God versus science

[Cort Haus]

Erm, executive summary, aneeshm?

[aneeshm]

a) That there has always existed a conflict between science and religion
b) That science has won that conflict
c) That the old ways of believing are no longer valid nor appealing to the modern scientific man
d) That religion cannot lose, and has not lost
e) That the only way to make religion relevant again is to apply to it the same rigour, and to apply to it the same scientific method, that we use for the physical sciences
f) That this is the only hope for religion







This totally misses all the finer nuances, but in brief, that's it.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by aneeshm
e) That the only way to make religion relevant again is to apply to it the same rigour, and to apply to it the same scientific method, that we use for the physical sciences

Not much chance of his, while faith rules the roost - of the "I know because it says so here in my ancient holy book".

One man who tried to apply scientific method to religion was a Mr Aleister Crowley, the only mystic I have ever taken seriously. Of course, his work is lost amidst a pandemonium of moral outrage, but this is often the case when seeking enlightenment.

[Jon Miller]

I haven't seen much (any?) evidence of the scientific method being applied to the supernatural as providing anything of value.

I personally think that religion isn't the proper tool to explain the natural world, similiarly, science isn't the proper tool to explain the supernatural world.

There is no conflict from religion's side when it isn't attempting to explain the natural world. I know that many religions are based upon explaining the natural world, the most successful ones (like the Abrahamic religions, and I think Bhuddaism/etc) , however, are not.

Jon Miller
(I know that the Abrahamic religions have attempted to explain the natural world, but they aren't based upon that. You don't beleive in the Christian God to explain why the sun comes up in the morning.)

[Arrian]

That the only way to make religion relevant again is to apply to it the same rigour, and to apply to it the same scientific method, that we use for the physical sciences

And oh, yeah, WTF Pekka?

-Arrian

[Jon Miller]

He is Hindu. Hinduism might no longer be relevant..

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
God made scientists, too.

I believe Mose Maimonides, the Rambam, perhaps the greatest Jewish thinker and text commentator of all time, said "G-d also created physicians" Theres a whole range of questions in medical ethics where this is decisive in Jewish law.

I would say you are right to apply this to science as well. You seem to have a Jewish soul, Slowey.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

God versus science

God wins. Won't even be close.

God definitely outscored science in the early game. Science's special teams lead a pretty good comeback before the 1st half ended with their patented rennaisance return squad.

Looks to be the makings of a great second half.

[lord of the mark]

"Our love of God is commensurate with our knowledge of God's ways." Moses Maimonides.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

God versus science

God wins. Won't even be close.

God invented science. They are not -- and cannot be -- in conflict.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Not much chance of his, while faith rules the roost - of the "I know because it says so here in my ancient holy book".
.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Modern/IntellectualTO/Wiss.htm

http://www.jtsa.edu/about/cj/sacredcluster.shtml#5

[Drake Tungsten]

Looks to be the makings of a great second half.

God's bringing the Muslims in off the bench in the second half. Bad news for science; those dudes are crazy...

[Zkribbler]

Don't worry. When they launch the seabourne invasion, it'll sail off the edge of the Earth.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

God's bringing the Muslims in off the bench in the second half. Bad news for science; those dudes are crazy...

Rumor has it they're juicing on salvation sauce.

[Berzerker]

I think He did something like, here's a fork in the road. If you take this fork, this will happen. If you take the other fork, this will happen. Either choice leads to yet another fork in the road.
Now He knows where each and every fork leads, so that's a Plan, but humans make their destiny.

I'm not sure that qualifies as a plan, with a plan the result is predicted and desired and achieved with intent, not the "randomness" of humans making their own destiny. Unless of course the plan is much more limited, start everything in motion with basic shared traits for life to follow once the motion produces the right environments, and... the knowledge of good and evil is acquired time after time on planet after planet as life produces more intelligent creatures. Prime mover or proactive God micro-managing creation to an amazing degree? I lean toward the prime mover...