There is another small group and I've yet to find an individual on a secular philosophy site who has answered this basic question in a logical fashion who I can learn from. This basic question asks: What is the purpose of our universe and Man's purpose within it? What does it do and why does it do it? It seem obvious enough but for some reason it is equally avoided by both science and religion. Yet if it were ever understood, there would be no conflict between science and religion.As per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.
1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.
2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.
3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.
Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?
Which side are you in?
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: Which side are you in?
- John_Jacquard
- Posts: 19
- Joined: September 27th, 2021, 8:09 pm
Re: Which side are you in?
Sushan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2021, 8:58 pmAs per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.When you consider the origin of the universe, the emergence of life on Earth, and the future of humanity, the chances are you do so from one of three perspectives. Perhaps you’re educated in the sciences and are convinced that current scientific theories and data explain our origins and enable us to exercise some control over future events; yet you also have a knowledge of the Bible and its seeming incompatibility with science. Alternatively, you might believe that God created the world and that the scriptures contain all of the answers about our origins and future; at the same time, you understand the basics of the scientific theories and can see their apparent incongruity with some of the teachings of your religion. Then again, you may be familiar with the fundamentals of biblical religions and of science, not feel committed to one or the other perspective, yet be curious about whether their apparently disparate explanations and timelines for our origins and outlook on the future are reconcilable.
1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.
2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.
3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.
Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?
That is not true that those are the only perspectives.
You have a lot of hidden assumptions in your comment.
Science and religion are not at odds with each other at all
Because information is organized in different ways in terms of how meaning is encoded .
You have literal information and you have metaphor information
They both accomplish what the other cannot accomplish.
In our modern times literal information has grown so much , however metaphor is still massive part of our life .
Both are valid they just work differently.
A simple example
Take a photo .
What is it literally?
A photo is literally stacked rows of color dots.
But, when you look at a photo and see something say a human being , it is metaphor meaning information that you see something besides stacked rows of color dots .
It is literally impossible for stacked rows of color dots to be a person !
Yet you can look at a photograph of a person and trace that information back to a real person .
So metaphor information is valid and many examples where metaphor lead you to truth which literal information says is impossible .
So information is encoded different ways.
Literal meaning ( approximation of narrow context , specificity low compression. Meaning is direct on surface )
Metaphor meaning ( ambiguity, tackles large context , high compression meaning is deeper down )
Science and religion have nothing at all that clash with each other .
They both use totally different types of information encoded differently .
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: January 26th, 2022, 12:09 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Catdinal Robert Sarah
- Location: Australia
Re: Which side are you in?
I tend to agree, but when it comes to facts about the origin of life on earth, science is seriously overrated. For example, science is clueless about how a living, reproducing organism could have come into existence via a natural process.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2021, 11:21 amMy view is simple. For those who understand science, and religion, realise that the two are not in conflict. They have different purposes. Science offers facts, and thereby understanding. Religion offers aims, aspiration and guidance, and thereby understanding. For me, at least, there is no conflict.
As for the macro-changes in life-forms over time, science is largetly clueless how these changes could have occurred. Certain aspects of the fossil record actually contradict current evolutionary theory (eg, the Cambrian explosion) and science has yet to adequately explain how novel body plans and new organs could evolve. Some evolutionary scientists acknowledge these problems but most of them just stick their heads in the sand and say "we don't know how it evolution happened - it just did!" Lots and lots of theories are offered, but most of them can't be tested, which means such theories are worthless as science; they're just pseudo-scientific stories.
I agree. I respect their faith, but the literalists paint themselves into a corner and are forced to deny certain uncontestable scientific facts, which makes them look backward and stupid. As far back as the 18th century some geologists claimed that the evidence suggested life on earth began perhaps millions of years old, so Bible literalists have a 17th century mentality.An exception: I cannot understand, or support, scriptural literalists, such as might be found among US extreme Christians. Their insistence on their sacred texts being the actual words of God leads to all manner of inescapable confusions, IMO.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am
Re: Which side are you in?
However creation happened, I don't believe it could happen without God. I don't subscribe to the myth that creation happened purely by natural causes.
Every generation that has died before us, has died without the science to prove how the universe came to be. Our generation will die with lots of clever science., but lacking the definitive proof that will finally give us truth.
-
- Posts: 800
- Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am
Re: Which side are you in?
- those who believe that where a religion contradicts science that the religion is wrong
- those who believe that where science contradicts their religion that the science is wrong
- those who believe that, properly understood, there can be no contradiction.
But I'm not satisfied with that formulation. Several reasons.
One is that it omits the don't know / don't care / don't understand the question type of response.
One is that the third category is too broad. Anyone can claim that properly understood there is no contradiction, whilst in practice their understanding of what is proper is that the science should always suffer correction or the religion should always give way, and they're really in the first or second category.
One is that science is a method directed towards truth as a value. And that some of those in the second camp, who reject science where it doesn't agree with their religion, are not so much rejecting on the grounds of untruth as of moral wrongness in asking the question. If we formulate the categories based only on truth we're biased in favour of science before we start.
(For a possibly-controversial example, if you put forward a scientific hypothesis about the cause of homosexuality, some will reject it, not because they think it cannot be true but because they think you shouldn't be asking the question).
- Sushan
- Book of the Month Discussion Leader
- Posts: 2256
- Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
- Contact:
Re: Which side are you in?
You raise an interesting point about the existence of a fourth group of individuals who seek answers to the fundamental questions of the purpose of our universe and humanity's role within it. It's true that both science and religion tend to avoid tackling these questions head-on, as they often involve philosophical or metaphysical aspects that are difficult to address definitively.Nick_A wrote: ↑June 8th, 2021, 12:49 am Sushan
There is another small group and I've yet to find an individual on a secular philosophy site who has answered this basic question in a logical fashion who I can learn from. This basic question asks: What is the purpose of our universe and Man's purpose within it? What does it do and why does it do it? It seem obvious enough but for some reason it is equally avoided by both science and religion. Yet if it were ever understood, there would be no conflict between science and religion.As per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.
1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.
2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.
3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.
Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?
It's also worth noting that people's perspectives on the origins of the universe and life can be fluid and evolve over time, as they learn more and engage in deeper contemplation. There may be many individuals who don't fit neatly into one of the three initial categories or the fourth one you've mentioned.
– William James
- Sushan
- Book of the Month Discussion Leader
- Posts: 2256
- Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
- Contact:
Re: Which side are you in?
You've brought up a fascinating perspective on the relationship between science and religion, suggesting that they are not inherently in conflict but rather use different types of information encoding to convey meaning. This view acknowledges that both literal and metaphorical information have their value and can lead to truth, even if they seem to operate in different domains.John_Jacquard wrote: ↑September 28th, 2021, 4:04 pmSushan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2021, 8:58 pmAs per the author, there are three kinds of humans when it comes to the discussion regarding origin of the solar system and life.When you consider the origin of the universe, the emergence of life on Earth, and the future of humanity, the chances are you do so from one of three perspectives. Perhaps you’re educated in the sciences and are convinced that current scientific theories and data explain our origins and enable us to exercise some control over future events; yet you also have a knowledge of the Bible and its seeming incompatibility with science. Alternatively, you might believe that God created the world and that the scriptures contain all of the answers about our origins and future; at the same time, you understand the basics of the scientific theories and can see their apparent incongruity with some of the teachings of your religion. Then again, you may be familiar with the fundamentals of biblical religions and of science, not feel committed to one or the other perspective, yet be curious about whether their apparently disparate explanations and timelines for our origins and outlook on the future are reconcilable.
1. Those who believe in scientific theories and see the incongruity of the biblical teachings with the scientific evidence.
2. Those who believe in God and the creation, yet with the basic scientific knowledge seeing that what science says does not go along with what bible says.
3. Those who have a fairly good knowledge about science as well as the bible, but not taken any side, yet thinking over whether these two can go hand in hand.
Are these the only groups that we can divide all humans regarding this topic of discussion? In which group are you in (or mostly fit in)? Why do you say so?
That is not true that those are the only perspectives.
You have a lot of hidden assumptions in your comment.
Science and religion are not at odds with each other at all
Because information is organized in different ways in terms of how meaning is encoded .
You have literal information and you have metaphor information
They both accomplish what the other cannot accomplish.
In our modern times literal information has grown so much , however metaphor is still massive part of our life .
Both are valid they just work differently.
A simple example
Take a photo .
What is it literally?
A photo is literally stacked rows of color dots.
But, when you look at a photo and see something say a human being , it is metaphor meaning information that you see something besides stacked rows of color dots .
It is literally impossible for stacked rows of color dots to be a person !
Yet you can look at a photograph of a person and trace that information back to a real person .
So metaphor information is valid and many examples where metaphor lead you to truth which literal information says is impossible .
So information is encoded different ways.
Literal meaning ( approximation of narrow context , specificity low compression. Meaning is direct on surface )
Metaphor meaning ( ambiguity, tackles large context , high compression meaning is deeper down )
Science and religion have nothing at all that clash with each other .
They both use totally different types of information encoded differently .
Indeed, literal information and metaphorical information can coexist and complement each other in many aspects of our lives. Some people might find meaning and truth through science while others may find it through religious teachings or spiritual experiences. Recognizing the different ways in which meaning can be encoded and understanding the unique strengths of both literal and metaphorical information can lead to a more nuanced and inclusive view of the world.
– William James
- Sushan
- Book of the Month Discussion Leader
- Posts: 2256
- Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
- Contact:
Re: Which side are you in?
It's interesting to see your perspective on the matter, which highlights the importance of faith in the process of understanding the universe and its origins. Your view seems to lean more towards the belief in God as the creator of the universe, while still recognizing the value of scientific knowledge.EricPH wrote: ↑January 29th, 2022, 10:50 pm The creation of the universe is history, and you can't change history. Either at least 'One God' created the universe or it happened purely by natural causes. Truth exists.
However creation happened, I don't believe it could happen without God. I don't subscribe to the myth that creation happened purely by natural causes.
Every generation that has died before us, has died without the science to prove how the universe came to be. Our generation will die with lots of clever science., but lacking the definitive proof that will finally give us truth.
It's true that many people have lived and died without definitive answers to the questions of our origins and the creation of the universe. As our understanding of science continues to expand, we may come closer to solving some of these mysteries, but it's also possible that definitive answers may remain elusive.
– William James
- Sushan
- Book of the Month Discussion Leader
- Posts: 2256
- Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
- Contact:
Re: Which side are you in?
Your attempt to formulate the categories more rigorously is an interesting approach, and it's clear that you've given this topic considerable thought. It's true that the original categories might be overly simplistic and not encompass the full range of perspectives that people may have regarding the intersection of science and religion.Good_Egg wrote: ↑February 4th, 2022, 5:20 am I tried to formulate these categories more rigorously, and got something like:
- those who believe that where a religion contradicts science that the religion is wrong
- those who believe that where science contradicts their religion that the science is wrong
- those who believe that, properly understood, there can be no contradiction.
But I'm not satisfied with that formulation. Several reasons.
One is that it omits the don't know / don't care / don't understand the question type of response.
One is that the third category is too broad. Anyone can claim that properly understood there is no contradiction, whilst in practice their understanding of what is proper is that the science should always suffer correction or the religion should always give way, and they're really in the first or second category.
One is that science is a method directed towards truth as a value. And that some of those in the second camp, who reject science where it doesn't agree with their religion, are not so much rejecting on the grounds of untruth as of moral wrongness in asking the question. If we formulate the categories based only on truth we're biased in favour of science before we start.
(For a possibly-controversial example, if you put forward a scientific hypothesis about the cause of homosexuality, some will reject it, not because they think it cannot be true but because they think you shouldn't be asking the question).
The additional reasons you've mentioned highlight the complexity of this subject and the importance of recognizing that people's perspectives might not always fit neatly into predefined categories. It's important to consider the nuances in people's beliefs, as well as the different motivations and values that underlie their perspectives.
Your example about the moral implications of certain scientific questions is particularly thought-provoking. It demonstrates that the interaction between science and religion is not always solely about truth or falsity, but also about ethics and the implications of certain lines of inquiry.
Overall, your comment emphasizes the need for a more nuanced understanding of the various perspectives people may hold in relation to the origin of the universe, the emergence of life on Earth, and the future of humanity. This complexity is what makes the topic so engaging and worthy of further discussion.
– William James
- Sushan
- Book of the Month Discussion Leader
- Posts: 2256
- Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
- Contact:
Re: Which side are you in?
It's true that there are still many unanswered questions when it comes to the origin of life on Earth and the specific mechanisms behind macro-changes in life-forms over time. Science is an ongoing process, and our understanding of these topics is constantly evolving as new evidence comes to light and new theories are developed.Buzzard3 wrote: ↑January 26th, 2022, 5:51 amI tend to agree, but when it comes to facts about the origin of life on earth, science is seriously overrated. For example, science is clueless about how a living, reproducing organism could have come into existence via a natural process.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2021, 11:21 amMy view is simple. For those who understand science, and religion, realise that the two are not in conflict. They have different purposes. Science offers facts, and thereby understanding. Religion offers aims, aspiration and guidance, and thereby understanding. For me, at least, there is no conflict.
As for the macro-changes in life-forms over time, science is largetly clueless how these changes could have occurred. Certain aspects of the fossil record actually contradict current evolutionary theory (eg, the Cambrian explosion) and science has yet to adequately explain how novel body plans and new organs could evolve. Some evolutionary scientists acknowledge these problems but most of them just stick their heads in the sand and say "we don't know how it evolution happened - it just did!" Lots and lots of theories are offered, but most of them can't be tested, which means such theories are worthless as science; they're just pseudo-scientific stories.
I agree. I respect their faith, but the literalists paint themselves into a corner and are forced to deny certain uncontestable scientific facts, which makes them look backward and stupid. As far back as the 18th century some geologists claimed that the evidence suggested life on earth began perhaps millions of years old, so Bible literalists have a 17th century mentality.An exception: I cannot understand, or support, scriptural literalists, such as might be found among US extreme Christians. Their insistence on their sacred texts being the actual words of God leads to all manner of inescapable confusions, IMO.
While it might be frustrating that there are gaps in our current scientific knowledge, it's important to remember that this is a natural part of the scientific process. Theories are refined, expanded, or sometimes discarded as new evidence emerges. In the case of evolution and the origin of life, many scientists continue to search for answers and explore alternative hypotheses to address the questions you've raised.
As for the relationship between science and religion, it's important to recognize that they can serve different purposes for different people. Some individuals may find comfort and guidance in religious beliefs, while others may be more drawn to the evidence and explanations provided by science. As you've noted, there can be harmony between these perspectives when they're not seen as mutually exclusive or in direct conflict.
Regarding the stance of scriptural literalists, it's important to remember that not all religious people interpret their sacred texts in the same way. There's a wide spectrum of beliefs and interpretations, and many religious individuals are open to incorporating scientific findings into their worldview. Engaging in respectful dialogue and understanding the variety of perspectives can help bridge the gap between science and religion and promote a more constructive conversation about the origin of life and the universe.
– William James
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023