Are religion and science interfacing?

pattimax · 12-30-2006, 11:39 PM

Merriam Webste defines "interfacing" as:

the place at which independent and often unrelated systems meet and act on or communicate with each other e.g. the man-machine interface.

flowperson · 12-30-2006, 11:49 PM

Hmmmm...I don't know at what levels they are, but there is some evidence around that they are. About twenty five years ago when some pioneers advocated that this was inevitable, most of them were laughed out of discussions. But the concept took hold when very wise men and women began to see the effects that science and technology have had and were having on the Creation.

For instance, the head of the Human Genome Projrct, Francis Collins is a true believer when it coms to both science and religion, but prominent physicists are usually negative on religion. Recently evangelicals have begun to realize that the environment is important and are beginning to advocate conservation and sustainability along with conservatism. I think we've got a healthy start on it, but there's a long way to go.

flow....

pattimax · 12-31-2006, 12:07 AM

Yes, a long way indeed, but a healthy start.

wil · 12-31-2006, 12:32 AM

As I see it hard line literalists are still distant from science.

And at the same token, scientists who are stuck on not allowing for what they do not yet know, discount religious teachings as assisting in filling the gap.

However when it comes to the quantumetaphysicians...both dance in each others camp. Seeing metaphor in both scripture and scientific data.

Just the fact that they have realized that the intention of the researchers affects the outcome has caused many to awake on the science side.

On the relgious side, many still have issues when it is shown that all religions have miracles, and prayer in any religion seems also to have an affect. This tends to upset those that feel they have the only keys to the kingdom and slows progress.

pattimax · 12-31-2006, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

As I see it hard line literalists are still distant from science.

And at the same token, scientists who are stuck on not allowing for what they do not yet know, discount religious teachings as assisting in filling the gap.

However when it comes to the quantumetaphysicians...both dance in each others camp. Seeing metaphor in both scripture and scientific data.

Just the fact that they have realized that the intention of the researchers affects the outcome has caused many to awake on the science side.

On the relgious side, many still have issues when it is shown that all religions have miracles, and prayer in any religion seems also to have an affect. This tends to upset those that feel they have the only keys to the kingdom and slows progress.

Sometimes these literalists feel threatened. Though they usually relax once the truth is revealed. As long as things move ahead in a secure fashion, both sides appreciate the revelations. (things revealed)

Quantumetaphysics? Now there is a fun dance.

Just the fact that they have realized that the intention of the researchers affects the outcome has caused many to awake on the science side.
Yes, yes, yes.

Some people have a pretty strong hold on those keys to the kingdom...

Quahom1 · 12-31-2006, 05:53 AM

You folk appear to be discussing one of many, many topics, and you think at that, that literalists are against the environment? If so, I don't know where you have been, but I should think it's under a shoe box the past 50 years.

Indeed this seems to be another thread simply used to bash fundimentalist beliefs...of course this isn't correct, and I am seriously mistaken, and you will show me so, in short order...right?

v/r

Joshua

China Cat Sunflower · 12-31-2006, 06:22 AM

Nah, it's another thread to bash Jehovah's Witnesses, the fundies just haven't shown up yet.

Chris

wil · 12-31-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You folk appear to be discussing one of many, many topics, and you think at that, that literalists are against the environment? If so, I don't know where you have been, but I should think it's under a shoe box the past 50 years.

Indeed this seems to be another thread simply used to bash fundimentalist beliefs...of course this isn't correct, and I am seriously mistaken, and you will show me so, in short order...right?

a. literalists against the environment? Where do you get that? How would one get that? Don't tell me the neocons are now using the bible to drill in ANWAR and clearcut forests? I'm confused at that one Q.

Now bash fundamentalists, I don't think so. But as far as chasms go, unless I misunderstand the literal fundamentalist publicized and posted positions they have some serious issues with science.

But I've been wrong before. But thread setup to bash?? No it is a discussion, and I for one would not have thought that was in the mind of the OPer.

Quahom1 · 12-31-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

a. literalists against the environment? Where do you get that? How would one get that? Don't tell me the neocons are now using the bible to drill in ANWAR and clearcut forests? I'm confused at that one Q...

Right wing Republicans are considered literalists...at least that is the inside joke of the reporters nowadays.

v/r

Joshua

Seeker_of_truth · 12-31-2006, 10:33 PM

Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. 29 One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 28)

pattimax · 01-01-2007, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You folk appear to be discussing one of many, many topics, and you think at that, that literalists are against the environment? If so, I don't know where you have been, but I should think it's under a shoe box the past 50 years.

Indeed this seems to be another thread simply used to bash fundimentalist beliefs...of course this isn't correct, and I am seriously mistaken, and you will show me so, in short order...right?

v/r

Joshua

Are you nuts? That was not my intention at all. True fundamental beliefs are near and dear to my heart.

I was simply trying to show that I was not being presumptous.

What happens to this thread when relativists get a hold of it is beyond my control.

dauer · 01-01-2007, 02:59 AM

I think religion and science have interfaced throughout History. But at some point we become attached to the models that had been science, and that's where the separation occurs. I don't think when we see an interface today we're seeing a new trend. I think we're seeing the same thing that's happened again and again. And I don't doubt a few hundred years from now there will be those who embraced contemporary models and became so enamored with them that they just stuck, until they became canon for a particular group.

I don't, however, think there's anything wrong with using older models for religious purposes, so long as we don't neglect the new data when it comes to understanding better the world around us.

Dauer

BlaznFattyz · 01-01-2007, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dauer

I don't, however, think there's anything wrong with using older models for religious purposes, so long as we don't neglect the new data when it comes to understanding better the world around us.

Dauer

like the teachings of jesus

BlaznFattyz · 01-01-2007, 03:31 AM

dauer · 01-01-2007, 03:38 AM

Quote:

like the teachings of jesus

Right. I don't think there's anything wrong with any of the old worldviews, from back when we still understood the world in terms of myth, so long as we don't neglect the new data. For example, believing in Creationism I don't think makes a lot of sense, in light of what science has shown us. However I also think it's pretty harmless as opposed to some other doctrines.

Dauer