Kindest Regards, Tao Equus!
Your post took a lot of courage, and I commend your most noble attempt to treat the subject with dignity.
Tao_Equus said:
I believe I see science from a different perspective to you. And I certainly see the worlds montheistic religeons differently from you. Science to me is nothing but a tool. Monotheisms a misrepresentaion,( and I chose that word carefully as I will explain), of reality.
Actually, I think we share much the same view on science, I have as much called it a tool, as well as calling it a religion.
Perhaps in calling science a religion I have not been so tactful as you have been here, but it is still something I have observed almost exclusively. As for monotheistic misrepresentation, I cannot argue without bearing in mind the interdenominational strife between the various sects and denominations that fall under the umbrella of monotheism.
I feel such an enormous sense of excitement and privelege to have been born into this age. I feel great gratitude to all the men and women who studied so hard at their chosen sciences to bring us to this point where we can land probes on distant moons and cure children with leukemia with bone marrow translpants. I say thanks also to those folk of science that helped make possible my fridge, my washing machine, my car, my phone and my computer. Science was able to do these things for us becauses it searches for answers and solutions in a particular way that gets results.
I do not wish to seem flippant, my question is sincere. Would you feel equally excited and privileged living in any age before now? I would feel equally so in any age I happened to be born, all else being equal.
Your questions: What is beauty ?,What is love ?,What is faith ?,Why do we have or need hope? etc all have answers in the science of psychology. And there we might equally ask: What is ugliness?, What is hate?, What is despair? etc etc. I understand that you are approaching them from a particular angle and I have no disagreement with it, but it is not the only angle. The thing about the scientific method is it can be applied to anything and free's us from any predjuidice if correctly undertaken.
You see, that's the thing, psychology doesn't really answer these things. Think of it this way for a moment, there are hard sciences and there are soft sciences. 1+1=2, fact, indisputable, hard science. (Which in my view is where the likes of Newton and Einstein can see "God") Soft science is not nearly as certain, it is guesswork and subject to all sorts of conditions. Biology falls somewhere in between, which is probably why evolution draws such a fierce debate. Psychology on the other hand, is about as purely guesswork as a science can possibly get and still be called science. (Had this discussion with a good natured psych professor). So I must respectfully disagree, psychology, and the rest of the sciences, do not have
hard, solid, indisputable scientific answers for the questions I posed. My faith, on the other hand, does. Not only answers as to what these things are, but even reasons for them existing in the human condition to begin with.
I personaly dislike 'holy books' as a work presented as the word of God. I fully appreciate that almost all contain great wisdom, valuable lessons and sage advice. But I feel most of it is lost when transferred verbatim into a concept of what 'God' really is.
I suppose in this sense all holy books are equally suspect and simultaneously invaluable. I cannot argue the attempts by the misguided and self-righteous to "convert" unbelievers, I argue just as vehemently with them, perhaps more so (they are less fun to argue with though!
).
The authenticity of most of them is also very questionable. Monotheisms especially are also to prone to hijacking by mostly self-proclaimed 'religeous leaders' that manipulate large numbers of people to do anything but seek the truth. The message of Jesus for example does not need the whole new testament......it can be summed up in a few lines. Everything else has been put there by religeous leaders of all to often dubious intent. The debates on this forum about gospels omitted or included only in part show clearly the political decision making involed in the new testament composition. In short it is a corrupted piece of scholarly history and in no sense the 'word of God'. But saying this makes Christians angry and think I am trying to provoke or insult them. I am not....I merely state a fact as I see it. No christian would dare take me to a court of law on a slander charge because a court of law would uphold my statements to be true.
I am accepting your position as one being presented politely and sincerely, accept my response in a similar vein please. I see a great deal of narrow sight in this, it is pointedly focused at Christianity. Where I see these same issues relative and relevent to all faiths, all religions, including science. It is not a fault of religion per se, it is a human fault. Which is why I made the comment earlier:
jt3 said:
I can understand your concern, I have touched on it elsewhere a number of times: this, specifically, is a religious argument. Both sides feel threatened, both sides feel a threat to their respective political constituencies, and both sides are not above using...ummmm...artful ways and means of achieving their ends. Both sides it seems to me are at ease in contorting the facts to fit their dogma and doctrine, while heatedly pointing fingers at the other and accusing of deceptive tactics...This is not about whether or not God is behind any of this. This is about political sway over the masses. Just as religious war has been throughout history. This is about whose God is going to win.
Science on the other hand is constantly faced with the court of 'peer review'.
I would almost agree with you but for one thing; the human ego. That "peer review" is conditional. Officially, no, and I cannot prove it. Unofficially, I believe this to be so, and I back it up with Thomas Kuhn's book. (The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions I believe is the name).
That said I do believe that there is what we all know and feel as God. And I feel that monotheisms miss the point in that God is not one of itself, but the totality of all things. It may be a subtle difference, but its an important one. And all the things you say science cannot answer like prayer, love and faith are explainable and indeed proveable with science.
With all due respect, I am afraid I missed this part in science class.
Science is not disproving the existance of a Universal Spirit......its proving it is there. It is understanding its true nature from an unbiased perspective, free of the shackles of religeous leaders who are really political aspirants, using so called sacred texts to stifle thinking and progress.
I want to believe this, at least in some manner, but you must admit this is not typical scientific thinking. This is not normative science in any sense of the term. One might get an occasional scientist to acknowledge, off the record of course, that they believe in some kind of "God" in whatever supernatural manner that might be expressed. But this is not normative science because science cannot hold it, dissect it, test it, prod it, probe it or otherwise manipulate it. So I do agree that science cannot disprove God, God is outside of the parameters of science. Any scientist who attempts to use science to disprove God does great disservice to science.
Anyone who has felt God knows that no holy place of worship nor piece of scripture is required to feel that knowledge. Sure some people find it useful to use those for focus but they are not absolute requirements.
Does it suprise you that I agree with this?
I believe each of us is a part of God. God is not removed from us in any way. We are all equal parts of God....the Pope is no closer than I am, and I am no closer than the tree outside, or the stars that twinkle in the night sky. All the 'fear God' is politics, all the this is the 'one book' is politics and so are the vast majority of the rules these religeons demand be followed. They are about controling people, not enlightening them.
Here we will have to agree to disagree. As friends we can do that.
And I dont require any religeon to have faith and love nor to pray and have my prayers answered.
I would add, I do not need any science for these things either.
Remember, I entered this discussion to play "devil's advocate." Large parts of my thoughts are open to change, other than the one core I feel most deeply; there is a Creator. In that sense, and that sense only, I can be considered a creationist. Otherwise, I do not fit the label and resent it being thrown in my direction with the animosity it is typically thrown by the scientific religionist in the throes of a dogmatic hissy-fit. Thankfully, I do not see this tendency in you, Tao.
