Science and Religion

[romansh 52]

Here is the third letter of the planned six.

I am not sure what Jerry Coyne can add from a scientific point of view. Andrew Gopnik did not really give him a lot to discuss or rebut in Andrew's first letter.

I suppose it could be argued that spirituality is not the same as art and literature. But then spirituality seems to be something that is purely in the eye of the beholder. Apparently it is something that goes beyond human experience a term for me which is close to beyond comprehension and is a little bit like arm waving.

[romansh 52]

On 2/28/2021 at 9:51 AM, romansh said:

Here is the third letter of the planned six.

I am not sure what Jerry Coyne can add from a scientific point of view. Andrew Gopnik did not really give him a lot to discuss or rebut in Andrew's first letter.

I suppose it could be argued that spirituality is not the same as art and literature. But then spirituality seems to be something that is purely in the eye of the beholder. Apparently it is something that goes beyond human experience a term for me which is close to beyond comprehension and is a little bit like arm waving.

Adam Gopnik  ... posted his second letter in the series of six. I found he misrepresents science. I get where he is coming from but he very carefully skirts around the issue.

Edited March 11 by romansh

[John Hunt 4]

Great letters.

I'm not sure I've got the hang of the site yet (incompetent in all this stuff). Is there a way of getting an email when a reply has been made to a topic you've logged into?

Out of interest - anyone come across the Essentia Foundation? I think it's just been set up. Seem to be some serious people there, talking not from a religious perspective, but a "mind before matter" one.

[romansh 52]

On 3/13/2021 at 11:25 AM, John Hunt said:

I'm not sure I've got the hang of the site yet (incompetent in all this stuff). Is there a way of getting an email when a reply has been made to a topic you've logged into?

Click on yourself top right hand corner
Account settings
Notification settings
Mentions and My Content
Highlight email

That should do it

 

[romansh 52]

On 2/28/2021 at 9:51 AM, romansh said:

Here is the third letter of the planned six.

I am not sure what Jerry Coyne can add from a scientific point of view. Andrew Gopnik did not really give him a lot to discuss or rebut in Andrew's first letter.

I suppose it could be argued that spirituality is not the same as art and literature. But then spirituality seems to be something that is purely in the eye of the beholder. Apparently it is something that goes beyond human experience a term for me which is close to beyond comprehension and is a little bit like arm waving.

The fifth letter has been posted, Jerry's rebuttal of Adam's fourth (second) ....  I must admit Jerry dismantles Adam's points nicely -  at least for me.

Elsewhere Jerry suggests the series number may increase by two to eight letters.

Edited March 18 by romansh

[romansh 52]

The sixth and seventh letters have been published ... debating whether there is "new" knowledge in art and literature. I wonder if art and literature can be thought of as a proxy for religion?

Are The Methods Used By Science The Only Ways Of Knowing? (letter.wiki)

[murmsk 26]

I am late to this discussion but would like to chime in.

First...On the discussion of science and medicine. Physicians are not scientists and seldom produce science. We live in the world of anecdote... we are practitioners , we try and use the science of others to provide the best outcomes for our patients but don't confuse that with science. As a general rule medical science is done in the schools and research centers.

Second.... Science is not a way of knowing its a way of finding things out. Religion is not a way of knowing its a way of living.

Knowing is an abstract sense that combines science, anecdote, belief into a workable pathway of relative truth.

 

steve

 

[romansh 52]

3 hours ago, murmsk said:

This book might be of some interest 

Why Science Does Not Disprove God

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Science-Does-Not-Disprove/dp/B00IA68UCG/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=science+disprove+religion&qid=1620313638&sr=8-1

 

steve

Well ... if we define God in some substantial way or with properties we can interact with, then we could argue we can disprove the well defined God. For example the "God is Love" brigade, would seem to imply God is fairly limited, unless we delve into some heavy semantic shell game.

Now of course some people will point out quite accurately (I think) science is not in the proof business. But disproof, is slightly different. Take the Morley Michelson experiment for luminiferous ether  or do we still need to consider the concept of phlogiston as a viable prospect. I think when "metals" get heavier when they burn, is sufficient evidence that the concept of phlogiston is on the wrong garden path.

 

Edited May 6 by romansh

[murmsk 26]

"science is not in the proof business." this is exactly right but is is in the knowledge business. This is a book my Phd Chemist mostly atheist father read and recommends . It mostly views  religion from social science standpoint.

 

steve

 

[romansh 52]

On 5/10/2021 at 8:01 AM, murmsk said:

"science is not in the proof business." this is exactly right but is is in the knowledge business. This is a book my Phd Chemist mostly atheist father read and recommends . It mostly views  religion from social science standpoint.

Fair enough Steve. But my point remains the more well defined Gods like those of the Norse, Greek, Roman and Abrahamic versions, or at least the literal interpretations of them can be discarded. I suspect we hang on (as progressives) to the various labels for a variety of reasons.

We take the stories and interpret them as metaphor and debate which interpretation is better. 

With the science being in the "knowledge business", the knowledge is always provisional and in fact could be seen as fundamentally as agnostic to the understanding it produces. 

 

And the eighth and final letter has been issued. Have not read it yet ... but we can find some commentary here.

Edited Friday at 05:56 PM by romansh