Cosmos redux

[SteveRiley]

Of course, he and the Chinese people are spied upon by the party aparatchek, but that's not any different from NSA here, is it?

Nope. Which is pathetic, really.

Oh -- hello from Savannah!

[jlittle]

Exactly. Attempts to "harmonize" science and religion are doomed to fail.

Well, as one who at least deludes himself as doing that, all I can say is, opinions vary on that.

Both make claims about the nature of the universe. These claims are not compatible. They cannot both be right.

Sounds like a faith position to me; you seem to "believe in" "science", not very scientific, and historically has led people IMO astray, f.ex. Marxism, Freudian psychology, social darwinism, Scientology ... there's a long list.

On the other hand, those religious beliefs that conflict with science seem *to me* to not appreciate creation.

Regards, John Little

[kubicle]

So, ya, I'd live in China any day before I'd spend a second in NK.

Sure, so would I. But that wasn't the point I was making.

I was pointing out the logical inconsistency of deducing that things in one place are better than *everywhere* else based on the premise that things are worse *somewhere* else.

And back on topic:
Science has proven very accurate in describing *how* things happen, but you don't have to follow very far on the path of our scientific knowledge when you reach a point when science does not have an answer to question of *why* things happen (why does the universe exist?, for example).

Science and religion can certainly coexist, but that doesn't mean every religious view is compatible with science. Things go awry when a religion tries to explain *how* things happen. If you look down history, religions have been wrong every time they try to compete with science on *how* things happen.

That doesn't mean religion is incompatible with science, there are still a lot of *why* questions out there.

FTR, I'm not religious, and don't believe in gods of popular religions (but my beliefs could be wrong, as that is a matter of faith, not fact).
But I do know scientists that are religious (and I see no inconsistencies in their world views...they let the science answer the how questions, but that doesn't diminish their faith in a higher being).

[lcorken]

The creation/evolution argument seems silly to me. If there is a God or some sort of cosmic consciousness, why couldn't he have used evolution as a tool to create life and us?

I believe there is some sort of consciousness out there but as regards the various religions on Earth who claim to represent him, he is up there doing one of the following:
A: Shaking his head in disgust.
B: Rolling on a cloud laughing.

I'm not pointing out any particular religion, just a generality.

Ken.

[MoonRise]

I believe there is some sort of consciousness out there but as regards the various religions on Earth who claim to represent him, he is up there doing one of the following:
A: Shaking his head in disgust.
B: Rolling on a cloud laughing.

Ken.

++1

[SteveRiley]

Well, as one who at least deludes himself as doing that, all I can say is, opinions vary on that.

Religion: Earth is flat.
Science: Earth is round.

Religion: the universe is geocentric.
Science: no; Earth orbits the sun, which is part of a galaxy, which is part of a cluster, which is part of ... etc.

Religion: Earth is 6,000 years old and creation occurred twice with two differently-ordered sequences (Genesis 1:1-2:3; Genesis 2:4-25).
Science: Earth is 4.54 billion years old; life evolves in a progressively complex fashion.

Religion: consciousness comes from the soul.
Science: consciousness is an artifact of the brain.

Religion: homosexuality is a choice and is sinful.
Science: homosexuality is a natural biological outcome.

People are free to choose their own opinions, but they are not free to choose their own facts.

Sounds like a faith position to me; you seem to "believe in" "science", not very scientific, and historically has led people IMO astray, f.ex. Marxism, Freudian psychology, social darwinism, Scientology ... there's a long list.

No, I do not believe in science. Science does not admit of belief. Science is a system of hypotheses, experimental validation, and self correction. No belief is required. Faith, on the other hand, absolutely requires belief, defined as holding something to be true with no supporting evidence. Faith is also resistant to self correction, as it begins with a preferred conclusion and then attempts to work backwards to some kind of (usually baseless) explanation.

On the other hand, those religious beliefs that conflict with science seem *to me* to not appreciate creation.

Creation stories do not work within the laws of physics and require supernatural actors. Because science always works within natural laws, the conflict is squarely in the minds of those who wish to perpetuate myth over fact.

[SteveRiley]

but you don't have to follow very far on the path of our scientific knowledge when you reach a point when science does not have an answer to question of *why* things happen (why does the universe exist?, for example).

These can all be boiled down to "why is there randomness?" Or, "what is the purpose of {life | the universe | everything}?" There is no purpose. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. This fact scares the crap out of a lot of people, such that some feel the need to erect a scaffolding of supporting purpose. All that does is create even more fear. If we could just rid ourselves of this need, come to accept that there is no purpose, and as a result live each and every day to its fullest, we'd be in a much better place.

[MoonRise]

........Or, "what is the purpose of {life | the universe | everything}?........."

That has been answered already. It's 42.

[SteveRiley]

Yay, MoonRise hits the softball!

[MoonRise]

Sorry, had to do it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aboZctrHfK8

[PDR60]

Interesting conversation. I was taught that science reveals God. Its mans own straying from the teachings that has resulted in so much misery and suffering. What true Christian would torture another soul for their scientific discoveries? God made man with an inquisitive nature and for man to not use science to reveal the universe that God has made for us is against Gods own plan. The show can be as critical of religion as it wants. Much of what its stating is true. There is no dichotomy between science and religion. One will lead to the other.

[woodsmoke]

Honestly folks I thought this thread would be dead on arrival...

Keep it going if you have comments pro, con, neutral ....whatever.......

THIS...........is what 'The Salon" used to be "about".

woodsmoke

[kubicle]

These can all be boiled down to "why is there randomness?" Or, "what is the purpose of {life | the universe | everything}?"

That's oversimplifying things, but these are actually valid philosophical questions, why is there randomness? and what is randomness?

There is no purpose. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

This is a belief and not a fact. There is no scientific evidence of this either way. While I personally share this belief, I have no knowledge that this is correct. Continuing with the theme, maybe we are a part of a gigantic computer calculating the answer to the meaning of life, universe (and everything else), or we could all be a part of a neurosimulation in order to reduce us into batteries ...the purpose (if one would exist), doesn't necessarily have nothing to do with gods (as depicted in modern or ancient religions).

[kubicle]

Interesting conversation. I was taught that science reveals God. Its mans own straying from the teachings that has resulted in so much misery and suffering. What true Christian would torture another soul for their scientific discoveries? God made man with an inquisitive nature and for man to not use science to reveal the universe that God has made for us is against Gods own plan. The show can be as critical of religion as it wants. Much of what its stating is true. There is no dichotomy between science and religion. One will lead to the other.

That is a tad biblical for my taste, but I can relate to the sentiment...gods that would not want us to learn sound rather petty to me, and hardly worthy of worship.

[vw72]

Interesting conversation. The show can be as critical of religion as it wants. Much of what its stating is true.

I have no problem with the show being critical of religion. However, those criticisms need to be factual and not contrived, otherwise, they are simply a veiled or not so veiled attack on religion. Again, going back to the first episode, with the monk. The implication from the story told was that he was found guilty by the Roman Inquisition (which was different than the famous Spanish one) and burned at the stake for his views on the universe.

The reality is that he was brought before the Roman Inquisition, but it was because of his teachings on Christ, the Catholic Eucharist, Mary, and another number of heresies (in the Catholic Church's view), none of which had to do with the universe. Because of these, none of which having to do with science, he was found guilty. The show conveniently leaves that out to portray him as a martyer for the furthering of science.

A show on science should not manipulate or distort the historical record to prove a point. That is not science, but propaganda and should be discouraged regardless of one's personal belief system.