Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians

[Unforgiven]

Kowalskil, an interesting name. Welcome.

You make some interesting observations from what I have read from you so far.
Though here you make a mistake.
Coexistence and cooperation are not at all the same thing.
So while one is simply yes, the other is as simply no.

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

Spirituality and science

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski, author of “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.” Click the link below.

Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality
==========================================

Or course two mutually loathing paradigms as science and religion can exist peacefully by virtue of ignoring each other. Though this seems highly unlikely as one is selling while the other isn't buying.

I do hope my injection of English slang doesn't confuse.

Peaceful cooperation on the other hand is impossible as religion at some point forces the issue of taking one's word on the subject while science is exactly not that. Demonstrate or remain nothing more than a belief.

The third aspect and probably the least interesting is the difference between scientist and theologians.

I would say it is dependant on the person though the properties of each vocation shouldn't stand in the way of the two getting along in finding common ground. But only if they can at some point agree to disagree and carry on with the rest of it.

 

[darkbeaver]

They are playing Musica Unversalis.

Yeah, Ancient Ukrainians spread their knowledge, ruderalis cannabis, wheat and rye seed as they were the first to tame and ride the horse 6000 years ago.

They were huge people in comparison to those who lived in ancient deserts of Khemet (Egypt) which started the legends of giants and even gods.

How many times do you suppose a migration like that has happened on earth? Virtually all extant histories speak of superior visitors imparting superior knowledge. Much of it is fantastical to us linear rote learners and thus easily discarded to the myth bin. Has there ever been a species on any planet so intent on myth building do you suppose? I think we make a grave error in thinking we have never been this highly developed on this planet. There is a lot of geological time for every sort of civilization to have risen and disappeared without our being aware. We've gone from hide wearing wildmen to rayon wearing lounge lizards in short geologically terms and we could have done it over and over again. Always the same lessons always the same mistakes always the same results. Someone who remembered history could take great advantage of that, if they had the ability to avoid the natural and man made catastrophys. There very well could be a hidden human elite that we are not and never have been aware of. booga booga Or maybe we have really gotten this stupid in so short a time. I suggest the giant exclusive seed banks built in the last couple of decades are worthy of consideration when thinking about that scenario. Hiding underground till the dust clears ain't new either. Nice and warm down there.

Oh yeah the OP, peaceful co existence with pricks and liars. Hows that work? I know it says to love thine enemy but pricks ain't going to reciprocate so the idea sounds like it may have been spawned by pricks in the first place.

 

[petros]

The ultimate goal in physics is to find the "God particle". What if the uinvere is alive and we kill God? Give the poor guy an artificially induced stroke.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Religion is just dated nonsense. It doesn't do a thing to make the world a better place. It is parasitic to pay for big buildings that are very pricey to heat.

 

[darkbeaver]

Did I hear the word parasitic? Yes I did. It's very interesting that man is his own worst parasite, don't you think?

 

[Cliffy]

Some can't differentiate between spiritual and religious, two very different mind sets. Spirituality can easily coexist with science. It is the dogma of religion that is too rigid to accept that truth can coexist. That is not to say, of course, that some religious people are more flexible than others.

Did I hear the word parasitic? Yes I did. It's very interesting that man is his own worst parasite, don't you think?

Definitely the worst as far as the planet is concerned.

 

[petros]

Some can't differentiate between spiritual and religious, two very different mind sets. Spirituality can easily coexist with science. It is the dogma of religion that is too rigid to accept that truth can coexist. That is not to say, of course, that some religious people are more flexible than others.


Definitely the worst as far as the planet is concerned.

How can you be a spiritual ball of magnetic and electrical energy on the crap that is passed off as food?

Beaver is aware of the limited owned and patented genetic cultivars of food plants AND animals.

Hybrid plant genetics do not produce seeds that will reproduce. They don't go beyond F1.

Using landrace cultivars puts you at risk of creating a plant that will produce past F1 but the impossible to avoid likelihood of the pollen being from a patented cultivar means you owe them for infringement.

How long until human genes are owned and sold? After everyone is irradiated by one of many potential sources?

When you own the food and the genes to reproduce you own the entire human race.

 

[kowalskil]

Kowalskil, an interesting name. Welcome.

You make some interesting observations from what I have read from you so far.
Though here you make a mistake.
Coexistence and cooperation are not at all the same thing.
So while one is simply yes, the other is as simply no.

Or course two mutually loathing paradigms as science and religion can exist peacefully by virtue of ignoring each other. Though this seems highly unlikely as one is selling while the other isn't buying.

I do hope my injection of English slang doesn't confuse.

Peaceful cooperation on the other hand is impossible as religion at some point forces the issue of taking one's word on the subject while science is exactly not that. Demonstrate or remain nothing more than a belief.

The third aspect and probably the least interesting is the difference between scientist and theologians.

I would say it is dependant on the person though the properties of each vocation shouldn't stand in the way of the two getting along in finding common ground. But only if they can at some point agree to disagree and carry on with the rest of it.

Most people on the planet are neither scientists nor theologists. They are mostly "buyers of ideas." And who are sellers? Scientists and theologists. They all say that their goal is to serve people as well as possible.

Ludwik
.

 

[Goober]

Most people on the planet are neither scientists nor theologists. They are mostly "buyers of ideas." And who are sellers? Scientists and theologists. They all say that their goal is to serve people as well as possible.

Ludwik
.

Cannot remember the name or the exact quote but it was from a physicist - he stated -paraphrasing here- Man is such a puny part of Gods Plan. I tend to agree.

 

[JLM]

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

Spirituality and science

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski, author of “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.” Click the link below.

Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality
==========================================

To do otherwise would be kind of stupid, as neither side has all the answers. Lots of stuff happening in the world that can't be explained.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians).

My first reaction is that the spiritual world is not what theologians study and that science is not restricted to the material world (electromagnetic fields are not material in any ordinary sense, for instance, though they have their roots in material things) but to argue from that position would I think be to miss the main burden of your question. I believe--correct me if I'm wrong--what you're really interested in is conflict between science and religion.

On one level at least they do peacefully coexist, in the sense that we don't see, at least in this part of the world, scientists and clerics doing violence to each other over who's right. Somehow it seems relevant to also point out here that the only times that's happened, the violence has been instigated by the clerics in situations, like medieval Europe, where they had the secular power to do so. There's a lot of verbal dueling, though actually most of the people on the side of science aren't actually scientists, they're more likely to be philosophers and polemicists of various kinds, like Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry, Christopher Hitchens, Michel Onfray, MIchael Shermer, and the like. The only actual scientists that come to mind who are actively and continuously engaged in this are Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger, with irregular contributions from Steven Weinberg.

Stephen Jay Gould (a scientist) drew a Solomonic line between science and religion, calling them "non-overlapping magisteria," and tried to argue that as long as each doesn't make claims about the other's domain, there is no necessary conflict. Much as I admire Gould's work, I think he got that one wrong, that line cannot be drawn. Science does have observations and conclusions about things like human ethics and morals, for instance, and religion does make empirical claims about the nature of the world, such as the core claim that there is at least one supernatural entity in it that has some interest in us. Some would not accept that that's an empirical claim, but I'd argue that a world with a deity in it ought to be detectably different from one without, the deity must interact with the material world to some degree to have any influence in it, which puts it squarely into the empiricist's camp.

I think science and religion are irreconcilable in any significant way. I also think that when they make conflicting claims, religion has to yield, because it lacks science's evidential basis. In fact much of the history of the last 400 years or so can be understand as religion retreating from making empirical claims in the face of the scientific revolution, starting approximately with Galileo. There are still some people fighting rearguard actions against science--creationism is only the most obvious example--mostly because they don't know enough to understand how thoroughly they've lost. I generally equate religion with mythology, in the sense Joseph Campbell used the word. It has certain useful didactic, social, ethical, and moral, purposes, but to take its stories as literally true in any sense is to miss its point entirely.

 

[kowalskil]

The thin/exact line between the material world and spiritual world will be hard to draw. But I think that even w wide/crude line would be very useful. Gould would probably agree. Theologians should not make claims about material world, and scientists should not make claims about spiritual world. The past should be carefully analyzed, by those who create plans for the better future. The prevailing--"we are better than you"--confrontations are not desirable.

Ludwik

 

[darkbeaver]

Some can't differentiate between spiritual and religious, two very different mind sets. Spirituality can easily coexist with science. It is the dogma of religion that is too rigid to accept that truth can coexist. That is not to say, of course, that some religious people are more flexible than others.


Definitely the worst as far as the planet is concerned.

Don't worry about the planet, think of the time scale, we ain't got a snowball in hells chance of hurting it. 99 per cent of all life has ended up extinct on numerous occasions in the past, all of it smashed flat burned submerged irradiated, all before we got here, so it ain't the planets safety that we're worried about. It's a peculiar form of conservatism where we rebel against change destructive neutral and benevolent dosen't matter which, we rebel. We simply cannot see this planet where we are not and especially one that we cannot control.
The parasitism I mentioned is man on man, we are at once parasite and host in the same beast. The parasites will tell us that we are parasites, that there are too many, that we are poor stewards, that we can and must must pay cash for planetary salvation when the physics plainly defy the logistics of any such insane investment. Sure we can do better, but never as long the ruling caste remains.
The Green Dogma machine sells bags of faith no less than all the other religions, in other words it is religion for the secular, god for atheists, it meets the same old need, the same way, just a twist to reflect the times. Hope, benevolent change, fear of natures/gods wrath and a shot at ultimate salvation those are the tools of religion, those are the only tools of religion. Nothing to do with spirit really. IMO sorry but I've been in rant mode all day and the damn cat has left the building

 

[petros]

The thin/exact line between the material world and spiritual world will be hard to draw. But I think that even w wide/crude line would be very useful. Gould would probably agree. Theologians should not make claims about material world, and scientists should not make claims about spiritual world. The past should be carefully analyzed, by those who create plans for the better future. The prevailing--"we are better than you"--confrontations are not desirable.

Ludwik

Is it a wave or is it a particle? Does it really matter?

 

[darkbeaver]

" Careful analysis of the past", certainly, but that is precisely why the victors insist on writing the histories, to prevent just such a revolution. A line, separating, compartmentalizing, to form two worlds when there is only one? No fence has ever been built that has prevented the neighbour from dumping crap in the next guys yard. Eventually the fence becomes the front.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Theologians should not make claims about material world, ...

Perhaps so, but given that theology is about the nature of the divine and its interactions with the world, I don't see how they can avoid it and have anything to do.

 

[Cliffy]

To do otherwise would be kind of stupid, as neither side has all the answers. Lots of stuff happening in the world that can't be explained.

Not by science or religion, but the answers are out there. It takes an open mind capable of finding answers wherever they may turn up. Life hold more answers than any library of books, because in the end, Books, documentaries and spoken words are just opinions. Knowledge is learned from life experiences and wisdom is putting that knowledge into action.

 

[GreenFish66]

Gotta have Faith in the Furture..Is the only way to raise ones Spirit...

Peace or Pieces?...

Bet You know....

( psst..The answers, Peace...)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... in the end, Books, documentaries and spoken words are just opinions.

Oh I dunno, there might be a few objectively verifiable facts in there somewhere.

 

[In Between Man]

Since science vs theology is a myth, I would say that coexistence is possible IF the secular scientists who have a strangle hold on the entire scientific community allow a free market of ideas, permitting other intelligent scientists who believe the good God created the universe to actually speak for once. But they don't want to do that, they "don't want God to get a foot in the door" because there is a lot at stake like grant money, recognition, prestige.

If Christianity is true then science would back it up, and I don't see science contradicting Christianity. The two easily coexist in mind.