Do you think Science and Religion can co-exist in a society?

[RoadRunner79]

To which I answer no, if co-existing has some requirement of maintaining the integrity of both in any sense of the current religious field.


To which I concede that they -do-..just that one or the other, inevitably and in every case........loses it's integrity.  It ha to, because the religions we have, today, make falsifiable and falsified claims.  Some better religion, some new religion..could avoid that.  Maybe.  Though I doubt that it would be worth much, sionce it would be avoiding any potential conflict  between itself and reality by framing itself -as- such...and in so doing, remove any claim of concordance -with- reality.

You claim to be a person in whom the two co-exist...but we saw what that looked like in the last person who made a strangley similar claim...didn't we?  Science went right under the bus...immediately, when it so much as rubbed up against some associated religion's claims that the defender in question didn't even believe in himself.  Breathtaking.

What do you think?  Can a person simultaneously accept transubstantiation -and- "lolno still a cracker"?  Do you think that you don't have a cracker.....?  I'm genuinely intrigued.  You belong to a non magical belief-set that has no contradictions in faith, with science?  Or do you simply mean to say, above, that those bits of magic and contradiction don't weigh heavily on you, where they exist by faith?

My grade point average would suggest that I'm capable of separating my religious beliefs from my science. 

(I had to Google "transubstantiation.")

Judaism doesn't oppose science and science doesn't oppose Judaism. That's the position Jews take, so studying science presents no theological problem that I have to work around. When we perceive a conflict between science and religion, we can simply reevaluate. We're allowed to do that because we're Jews, not Christians. We don't play by the same set of rules that they play by. -But even if I was a member of a literalist religion, I could still be a scientist because I could still choose to compartmentalize my two worlds. I've yet to write "G-d did it," in the answer field of an exam, and there are people of other religions that I study with, and I've never known them to write that answer down either.

In fact, religion never even comes up in conversation in my science world, even though I know there are Christians, Muslims and Hindus in my classes.

I don't see any opposition between or need to compartmentalize between scientific and religious beliefs.  In fact, I find that the harmonize quite well.  There are times, that I may need to re-evaluate something, or take a closer look at my assumptions (or the assumptions of others).  Although some don't like that answer.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ever notice that people who are struggling to keep their religion in the rational realm despite the obvious tend to freak out when we point out the required magic?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't see any opposition between or need to compartmentalize between scientific and religious beliefs.  In fact, I find that the harmonize quite well.  There are times, that I may need to re-evaluate something, or take a closer look at my assumptions (or the assumptions of others).  Although some don't like that answer.

You compartmentalized in text form, on these boards........in realtime....in this thread....?

[RoadRunner79]

Care to give some facts to back up these claims.  You may want to read the article I posted


There's a whole lot wrong here!
You may want to know what you are talking about, before you start making claims like this.  Or is there something particular that I have said, which leads you to this conclusion?

You can reconcile theism with biological evolution, because you can reconcile theism with anything, but does such make sense?  Consider the K-T event -- did God steer and/or cause a 8 to 10 diameter asteroid to impact the Earth in the location of the now Yucatan Peninsula releasing the equivalent of 2 million hydrogen bombs?  You can believe this, if you wish; I don't.  Either God caused the event to happen (which means that he is perverse) or he allowed it to happen (which either means that he is perverse, or not powerful, which means that he is not God).

I just want to clarify, but you seem to be taking an opposing position; to the OP, and the often heard (religion doesn't evaluate new info).  I wouldn't say that you can reconcile anything, but I believe what you are speaking of is talking about a general description, in scripture (which I don't believe the intent was to be scientifically exhaustive), vs a more detailed scientific explanation.  Then yes, I don't see any issue with reconciling them.  I don't think that science goes against it; so there isn't a problem.

And to be clear, the post after yours is correct, My position on evolution is dependent on what you are talking about in regards to evolution (and the reasons you give to support it).
As to your other comments, that is an issue; dealing with morality (which if you take a subjective view of morality, then you have no argument), but either way is off topic.

[The Grand Nudger]

Get thee behind me and under the bus, evilution!

[RoadRunner79]

Care to give some facts to back up these claims.  You may want to read the article I posted
http://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/



There's a whole lot wrong here!
You may want to know what you are talking about, before you start making claims like this.  Or is there something particular that I have said, which leads you to this conclusion?

Hey you're the one that said "By the way, I am one who could say, that I don't believe in evolution, I could also say I'm skeptical; and that I believe in evolution. All depends on what you are talking about when you say evolution."

This would be correct (I haven't been given any reasons to change my views in this regard). (kudos for quoting the context by the way). It would also be accurate to say that none of these views (depending on what you are discussing concerning evolution), have come about in regard to my religious beliefs. It's not because of a conflict with my religion. As I have stated in the past, I started out with a view of theistic evolution. Since then, I have learned a lot.

And that guy from the link you provide is not an atheist, but your classical lying-for-Jesus Christian apologetic. For instance this is what that turd writes: "the tedious internet-based "Jesus never existed!" nonsense" - oh so this is only internet invented conspiracy that has nothing to do with scholars. I guess I could call it a blatant lie, but it's just typical statement by delusional Christian.  

---

I mean for starters if it's so obvious that Jesus really existed why doesn't he or maybe even you tell us which Jesus really existed? Ha? Tell me? Was it woo-woo New Age Jesus who embraces gays and lesbians? Or maybe Catholic Jesus and the Orthodox Jesus and those of all the eastern sects in between? Or is it the Snake-Handler’s Jesus? The Pentecostal Jesus? The liberal and the republican Jesus? KKK’s angry Aryan Jesus and the southern gospel choir’s Black Jesus? Seventh-Day Adventist Jesus? The family-friendly Mormon Jesus that also lived in America? Or is it the Jesus being peddled on your doorstep by Jehovah’s Witnesses? But it must be the gentle, loving Quaker Jesus and the dour Calvinist Jesus? Muslim Jesus that lived in Asia after he survived Crucifixion?

But these are all Jesuses of faith, right? There must be some historical Jesus underneath all the miracles bullshit that "real scholars" recognize and have proven him, but again which one? Was the Apocalyptic Prophet real Jesus? Or First-Century Proto-Communist? Or Nonviolent Pacifist Resister? Or Violent Zealot Revolutionary? Or it must be Magician/Exorcist/Faith Healer? And what about Jesus The Essene Heretic? Well it must be Cynic philosopher Jesus the real historical Jesus? Or Conservative Rabbi Jesus that insists keeping old Jewish laws? Or maybe it's Jesus Earthy Hedonist cuz he was described in the Bible as a glutton and a drunk?

---

Funny, I thought that atheism just meant just a lack of belief in a deity. I'm curious, if you consider Bart Erhman, or a number of other atheist scholars, who don't hold a high regard for the "mythers" as liars in this regard as well?
Is this the only reason, that you string him up, and question his lack of belief. On a side note, I find it interesting, that the principles and methods proclaimed by these "scholars", often don't follow into any other areas of historical studies and research. Don't you?

---

I don't see any opposition between or need to compartmentalize between scientific and religious beliefs.  In fact, I find that the harmonize quite well.  There are times, that I may need to re-evaluate something, or take a closer look at my assumptions (or the assumptions of others).  Although some don't like that answer.

You compartmentalized in text form, on these boards........in realtime....in this thread....?

It could be, because some are difficult to have a discussion with; if God comes into the picture at all.   I have found this when discussing basic principles, and even when I am adamant to keep it about logic, and not a particular theological consequence.   Do you have an example in mind, perhaps I can clarify?

[The Grand Nudger]

Examples such as your repeated and documented opinions, on these boards, regarding evilution..including that lovely missive above?  Conversations in which you, ostensibly, participated?

[Aliza]

I don't see it that way, but we can agree to disagree on the matter.

Some "being" whistled up the Universe and you don't think magic was required? And I don't agree to agree with your point by not disagreeing. Don't volunteer my position.

I apologize for volunteering your position.

---

My grade point average would suggest that I'm capable of separating my religious beliefs from my science. 

It really wouldn't....and couldn't?  This honestly isn;t a dig on your intelligence, it's just that being smart or doing well at school doesn't do anything to prevent you from having dissonant views.  Does it help any of those other religious people, who are demonstrably wrong, with their mistaken religious views?  No, no it does not.  

(I had to Google "transubstantiation.")

Judaism doesn't oppose science and science doesn't oppose Judaism. That's the position Jews take, so studying science presents no theological problem that I have to work around. When we perceive a conflict between science and religion, we can simply reevaluate. We're allowed to do that because we're Jews, not Christians. We don't play by the same set of rules that they play by. -But even if I was a member of a literalist religion, I could still be a scientist because I could still choose to compartmentalize my two worlds. I've yet to write "G-d did it," in the answer field of an exam, and there are people of other religions that I study with, and I've never known them to write that answer down either.

In fact, religion never even comes up in conversation in my science world, even though I know there are Christians, Muslims and Hindus in my classes.

OFC judaism is at odds with science.............................it;s pretty much the main actor in being at odds with science.....?  I'll be honest, I expected something more exotic.......

Is judaism -not- the religion founded upon the fictional narrative that christians call the OT?  Expanded, to include yet more fiction -not- explicitly contained within christendom....omitting the newish partys/...of the testament, which are decidedly christian and decidedly other-than-jewish?

(@ googling transub - didn't learn a thing, did you....... it's fucking gibberish, eh...lol.  They may as well have said nothing - would have worked out better.)

To your first point, any religion is at odds if you choose to make it at odds. Likewise, any religion can work if you choose to make it work. 

Christians founded their religion using a little bit of Judaism, yes, but that's a totally different conversation. Basically, they skipped reading the book and just went off the class notes of a D or F student. Judaism has nothing to do with Christianity. They’re not even similar religions, but everyone thinks they understand Judaism because they think it’s just Christianity without Jesus.
 
Let’s say for argument’s sake that I literally believe that a man named Moshe crossed a marshy sea of weeds that –for whatever reason, tides, magic, G-d, or just good fortune- revealed a handy land bridge so he could make it safely across with the Israelites in tow. Now, suppose I’m asked in a class to calculate how much fuel it will take to launch a rocket a certain amount of meters into the atmosphere. Whether or not I think Moshe crossed a marshy body of water doesn’t factor into how much fuel it’s going to take to get that rocket to the correct altitude.

Let’s suppose that I believe G-d created the universe, and I’m asked to mix a few chemicals together to create a new product. The reaction will work (or won’t work) based on principles of chemistry, not on my personal belief in a deity. Just as a side note, usually when I’m in the lab, the reactions won’t work on the first try because I suck at chemistry. My past lab partner would utter, "Please Jesus, make this work." And so what? It didn't help, and it didn't hurt; it just made her happy. Only having the right ingredients and the right steps ever resulted in a successful experiment. 

Anyway, I don’t see an inherent conflict between religion and science as they deal with different principles all together. Yes, there are those people who are too dumb to learn new things, and yes, usually they’re practicing some whack-a-doodle, fundamentalist religion. I think we need to choose our allies carefully and work with those allies to stamp these religions out. But my position is not to worry so much about whether or not the brilliant, successful scientist who figures out the cure to cancer spends his or her free wondering if there are natural instances where salt water and fresh water won't mix.

[Succubus]

It could be, because some are difficult to have a discussion with; if God comes into the picture at all.   I have found this when discussing basic principles, and even when I am adamant to keep it about logic, and not a particular theological consequence.   Do you have an example in mind, perhaps I can clarify?

It could be that the difficulty you have making yourself understood is the way you express yourself. I rule I've just made up is: if a post requires three readings to make sense, and it still doesn’t make sense; then it's vacuous nonsense. An example:

I don't see any opposition between or need to compartmentalize between scientific and religious beliefs.  In fact, I find that the harmonize quite well.  There are times, that I may need to re-evaluate something, or take a closer look at my assumptions (or the assumptions of others).  Although some don't like that answer.

Regarding the highlight. This is a waste of keyboard ink, it says absolutely nothing. The rest, typo corrected, is even worse. You are using the theologians trick, use a deluge of words to disguise the fact that you have nothing of substance to say. But then you did commit yourself just recently:

...My position on evolution is dependent on what you are talking about in regards to evolution (and the reasons you give to support it)...

Evolution as espoused by Mr Charles Darwin? There are no reasons to support it. There is a mountain facts to support it. No belief required.

[Jehanne]

You can reconcile theism with biological evolution, because you can reconcile theism with anything, but does such make sense?  Consider the K-T event -- did God steer and/or cause a 8 to 10 diameter asteroid to impact the Earth in the location of the now Yucatan Peninsula releasing the equivalent of 2 million hydrogen bombs?  You can believe this, if you wish; I don't.  Either God caused the event to happen (which means that he is perverse) or he allowed it to happen (which either means that he is perverse, or not powerful, which means that he is not God).

I just want to clarify, but you seem to be taking an opposing position; to the OP, and the often heard (religion doesn't evaluate new info).  I wouldn't say that you can reconcile anything, but I believe what you are speaking of is talking about a general description, in scripture (which I don't believe the intent was to be scientifically exhaustive), vs a more detailed scientific explanation.  Then yes, I don't see any issue with reconciling them.  I don't think that science goes against it; so there isn't a problem.

And to be clear, the post after yours is correct, My position on evolution is dependent on what you are talking about in regards to evolution (and the reasons you give to support it).
As to your other comments, that is an issue; dealing with morality (which if you take a subjective view of morality, then you have no argument), but either way is off topic.

Adam & Eve (together, as a couple) did not exist; their existence has been disproven, formally falsified, in that the human race did not descend from two individuals.  Now, if such was not the case (that the human race did, in fact, descend from two parents), then people like you would be saying that the Bible was correct and using scientific findings as proof.