Science and Religion

[romansh]

3 hours ago, Kellerman said:

Sure, we functionally engage with information as factual, but there's a reason there are so few laws in science, and a ton of theories. 

I can't find the quote, but in effect its said In science, theories and laws are the same thing; it's just that theories cannot be reduced to a pithy sentence. Of course there are loads of other opinions on the internet. Just on the science spectrum we have  ... speculation, hypothesis, theory. Evolution is no less "true" than than the first law of thermodynamics. It might even be more true.

3 hours ago, Kellerman said:

However, that doesn't take away from the philosophical basis of science being the exploration of the unknown, not the dictation of the known.

No disagreement here, but the dictation of say the periodic table did not cease to be science, once it became known.

3 hours ago, Kellerman said:

Technically, none of us ever run an experiment to prove a fact. We try to best understand unknowns as far as we're able to observe them, but if for any reason the observations consistently went against what we colloquially work with as "facts", we would immediately reformulate the theories to incorporate the new observations. 

No perhaps not, but we do run experiments to corroborate "facts".  And here I use facts in your sense of information. 

3 hours ago, Kellerman said:

This happens in medical science all the time. We "know" something to be fact for decades, but then new information comes along that allows us to know new "facts". Same with physics, biology, anything. 

Again ...  this would lead one to an agnostic position. At least in my opinion.

3 hours ago, Kellerman said:

It's not a fact if new information could change it. Hence, we don't actually deal in very many facts. We certainly as individual scientist shouldn't have the obscene hubris to think that our personal research has ever generated a single "fact". Can you even imagine the level of arrogance it would take to believe that as a scientist???

Again you seem to argue for a form of agnosticism. And as a devout agnostic I agree with you here. Our understanding is provisional. Definitely true I hope from a science point of view. Is it true from religious or perhaps even a spiritual point of view? But speaking of arrogance, I suspect Newton's laws are a good enough approximation, to engineer homes, cars and planes. I trust the first and second laws of thermodynamics, though occasionally I might check energy conservation still holds. 

I don't think we are too far apart. Just that what you seem to see as a weakness I see as a strength. The obscene hubris and arrogance you allude to is thrust upon scientists by people who don't understand science. But if you mean "fact" as an absolute truth, then I think you are beating a strawman mercilessly.

Edited July 16, 2021 by romansh

[Kellerman]

Ron, I've already told you that if you want to consider me an agnostic, then go ahead. Please stop arguing with me that you think I'm agnostic, I'm perfectly fine with the label. 

Like the facts/theories/information conversation, it's largely semantic. I truly don't really care. 

And yes, I can tell that you and I are highly aligned in our thinking, but that we approach it semantically differently, which is also perfectly fine by me, but you seem determined to convince me of something, which you really don't need to convince me of, because I already largely agree with you except in the most abstract and truly not important of terms. 

[romansh]

5 hours ago, Kellerman said:

Ron

it's rom

5 hours ago, Kellerman said:

I've already told you that if you want to consider me an agnostic, then go ahead. Please stop arguing with me that you think I'm agnostic, I'm perfectly fine with the label. 

Fine I will consider you an agnostic from now on. But when you say things like your church does not think it can know god ... Something similar anyway. I assume you buy into this notion to some degree. But then your church to some degree is begging the question.

Having said that, theism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

5 hours ago, Kellerman said:

Like the facts/theories/information conversation, it's largely semantic. I truly don't really care. 

Erh what  ... I understand the words ... but definitely can't reconcile your behaviour with them? There's nothing "wrong" with your behaviour. Not caring and spirituality seem difficult to squeeze into the same can, at least for me.

 

[Kellerman]

Sorry, autocorrect must have corrected Rom to Ron.

As for not caring and spirituality not being compatible, that's actually the *only* way for me that they're compatible. 

Like you, I can't resolve a spirituality that actually makes any damn sense, so it's only in letting go of trying to make any sense of it can I tap into any sense of spirituality. 

I feel *something*, I have no idea what it is, it might be a brain tumour, who knows, I don't really care because it doesn't matter.

So yeah, agnostic, sure. My church makes space for that, we even have an openly atheist minister. That why I like my church, so that's why I identify as a Christian. 

I'm also Jewish, which also makes space for agnosticism and atheism, and makes space for us to shrug and say "we cannot possibly understand this, we just follow the rules". I'm none too fond of the rules though, which is why I'm just an ineffectual Jew, but I did always love that it was always okay as a Jew to have no clue what the heck was going on. 

As for my Church "begging the question", I have no idea what you mean. The church has an 8 page document outlining their position, and it starts with something along the lines of God is holy mystery, wholly unknowable. 

I like it. It works for me. 

[romansh]

On 8/7/2021 at 7:39 AM, John Hunt said:

But overall, there seem to be many ways of salvation described

Of course if science has got it right (accurate), and that the taking of the "fall" literally then is a suspect concept, then this does put "salvation" and its need on very shaky ground.

Edited August 8, 2021 by romansh

[John Hunt]

The "Fall" is a very shaky concept, indeed. The Jews, who's story it is, see Genesis as a hymn to the goodness of God, not an account of original sin leading to redemption by Jesus.

The idea of original sin runs counter to everything science tells us, from anthropology through sociology to zoology. It is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, the Bible, common sense, experience and morality. It’s a poisonous idea that has caused immeasurable individual and social harm down the centuries. So why do so many Christians cling to it as a cardinal doctrine?

The idea was first sketched out by Paul, who hints at the death of Jesus as a sacrifice made by God on our behalf. It was extended by Augustine (354-430), a theologian of genius, the most important of the Church Fathers a few centuries later. Convinced of his own sexual guilt and shame, he projected this onto humanity as a whole, the “multitude of the damned.” Because God is wholly good, evil must come from man, and in particular, from women (he wouldn’t allow them into his house, even his sisters, who were nuns). For him Adam and Eve were real people (as they were for Jesus, eg: Matthew 19:4), and their sin of disobedience was passed on down the generations through the act of sex. In the twelfth century AD Anselm develops the idea further, into the doctrine of substitutionary Atonement, where Christ is sacrificed on the cross as a payment for our sins, so God can forgive us.

[romansh]

1 hour ago, John Hunt said:

The "Fall" is a very shaky concept, indeed

So the whole of Christianity is predicated on "a shaky concept".

Why are so many Christians attached to some literal interpretation of this shaky concept? Would we not be better off going back to first principles observing the world and moving on from there?

[John Hunt]

I guess it's the way religions work. The founders sometimes start off with a fairly original insight, or at least a passion to seeing an old insight through, and the followers come along afterwards toning it down and stitching up the world as it was before.

What the "first principles"? The point about religions, is that we’re more likely to act in the interests of others if we can believe in love as a universal principle in life than if we see it as a self-gratifying fiction. We’re more likely to be happy if we believe creation is basically good, and joyful, and continuous than if we think of it (rationally) as random, painful, and meaningless. A universe of billions of galaxies and black holes, destined for extinction, without a single particle of love, intention or spirit anywhere, which at the quantum level is absurd, an inhuman monstrosity, no meaning – apart from the meaning we bring to it, the stories we tell, the relationships we develop – okay, that may be the reality. We don’t know, and probably never will. But even a fiction of salvation is better than a despairing suicide, if you’re looking for something extra to get you through the day.

[Kellerman]

36 minutes ago, romansh said:

So the whole of Christianity is predicated on "a shaky concept".

Why are so many Christians attached to some literal interpretation of this shaky concept? Would we not be better off going back to first principles observing the world and moving on from there?

Well, there is no "whole of Christianity", so how would you propose going back to first principles?

There are Christian organizations that don't put any emphasis on original sin. So there are groups that have "gone back" and moved on from there. 

There are so many types of Christians out there, it's impossible to say where Christianity as a whole is off base. 

 

 

 

[romansh]

  

This is fair enough, but I would argue evangelicals would not consider progressives as Christians. Even Episcopalians look worriedly askance at the likes of Spong.

First principles ... we take a look at the world around us, the universe even, from the very small to the very large and get a sense of what reality might be, bearing in mind we never get to see it directly. 

27 minutes ago, Kellerman said:

There are Christian organizations that don't put any emphasis on original sin. So there are groups that have "gone back" and moved on from there.

Quite possibly. Do they deny its existence? And if so, can they call themselves Christian in any common sense of the word?

31 minutes ago, Kellerman said:

There are so many types of Christians out there, it's impossible to say where Christianity as a whole is off base. 

If by this you thought I meant all of it then I would agree with you. If you think I meant the vast majority then, I don't agree with you.

[romansh]

3 hours ago, John Hunt said:

act in the interests of others if we can believe in love as a universal principle

Yes, with a little bit of understanding, eg game theory we can understand that helping others also helps us. Reality is far more fun, than trying to get some ancient text to fit your worldview.

3 hours ago, John Hunt said:

billions of galaxies and black holes, destined for extinction, without a single particle of love

Yes without hate either, or desire, envy, shame, pride. Just being. 

3 hours ago, John Hunt said:

no meaning – apart from the meaning we bring to it

The meaning we bring is illusory, in the sense that any meaning has come from outside of ourselves. Every atom is either stardust or remnants of the Big Bang. All ideas are brought in from the environment gestated in our brains and regurgitated. 

It is bloody amazing.

[Kellerman]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

  

This is fair enough, but I would argue evangelicals would not consider progressives as Christians. Even Episcopalians look worriedly askance at the likes of Spong.

First principles ... we take a look at the world around us, the universe even, from the very small to the very large and get a sense of what reality might be, bearing in mind we never get to see it directly. 

Quite possibly. Do they deny its existence? And if so, can they call themselves Christian in any common sense of the word?

If by this you thought I meant all of it then I would agree with you. If you think I meant the vast majority then, I don't agree with you.

There are Christians all over the world, many, many, many of which are not evangelicals. 

There is a huge range of Christian beliefs and shockingly little consensus, especially when viewed through a global and historical perspective. 

Many Christians wouldn't consider most evangelicals to be Christian. I personally look pretty sideways at any Christian who promotes intolerance of other humans. 

[romansh]

You seem to not be addressing my points Kellerman. Do you have a diminutive for Kellerman?

The point I appear to be struggling to make is: for many if not most Christians the minimum belief is that Jesus was the son of god and that he was crucified and died for our sins. These, of course, are not essential beliefs for Progressive Christians.

As far as I can tell, the minimum belief for a Progressive Christian, seems to be a belief  that fellow called Jesus, possibly apocryphal, and had some useful insights on how to live.

But all this is a digression from the topic.

 

 

 

[Kellerman]

11 hours ago, romansh said:

You seem to not be addressing my points Kellerman. Do you have a diminutive for Kellerman?

The point I appear to be struggling to make is: for many if not most Christians the minimum belief is that Jesus was the son of god and that he was crucified and died for our sins. These, of course, are not essential beliefs for Progressive Christians.

As far as I can tell, the minimum belief for a Progressive Christian, seems to be a belief  that fellow called Jesus, possibly apocryphal, and had some useful insights on how to live.

But all this is a digression from the topic.

 

 

 

No, no diminutive. I've somehow managed to avoid them my entire life. 

To relate what I'm saying back to the topic at hand though, all "facts" exist within a context and are subject to interpretation. 

So even if the vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins, there are enormous variations in how that is interpreted and what that actually means for any given person interpreting it at any given time. 

Its the same with scientific facts. One of the things I do is disabuse medical professionals of the myths that they are sold in the name of "evidence based medicine" where "facts" have been interpreted to support clinical approaches, when in reality, those "facts" have been divorced from their contexts. 

My area of scientific research was so specialized that even fellow scientists in my exact same discipline couldn't understand it. Unless they studied the exact same subject for years, their only understanding of what we did was in how we explained it. 

Sure, the objectives measures were available for anyone to see, but why we measured the way we did, why we categorized the way we did, why we analyzed the way we did, that was all up for interpretation. 

A lot of science is just that, a collective agreement as to how to collect and process certain information. But there is a fair amount of subjective human judgement that goes into a lot of that, which influences the interpretation. 

No information just exists in a purely objective vacuum. Not science and definitely not religion. 

So sure, "Jesus died for our sins", but what does that even mean? The interpretation of what sin is can be so unbelievable broad, and typically has been heavily influenced by political convenience of the time. Meanwhile, there are perfectly valid interpretations of sin that don't even describe it as an individual failing, but more as a collective capacity for destruction. 

An even more radical interpretation is that sin is the source of suffering, but that suffering isn't necessarily a bad thing, in fact, it's a crucial part of life, and that Jesus suffered to demonstrate divine suffering. That it's not so much forgiveness as enlightenment when we are able to connect to Jesus' experience. 

A western puritanical lense likes to cast it that we're a bunch of dirty, sinning dirt pigs who will never be good enough, no matter how hard we try, and the only way to be clean enough to enter heaven is to be forgiven for our horribleness by God, and that Jesus had to suffer immensely to compensate for our fundamental moral grossness. 

But that lense isn't necessary, nor is it universal. 

Also, just because a western version of Christianity crushed almost all eastern Christianity historically through conquest, doesn't mean it's the most valid interpretation. 

Again, context matters. There's a historical context as to why the majority of Christians may have been taught to interpret scripture a certain way. 

There's also a historical context as to why science is taught a certain way. A dear friend is an expert in cognitive bias in scientific measurement. His entire career involves picking apart the way things are supposedly "objectively" measured, which is mostly based on how things were done historically.

Kind of like the scientific measurement version of keyboards, which historically were designed to be as inefficient for typing as humanly possible for the purposes of slowing typists down so that the units wouldn't jam. And yet, in a world where fast typing is so valuable, we still use this historical, purposefully inefficient design. 

The world of "facts" is filled with these historical artifacts of judgement and approach. Which in turn influences how facts are gathered, and then those facts are interpreted through the lense of context of the time in which they are evaluated. 

The statements "Jesus died for our sins" and "the comet is X length and will come X miles close to earth" are far more similar than they seem on the surface, but once you start breaking down all of the historical and contextual factors that influence why those statements are made the way that they are, it becomes self evident that they are both subject to an enormous amount of historical and current interpretive factors. 

[romansh]

No, no diminutive. I've somehow managed to avoid them my entire life. 

OK then Kellerman it is.

To relate what I’m saying back to the topic at hand though, all “facts” exist within a context and are subject to interpretation. 

While I am not exactly sure what you mean there is a framework, Warsaw is the capital of Poland but in a different time reference it could be Krakow. ????

So even if the vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins, there are enormous variations in how that is interpreted and what that actually means for any given person interpreting it at any given time. 

Good we seem to be agreed that Christians have these two beliefs, otherwise to me there seems little point as labelling oneself as Christian. That there a large variety of interpretations reflects the evolution of memes does it not?

I same with scientific facts. One of the things I do is disabuse medical professionals of the myths that they are sold in the name of “evidence based medicine” where “facts” have been interpreted to support clinical approaches, when in reality, those “facts” have been divorced from their contexts. 

Yes, you have repeated, what seems to me, your dysphoria around medicine often. I too agree, there seems to be a really poor reputation around pharmaceutical medicine. Doctors are human, and I suggest the general public should treat them as such.

My area of scientific research was so specialized that even fellow scientists in my exact same discipline couldn’t understand it. Unless they studied the exact same subject for years, there only understanding of what we did was in how we explained it. 

My area of research was so esoteric my fellow researchers wouldn’t care.

Sure, the objectives measures were available for anyone to see, but why we measured the way we did, why we categorized the way we did, why we analyzed the way we did, that was all up for interpretation. 

And if you were faulty in the way set up your measurements you could have been called on it. It’s all part of the process.

A lot of science is just that, a collective agreement as to how to collect and process certain information. But there is a fair amount of subjective human judgement that goes into a lot of that, which influences the interpretation. 

And yet it is where the disagreements are that is interesting.

No information just exists in a purely objective vacuum. Not science and definitely not religion. 

This sounds profound, but I don’t think it is.

So sure, "Jesus died for our sins", but what does that even mean? The interpretation of what sin is can be so unbelievable broad, and typically has been heavily influenced by political convenience of the time. Meanwhile, there are perfectly valid interpretations of sin that don't even describe it as an individual failing, but more as a collective capacity for destruction. 

It does not matter so long as you believe it from a Christian point of view. Yet most Christians would posit that it is an individual failing. Otherwise, being crucified makes little sense. But you are right many confabulated explanations have been manufactured to meet one’s worldviews.

An even more radical interpretation is that sin is the source of suffering, but that suffering isn't necessarily a bad thing, in fact, it's a crucial part of life, and that Jesus suffered to demonstrate divine suffering. That it's not so much forgiveness as enlightenment when we are able to connect to Jesus' experience. 

Again, you beg the question here. You assume sin exists.

A western puritanical lense likes to cast it that we're a bunch of dirty, sinning dirt pigs who will never be good enough, no matter how hard we try, and the only way to be clean enough to enter heaven is to be forgiven for our horribleness by God, and that Jesus had to suffer immensely to compensate for our fundamental moral grossness. 

Luckily these people are not in my circle of friends or acquaintances. Having said that BC is the most non-religious province in Canada.

But that lense isn't necessary, nor is it universal. 

Also, just because a western version of Christianity crushed almost all eastern Christianity historically through conquest, doesn't mean it's the most valid interpretation. 

So whatever belief/worldview you have ended up with is just the result of the relevant proximate forces?

Again, context matters. There’s a historical context as to why the majority of Christians may have been taught to interpret scripture a certain way. 

See above

There’s also a historical context as to why science is taught a certain way. A dear friend is an expert in cognitive bias in scientific measurement. His entire career involves picking apart the way things are supposedly “objectively” measured, which is mostly based on how things were done historically.

I sort of agree, Human minds are not good at picking apart our cognitive biases. Except you and I of course.

Kind of like the scientific measurement version of keyboards, which historically were designed to be as inefficient for typing as humanly possible for the purposes of slowing typists down so that the units wouldn't jam. And yet, in a world where fast typing is so valuable, we still use this historical, purposefully inefficient design.

Hen pecking works for me … and the European keyboard is a pain after qwerty. Also, I think a lot slower than a good typist can type. So qwerty is not a rate limiting step for me.

The world of "facts" is filled with these historical artifacts of judgement and approach. Which in turn influences how facts are gathered, and then those facts are interpreted through the lense of context of the time in which they are evaluated. 

Again sounds profound.

The statements "Jesus died for our sins" and "the comet is X length and will come X miles close to earth" are far more similar than they seem on the surface, but once you start breaking down all of the historical and contextual factors that influence why those statements are made the way that they are, it becomes self evident that they are both subject to an enormous amount of historical and current interpretive factors. 

I really don’t think so. The distance will come with an error and probability estimate.

[Kellerman]

Hmm...you don't seem to be understanding my central point, but I'll assume that's on me and not on you. 

 

[romansh]

On 8/11/2021 at 5:09 AM, Kellerman said:

Hmm...you don't seem to be understanding my central point, but I'll assume that's on me and not on you. 

Which is?

[romansh]

Just for laughs .... I will add it to my list of things to blog about

Theos Science & Religion Compass (sciencereligioncompass.org)

 

[PaulS]

On 12/30/2022 at 5:55 AM, romansh said:

Just for laughs .... I will add it to my list of things to blog about

Theos Science & Religion Compass (sciencereligioncompass.org)

 

Just for laughs, here's where I sit apparently.  I think a few questions could be interpreted differently depending on who's reading them, but maybe that's the point.

[romansh]

Agree completely ... the questions are formulated poorly. I was cooler than you ... more of a teal (blue), a similar level of functionality, but less scientism than you (surprising). But the questions require a fair degree of interpolation.

[romansh]

And here we have a scientist telling a grieving rabbi what religion is.
I think Einstein nailed it

Letter to Dr. Robert Marcus - Albert Einstein (organism.earth) 

A human being is part of the whole, called by us “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.

Edited January 11, 2023 by romansh