a complete rip off of "Gilgamesh" down to the details.

Then there's the utter ridiculousness of the story itself.

[Endangered Specie]

47. If you refuse to present evidence, you are behaving just like...

the people with "screws loose". It may seem obvious to us, but what they believe they feel is JUST as obvious. Im trying to say that you cant just claim "this is right, that is ridiculous" without including a little evidence.

"First off, nobody would dispute that the older "Epic of Gilgamesh" is mythological" -- People will dispute anything, Creationists might claim it was a "close try" but our version got it right.

[Endangered Specie]

30. That is not entirely true...

Many people who are religious read the bible figuratively. When I say fiction I mean literal fiction (like aesop's). Most people take fiction to mean not true on any level (conrete and abstract). The word fiction gets a bad rep.

Of course there are somewho read it literally, whether they are religious or not is up for debate. You can derive many religions/denominations from one book, it all depends on intepretation.

[K-W]

35. Your just splitting hairs.

Some people believe in the whole bible, some people believe in parts of it.

Reading the bible as a fable is not being religious. If you believe that it is a book of stories written by people to illustrate lessons, you are being philosophical, not religious.

[Endangered Specie]

43. Im not splitting hairs...

Im talking from experience, having enountered alot of religious people who dont read their holy books like they were a history textbook.

"If you believe that it is a book of stories written by people to illustrate lessons, you are being philosophical, not religious."

Maybe so, but religious folk go further than that, they ALSO believe the messages (lessons), that is where the faith (and hence religion) comes in.

If you study the bible for intellectual interest that is philosophy.
If you study the bible for guidance (or "the way") that is religion.

Study can be literal or figurative, depending on the person.

[K-W]

52. Your definition of religion is not very useful

By your definition, many psychology books are religious texts.

The destinction is faith, not interest. If you read the bibles as advice from some people to other people, no different than advice from anyone except what you see as its validity as advice, then that is not religion.

If you believe that the advice in that book is different than other advice, that it is "the way" as you put it. Meaning that it is truth, advice that derives validity from a metaphysical source, then yes, that is religious.

But in that case you are still claiming an unproveable truth and are not being purely figurative.

[sangh0]

56. Not true.

By your definition, many psychology books are religious texts.

Phsychology books are not filled with spiritual metaphors.

[K-W]

59. You are running around in circles here.

You can read the bible as fables, or you can read it as something spiritual. To do the latter is religious, to do the former is not.

[sangh0]

64. I can do both

so am I "religious" and "not religious" at the same time?

[K-W]

67. No, you cant do both.

YOu cant view the bible as both a story with advice no different than a fable and a book containing spiritual information.

They are mutually exclusive. Either the bible is like a fable, just advice written by human beings, or the bible holds spiritual truths.

YOu can read it as spiritual advice, that is fine, but that is not the same as a fable.

[sangh0]

71. Speak for yourself

I can, even if you don't understand how I do it.

[Nikia]

79. As I've talked more as well as wrote and read, I realize this

We all have our own mythologies about things. The things that I notice about fiction writing as well as many biographies that are supposed to be non fiction is that they happen too perfectly. We tell stories to our families and friends like this too. Everything has a point and everyone does things for a reason and characters are good or evil or go through a change that make them that way. Real life isn't that way. Life often seems random and to have no point. Most of us our both good and evil from a variety of definitions. Even if we are headed a certain direction in life, we often have many moments of weakness and make many of the same mistakes, sometimes just because we are stupid.
Anyway, my point is that the Bible was written for a point of revealing religious truth. It is a collection of stories that I believe were mostly based on real events. Some things might have happened a bit differently. That happens with all stories that are supposed to make a point. The truth becomes more important than the facts.
Maybe, I did not do a good job of explaining what I mean. To get a good grasp on it, think about the stories you tell about your life and things that happened. Think about the stories your parents and grandparents tell. Read a few autobiographies.

[genius]

90. Well said.

This is an excellent explanation of how the Bible was written.

[sangh0]

34. I am religious, and I think the Bible is fiction

I guess that shoots your "fact" to Hell.

[K-W]

38. Or maybe you are being oversensitive and I didnt mean all religious people

lets not make too many assumptions here

[Endangered Specie]

44. you worded it so that it appears you meant all, as a general statement.

Remember to choose wording carefully.

[sangh0]

45. Or maybe

you are oversensitive to being proven wrong and admitting your mistake, because the words you did post DO mean "all of the religious". If I were insulted, I would have insulted you back. If you re-read my post, you'll see that theonly thing I criticized was your false assertion about what "the religious" believe.

lets not make too many assumptions here

How about if we start by not making assumptions about what the other one is feeling?

[K-W]

51. I didnt make a mistake, for goodness sake.

As you rightly pointed out, saying that all religious people believe in the bible would be assinine. Of course that isnt what I am saying. It boggles my mind that you would even think I was saying that.

My statement was, as can clearly be seen in the thread map, in the context of a discussion. Now the fact that you chose the most outlandish interpretation of my words is not my fault.

Im sorry I suggested you were oversensitive, I was trying to rationalize your reading of my post.

[sangh0]

54. You did make a mistake

You said "Religious people dont think the bible is fiction. EOM"

When you mention a group without qualifying it, you are referring to the entire group and everyone in it, and even if the context your post was made, it refers to ALL religious people. And in the context, saying that "SOME religious people think the bible is fiction, and some do not" would be assinine because it would be a statement of little relevance and little significance.

What point does "Some do and some don't" make?

[K-W]

57. Now you are twisting the english language.

John: Nobody wears furry hats anymore.
Steve: Russian people do.

Clearly in this discussion Steve was not claiming that all Russian people do, simply that hat wearing is a behavior seen amonst Russian people and that being russian is the factor that destinguishes them as a group where some of the members wear that type of hat.

My statement fell into this context.

A: People dont believe the bible is true.
B: Religious people do.

Clearly I didnt mean that all religious people do, just that as a catagory, religous people would be where to find people who do believe in the bible and that thier being religious is the factor that destinguishes them from others. The very act of believing that the bible is true makes a person religious, thus my choice of that destinction in my description.

Can we stop this now? I didnt mean all religious people, can you accept that please?

[sangh0]

61. Regardless of your intent

the words you posted do mean that ALL religious people believe the Bible isn't fiction. I went by the words and what they mean, and pointed out that your statement was inaccurate, For that you assumed I was "over reacting".

I didn't ascribe any emotions to you, or remark on your character. My post addressed the content of your post, and what it meant. Even if I missed your intended meaning, I didn't respond with a personal attack. You responded by making an assumption about my emotional state and my character.

[K-W]

62. If you wont read my posts, this discussion is over.

I just showed you very clearly that in the english language what I said did not mean that all religious people believe in the bible. I did not say it, I did not mean it.

You falsely interpreted what I wrote. It is acceptable in this language to use the phrasing I used to mean that only some members of a grouping do something, but that that thing is a charecteristic of members of that group in comparison to other groups. I see where you were misled, and im sorry you were misled, but I didnt say anything wrong.

Im done squabbling over this. But in the future perhaps you should give people the benefit of the doubt and not jump to the conclusion that they are saying the most rediculous interpretation of a phrase.

[sangh0]

65. And I said that regardless of your intent

and regardless of whether I misinterpreted your words, *I* did not respond with an attack on your emotional state and character, while that's exactly what you did.

Your grammatical usage may be correct, but it doesnt excuse you for making a personal attack.

[K-W]

68. Im sorry I hurt your feelings.

It was not meant as an attack.

[sangh0]

72. And again, you make it personal

Regardless of how I feel, it was both wrong, and against DU rules, to make a personal attack because I misinterpreted what you said. If I had personally attacked you, you'd be right to respond in kind.

It was not meant as an attack.

C'mon! Saying that I was over-reacting was obviouslt not meant to be flattering. I may have been wrong with your intentions once, but I'm certain that wasn't meant to flatter.

[genius]

91. Ever hear of parables?

A lot of stories were placed in the Bible to make a point. They may or may not have been true. You can't take everything literally.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

28. Regardless of the fallacy that the Bible = Religion...

I believe there's a fundamental disconnect between religion and science, such that they cannot truly be said to "go hand in hand."

The scientific method starts with a hypothesis and then engages in rigorous inquiry to test that hypothesis, all the while prepared to reject any and all hypotheses that don't conform to the results of this rigorous testing.

By stark contrast, religion starts with the answer, and no amount of empirical data or inquiry will change the adherent's belief. Look at Creationism. The very term "Creation Science" is a horrible, horrible oxymoron. That's not science at all, because they start with the conclusion and then work from there to disregard or discredit any data that doesn't fit the predetermined conclusion.

[genius]

92. But science does back up religion

There have been tons of medical studies showing that belief has an incredible effect on medical conditions. Ernest Holmes had an absolute standard for Religious Scientist practitioners. If they treated for a medical condition and it was not cured, their treatment failed and they needed to work on their belief.

This is also the reason that Christian Scientists are opposed to doctors. The trouble with Cristian Science is that most people can't be expected to start with a clear belief. People have been programmed by society and people aren't that perfect. Religious Scientists (part of a spin-off religion) believe in doing whatever works - including using doctors, etc.


The Hindus have been doing fire-walks for centuries. Buddhists also do them. Some fire-walks are a football stadium in length. They have brought in all kinds of testing equipment and have dispelled all the supposed explanations. The most interesting study involved using an EEG machine. What they found was that the brain waves changed and matched those of most faith healers who had been previously tested, leading some to speculate the people may have burned and instantly healed themselves.

[Solly Mack]

37. the need to label..the need to create order

it goes by many names...


to aid understanding....to give purpose

to make sense of...


it goes by many names


some based in science

some based in religion

science seeks to find that order

religion claims to know it already

sometimes people say "god" but they really mean "order" when they do

and sometimes people say "god" and don't know they really mean "order"

for them, "god" answers the question of "order"

for the scientist, "god" doesn't even scratch the surface

[RC]

50. Try this if you think Mr. Clemens was religious

http://www.deism.org/marktwain.htm

He was an atheist.
There is more where that came from.

BTY, most famous people that did more good than harm were not very religious.

[spooky3]

83. You're right about Mark Twain, RC--here's another website with evidence.

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/1130almanac.htm

[genius]

87. Mark Twain was a Christian Scientist.

Just because he wasn't a right-wing Christian doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian.

[dave29]

73. Religion has been on the planet

far less time than Science. But then again, no one noticed.

I often think of the Granite used to make these massive ten commandments monuments that people get all worked up about. I think about where that Granite came from. I think about the billions of years it has existed on the Earth before it became a symbol for "God and his wishes for mankind". I think about human beings only showing up in the very last tenths of a percentage of our latest orbit as the "solar system" around the center of our galaxy.

I think about all these things and I realize, we are debating the wrong thing. Science and Religion are methods we use to make sense of the Universe around us. Neither has proven or disproven God.

We should all stop acting like we know what the hell is going on, because, I hate to say it, we don't.

There is no agreed upon rulebook, just the common ground we have beneath our feet.

[Dookus]

78. I don't think that's even remotely true

Religions have been around since the very earliest days of mankind. The scientific method is a few hundred years old.

[dave29]

82. I should have been more clear

I meant the things that make up "Science" (nature).

Religion obviously sprouted first, in times when people were not shrouded at night by city lights, and they had to make meaning of the billions of little lights they saw in the sky. They had no womb of Science to protect them from nature. The weather and other phenomenon played a big role.

God may or may not have shown up about 5000 years ago (a good 150,000 years or so after the first humans, mind you) to make a big ruckus, and stuck around until about 2000 years ago, when he left for less contentious climes - with only a heap of manuscripts for people to try to make sense of.

Previous to that were billions of years of no religion, unless the dinosoars and other beasts of the day had a spirituality hidden outside the fossil record.

[depakid]

76. Einstein believed in the "God of Spinoza"

and Spinoza's concept of God was altogether different than usual Judeo Christian construct.

Moreover, science and religion are antithetical- science relies on observation, experimentation, and repetition. In short- rationality and proof. Relgion relies on faith- no proof required. While many scientists are able to reconcile their work with their religious beliefs- that doesn't mean that they walk hand in hand.

[dave29]

80. religion closely mirrors Science

and vice versa.

I've noticed a great deal of "observation", "experimentation", and certainly a grand amount of "repitition" in Religion. Your sentiment is correct, but the reality is much murkier.

Many Scientists "believe" in a theory they devise in much the same way devout people "believe" in God.

Both Science and Religion are creations of Human Beings - neither of which alone has been satisfactory in reigning in "immoral behavior" or helping to point towards a specific "truth". We have countless interpretations instead, and much faster and interconnected ways to talk about them ;)

Both have done great benefit, and great harm. Both have led to countless deaths - and both have ignited the imaginations of the generations. They have been the root of great people, and the downfall of others.

Faith is much more complex than just "belief". There are constant measurements made in the heart of the believer which test that faith, and these measurements lead to a working rhythmn that one senses as their spiritual "truth", a "law", if you will, of their human nature. The Scientific Method works the same way, just more overtly - testing the world mostly outside the mind, although neuroscience is now tapping the very depths of our perceptions.

We seek meaning from both religion and science. In a nutshell, the most important part of that statement is to remember - at a base level - we seek meaning.

[depakid]

86. That was a thought ful post

Lots there to ponder- I think perhaps you're right, the lines are lot blurrier than than I intitially stated-

The point about seeking meaning was paricualrly insightful.

[Misinformed01]

77. Einstein was a Socialist too, so what? Oh and I think if he believed at...

...all in a deity it was with a small "g" not a "G".

Just my two cents.

[opihimoimoi]

81. Bill Mahr sez " I would rather trust in the guys with the compass,

not those guys using chicken entrails to read...."