Establishing an ethical relationship between Science and Religion.

[Biochemist]

... This is offensive. You imply that atheists and agnostics are incapable of following, or teaching high moral standards...

Interesting Eco.

 

One of the best suported logical arguments against atheism is the apparently ubiquitous prevalence of some moral standards. Moral standards (by definition) have no basis unless there is a list of behaviors or ideas that are "right" or "wrong". Atheists have to reference point for such.

 

I suggest that the implication that atheists have no moral standards is a academic position, not a confrontational one.

 

What is the basis for a moral standard (other than a personal opinion at a point in time) for an atheist?

[MagnetMan]

I . Excellence is all but defined as that performance found at the top.

True

The British runner Paula Radcliffe has run marathons in times that would have broken the men's world record half a century ago. Today those times, for men, are mediocre.

 

True

Yes, mediocrity is the norm and regardless of what we do to our standards, it always will be, unless we all become grey undifferentiated in our genius and physical prowess

Not true. Nature propogates excellence and when we see it shining among medicre examples we all recognize the difference. Every person has the capacity to emit a blinding light when the soul forrce is fully evoked.

 

This is offensive. You imply that atheists and agnostics are incapable of following, or teaching high moral standards.

I have never once, in any post, intended to be offensive.

In order to manitain high moral standards, one has to continuously practice a standard of ultruistic discipline that sustains that vision. Whatever that practice may be, if it sustains ethical behavior, then that is religion.

 

 

And religion is very definitely corruptible.[

If an ethic is religiously practiced it is uncorruptible. It is when the duty is slacked off that trouble starts.

 

Who would be dumb enought to use science as a standard of goodness. Please excuse the profanity, but I wish to convey the depth of my amazement. What the **** has science got to do with goodness, or evil for that matter. Science is a methodology for investigating certain aspects of the world. Nothing more, nothing less. Why would you even think of such a nonsensical suggestion?

I would. I believe that science is an ethical religion practiced by ethical men and women and can be used as a reasonable standard of goodness. But it cannot be set as an absolutre standard, until it can find within itself, the humilty to acknowledge that what it seeks to determine, is truly indeterminable - and trhereby treats religion per se. with respect.

[Eclogite]

I believe that science is an ethical religion practiced by ethical men and women and can be used as a reasonable standard of goodness.

I am appalled, amazed, disgusted, astounded, frustrated, bemused, sickened, stunned, and saddened in rapid succession by this bizarre statement. It bears no relationship to science as I understand it. It has no connection with religion as I perceive it. It misinterprets the nature of ethics, obfuscates the meaning of goodness, and flies in the face of common sense.

 

I shall take some time to recover from reading that. I now realise this is the heart of your thesis, and what a strange thesis it is. I hardly know where to begin to refute it, for it as if someone had said to me "Of course, yellow is often. Don't you agree?"

[MagnetMan]

I am appalled, amazed, disgusted, astounded, frustrated, bemused, sickened, stunned, and saddened in rapid succession by this bizarre statement. It bears no relationship to science as I understand it. It has no connection with religion as I perceive it. It misinterprets the nature of ethics, obfuscates the meaning of goodness, and flies in the face of common sense.

 

The intention is not confusion, but always enlightenment,

Religion, as I understand it, means something one does religiously. If i bow before a coke bottle every day and utter a sincere incantation - say "Please fillerup!" Then that is my religion. If I get up every day and go to the lab and religiously persue my research and try not to cheat on my results, then ......?

[Zythryn]

The intention is not confusion, but always enlightenment,

Religion, as I understand it, means something one does religiously. If i bow before a coke bottle every day and utter a sincere incantation - say "Please fillerup!" Then that is my religion. If I get up every day and go to the lab and religiously persue my research and try not to cheat on my results, then ......?

 

I think you should rethink your definition. Or expand what you mean by 'religiously'. Defining religion as something you do 'religiously' is rather circular and not helpful.

 

For example, by your definition, since I get up every day and brush my teeth 'religiously' do I therefore follow a religion of Colgate? ;)

 

Mark

[Boerseun]

The intention is not confusion, but always enlightenment,

Religion, as I understand it, means something one does religiously. If i bow before a coke bottle every day and utter a sincere incantation - say "Please fillerup!" Then that is my religion. If I get up every day and go to the lab and religiously persue my research and try not to cheat on my results, then ......?

"Religiously" in this sense is merely metaphorical for doing it (the lab work in your example) strictly on time and strictly following procedures. You're not finely adhering to the lab process because the process will cause the results to come in. You're adhering closely to the processes in order not to interfere with your experiments and results. "Religiously" as you describe it above is merely a language trick, and has nothing to do with "Religion" as such.

[MagnetMan]

I think you should rethink your definition. Or expand what you mean by 'religiously'. Defining religion as something you do 'religiously' is rather circular and not helpful.

 

For example, by your definition, since I get up every day and brush my teeth 'religiously' do I therefore follow a religion of Colgate? :eek_big:

 

Mark

 

Religion is any repeated exercise that focuses the pyche for set period of time on a single point of reference. If it is done intensely enough, the physical illusion of reality is pierced and the psyche "sees" another dimension of reality. This is inspiration. At times it can be absolutely illuminating (Satori, Samadhi, Ecstacy etc.) Zen stories abound with examples mundane actions suddenly transformed into the profound.You can get it by brushing your teeth. If you do, give that tube a big kiss.

[Eclogite]

Religion is any repeated exercise that focuses the pyche for set period of time on a single point of reference.

I think you would have saved everyone a great deal of time if you had advised us of your bizarre definitions of religion and science at the outset. Your understanding of these two bears no relationship to any I have ever encountered before. . Whatever you are seeking to establish an ethical relationship between it is not religion and science as understood by the rest of the world. Further discussion is pointless

[MagnetMan]

I think you would have saved everyone a great deal of time if you had advised us of your bizarre definitions of religion and science at the outset. Your understanding of these two bears no relationship to any I have ever encountered before. . Whatever you are seeking to establish an ethical relationship between it is not religion and science as understood by the rest of the world. Further discussion is pointless

 

This response has remained unanswered for a week or more. However ineptly I may have represented the need to be decent to each other, it reamins a simple plea for common decency that all can understand. It is this kind of disrespect and the way it seems to be condoned, is what the thread has tried to address.

[InfiniteNow]

Stones in glass houses...

[MagnetMan]

Stones in glass houses...

Perhaps I have also cast a few stones in anger. If so I am sorry. But on the whole I have tried to keep on track,

As I have said, and as this thread has demonstrated, the question about God, is at the root of modern social discord. It comes up in the home, in the classroom, in politics and on the market place. And now, very dangerously, on international ground as well.

 

At the beginning of the science age, scientists were perscuted relentlessly. Now the pendulum has swung to the other end. We have all been raised in a predominantly scientific culture. Our general knowledge is mostly scientifically based. Yet. when one of us stands and says they have spoken to God, then that word is met, if not with outright derision, then with something close to it. That is not ethically right.

 

Science is about physics and proof must always presented on any new revelation. That is fully understandable and acceptible. New revelations in metaphysics cannot do that in the present climate. So, if anything new is to come out of spiritual experience, it can only do so in a climate that respects the word of honor between men of goodwill. I personally have much to say about a life-time of metaphysical reasearch among almost every culture on the planet. I don't want to speak to just the choir - but to men of science as well - for i believe that invisible forms of energy, experienced subjectively, relate directly to certain esoteric implications in nuclear theory. But I find it diffcult to even open my mouth in a science forum.

 

The hostility that I have met on this thread and others, as soon as spirituality has been mentioned, is not all of my own invention. I am not seeking a fight or to challenge science. I am seeking a middle ground for reconciliation - so that I and other scientifically-reared metaphsycians can relate our researches and experiences with the sense that we are speaking to open minds. Dogmatism on either side of the science/religion divide helps nobody.

[InfiniteNow]

Your middle ground may not be located in the same place as someone else's middle ground. You make SO many assumptions... This is where the disagreement comes from. For example, I really do not believe "the question about God, is at the root of modern social discord."

 

That's quite a leap. I'm not being hostile. I just disagree.

[MagnetMan]

Your middle ground may not be located in the same place as someone else's middle ground. You make SO many assumptions... This is where the disagreement comes from. For example, I really do not believe "the question about God, is at the root of modern social discord."

 

That's quite a leap. I'm not being hostile. I just disagree.

 

Which you are entitled to. But then you are also, by implication, making an assumption to which I disagree. My assumption is based on the fact that religious discipline, when not dogmatically administered, is directly concerned with addressing the core of our ethical behavior. Once spiritual concern is properly evoked, people become self-policed. No other force can bring that about in universal terms. Our civil laws are becoming more complex. Our courts are log-jammed. Our prisions are bursting. So congressional government is not at the core of the problem. Science gives us half the peace we are looking for. Religion must supply the other half.

 

Tell us, for instance, what other major issue you think is closer to the root of our domestic and foreign discord?

[InfiniteNow]

My assumption is based on the fact that religious discipline, when not dogmatically administered, is directly concerned with addressing the core of our ethical behavior.

Assumptions, by their very nature, are not based on fact. That's your interpretation of it, not a FACT. Many might say that religion addresses peoples desire to go somewhere after death, and others might say that it is a way to deal with fear of the unknown, and others have other interpetations ad infinitum.

 

 

Once spiritual concern is properly evoked, people become self-policed. No other force can bring that about in universal terms.

Can this force be measured? A force is defined as that which when acting alone causes an object to accelerate.... what you're tallking about is a belief, my friend. And to make an absolute statement like NO other force having the ability to bring about self-policing? Sounds like you've drank some Kool-Aid...

 

I'd accept your POV if you'd at least acknowledge the possibility that you're wrong, or that there were other ways, but you consistently type with blinders on.

 

 

Our civil laws are becoming more complex. Our courts are log-jammed. Our prisions are bursting. So congressional government is not at the core of the problem.

Agreed, not so much with the logic, but certainly with the points.

 

 

Science gives us half the peace we are looking for. Religion must supply the other half.

 

Nope. Another assumption. A personal interpretation. Yet, you present it as fact...

 

 

Tell us, for instance, what other major issue you think is closer to the root of our domestic and foreign discord?

The first life form which distinguished "ouch" from "not ouch" created difference. All life evolved from same source, and the differences available have grown logrithmically. Religion is a pretty recent addition on the geological timeline, and I posit that the sourse of discord came well before humans and some individual's lack of desire to associate with a religious group.

[InfiniteNow]

Btw... there was quite a lot of hosility in the tone of your post, so again... shouldn't throw stones in glass houses unless you're okay getting wet.

[MagnetMan]

Assumptions, by their very nature, are not based on fact. That's your interpretation of it, not a FACT. Many might say that religion addresses peoples desire to go somewhere after death, and others might say that it is a way to deal with fear of the unknown,

Certainly it does that. But the basic religious message is clearly to remind people to maintain ethical behavior. All parables are designed to give examples of good social mores and what happens when society disobeys. Before science evolved out of those Iron Age cultures and came to further enlighten us, those scriptures were vital tools that gave give parents a moral and historical base to teach their chuildren from. That is a universal fact, repeated over and over again in every culture. If that was not so, "culture" would never have happened and nor would science.

 

 

The first life form which distinguished "ouch" from "not ouch" created difference. All life evolved from same source, and the differences available have grown logrithmically. Religion is a pretty recent addition on the geological timeline, and I posit that the sourse of discord came well before humans and some individual's lack of desire to associate with a religious group.

 

Scripted religion did not evolve out of a vacuum as Marx assumed. It is an extension of ancient human spiritual beliefs that originated in a prehistoric spiritual base of animism and shaman mediumship. Our earliest ancestors were universally superstitious. Shamans in Europe, Siberia and Africa and the Americas all practice identical customs. All animists believe that the universe has a soul.

 

"Ouch" is the result of ethical trespass. Pain teaches us the need to become more aware of how one's behavior might affect another detrimentally. This "force" that protects ethical structures, is Natural. Animals suffer too.

 

All these assumptions are based on a life of experience. I have seen it in action everywhere. Sure they are subjective. But they are based on common sense. What this thread is asking you to do, is not put down tools and prostrate yourself. It simply asks for a courteous responce. If you disagree with the way I am making this plea - please address it directly from your own prespective, and leave me and my assumptive views out of it, for the sake of preace.

[InfiniteNow]

Sometimes it's like a blind man begging to be shown the light. No matter how brightly it shines at him, he still doesn't see it... and he keeps asking to be shown.