Unification of Science and Religion

[AMod]

yiostheoy

...

I think the 10 post mod monitoring of new members loses a lot of people.

...

Just accidental and dependent upon when I get the time as I do it for free but have other concerns so cannot always mod every day.
AMod.

[yiostheoy]

yiostheoy

...

I think the 10 post mod monitoring of new members loses a lot of people.

...

Just accidental and dependent upon when I get the time as I do it for free but have other concerns so cannot always mod every day.
AMod.

Thanks AMod. No problem, I understand.

I just plowed through the 10 post requirement -- in some places it is 20 posts.

I was glad when you approved my posts.

I guess I just needed to demonstrate that I am indeed a real philosopher and have put a lot of time into my philosophical development rather than just another troll.

Thanks again.

[yiostheoy]

I use the term "crap" a lot because it is simply a word derived from a name -- Thomas Crapper.

He was the first importer to America of the new British flush toilet back in the 1800's.

His name became associated with the machine itself -- called "the Crapper flush toilet".

Soon his name also became associated with the product as well -- "crap".

Funny how language works.

A lot of religion is pure crap.

A lot of modern science is pure crap too.

There is even crap in Philosophy -- always has been and always will be..

The only thing that is 'crap' about this thread, is your contributions to it.

Middle English: related to Dutch krappe, from krappen ‘pluck or cut off’, and perhaps also to Old French crappe ‘siftings’, Anglo-Latin crappa ‘chaff’. The original sense was ‘chaff’, later ‘residue from rendering fat’, also ‘dregs of beer’.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=crap

Draw out yere sword, thou vile South'ron!
Red wat wi' blude o' my kin!
That sword it crapped the bonniest flower
E'er lifted its head to the sun!

[Allan Cunningham (1784-1842), "The Young Maxwell"]

Can't tell if you are full of crap too. Can't even tell if you are serious. Thomas Crapper may have been named Crapper for a good reason. However his flush toilet was a big hit.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I use the term "crap" a lot because it is simply a word derived from a name -- Thomas Crapper.

He was the first importer to America of the new British flush toilet back in the 1800's.

His name became associated with the machine itself -- called "the Crapper flush toilet".

Soon his name also became associated with the product as well -- "crap".

Funny how language works.

A lot of religion is pure crap.

A lot of modern science is pure crap too.

There is even crap in Philosophy -- always has been and always will be..

The only thing that is 'crap' about this thread, is your contributions to it.

Middle English: related to Dutch krappe, from krappen ‘pluck or cut off’, and perhaps also to Old French crappe ‘siftings’, Anglo-Latin crappa ‘chaff’. The original sense was ‘chaff’, later ‘residue from rendering fat’, also ‘dregs of beer’.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=crap

Draw out yere sword, thou vile South'ron!
Red wat wi' blude o' my kin!
That sword it crapped the bonniest flower
E'er lifted its head to the sun!

[Allan Cunningham (1784-1842), "The Young Maxwell"]

Can't tell if you are full of crap too. Can't even tell if you are serious. Thomas Crapper may have been named Crapper for a good reason. However his flush toilet was a big hit.

1) His name was Crapper, for that was his name.
2) Though credited with the flush toilet, he was not the first, and not the design we now use.
3) "Crapper" appearing on all the cisterns caused more amusement in the UK than in the US, but most thought it quite amusing to have a crap in a crapper.

Thomas Crapper (baptised 28 September 1836; died 27 January 1910) was a plumber who founded Thomas Crapper & Co in London. Contrary to widespread misconceptions, Crapper did not invent the flush toilet. He did, however, do much to increase the popularity of the toilet, and developed some important related inventions, such as the ballcock.[citation needed] He was noted for the quality of his products and received several royal warrants. WIKI

[Nick_A]

It never ceases to amaze me that some see the unification of science and religion as obvious yet others consider it the ultimate absurdity. For example, Vance Morgan's book would be an absurdity to many atheists here but just common sense for others.

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24988-weaving-t ... -and-love/

In his preface to Weaving the World, Vance Morgan indicates two motives for writing this book. The first is to exhibit Simone Weil as "a shining example of how reason and faith, intellect and spirit, can and should interact in a person's search for meaning and truth" (ix). The second is "to bring to the reader's attention a largely unknown aspect of her thought, her lifelong interest in mathematics and science" (ix-x). The two aims happily coincide thanks to the overarching theme that unifies the book, the theme of mediation between mind and truth, the human and the divine. Morgan indicates the structuring role of this theme in an endnote (208, n.11), where he presents his study as the complementary converse of Springsted's Christus Mediator: whereas Springsted begins his exposition with the understanding of the cross that ultimately becomes the grounding principle of Weil's Platonic and Pythagorean thinking, Morgan follows more closely the biographical trajectory of Weil's own reflections by starting with the notion of science and working in the direction of the "geometry of the cross."

[Hobbes' Choice]

It never ceases to amaze me that some see the unification of science and religion as obvious yet others consider it the ultimate absurdity. For example, Vance Morgan's book would be an absurdity to many atheists here but just common sense for others.

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24988-weaving-t ... -and-love/

In his preface to Weaving the World, Vance Morgan indicates two motives for writing this book. The first is to exhibit Simone Weil as "a shining example of how reason and faith, intellect and spirit, can and should interact in a person's search for meaning and truth" (ix). The second is "to bring to the reader's attention a largely unknown aspect of her thought, her lifelong interest in mathematics and science" (ix-x). The two aims happily coincide thanks to the overarching theme that unifies the book, the theme of mediation between mind and truth, the human and the divine. Morgan indicates the structuring role of this theme in an endnote (208, n.11), where he presents his study as the complementary converse of Springsted's Christus Mediator: whereas Springsted begins his exposition with the understanding of the cross that ultimately becomes the grounding principle of Weil's Platonic and Pythagorean thinking, Morgan follows more closely the biographical trajectory of Weil's own reflections by starting with the notion of science and working in the direction of the "geometry of the cross."

When you start with belief, and deduce your world from that position your future is full of self deception.
This book, like others before it, parasitises the labour of science gained from the difficult work of induction, evidence gathering and reasoning, and abuses the finding of science by applying them to the absurdist claims of theism.

You are just making a fool of yourself. Yes it is obvious to you because you are blind to the source and meaning of science.

[yiostheoy]

It never ceases to amaze me that some see the unification of science and religion as obvious yet others consider it the ultimate absurdity. For example, Vance Morgan's book would be an absurdity to many atheists here but just common sense for others.

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24988-weaving-t ... -and-love/

In his preface to Weaving the World, Vance Morgan indicates two motives for writing this book. The first is to exhibit Simone Weil as "a shining example of how reason and faith, intellect and spirit, can and should interact in a person's search for meaning and truth" (ix). The second is "to bring to the reader's attention a largely unknown aspect of her thought, her lifelong interest in mathematics and science" (ix-x). The two aims happily coincide thanks to the overarching theme that unifies the book, the theme of mediation between mind and truth, the human and the divine. Morgan indicates the structuring role of this theme in an endnote (208, n.11), where he presents his study as the complementary converse of Springsted's Christus Mediator: whereas Springsted begins his exposition with the understanding of the cross that ultimately becomes the grounding principle of Weil's Platonic and Pythagorean thinking, Morgan follows more closely the biographical trajectory of Weil's own reflections by starting with the notion of science and working in the direction of the "geometry of the cross."

It is obvious absurdity to use the wrong tool for the wrong job.

Religion is the oldest of the three -- including Philosophy and Science.

The ancient and modern purpose of Religion is the opiate of the masses. People with wealthy easy lives do not normally pursue religion.

The ancient purpose of Philosophy is to question religion, specifically polytheistic Greek religion. The modern purpose has been to question everything, even Science.

Science was invented by Galileo when he fashioned his own home made telescope and then pointed it at the planet Jupiter. The purpose of science is to collect data and then hypothesize inductively about these various phenomena.

It would make no sense to combine these 3 analytical tools into one.

Religion is all dogma but taken as a whole with much memorization it can be fashioned into a faux analytical tool which many fanatics have indeed done.

Science is like Philosophy -- pure speculation -- but based primarily on induction not deduction of Empirical data gathered in the process.

Philosophy is pure rational thought. Many people however adulterate their own Philosophy with Science or with Religion. Then they get all mixed up.

Keep the tools separate. Then you won't get yourself mixed up.

[Gross Ryder]

Hiya all,
Unification of science and religion is neither possible, nor is there any sense or purpose to it.
However, although reconciliation is possible but improbable because of the multiple conflicts in the
authoritative stances of the proponents of the worldviews, the divergent methodologies,
assumptions, ontology and validity domains of the results.
Heck, you can't even reconcile (again no unification is possible in organized religions too) the
differences and conflicts between various organized religions.
So although the prognosis is a fatal (as in fate) one, any attempts at reconciliation will yield knowledge
to the sincere - and that's part of life and death/destruction.

[Nick_A]

yios wrote:

The ancient and modern purpose of Religion is the opiate of the masses. People with wealthy easy lives do not normally pursue religion.

There are two basic forms religion takes: exoteric and esoteric. The exoteric deals with the outer man and how the outer man or conditioned man should function within society. The esoteric deals with the inner man or what we are, The ideas is that for whatever reason Man is not what he can be and is asleep to reality and human potential. The esoteric purpose of religion is to help awaken those with the need and the courage to become themselves as opposed to conditioned atoms of society. In society we only experience the exoteric.

The ancient purpose of Philosophy is to question religion, specifically polytheistic Greek religion. The modern purpose has been to question everything, even Science.

The ancient purpose of philosophy is to pursue the love of wisdom. This is not egoistic questioning for the purpose of self justification but rather becoming capable of opening to impartial experience free of conditioned interpretation.

Science is like Philosophy -- pure speculation -- but based primarily on induction not deduction of Empirical data gathered in the process.

Science is inductive rather than deductive reason.

So the question becomes, can a person pursuing an esoteric path of religion have a love for wisdom attracting them and be capable of inductive reason so as to become a complete human being? Can science and religion serve each other's needs? I say yes and you say no. On and on it goes.

[Dalek Prime]

Mmmm. Chocolate AND peanut butter.

[AMod]

yiostheoy,

...
I just plowed through the 10 post requirement -- in some places it is 20 posts.

...

Sorry, I wasn't clear, there is no ten post requirement.

AMod.

[yiostheoy]

yios wrote:

The ancient and modern purpose of Religion is the opiate of the masses. People with wealthy easy lives do not normally pursue religion.

There are two basic forms religion takes: exoteric and esoteric. The exoteric deals with the outer man and how the outer man or conditioned man should function within society. The esoteric deals with the inner man or what we are, The ideas is that for whatever reason Man is not what he can be and is asleep to reality and human potential. The esoteric purpose of religion is to help awaken those with the need and the courage to become themselves as opposed to conditioned atoms of society. In society we only experience the exoteric.

The ancient purpose of Philosophy is to question religion, specifically polytheistic Greek religion. The modern purpose has been to question everything, even Science.

The ancient purpose of philosophy is to pursue the love of wisdom. This is not egoistic questioning for the purpose of self justification but rather becoming capable of opening to impartial experience free of conditioned interpretation.

Science is like Philosophy -- pure speculation -- but based primarily on induction not deduction of Empirical data gathered in the process.

Science is inductive rather than deductive reason.

So the question becomes, can a person pursuing an esoteric path of religion have a love for wisdom attracting them and be capable of inductive reason so as to become a complete human being? Can science and religion serve each other's needs? I say yes and you say no. On and on it goes.

You just need to keep Philosophy, Science, and Religion completely separate.

They have nothing in common.

Philosophy is pure rational thought.

Science is Empirical research combined with inductive inference.

Religion is dogmatic theism -- unless you want to start over and create your own religion with philosophical and scientific features.

The key caution is NOT to make Science your religion, nor Religion you science, nor let your Philosophy become polluted by either of the other two.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You just need to keep Philosophy, Science, and Religion completely separate..

You say some crazy things sometimes but this has to be on the verge of pure ignorance or insanity.
You might find this useful...

"But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attacks from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy."
Bertrand Russell

[Nick_A]

yios wrote:

The key caution is NOT to make Science your religion, nor Religion you science, nor let your Philosophy become polluted by either of the other two.

I agree. Pure science reveals and builds on facts. The essence of religion refers to values and how they relate to human meaning and purpose. Taken together they create a realistic human perspective. Philosophy as the love of wisdom seeks to acquire this perspective.They are all tools in the toolbox of human "understanding." A saw cannot do the work of a hammer or a wrench. They all have a unique purpose which should be developed and respected..

[Arising_uk]

... The essence of religion refers to values and how they relate to human meaning and purpose. ...

Then where does your 'God's' meaning and purpose come in?