slug.com slug.com

5 6

"Christianity and science are opposed … but only in the same sense as that which my thumb and forefinger are opposed — and between them, I can grasp everything."
— Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize for Physics (1915)

Wordmage 8 May 22
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Einstein: time is a stubborn illusion.

Later theoretical physicists: entangled electrons seem to instantly "know" what each one is doing across vast spaces, so space must be an illusion.

Me: now where did I hear of that one before...

I'm sure I would find those videos fascinating, but gasp 2+ hours gasp — can you summarize? I already have a pile of distractions keeping me from the normal activities I used to procrastinate from doing everything that I should & need to do … <eyeroll> 😀

@Wordmage what cutting edge science is discovering is what the bible has been saying all along. There are hyperspaces, or what is usually labeled as the spiritual realm.

0

All religions are a distortion of the truth. Unfortunately scientists are determined to prove whatever they get grants (taxpayer money) to prove. Somewhere between the two lies, is the truth.

Re-: "All religions are a distortion of the truth."
My first impression of that is that it's one of those things you hear that sounds true because someone has said it, but upon examination it really doesn't make as much sense as it did initially. My question would be, if it is true, how do you know? What truth are you measuring all religions by? And how might you go about measuring the degree of distortion — if the above is a true statement?

Apart from that, unfortunately, I think that you are correct in saying that "scientists are [increasingly] determined to prove whatever they get grants for." And those grants are often steered by elites who want the results of "research" to prove something that can be politically exploited.

@Wordmage Only when we travel down the long tunnel to the light shall we know the truth, or take a step towards it. Until that time, the truth is hidden behind the veil.

@WayneHawthorne, again, you say that authoritatively as though it's a "known truth." Presumably, you're talking about death, so how do you know what lies at the end of that "long tunnel"? And, you seem to be asserting that there's no way we can take even a step toward knowing the truth until we die? If you haven't died, therefore you haven't even taken a step toward knowing the truth, how can you know any of what you just said is a true statement? How do you know there even is truth, if it's hidden behind a veil?

I contend that we can begin knowing both truth in general and "The Truth" long before we die — and that denying the truth that is in front of us sets us on a path of hopelessness and ultimate self-destruction.

@Wordmage I look forward to being relieved of this chemical body and free my spirit. However, I am not rushing the process. But if you think there is nothing to look forward to, the appropriate response in your vernacular would be Oh yea of little faith.

@WayneHawthorne, at no point did I suggest that I don't believe there's nothing to look forward to. I merely questioned what authority you're basing your (apparently) categorical statements that we can't even take a step toward knowing the truth until "only when we travel down the long tunnel to the light."
Not even a step? I have more faith than that, because I believe we can take steps toward knowing the truth in the here and now.

1

It's isn't as if religion has not used it's political power to attack science. Complete separation of church and state seems to be necessary.

Herein is a rub: Science has become a religion; should it, too then, be separated from State? Science and religion (theology, at least) are weird, in that the stagnant version of each carries an authority over over the exploratory versions. And it seems to be the stagnant versions that State embraces, possibly to the detriment of the continuous renewals of both. And they're oddly domain separate, yet mixed, in that one is IS and the other is OUGHT, but both are IS in experience, and we expect from government an implementation of far more OUGHTS than ISs.

It's complicated?

@govols

Science is natural philosophy in relationship to religion. Religion is spiritual philosophy. Here for the purposes we need and in deference to our agnostic and atheist friends spiritual means that which is transcendental but not necessarily supernatural.

For the most part politics isn't concerned with the transcendental. Occasionally it approaches the transcendental such as "all men are created equal". What the role the transcendent should play is complicated by lack of agreement on what contributes to spiritual health. I going to set that aside for now.

Some concern for the spiritual state of the population clearly should play a role in politics but traditionally it was assumed that only people with demonstrative " character " would be elected to office. To the extent that religion builds character it plays a role in politics by this indirect means. Again however there is a lack of agreement on what constitutes character.

Since science is concerned with the natural or physical world it is necessarily amoral. Morality is entirely abstract which doesn't mean it isn't real. It's as real and essential to the function of complex society as money. The religious will of course argue that it is real in the supernatural meaning of real and that the supernatural is manifested in the physical world. To keep things less contentious I would substitute spiritual for supernatural and move on.

Politics require morality but that does not mean that amoral science cannot inform it. Likewise politics should strive for the spiritual health of the population. Once more however it has to be stated that there is little agreement on what spiritual health means. Science can help with mental illness so it can inform some aspects of spiritual health. It can also provide sociological insights that politics can apply to spiritual health.

Since this is in the Christianity and Science group I'm not go into the is and ought problem. A Christian has a defined set of oughts that may or may not be agreed on by all Christians. Argument based on Christian texts are common place so we again have an agreement issue. That said I will use one quote for my argument. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". Christianity is unlike it's parent Judaism not designed to be a state religion. Like Buddhism it transcends the state. When it becomes a secular authority it is corrupted. We can see that in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. That is why I propose that public and private morality interact but are not defined by each other.

@wolfhnd, when you say "complete separation of church and state seems to be necessary," how do you propose to do that more effectively than the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does? It enjoins the federal government from creating a state-sponsored church, e.g., "The Church of the United States" patterned after "The Church of England." So, we are protected in that sense. What we aren't protected from is from a government that adopts a secular religion without an organized hierarchy. As @govols pointed out, "science" (rather, a perverted form of it that is now referred to as "scientism" ) has become a religion, and a particularly predatory one at that. Anyone who doesn't adopts the core tenets that abortion, climate hysteria, and transgenderism should be the new sacraments is demonized.

And, I'm not certain of your full meaning in calling for "complete separation," so I don't want to put words in your mouth are misrepresenting you, but some people use that phrase with the overt implication that only secularists should be allowed to govern — priests, pastors, deacons, anyone with a religious bent or a heartfelt conviction should not be allowed to participate in the governing process. That suggestion would be anathema to the Founding Fathers — including Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state."

@wolfhnd, in response to your qualification, "since this is in the Christianity and Science group …" Actually, no, it's not. You responded to a post on my profile. That's okay — I'm not objecting, and I appreciate your sharing your thoughts.
As we say in Australia, "Cheers, mate!"
Except I'm not in Australia or from Australia. I'm in Florida. I don't know what we say here for a friendly goodbye. Probably nothing as good as "Cheers, mate!"

@Wordmage

Well it should have been quite discussion in the Christianity and Science group. Not sure a profile was the appropriate place for this. Anyway thanks for your patience.

@wolfhnd, how is my own profile not the appropriate place to post a quotation that is of interest to me and expresses an opinion I can relate to or even share? 😀

I'm not even sure I was aware of the Christianity and Science group. If I happen to be a member of it, when I posted this, at least, I didn't remember having joined. So … As with other things, I posted it on my own profile, publicly viewable, for others to consider/contemplate at their leisure.

@Wordmage

You posting the quote is great. Me rambling on may be in poor form.

@wolfhnd, no complaints here. Thanks for the discussion.

1

Science is simply a method to explore this amazing world and universe. It is not a belief system. It's like claiming bread can't exist, because bagels do.

2

Western governments have divorced themselves of religion for the most part, only to seek solace in that separation by taking science as its new mistress. Science should be embarrassed but seems content but its name is tarnished as it morphs into what is being called "scientism", the whoring form of science.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:226676
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.