Comments on: Atheists are wrong to claim science and religion are incompatible

By: Ron Krumpos

Ron Krumpos — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:38:13 +0000

Andy,

True mystics have direct insights into the ultimate reality which true scientists continually pursue. Mystics cannot talk or write about it because it is suprarational (for want of a better word); scientists, in turn, can only theorize about it because it is not subject to observation or measurement. Dark matter and dark energy are examples of the latter.

Many empiricists say “I only believe what can be proven,” but seldom can – by themselves – truly prove what they believe to be true. Wise scientists are aware of the limits of science, although they continually push those boundaries outward. They all realize, albeit may seldom admit, that the unknown far exceeds the known.

By: andy

andy — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:38:32 +0000

I’d say that science and mysticism are more compatible – mysticism has insights that can be tested, rather than the unimpeachable dogma that religion has…

…of course, practically, mysticism is responsible for a whole lot of sloppy pseudoscience… but they’re not inherently opposed… imho…

By: Ron Krumpos

Ron Krumpos — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:48:01 +0000

In 1959, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, at the University of Chicago’s Yerkes Observatory, introduced me to mysticism and the universality of the Universe. While many scientists believe that science and religion can co-exist harmoniously, few would grant the same to mysticism.

In “Quantum Questions / Mystical Writings of the World’s Greatest Physicists” (Shambala Publications 2001), Ken Wilber includes lengthy essays by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, de Broglie, Jeans, Planck, Pauli, and Eddington. Although I am not a fan of Ken Wilber, I am grateful for his compiling these quotations.

By: andy

andy — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:03:18 +0000

@boultoa: Yeah, I think they’re incompatible, for all those reasons… I’m not sure the ‘pope says condoms help spread HIV’ thing is a good example though, unless he was invoking his papal infallibility when he said that…

By: boultoa

boultoa — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:12:47 +0000

@andy I’m trying to relate your comments to the main topic because I can’t tell if you’re supporting the “incompatible” stance or not. I think there’s inherent incompatibility between many scientific and religious ideas and thus conflict is likely to result between the people believing those ideas. For example, the Pope saying that using condoms could endanger public health and increase the problem of HIV/Aids appears to directly conflict the science of how aids and condoms work – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Z1Kl7B_RA .

Another main conflict is how we acquire knowledge / truth – religions often promote accepting assertions by the authority of God, whereas science treats this Appeal To Authority approach as being a logical error, thus a flawed approach for getting to truth.

By: andy

andy — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:52:36 +0000

@boultoa: I was responding to Chad’s comment that “science explains how, religion explains why”. It’s often asserted that science explains the nuts and bolts of the universe, but is unable to answer the deeper questions, which is where religion takes over… My question is a kind of ‘OK then, believers – put your money where your mouth is!’ challenge.

Quote: “Clergy and lay members of the Church said it was perfectly possible to believe in God and Darwin’s theory of evolution, **and said that religion can explain areas of existence that science cannot.**”

It’s related.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:18:11 +0000

I think they are compatible. In the end, the big bang theory is very reasonable, and has sufficient evidence to support its validity. But, it can’t go further backwards in the history of the universe than the first molecule. How did that first molecule arrive there? For me, this is a perfectly valid reason to a cosmological christian. I do think that actual creatonists are retards though.

By: boultoa

boultoa — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:41:47 +0000

Very interesting provocation andy. I take the philosophical root of not answering the question and instead attacking the meaning of the question: I believe that organisms with a sense of purpose have evolved because being purposeful is a better staying-alive strategy (i.e. formulating goals with sub-goals etc helps us solve problems), but then our tendency to project our model of ourselves onto other things (i.e. assume others are like us) has made use think that everything MUST also have purpose (because we do). So we think that “What is the purpose of X?” is a meaningful question for every X. But not all questions are meaningful, and many questions are loaded with presumptions, like “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

Also, how does this relate to the main topic?

By: andy

andy — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 06:36:07 +0000

It’s a question I posed on another forum, after seeing a religious pamphlet with “THE MEANING OF LIFE” in bold text on the front page. The answers I got weren’t very impressive – either “Because god wants worshippers – it’s a test to find the best and weed out the rest” (muslim), “because god’s a dick who just wants worshippers and likes torturing everyone else” (atheist interpretation), or “We don’t know – it’s a mystery” (catholic). Plus a few other strange replies.

I’ve got a couple of (nicer) example answers of my own, btw – “The universe is a big theme park ride – it *may* seem scary and horrible now, but you’ll appreciate it when you get off” or “the universe is a giant kinetic sculpture – you’ll appreciate it when you see it from the outside”

No *answers*, just speculation…

By: andy

andy — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:58:27 +0000

…If you found a glass jar with a lid, you might easily think that it’s some type of waterproof container. Etc etc… With a totally unfamiliar object it’s unlikely you’d figure out *exactly* what it’s for, but you might get close.

When asking this question, the answer is often given – “god created the universe for people – humans are the point of creation” – but that’s not really an answer – it’s like saying the watch was designed to make the hands go round, or the jar was designed so that the lid fits, or the car was designed so that the wipers could keep the rain off the windscreen…

The answer “people” doesn’t answer the big question – *why* did he do it? please use all your knowledge and try and figure out what god’s purpose for it all is… what was god’s reason to do it at all?