Religion accepts that we'd rather make up a story than leave a question unanswered, that we humans love metaphor to explain complex and abstract concepts more easily, that we look for guidance and meaning in our lives
So does that mean that religion is false, an illusion, a man-made fiction? Not quite.
Have not science and philosophy themselves shown the fallacies and inadequacies of rational thinking? There are limits to science, and very often the "scientific fact" is nothing but "the model that currently holds up in most tests".
So what, if an old creation myth is contradicted by evolution or geology?
Our ancestors didn't have those answers, so the religious metaphor was all they could rely on.
Today, you can choose to discard the metaphor of myth. Or you can understand that it is, indeed, allegorical, and it may still teach you something useful, and then you keep it alongside the science.
Another example: Even if you know that the sun does not move around the earth and is nothing but a big ball of gas: you can still speak about the sun "rising", and you can find profound meaning in a hymn that praises the sun god for nurturing life on earth. — WerMaat
Thanks, this was my initial premise. You can also frame it in terms of the is-ought gap (Hume's law).Have you listened to the Rorty clip (above) ? There is no 'conflict' if science and religion are seen as operating in different domains of human necessity.
That fact that things are a certain way is descriptive. The fact that they ought to be another way is normative. That's basic stuff. — Pantagruel
So has science. I'm sorry, but if your best response is to ignore when science is not scientific and religion is not spiritual you're not going to be persuaded by anything I have to say (or anyone else for that matter). It's called a preconception or, more accurately in this case, a prejudice. Cheers! — Pantagruel
Just because a person is a scientist does not make all of his or her actions scientific. Any more than claiming to be religious makes all of one's actions spiritual. I interpret the question are religion and science compatible to mean could they be compatible, not "are they currently playing well together, as currently practiced today." — Pantagruel
Whether you like it or not, religions do make factual claims, not just normative claims. — S
Religions don't make claims; people make claims. — Janus
So, within the class of the religious who make, or appear to make, factual claims based on scripture, there is a diversity of interpretation of scripture that exists on spectrum from completely metaphorical to completely literal, and hence there is a diversity of claims, more or less compatible or incompatible with science.. — Janus
Weren't you just warning against the No True Scotsman fallacy yourself? — WerMaat
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
Cut the crap, I say. No actual theist believes that that's just a metaphor. They really do believe that there a Being, namely God, who literally created the universe. No actual theist really believes that the entirely of the scriptures which comprise their religion contains not a single literal passage, but instead is full of nothing but metaphor. No actual theist has a set of beliefs which are entirely consistent with atheism, or else they're a theist in name only.
Right, I meant that one would take the idea that there is a God literally, and that one can have a relationship with that God, and that the commandments will be of aid in being a Good person, say, and that Jesus' teaching are also an aid in both being good and being close to God and perhaps adding in taking the parts about Heaven literally. IOW the core theist positions. I actually think this is fairly common. — Coben
You have just committed the no true Scotsman fallacy. — Pantagruel
for it to be a theism, yes. I wouldn't stop someone in argument or in any other way from saying they are Christian but consider God to be a metaphor for a non-sentient universe or something, but then that's no longer a theismSo then you should agree with the point that I was making, namely that there are at least some key beliefs which must be taken literally — S
And these beliefs are not supported by science. — S
No? Didn't think so. — S
You literally used the term "no actual theist" in exactly the paradigmatic sense of the fallacy's "no true Scotsman." — Pantagruel
No true scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
No true theist believe that scriptures are metaphorical.
You can believe there is a divine being without believe scriptures are literal or factual. There is absolutely, absolutely no reason that those two beliefs have to be interdependent. Except that you are forcing it to be so. — Pantagruel
There is no 'conflict' if science and religion are seen as operating in different domains of human necessity. Ostensibly, science operates in the domain of 'prediction and control'; Religion operates in the domain of 'emotional and social need'. Conflict arises when 'needs' stray out of their domains — fresco
At that point Science believers usually react furiously, saying Science tells how the world is, Science has successes, but so do other systems of beliefs and practices, they all tell their own story of how the world is and they all have their own successes, it's simply that what counts as a success within one system doesn't always count as a success within another system
Now you are just committing multiple fallacies. Red herring, equivocation.
The definition of theism is belief in the existence of a deity. Scriptures do not even enter into the definition of theism. Is that succinct enough for you?
Sorry to be curt, but this is getting kind of childish. — Pantagruel
You are attempting to equivocate scripture and theism. — Pantagruel
You don't get to make up your own definitions. Theism is what it is. Your definition is convenient to your argument. True Scotsman. — Pantagruel
Hmmm. Your definition is the one I am using. It clearly has nothing to do with scriptures? Are you feeling ok? Dizzy or anything? — Pantagruel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.