Escape from Elba
Exiles of the New York Times
July 16, 2018, 12:43:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: As you may have noticed, this is a very old backup, I'm still working through restoring the site.  Don't be surprised if you post and it all goes missing....
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 24
  Print  
Author Topic: Science and Religion  (Read 5390 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
MrUtley3
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 7709

X'Cessive Mercenary


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #300 on: March 09, 2008, 01:20:34 PM »

In my opinion both professional and religious councelling are the same thing. The difference being the Being. Is the being external or is it internal?

While I'm much more inclined to believe that the Being is internal, I'm also a believer that there is an external existence but not that can petitioned with prayer.



Would they not differ based on the goals of the counseling? Is the goal of religious counseling to get one closer to "the Being", as you put it? Is the goal of professional counseling the same?
Logged

Does anyone know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?
obertray
Guest

« Reply #301 on: March 09, 2008, 01:45:12 PM »

They are the same in that they both want you to believe in their brand of hoodoo.

What do you think? You brought up the topic, you ought to have some insight that you can share.
Logged
MrUtley3
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 7709

X'Cessive Mercenary


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #302 on: March 09, 2008, 06:59:58 PM »

So, you're saying that a scientific approach to uncovering the reasons why people behave as they do is "hoodoo"? And that people who believe that faith can heal their aching spirits are delusional?


 
Logged

Does anyone know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?
NoneoftheAbove
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 450



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #303 on: March 09, 2008, 07:17:21 PM »

So, you're saying that a scientific approach to uncovering the reasons why people behave as they do is "hoodoo"? And that people who believe that faith can heal their aching spirits are delusional?

Sorry to butt in...

Nothing wrong IMO with the "scientific approach", but it's not as rigorously adhered to by the sociology/psychology crowd as it is by, say physicists, chemists or mathematicians. Yet they just as aggressively seek the mantle of godlike credibility that is mistakenly oft conferred upon the latter types.

I have no doubt that "faith" is as efficacious in healing "spirits" as any mythical panacea is in healing any imaginary ill. That is to say, the very best!
Logged

"Those who would give up their freedom for security will have none and deserve neither."
- Franklin (and Jefferson)
MrUtley3
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 7709

X'Cessive Mercenary


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #304 on: March 09, 2008, 08:48:17 PM »

Nothing wrong IMO with the "scientific approach", but it's not as rigorously adhered to by the sociology/psychology crowd as it is by, say physicists, chemists or mathematicians.

And would you say that there is far less variance in "approach" by the members of the cloth?
Logged

Does anyone know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?
NoneoftheAbove
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 450



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #305 on: March 09, 2008, 09:35:08 PM »

Nothing wrong IMO with the "scientific approach", but it's not as rigorously adhered to by the sociology/psychology crowd as it is by, say physicists, chemists or mathematicians.

And would you say that there is far less variance in "approach" by the members of the cloth?

I really don't know... maybe if one specified a single "cloth"? AFAICS churches are uninanimous in that they all are the "one true" or at least the best church, yet their doctrines seem to vary wildly...
Logged

"Those who would give up their freedom for security will have none and deserve neither."
- Franklin (and Jefferson)
kingoftheants
Newbie
*
Posts: 2



View Profile WWW Email

Ignore
« Reply #306 on: March 09, 2008, 10:36:17 PM »

Rigorous adherence to the scientific method leaves humanity with nothing but an increasingly superficial reality on an increasingly wider front of increasingly more complex abstraction.

Sure there is a lot more to talk about - framed by delusion.
Logged
NoneoftheAbove
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 450



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #307 on: March 10, 2008, 11:27:20 AM »

Yore lucky KOA - I almost registered with that username just to keep you incognito.  Grin
Logged

"Those who would give up their freedom for security will have none and deserve neither."
- Franklin (and Jefferson)
NoneoftheAbove
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 450



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #308 on: March 10, 2008, 11:29:41 AM »

Rigorous adherence to the scientific method leaves humanity with nothing but an increasingly superficial reality on an increasingly wider front ...

If you choose to look at it that way. Or one could look at it as a blessing - giving humanity an increasingly wider front from which to view what is considered "reality" as superficial.
Logged

"Those who would give up their freedom for security will have none and deserve neither."
- Franklin (and Jefferson)
obertray
Guest

« Reply #309 on: March 10, 2008, 12:15:19 PM »

Rigorous adherence to the scientific method leaves humanity with nothing but an increasingly superficial reality on an increasingly wider front of increasingly more complex abstraction.

Sure there is a lot more to talk about - framed by delusion.

Could you please explain the use of the word "Nothing". Surely the scientific method has brought us some concrete results. if only to dispell misunderstandings such as blood lettings to cure diseases.
Logged
bartolomeo
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2710


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #310 on: March 11, 2008, 01:41:28 PM »

Though I find Richard Dawkins somewhat limited, I would agree with him that the scientific method and religious practice are not compatible ways of understanding reality.   So long as religion requires the acceptance, on faith, of particular doctrines on the nature of a supernatural being, it is completely outside the realm of science.  The tenets of religion do not meet the basic requirement for a useful scientific hypothesis -- namely, testability and falsifiability (being capable of disproof) (google or wiki Karl Popper for more on this). 

This isn't to say that there couldn't be a form of spiritual inquiry, perhaps along the lines of panpsychists like David Chalmers, that is based on the notion that there is some kind of raw proto-consciousness that is somehow intrinsic in matter/energy and which our brains are somehow able to access and focus.  Neurologists who delve into quantum physics, like Stuart Hameroff, might conceivably be able to formulate hypotheses and test aspects of biological brains that might somehow actually yield evidence of some kind of intrinsic consciousness in the entire universe.  If this developed, then there might be a point of intersection between some human intuitions about the universe and the methods of science.

 
Logged

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes."
NoneoftheAbove
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 450



View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #311 on: March 11, 2008, 02:48:44 PM »

Quote
I would agree with him that the scientific method and religious practice are not compatible ways of understanding reality.

Yeh. I think he's sometimes unnecessarily confrontational, but that is the worst knock on him I've heard, even by those from whom one would expect dissent. His substantial point in that regard remains pretty much unscathed by the whiners.
Logged

"Those who would give up their freedom for security will have none and deserve neither."
- Franklin (and Jefferson)
obertray
Guest

« Reply #312 on: March 12, 2008, 10:46:10 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/science/13prize.html

Wherein a Roman Catholic priest/ Cosmologist is given the John Templeton prize.

Templeton, in an effort to buy his way into heaven (I'm kidding, Sir John is an alright guy) Templeton established the prize to try to marry science and religion.

From Wiki
:"We are trying to persuade people that no human has yet grasped 1% of what can be known about spiritual realities.
 So we are encouraging people to start using the same methods of science that have been so productive in other areas, in order to discover spiritual realities."

—Sir John Templeton, Interview with Financial Intelligence Report

Here's to his foundation: http://www.templeton.org/

From the article

Professor Heller said he believes, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution “is one of the greatest misunderstandings” because it “introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance.”

In a telephone interview, Professor Heller explained his affinity for the two fields: “I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence.”


Perhaps we should be less impressed that we have a Roman Catholic Cosmologist considering that his name is Heller!

Congratulations Brother Heller, A part of me envies your life path, all of me admires it.


Logged
bartolomeo
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 2710


View Profile Email

Ignore
« Reply #313 on: March 19, 2008, 12:20:03 PM »

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article857527.ece

Clever of those aliens to buzz an amusement park!  The perfect way to blend in.

(UFO nuttiness seems to blend science and a kind of religious devotion and belief system, so that's why I'm posting it here....)



Logged

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes."
obertray
Guest

« Reply #314 on: March 19, 2008, 01:30:59 PM »

Seems like it is probably a reflection on the glass of the cab she was riding in from somewhere inside the cab.

Note that the two ufo photos have essentially the same pitch and attitude even thought the cab ahs changed it's location as it relates to the UFO. This indicates to me that the image is travelling with the cab. It also helps to explain why they didn't see the image at the time, because they were focused on an object beyond the window.

It could be a very nice cab with a chandelier for a dome light.

Apparently that is also the general consensus at the Sun.  Smiley
« Last Edit: March 19, 2008, 01:33:50 PM by obertray » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 24
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!