I've seen this topic mentioned a few times here on BABB, but haven't come across any "serious" discussion and I'm wondering why. Is there anyone out there working on a possible means by which the underlying principles of all religions may be reconciled with contemporary scientific thinking (from any discipline)? If so, from what perspective is the problem being approached? Purely mathematical? Philosophical? Or are science and religion so fundamentally opposed that no current methodology or conceptual model exists that might bridge the gap?

I'm a non-scientist but an enthusiastic amateur mathematician with an inexplicable interest in theology and philosophy (although I don't consider myself to be a religious person) and I ask this question simply because I'm interested and google-fu doesn't turn up much.

If my searching skills have once again failed me and this HAS been discussed on this board in the past, please point me in the right direction!

Edit: Apart from the alleged "Torah codes" and the like, of course.

I remember touching on it briefly. BABB topic number 477

Thanks, Mr. Pardons. Some interesting links in that thread.

Mr. Pardons

__________________
...what's so wrong with a little overkill?

Some theistic evolution model would describe the Universe in terms of a pantheist God. The basic problem is that "most" religions require faith in the dualism of mind/body or an eternal soul, can science prove this? For arguments sake, lets say that science did prove this, now science would have to prove that God or the Universe cares. The fact is that science and religion are compatible for perhaps a theological argument, however, science requires facts separate from faith. For this reason, science will never be able to prove God and a "judgement" of the eternal soul. The best science could ever do is strenghthen or weaken Pascal's Wager.

But certainly one could base their religious beliefs on the facts generated by science, but it would not be acceptable to allow the scientific method to be usurped by faith. There are some common threads between science and ancient religious thought that are interesting....particularly the paradigms such as good/evil, ying/yang compared to the understood opposites of charge in quantum mechanics, these charges balance in the production of atoms and the dynamics and evolution of matter and life. Enlightenment requires that we are very careful in prescribing scientific laws that are generated by faith based rational. Philosophical freedom is OK and even desirable....but proceed with caution has to be the standing order because dogma is a dangerous thing.

Those interested might check out the July/August 2001 edition of Sekptical Inquirer.

It was a continuation of an earlier issue, Science and Religion: Conflict or Conciliation, July/August 1999.

Also, one comment from a later issue is on the Web: Are Science and Religion Compatible?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

01101001, I think this quote is very pertinent, especially after the recent election relsults:
I also think it's clear that an even stronger statement can be made, i.e., The view that without religion you cannot have a meaningful life or high motivation is thus shown to be false.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

The very nature of this thread is the primary example of how science/religion are dangerous bed fellows and yet, they become inseparable in daily life. We have gone from a generic question about the unification of science and religion, to conflict between the theist/atheist, to humanism, to post-modern European Culture, to American evangelical morals to politics to a Presidential election. Would a Southern Evangelical opposed to abortion say that Europeans live in a moral, violence free society? No, they would say they live in a self-centered, flesh/lust driven society that carries out genocide on the lives of innocent concieved children. It is important to remember "meaningful, violent-free" life is a subjective premise based on the "moral law" one has adopted. The question is can any form of Natural Law be discovered through science that would prescribe a moral law in which mankind "should" follow. I am afraid no matter your answer of "should it" mankind will always have the need to answer this question. Any answer you have that shows certitude wheather Atheistic or Theistic is based on some form of faith. Ultimately, we are all agnostic because no one has yet to prove if God does or does not exist.

Pardon me

__________________
"Shut up and calculate" R. Feynman

I also think it is naive to assume that if religion disappeared so would hate.

As for science, I've heard some religious people embrace quantum physics.

__________________
The siblings of our grandparents, officially are our grand (not great) aunts and uncles. And the siblings of our great-grandparents are our great-grandaunts & great-granduncles.

Unification of science and religion is essentially impossible, barring a lot of doublethink (which humans are definitely capable of!). Science is an attempt to actively find out about our universe, whereas religion consists of inventing stories and myths to explain our universe.

That sounds like a European definition of a NASCAR race :wink:

A little to broad here, there are a number of religions that concentrate a lot more mental power trying to adjust the path in, flight, of a football :-? And many that focus on yen and yan, a peaceful existances, that kind of thing.

The problems arise when zealots try to convince the rather stubborn and slow scientific process that there is a short cut to the truth.

__________________
jwj

If you always believe what you already know, you can't learn anything - Liz

I believe the quote claimed that "these highly secular societies exemplify good moral behavior, and are far less violent than the United States." While the "moral behavior" may be somewhat subjective, certainly the level of violence is not a matter of postmodernistic interpretation. This is measurable, and the figures don't lie.
"Meaningful", perhaps. But "violent-free"? I don't think so.
Didn't you see War Games (1983)?
Uh, no.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I agree. I like the idea of "overlap" rather than unification. Science is not tolerant with the unmeasurable. The term "ruler" has different meaning to each.

For instance, suppose they dig up a religious document, dated to 10,000 B.C., describing the elliptical orbits of 9 planets (with comments regarding a larger 10th much further away with an Earth like companion ). Also, the formation of the system came from a nebulae of certain stated proportions and included an exploding star after the Sun’s accretion disk development. The document also claims that a being of immense size and power, named Fred, was the cause of the nebulae to condense. The rest of the document deals with how Fred want’s to serve man (hopefully not with a lot of pepper and gravy type of serving [“Twilight Zone” angle])

Science was doing fine right up to the point we got to the 10th planet and Fred. However, the science just gave a giant boost to the “Friends of Fred”. A second look at Fred by skeptics may be warranted based on the amazing credibility of the scientific evidence within the document. This credibility generates plausibility, generating interest, generating funds, generating scientific search for no. 10. They would both be in the “Overlap Zone”. However, until #10 is found and “measured”, it all stays in the “Overlap Zone” and not allowed in the pure “Science Zone”.

If Fred shows up and we can measure him, now you have unification. At this point, faith disappears as you now know Fred is real. {Hopefully, Fred is friendly (not hungry) )

Most religions make few measurable claims, however. You can guess why.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

This reminds me of the famous HHGTTG entry:

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."

Seriously, lots of good stuff in this thread!

Yes, technically I am agnostic - with respect to God, voodoo, Thor, and the chocolate teapots orbiting pluto (try proving they don't exist). But I prefer the term atheist because I really do beliieve in the non-existence of God. You may say thats just faith but you must remember that what an atheist means by "believe" is that from the evidence one has seen to date one concludes... Not "I know this to be true whatever the evidence"

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Perfect.

__________________
"Shut up and calculate" R. Feynman

I have highlighted in red because it is important to acknowledge that Atheism is a Belief. An agnostic/skeptic, on the other hand, suspends belief. This is a very important distinction to make.

When you say 'evidence to date' this infers that you are aware of the limitations of our current understanding. And yet you have already arrived at a 'belief'.

Thus there is a clear contradiction in your wording, chocolate teapots aside. A good scientist can follow the evidence, and put belief aside ... not arrive at it prematurely.