Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Can science and religion coexist peacefully?

Can science and religion coexist peacefully?

Pages: 1 2

kowalskil - 26-11-2010 at 19:07

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 - 26-11-2010 at 19:17

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.

kowalskil - 26-11-2010 at 19:32

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)?

bbartlog - 26-11-2010 at 19:49

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 - 26-11-2010 at 20:06

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.

Sedit - 26-11-2010 at 20:19

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]

IrC - 26-11-2010 at 20:41

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]

Ozone - 26-11-2010 at 20:48

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]

Sedit - 26-11-2010 at 22:00

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?

IrC - 26-11-2010 at 22:10

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.

zed - 26-11-2010 at 22:40

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 - 26-11-2010 at 22:44

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.

Sedit - 26-11-2010 at 22:54

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.

psychokinetic - 26-11-2010 at 23:21

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.

zed - 26-11-2010 at 23:31

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 - 26-11-2010 at 23:57

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?

zed - 27-11-2010 at 00:44

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 - 27-11-2010 at 01:09

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 - 27-11-2010 at 05:03

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]

God And Science

MadHatter - 27-11-2010 at 05:32

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'.

IrC - 27-11-2010 at 05:37

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.

hissingnoise - 27-11-2010 at 06:14

I'm devoutly agnostic - religion only corrupts science . . .

blogfast25 - 27-11-2010 at 08:54

@ 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 - 27-11-2010 at 09:04

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 - 27-11-2010 at 09:58

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...

woelen - 27-11-2010 at 10:09

What makes me sick is the ever returning crappy war between 'creationism' and 'evolutionism'. This is not an interesting discussion anymore. Current evidence makes clear that there has been a long evolutionary process which has taken hundreds of millions of years.
BUT, at the same time, this evolutionary evidence is NOT a proof that God cannot exist, or that God is something which sprouted from the mind of men. The theory of evolution only is incompatible with a strict young earth creation point of view, but it is NOT incompatible with (christian) religion in general. This is something which many people do not want to see, they simply (implicitly) say: religion == young earth creationism.

I personally think that both atheists and religious people can be excellent scientists in their own field of science. I myself am a christian and I do believe in the presence of God and the work of Jesus. At the same time I feel myself like being a scientist and am deeply interested in the wonders of nature.

Science asks and attempts to answer questions about the HOW and WHEN, religion asks and attempts to answer questions about the WHY. These need not be incompatible. Narrow minded people introduce the incompatibility. I have seen many narrow minded christians, but an equal number of narrow minded atheists. Their only agenda seems to be bullying the other side. Such a struggle only has loosers.

bquirky - 27-11-2010 at 10:19

What testable predictions does the god hypothisis make ?

zed - 27-11-2010 at 11:02

Woelen,

I'm not a Christian, but I respect individuals that attempt to emulate Jesus. I feel the same respect for the good spirited practitioners of other faiths.

The problems arise from the corruption of faith by dogma. The dark side of human nature constantly strives to control the thoughts and actions of others, for personal power and profit.

bquirky,

The existence of a higher power is not a hypothesis. You probably haven't visited the South Pole, but folks tell you they have seen it, and you accept their reports as being plausible.

bquirky - 27-11-2010 at 11:09

well the south pole hypothisis predicts that the earth is round this is testable

Sedit - 27-11-2010 at 11:26

Without religion there is no science.

They are both one in the same only differ in there ability to morph due to new knowledge.

More then likely long ago someone looked up at the sun and the moon and asked, "what is it" the attempts to answer it may not appear it on the surface but they are science. Most religions said they where sky deitys and likened them to god. Theres good odds the god of the bible is just that, the sun. But as time went on and we got a better understanding someone discovered that that is really a flaming ball of gas up there. The scientist understood and followed this lead looking for further evidence where as the religious exclaimed its a flaming ball of gas made by the hand of god.....

We have religion to thank for all of science and they can co-exist as long as they leave each other alone and allow one another to grow at there own pace never forcing the hand of the other. Thankfully long ago religion sponsered the works of many alchemist looking for insite on the nature of gods creation giving us chemistry. This is what happens when they work together. However at the same time many who practiced the same exact art at the same time with a different explination for what they where doing where burned at the stake. .. This is an example of what happens when they interfear with each other.

DDTea - 27-11-2010 at 11:46

So has anyone read through Dr. Kowalski's page yet?

psychokinetic - 27-11-2010 at 13:15

Yes, and Dr. Kowalski appears to be one of the few people who do not equate god with religion. Sheesh people.

blogfast25 - 27-11-2010 at 13:51

Quote: Originally posted by woelen

What makes me sick is the ever returning crappy war between 'creationism' and 'evolutionism'. This is not an interesting discussion anymore. Current evidence makes clear that there has been a long evolutionary process which has taken hundreds of millions of years.
BUT, at the same time, this evolutionary evidence is NOT a proof that God cannot exist, or that God is something which sprouted from the mind of men. The theory of evolution only is incompatible with a strict young earth creation point of view, but it is NOT incompatible with (christian) religion in general. This is something which many people do not want to see, they simply (implicitly) say: religion == young earth creationism.

Spot on. That is EXACTLY the way I would put it.

As regards the 'struggle' you're referring to, it rages mainly in the US and mainly for political reasons (the so-called 'Culture Wars'. No one will actually make me believe the leaders of the 'Creationist' movement actually believe dinosaurs walked in the Garden of Eden!

blogfast25 - 27-11-2010 at 14:03

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

Without religion there is no science.

They are both one in the same only differ in there ability to morph due to new knowledge.

Nonsense. Right from the dawn of Mankind there will have been those who were unsatisfied with 'hidden parameter theories' like religion. But once, long ago, religion did offer something as a way to explain the world in the absence of better, tested and verified knowledge.

Religion starts from far more 'axioms' than science and has often shown itself to be reluctant to accept empirical evidence, all the while promoting as 'truth' things that remain totally unproven. Even the Jesus thing remains completely unproven. A legend that may be true...

Religion gets transmitted from one generation to the next, like a ‘virus’ to quote Dawkins. That is how it survived and how clearly rational people like woelen can still believe in the Jesus myth without evidence being presented…

starman - 27-11-2010 at 15:32

To return to the opening question"can science and religion coexist peacefully".Science is an attempted,admittedly imperfect, description of reality and will peacefully coexist with any philosophy.Religion is an imposition on reality for those who imagine themselves the "chosen " people and will forevever be in conflict with "chosen" people of a different intractible doctrine.
For those thread contributors who like to claim Einstien as religious,you might want to examine his application for Swiss citizenship.In the space for religion he wrote "none"

arsphenamine - 27-11-2010 at 15:39

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise

Quote:

I differentiate religion and science rather strictly.

They are polar opposites -

It is not the case that they are or are not polar opposites
since they service such disparate parts of the human psyche.

They are linked in that they are uniquely human constructions but they
don't work usefully in service of each other's venue.

Put another way, religion and science are manifestations of human
neuroanatomy and societal maturation. They cannot manifest without a
few hundred years of social continuity. While ignorance, superstition,
hatred, and fear are manifest in perpetuity, they are mitigated by
knowledge of religion and science when their societal context has
progressed beyond feudalism.

I'm hoping someone will mention the "emulation" brain function recently
recognized by neuroanatomists, the one that let's you ask, "what would I
do if I were him?", but that may be hoping for too much.

DDTea - 27-11-2010 at 17:56

If you think about it, both science and religion have served a common purpose of advancing societies. Both have been exploited for various political goals, but in their purest form, I'd say they have similar goals.

Religion is not entirely about faith. It's a way of carrying out your day to day life. For example, don't drink alcohol, keep clean (i.e., do not toss your excrement out the window), and generally treat each other as you would like to be treated. Many of these things were probably the results of observation about society. For example: "I see that guy is too fond of wine and cannot contribute to his household or the community. Maybe alcohol is bad." The philosophy was different, though. So while some of the religious edicts may have originated from attempts to build a healthy, functional society that would not die from common ailments, others were in regard to morals and how people ought to conduct themselves.

Basically, as I understand it, it was saying that natural laws are truly *universal* and that they govern human interactions as well. In fact, that's a big part of the logic behind Shariah.

Has anyone seen the movie "Idiocracy"? I'm reminded of this one part where the main character is trying to persuade the world that they should give their plants water and not sports drinks. Society could not grasp his logic or arguments, so instead he just claimed to be able to speak to the plants and that they told him they wanted water. That's what religion reminds me of

Sedit - 27-11-2010 at 18:17

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

Without religion there is no science.

They are both one in the same only differ in there ability to morph due to new knowledge.

I have to admit blogfast you have confused me quite abit seeing as how you quoted what I said, stated that it was nonsence , then repeated exactly what I said in different words.

Magpie - 27-11-2010 at 20:46

Quote: Originally posted by DDTea

So has anyone read through Dr. Kowalski's page yet?

I wanted to read his story but the link in his post is broken. So I looked him up on Wiki which provides a good link. His story is fascinating and once I started reading I couldn't stop.

Vogelzang - 28-11-2010 at 08:36

Scientists developed laser guided missiles which we can use against Al Qaeda. So, yeah, science and religion can co-exist peacefully.

DDTea - 28-11-2010 at 11:06

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

Scientists developed laser guided missiles which we can use against Al Qaeda. So, yeah, science and religion can co-exist peacefully.

Scientists developed the laser, energetic materials, and rockets.

Engineers developed the laser guided missile for expensive defense contractors and made money off of killing

And AQ isn't a religion.

zed - 29-11-2010 at 01:52

There is no question, that according to the evidence that we normally perceive, the Earth and the Universe itself, are quite old.

The kinky part of the equation is that from a higher perspective, the whole shebang is being created right now.

You, Me, and everything we know.....ALL skillfully woven out of the fabric of consciousness itself.

Rosco Bodine - 29-11-2010 at 15:43

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoFaFy3uyXo&fmt=18 I've Been Searchin' So Long

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qCW34a2k3U&fmt=18 Old Days

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5bhBSb92LY&fmt=18 Saturday In The Park

all is not lost .......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM-XhQeFzW4&feature=relat... You're The Inspiration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS4VKa1zpVc&feature=relat... Glory Of Love

Yes, Virginia, There Is A Santa Claus
http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WPKdzaYkz4&fmt=18 TSOP - MFSB (1973)

[Edited on 30-11-2010 by Rosco Bodine]

quicksilver - 30-11-2010 at 07:51

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

Without religion there is no science.

They are both one in the same only differ in there ability to morph due to new knowledge.

I believe that's a productive way to view the issue.....
Quite a few scientists were agnostic. Few were confirmed atheists. It actually takes a degree of faith to be a confirmed atheists but a to a questioning mind, agnosticism comes very naturally. Some scientists believed in a "greater" concept; putting no bounds on how that may be interpreted.

A deity concept is somewhat different than questioning the existence of "that which is greater". However I don't think that a deity concept is somehow a mistaken notion. Both aspects of "that which is greater" and atheism cannot be proven without a doubt. What's more there is a difference between organized religion and having an open mind enough to wonder if there does exists a "greater element than observable nature".

I think perhaps many people confuse the aspect of aggressive evangelism with religion per se' or "a greater thing" than observable nature.
Not all religions or people of belief are evangelistic.

This may be analogous to the question of can people of different tastes in food get along? One does not HAVE to negate the other. The concept may simply be different than originally perceived.

The WiZard is In - 30-11-2010 at 11:36

Quote: Originally posted by kowalskil

Can science and religion coexist peacefully?

Sure — there are the Religions of Global Warming and Scientology.

djh
----
Religions die when they are proven wrong.
Science is the record of dead religions.

Oscar Wilde 1894

Sedit - 30-11-2010 at 11:42

The meaning of that statement lies in the idea that I feel the part of the mind that looks for answers is also that which creates religion. For instance a dog does not ask if its right or wrong to chase a squirl and subsequently eat it if caught yet humans start to ask if such an act is barberic and inhuman. As well I have little faith in that same dog looking up at the sun and seeing anything other then a bright light and warmth where as the human mind seems to need more information before its satified with an answer.

The only difference I see between a science and religion is that a scientist will keep asking questions and be willing to toss out a hypothesis that was wrong in favor of a better theory. Mainstream religion in itself does not allow such flexability and will hold tight to a belief after theres proof its wrong. Even though both the science and the religion both started from a common factor. The thoughts "what" and "why".

Isn't science and religion what set us apart from other beast in nature. Which do you feel came first? The answers not as superficial as it sounds. It would take atlest one scientist to teach the first religion so perhaps what religion does is hold knowledge until another scientist comes along to question that knowledge.

Rosco Bodine - 30-11-2010 at 12:22

Religion is a love story. Science is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

People can walk and chew bubble gum.

Even motorcycle riders need love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hEfcawx6Fc&fmt=18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNjzzDNIJWw&fmt=18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDsVCYLyQXs&fmt=18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfL_48K2ZFY&fmt=18

[Edited on 30-11-2010 by Rosco Bodine]

hissingnoise - 30-11-2010 at 12:29

Rosco, I think that there badge has gone to your head . . .
VrooomVrooom . . .

Rosco Bodine - 30-11-2010 at 13:18

Hmmm......if the perceivable universe appears to be a cosmic crime scene,
then all humanity should be evidence technicians, crime scene investigators
dedicated to the task of getting the goods on the perpetrator who is responsible
so that perpetrator can be held accountable and brought to justice ....riiiight

The WiZard is In - 30-11-2010 at 14:11

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

Hmmm......if the perceivable universe appears to be a cosmic crime scene,
then all humanity should be evidence technicians, crime scene investigators
dedicated to the task of getting the goods on the perpetrator who is responsible
so that perpetrator can be held accountable and brought to justice ....riiiight

The Bishop of Rome is claimed to be (by some)
Gods representative on earth — as such can he be
sued for Acts of God?.

Rosco Bodine - 30-11-2010 at 14:52

Quote: Originally posted by The WiZard is In

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

The Bishop of Rome is claimed to be (by some)
Gods representative on earth — as such can he be
sued for Acts of God?.

Sued ? How about criminally prosecuting the almighty for violating the laws of physics ? ......wait a minute.....
On second thought that probably won't work either, because of sovreign immunity ......it has got to be a rigged game I tell you. Yeah, the fix is in for sure.

[Edited on 30-11-2010 by Rosco Bodine]

quicksilver - 30-11-2010 at 15:55

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

...... As well I have little faith in that same dog looking up at the sun and seeing anything other then a bright light and warmth where as the human mind seems to need more information before its satified with an answer........

Some may say this is also a question of native intelligence & therefore possibly the ability to reason.
Is Self Awareness a factor in separating humans from beasts? Some would argue that many non-primates (dogs for instance) indeed do have self awareness.

Is it possible that if native intelligence were greater or the capacity to reason greater - that a non-primate (or primate for that matter) could have a belief in a "Great Dog". Self awareness is certainly not limited to humans. Is it possible that in some cases the dog's owner is, in a fractional manner, the "dog's deity"?

I know there's a lot of openings for jokes here but I'm semi-serious.

[Edited on 30-11-2010 by quicksilver]

starman - 30-11-2010 at 16:30

You know it dawns on me if you slightly altered the question to' Can fundamentalism and science peacefully coexist' the answer is very simply 'no'.They are antithetical.One is moribund,mired in the misunderstandings of the past and utterly inflexible.The other looks forward,at least attempts an improved comprehension and dosen't usually find it necessary to light things on fire or blow things up to respond to challenges to their belief system.

DDTea - 30-11-2010 at 17:05

As intransigent as people say "religion" (a very broad statement) is, I can think of a lot of examples of religions adapting--albeit with much internal struggle.

The Roman Catholic Church today is not advocating the Ptolemaic model, for example. Galileo was recently pardoned by the Church. The Church has apologized for the Inquisition as well. They very, very rarely perform exorcisms these days and they aggressively investigate claims of miracles. If you want to see an inquisition, try to convince the Church that a miracle has occurred to you!

That's just an example from one religion. Most of the well-established religions have a community of scholars that are always asking questions about how modern problems can be solved/addressed by their respective beliefs. In that sense, being a religious scholar is very much like being a lawyer or a judge.

An example by analogy: the US Constitution. In theory, it is "intransigent" and we in the US do not question it too much. We debate its interpretation, but everyone accepts that it is is the supreme law of the land. Often though, those debates about its interpretation are in the context of new problems that the Constitution probably didn't foresee. I would say that most mainstream religions today are like that.

[Edited on 12-1-10 by DDTea]

Rosco Bodine - 1-12-2010 at 02:34

Quote: Originally posted by quicksilver

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnNlU433i4Q Bless The Beasts and The Children

http://www.americancatholic.org/features/francis/blessing.as... Blessing of pets by Franciscans

A dying man not long ago told my wife that when he arrived at heaven, he was going to ask if there were any dogs there, and if they said no, then he would say send him to where the dogs go.

hissingnoise - 1-12-2010 at 02:54

In a dream, I died and went to hell - as expected, there was a great fire but I couldn't get close enough to warm myself because of all the clergy hogging the entire friggin' hearth!

Rosco Bodine - 1-12-2010 at 03:23

Every holiday season the cynical grinches turn out in force ......
and every year all their party pooping bs falls flat just like the year before

It's like a kind of yearly spiritual and philosophical battle of cowboys and indians.

Back to the reservation grinches ! Roar ....go ahead .....make my day

Pistol and bullwhip in hand ....all the lions and tigers go sit on their stools.

And all the wide eyed children smile at the suddenly well behaved pussycats

[Edited on 1-12-2010 by Rosco Bodine]

hissingnoise - 1-12-2010 at 03:33

Yeah, can't beat bread and circuses . . .

The WiZard is In - 1-12-2010 at 07:25

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

Quote: Originally posted by The WiZard is In

The Bishop of Rome is claimed to be (by some)
Gods representative on earth — as such can he be
sued for Acts of God?.

God would have a tough time finding a lawyer if sued.

St. Peter finding the fence between heaven and hell in
disrepair calls out the the Prince of Darkness requesting
his help in funding the needed repairs. The P of D's reply
is not fit for print. To which St. P replies. I'll sue.

The P of D replies — Where are you going to find a lawyer?

djh
----
Physicist Albert Einstein God does not play dice with the universe.
(Der lieber Gott nicht werfelt).

Physicist Niels Bohr reply Stop telling God what to do with his
dice.

Physicist Stephen Hawking Not only does God play dice,
but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.

quicksilver - 1-12-2010 at 07:40

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

A dying man not long ago told my wife that when he arrived at heaven, he was going to ask if there were any dogs there, and if they said no, then he would say send him to where the dogs go.

That's something I dearly hope I remember when the time comes.
(+ 1)

The WiZard is In - 1-12-2010 at 08:37

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

Quote: Originally posted by The WiZard is In

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

The Bishop of Rome is claimed to be (by some)
Gods representative on earth — as such can he be
sued for Acts of God?.

A suit over the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would top
my list. It seems to me total unnecessary and that annoying.

froot - 1-12-2010 at 08:58

Can science and religion coexist peacefully?

I believe they can. Weather it's humanly possible, probably not. There is always only one true answer to any question and neither the scientists nor religion has all the answers to all the questions and both have answered certain questions incorrectly and lived by those answers. I also believe both sides have some stuff right but none of them has earned the arrogance to look down at the other. As long as there are hard heads on either side of the fence you can forget it.

madscientist - 1-12-2010 at 11:06

The question is best posed as being between faith and evidence-based reasoning. Since these philosophies contradict at a fundamental level, I don't think they can co-exist without one undermining the other.

hissingnoise - 2-12-2010 at 03:54

Quote:

The question is best posed as being between faith and evidence-based reasoning.

Or pared down - between the irrational and the rational?

Rosco Bodine - 2-12-2010 at 06:32

Believe no history books. They are only speculation, since you weren't there to see it as an eyewitness. To just believe it what any others say, and count it for knowledge without personally verifying it yourself ......well that would not be evidence based.....that would be faith. There clearly is a bias expressed in all of this "intellectualizing" that is a fundamental intellectual dishonesty about even
what is "faith". What it really comes down to, the "secular humanism" is an intellectual snobbery that counts for superior whatever belief is preferred by the possessor, while any others who fail to concur are not just different but are "inferior". What is "natural" or "supernatural" depends on what is in nature on your planet ....
and what of history you count for history in comfort or dismiss with ridicule .....
while having no direct personal knowledge of anything before or beyond your
own singular mortal lifetime .....yet you confidently speak of what you count for knowledge of things eternal in the continuum before your time in the world and beyond that time's end ......with pretended knowing what you cannot know.

People of faith recognize that perplexity for the test of arrogance that it is, and they flee from it in humility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZJJSuSNs1c&fmt=18 Holly Holy

[Edited on 2-12-2010 by Rosco Bodine]

quicksilver - 2-12-2010 at 07:49

Quote: Originally posted by madscientist

The question is best posed as being between faith and evidence-based reasoning. Since these philosophies contradict at a fundamental level, I don't think they can co-exist without one undermining the other.

Would you not allow Agnosticism as a interpretation of flexibility (and therefore placing that person in a position of choice) on a "faith based" view point?

Certainly there's always that "third choice" of "I don't have all the facts yet"...?

[Edited on 2-12-2010 by quicksilver]

madscientist - 2-12-2010 at 09:53

There is no faith in agnosticism. To my knowledge, most of them are waiting for evidence.

Rosco Bodine - 2-12-2010 at 18:24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDR5oRVarq8&fmt=18 Stones

A troubled world would be a poorer place without its saints and angels.

Science and mathematics are useful and interesting tools. But no toolbox
should blind us to what things do still inspire awe and singing of praises.

The WiZard is In - 2-12-2010 at 18:53

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDR5oRVarq8&fmt=18 Stones

A troubled world would be a poorer place without its saints and angels.

Science and mathematics are useful and interesting tools. But no toolbox
should blind us to what things do still inspire awe and singing of praises.

singing of praises...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh7JR9oKVE

Rosco Bodine - 2-12-2010 at 19:14

Amen

MagicJigPipe - 3-12-2010 at 11:34

Quote:

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.

I just can't believe this without good evidence and since this is purely anecdotal, I don't believe you.

I think the original question is obscure, ambiguous, vague, overplayed and boring. I am only here to read the replies. I am surprised at all of the replies supporting religion as a legitimate mode of thought. I don't mind other people being religious, but I will never be. Live and let live I say (unfortunately, those that are religious often do not live by this phrase).

Perhaps those that are religious are more inclined to reply to such a question in support of religious thoughts and ideals. Maybe those, like me, who aren't religious and who, therefore find the very question as I described above just don't want to reply.

Yawn, I say. I have never understood how people can believe in things like the Bible and gods, but that's okay with me. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean I hate it (this seems to usually occur with religion and similar things).

The WiZard is In - 3-12-2010 at 12:11

Quote: Originally posted by MagicJigPipe

Quote:

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.

I just can't believe this without good evidence and since this is purely anecdotal, I don't believe you.

In a 1950 something issue of Scientific American there was
an article 'bout Nobel Prize winners and their beliefs in a God.
Perhaps someone could ferret it out.

Pop'd up in Google The Scientific GOD Journal
www.scigod.com. This is not a recommendation by me
I just note it in pasing.

Rosco Bodine - 3-12-2010 at 14:46

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

http://nobelist.tripod.com/ 50 NOBEL LAUREATES
AND OTHER GREAT SCIENTISTS
WHO BELIEVE IN GOD free e-book

madscientist - 3-12-2010 at 15:27

There may be some great religious scientists. But far more are not.

Rosco Bodine - 3-12-2010 at 15:42

Yeah there will probably always be a few self-aggrandizing cynics
having minds as deep as a birdbath,..... real life of the party types.

Here's a Christmas Card for you ....
it needs powerpoint or the viewer for opening

Merry Christmas

http://sciencemadness.org/scipics/So_this_is_Christmas.pps

[Edited on 4-12-2010 by Rosco Bodine]

UnintentionalChaos - 3-12-2010 at 15:43

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

http://nobelist.tripod.com/ 50 NOBEL LAUREATES
AND OTHER GREAT SCIENTISTS
WHO BELIEVE IN GOD free e-book

Classic informal fallacy of Ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority). Just because they might be great scientists who are well respected by many, if not all the members here for their work, does not make their opinions on other matters in any way more valid than Joe Schmoe.

Have you not also considered that the belief in a god of some sort by these individuals may be largely due to societal pressure? If being atheist is shunned in the society and they were taught to believe from a young age, do you really think that it will be so easily shrugged off by the individual with no lingering doubts? How many of these religious scientists were very involved in a specific faith? I suspect that often, they are logically unable to accept the teachings of any specific faith, but cannot cast off belief in some sort of higher power- whatever it may be- for the above mentioned reasons.

[Edited on 12-3-10 by UnintentionalChaos]

Rosco Bodine - 3-12-2010 at 16:27

Any Joe Shmoe can also psychoanalyze the differing view on this from either side and come up with some interesting rationales for explaining the "comfort zone" for the other sides beliefs.

Bacon was Franciscan monk. Maxwell should be on the list of "believers" too IIRC, and certainly DaVinci.

There's an arrogance involved here comparing apples and oranges as a means of divining who owns the orchard or planted the trees, or if all those neatly arranged rows of DNA just by chance fell into place that way.

Every man at life's race track calculates the odds and lays his money down.

You bet any way you like ......and so will I.

Seeing who is in the winners circle at the end of this life's race
will settle all the debate ........won't it ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgAYePzb9yQ&fmt=18 Train Leaves Here This Morning

[Edited on 4-12-2010 by Rosco Bodine]

quicksilver - 7-12-2010 at 12:45

Thinking in diverse ways may be part of the human condition. But getting STARTED thinking differently is often a challenge. When I was younger I was agnostic for the most part.
Two things got me started down a different road. The first thing was that I met some people who were very decent and didn't evangelize; yet their belief was strong. It was also obvious that their belief gave them peace. The other thing was that I found that true Atheism (capital "A") was a belief rather than simply wanting more evidence. And those Atheists that I met (for the most part) were REACTING to some of the abuses or problems found in organized religion - but more so, to a PERSON who represented organized religion to them. It appeared like they were reacting to a person: not a "deity concept" per se'.

I do my best to have a private part of me when it comes to "something greater than myself". I actually believe that part of a person should be in their heart and not on their sleeve, so to speak. It's like those guys in Alcoholics Anonymous who put "Easy Does It" stickers on their trucks. It's supposed to be Alcoholics Anonymous, not Alcoholics Public.

When I got started in moving from questioning to something more it was a long process: starting. And I certainly don't have the type of personality that would be any good at convincing anyone of things: I make way too many mistakes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3SXKLas-ko&feature=relat...

Ephoton - 7-12-2010 at 17:59

I personaly think not.

I think they should be the same thing the search for were
we came from.

but then most just want to belive.

lazy if you ask me.

psychokinetic - 7-12-2010 at 23:01

Quote: Originally posted by madscientist

There is no faith in agnosticism. To my knowledge, most of them are waiting for evidence.

I'm not exactly waiting for anything. A lot of people don't understand how someone could just be happy with not knowing. But I am. There might be no gods, and there might be (but probably not any that man has written about).... And really, that's OK.

I'd rather get on with my life.

Eynigma - 8-12-2010 at 17:29

I think Mr. Robert G. Ingersoll sums up my opinion-at least on the traditional judeochristian non-sense-rather well. I am an atheist, and I'm an atheist because I consider being an agnostic too much of a bow to religious nonsense in itself.

"If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men. It has been a constant pain, a perpetual terror to every good man and woman and child. It has filled the good with horror and with fear; but it has had no effect upon the infamous and base. It has wrung the hearts of the tender, it has furrowed the cheeks of the good. This doctrine never should be preached again. What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena."--Robert G. Ingersoll

tyrant

cyanureeves - 8-12-2010 at 19:06

what's a trip is we have no say so in God's providence. a christian tastes pretty good to a lion whether the christian prays or not.but there is evil in the world for sure. and it ain't just man's or animal nature.but what i like is the explanation of the three human races of the world explained by genesis. japheth is father of northern and coastal people.ham populates southern hemispheres(africa) and shem goes way east(new york).except one man(abraham) is pulled away from shem and makes his own race.it's a cool explanation of negroid,caucasoid and mongoloid. australoid threw a monkey wrench in the creation scene for a while after cook's discovery.oh! and the rainbow shown to the father of the three patriarchs.red,yellow and blue. out of those three colors the whole spectrum is composed. just like the world is composed of the three races. i guess the father(noah) is the original white light.

Ephoton - 8-12-2010 at 21:52

it all went out the window for me when I was young

went to a catholic school made to do only one confession.

father please forgive me for I have sinned.

what is your sin son

Im not a christian Ill never be a christian and your religion
is bullshit.

dont worry son you dont have to do confession again.

and thats how it went once and only once

I used to go down to the back oval dure in church times.

but each to there own so long as they dont push it on people.

[Edited on 9-12-2010 by Ephoton]

Eynigma - 9-12-2010 at 05:57

Quote: Originally posted by arsphenamine

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.

[Insert derogatory references to Phlogiston, Lysenko, String Theory, et.al., here]

Good points. Note also that the "God Defense" can be abused (even in a SECULAR society) by a criminal trying to feign insanity. The Elizabeth Smart rapist/pedophile/kidnapper and his wife successfully employed it for years. I take issue with the idea of religion being acceptable as long as it is "separated" from government, too. I went to 12 loooooong years of Catholic school and I can hardly recall a single sermon wherein the priest didn't try to suggest ideas that would violate this separation.

Rosco Bodine - 31-12-2010 at 15:58

With regards to Ingersoll what else can be said but that reckless and bold words are what would be expected from a humanist. One luxury that hell would not offer is an opportunity to repent of having chosen poorly a fate that is sealed. The impressiveness of words once thought clever is destined for a reckoning where what was thought clever in one world has purchased for its destination a worse place instead of a better. Not believing in the existence of either heaven or hell is really the security for such reckless words by those who would mock God, because they don't really believe it is consequential ....they believe they could only offend an imaginary being and therefore need have no fear of any consequence (or reward) which they believe is equally imaginary and so will never affect them. And if Ingersoll is right, of course then there never was a first Christmas, there was no Jesus, no resurrection, there is no historical basis nor truth in scriptures carefully recorded, studied, and kept safe for millenia by thousands of people not nearly so smart as Ingersoll. However it is good not to ever lose sight of the context for such statements by Ingersoll which makes such reckless statements a non sequitur before their utterance and makes Ingersoll then a liar for the words even being spoken.

Somehow I don't think all the statuary of angels in cemetaries and churchyards
is soon going to be replaced by comforting statues of Ingersoll or Dawkins or
Bill Maher, or any of the other advocates of humanism.
To be impressed by such men is to be too easily impressed.
It isn't difficult to set a higher standard than such men, as most children probably do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvkoQUk-bMo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN_PNnoUJkY

[Edited on 1-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

psychokinetic - 31-12-2010 at 16:19

Just because you don't have a devout following doesn't mean you are wrong or any less reckless.

Rosco Bodine - 31-12-2010 at 18:07

Christians are the salt of the earth. Salt is very good for countering nausea ....
(unless there is too much taken) .....something I shall try to keep in mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW5UEW2kYvc

Happy New Year 2011

Sedit - 31-12-2010 at 20:06

Salt is also very good for causing pain in the presence of a wound. Also can cause hypertension and other heart problems.

Take the above statement as you will

cyanureeves - 1-1-2011 at 07:21

ooh! good thing you talked about salt. Jesus said if salt loses its taste it is useless. can salt lose its taste?is it the chloride that makes salt, salty? sodium is what makes blood pressure shoot up and i know sedit was just generalizing. i read that saltpeter gets its name from salt of petra. petra is not far from where Jesus walked about.i wonder if potassium nitrate is salty ,anyway tasteless salt is to be trampled on by men?dont they do this in chicago on icy days?

mario840 - 1-1-2011 at 11:14

Jesus ?? this priest ? this is only historical person that'a all , look at laureats nobel price (4 of them were catholics) , salt is salt it will be always "salty" specially when you keep it in propery place, temp. , out of moisure etc. etc. ,this Bible is bunch of "story" , KNO3 has salty taste , just search a little : http://www.google.pl/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ve...

PS. how goes your experiment hahahahahahah

cyanureeves - 1-1-2011 at 12:18

boy is HE ever A priest! apparently without him i am counted as an enemy. bow down now or bow down later, but all will hit the knees.laureats and not! my experiment dissolves copper like water color paint dropped in water. silver just dissintergrates into millions of particles, but it might as well be ordinary tap water when it comes to gold. so potassium nitrate is salty,so am i after a couple of sweaty days cooking urea and carbonate.

Rosco Bodine - 5-1-2011 at 17:36

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CovKq3QxFw A Bit of Musical Humor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S519ziFdcuk labrador

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxuunoxAzsg The Old Church Yard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXt6-AFPZg4 Where No One Stands Alone

[Edited on 6-1-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

Rosco Bodine - 6-1-2011 at 07:34

Quote: Originally posted by kowalskil

Quote: Originally posted by psychokinetic

There is a balance which should be recognized and kept in mind, that science is concerned with the technical without regard for the ethical. Much of what is scientific or technical can also have moral and ethical implications, and that may produce inevitable conflict. Not everything that is technically interesting is something that ought to be made subject for experimentation or technical application because the obtaining of knowledge or data is not necessarily the highest virtue. However, that wisdom is certainly lost and absent from any limiting effect on pure science which may
have no conscience at all, no ethic, no morality whatsoever
except for increasing of knowledge without any impediment
presented by any abstract moral valuation upon developing of whatever data or knowledge is sought.

Without religion science has no conscience nor soul and becomes an abomination in that it will do anyway what
ethically should not be done. There is an enormous distinction between knowledge and wisdom. Enthusiasm
for knowledge can too often lead to a lack of emphasis
on what is wisdom to be done with the knowledge, and the error involved is not always mathematically quantifiable.
Therefore science is like the curious child which requires
the adult supervision of the church, and science can piss and moan all it wishes about that, but that is how it shall remain.

gsd - 6-1-2011 at 08:03

Quote: Originally posted by Rosco Bodine

Therefore science is like the curious child which requires
the adult supervision of the church, and science can piss and moan all it wishes about that, but that is how it shall remain.

All very true!

But looking at the state of all organized religions today and all sorts of scandals in which their guardians are perpetually embroiled, even a hard core Believer is bound to wonder :

who supervises the supervisors?

gsd

Rosco Bodine - 6-1-2011 at 08:15

That supervisor in chief (of course) would be the almighty .
Sometimes admittedly there is reason for anyone to wonder
just how much supervising is being done. It seems to work
itself out given time.

hissingnoise - 6-1-2011 at 08:20

Quote:

science is like the curious child which requires
the adult supervision of the church

And don't we all just know how well children benefit from this kind of "adult supervision" . . .

Rosco Bodine - 6-1-2011 at 08:23

What children have there ever been who didn't estimate they were much smarter than their parents, in some matter where that estimate later proved faulty ?

hissingnoise - 6-1-2011 at 08:33

So whatever these ordained filthy wretches do to innocent children is your fucking god's version of collateral damage!
Thanks for clearing that up!

Rosco Bodine - 6-1-2011 at 08:47

What has science and government done to millions more innocent children to give you pride or standing to in general judge the church or god on the basis and for the actions relatively few evil men who are the exception rather than the rule? All your railings are just that, where you deceptively enlarge and generalize,
and whatever may be your railings or interpretations or opinions is probably one huge avoidance of some more personal conflict in your own heart. More likely
is the situation that you are resentful or angry over something personal that you have enlarged and applied to the cosmos. Bitterness makes you feel entitled
to judge harshly all as your reply to what you believe is some harsh judgement wrongly laid upon yourself. Self pity nourishing bitterness is a spiritual and an intellectual abyss. But go right ahead with your enlightened analysis. What person is born into the imperfect world with a promise that all will be well and they will only be treated wonderfully and fairly ? The world is not heaven.

hissingnoise - 6-1-2011 at 08:58

I just have no time for organised superstition!

Pages: 1 2