[FoRK] Faith and/or Science - Newton et al

[Lion Kimbro]

  OK, so how do you explain people like
  Isaac Newton and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin?

  And what about Aristotle's idea of the Golden Mean?
  He said any virtue carried to excess is a vice.
  I see both Science and Religion as virtues.

  I don't think Religion needs to be based in stuff that's
  not true.  Rather, I think that for us to find religion, we
  need to look at the universe exactly as we DO see it,
  in full authenticity, and then derive our religion from
  there.

  I don't think that indigenous people looked at the
  universe, and said, "Oh, we've got to put some Gods
  here, and oppress people."  Rather, I think they just
  figured that it was obvious that Gods were around and
  doing stuff. It wasn't "religion vs. science;"  I think they
  were just describing the world they found themselves in.

  So the method of Evolutionary Spirituality is to look at
  the world as we find it, and then find our meaning and our
  story there.

  If science should show that something else is true,
  then we should change our beliefs to respect whatever
  science shows us to be true.  It's public revelation.

  We definitely shouldn't have a war on the concept of
  meaning.



On Nov 28, 2007 1:51 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
>
> > but the idea that religion is *necessarily* inimical to science
> > seems an unsubstantiated myth.
>
> The idea that "the idea that religion is *necessary inimical to
> science seems an unsubstantiated myth" is an unsubstantiated myth.
>
> Let's demonstrate.  Definitions first:
>
> Science:  a method or process for gaining understanding of the
> physical or material world (i.e. the universe, including but not
> limited to its cause, "nature," and purpose) based on observation,
> experimentation, and independently verifiable, repeatable experience
> (collectively, "proof.")
>
> Religion:  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose
> of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman
> agency or agencies.  Such beliefs necessarily ground out in *faith.*
> (If you disagree with that assertion, produce some material proof of
> the reality your pet diety.)
>
> Faith:  belief (knowledge or understanding) that is not based on proof.
>
> It therefore follows trivially from the definitions that if science
> insists on knowledge based on proof, and religion requires belief in
> the unprovable, then science and religion are by definition
> incompatible.  Further, the rigorous defense of either would be
> actively inimical (i.e., hostile) toward the other.  QED
>
>
> jb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>