Thursday, January 14, 2016

Discussing the conflict between science and religion with Denis Alexander




17 comments :

  1. It would be great if this were recorded & posted here [& a transcript would be ideal]

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, there is no conflict. But of course, if you insist on literal reading of scriptures or the infallibility of 'prophets' or seers there will alwasy be conflict. The perceived conflict was resolved by depth psychology a hundred years ago but the mental fogginess caused by blind faith in antiquated tales recorded as 'scriptures' is not easily dispersed. Especially if brainwashed early in life or insisting on rejection of science if it contradicts your preferred faith.

    Man is a spiritual being, God is that spirit. The spark in all of us whether we recognize and accept it or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rolf wrote:
      "Especially if brainwashed early in life or insisting on rejection of science if it contradicts your preferred faith."

      You shouldn't forget the ultimate target for religious institutions => POWER. The power to be a state within a state, the power to ignore a countries legislation if it's in conflict with the so called holy scriptures.
      The power to generate millions of $$$ based on so called holy scriptures to try and frustrate for example scientific research with pseudo-science and lies.
      The power to frustrate or divert independent investigation into child abuse by religious institutions. Power can corrupt, and religious leaders aren't immune to the lure and (abuse of) power.

      Delete
    2. The perceived conflict was resolved by depth psychology a hundred years ago...

      Could you elaborate on this point?

      Delete
  3. In other words, there will be no conflict if religion backs down gracefully. There will only be conflict if religion sticks to its guns and continues to believe that scriptures are accurate, prophets speak for God, certain individuals were raised from the dead and other things that couldn't possibly be important to any believer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the religious would realize that there aren't any alternatives to science, we'd have peace.

      Instead it is all about catering for the faithful and keeping their business going.

      Delete
    2. “In other words, there will be no conflict if religion backs down gracefully. There will only be conflict if religion sticks to its guns and continues to believe that scriptures are accurate, prophets speak for God, certain individuals were raised from the dead and other things that couldn't possibly be important to any believer.”

      Very good. Of course, in the wake of those graceful retreats, your options are about swallowing a different set of beautifully preposterous ideas. Amino acids from space or deep ocean vents . Endless chance events resulting in outrageous, functional complexity. Billions of fabulous fortuitous mutations, when you can name about three. Collagen protein lasting for 80 million years. Take your pick on when you want to leave science and wander into materialist Fairyville.

      As to the prophets speaking for God, you might take some time off and observe your environment. The last days are a serious subject, characterized by easy things to notice, and apparently, just as easy to ignore.

      Delete
    3. The last days are a serious subject....

      BWA HA HA HA HA HA!

      Delete
    4. The last days are a serious subject, characterized by easy things to notice, and apparently, just as easy to ignore.

      Yes, and it appears these signs of the last days have been afoot forever. I wonder how many more you would have noticed and been mortally unable to ignore if you were alive in the 1600s or 1200s - despite the fact that, unlike today, you would have been blissfully unaware of 99.9% of the misery and calamity occurring upon the earth in those times.

      Nice example of how religion addles the mind.

      Delete
  4. Conflict may be an unfortunate metaphor. Perhaps, something like science and religion are related and distinct and thus in 'tension' might be better?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect that is one of the points that will be under discussion, and I think I can guess what Larry's position would be.

      Delete
  5. How about the contrast between modern medicine and prayer? One works (in a purely naturalistic fashion), the other doesn't. What good is a God that can't be bothered to answer one's most desperate prayers? Furthermore, medicine exploded the defense against natural evil, i. e. the claim that human suffering was an unavoidable consequence of God's mysterious Plan. If penicillin can relieve the suffering, where is God's unalterable Plan? Creationists love to blame "evilution" for declining religious faith, but the real source of religion's problem lies elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There's no conflict with science and religion. There's a conflict between the religion of evolution and the religion of the bible. Theory of evolution have nothing to do with real science because it's not testable, never observed and completely based on assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is much deeper than that. It has been repeated many, many times that Darwin and his followers assumed that the small changes within species and kinds will eventually lead to new species and kinds. Since this belief did not materialize, the followers of Darwin were left with two choices: abandon their faith or blur their theory to accommodate the growing need as well as their own. Nobody in the right state of mind would ignore the facts against their belief and hope that they are going to change as time progresses.

      Well, my last sentence is not fully accurate. Both sides of the conflict are guilty of that folly.

      Delete
  7. I agree there is no conflict between religion and science. There is a conflict between error and truth. Religion and science bump into this concept.
    Some are saying science disproves religious conclusions. It probably does for many but not all.
    The religious conclusions that are right defend themselves using revelation and science.
    This is the modern creationist movement with different species within the big tent.
    Those saying there is a conflict of science and religion are just those saying science disproves ID/YEC.
    Naw. Here we are 2016 and doing fine and prevailing.

    ReplyDelete