Science and Religion cannot overlap.

[Mudhammam]

I don't even think that is a necessary claim to make, and is a bit too presumptuous of the capabilities of the human brain IMHO. Instead, I would admonish: accept the inevitably of uncertainty, and acknowledge the only reliable--and therefore, reasonable--means for discovering the deeper truths of reality that demand our reverence; the scientific method, and its guiding, most triumph, philosophical principle, the fecundity of its practice.

---

In what Universe does ignorance of the world demand anyone's respect?

Certainly not yours, your perfect little world.

Perfect only in this one regard: the chains of superstition have no place.

---

Just back on the OP, I'm interested that, rather than discussing the relationship between science and faith, it is mostly a critique of philosophical arguments for God. I think that's quite a different topic, though I do wonder how many people's faith is derived from philosophical argument. I don't think I've yet met a person who came to faith from any philosophical argument (that doesn't, of course, mean it can't and doesn't happen, but I think it must be pretty rare). Those arguments to me seem to be more about just showing that it is not unreasonable to believe in God (they start with reasonable premises and proceed logically to a conclusion; but they are far from certain proofs), and perhaps appeal more to people who already have faith and want some assurance that they have not gone completely bonkers. Even Aquinas, who is frequently quoted, devoted very little time and space to them; he seems to deal with them just in passing.

You bring up Aquinas, a finer example of a person whose philosophy went bonkers I reckon I could hardly conceive. You either have the invisible house of deism or the crooked and ill-designed architecture of religion; a re-examination of the foundation, which is what science does, reveals why the old architects have lost their ability to perform the task. Reason and science work together by starting with sense experience and making small steps of induction and deduction from there, using methods of reduction in the process. At any point in which this becomes divorced from reality, you go back to work on what you already know. Religion makes specific claims that are divorced from our experience and hence, knowledge of cause and effect, long before some vague idea of an ineffable higher power, I'll grant you that, but both must be viewed from a perspective that is tried and tested to be reliable: science. In science, one should know better than to commit to propositions on ground as flimsy and undefined as the God hypothesis; to do so would be unscientific, contrary to the spirit of curiosity and investigation. When the hypothesis doesn't work, we give precedence to new ones. That is, I believe, why we have finally entered, since perhaps the 19th-20th centuries, what can be called the Age of Atheism.

[Polaris]

Science and religion very much overlap...the only thing I don't really care about is the search for alien life...then again, I would think it a waste if I were an atheist as well.

Have you any research papers pertaining to lab experiments on Titivillus or the holy wafer that you'd care to discuss further? I wonder what Prester John would have to say?

Holy water is just water.

[vorlon13]

Jesus Juice on the other hand . . . .

[Jenny A]

No, I'm not troubled by any of those questions. In fact I think they are interesting questions that you raise. I spend quite a bit of time in meditative prayer, and I'm always interested in what is happening neurologically there. For example, I join with Buddhists once a week for mediation and discussion, and I'd be interested to know if our slightly different approaches to meditation have the same or different effects on the brain (I suspect it would be very similar). I'd also be interested in seeing any differences in brain activity between those that have faith and those that don't; I don't see that as a threat to faith, just as I don't see looking at brain activity differences between the blind and the non-blind is a threat to believing that people see things that are real (I'm not trying to stress the 'blindness' of atheism there; I just can't think of an example that does't in some way seem to suggest a difference in sensory capabilities between thesis and atheists).

I would be very interested to know if there is different brain activity differences between atheists and theist, particularly in the case of people like me who didn't go through a period of belief even though raised in a very Christian household. There are a surprising number of us. The difference is not something I consider a lack in myself. Though I do find the ability, practically necessity in some cases to believe puzzling.

Just back on the OP, I'm interested that, rather than discussing the relationship between science and faith, it is mostly a critique of philosophical arguments for God. I think that's quite a different topic, though I do wonder how many people's faith is derived from philosophical argument. I don't think I've yet met a person who came to faith from any philosophical argument (that doesn't, of course, mean it can't and doesn't happen, but I think it must be pretty rare). Those arguments to me seem to be more about just showing that it is not unreasonable to believe in God (they start with reasonable premises and proceed logically to a conclusion; but they are far from certain proofs), and perhaps appeal more to people who already have faith and want some assurance that they have not gone completely bonkers. Even Aquinas, who is frequently quoted, devoted very little time and space to them; he seems to deal with them just in passing.

I would agree with you there. I doubt there is anyone who has every really been convinced in any meaning way by any of the proofs of god. Kierkegaard devoted time to demolishing them himself. He believed that belief was necessary to salvation is if there were proof, there be no salvation. I find this emphasis on faith both inexplicable and charming the way one finds a sweet but dotty old lady charming.

[Mudhammam]

Have you any research papers pertaining to lab experiments on Titivillus or the holy wafer that you'd care to discuss further? I wonder what Prester John would have to say?

Holy water is just water.

You mean this isn't really Jesus' body? Or is that a question "science isn't equipped to deal with?"

[Whateverist]

Holy water is just water.

You mean this isn't really Jesus' body? Or is that a question "science isn't equipped to deal with?"

Still only a problem for a wee mind intent on literalism.

[Dystopia]

Certainly not yours, your perfect little world.

Perfect only in this one regard: the chains of superstition have no place.

---

Just back on the OP, I'm interested that, rather than discussing the relationship between science and faith, it is mostly a critique of philosophical arguments for God. I think that's quite a different topic, though I do wonder how many people's faith is derived from philosophical argument. I don't think I've yet met a person who came to faith from any philosophical argument (that doesn't, of course, mean it can't and doesn't happen, but I think it must be pretty rare). Those arguments to me seem to be more about just showing that it is not unreasonable to believe in God (they start with reasonable premises and proceed logically to a conclusion; but they are far from certain proofs), and perhaps appeal more to people who already have faith and want some assurance that they have not gone completely bonkers. Even Aquinas, who is frequently quoted, devoted very little time and space to them; he seems to deal with them just in passing.

You bring up Aquinas, a finer example of a person whose philosophy went bonkers I reckon I could hardly conceive. You either have the invisible house of deism or the crooked and ill-designed architecture of religion; a re-examination of the foundation, which is what science does, reveals why the old architects have lost their ability to perform the task. Reason and science work together by starting with sense experience and making small steps of induction and deduction from there, using methods of reduction in the process. At any point in which this becomes divorced from reality, you go back to work on what you already know. Religion makes specific claims that are divorced from our experience and hence, knowledge of cause and effect, long before some vague idea of an ineffable higher power, I'll grant you that, but both must be viewed from a perspective that is tried and tested to be reliable: science. In science, one should know better than to commit to propositions on ground as flimsy and undefined as the God hypothesis; to do so would be unscientific, contrary to the spirit of curiosity and investigation. When the hypothesis doesn't work, we give precedence to new ones. That is, I believe, why we have finally entered, since perhaps the 19th-20th centuries, what can be called the Age of Atheism.

I'd replace the age of atheism by the age of 'Secularism, reason and irreligion'. And let's not forget Islam is growing too

[Mudhammam]

You mean this isn't really Jesus' body? Or is that a question "science isn't equipped to deal with?"

Still only a problem for a wee mind intent on literalism.

The overwhelming vast majority of believers, you mean.

[Polaris]

Still only a problem for a wee mind intent on literalism.

The overwhelming vast majority of believers, you mean.

Never met a Christian who believed Communion was about the literal blood and body of Christ, they just assume it's a way for stating they want to live a life away from sin.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't even think that is a necessary claim to make, and is a bit too presumptuous of the capabilities of the human brain IMHO. Instead, I would admonish: accept the inevitably of uncertainty, and acknowledge the only reliable--and therefore, reasonable--means for discovering the deeper truths of reality that demand our reverence; the scientific method, and its guiding, most triumph, philosophical principle, the fecundity of its practice.

Indeed, this is a great point. The willingness to admit ignorance is the starting point of every lesson life gives us. Science, building through the lives of generations of men, must always ask two things:

1) Is what we think we know true?

2) How can we be wrong?

The fact that it does most often ask those two questions is why I trust scientific processes. When you couple those questions with a system of peer-review that rewards new insights (rather than punishing them, as religion does), you come out with a powerful means for interrogating the Universe.