is there a reconciliatory christian view towards science?

Let me see if I can point you in the right direction with respect to falsifiability. Do a bit of quick research on how the theory of evolution deals with it's problems with falsifiability and then come back to this. I think you will find it quite helpful.

 

Would you mind answering the points I made? Specifically:

1) How can you say that, '[the] scientific method and “religious method” are essentially one and the same,' when it is clear that many religious concepts are utterly non-falsifiable?

2)What did you mean by, "the obvious conclusion from this is that there is likely something to that belief," with regard to the supposed 97% of humanity that believes in a god? Also, would you mind providing the source for that figure?

When you answer those questions, I'd be more than happy to discuss falsifiability as it relates to the theory of evolution.

 

Let me phrase this in a different way. You’re not understanding some of the key basics of the subject matter you’re addressing. If you do a bit of quick research on evolution and its problems with the issue of falsifiability, and how it’s dealt with them, then I think you will gain an understanding that will go a long way towards answering your own question.

 

I think I am the local source for the claim of 97%. This is my memory from a book I read recently by a couple of neuroscientists investigating the meditative and prayer states. I could be off, but not more than 5%.

 

I don't care to answer my own questions. I'm curious as to your answers. That's why I'm posting on a discussion board.

So,

And,

3) Please explicate your critique of the falsifiability of the theory of evolution.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation in these very serious matters.

 

I'm afraid don’t care to answer questions for someone who is unwilling to even do simple research to understand the basics of what he’s talking about. Should you change your mind and decide you want to do that, however, you might also want to do a quick search to find out what Karl Popper thought of the theory of evolution.

 

You would do well to take your own advice--in general and in the specific case of Popper and his views on evolution.

 

Note to Grizzled,

I haven't forgotten that I owe you a response on our previous topic!

 

Yes.

Yes.

There's a chance. But probably wouldn't be a very popular conclusion.

 

This is really rather odd of you grizzled. You're not normally an ass.

 

do you remember the title of the book???

 

Well. This could be an essay... and it really is highly dependent on how you define the terms "religion", "spirituality" and how both of those relate to the concept of "organized" in regards to societal and cultural norms.

If I try to give you generic answers to these questions I would no doubt be my most ardent critic, simply because making generic claims about a particularly vague aspect of human interaction is flirting with stereotyping. I say the above not to disclaimer myself from critique, but to acknowledge any such critique as understandable and (to a certain extent) expected.

First, I don’t think I’ve ever gone so far as to label it a plague. However, it would be correct I think to state that religion has done more to hold back civilization than any other human construct. And here is where I’ll start being very anal in regards to definitions. I don’t think belief in the supernatural is, by itself, degrading to the human condition. The problem is in (as I stated to moes in a previous thread) all the baggage that comes with such a mindset.

When Stephen Hawking states at the end of A History of Time, “for then we should know the mind of God,” he is not referencing any of the traditional aspects of a deity as is popularized in world religions. For Hawking (and Einstein) the concept of god is the unknown, and (more importantly) how that unknown works so amazingly well, and with such an intricate, mysterious beauty. This is the viewpoint espoused by Spinoza that garnered him a cherem from jewish leaders and for which all his works were prohibited by the catholic church. Hardly a viewpoint that was acceptable to mainstream organized religion.

But I would argue that a perfectly acceptable “belief”. Not a religion, mind you, but a belief. A way to moderate the infinite complexity of the universe with one’s own puny increment of existence and mortality.

Likewise, I would argue that those monks mentioned in the article have similarly achieved this sense of purpose, without being dragged into the politics of a religion. I can hardly think of a more universal spiritual calling than compassion. Certainly, a real Christian would be overcome by compassion daily (a la jesus). As Ethan Walker argues in The Mystic Christ, monks, priests, rabbis, and inams that subscribe to this motivation are all acting in the same spiritual calling, and as such transcend trivial societal boundaries to embrace a peace that is wholly independent of subjective meanings of “right or wrong god” or “heaven”, and “hell”. This is hardly Christian specific – nearly every major religion emphasizes compassion as a means to enlightenment and understanding. If one divorces him/herself from petty feuds and mythological absurdities there are no “religions” and no politically motivated greedy struggles for power because of them. Just a philosophy and a mentality unobstructed by dogmatic trivialities intending to subdivide humanity by which priest they listen to. (And no, I’m not preaching. I am not even close to achieving this kind of thinking. I’d like to think I’m trying though.)

To me, if one can dissociate his/herself from religion as a social identity and embrace a spiritual viewpoint as a means to enlighten oneself to the wonder of our own existence; and/or as a method to undo unnecessary restrictions that encumber our ability to embrace humanity as a whole with understanding and unrelenting compassion – that’s enlightenment. That’s spirituality. And I’m fine with that. (Note that this ties in nicely with my views on all other forms of collectivist bigotry)

Let me re-orient to answer your question…

I choose that word above in my third paragraph (mindset) carefully, because I think it is the perfect representation of the folly in assuming religion can be independent of “organization”. I don’t think it possible for a human-contrived cultural hierarchy such as religion to maintain any semblance of those morals, ethics, and ideologies I alluded to above. And this is where my ire is directed – religions that claim to hold a monopoly on such important constructs. That’s foolishness. Furthermore, these religions than make a mockery of all their own claims by preaching a gospel of membership, not faith. You’re “raised” Christian. You’re “raised” Muslim. What does that even mean? It’s arbitrary, it’s hypocritical, and it’s just a handy method to keep people in control and manipulate them.

People (religious people especially, in an ironic twist) love to point out that humans are naturally greedy, naturally self-serving, naturally power-hungering, naturally sinful. The solution? To turn to a human-contrived societal organization based on an unfathomable and unexplainable entity that proclaims that by joining you are instantaneously improved, saved, and/or righteous. That’s lunacy, and it’s just sad that it’s so damn prevalent. All it breeds is stratification and, eventually, contempt.

I’m drifting again, so I’ll stop and summarize. Yes, I think organized religion is a joke and a curse. On the other hand, I am not against spiritual introspection and belief. I feel that the latter of the two can be (or is) independent of the notion of a deity.

I find the article about the monks fascinating not only because of how it jives with my thoughts above, but because of the qualitative effect it has on their bodies. That’s astonishing. To me, that is dangerously close to physical proof of spirituality.

 

if i can speak for rhad...

i believe he's comfortable with the spiritual...uncomfortable with religion.

religion is a word that doesn't communicate well here....because i'm uncomfortable with religion the way i define it....yet i'm sure nearly everyone here would describe me as religious.

perhaps it would be better if i used the phrase "organized religion" when i talk poorly of religion, generally. maybe that would communicate it better.

 

lol. MadMax answers for me perfectly. In about 50x less words than I did myself.

 

i've just read enough of your posts to know!

 

I think: Why God Won't Go Away.