Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence. [Archive]

MeMyselfAndI

Feb 17th 2011, 04:09 PM

Not sure... It is possible. But, the ones on the religious side are pushing too hard, at least here in Russia. Of course this is just payback. Back in USSR, religion was mostly banned and completely marginalized. When Lenin came to power, after the Revolution of 1917, he had millions of Orthodox and Catholic Christian priests, monks, nuns, and other clergy, as well as Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist clerics executed or march away to die slower, more horrible deaths in concentration camps, in forced labor, in North Siberia. Lenin had many churches, mosques, synagogues, and Buddhist temples destroyed. The original Christ the Savior Cathedral was blown up. Many other places of worship were desecrated, robbed of their religious symbols, used as storage bases for crops or such purposes. Then, during Great Patriotic War, aka World War II, Stalin sort of resurrected religion, used it in propaganda, to rally the troops, inspire people to fight the enemy. Like, during the Battle for Moscow in 1941, there was an Icon March, where they carry sacred Orthodox icons and people have to bow and kiss them. People were told that God is with them, on their side, so, not to be afraid, that victory is theirs, they are fighting for the just cause, etc. Part of what won us the war. But, afterward, they built a swimming pool for party bosses, where the Christ Savior used to be. It was in the 90s that the pool was demolished, and the Cathedral rebuilt, mostly on public donations.

And, now, the Orthodox Church, and other religious leaders, are retaking what they think is theirs. There are now three religious TV channels, two Orthodox, one Muslim; there are classes in all schools, such as Basics of Orthodox Christianity; Basics of Islam; Buddhism in Russia; Islam in Russia; Judaism in Russia; The Role of the Founding Faiths (Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism) in Contemporary Russian Culture, Society, and Politics; many of which are now required for all students, whether their parents want this or not. There are religious representatives in the military too, Board Priests on warships, Base Priests in the Army, and now other faiths to, there will be imams, rabbis, and lamas on ships and bases too, so they write...
http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/russian-army-chaplains-2.jpg

Here, theology is attacking science, constantly. In majority-Cossack, heavily religious, devoutly observant Orthodox Christian Rostov Oblast, the local education authorities are under pressure to stop teaching that humans descend from apes, and to introduce, in fact, more religious themes into the curriculum...

So, I have to say, no. At least where I am, no, science and faith cannot coexist.

Non Sequitur

Feb 19th 2011, 01:11 AM

So, I have to say, no. At least where I am, no, science and faith cannot coexist.

It is not that they can't coexist. The real issue is that science, by definition, is dealing with things that can be seen. Science is the realm of discoverable knowledge. Faith, by definition, is a realm that admits very clearly a lack of discoverable knowledge. Faith implies an inability to gain knowledge about whatever you have faith in without help. The difficulty comes when people apply the standards of one realm to another. If one does not demand that science and faith operate by the same epistemology then they work incredibly well together.

Donkey

Feb 19th 2011, 03:54 AM

I think the fact that they CAN coexist doesn't necessarily have bearing on the fact that they often DON'T coexist.

Non Sequitur

Feb 19th 2011, 06:29 PM

I think the fact that they CAN coexist doesn't necessarily have bearing on the fact that they often DON'T coexist.

History shows that they tend to coexist as much as anything does in human life. Sometimes they are concepts that seem opposed and sometimes they seem to be in unison. I don't think often is a good word. It's a very complicated relationship.

MeMyselfAndI

Feb 19th 2011, 11:54 PM

History shows that they tend to coexist as much as anything does in human life. Sometimes they are concepts that seem opposed and sometimes they seem to be in unison. I don't think often is a good word. It's a very complicated relationship.

Religion and science are irreconcilable. Remember Giordano Bruno? Italian astronomer back in 17th century, burned to death on orders of Catholic leaders because he disputed their theories, and said that the Sun, not the Earth, is the center of the universe?

Michael

Feb 20th 2011, 09:28 AM

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski (see Google and Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
.
.
Interesting.

First of all, I would say that science and theology have been essentially one and the same throughout all of human history, in every known human culture - right up until the time of Darwin.

As such, it does appear that the present major split between science and theology originates with, and is entirely focused upon, the idea of evolution - which establishes a 'prima facie' argument against the theological doctrine of creationism (which is common to many religions).

As for the question of peaceful co-existence, I think that is up to the theists whose belief in theology forces them to reject a belief in evolutionary science. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't seem to have a problem with the issue. Non-theists (and most scientists) don't seem to have any problem with the issue. This is evidenced by the fact that over the last 100 years or so, there has been a mass exodus from western religious groups. This exodus has caused no violence.

The only 'problem' with the issue (and threat of violence) comes from the [radical/extremist] theists who reject evolution. They are the ones who shall decide if this issue is going to cause blood or violence or the death of religion or the jackbooted march of the stormtroopers.

As for my own prediction, that's easy. Society will continue to do exactly what it has been doing since the time of Darwin - splitting into two camps. One is the overwhelming majority and it is social. The other are the radical theists and they will be forced to retreat into isolated pockets like hermits (but only after failing to force society to bend to their will theocratic will).

Second prediction: radical and extremist theists will consider themselves to be an oppressed and persecuted minority if they are not allowed to rule over society and officially decree that science is just lies and blasphemy (ie. our present status quo).

Michael

Feb 20th 2011, 09:49 AM

They're perfectly able to coexist, as long as they don't interfere with one another.

I think this is absurd. The two offer competing/alternative explanations of reality. They interfere and cause conflict by defintion.

The only way for peaceful co-existence to occur is for theists to give up on their desire to rule over society according to the will of God.

The anti-theists have already 'won' the legal right to ignore the theists.

The problem is that the theists don't like being ignored. That's the only real problem here.

Michael

Feb 20th 2011, 09:56 AM

Not only can those groups coexist, they can (and do) overlap.

This is the most remarkable thing. These groups do coexist and overlap.

That being said, there is often very little intellectual rigeur and a whole lot of cognitive dissonance being engaged in order to make that work, but we are talking about humans here. ;)

For example, one of my favorite 'statistics' comes from MacLean's Magazine's annual survey of religion in Canada. The survey results are always the same. The study always reports that some 85% of Canadians self-identify as Christians who believe in God. Reading a bit further into the study, one finds that only a small/tiny minority of those people believe that "Jesus is the son of God". Even less believe that "Jesus dies and on the third day rose again".

On this basis, I'd suggest that the group called 'Christians' in Canada includes a whole lot of people (majority in fact) who actually don't accept Christianity, God and/or Christian theology.

Michael

Feb 20th 2011, 09:59 AM

Religion and science are irreconcilable. Remember Giordano Bruno? Italian astronomer back in 17th century, burned to death on orders of Catholic leaders because he disputed their theories, and said that the Sun, not the Earth, is the center of the universe?

Galileo and Copernicus are rightly more famous for this. ;)

Btw, in both cases, both were free to believe that the Sun, not the Earth, is the center of the universe. Neither were punished for that sin. The historical Church attacked them for failing to uphold Church rules about pubishing or disseminating that viewpoint.

Non Sequitur

Feb 20th 2011, 12:24 PM

Religion and science are irreconcilable. Remember Giordano Bruno? Italian astronomer back in 17th century, burned to death on orders of Catholic leaders because he disputed their theories, and said that the Sun, not the Earth, is the center of the universe?

Sure they don't always get along, but also remember that Newton was a committed believer and thought his science had a lot to do with God. Also this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists) proves that the Catholic Church is not totally against science.

Also, it's just theological wrong to say faith and science are irreconcilable. God created the world and gave us the ability to discover it. Why would they disagree?

Non Sequitur

Feb 20th 2011, 12:25 PM

This is the most remarkable thing. These groups do coexist and overlap.

That being said, there is often very little intellectual rigeur and a whole lot of cognitive dissonance being engaged in order to make that work, but we are talking about humans here. ;)

For example, one of my favorite 'statistics' comes from MacLean's Magazine's annual survey of religion in Canada. The survey results are always the same. The study always reports that some 85% of Canadians self-identify as Christians who believe in God. Reading a bit further into the study, one finds that only a small/tiny minority of those people believe that "Jesus is the son of God". Even less believe that "Jesus dies and on the third day rose again".

On this basis, I'd suggest that the group called 'Christians' in Canada includes a whole lot of people (majority in fact) who actually don't accept Christianity, God and/or Christian theology.

Those studies only go to prove my point that great heresies never die.

Michael

Feb 20th 2011, 12:33 PM

Also, it's just theological wrong to say faith and science are irreconcilable. God created the world and gave us the ability to discover it. Why would they disagree?

Because maybe God doesn't actually exist?

Perhaps that reconciliation is as imaginary as God? :D

(sorry, couldn't resist that one!)

dilettante

Feb 20th 2011, 01:20 PM

Interesting.

First of all, I would say that science and theology have been essentially one and the same throughout all of human history, in every known human culture - right up until the time of Darwin.

As such, it does appear that the present major split between science and theology originates with, and is entirely focused upon, the idea of evolution - which establishes a 'prima facie' argument against the theological doctrine of creationism (which is common to many religions).

As for the question of peaceful co-existence, I think that is up to the theists whose belief in theology forces them to reject a belief in evolutionary science. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't seem to have a problem with the issue. Non-theists (and most scientists) don't seem to have any problem with the issue. This is evidenced by the fact that over the last 100 years or so, there has been a mass exodus from western religious groups. This exodus has caused no violence.

The only 'problem' with the issue (and threat of violence) comes from the [radical/extremist] theists who reject evolution. They are the ones who shall decide if this issue is going to cause blood or violence or the death of religion or the jackbooted march of the stormtroopers.

As for my own prediction, that's easy. Society will continue to do exactly what it has been doing since the time of Darwin - splitting into two camps. One is the overwhelming majority and it is social. The other are the radical theists and they will be forced to retreat into isolated pockets like hermits (but only after failing to force society to bend to their will theocratic will).

Second prediction: radical and extremist theists will consider themselves to be an oppressed and persecuted minority if they are not allowed to rule over society and officially decree that science is just lies and blasphemy (ie. our present status quo).

I'm not sure anything is gained by reducing the issue down to evolution v. six-day creationism. Not every six-day creationist desires to a establish a theocracy anymore than every evolutionist desires to ban the doctrine of creationism.

Co-existence becomes impossible when one group demands that the other conform; but that's true of all disagreements if the people involved feel strongly enough about he subject matter.

Michael

Feb 20th 2011, 01:39 PM

I'm not sure anything is gained by reducing the issue down to evolution v. six-day creationism. Not every six-day creationist desires to a establish a theocracy anymore than every evolutionist desires to ban the doctrine of creationism.
It would appear that your argument here is identical to the argument you seem to keep raising in the AHA thread.

Please notice that I draw a big distinction between "is" and "ought". When I say "is" you seem to interpret that as "ought" and it is very frustrating to deal with.

I did NOT say that this issue OUGHT to be reduced down to "evolution vs six-day creationism".

I offered an argument to show that "is" what the issue historically originated as. I agree that it is trite and simplistic and nothing is to be gained by stating it so. But I believe it is a fact. That's why I stated it. I'm not arguing that we "ought" to frame the issue precisely this way - but this is exactly the point you are making.

Co-existence becomes impossible when one group demands that the other conform; but that's true of all disagreements if the people involved feel strongly enough about he subject matter.
Either you believe that all disagreements lead to irreconcilable differences, or you do not. Either position is defensible, but I don't think you can have it both ways.

Bottom line is that I did not suggest the difference here is irreconcilable. I merely predicted that the two sides will likely not even try to reconcile and will continue on present patterns of self-segregation. When one applies statistical averages and present trends, it is easy to predict which side is going to win and which side will retreat to become hermits. I have offered no editorial commentary about preferring one side or the other. I've just predicted what is most likely to transpire in the future based on past trends.

Religious reaction to heliocentric theory is a very applicable comparison. Either religion adapts to science or religion is forced to retreat. That is the historical pattern here. And that's an "is" not an "ought". ;)

Non Sequitur

Feb 20th 2011, 01:46 PM

Because maybe God doesn't actually exist?

Perhaps that reconciliation is as imaginary as God? :D

(sorry, couldn't resist that one!)

:lol:

Well all I can say is that of course it is possible that God doesn't exist. Douglass John Hall says that Faith implies doubt.

Michael

Feb 20th 2011, 01:58 PM

:lol:

Well all I can say is that of course it is possible that God doesn't exist. Douglass John Hall says that Faith implies doubt.

As I've always held, so long as religion stands on faith alone, it is logically unassailable and impervious to any rationalist critique.

When religion tries to stand as an appeal to reason, it is extremely vulnerable and becomes rationally questionable. Here lies the path to atheism.

And as I also like to point out, in the canon of 'atheist' thinkers, Rene Descartes will always have a very special and honored place. This is a warning to all serious thinking theists. :D

dilettante

Feb 20th 2011, 02:00 PM

It would appear that your argument here is identical to the argument you seem to keep raising in the AHA thread.

Please notice that I draw a big distinction between "is" and "ought". When I say "is" you seem to interpret that as "ought" and it is very frustrating to deal with.

I did NOT say that this issue OUGHT to be reduced down to "evolution vs six-day creationism".

I offered an argument to show that "is" what the issue historically originated as. I agree that it is trite and simplistic and nothing is to be gained by stating it so. But I believe it is a fact. That's why I stated it. I'm not arguing that we "ought" to frame the issue precisely this way - but this is exactly the point you are making.

I suppose I simply find the "is" uninteresting.
Obviously there are some evolutionists and some six-day creationists who have not, and by all appearances will not, coexist happily together, and obviously the whole evolution-creationism debate has become a particularly divisive issue of late. I don't dispute that, I just think that's common knowledge and doesn't invite further discussion.

The question of whether coexistence is possible and on what basis strikes me as for more intriguing, and seems to be the point of the OP.

Michael

Feb 20th 2011, 02:10 PM

Those studies only go to prove my point that great heresies never die.

Great heresies can't die. It is impossible. :D

In my twisted way of looking at the world, there is absolutely nothing that can rationally distinguish between 'heresies' and 'proper doctrine'. As such, the whole topic of religion itself looks like one giant pool of absurdity - so that picking and choosing some pieces to be 'doctrinal' and other pieces to be 'heresy' seems entirely arbitrary and irrational to an outsider.

The point being that the 'official doctrine' of religion seems like the greatest and most persistent heresy on the planet! If the big one stands the test of time, there should be no surprise that a bunch of little ones can also survive, since they all draw from the same source of power (religious faith). The death of the little heresies means the ultimate death of the big one too, for it is caused by a loss of faith.

Non Sequitur

Feb 20th 2011, 02:38 PM

Great heresies can't die. It is impossible. :D

In my twisted way of looking at the world, there is absolutely nothing that can rationally distinguish between 'heresies' and 'proper doctrine'. As such, the whole topic of religion itself looks like one giant pool of absurdity - so that picking and choosing some pieces to be 'doctrinal' and other pieces to be 'heresy' seems entirely arbitrary and irrational to an outsider.

The point being that the 'official doctrine' of religion seems like the greatest and most persistent heresy on the planet! If the big one stands the test of time, there should be no surprise that a bunch of little ones can also survive, since they all draw from the same source of power (religious faith). The death of the little heresies means the ultimate death of the big one too, for it is caused by a loss of faith.

Well the key there is that from the outsiders perspective it looks nonsensical. However, within the faith there are certain measuring sticks (scripture and sometimes tradition) which tell you if a doctrine holds up or not.

by the way my big three are:

1. Gnosticism
2. Antinomianism
3. Pelagianism

Michael

Feb 20th 2011, 02:43 PM

I suppose I simply find the "is" uninteresting.
The persistence with which you appear to pursue this suggests to me that you are entirely correct here in your diagnosis! ;)

I happen to think that a full and proper identification of "is" is the most important first step in any serious discussion or investigation of an issue - which is why I go there first.

As such, I do go to great efforts to make the "is" and "ought" distinction when I address these types of issues - which is why I tend to get hung up on the shift between the two. As long as the distinction is made, and we can agree on what "is", then I don't have a problem with addressing what "ought" to be. :)

Obviously there are some evolutionists and some six-day creationists who have not, and by all appearances will not, coexist happily together, and obviously the whole evolution-creationism debate has become a particularly divisive issue of late. I don't dispute that, I just think that's common knowledge and doesn't invite further discussion.

I'd like to point out that the 'environment' of the present debate is rather tame and quiet by historical standards. Late 19th and early 20th century, this debate was 'fighting words' and likely to produce fistfights at public gatherings - amongst bourgeois gentlemen!

I might venture to suggest that the only reason this issue has any profile at all is because those small rural US states where these ideas are most popular just happened to be physically attached to the largest and most powerful economy on the planet and have a political system that offers disproportionate political power to small rural US states, which enables them to put their pet issues onto a national stage - and that national stage just happens to be an international stage because it is the US national stage.

Outside of that small fringe group, the idea seems to have zero currency outside of the USA - except perhaps with Islamic extremists and/or Bhuddists/Hindus. :shrug:

Indeed, it is common knowledge, and it doesn't invite further discussion - I'll agree with that, but that's because it would seem that a majority of people really don't want further discussion on this point. The Scopes-Monkey Trial was a freakin' comedy, not a public debate.

Science or creationism, pick one. That's the unfortunate political choice that we are faced with. For the most part, society made that choice a long time ago and moved on (except in some parts of the USA where they didn't 'move on' at all).

The question of whether coexistence is possible and on what basis strikes me as for more intriguing, and seems to be the point of the OP.
Well sure, but only if we ignore the specific issue framed in the OP.

The OP's link goes directly at the "God created man" issue.

In other words, if the issue is "creationism" vs "evolutionism", there is no reconcilliation for theists unless one adopts the Roman Catholic position. No one on the 'pure evolution' side believes there is anything worth discussing here at all and no reconcilliation is necessary or required. Creationists are free to believe whatever they like. They are not free to teach it in science classrooms.

If the framework of discussion is all about "deists" and "scientists" then yes, certainly peaceful co-existence is certainly possible (and we've got a couple hundred years of recent history to prove it).

But if the terms of such "peaceful co-existence" involves science being required to give any credence to an entirely faith-based argument, which is what this always boils down to, then the answer is likely no.

Peaceful co-existence is relatively easy to achieve with self-segregation.

Obviously, that's not what the OP is looking for since that's readily available (and free!). So what is the 'content' of this "peaceful co-existence" that isn't presently available and doesn't involve science giving religion a 'free pass'?

dilettante

Feb 20th 2011, 04:00 PM

Peaceful co-existence is relatively easy to achieve with self-segregation.

Obviously, that's not what the OP is looking for since that's readily available (and free!). So what is the 'content' of this "peaceful co-existence" that isn't presently available and doesn't involve science giving religion a 'free pass'?

I think "segregation" is the key, but it's important to make it a segregation of concepts (theology and science) rather than a segregation of people (theists and scientists). While the former should be kept conceptually separate, the latter, given a little graciousness, can generally get along and in some cases a single individual is both at once.

As to giving "free passes," it seems to me that science should give religion a free pass to be religion, and visa-versa. That is to say, doctrine based on blind faith, authority, revelation or any other source not subject to scientific methods should not present itself as scientific; nor should it attempt to stamp out scientific findings that contradict it. By the same token, those who choose, for whatever reason, to accept doctrinal instead of (or simply in addition to) scientific claims should be allowed to do so and to explain the reasons for their choice to others; science should not attempt to stamp out doctrine it does not support.

Essentially, the course to coexistence between science and doctrine isn't qualitatively different than the course to coexistence between any two systems of thought: allow people to peacefully disagree, don't coercively silence dissenters, and don't force everyone to accept one's own system.

Michael

Feb 22nd 2011, 09:17 PM

I think "segregation" is the key, but it's important to make it a segregation of concepts (theology and science) rather than a segregation of people (theists and scientists). While the former should be kept conceptually separate, the latter, given a little graciousness, can generally get along and in some cases a single individual is both at once.
You appear to be describing the 'status quo' that the OP appears to be objecting to. :shrug:

I agree that type of segregation of theology and science is sufficient and I also certainly agree that a theist/deist can be a perfectly good scientist.

But as I pointed out, this is already the 'status quo' and therefore isn't something that needs to be achieved. And if that's the case, one can only assume that the OP is looking for something more than just the existing status quo.

As to giving "free passes," it seems to me that science should give religion a free pass to be religion, and visa-versa. That is to say, doctrine based on blind faith, authority, revelation or any other source not subject to scientific methods should not present itself as scientific; nor should it attempt to stamp out scientific findings that contradict it. By the same token, those who choose, for whatever reason, to accept doctrinal instead of (or simply in addition to) scientific claims should be allowed to do so and to explain the reasons for their choice to others; science should not attempt to stamp out doctrine it does not support.
Sure would be nice if the religious/theist/deist types would take up your advice.

Science itself, and scientists, generally don't go around attacking theism at all. Certainly some 'atheists' do so, but as I've often pointed out, they are not scientists but are radical extremist 'atheists'.

This is in stark contrast with many major religious figures who routinely engage in attacking science and scientific theories based entirely on their own religious faith.

That is to say there is a notable imbalance in 'who' is doing the 'attacking'. On the religious/theist/deist side, the attacks come from the leadership as well as the regular followers. On the science side, the attacks generally come from non-scientists.

Essentially, the course to coexistence between science and doctrine isn't qualitatively different than the course to coexistence between any two systems of thought: allow people to peacefully disagree, don't coercively silence dissenters, and don't force everyone to accept one's own system.
Well, this sounds nice until you consider evolutionary theory and high school science classes. You appear to be saying that evolution can't be taught in schools because to do so is essentially coercive of the religious/theist/deist types.

Shall we just allow all religious/theist/deist types be exempted from high school science classes?

Or shall we just give the religious/theist/deists exactly what they want and let them push their religious views in high school science classes? Is that what is really meant by 'peaceful coexistence? It seems to be.

dilettante

Feb 26th 2011, 06:10 PM

Sure would be nice if the religious/theist/deist types would take up your advice.

Tragically, I am rarely consulted.

Science itself, and scientists, generally don't go around attacking theism at all. Certainly some 'atheists' do so, but as I've often pointed out, they are not scientists but are radical extremist 'atheists'.

This is in stark contrast with many major religious figures who routinely engage in attacking science and scientific theories based entirely on their own religious faith.

That is to say there is a notable imbalance in 'who' is doing the 'attacking'. On the religious/theist/deist side, the attacks come from the leadership as well as the regular followers. On the science side, the attacks generally come from non-scientists.

They often seem to come in the name of science, however. Taking science's name in vain, perhaps? :)

Well, this sounds nice until you consider evolutionary theory and high school science classes. You appear to be saying that evolution can't be taught in schools because to do so is essentially coercive of the religious/theist/deist types.

Shall we just allow all religious/theist/deist types be exempted from high school science classes?

Or shall we just give the religious/theist/deists exactly what they want and let them push their religious views in high school science classes? Is that what is really meant by 'peaceful coexistence? It seems to be.

Not at all. So long as evolution is the reigning scientific theory it has a place in a science class.

That said, should a student raise the issue of creationism, the response from the teacher should only be that such a theory is not scientific. To go further and teach that, because it is not scientific it must therefore be untrue (i.e. to teach that science is the sole path to truth), is to leave the realm of the scientific and to enter philosophy or possibly religion itself.

We should be able to admit that evolution is scientific, but also that many people do (and should be allowed to) rely on other-than-scientific sources to determine what is and isn't true. The questions of which sources to rely on, and in what circumstances, are not themselves scientific ones and thus have no place in the science classroom.

Michael

Feb 27th 2011, 03:32 PM

Tragically, I am rarely consulted.
Alas, I feel the same way! :D

They often seem to come in the name of science, however. Taking science's name in vain, perhaps? :)

Indeed they do. ;)

Often as not, they claim a level of 'truth' for science that isn't justified since science itself does not make a claim of 'truth'.

This suggests to me that 'tribalism' is what animates the actual debate. The loudest proponents on both sides are essentially working with faith-based worldviews.

True scientists, and those who understand scientific theory, understand the nature of scientific theories as only 'tentatively true until proven otherwise'.

Not at all. So long as evolution is the reigning scientific theory it has a place in a science class.
You and I are certainly in agreement about this. I'm not so sure about the US voting public.

That said, should a student raise the issue of creationism, the response from the teacher should only be that such a theory is not scientific.
Agreed. This provides a good 'teaching moment' to explain what a scientific theory is and why a theory is considered 'scientific' or not.

To go further and teach that, because it is not scientific it must therefore be untrue (i.e. to teach that science is the sole path to truth), is to leave the realm of the scientific and to enter philosophy or possibly religion itself.
Again, I agree. That would be a biased statement and unsuitable for a public classroom.

We should be able to admit that evolution is scientific, but also that many people do (and should be allowed to) rely on other-than-scientific sources to determine what is and isn't true. The questions of which sources to rely on, and in what circumstances, are not themselves scientific ones and thus have no place in the science classroom.
Again, I agree.

But this is all 'status quo' as far as I understand. Classroom science teachers do not normally 'preach' that science is truth as that is 'doctrinally incorrect' from the perspective of science. If teachers are doing this, then that is a failing of the education system and the teachers themselves. I can't imagine any school district mandate for such statements.

And this brings me back to my key point. Theists/religious types are continuously pressuring educational authorities to eliminate this and offer a more 'friendly' environment for discussing creationism in science classrooms in public schools, even going so far as wanting to ban or limit teaching of evolutionary theory itself. I don't think there is any ground for comprimise on that kind of issue.

So this leaves me asking once again, what is the content of this 'peaceful coexistence' that is not already the 'normative' status quo?

dilettante

Feb 27th 2011, 04:17 PM

So this leaves me asking once again, what is the content of this 'peaceful coexistence' that is not already the 'normative' status quo?

:shrug: It seems to me that all the necessary components for "peaceful coexistence" are, and have long been readily available. Peace breaks down when people reject them. But I don't think we need any new paradigm, just a little grace and open-mindedness.

I'm not sure what the OP is looking for other than that.

Michael

Feb 28th 2011, 07:10 PM

:shrug: It seems to me that all the necessary components for "peaceful coexistence" are, and have long been readily available. Peace breaks down when people reject them. But I don't think we need any new paradigm, just a little grace and open-mindedness.
Agreed.

I'm not sure what the OP is looking for other than that.
I'm definitely suspicious.

I see nothing more than the usual (and seemingly endless) religious/theist/deist demand that science must pander to non-science. The tactics change, but the goal never does.

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 10:06 PM

The answer is no.

The only reason that the two appear to coexist is because religion begrudgingly and slowly accommodates that which it can no longer defend in the face of irrefutable evidence from the natural world.

Those theologians who refuse to budge must live outside natural laws and this inflicts enormous stress on the ever distanced cultures.

What is and will continue to happen, is that science will continue to narrow the field to which theologians are relegated until there is nothing left but the obvious: if there is a supernatural, we can never know anything about it.

Exceptions: 1) Humans evolve a perception of additional dimensions that expand what is encompassed in the "natural" world to include things that were formerly deemed "super natural".
2) The unswerving, unaccommodating theologians rise up and abolish science. It's been done before.

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 10:08 PM

Not only can those groups coexist, they can (and do) overlap.

He didn't merely say "coexist", he said "coexist peacefully". They do not overlap. If the natural world observations become part of theology it is because theology accommodates, not because science does.

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 10:08 PM

They're perfectly able to coexist, as long as they don't interfere with one another.

When do they not interfere with one another?

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 10:15 PM

It is not that they can't coexist. The real issue is that science, by definition, is dealing with things that can be seen. Science is the realm of discoverable knowledge. Faith, by definition, is a realm that admits very clearly a lack of discoverable knowledge. Faith implies an inability to gain knowledge about whatever you have faith in without help. The difficulty comes when people apply the standards of one realm to another. If one does not demand that science and faith operate by the same epistemology then they work incredibly well together.

Faith in what though? Faith that there is someone or some thing in charge? Alright. But the second you name that one or thing, you are in conflict with science. You can not claim to know anything about anything that is super natural.

By the way, science is not dealing with things that can be seen, but observed. There is quite a difference. For instance, I can say that I saw a ghost. If the ghost can not be measured by me or anyone else in any way, it can not be part of science. By the same token, if I saw something, it is part of the natural world and NOT super natural.

Why? Because my eyes can not detect anything but light and my brain can only conquer three dimensions. Therefore, whatever I see, it is in the realm of three dimensions and consists of light which is natural phenomena.

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 10:18 PM

Religion and science are irreconcilable. Remember Giordano Bruno? Italian astronomer back in 17th century, burned to death on orders of Catholic leaders because he disputed their theories, and said that the Sun, not the Earth, is the center of the universe?

That is only one of a string of scientists that were stifled by the Holy See. Nowadays, the Holy See must work around science since they are no longer in control. Thus, telling the nations of Africa that condoms are ineffective because they believe that birth control is a greater sin than AIDS.

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 10:25 PM

Sure they don't always get along, but also remember that Newton was a committed believer and thought his science had a lot to do with God. Also this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists) proves that the Catholic Church is not totally against science.

Also, it's just theological wrong to say faith and science are irreconcilable. God created the world and gave us the ability to discover it. Why would they disagree?

Yes, of course he was a Christian. Everyone was a Christian! Even those that were not Christian were often coercively or clandestinely added to the rolls. :rofl:

You're missing the point of what was being said! It was only when he discovered that the religion he believed in was a little off the mark, that he was persecuted by the Church!

The church specifically, intentionally hid the evidence - brushed it under the rug before anyone could see it. Why? Because it would make people doubt.

Give me a break!

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 10:29 PM

I'm not sure anything is gained by reducing the issue down to evolution v. six-day creationism. Not every six-day creationist desires to a establish a theocracy anymore than every evolutionist desires to ban the doctrine of creationism.

Co-existence becomes impossible when one group demands that the other conform; but that's true of all disagreements if the people involved feel strongly enough about he subject matter.

Really? All six day creationists in the United States must pay taxes. Some of those taxes go toward teaching evolution in public schools, some of those taxes go toward scientific research that proves six day creation ludicrous. Is it alright for these people to live in a commune and exist without interference from the outside world? Sure. As long as they don't manipulate the public schools or attempt to thwart scientific research JUST because of their religious ideology. They must still obey all laws too.

dilettante

Mar 3rd 2011, 10:45 PM

He didn't merely say "coexist", he said "coexist peacefully". They do not overlap.

Millions of Deists/Theists and scientists seem to be able to get along peacefully just fine. Some don't.
As for overlapping, there has been and is no shortage of people who are both simultaneously, my wife among them. Seems like coexistence to me. :shrug:

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 10:48 PM

Millions of Deists/Theists and scientists seem to be able to get along peacefully just fine. Some don't.
As for overlapping, there has been and is no shortage of people who are both simultaneously, my wife among them. Seems like coexistence to me. :shrug:

Seems like cognitive dissonance to me. Deists I can see. Theists? No. One can not claim to know something about the supernatural and claim to be a scientist without cognitive dissonance going on. It is literally impossible, by definition, for a human to know anything about the supernatural, including, whether or not there is such a thing.

dilettante

Mar 3rd 2011, 11:25 PM

Seems like cognitive dissonance to me. Deists I can see. Theists? No. One can not claim to know something about the supernatural and claim to be a scientist without cognitive dissonance going on.

And yet they continue to exist and have since the dawn of science, cognitive dissonance or no. :shrug:

It is literally impossible, by definition, for a human to know anything about the supernatural, including, whether or not there is such a thing.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you're willing to peaceably coexist with people who disagree with you on that point.

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 11:31 PM

And yet they continue to exist and have since the dawn of science, cognitive dissonance or no. :shrug:

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you're willing to peaceably coexist with people who disagree with you on that point.

Do you agree that there is a right answer to the question?

dilettante

Mar 3rd 2011, 11:32 PM

Do you agree that there is a right answer to the question?

Which question?

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 11:33 PM

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 11:34 PM

Which question?

Whether or not one can know anything at all about the super natural?

dilettante

Mar 3rd 2011, 11:49 PM

You see, there is another issue here. Dilletante, you ask if I can peacefully coexist with people who have a differing opinion. Of course I can. But the real question is, can someone who has a wrong answer continue to promote the answer AND peacefully coexist with me?

People who disagree about the answers to questions seem to be able to get along, given a little patience and grace. Our society is based on the premise of tolerance and coexistence, political, cultural and religious.

If I can explain why the answer is wrong, will you be offended and dislike me for it?

Doubtful. I'm generally pretty pretty laid back about such things.
Or at least I'd like to think I am. :)

Whether or not one can know anything at all about the super natural?

I'm hesitant to answer yes or no to that, since I suspect we're headed toward a complex definition of "know." So I'll say that people can, and do, certainly believe things about the super natural and that they rarely, if ever, do so without reason. Whether any given individual's reasons are sufficient is, of course, highly debatable and somewhat subjective.

JHC

Mar 3rd 2011, 11:56 PM

People who disagree about the answers to questions seem to be able to get along, given a little patience and grace. Our society is based on the premise of tolerance and coexistence, political, cultural and religious.

Doubtful. I'm generally pretty pretty laid back about such things.
Or at least I'd like to think I am. :)

I'm hesitant to answer yes or no to that, since I suspect we're headed toward a complex definition of "know." So I'll say that people can, and do, certainly believe things about the super natural and that they rarely, if ever, do so without reason. Whether any given individual's reasons are sufficient is, of course, highly debatable and somewhat subjective.

Really? To know means to have knowledge of. To have knowledge of something means that you aren't talking about faith anymore. One can have faith and have knowledge of faith (gnosticism), but one can not know about something that exists beyond their perceptive abilities.

One can be born blind and still tell you that the object in his or her hand is round. How? Because his or her other senses transmit the information to his or her brain which compares it to prior information. That is how one comes to "know" anything.

That is the definition I'm working with.

Non Sequitur

Mar 4th 2011, 12:50 AM

Faith in what though? Faith that there is someone or some thing in charge? Alright. But the second you name that one or thing, you are in conflict with science. You can not claim to know anything about anything that is super natural.

As I said, the issue is one of epistemology. How do we know? The Christian answer (I don't know the theological answer of others) is that the only reason we know the Divine is through revelation. You are right that if it was up to me to discover God I couldn't name to the divine at all. Fortunately, I don't have to discover it for myself.

By the way, science is not dealing with things that can be seen, but observed. There is quite a difference. For instance, I can say that I saw a ghost. If the ghost can not be measured by me or anyone else in any way, it can not be part of science. By the same token, if I saw something, it is part of the natural world and NOT super natural.

Why? Because my eyes can not detect anything but light and my brain can only conquer three dimensions. Therefore, whatever I see, it is in the realm of three dimensions and consists of light which is natural phenomena.

Alright I'll accept that. Just replace "seen" with "observable." My point remains the same. The observable is not the realm of faith.

Yes, of course he was a Christian. Everyone was a Christian! Even those that were not Christian were often coercively or clandestinely added to the rolls. :rofl:

You're missing the point of what was being said! It was only when he discovered that the religion he believed in was a little off the mark, that he was persecuted by the Church!

The church specifically, intentionally hid the evidence - brushed it under the rug before anyone could see it. Why? Because it would make people doubt.

Are we still talking about Newton or are we talking about Copernicus?

Give me a break!

Now you know me better than that ;)

JHC

Mar 4th 2011, 01:08 PM

As I said, the issue is one of epistemology. How do we know? The Christian answer (I don't know the theological answer of others) is that the only reason we know the Divine is through revelation. You are right that if it was up to me to discover God I couldn't name to the divine at all. Fortunately, I don't have to discover it for myself.

You probably remember me mentioning something about my ex-husband, what he did for a living, where he was from, etc... Do you know my ex-husband? Do you need to discover it for yourself or is my word good enough for you to comfortably say that you know him?

Revelation has two meanings. Interestingly, the first is a previously unknown fact made known in a dramatic or surprising way. Eureka!
The second is the same except that the "secret" is revealed from the super natural.

What if I were to tell you that I had a divine type of revelation that was contradictory to everything you have heard in the past? Why would you believe a 2000 year old book instead of me? What criteria do you use to make your decision?

I'll accept that. Just replace "seen" with "observable." My point remains the same. The observable is not the realm of faith.

Are we still talking about Newton or are we talking about Copernicus?

Now you know me better than that ;)
1546 Nicholas Copernicus censured
1600 Giordano Bruno burned at the stake
1616 Galileo Galilei convicted of heresy
1685 Isaac Newton brought before the high court for failure to award unearned degrees to priests. Four years later he suffered a mental breakdown.

The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason. This refuses due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of Liberalism [rationalists], who usurp the name of liberty, deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is a law to himself. From this arises that ethical system which they call independent morality, which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license.

The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that [1] the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that [2] the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that [3] just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority.

But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things. For, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it: namely that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.

Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, the real distinction between good and evil is instantly destroyed. Honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one. Pleasure is the measure of what is lawful, and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly tendencies of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption.

With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and to avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny … When duty and conscience cease to appeal to the people, there will be nothing to hold them back but force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check. Of this we have almost daily evidence …

It is for those, then, who are capable of forming a just estimate of things to decide whether such doctrines promote that true liberty which alone is worthy of man, or rather, pervert and destroy it. Libertas Praestantissimum, 1888

dilettante

Mar 4th 2011, 02:12 PM

Really? To know means to have knowledge of. To have knowledge of something means that you aren't talking about faith anymore. One can have faith and have knowledge of faith (gnosticism), but one can not know about something that exists beyond their perceptive abilities.

One can be born blind and still tell you that the object in his or her hand is round. How? Because his or her other senses transmit the information to his or her brain which compares it to prior information. That is how one comes to "know" anything.

That is the definition I'm working with.

That strikes as an very limited epistemology. At the very least, all knowledge beyond the most basic "I am now experiencing the sensation of _____" requires some sort of reasoning in addition to sensory perception.

But it's more complex than that. For example, I "know" that George Washington was the first president of the United States, I "know" that there is a fine powdery dust covering the surface of the moon, I "know" that if A=B and B=C than A=C, and I "know" that my wife loves me. Yet I haven't, with my five senses, perceived any of this knowledge. Some of it isn't even within the realm of sensory perception.

On the other hand, I "know" that my senses are not always to be trusted and that any half-talented magician or a decent optical illusion can deceive them.

Knowing is extraordinarily complicated. Hence my desire to simply state that "people can, and do, believe things about the super natural and that they rarely, if ever, do so without reason."

Would it help to avoid the murky world of "knowing" if I added that such beliefs are rarely, if ever, scientific? To my mind, that's a word with a more solid definition behind it.

The Drunk Girl

Mar 4th 2011, 04:47 PM

JHC

Mar 4th 2011, 06:14 PM

That strikes as an very limited epistemology. At the very least, all knowledge beyond the most basic "I am now experiencing the sensation of _____" requires some sort of reasoning in addition to sensory perception.

But it's more complex than that. For example, I "know" that George Washington was the first president of the United States, I "know" that there is a fine powdery dust covering the surface of the moon, I "know" that if A=B and B=C than A=C, and I "know" that my wife loves me. Yet I haven't, with my five senses, perceived any of this knowledge. Some of it isn't even within the realm of sensory perception.

On the other hand, I "know" that my senses are not always to be trusted and that any half-talented magician or a decent optical illusion can deceive them.

Knowing is extraordinarily complicated. Hence my desire to simply state that "people can, and do, believe things about the super natural and that they rarely, if ever, do so without reason."

Would it help to avoid the murky world of "knowing" if I added that such beliefs are rarely, if ever, scientific? To my mind, that's a word with a more solid definition behind it.

What the Drunk Girl said.
In addition, what you know is not George Washington but the stories you have been told on the subject. Just as my example to Non Sequitur, I can tell you everything there is to know about my former husband and what you know in the end are the stories I've told. You wouldn't know my ex-husband.

The difference between stories about George Washington and stories about God is that stories about George Washington involve the natural world which, at some point, first hand storytellers perceived with their own senses.

God, on the other hand, exists, by definition, outside of the natural world (super natural) and could never be known by any creature capable of perceiving only the natural world. That would be all of humankind. There can be no first hand account of God. There can be no perceiving of the super natural - by definition.

Any claim of knowledge of the super natural is therefore specious at best.

As an example lets assume that there were real eye witnesses of the parting of the Red Sea. What does this tell us about God?
Nothing. There is no evidence of a super natural force at work. Everything that was perceived happened in the natural world. If it was inexplicable at the time, this does not mean a) God did it, or b) it would always be without explanation. If it happened in the natural world, it is explainable. If it didn't happen in the natural world, you wouldn't know about it anyway.

Vice-versa (not visa-versa ;) ), if a thing is explainable, it is part of the world we are capable of perceiving. If it is inexplicable for all time, you can't explain it so why attribute it to another inexplicable event? You know nothing about it.

Michael

Mar 4th 2011, 06:54 PM

dilettante

Mar 4th 2011, 08:06 PM

I am probably going the simple route here...

How do you know Washington was the first president? You read it or someone told you, correct? You are using your sight and hearing to process this information. Your other examples fit the same way.

Fair enough. My point here is just that direct sensory perception imparts very little knowledge. We also rely on the testimony/authority of others and on our own reasoning and memory. In short, our knowledge goes beyond what our bare senses tell us.

What the Drunk Girl said.
In addition, what you know is not George Washington but the stories you have been told on the subject. Just as my example to Non Sequitur, I can tell you everything there is to know about my former husband and what you know in the end are the stories I've told. You wouldn't know my ex-husband.

The difference between stories about George Washington and stories about God is that stories about George Washington involve the natural world which, at some point, first hand storytellers perceived with their own senses.

God, on the other hand, exists, by definition, outside of the natural world (super natural) and could never be known by any creature capable of perceiving only the natural world. That would be all of humankind. There can be no first hand account of God. There can be no perceiving of the super natural - by definition.

Two thoughts. First, one should note that most religions hold that while the natural and super-natural are distinct, each is capable of influencing the other.
And second, many people also hold that humans are capable of perceiving the super-natural world, that humans have spiritual as well as natural senses. In short, that humans themselves represent an instance of the natural and super-natural influecing one another via the connection between body and spirit. Psychics, prophets, various other mystics and spiritualists, and those who believe in them all accept this proposition.
I'm not necessarily arguing that this is so, just pointing out that not everyone begins with the same presuppoistions about the nature of the super-natural or human perception.

As an example lets assume that there were real eye witnesses of the parting of the Red Sea. What does this tell us about God?
Nothing. There is no evidence of a super natural force at work. Everything that was perceived happened in the natural world. If it was inexplicable at the time, this does not mean a) God did it, or b) it would always be without explanation. If it happened in the natural world, it is explainable. If it didn't happen in the natural world, you wouldn't know about it anyway.

I think you need to separate perception of from explanation here. Yes, if we can perceive an event with our five senses, then the event must have occurred within the natural world (otherwise we could not have perceived it). But it doesn't necessarily follow that the explination of that event must be entirely natural.

By analogy, if I can perceive an event with my vision, then the event must have occurred within my eyesight (or else I could not have seen it). But that does not mean that the explanation of that event must be found entirely within my eyesight. Perhaps something I could not see is responsible for the event which I could see. If so, then though I cannot see the explanation itself, I can nonetheless learn something about it through what I can see.

Michael

Mar 4th 2011, 08:32 PM

I think you need to separate perception of from explanation here. Yes, if we can perceive an event with our five senses, then the event must have occurred within the natural world (otherwise we could not have perceived it). But it doesn't necessarily follow that the explination of that event must be entirely natural.

By analogy, if I can perceive an event with my vision, then the event must have occurred within my eyesight (or else I could not have seen it). But that does not mean that the explanation of that event must be found entirely within my eyesight. Perhaps something I could not see is responsible for the event which I could see. If so, then though I cannot see the explanation itself, I can nonetheless learn something about it through what I can see.

I don't think that one can justify the conclusion that just because you believe you 'saw' something, that something (however inexplicable) may have happened. Your brain is quite capable of producing illusions and/or wrong perceptions. What you might believe you saw was a flying saucer could have been nothing at all.

dilettante

Mar 4th 2011, 09:13 PM

I don't think that one can justify the conclusion that just because you believe you 'saw' something, that something (however inexplicable) may have happened. Your brain is quite capable of producing illusions and/or wrong perceptions. What you might believe you saw was a flying saucer could have been nothing at all.

Very true. We're quite capable of misinterpreting perceptions, whether of flying saucers, pools of water in the desert, bugs crawling under our skin, or any at all really.

Non Sequitur

Mar 4th 2011, 09:57 PM

What if I were to tell you that I had a divine type of revelation that was contradictory to everything you have heard in the past? Why would you believe a 2000 year old book instead of me? What criteria do you use to make your decision?

I could give you a long list of council decisions, traditions, theology, and scripture but it basically comes down to this: Whatever runs counter to the message God's grace is not true. Another part of it is 2000 years of people believing that old book and you are only one person. Come back to me after a thousand years of history

Or let's say this: "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" I John 4:2. Is it scientific or unbiased? absolutely not. Do I believe it all the same? yes.

1546 Nicholas Copernicus censured
1600 Giordano Bruno burned at the stake
1616 Galileo Galilei convicted of heresy
1685 Isaac Newton brought before the high court for failure to award unearned degrees to priests. Four years later he suffered a mental breakdown.

Libertas Praestantissimum, 1888

I'll concede this point cause better people can argue it if they want.

The Drunk Guy

Mar 5th 2011, 08:46 AM

Non Sequitur

Mar 5th 2011, 09:05 AM

If people took their children to science class every Sunday instead of Church and taught their children to be good little scientists, how many children would consider your book in adolescence?

I don't know. As I said I don't think the two concepts are incompatible so I would like to think a lot of people would. Also, I don't think it is by a person's own choice or power that they believe , but by the power of the Holy Spirit. I am pretty sure the Holy Spirit would work regardless of what was taught to children.

As I said, is is scientific or unbiased? No. Do I believe it all the same? Yes

And we could spent months compiling a list of events and atrocities that counter "God's grace". ;)

I have no answer to the problem of the evil. All I can say is that those atrocities are not the only part of the story.

Michael

Mar 5th 2011, 09:30 AM

If people took their children to science class every Sunday instead of Church and taught their children to be good little scientists, how many children would consider your book in adolescence?
Fact is, people have been sending their children to 'science class' five days a week in the school system for decades. Yet religion still stands.

As I've often noted, religion, more often than not, is inherited from one's parents, just like language and culture.

kowalskil

Mar 7th 2011, 08:49 PM

Not sure... It is possible. But, .....

So, I have to say, no. At least where I am, no, science and faith cannot coexist.

Thank you for the interesting summary. But in the conclusion I would say "do not" rather than "cannot." The "cannot" means "impossible" to me. At the beginning you said "it is possible."

Ludwik
.
.

kowalskil

Mar 7th 2011, 09:04 PM

I think this is absurd. The two offer competing/alternative explanations of reality. They interfere and cause conflict by defintion.

The only way for peaceful co-existence to occur is for theists to give up on their desire to rule over society according to the will of God.

The anti-theists have already 'won' the legal right to ignore the theists.

The problem is that the theists don't like being ignored. That's the only real problem here.

I think that each side must end the "we are better than you" attitude, not theists only. Agreement on this would be the second step toward peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. The first step would be the agreement on two separate worlds, spiritual and physical. Scientists would stop making claims about things in the spiritual world and theists would stop making claims in the physical world. That is my opinion.

Ludwik
.
.

JHC

Mar 7th 2011, 09:09 PM

I could give you a long list of council decisions, traditions, theology, and scripture but it basically comes down to this: Whatever runs counter to the message God's grace is not true. Another part of it is 2000 years of people believing that old book and you are only one person. Come back to me after a thousand years of history

Or let's say this: "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" I John 4:2. Is it scientific or unbiased? absolutely not. Do I believe it all the same? yes.

I'll concede this point cause better people can argue it if they want.

Interesting.

2000 years ago, there was no such things as germs, the sun and other stars rotated around the immobile Earth in the center of everything, the Earth was a flat disk, the cure for leprosy involved the sacrifice of a couple of birds and dribbling their blood about. All of these things were taken as truth by a vast majority of the Christian world and they were all wrong.

And of course, when it comes to using the believing masses as evidence for anything, we can always use any recent historical holocaust to show how foolish that is.

JHC

Mar 7th 2011, 09:14 PM

Fair enough. My point here is just that direct sensory perception imparts very little knowledge. We also rely on the testimony/authority of others and on our own reasoning and memory. In short, our knowledge goes beyond what our bare senses tell us.

Two thoughts. First, one should note that most religions hold that while the natural and super-natural are distinct, each is capable of influencing the other. Good argument. I've heard it before and I realize this is what many religions use as reasoning. It is fallacious but a good attempt.
And second, many people also hold that humans are capable of perceiving the super-natural world, that humans have spiritual as well as natural senses. In short, that humans themselves represent an instance of the natural and super-natural influecing one another via the connection between body and spirit. Psychics, prophets, various other mystics and spiritualists, and those who believe in them all accept this proposition.
I'm not necessarily arguing that this is so, just pointing out that not everyone begins with the same presuppoistions about the nature of the super-natural or human perception.

I think you need to separate perception of from explanation here. Yes, if we can perceive an event with our five senses, then the event must have occurred within the natural world (otherwise we could not have perceived it). But it doesn't necessarily follow that the explination of that event must be entirely natural.

By analogy, if I can perceive an event with my vision, then the event must have occurred within my eyesight (or else I could not have seen it). But that does not mean that the explanation of that event must be found entirely within my eyesight. Perhaps something I could not see is responsible for the event which I could see. If so, then though I cannot see the explanation itself, I can nonetheless learn something about it through what I can see.

I will sum it up briefly:

If I could cause you to believe in a god or to not believe in a god by pressing on a particular part of your brain, would you doubt that what you thought was super natural interference really was super natural?

Non Sequitur

Mar 8th 2011, 01:25 AM

Interesting.

2000 years ago, there was no such things as germs, the sun and other stars rotated around the immobile Earth in the center of everything, the Earth was a flat disk, the cure for leprosy involved the sacrifice of a couple of birds and dribbling their blood about. All of these things were taken as truth by a vast majority of the Christian world and they were all wrong.

The interesting thing about all that is none of that stuff is a central part of the faith. The central confession is that "Christ is risen." You don't need science to tell you that dead people don't usually come back to life. People in every age know how that isn't supposed to happen according to what is thought to be the normal rules. 2000 years ago people knew that suffering happened. Sickness, death, war, genocide, etc... are not new concepts. Yet people have confessed the first article of the Nicene creed ("I believe in God, the father, the almighty...") for almost 1,700 years. The primary question of religion is not "why/how do people get sick?", "what is the cure for a disease?", or "how does the Earth and Sun interact?" Instead, the real question is "is this it?" Sometimes theology answers that question by answering all the previous the questions, but underlying root answer is "no"

Sorry that sounded a little like a sermon :o

And of course, when it comes to using the believing masses as evidence for anything, we can always use any recent historical holocaust to show how foolish that is.

True enough and I try not to defend the Church for past actions. They are horrible and there is no excuse.

dilettante

Mar 8th 2011, 07:43 AM

I will sum it up briefly:

If I could cause you to believe in a god or to not believe in a god by pressing on a particular part of your brain, would you doubt that what you thought was super natural interference really was super natural?

Well, I already accept that if someone properly mucked about with the chemistry of my brain they could change my beliefs on pretty much anything (God, history, who my mother is, whether or not I like spinach...). If you pressed hard enough on my brain you could make it so I never believed (or did) anything else ever again. :)

And to some extent I doubt all my inferences about reality already; I'm aware that that I'm neither perfectly perceptive nor perfectly rational nor perfectly informed nor perfectly good. In short, I could be wrong.

The fact that I rely on my brain to make my inferences, and thus that messing with my brain will mess with those inferences, is simply another way in which I could be mistaken, another source of doubt about anything I believe. But I don't see it as adding more doubt about some beliefs (e.g. God) than others; the vulnerability of our brain chemistry calls into question all our inferences without discriminating between them.

JHC

Mar 12th 2011, 06:56 PM

The interesting thing about all that is none of that stuff is a central part of the faith. The central confession is that "Christ is risen." You don't need science to tell you that dead people don't usually come back to life. People in every age know how that isn't supposed to happen according to what is thought to be the normal rules. 2000 years ago people knew that suffering happened. Sickness, death, war, genocide, etc... are not new concepts. Yet people have confessed the first article of the Nicene creed ("I believe in God, the father, the almighty...") for almost 1,700 years. The primary question of religion is not "why/how do people get sick?", "what is the cure for a disease?", or "how does the Earth and Sun interact?" Instead, the real question is "is this it?" Sometimes theology answers that question by answering all the previous the questions, but underlying root answer is "no"

Sorry that sounded a little like a sermon :o No offense taken at all. :) Whenever someone talks in defense of his or her religion, it is bound to come out sounding like a sermon. It is, after all, the only defense that exists.

True enough and I try not to defend the Church for past actions. They are horrible and there is no excuse. I hope you didn't think I was implicating religion exclusively here. My comment was to do with group-think. I would argue that religion is a conduit for group think but it is one of a seemingly endless supply of conduits; racism, classicism, sexism - anything that acts to segregate the population and encourage exclusion.

JHC

Mar 12th 2011, 07:00 PM

The Drunk Guy

Mar 13th 2011, 12:55 AM

Fact is, people have been sending their children to 'science class' five days a week in the school system for decades. Yet religion still stands.

As I've often noted, religion, more often than not, is inherited from one's parents, just like language and culture.
Kids have to go to school, but that's not necessarily a parental endorsement for the material. My parents are intelligent and we often watched nature programming when I was young and impressionable. They were involved in church when my 10 and 12 years-older-than-me siblings were that age. They are both devout Christians while I am atheist. :shrug: Just sayin'.

dilettante

Mar 13th 2011, 10:56 AM

Well, I already accept that if someone properly mucked about with the chemistry of my brain they could change my beliefs on pretty much anything (God, history, who my mother is, whether or not I like spinach...). If you pressed hard enough on my brain you could make it so I never believed (or did) anything else ever again.

And to some extent I doubt all my inferences about reality already; I'm aware that that I'm neither perfectly perceptive nor perfectly rational nor perfectly informed nor perfectly good. In short, I could be wrong.

The fact that I rely on my brain to make my inferences, and thus that messing with my brain will mess with those inferences, is simply another way in which I could be mistaken, another source of doubt about anything I believe. But I don't see it as adding more doubt about some beliefs (e.g. God) than others; the vulnerability of our brain chemistry calls into question all our inferences without discriminating between them.

Alright. Your argument is that a belief in a super natural entity is just as reliable as your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning in the Eastern sky and set tomorrow evening in the West. Is this right?

I'm not sure I meant to be marking an "argument" at all, except that Theists and Scientists can peacefully coexist. But my immediate point above was just that all our beliefs/thoughts are subject to the state of our brains and to our perceptive and inferential imperfections generally. In those respects, at the very least, our beliefs about the natural and super-natural share vulnerabilities to error.

I'm not entirely sure what it means for a belief to be "reliable"? What's the difference between a reliable/unreliable belief and a accurate/erroneous belief? If "reliable" does just means "correct," then yes, I believe that my belief about the behavior of the earth relative to the sun and my belief about the existence of God are both correct. But that's simply saying "I believe what I believe," which while true, isn't terribly interesting.

Non Sequitur

Mar 13th 2011, 12:10 PM

No offense taken at all. :) Whenever someone talks in defense of his or her religion, it is bound to come out sounding like a sermon. It is, after all, the only defense that exists.

It can take the route. I try not to be in the defense of religion business. Most people don't come to the Church because of logical argument and if God does exist, the Almighty needs no defense from mortals. Apologetics is not my strong suit

I hope you didn't think I was implicating religion exclusively here. My comment was to do with group-think. I would argue that religion is a conduit for group think but it is one of a seemingly endless supply of conduits; racism, classicism, sexism - anything that acts to segregate the population and encourage exclusion.

Ah, well yes Religion can be that. It can also do a lot of good.

JHC

Mar 13th 2011, 12:20 PM

It can take the route. I try not to be in the defense of religion business. Most people don't come to the Church because of logical argument and if God does exist, the Almighty needs no defense from mortals. Apologetics is not my strong suit Understood and agreed.

Ah, well yes Religion can be that. It can also do a lot of good.So can the others. :sneaky:

As an aside, and please don't feel obligated to engage this aside, you say that "most people don't come to the Church because of logical argument..." with some sense of authority. I'm just curious if you've given thought to why you feel that you are speaking from authority on this particular statement.
And after that answer, I would like to ask what you believe is the reason that "most people" come to the Church. And lastly, are we talking exclusively about the Catholic Church or a Christian Church in general, or was that merely a statement made from habit? Because, I wonder what your opinion is of why people, in general, endeavor in spiritual pursuits at all.

JHC

Mar 13th 2011, 12:40 PM

I'm not sure I meant to be marking an "argument" at all, except that Theists and Scientists can peacefully coexist. But my immediate point above was just that all our beliefs/thoughts are subject to the state of our brains and to our perceptive and inferential imperfections generally. In those respects, at the very least, our beliefs about the natural and super-natural share vulnerabilities to error.

I'm not entirely sure what it means for a belief to be "reliable"? What's the difference between a reliable/unreliable belief and a accurate/erroneous belief? If "reliable" does just means "correct," then yes, I believe that my belief about the behavior of the earth relative to the sun and my belief about the existence of God are both correct. But that's simply saying "I believe what I believe," which while true, isn't terribly interesting.

Reliability is a measure of repeated tests yielding the same results.

Example: the sun has risen and set every single day (it is the very definition of a day after all), your entire life, your fathers entire life, his fathers entire life, and so on. I believe this has happened significantly the same way for about 4.6 billion years. That's approximately 1.69X10 to the tenth times.
Reliability.

You were talking about how unreliable your brain was anyway and so you just accept the fact that you could be wrong.

My argument is that a measure of reliability (an inference of a flawed human brain), allows us to exist at all.

You seem to be saying that granting your religious beliefs the same status without the underlying measure of reliability is no different. I disagree.

AND, more importantly, I think this is precisely why many theistic beliefs can not peacefully coexist with science - with reality at all for that matter.

Prime examples: martyrdom achieves a place at the right hand of God, prayer heals, pacifism in the face of brutality. ALL of these result in extinction for the believer and for those that share the community. I want to live. I want my children to live.

Non Sequitur

Mar 13th 2011, 01:27 PM

As an aside, and please don't feel obligated to engage this aside, you say that "most people don't come to the Church because of logical argument..." with some sense of authority. I'm just curious if you've given thought to why you feel that you are speaking from authority on this particular statement.
And after that answer, I would like to ask what you believe is the reason that "most people" come to the Church. And lastly, are we talking exclusively about the Catholic Church or a Christian Church in general, or was that merely a statement made from habit? Because, I wonder what your opinion is of why people, in general, endeavor in spiritual pursuits at all.

Well lets start with "the Church." I am Lutheran so I'm not referring to the Roman Catholic Church only. I almost went into an incredibly long post on theology of the Church, but what I mean is this: people usually don't enter into the community of the faithful, get baptized, take Communion, and participates in all the other rites because they were logically convinced. Sometimes a rare individual in convinced by argument, but that is not normal. The usual reason, from the position of scripture, tradition, and the experience that I have is that faith is a gift given by God. People look for God because God is calling them first.

JHC

Mar 13th 2011, 02:05 PM

Well lets start with "the Church." I am Lutheran so I'm not referring to the Roman Catholic Church only. I almost went into an incredibly long post on theology of the Church, but what I mean is this: people usually don't enter into the community of the faithful, get baptized, take Communion, and participates in all the other rites because they were logically convinced. Sometimes a rare individual in convinced by argument, but that is not normal. The usual reason, from the position of scripture, tradition, and the experience that I have is that faith is a gift given by God. People look for God because God is calling them first.

So the authority from which you speak about "most people..." stems from your personal experience and is limited to a particular branch of Christian Church. Is this correct?

And you believe that this particular segment of "most people" are called to the Church by God - this is a faith statement of course.

So when we talk about deists and scientists, you speak only of your brand of theists, believing that those are whom are called by God. What about the rest of the theists/deists?

Surely it is a harmless turn of phrase, "most people". And yet, when you speak of most people, you are speaking of only those of your own faith amongst the theists and only theists amongst the population.

Do you see how easily we segregate ourselves into us and them. Can deists/theists coexist peacefully with scientists? I believe (a faith statement based on personal experience), that we exist best when we view one another as members of the same community.

Non Sequitur

Mar 13th 2011, 03:26 PM

So the authority from which you speak about "most people..." stems from your personal experience and is limited to a particular branch of Christian Church. Is this correct?

And you believe that this particular segment of "most people" are called to the Church by God - this is a faith statement of course.

So when we talk about deists and scientists, you speak only of your brand of theists, believing that those are whom are called by God. What about the rest of the theists/deists?

Surely it is a harmless turn of phrase, "most people". And yet, when you speak of most people, you are speaking of only those of your own faith amongst the theists and only theists amongst the population.

Do you see how easily we segregate ourselves into us and them. Can deists/theists coexist peacefully with scientists? I believe (a faith statement based on personal experience), that we exist best when we view one another as members of the same community.

Well, the authority I am speaking from comes from scripture: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:44 (we could go into a very long discussion on predestination here, but I don't want to). My experience comes in only after scripture. I do believe the "faith is a gift" theology to be the normative way. I say most people because I don't like absolute statements when we are talking about God because that limits God.

As for us/them language, I would agree with the idea about being from the same community but I am coming from the perspective of a Christian. Nothing comes before that.

JHC

Mar 13th 2011, 04:28 PM

Well, the authority I am speaking from comes from scripture: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:44 (we could go into a very long discussion on predestination here, but I don't want to). My experience comes in only after scripture. I do believe the "faith is a gift" theology to be the normative way. I say most people because I don't like absolute statements when we are talking about God because that limits God.

As for us/them language, I would agree with the idea about being from the same community but I am coming from the perspective of a Christian. Nothing comes before that.

Indeed.

dilettante

Mar 14th 2011, 10:05 AM

Reliability is a measure of repeated tests yielding the same results.

Example: the sun has risen and set every single day (it is the very definition of a day after all), your entire life, your fathers entire life, his fathers entire life, and so on. I believe this has happened significantly the same way for about 4.6 billion years. That's approximately 1.69X10 to the tenth times.
Reliability.

...

You seem to be saying that granting your religious beliefs the same status without the underlying measure of reliability is no different. I disagree.

Ah, I see. If we take reliability as "a measure of repeated tests yielding the same results," then I think that the motions of the earth and sun can be called reliable in ways that God cannot. In order to meaningfully test something you have to have some level of control over it and (as might be expected) we don't have that level of control over God.

Your definition of reliability seems very scientific (repeated experiments and such), and I think I can agree that God cannot be said to be not scientifically reliable (or knowable); we lack the ability, and I hope the arrogance, to experiment on God. :)

But as I said before, I don't think everyone accepts that the only way to know something/someone or to determine reliability is through scientific testing.

AND, more importantly, I think this is precisely why many theistic beliefs can not peacefully coexist with science - with reality at all for that matter.

Prime examples: martyrdom achieves a place at the right hand of God, prayer heals, pacifism in the face of brutality. ALL of these result in extinction for the believer and for those that share the community. I want to live. I want my children to live.

Well, first off, it's worth noting that all those beliefs are quite old and in some cases having been transmitted from generation to generation of millennia. So, I don't think it's fair to say that they result in extinction.

But returning to the question of peaceful co-existence, let's take your three examples. Suppose your neighbor believes all three: That those who die for their beliefs (martyrs) are rewarded in heaven, that God can and does heal people in response to prayer, and that violence is morally unacceptable (pacifism) even in the face of brutality.
Now, assuming that this neighbor is willing to peacefully co-exist with you and not try to force you to accept his beliefs (which seems entirely possibly given the beliefs in question), what's keeping you from peacefully co-existing with him? Do your beliefs demand that you either forcefully convert him or separate from him?

It seems to me that there's nothing inherently preventing peaceful co-existence on your neighbor's side of the fence. So, as long as there isn't anything preventing it on your side, peaceful coexistence should be possible.

JHC

Mar 17th 2011, 01:48 PM

Ah, I see. If we take reliability as "a measure of repeated tests yielding the same results," then I think that the motions of the earth and sun can be called reliable in ways that God cannot. In order to meaningfully test something you have to have some level of control over it and (as might be expected) we don't have that level of control over God. Do you seriously mean to say that mankind has some measure of control over the solar system simply by observing and describing a day?
I would be fucking arrogant as hell if I could control the solar system! Forget measuring God, I would be God! :rofl:

Your definition of reliability seems very scientific (repeated experiments and such), and I think I can agree that God cannot be said to be not scientifically reliable (or knowable); we lack the ability, and I hope the arrogance, to experiment on God. :) STOP! Just for a second and look who just called whom arrogant!
But as I said before, I don't think everyone accepts that the only way to know something/someone or to determine reliability is through scientific testing. No. I'm not talking about science when I define reliability. A good watch is reliable if it produces the correct time for many years. A reliable bicycle requires few repairs and is still ready to work every day.

If you think that science is arrogant and you think that the definition of reliable is a scientific definition, then you must think that measuring reliability is an affront to your theistic belief system.

YES, this is why science and theism can not peacefully coexist.

Reliability is what leads to a justified faith. One has faith that his or her watch will keep ticking, bike will keep working and sun will rise in the East and set in the West in about a 24 hour cycle.

Faith that there is a god is not a justified faith. As you made clear in your own words, there is no justification for a belief in a god.
And I might add that if there is no justification, what a flamingly arrogant statement it would be to comment about that god's character if, in fact, it might exist!

Well, first off, it's worth noting that all those beliefs are quite old and in some cases having been transmitted from generation to generation of millennia. So, I don't think it's fair to say that they result in extinction.
But returning to the question of peaceful co-existence, let's take your three examples. Suppose your neighbor believes all three: That those who die for their beliefs (martyrs) are rewarded in heaven, that God can and does heal people in response to prayer, and that violence is morally unacceptable (pacifism) even in the face of brutality.
Now, assuming that this neighbor is willing to peacefully co-exist with you and not try to force you to accept his beliefs (which seems entirely possibly given the beliefs in question), what's keeping you from peacefully co-existing with him? Do your beliefs demand that you either forcefully convert him or separate from him?
Why do you ask what keeps me from peacefully coexisting with him rather than asking what prevents peaceful coexistence? Why is this a you vs. me? Or, rather, an "everyone" or a "most people" vs. me? Why did you give the religious person the superior position? Funny how naturally that slips into ones absolute core - that us and them attitude.

Limited resources is what will prevent peaceful coexistence between the two. If there were two people living on a planet, a continent, or on the same abundant 50 acres, I doubt very much that their spiritual proclivities would prevent their peaceful coexistence.
It seems to me that there's nothing inherently preventing peaceful co-existence on your neighbor's side of the fence. So, as long as there isn't anything preventing it on your side, peaceful coexistence should be possible.

Again - as long as I can get along, we won't have any problems.

What you have set up is a scenario in which one person has three exclusive religious beliefs attached to no other dogma. It should be easy to allow this person to simply exist since you've stripped away all other dogma. Right?

Perhaps these two people are existing on a deserted island. There are limited resources and limited means of survival. Working together will allow them the best chances of both surviving, and escaping to better circumstances. However, since one of these people believes that prayer is the answer, the other is essentially working alone, AND competing for limited resources.

They are both doomed because one of them sees himself as separate and special. Unless of coarse, the god exists and saves just that one person. Then we are back to measures of reliability.

If these two people were you and I and you had a greater faith in prayer than you did in our ability to build a raft or devise and build shelter etc., then I would outlast you only by a margin because my faith would be based on reliability.

JHC

Mar 17th 2011, 03:18 PM

I think that each side must end the "we are better than you" attitude, not theists only. Please give an example of this attitude from scientists.

I think that what many people see as an attitude of "better than you", is merely a preponderance of correct answers. As I said to dilletante, if the scientist and the theist have different answers to the same question and the scientists answer is better, does the theist feel put down?

In our society, to be wrong is to be weak; to be ignorant is to be stupid. So being told that one is wrong equates to an affront.

If one is offended merely by being wrong, what hope is there of existence at all let alone peaceful coexistence?
Agreement on this would be the second step toward peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. The first step would be the agreement on two separate worlds, spiritual and physical. Scientists would stop making claims about things in the spiritual world and theists would stop making claims in the physical world. That is my opinion.

Ludwik
.
.
Please give an example of scientists making claims about any "spiritual world".

Why would a scientist make a claim about anything other than the real world?

dilettante

Mar 17th 2011, 03:41 PM

Do you seriously mean to say that mankind has some measure of control over the solar system simply by observing and describing a day?
I would be fucking arrogant as hell if I could control the solar system! Forget measuring God, I would be God! :rofl:

Perhaps control was not the optimal term. Sorry. Perhaps it would have been bettered to say that the thing being tested must be controlled, either by the testers or simply but its own nature, such that all variables and changes to them are observable.

If we're testing how a particular diet influences blood pressure, we can't have the subjects taking vacations part way through unless they're willing to give us an account of what they ate, and we can't have them refusing to take blood pressure tests. Otherwise, our tests are meaningless because we couldn't control for all the variables.

In short, to be tested, the subject must yield all relevant information to us, either voluntarily or simply because it lacks the ability to do otherwise (like the solar system). If the subject can and does choose to withhold relevant information about itself, we can't meaningfully scientifically test it. Such is our situation wrt God (and also quite often to human subjects).

No. I'm not talking about science when I define reliability. A good watch is reliable if it produces the correct time for many years. A reliable bicycle requires few repairs and is still ready to work every day.

If you think that science is arrogant and you think that the definition of reliable is a scientific definition, then you must think that measuring reliability is an affront to your theistic belief system.

It seems to me that your definition of reliability involves making repeated observations of a phenomena over an extended period of time and assuming that established patterns can predict future behavior. That strikes me as one very useful way of determining reliability. If also strikes me as quite scientific as it involves observation/experimentation, repeatability, and the search for fixed patterns.

And I don't think that science is arrogant; I don't believe I said it was. I did say that it would be arrogant to think that we could scientifically study God, and I stand by that. However, I doubt that many people think that.

YES, this is why science and theism can not peacefully coexist.

Reliability is what leads to a justified faith. One has faith that his or her watch will keep ticking, bike will keep working and sun will rise in the East and set in the West in about a 24 hour cycle.

Faith that there is a god is not a justified faith. As you made clear in your own words, there is no justification for a belief in a god.
And I might add that if there is no justification, what a flamingly arrogant statement it would be to comment about that god's character if, in fact, it might exist!

Here again, I think it comes down to how one determines reliability/knowledge/justification. You've define one very useful and good way to do so: through regular observations over time, preferably in a somewhat controlled environment (e.g. the fact that your watch has always kept good time for years doesn't matter if someone might have been secretly resetting every night). That's fine.

However, not everyone holds that that is the only way to determine-reliability/obtain-knowledge/justify-faith. Put another way, not everyone believes that it is the only path to truth.

Why do you ask what keeps me from peacefully coexisting with him rather than asking what prevents peaceful coexistence? Why is this a you vs. me? Or, rather, an "everyone" or a "most people" vs. me? Why did you give the religious person the superior position? Funny how naturally that slips into ones absolute core - that us and them attitude.

Well, you're the one I'm talking to and he's just a figment of our imagination and so it's hard to ask him. :)
I certainly didn't mean to offend.

What you have set up is a scenario in which one person has three exclusive religious beliefs attached to no other dogma. It should be easy to allow this person to simply exist since you've stripped away all other dogma. Right?

:shrug: I only assigned him the three beliefs you suggested: the glorification of martyrs, that prayer can heal, and pacifism.

Perhaps these two people are existing on a deserted island. There are limited resources and limited means of survival. Working together will allow them the best chances of both surviving, and escaping to better circumstances. However, since one of these people believes that prayer is the answer, the other is essentially working alone, AND competing for limited resources.

They are both doomed because one of them sees himself as separate and special. Unless of coarse, the god exists and saves just that one person. Then we are back to measures of reliability.

If these two people were you and I and you had a greater faith in prayer than you did in our ability to build a raft or devise and build shelter etc., then I would outlast you only by a margin because my faith would be based on reliability.

OK, two people are on an island and they different beliefs as to the best way to escape (one's beliefs could be religious, though I'm not sure it actually matters). One of three things can happen:
1) They can both do their best to implement their own plans separately, sharing resources or at least access to resources.
2) One can (try to) peacefully persuade the other to believe in his plan so they can work together on it.
3) One can force the other to change or abandon their beliefs and/or make them unable to act upon them (e.g. forcefully taking all the resources, killing the other person, etc...)

Options 1 and 2 are (it seems to me) peaceful coexistence: they exist, together, peacefully. Option 3 is the alternative to peaceful coexistence.

To say that theists and non-theists (including scientists) cannot coexist is to say that, on this island of earth, option 3 is the only possibility. I don't think that's true. I don't think all theists must want to force their beliefs on others or silence them; I don't think all non-theists (or scientists) must want to forcefully silence all theistic beliefs. Are there some, in both camps, who do? Almost certainly. But such intolerance is essentially inherent to neither theism, atheism, nor science.

JHC

Mar 17th 2011, 04:06 PM

...

OK, two people are on an island and they different beliefs as to the best way to escape (one's beliefs could be religious, though I'm not sure it actually matters). One of three things can happen:
1) They can both do their best to implement their own plans separately, sharing resources or at least access to resources.
2) One can (try to) peacefully persuade the other to believe in his plan so they can work together on it.
3) One can force the other to change or abandon their beliefs and/or make them unable to act upon them (e.g. forcefully taking all the resources, killing the other person, etc...)

Options 1 and 2 are (it seems to me) peaceful coexistence: they exist, together, peacefully. Option 3 is the alternative to peaceful coexistence.

To say that theists and non-theists (including scientists) cannot coexist is to say that, on this island of earth, option 3 is the only possibility. I don't think that's true. I don't think all theists must want to force their beliefs on others or silence them; I don't think all non-theists (or scientists) must want to forcefully silence all theistic beliefs. Are there some, in both camps, who do? Almost certainly. But such intolerance is essentially inherent to neither theism, atheism, nor science.

#1) Already discussed. Leave it out.

#2) and #3) go together as coercion.

#2 is successful by two possible means: reason or manipulation by lies

#3 is not peaceful coexistence. Leave it out.

So, we are left with option #2 and it's two possible means - reason and/or lies. The second method can not promote peaceful coexistence.

Now we are down to ONE answer: "One can (try to) peacefully persuade the other to believe in his plan so they can work together on it."

And we are back to arguing over which is better, reason, or unjustified faith.

The loser in this world will be the one that insists on unjustified faith. It is statistically practically certain. If, for instance, you step off the roof of a skyscraper your practical chances of being saved by the hand of a god are zero. But please, don't be grabbing for my hem as you slip over the edge.

Now all that discussion about what constitutes reliability or science should be quite clear.

JHC

Mar 17th 2011, 04:38 PM

Thanks for the homonym catch, Margot. Coarse s/b course. Of course.

dilettante

Mar 17th 2011, 08:08 PM

OK, two people are on an island and they different beliefs as to the best way to escape (one's beliefs could be religious, though I'm not sure it actually matters). One of three things can happen:
1) They can both do their best to implement their own plans separately, sharing resources or at least access to resources.
2) One can (try to) peacefully persuade the other to believe in his plan so they can work together on it.
3) One can force the other to change or abandon their beliefs and/or make them unable to act upon them (e.g. forcefully taking all the resources, killing the other person, etc...)
#1) Already discussed. Leave it out.

Wait, I think I must have missed this. What prevents option 1?

#2) and #3) go together as coercion.

I have to disagree here. I think claiming that persuasion=coercion is both inaccurate and exceedingly dangerous. Or have I misunderstood you?

#2 is successful by two possible means: reason or manipulation by lies

That seems too simplistic. People are often persuaded by things such as emotional appeals, personal desire, irrational whims...etc. It seems to me that there's much more to persuasion than just reasoned argument and lying. At the very least, one can be both honest and unreasonable at the same time.

But I can certainly agree that persuasion can be both honest or dishonest.

#3 is not peaceful coexistence. Leave it out.

Fair enough.

So, we are left with option #2 and it's two possible means - reason and/or lies. The second method can not promote peaceful coexistence.

Now we are down to ONE answer: "One can (try to) peacefully persuade the other to believe in his plan so they can work together on it."

And we are back to arguing over which is better, reason, or unjustified faith.

The loser in this world will be the one that insists on unjustified faith. It is statistically practically certain. If, for instance, you step off the roof of a skyscraper your practical chances of being saved by the hand of a god are zero. But please, don't be grabbing for my hem as you slip over the edge.

Now all that discussion about what constitutes reliability or science should be quite clear.

So the question of peaceful coexistence comes down to whether two people with different beliefs can agree to disagree without one trying to force their beliefs on the other and/or exterminating the other.

It seems to me that they can (and quite often do). Admittedly, there have been many instances in which some of them haven't. But I don't see any reason to conclude that such coexistence is impossible.

But I'm curious, if you still disagree and think peaceful coexistence is impossible, what alternative do you suggest?

Americano

Mar 17th 2011, 09:31 PM

Wait, I think I must have missed this. What prevents option 1?

I have to disagree here. I think claiming that persuasion=coercion is both inaccurate and exceedingly dangerous. Or have I misunderstood you?

That seems too simplistic. People are often persuaded by things such as emotional appeals, personal desire, irrational whims...etc. It seems to me that there's much more to persuasion than just reasoned argument and lying. At the very least, one can be both honest and unreasonable at the same time.

But I can certainly agree that persuasion can be both honest or dishonest.

Fair enough.

So the question of peaceful coexistence comes down to whether two people with different beliefs can agree to disagree without one trying to force their beliefs on the other and/or exterminating the other.

It seems to me that they can (and quite often do). Admittedly, there have been many instances in which some of them haven't. But I don't see any reason to conclude that such coexistence is impossible.

But I'm curious, if you still disagree and think peaceful coexistence is impossible, what alternative do you suggest?

As any compromise to benefit a union has been eliminated I think that's rather obvious. War.

kowalskil

Apr 13th 2011, 09:49 PM