Contrasting science to religion

Discussion in 'Science' started by bricklayer, Nov 12, 2019.

  1. william kurps

    william kurps Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,041
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you suggesting the earth is the center?
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2019
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread is about science and religion, so I don't see how your example applies. It's not like you are going to use your religion to answer that particular question. But, religion doesn't claim to answer all questions.

    For example, marketing isn't an inherently religious topic. And, it IS highly scientific. It's not physics/chemistry/biology, perhaps, but it has everything to do with sizing markets, measuring motivation, communication, human behavior, etc. It would be expected that the student have some level of understanding of statistics, since that's critical in measurement.

    If the student didn't want to learn about marketing, why were they paying to take a marketing class?
     
  3. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of what?
     
  4. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about you provide a basis for your pronouncement that Einstein “clearly thought otherwise” and I’ll provide a basis for why I think he (or you) are wrong?

    We’re talking about the fundamental meaning of a word. That’s a linguistic question. The common issue here is that lots of people talk about a particular sub-set of beliefs, practices or world-views and present that (consciously or not) as talking about any and all religion in general.
     
  5. MikeDwight

    MikeDwight Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2019
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male

    First he says "Why would an individual see a better understanding of how our physical universe works as a threat to his/her religion?"
    My post wasn't about the ample educational self-contained academia of religion being threatened by the co-existing and co-running rich and ample educational academia of sciences.

    Then he said that my example didn't apply? Stonewall Jackson once said no sir , I do not smoke tobacco. 4 biographies list him as the bane of parties. He would meet the host of this party, greet all the guests, but as far as revelry, he'd bid you a nice evening. Then he developed from the Confederate Constitution's, Jefferson Davis's God of the Fathers of this nation, concerning how both Puritans and Reformed Scotsman in fact settled this land amply, and how the Scotsman came to the aid of the Puritan during the English Civil War, in the sovereign character of the states, and to compact under the Westminster Confession. He developed from This Government the Dixie flag, or Stainless banner, the battleflag of the First Brigade. The Confederate Government did choose as a mark of the Saint, at his funeral, to hoist the battleflag of Stonewall Jackson for the Country.

    The Alabama Constitution quotes this Confederate Constitution, which beseeches, it deplores, though, He cannot be here, He is not legal here, the invoking favor and guidance of Almighty God. The Constitution convention led by John B Knox. The Flag currently chosen then runs in a long heritage, specifically the Bonnie blue flag was the first flag for Alabama as well.

    Then, our Sciences today need to realize that it isn't the Science flag on the flagpole, wouldn't they? Is there a difference. It Feels like, there Should be a discernable difference in the attitudes of academia.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2019
  6. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He said "in black holes" so you spin and twist that into "on earth." You voted for Hillary, didn't you.
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. And, it isn't a God flag on the flag pole, eiterh - as noted in the constitution.

    I think you're still a little confused here. Science doesn't take politics or religion ito account - it studies how things work in this universe.

    How we respond to that is a politial issue.

    But, the idea of deciding how to respond to serious issues while ignoring the science on those issues is not something that should be considered acceptible by anyone. Ever.

    Likewise, if there are issues of morality, etc., one would expect our government would accept information on that, too, when making decisions.

    Mixing science and relgion or pretending a course in marketing should ignore science is absolutely absurd. NOBODY should want that.
     
  8. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here you go:

    It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible.

    [...]

    It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect.

    [...]​

    So by Einstein's reckoning, religion is no more a hodgepodge of propositions than is science, because the essence of both is pursuit - of higher spiritual stature in the first case, and of higher knowledge of the universe in the second.
    No, we're talking about a meaning of a word which has several meanings listed in most dictionaries.
    I have no idea whom that issue is supposed to be common to, but it's irrelevant to anything I said.
     
  9. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My bold.

    Not only did he use the phrase "in black holes" he also used the phrase "on earth". I would also like to use the phrase "on earth" as in: WHAT ON EARTH are you doing telling me what someone else said. If you think I misunderstood the meaning of the sentence why not try and explain it instead of quoting it?

    Is it possible that you misunderstood my question to the other poster? I am sure even a brilliant person slips up once in a while.

    You voted for Trump, didn't you?
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2019
  10. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How has it been proven wrong? Show me the proof.

    It is a fact that if you drop a pencil in a gravity field, it falls. But your religion demands that you don't believe in falling pencils?

    What is she like? What does she look like? What does she say to you? What is her favorite color? Do you hear her voice or just imagine all of this?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
  11. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said anything about "hodgepodge of propositions". I only said that religion isn't a singular thing. You said Einstein thought otherwise and I said if he did, he would be wrong.

    What you quote here is the same argument all other people make on the topic and they all make it from the same place he does; the effective Christian theocracy of early 20th Century Europe. even as they casually mention their vague understanding of other religious people, their (and our) perceptions are unavoidably coloured by the only form of religion that has ever been really accepted as valid in our society. The people with significantly different religious beliefs and practices were all deemed ignorant tribal heathen and killed off, both within Europe and beyond.

    So, he isn't talking about religion in general, only what he personally believes about a specific subset of religion.

    We are, and context is important. That's why the whole question is a problem. If religion and science are really going to be compared, either the specific context needs to be established or they need to be comparable in all contexts.

    It's common to human beings. You are a human being aren't you? :cool:
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
  12. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your last sentence is overly harsh on religion.

    I don't believe that suppression is a primary methods of teaching a religion.
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No.

    It would be more than reasonable for the student to be required to become aware of branding, a marketing methodology that is varied, complex and highly significant. In fact, I don't know why that wouldn't be a requirement.

    Branding is a big deal. If you think learning about branding is going to poison your soul, you should stay away from marketing.
     
  15. MikeDwight

    MikeDwight Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2019
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    • Insulting or personally attacking other posters (Rule 2)
    <Rule 2> The Test Question is list those top 8 Brands you have personally feel like identifying with. That's a prime test question. I got a D. I didn't answer against myself. That doesn't test Any awareness, of the class, of knowledge, of education. 1 of 4 questions, meaning that put you at a C- on a primary test, is name 8 Brands that you identify with. The rest of the test didn't even use these answers . <Mod Edit>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2019
  16. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is his exact quote:
    "Atheist try that trick all the time, the theory of gravity has been proven wrong in black holes, but they want to pick up a pencil and drop it on earth to say it's a fact."


    He did NOT say gravity has been proven wrong on earth.

    I proudly claim that I did. You did not have the courage to admit that I was right - you did vote for Crooked Hillary.

    1. You misquoted and spun usfan.
    2. You attributed my post to him.
    3. You were afraid to admit being a Leftist.
    4. You were afraid to admit voting for Hillary.

    Why do I bother interacting with you anyway? You clearly have nothing to contribute.
    On to my Ignore List you go with your dearest friends here.
    ciao
     
  17. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have no idea.
     
  18. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I prefer a scientific approach to the supernatural.
     
  19. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All evidence and your posting history says otherwise.
     
  20. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are not mutually exclusive, as godless Leftists claim.
     
    bricklayer likes this.
  21. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Something tells me we can't expect you to square this with his open disdain for organized religions of all stripes.
    Sure, you figure organized religion is the source of what he defines as religion rather than a byproduct thereof, because you have, to all appearances, no understanding of what he said.
    Actually he's not talking about either. You imagine otherwise because the box you won't think outside of demands that relgion in general be considered the agglomeration of a multitude of codified religions.
    Obviously not...
    ...since I am, and I don't do that.
    Aside from the irrelevancy of this to anything I said, I marvel that people post this premasticated wikicrap when the internet is littered with direct quotes from the man - speaking of which, this

    I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.​

    clearly conflicts with his denial of a personal God.
     
  22. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously Albert Einstein. "His thoughts" were clearly expressed in the Holy Bible, and in the words of Jesus Christ. "We three are as one."
     
  23. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, that's who I quoted.
    Allow me to direct your attention to the final verse in the Gospel of John, wherein he supposed the world could not hold enough books to record all the acts of Jesus of Nazareth. That being the case, I suggest you rethink the idea that the totality of God's thoughts could possibly be expressed in writing.
     
  24. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A person is a being with intellect, emotion and will. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each have their own individual intellects, emotions and wills. That's what make them individual persons. However, their individual intellects, emotions and wills are infinitely identical; that's what makes them one.

    An act is a complex of intent, affect and effect. The God of the bible is one. There is only one true God of the bible. However, whenever the God of the bible acts, the bible attributes the intent to the Father, the affect to the Holy Spirit and the effect to the Son. The only times that the bible makes a distinction between them is when God acts, and it is always in the economy outlined above. One can say the Jesus is effectively God. The Holy Spirit is affectively God, and the Father is, for all intent and purposes, God.
     
  25. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not a Christian calendar we use in the US it is the Roman calendar that Julius Caesar created..and uses Arabic numerals..
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2019

Share This Page