Which side are you in?

Discuss the March 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God’s Plan by Daniel Friedmann.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Which side are you in?

Post by Nick_A »

Sushan
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?
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.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
John_Jacquard
Posts: 19
Joined: September 27th, 2021, 8:09 pm

Re: Which side are you in?

Post by John_Jacquard »

Sushan wrote: March 1st, 2021, 8:58 pm
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.
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?

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 .
Buzzard3
Posts: 19
Joined: January 26th, 2022, 12:09 am
Favorite Philosopher: Catdinal Robert Sarah
Location: Australia

Re: Which side are you in?

Post by Buzzard3 »

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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Which side are you in?

Post by EricPH »

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.
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Which side are you in?

Post by Good_Egg »

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).
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2221
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Which side are you in?

Post by Sushan »

Nick_A wrote: June 8th, 2021, 12:49 am Sushan
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?
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.
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.

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.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2221
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Which side are you in?

Post by Sushan »

John_Jacquard wrote: September 28th, 2021, 4:04 pm
Sushan wrote: March 1st, 2021, 8:58 pm
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.
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?

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 .
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.

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.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2221
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Which side are you in?

Post by Sushan »

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 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.

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.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2221
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Which side are you in?

Post by Sushan »

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).
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.

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.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2221
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Which side are you in?

Post by Sushan »

Buzzard3 wrote: January 26th, 2022, 5:51 am
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.
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Post Reply

Return to “The Biblical Clock by Daniel Friedmann”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021