| Pages:
1
2
3
..
8 |
kowalskil
Harmless
Posts: 2
Registered: 26-11-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Can science and religion coexist peacefully?
Can science and religion coexist peacefully? This is a good question to start an interesting discussion. See how it was answered by many smart people
at my website:
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/donotmix.html
Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, NJ
|
|
|
psychokinetic
National Hazard
Posts: 558
Registered: 30-8-2009
Location: Nouveau Sheepelande.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Constantly missing equilibrium
|
|
Religion and science? Probably not.
The existence of god(s) and science? Yeah, they don't exclude one another.
Those who say they do are equating existence with religion, whereas religion is one version of a story as written by men. Stories that will be
defended in the face of reason for many reasons.
Science does not exclude gods, no matter how many stories of men is contradicts.
“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found
the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
-Tesla
|
|
|
kowalskil
Harmless
Posts: 2
Registered: 26-11-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by psychokinetic  | Religion and science? Probably not.
The existence of god(s) and science? Yeah, they don't exclude one another.
Those who say they do are equating existence with religion, whereas religion is one version of a story as written by men. Stories that will be
defended in the face of reason for many reasons.
Science does not exclude gods, no matter how many stories of men is contradicts. |
Here are additional observations:
To coexist peacefully means not to fight with each other. It does not mean that every scientist must be a deist (believer in God) and every deist must
be a scientist.
To accept is not the same thing as to tolerate. Mutual tolerance is sufficient for peaceful coexistence of science and religion.
Many atheists (those who want "to convert" others) are neither scientists nor deists; the same applies to many proselytizers.
Some people are comfortable with believing in God; other people are comfortable with rejecting God. That is OK with me. Why should we fight each
other?
Some people are comfortable with being scientists; other people are comfortable with rejecting science. That is also OK with me. Why should we fight
each other?
Why should we not tolerate each other? What is gained from fighting each other (sometimes burning and killing each other)?
L. Kowalski, a retired nuclear scientist (see wikipedia) is the author of
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
about my evolution from a devoted Stalinist to an active anti-communist. Based on a diary I kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France
and the USA).
|
|
|
bbartlog
International Hazard
Posts: 1139
Registered: 27-8-2009
Location: Unmoored in time
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I can't speak to science and religion coexisting, but I'm quite sure off-topic link spam and this board won't coexist peacefully. Hopefully someone
will move this to detritus.
|
|
|
DDTea
National Hazard
Posts: 940
Registered: 25-2-2003
Location: Freedomland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Degenerate
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by bbartlog | | I can't speak to science and religion coexisting, but I'm quite sure off-topic link spam and this board won't coexist peacefully. Hopefully someone
will move this to detritus. |
Maybe Whimsy would be more appropriate. It could lead to a neat discussion, but I think it would be better for him to be more specific with his
question and for him to at least include relevant portions from his website that he'd like to specifically discuss.
Personally, when I see topics about religion and science, my eyes glaze over. I know many excellent scientists who are devout believers and many who
are agnostics or atheists. To me, it's unimportant. I keep the two happily separate.
"In the end the proud scientist or philosopher who cannot be bothered to make his thought accessible has no choice but to retire to the heights in
which dwell the Great Misunderstood and the Great Ignored, there to rail in Olympic superiority at the folly of mankind." - Reginald Kapp.
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
Science is a religion so of course they can co-exist. We have faith in particals we have never directly observed. We had faith these existed due to
calculations put in place well before there discovery.
We have faith right now in many theorys that are sure to be proven wrong in the future. Hell I don't agree with our theory of gravity and I feel
everyones following a false notion but unless I can prove it then we have faith in our current understanding. This is the difference between religion
and science. Im forced to believe in gravity with religion yet science im able to question and hopefully discover something new that our "god" has put
forth.
The only difference between our religion and standard religion is that we are willing to change our stance on our beliefs if something proves amiss.
Mass religion however alters there beliefs on popularity other then fact.
[Edited on 27-11-2010 by Sedit]
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Before anyone else does I have to say wrong place for this topic. I imagine it will be moved.
OK edit, there were no replies yet when I started writing this.
I have to say your credentials and book (life story) are amazing.
In 1957 I went to France for postgraduate studies. After returning to Poland in 1963 with a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics, I was
invited to a scientific conference in the US, and became a research associate at Columbia University. My teaching career began in 1969.
I do think before anyone easily dismisses this man they should compare their credentials and experience to his.
Next time I think too much of myself I will read your book again. Hell of a life I have to say. I do not think believers and scientists are two
different groups. There are many of each in each group.
Of all the mediocre scientists I have ever met or read about none to very few believed in God. Of all the truly great scientists who ever lived, I
have not seen one who did not believe in God.
Albert Einstein is my prime example. I defy anyone living to refute this. The largest (in size) book I own is a complete collection of all known
writings by Einstein, all his personal letters to loved ones, as well as to other scientists each one of great fame. In general everything ever saved
which was written by the man. For decades I have studied the mans letters and gained a great deal of insight into what he believed which he stated
very well in his own words. Quite a lot of them are in German which I cannot read but I have encountered people here and there who I got to read them
to me. One was a girl I lived with in the 80's, a native German who could read the letters to me easily. I still think this was why we broke up, it
was all boring as hell to her and I used to bug her for hours on end to be my translator.
Einstein firmly believed in God, intelligent design and creation. Why when squabbling over quantum mechanics would he have said "God does not play
dice with the universe" if he was an unbeliever? To tell the truth most information about the man comes from other people writing what they thought
he meant on many subjects. Most of this flies in the face of the many hundreds of personal letters he wrote meaning to know the man listen to the man
not what someone else thinks the man had to say.
A perfect example is relativity. I remember a dispute over concept I had with a Cornell professor on this subject, specifically a dimensionality
concept related to xyz=ict which is not easy to comprehend and much harder to relate to others. Every outside book I have read gives a different light
on this.
Interestingly he is able to explain things well and simply in his own words whereas I had trouble understanding things written about it in the years
before I came across his theory (book). So many have written books about relativity based upon what they think he meant yet here and there you see
error if you read and compare to the original. This I can do, I doubt many exist but I have a copy of the original book on the subject written by
Einstein himself rather than a rewrite on the theory by someone else. I ran across two copies of this book over the years. One I can read, the other
was original German and I parted with it to a collector years ago. He rewrote the book in English during his years in this country (US). Title is
'Relativity' by Albert Einstein. Always wanted to scan and save in data format the books but I just will not allow the binding to be laid flat out to
get a good scan so they sit on a shelf.
On topic I have to say I see no reason you cannot be a great scientist and believe in God, especially since we have the evidence that the greatest
that ever existed did.
"Mass religion however alters there beliefs on popularity other then fact."
I have to say not nearly so much as the peer review process in science if you study history.
[Edited on 11-27-2010 by IrC]
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
Ozone
International Hazard
Posts: 1269
Registered: 28-7-2005
Location: Good Olde USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Integrated
|
|
Not this again...
Kill it before it breeds.
O3
OK...This definitely DOES NOT belong in "Chemistry in General".
[Edited on 27-11-2010 by Ozone]
-Anyone who never made a mistake never tried anything new.
--Albert Einstein
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
I don't think this should die as quick as everyone wants it to, it should be in whimsy perhaps but lets talk about it instead of tossing it in the
trash as soon as you hear the word god.
God could be many things, IMHO hes everything and cares nothing, but thats just how I feel about it. I say "he" as though its an object yet what I
believe is its an energy, non thelest thats just my theory and it always will be since we are speaking of comprehending the uncomprehendable.
Don't all be so quick to dismiss the possibility of an unknown force that controls all other forces that we know of. To do so would be a disgrace to
the scientific minds all over. The main question comes about when one tries to figure out if such a force has intellect. Since I am sure there is much
to be learned about the nature of reality I have to keep my mind open yet skeptical as I believe all should.
When it comes down to it lets divert the conversation to a scientific mind of, Does a religion need a god? If the answer is yes then what form should
it take?
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Not one of the everyone myself, I see no spam his book is free. Most importantly I look at his credentials, life history, and weigh in being a two
poster he is not savvy with what subject should go where. Anyone who would off the cuff discount or belittle this man is unworthy of a job in a drive
through window serving burgers.
Would not hurt to move to whimsy though.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
zed
International Hazard
Posts: 2277
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord
|
|
This belongs elsewhere.
Now, to answer your pathetic question anyway.
The Supreme Consciousness, The One, was supremely blissed out. Still, even being totally blissed out, becomes monotonous after an eternity.
So, to liven up the party, Numero Uno, dreamed into existence the helterskelter scenario that we perceive we are immersed in.
Not real. Maya.
It's like a very complex movie, or a gigantic set of encyclopedias. Within this entertainment device, there is a chapter with the title: Science.
It is a very interesting chapter, and our amnesiac overlord very much enjoys rediscovering it, while disguised as you. Heh, heh. The great author
marvels at the beauty of (his?) own manuscript, after purposely having forgotten its creation. Too ironic for words.
If you wish to observe some of the construction of this elaborate set of illusions, simply raise your focus of consciousness to a point, that feels
like it is about six-feet above the top, of what you perceive to be your "head". It's a place we call "Kether"; The Crown of Creation.
|
|
|
psychokinetic
National Hazard
Posts: 558
Registered: 30-8-2009
Location: Nouveau Sheepelande.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Constantly missing equilibrium
|
|
The question is not pathetic, the answers that assume the question wrongly are.
Zed, that does not answer the question at all, you're talking about a deity/perception.
“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found
the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
-Tesla
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
Note.....You pissed me off at the word pathetic BTW.....
Zed you speak as if you know, yet you just repeat the past writtings of others works. I know what Kether is and I understand fully, perhaps much,
MUCH, more then yourself what the true meaning of the tree of life was about. So please lets not turn this into a discussion of specifics because im
far to gone for that right now.
Lets focus on if there is infact a place for science in understanding the totality of the universe, AKA "GOD".......
The problem with science and religion isn't the religion but the scientist. I can see that from the few post made so far on the subject. It appears
close minded people that, where as they may have great knowledge of whats already known, they fall very short of understanding whats beyond common
knowledge and couldnt for the life of themselfs envision something greater then there worthless, in the grand schem of things, lives.
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
psychokinetic
National Hazard
Posts: 558
Registered: 30-8-2009
Location: Nouveau Sheepelande.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Constantly missing equilibrium
|
|
I see no reason why there could be an all powerful deity that created everything we see and discover, but in regards to this question it is equating
gods with religions. God(s) could create everything we see and discover, but religion is the words of man, and men don't like to be proved wrong,
especially when there is a large group of believers in what they say.
“If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found
the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.”
-Tesla
|
|
|
zed
International Hazard
Posts: 2277
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord
|
|
All things exist within The Supreme Being.
The Supreme Being creates our thoughts and perceptions. Some of those perceptions simulate a physical universe.
Do you see only the physical universe, and the science that is a part of it?
If so, you are looking in the wrong direction. You will not see the supreme being by looking outwards, nor will you find the source of physical
universe.
If you look inwards, you may be able to observe the supreme being at play, and look on as the physical universe emerges through you.
Disagree? I suggest a simple experiment. A scientific experiment. Endeavor to activate the kundalini force which lies latent at the base of your
spine. Thereby expanding your sensory awareness. Simply devote an hour a day to Hatha Yoga, Pranayama, and opening the Anahata and Ajna Chakras via
the sounds AHHHH and EEEEEEE. Get some sunlight on you while you experiment. Sixty days ought to do it.
Ideas are useless. Thinking is a deception. The answer is in direct experience.
|
|
|
Sedit
International Hazard
Posts: 1939
Registered: 23-11-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Manic Expressive
|
|
Look, I can't say I fully disagree but that kind of cyclic esoteric speach is what causes these types of topics to end up in the trash bin quicker
then I can shit out a meal from taco bell. Speak like science, thats what this sites all about ... right?
Knowledge is useless to useless people...
"I see a lot of patterns in our behavior as a nation that parallel a lot of other historical processes. The fall of Rome, the fall of Germany — the
fall of the ruling country, the people who think they can do whatever they want without anybody else's consent. I've seen this story
before."~Maynard James Keenan
|
|
|
zed
International Hazard
Posts: 2277
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord
|
|
Sedit......It is science. And, I proposed a scientific experiment.
A regimen of exercises that may be successful in expanding the scope of your perceptions. Thereby, allowing you better access to the higher
dimensions of your being.
Discussing theology with someone who can't perceive even a glimmer of the divine essence, is like trying to discuss astronomy with someone who has
been blind from birth.
Attaining higher states of consciousness has a practical side too. The higher aspects of your being, are immersed in various flavors of bliss. Tune
in to them, and you begin to feel pretty high, without having to consume mountains of dope. You become, as William Borroughs would say, "Your own
connection".
|
|
|
condennnsa
Hazard to Others
Posts: 217
Registered: 20-4-2010
Location: Romania
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Sedit | Since I am sure there is much to be learned about the nature of reality I have to keep my mind open yet skeptical as I believe all should.
|
I agree. We already know so much, but this is most likely an infinitesimal part of the real picture.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by IrC | .
Einstein firmly believed in God, intelligent design and creation. Why when squabbling over quantum mechanics would he have said "God does not play
dice with the universe" if he was an unbeliever? To tell the truth most information about the man comes from other people writing what they thought
he meant on many subjects. Most of this flies in the face of the many hundreds of personal letters he wrote meaning to know the man listen to the man
not what someone else thinks the man had to say.
[Edited on 11-27-2010 by IrC] |
This is complete and utter baloney. Nonsense of the highest order, based probably on the out of context and abrogated version of the (in)famous ‘G-d
doesn’t play dice’ quote. You have to be a complete ignoramus or an agenda driven religionist to believe Einstein actually believed in a Theistic
G-d…
Einstein refuted this belief that he was religious many, many times very publicly. You've been lied to. Considering the kind of vacuous remarks you've
spouted elsewhere it doesn't surprise me that you fall for something you undoubtedly want to desperately believe in...
If anyone is a Creationist it’s in all likelihood IrC, projecting onto good ole’ Albert.
Science and religion aren’t necessarily incompatible but they do approach the quest for truth (a worldview if you prefer) in completely different
ways. And there are (and most certainly were) many religious scientists but Einstein wasn’t one of them.
[Edited on 27-11-2010 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1332
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
God And Science
My 2 cents worth. I believe that God gave us brains with the capacity for science. My
problem comes from organized religion. They're often in conflict with scientists.
All one has to do is look at the controversy over stem cell research.
BTW, I have a friend who is deeply religious, attends church every Sunday, and is NOT
a scientist. However, he is among the few that I know that believe there is intelligent
life beyond our world. Possibly shocking to his fellow churchgoers. But different
strokes for different folks.
Also, IMHO, this thread should be moved to 'Legal And Societal Issues' or 'Whimsy'.
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
So I suppose the hundreds of personal letters by Einstein I have copies of prove Einstein was insane since he according to you was an atheist while he
talked about God and his beliefs so many times over so many years to so many people? These are not peer reviewed articles, they are letters he wrote
to the ones he loved and respected in life. I promise you are not one of these since if you had ever met the man you would have learned he was a kind,
warm, very caring human being.
Also you are attacking and insulting me for no reason other than this is the M.O. of all sick small minded people unable to debate issues calmly with
reason and logic. And facts.
"You have to be a complete ignoramus or an agenda driven religionist to believe Einstein actually believed in a Theistic G-d…"
As stated previously by another, this is why the subject is pointless to discuss. Your spirit is so full of darkness you are unable to debate. So
lacking in wisdom you have no counterpoint beyond blind hatred and name calling in lieu of mature polite discussion. So dark your hatred for your
creator makes you unable to even put the O in the name. G-d is not the name.
When you defend your PHD I assume you will use insults instead of intelligence?
As for me I am done with this thread I am sick of talking to people like you.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
I'm devoutly agnostic - religion only corrupts science . . .
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
@ IrC:
You are indeed bitterly ignorant on the subject of Einstein’s atheism/deism/theism. You would already see that if you just took the trouble of
searching for the context to the ‘God doesn’t play dice’ quote. That sentence is only a very small part of the actual statement.
You are confusing his belief in a deterministic world (totally mode du jour for centuries) with theism. Later Einstein did accept the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. And for his early scepticism about Big Bang Cosmology he actually apologised by letter to the Belgian
priest and founding father of the then embryonic singularity theory, George Lemaitre.
Stating he was a religious person (a theist at least) is like stating he was a Zionist (that too has been said by those with an agenda). He wasn’t
and stated so. He also refused the first presidentship of Israel for those reasons. Despite that, those (like you) who want to turn the truth on its
head still claim he was a Zionist.
You want examples of religious scientists? Not a hard at all: up to less than a hundred years ago just about everybody was religious. Newton and
Galileo were (Newton deeply so). All Islamic scholars (up to today of course), alchemists, astronomers etc alike, were religious.
Einstein just wasn’t one of them… You know diddly squat.
|
|
|
arsphenamine
Hazard to Others
Posts: 236
Registered: 12-8-2010
Location: I smell horses, Maryland, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I differentiate religion and science rather strictly.
Religion requires belief in the absence of proof and the presence of contradiction. It is a tool for organizing spiritual beliefs.
Science requires predictive theory based on proof; manifest fact requires no belief for existence. It is a tool for organizing the material universe.
Conflict arises when the Church and secular leaders use religion to motivate or justify activism in the secular realm. The 'God' defence is
historically an effective cover for criminal behavior.
I note that after Constantine made Christianity the state religion in order to control his multinational force, Rome crumbled in a mere three
generations.
[Insert derogatory references to Phlogiston, Lysenko, String Theory, et.al., here]
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | I differentiate religion and science rather strictly. |
They are polar opposites - and everybody's talking about them from Tony(I'm tory plan B)Blair to the very unwell Chris Hitchens . . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-naff/how-science-can-libe...
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
..
8 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
