Religion

rrneck

(17,671 posts)

76. Well, I'm posting from a goddamn phone

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 10:07 PM

Jan 2012

so coherence is a little dicey. And I'm talking to two people at once to boot. You might check out post #53.

If it feels good do it whether it's science or the Funky Chicken. The practice of science itself excludes emotion, but human beings do not. If someone thinks their efforts will be in vain they simply won't make the attempt or at least try very hard. People just aren't machines and they project their feelings into the future right along with their ideas. There's really no way to avoid it. To my mind the whole notion of faith has gotten a bad rap because religion cornered the market on it and has spent the last several hundred years selling us something we've already got. Religion isn't the problem, I expect its marketing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

141 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The [in]compatibility of science and religion [View all] cleanhippie Jan 2012 OP

I always thought they were incompatible and felt arguments to the contrary were appeasement. Scuba Jan 2012 #1

I tend to agree. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #6

Disagree. Both have been successful rrneck Jan 2012 #2

Can you elaborate on that? cleanhippie Jan 2012 #4

These may be a bit short (damn phone) rrneck Jan 2012 #14

+1 Succinct and (IMO) very accurate. n/t GliderGuider Jan 2012 #27

You think religion facilitates loyalty, art, and introspection? darkstar3 Jan 2012 #28

Paleolithic religion goes back at least 50,000 years. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #31

3 notes. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #37

Fair enough. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #58

1 note tama Jan 2012 #60

Well actually what i said was rrneck Jan 2012 #44

I really hate it when people play with orthogonal definitions of the word "faith". darkstar3 Jan 2012 #46

My definition of faith: rrneck Jan 2012 #53

And why does YOUR definition matter? darkstar3 Jan 2012 #56

We understand by comprehending tama Jan 2012 #61

Thank you for proving my final point in that post. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #63

You're wellcome! nt tama Jan 2012 #71

okay rrneck Jan 2012 #68

Note how those are entirely two definitions for the word. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #70

Your point tama Jan 2012 #72

It really doesn't. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #75

The term orthogonal is a non sequitur rrneck Jan 2012 #77

Um, no, it really isn't. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #79

Got that name yet? rrneck Jan 2012 #84

Did I say I was looking for one? darkstar3 Jan 2012 #86

How so? rrneck Jan 2012 #89

It's called the "fallacy of equivocation." ChadwickHenryWard Jan 2012 #137

Phenomenally and psychologically tama Jan 2012 #140

Of the things you attribute to faith, they can be attributed to much more... cleanhippie Jan 2012 #32

I never really asserted exclusivity rrneck Jan 2012 #48

OK, just off your first sentence. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #50

Fractals... rrneck Jan 2012 #64

You crack me up with the moving of your goalposts. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #69

If you cant take the heat... rrneck Jan 2012 #78

Sorry, it seemed as if your were asserting that. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #54

No worries. rrneck Jan 2012 #65

njoying one's work does not equate to faith. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #66

Well, I'm posting from a goddamn phone rrneck Jan 2012 #76

"Science created" tama Jan 2012 #83

There is no reason why a religion cannot be compatible with science FarCenter Jan 2012 #3

Wouldn't constructing, reinterpreting, or reforming the religion make it NOT relgion? cleanhippie Jan 2012 #5

I wouldn't believe tama Jan 2012 #7

Uhm, okay. cleanhippie Jan 2012 #8

It's very difficult tama Jan 2012 #10

It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone cleanhippie Jan 2012 #11

My academic background tama Jan 2012 #15

So what sense does it make skepticscott Jan 2012 #12

As I said above tama Jan 2012 #17

It is? How convenient nt mr blur Jan 2012 #21

Religions are created or modified all the time FarCenter Jan 2012 #107

Dogmatic materialism tama Jan 2012 #9

I dare you to define skepticscott Jan 2012 #13

it doesnt have a definition cleanhippie Jan 2012 #16

E.g. tama Jan 2012 #19

Post removed Post removed Jan 2012 #23

Sheesh, that's it? skepticscott Jan 2012 #36

OK, please enlighten me tama Jan 2012 #55

Skepticism is simply skepticscott Jan 2012 #67

I've been a long time tama Jan 2012 #81

Rational inquiry doesn't care skepticscott Jan 2012 #88

That's very sad tama Jan 2012 #94

Nice try, but all BS skepticscott Jan 2012 #99

You state your bias very clearly: tama Jan 2012 #102

You're just clinging to Sheldrake like a life preserver, aren't you? skepticscott Jan 2012 #112

"Scientism" seems to be a proper term for your concern. nt humblebum Jan 2012 #20

That's the word I'd use. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #29

And what exactly is your definition of "scientism" skepticscott Jan 2012 #40

Well, dogmatic materialism is a pretty good definition. humblebum Jan 2012 #45

This message was self-deleted by its author cleanhippie Jan 2012 #49

Well, you've said yourself skepticscott Jan 2012 #74

I have no doubt that it has been given the status of a religion in some quarters even humblebum Jan 2012 #80

You have no doubt skepticscott Jan 2012 #85

You are in denial. Another closely related term is "Scientific Atheism." Of course, humblebum Jan 2012 #91

I'm satisfied with the one in Wikipedia GliderGuider Jan 2012 #52

Sure, let's throw in Wiki definitions and UrbanDictionary too! darkstar3 Jan 2012 #57

Well, you're always after me to adhere to definitions. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #59

Made up? darkstar3 Jan 2012 #62

Except that every time you're challenged skepticscott Jan 2012 #38

Actually, I don't remember mentioning the term here before, so if humblebum Jan 2012 #43

Do you deny that you yourself once said skepticscott Jan 2012 #73

Where did I ever deny it? I merely said I didn't recall and asked you to humblebum Jan 2012 #82

Who said you denied it? I asked if you did. skepticscott Jan 2012 #87

Yeh, Uh Huh. I suppose it's open to interpretation, but humblebum Jan 2012 #90

You would say? skepticscott Jan 2012 #92

Yeh Uh huh.nt humblebum Jan 2012 #93

Materialism and phenomenology: the "Two Solitudes" GliderGuider Jan 2012 #106

I am not so sure that they were even meant to be compatible, as such, because humblebum Jan 2012 #18

Read some religious works from back in the 1800's The Straight Story Jan 2012 #22

That's because those discoveries didn't challenge the beliefs of religious people... Humanist_Activist Jan 2012 #24

Conflict occurs tama Jan 2012 #25

There are medicinal plants tama Jan 2012 #26

Science and religion approach questions they hope to answer from entirely different points of view. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #30

I agree completely. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #33

Not at all. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #34

Careful - that's much like what science does. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #35

Not even close skepticscott Jan 2012 #39

There's that too. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #42

That's exactly why I said GliderGuider Jan 2012 #47

For example tama Jan 2012 #95

And how has the hypothesis skepticscott Jan 2012 #98

Thy hypothesis tama Jan 2012 #101

Yep. I am an enthusiastic anecdote in that regard. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #105

And problem with materialism tama Jan 2012 #108

The problem with phenomenology GliderGuider Jan 2012 #109

I enjoy my morning coffee tama Jan 2012 #124

Yes, there are days we seem as fortunate as gods. And then there are the other days... GliderGuider Jan 2012 #131

Yes, she tama Jan 2012 #138

That's not the hypothesis I asked about skepticscott Jan 2012 #111

That was the hypothesis tama Jan 2012 #120

That's a mischaracterization. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #41

There is no way to arrive at truths about the material universe through theological processes GliderGuider Jan 2012 #51

theology and religion tama Jan 2012 #97

The religion/science debate has always been a deep and pointless rabbit hole. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #104

And how much of what has been seen skepticscott Jan 2012 #114

Shrug. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #115

Apparently important enough skepticscott Jan 2012 #121

The thing is, GliderGuider Jan 2012 #123

Sorry if getting at the truth skepticscott Jan 2012 #125

Are we getting at the truth here? GliderGuider Jan 2012 #130

And yet one flowed directly from the other skepticscott Jan 2012 #133

This from one of two people who have shown that they are uninterested in any form darkstar3 Jan 2012 #126

Are you a scientist? tama Jan 2012 #96

It's also entirely possible that I misunderstand the process of theological thought. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #113

They're not incompatible, they're complimentary. Sal316 Jan 2012 #100

Complimentary? Religion interprets? cleanhippie Jan 2012 #103

As a degreed theologian and a scientist with 20+ experience... Sal316 Jan 2012 #116

Wise words. And since they have been compatible for this many centuries, humblebum Jan 2012 #117

That's called compartmentalization. Have fun with that. darkstar3 Jan 2012 #118

Must all of human experience fall under a single interpretive umbrella? GliderGuider Jan 2012 #119

I never said it did. Perhaps you are confused as to what compartmentalization means? darkstar3 Jan 2012 #127

I know what it means. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #129

You mean it allows you to believe that they can co-exist, darkstar3 Jan 2012 #134

OK then. I didn't misunderstand. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #135

Now ask yourself this question: darkstar3 Jan 2012 #136

Value vs. meaning GliderGuider Jan 2012 #141

Yet your gripe here always seems to be skepticscott Jan 2012 #122

I agree with everything you just said rrneck Jan 2012 #128

As long as religions change and adapt to scientific advances and discoveries moobu2 Jan 2012 #110

I find it incoherent. Igel Jan 2012 #132

. GliderGuider Jan 2012 #139