Science-Informed Vs Religious Worldviews, Re Our Base of Culture

A Humanist Answers A Religious Pen-Pal

From
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=185

(Dov Henis, Nov 11 - Dec 4, 2005. )

I.

Dear Pen-Pal,

A.

We live on a tiny speck of dust within an infinitely immense swirl.

Life ( also black holes? ) is a substantiation of a temporary containment of cosmic energy dilution. All forms of Earth life are thus temporary energy bubbles. We are not yet able to figure out the implications of this.

Evolution did us a disservice, endowing us with "intelligence", with the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, causing us to perceive and explore and wonder.

Some of us, like you, feel desperately lost without an ID (Inteligent Design) or without "everything being shaped by...something". You need to subsist under some form of Providence. Your peace of mind and your reflective elation are founded on a feeling that your existence is purposed towards something vague of which it will somehow sometime become a part.

Some of us, like me, regard our cosmic circumstances, all reality, and our meagre comprehension of them as an invitation to explore and chart the infinite aspects of the evolving universe. In pursuit of this we try to fashion ourselves in accordance with what we progressively learn about the universe and about life and about ourselves.

This, in my opinion, is the difference between religious and science-informed worldviews.

B.

Science is science is science, regardless of who says what.

Someone said "... if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God".

NO. Nature's patterns, physical laws and rules at all cosmic levels, have not always been there. They have been evolving since the beginning, from nil through ever more complexity at an ever consequent accelerating rate typical of an evolving system, towards an unfathomable end.

Thus this someone's god is an "evolving god"...

C.

And if you are unable to rid yourself of distress and bewilderment without a god of local or personal involvement just ponder what you are and where you are.

Out of the billions of galaxies consider just one, our own galaxy the Milky Way. It, OUR galaxy, just one example out of many many billions, comprises circa 300 billion (10^9) M stars (smaller size than our sun) and 30 billion (10^9) G (our sun-size) stars, with planets and with other dust particles smaller or bigger than the tiny dust particle we call Earth...

Sincerely yours,

Dov

============================
II.

15 June 2006, an added entry:

An Analogy Of Science/Religion

Psychiatrist draws a straight vetrticle line on a sheet of paper, shows it to the patient and asks: "what do you see?"

Patient, somewhat excited: "A standing naked woman..."

The psychiatrist draws a horizontal line, shows it and asks: "What do you see now?"

Patient, more excitedly: "A lying naked woman..."

The psychiatrist now draws a 90-deg angle and asks: "And what do you see now?"

Patient, overcome with excitement: "A naked woman lying with her legs up..."

"Man", says the psychiatrist, "You're sex crazy!"

"Doc", says the patient, "It's you who draws these sexy drawings, not I!"



Scientists see the lines, religious persons see the drawings...

"Scientists see the lines, religious persons see the drawings..." quote from HenisDov's blog.

I would change this to scientists analyze the lines, see the drawing, hypothesize the meaning and direction, and project the future development. Religious people ban it as the sin of lust and would burn them at the stake as heretics, if current law didn't prevent it.

Evolution did us a great service, NOT A DISSERVICE AT ALL, endowing us with "intelligence", with the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, causing us to perceive and explore and wonder. Religion holds back the questing and curiosity that would lead people to doubt its veracity or importance in life. They jailed Galileo for even the suggestion of an other than earth-centered universe. Morals are not requisites of religion, they can derive from enlightened minds, independent of religions. Science and the scientific method are man's optimum system for obtaining truth, with checks and counter checks to keep everything in balance. The body of scientific knowledge built since Gutenberg's printing press and the development of telescopes, microscopes and seismometers has steadily pushed back religious dogma to a point of insignificance. The science-informed world view rocks!

It's all fine as long as similar things aren't done in the name of science either. Religion and science are both just names. Jailing or imposing punishments on people for anything other than a necessary defense of onesself or a "just" assistance for someone elses defense, is in itself a destructive action and is criminal, IMO, even it's declared to be legal (though I guess ignorance can be a legitimate excuse, unless someone refuses to "deignorify" themself of the harm they cause to others).

It's usually always when people begin to think in terms of some social institution (and I admit doing this myself all too often) that the interactions and effects appear large, complex and unresolvable for an individual, but ultimately society is just a bunch of next door neighbors that generally can get along fine without a lot of hand holding or prisons etc. when people think and recognize reality in those terms (yes, humanity extends beyond ones immediate neighbors but in terms of physical conflicts there are few valid reasons for anyone outside this to physically impose themselves in that relationship without invitation. Even if some injustice is believed to be occuring by someone outside this, non-intervention should be the rule unless one of the parties involved is asking for assistance). You could probably represent 90% of the intent of all human systems of justice on a double sided 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper than most any 7 year old could understand (I'd love to see a "constitution" like that without any official legislators around to try to warp it into another meaning).

A long time ago, social exile was a common punishment, well before modern times where various individuals attempt to claim a right to represent the interests of everyone within entire subcontinents (there's no place a person could even be exiled to without falling into potential conflict with some other, often self declared, representative of "The People").

The simple and intuitive rule that most people apply in their personal/privates lives is that when two people can't get along, someone has to leave (that's true for a family or a workplace etc.). There generally is no need for any additional, intentional punishment beyond this either (though that may not always be the case), but instead societies often prefer to dominate, control, impede, obstruct or punish and use relative measures of virtue in to feel they're better off because of this simply because others are made worse off than them. Equality in physical terms is seen as the ideal, even if it means equal suffering and poverty. At least in that case most everyone is screwed equally and has no obvious way of knowing any better.

The sad part of this is that most all of it is due to ignorance and little over truly unavoidable conflicts, and a few short sighted individuals appear to encourage this as well whiel others play follow the leader, off the edge of a cliff, simply because they've been taught that's always the way things have been done.

Oh well, evolution moves on and things will inevitably be resolved and though I enjoy seeing many diverse cultures interacting in unique ways on a global scale, it would be a shame to see these become rigidly enforced entanglements that drag enveryone down without a lifeboat (evolution can't do much for chickens if all their eggs are in the same basket ... it's a 50/50 coin toss, that will eventually end up tails, and removes the ability for any selective process to exist and weed out the cancer from the healthy).

This post has been edited by StevenA on Mar 4 2007, 08:09 PM

Planets seem to be common throughout the universe. Life probably exists on Mars and may exist in the upper clouds of Venus and on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. There is probably billions if not trillions of other races out there all of whom have not heard of your god.


Religionists look at the drawings and say they were too complex to have been done by anything else so god must have done them.

photojack,

A.

- I am a (retired) scientist, practicing scientism. Hence "scientists see the lines, religious persons see the drawings". A scientifically correct statement, I think.

- Yours "scientists analyze the lines, see the drawing, hypothesize the meaning and direction, and project the future development. Religious people ban it as the sin of lust and would burn them at the stake as heretics, if current law didn't prevent it" is, IMO, scientifically incorrect.


B.

You imply that having been endowed with "intelligence", with the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, causing us to perceive and explore and wonder, is a blessing for us.

I suggest that this is not a clear case. The ONLY thing of value that humanity gains from its highly evolved intelligence is physical comfort via technology, the progeny of science, but this at very high costs due, too, to evolved technology. Security, serenity and satisfaction may be had at lower human costs in a much technologically poorer state.


C.

Since its inception circa 100,000 yrs ago, with burial of dead, faith/religion has been playing a vital important role in human social/cultural development. The advent and accelerated evolution of science offers a different foundation and course for further social/cultural human development.

Morals and ethics are natural human biological traits involved in survival; when they are applied based on rational/scientific comprehension and conviction more people may benefit more "fairly" and fewer people may lead a life of sufferring .

The name of the human game is not an all out science-religion war but a selection of which direction and route to take for what future pattern of life on Earth.

Dov Henis

HenisDov, How do you define your scientism? This controversy recently arose on another thread and their are two widely known AND conflicting definitions.

"Scientism is a term often used today as a pejorative to describe someone of holding the view that science has primacy over all other interpretations of life such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations. It has also been applied to the view that natural sciences have primacy over other fields of inquiry such as social sciences. Today, the term is often used by religious critics of evolution via natural selection and also against the most vocal critics of religion-as-such. In contrast with this was its usage in the early 20th century, which was as a neutral descriptive and roughly synonymous with logical positivism. Contemporary descriptive usage of the term is limited but found in some places. The Skeptics Society founder Michael Shermer, for example, self-identifies as scientistic and defines scientism as "a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science." wikipedia.

I would align with Michael Shermer, but I assume you hold very different views. Please explain your stance. I would still hold to my analogy, " "scientists analyze the lines, see the drawing, hypothesize the meaning and direction, and project the future development." It much more accurately depicts the scientific method. The slam on religion was partly in jest and partly based on true historical events.

" Security, serenity and satisfaction may be had at lower human costs in a much technologically poorer state." HenisDov quote.

Security, serenity and satisfaction have all been attainable throughout the history of mankind. I would maintain that a much higher percentage are able to attain them due to modern technology than would be without the technology. Remember, food plants, animal breeding, medicines and health care are technology-based! As well as the computer you used enabling your post on this forum!

RE: Your practice is not Scientism!

Very well defined culturally; however, I don’t think you’re practicing Scientism, at all!

By Modern definition, Scientism is a malignancy that is deserved for those who attempt to impose their misguided thinking as “scientific” thinking onto other people’s thinking, religious or otherwise; such as those propagated and provoked in The God Delusion by the renowned “atheist without conscience” Richard Dawkins, and others, as I briefly explained recently here, Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! (PhysOrgEU; March 2)—RE: In Science or Religion: When Scientism became Tribalism, there would be no Dialogue or Reconciliation of Decency or Conscience within Oneself!

Therefore, your good intent to explain Science to Readers herein, in a non-imposing way is not an attempt to push any Scientism, as such as explained above; and also before here, Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now! (PhysOrgEU; February 28)—RE:Scientism is Killing our Intellectual and Spiritual Developments in Science—just as Religionism did to Religion in history!

So, please keep up the good work; and not be intimated by any misguided “pseudo-scientists” herein, in these very open, dynamic PhysOrg.com forums and publications!

Best wishes, Mong 3/6/7usct12:50a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.

This post has been edited by Mong H Tan, PhD on Mar 6 2007, 06:55 AM

Scientism: Definition and Potential.

Sep 17 2005,

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=167


P, you write: QUOTE http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html Scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. UNQUOTE

There are probably several non-identical definitions of scientism. Proper definitions are expected to be identical, but I like mine best and I think it is the most identical...

As a scientism-practicing person I do not think "that science alone can render truth about the world and reality". "Truths" of the "world" and of "reality" are vaguely loaded blurred matters to me.

You also write: "So what can your scientism do for world peace?"

I am convinced/hopeful that application of my (most identical) scientism, i.e. "a doctrine and method characteristic of scientists, and the proposition that scientific doctrine and methods of studying natural sciences should be used in all areas of investigation and conduct" to social-cultural-civil affairs would be welcome by most rational humans seeking an efficient practical, as fair as possible, civic framework.

Dov

The religious view is that there can be no conflict between science and religion. Since God is the source for all things and all things of God can not conflict.

All things of creation serve the purpose of God. It is clear that one of the main purpose of God is to share eternal life with intelligent beings of His creation. It is also clear that this is not a forced relationship. Any and all that wish may choose to share in this relationship. From observation we also see that even though a large number choose not to share in this relationship, God still feels that the benefit of the choice for Him outweighs those that choose evil.

When science is viewed from the purpose of God, we can see the perfect harmony of all the laws of nature, both science and religion. All of God’s laws are for the good of man.

More Re Science and Religion

From
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=177

(Dec 08 2006, Biology Online forum)


In response to the last three remarks in this thread re science and religion:

(1) Addressing science and religion as parallel entities is grossly grating.

(2) "Search for truth" applies only to religion, it is religiouslang. "Truth" is not a scientifically usable term.

(3) Scientifically there either is or isn't evidence/data; there are no "grades" of evidence. Religiously evidence is what persons accept/believe.


Recently I entered in my blog a note about some religious "Jewish scientists". I realize now that it applies also to "scientists of other religions". Moreover, I now should'nt be surprised to learn that, religiously typical, religious denominations would embark on a grand discussion to establish whose god is The God-of-and-since-singularity. Here is the note:

(25 October 2006)

Solution Of Science-Religion Incongruity By Some Jews:

Some of the Jewish or Israeli-Jewish equivalents of the AAAS top officers have adopted an 'evolutionarily' very interesting, even if irritatingly hypocritical, attitude in regards to the basic inherent science-religion incongruity. First they claim or imply that THEIR concepts-attitudes of 'Jewish thought' represent THE 'legitimate/real' traditional Jewish religious positions. Next they hypocritically and arrogantly, with duly interpreted citations from Jewish literature, appropriate for THEIR Jewish god all of science at all times past and future, from prior to the big-bang until the end of the cosmos and beyond it, thus explaining that each and every and all the totality of scientific phenomena and laws and comprehensions in the universe/nature are revelations of THEIR Jewish god's program and doings. This allows them to do what the AAAS does, i.e. to maintain two separate realms, a natural and 'spiritual' realms, not only without embarassment of incongruity between the two but, furthermore, with religious/phenotypic pride.

Dov Henis

"Without Science there can be no Religion, without Religion there can be no Science".
Albert Einstein

"Why can't we just all get along?" Rodney King




____________
No matter where you go, or what you do, you do so within the confines of your own head.

sirfiroth, It would be real nice if things were that easy or superficial. People here tend to analyze topics in depth and bring their life's experiences into these threads. These are some of the conflicts just in the first 5 books of the Old Testament and are one of the prime reasons many people doubt the authenticity or authority of the Bible. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

1. The creation-accounts in Genesis. The creation-story in Genesis first describes a somewhat evolutionary process, starting with the creation of the Earth, then the lower forms of life, then animals, and finally man and woman (created together). It then begins the story again, but this time with the creation of man first, then animals to assuage man's loneliness, and when this fails, the creation of Eve from Adam's rib;
2. In the flood story Noah takes his family into the ark twice;
3. The stories of the covenant between God and Abraham;
4. The naming of Isaac;
5. The three strikingly similar narratives in Genesis about a wife confused for a sister;
6. The two stories of the revelation to Jacob at Bet-El;
7. Three different versions of how the town of Be'ersheba got its name;
8. Exodus 38:26 mentions "603,550 men over 20 years old included in the census" immediately after passage of the Red Sea, while Numbers 1:44-45 cites the precisely identical count, "The tally of Israelites according to their paternal families, those over 20 years old, all fit for service. The entire tally was 603,550", in a census taken a full year later, "on the first [day] of the second month in the second year of the Exodus" (Numbers 1:1);
9. The story of the flood in Genesis appears to claim that two of all kinds of animal went on the ark, but also that seven of certain kinds went on, and that the flood lasted a year, but also lasted only 40 days;
10. The Ten Commandments appear in Exod 20, but in a slightly different wording in Deut 5. A second, almost completely different set of Ten Commandments appears in Exod 34;
11. Numbers 25 describes the rebellion at Peor and refers to daughters of Moab, but the same chapter portrays one woman as a Midianite;
12. Moses' wife, though often identified as a Midianite (and hence Semitic), appears in the tale of Snow-white Miriam as a "Cushite" (Ethiopian), and hence black ;
13. In some locations God appears friendly and capable of errors and regret, and walks the earth talking to humans, but in others God seems unmerciful and distant;
14. A number of places or individuals have multiple names. For instance, some passages give the name of the mountain that Moses climbed to receive the commandments as Horeb and others as Sinai, Moses' father-in-law has at least two names in the Hebrew original (יֶתֶר, יִתְרוֹ, and רְעוּאֵל), etc.
15. Samuel 1 relates that the prophet Saul committed suicide by falling on his sword. In Samuel 2, an Amalekite tells David that he slew Saul upon request. Yet another reference in Samuel 2 states that a group of Philistines killed Saul.

These and countless other conflicts and differences have led me to believe in the science-informed world view as man's optimum questing toward the truth.

My sentiments exactly. Nicely said also.

The problem is that people have a hard time seeing things from the other persons perspective or don't realize the damage they do to themselves by setting precidents in the ways you treat others that comes back and bites you later.

The comforts we enjoy were not the products of any isolated individual, though I don't want this to be taken to imply self-sacrifice is always a virtue ... egoism can be just as virtuous in reality once people realize it works out best for themselves in the long run to find solutions that create little conflict. The United States, for example, was built upon a generally common desire shared by diverse people in a pursuit of their own individual freedom and not the false freedom to rule over others, which is slavery, even if it's in the name of "The People". You only need to deter truly harmful or destructive actions by one person toward the prior vested interests of others and the rest of it sorts itself out naturally and if you intuitively "get this" idea, then the above quotes make perfect sense, even from the perspective of someone only interested in their own well being - social interactions shouldn't become enforced detrimental relationships on people and a freedom of (dis)association should remain. In that way, few people ever come to resent society because they have little of any legitimate claim to harm by it and the social bonds and benefits become tighter and greater simply because there's little downside. Whereas, when you have masters and slaves, where social interactions are enforced and sacrifice of one for the "greater good" supposely of others, neither is providing for their own interests, nor able to improve their conditions personally under this arrangement and all suffer from the needless conflict imposed and this becomes more obvious the longer such conditions exist - and you'll never get back what's lost from this in the long run, though it's always possible to cut the losses set out in a new direction (but it takes time for people to learn so I guess the equivalent of "inertia" and "gravity" exist in social settings as well as in physics).

Albert Einstein:
"Without Science there can be no Religion, without Religion there can be no Science".

You don't have to be an Einstein to make such a profound statement.

Obviously there can be no night without day and no day without night. And obviously in a 90 degree angle there must be two sides, and a scientism-guided person sees the two sides and angle, and other persons may see in the angle more than the two sides and the angle...

Dov Henis

PS: As day and night define each other so proof and faith define each other. DH

This post has been edited by HenisDov on Mar 7 2007, 09:59 AM

"Tasks" of Science and of Religion
(19 Nov 2005, in Brights forum. )

Having noted a posted reference to "Centre for Science and Religion" I looked up its link and recalled immediately, at the end of the first para, (forgive me, please...) the term blivot = ten pounds of *** in a five pound bag.

and here it is :

"About the Centre for Science and Religion:

The University of Leeds has now established a new Centre for Science and Religion. The connection between science and religion amounts to far more than conflict. Religions are a source of values, and the sciences give power to implement them, so their study is important for all of society."

Finally I learned and understand the division of labor between science and religion. Now it's clear.

Dumbfounded DH

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=183

15 03 2007 PS: As "ether" functioned once in scientific comprehension so religion functioned once in faith-based systems. In the 21st century we comprehend that religion/culture is evolution-biology...