The same input continues to match the output and poof, you have a yardstick, or whatever. The act of measurement is the act of validating causality. Reality/truth just keeps acting the same way every time we check it. It is that which we can be most certain of. — Kaiser Basileus

Why would I believe you had a yardstick because of poof? Doesn't sound like a particularly rigorous process to me.

Let's switch to meters. Why should I believe that you are able to measure a meter in any rigorous way?

I trust that the system is based on measurements that replicate because things keep working, which they wouldn't of the measurements used to create them were arbitrary.

The common core of all versions of religion is dogma, — Kaiser Basileus

I'll take issue with that. All religions have dogmas, that's for sure, but 'a dogma' is simply 'a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority'. Many other kinds of associations have their dogmas - accountants, architects, even science. 'The central dogma of molecular biology is a theory stating that genetic information flows only in one direction, from DNA, to RNA, to protein, or RNA directly to protein.'

Religions are such a diverse set of cultural phenomena that it is arguable that the word really has no useful meaning. What it does have, is a set of references, which is usually very much a product of the culture in which it's situated. In other words, we think we know what we mean when we talk about it, but much of that is hearsay.

But behind all of that, there are the accounts of encounters with the transcendent. These accounts span cultures and are found throughout history. Of course, the fact that we ourselves rarely have such encounters, means that normally they are only heard of second-hand. Even more so, in a secular culture such as ours, where the living traditions are rarely encountered, all sense that their might be something behind the dogma is lost.

In any case dogma is one of the consequences of religious consciousness, not necessarily one of the causes.

I trust that the system is based on measurements that replicate because things keep working, which they wouldn't of the measurements used to create them were arbitrary. — Kaiser Basileus

Sound like you are saying that you aren't rigorous yourself, but you trust that other people are. Is that correct?

Religions are such a diverse set of cultural phenomena that it is arguable that the word really has no useful meaning. — Wayfarer

You have trouble recognizing religion? If so, that may be because you want to label something a religion that isn’t a religion, like secularism. Am I right?

No. It was based more on a book I encountered when I studied comparative religion, by Wilfred Cantwell-Smith (cribbed from Wikipedia):

'In his best known and most controversial work The Meaning and End of Religion: A New Approach to the Religious Traditions of Mankind, Smith examines the concept of "religion" in the sense of "a systematic religious entity, conceptually identifiable and characterizing a distinct community". He concludes that it is a misleading term for both the practitioners and observers and it should be abandoned. The reasons for the objection are that the word 'religion' is "not definable" and its noun form ('religion' as opposed to the adjectival form 'religious') "distorts reality". Moreover, the term is unique to the Western civilization; there are no terms in the languages of other civilizations that correspond to it. He regards the term as having outlived its purpose.

Smith contends that the concept of religion, rather than being a universally valid category as is generally supposed, is a specifically European construct of recent origin. Religion, he argues, is a static concept that does not adequately address the complexity and flux of religious lives. Instead of the concept of religion, Smith proffers a new conceptual apparatus: the dynamic dialectic between cumulative tradition (all historically observable rituals, art, music, theologies, etc.) and individual faith.

The terms for major world religions today, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism, did not exist until the 19th century. Smith suggests that practitioners of any given faith do not historically come to regard what they do as religion until they have developed a degree of cultural self-regard, causing them to see their collective spiritual practices and beliefs as in some way significantly different from the other.'

In practise, most times when a people start a sentence with 'religion is...' what usually follows is a regurtitation of their inherited prejudices. Kind of an 'anti-dogma'.

It seems to me that the basic problem that WCS was trying to address is that most people, including both secular folks and people with a dynamic dialectic between cumulative tradition and individual faith, don't understand what religion is, and that quite naturally results in a hot mess of misunderstanding, which can result in a deep schism between the religious and the non-religious. The obvious solution is for people to better understand what religion is. I don't see how abandoning the concept of 'religion' will do that. Also, I don't think that people with cumulative tradition and individual faith are inclined to put their tradition and faith under a microscope. If religion is the 'opium of the people' that would be a total buzz kill.

I don't see how the concept of religion being new, Western, or somehow static, makes it invalid. Is any concept actually static? No, so why does he claim that it is? Maybe this suggests a reluctance to study and analyze cumulative tradition and faith because that might change our concept of it (and be a buzz kill).

In practise, most times when a people start a sentence with 'religion is...' what usually follows is a regurtitation of their inherited prejudices. Kind of an 'anti-dogma'. — Wayfarer

If cumulative tradition and individual faith were all good perhaps there wouldn't be such prejudices.

'Religion" is not a strictly definitive term, but an "umbrella" term under which what are generally soteriological practices and / or beliefs can be understood to be ranged. In other words, most belief systems that we would class as religious are concerned, in one way or another, with salvation, and are, in one way or another, otherworldly, in that they don't see this world as being capable of providing the salvation that is yearned for.

The salient question is whether that yearning is a sign of health or of disease.

I’ll ask you the same question that I asked the thread starter (and they ignored). Do you know of anyone who religion has provided deliverance from sin and its consequences?

I’ll ask you the same question that I asked the thread starter (and they ignored). Do you know of anyone who religion has provided deliverance from sin and its consequences? — praxis

I don't think so. I guess the question is who is to be the judge when it comes to personal salvation...or enlightenment?

Imagine multiple traditions existing for thousands of years all dedicated to the goal of *salvation* but when asked whether they’ve succeeded the answer is “I don’t think so”. Possible explanations for this could be:

A) Salvation is really really hard.
B) People are really really stupid.
C) The goal of religion is not salvation.

If C is true that strongly indicates that most people don’t understand religion. Of course, it’s very difficult or perhaps even impossible to define what you don’t understand.

'Religion" is not a strictly definitive term, but an "umbrella" term under which what are generally soteriological practices and / or beliefs can be understood to be ranged. — Janus

Indeed. I personally don't find the term all that useful but you have to start somewhere. Karen Armstrong, a mainstream scholar of religion, famously said religion may not be definable.

Do you know of anyone who religion has provided deliverance from sin and its consequences? — praxis

I'm assuming this only applies to Christian traditions. I don't know what 'deliverance from sin' means except as a tentative goal of the pious, subject to certain traditions and certain definitions of sin. The only person who knows if this is successful is the individual believer, I guess.

There is a fourth possibility, and that is that there are many people who have psychological needs for salvation, but that there is no real possibility of the kind of salvation people are after, no rea salvation.

In that case salvation is an illusion and those who think they are saved are deluded. That delusion may be a happier state than desperately feeling a need for salvation, though. I don't think anything can be imposed on people en masse for long that does not satisfy, or appear to satisfy, some need they feel.

I'm assuming this only applies to Christian traditions. I don't know what 'deliverance from sin' means except as a tentative goal of the pious, subject to certain traditions and certain definitions of sin. The only person who knows if this is successful is the individual believer, I guess. — Tom Storm

Deliverance from sin and its consequences. I think the consequences of sin is basically suffering and that’s not unique to any tradition.

I don't think anything can be imposed on people en masse for long that does not satisfy, or appear to satisfy, some need they feel. — Janus

Clearly the need being fulfilled is not salvation so religion must be fulfilling other needs.

Deliverance from sin and its consequences. I think the consequences of sin is basically suffering and that’s not unique to any tradition. — praxis

I think the question is vague. For whom are these consequences felt? The sinner or the sinned against? Or does it depend? There are many sinners who benefit enormously from sinning. But again, what counts as sinning? Blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, using curse words, killing?

And sin is not an idea I have encountered outside of Abrahamic traditions. Are you using the term loosely? Or are you referring to wrongdoing in general?

Clearly the need being fulfilled is not salvation so religion must be fulfilling other needs.. — praxis

I don't think it is quite as clear as you seem to think it is. but I do agree that religion also fulfills other needs; it can provide a sense of community and caring for example. It can also satisfy tribal impulses; or the desire to belong to a group that stands for some ideal. It may even satisfy pride in some cases or the need to be told what to do.

This quote is from a book called “Biblical Literalism.” I believe that this bishop’s literal interpretation of the “fall from perfection” is inappropriate and theologically inaccurate. My personal understanding (I didn’t think of this myself, just what I believe) of the “fall from perfection” is more like an awakening from unconscious to conscious. Reading the story of the Garden of Eden closely, the timeline of events is: 1, Adam and Eve eat the apple and become conscious “like God,” 2, God discovers them and their awareness, and 3, God punishes them by removing them from the Garden of Eden. First, Adam and Eve eating the apple represents our own desire to be God. We were living in perfection and the immense beauty of God’s creation, and we still wanted more. Second, God discovers us in our conscious state, when Adam and Eve dresses themselves. We became self-aware, and then ashamed of ourselves. We could see how weak we were, and how strong God was. God is loving and forgiving, but also all-powerful, and even though we are invited to walk with Him, we are scared to do so. Third, God punishes them. This is the “fall from perfection.” We were sent out of the Garden of Eden to feel the suffering of the world. When we do not walk with God when He invites us, we suffer. So, the “fall from perfection” isn’t a literal reduced state of being, or that God made us biologically inferior to whatever we supposedly were in the Garden of Eden. The fall from perfection explains the suffering we experience in life, illustrates humanity’s wish to be God, and even gives us insight on our fear of walking with God and dealing with our conscious thoughts. After all, life would be much less strenuous if we were unconscious beings, who did not have to think about morality. The priest’s literal interpretation of us being physically perfect is not accurate.

Moving back on topic,

If you don’t think science and religion go together, please bring up an argument. I do see how the quotes were cherry-picked, as many of those scientists lived in a society that forced religion into everyone. However, even with most scientists being atheists, believing in God is rational and there are scientific arguments for God. I wish for you to respond.

I believe that this bishop’s literal interpretation of the “fall from perfection” is inappropriate and theologically inaccurate. My personal understanding (I didn’t think of this myself, just what I believe) of the “fall from perfection” is more like an awakening from unconscious to conscious. — ButyDude

So you have an interpretation (or one seemingly borrowed form Jordan Peterson). How do you measure the validity of one interpretation against that of another?

However, even with most scientists being atheists, believing in God is rational and there are scientific arguments for God. I wish for you to respond. — ButyDude

I don't care what most scientists believe - atheist or Hindu. There are threads about whether gods are 'true' or not all over this site. I have participated in many. Not sure this is the place for arguments about the validity of gods. I am not aware of scientific arguments for gods. But I am aware of people using gaps in science to assert gods.

...We... — ButyDude

What's with the "we" bit? No one around today ever lived in the Garden of Eden, nor ate from the tree there. Rather, your god thinks that children should be punished for things done by their father - grossly immoral.

How did Adam and Eve choose to eat the apple, if it was the apple that made them conscious? If they were not self-aware, how was it that they wanted more?

How could your god "discover" their conscious state? There are things that god can discover - things that he doesn't' yet know? So he's (I bet your god is a "he") not omniscient, then.

Not very impressive.

...there are scientific arguments for God — ButyDude

And they are...?

Fine Tuning, Cosmic Cause and Effect, etc. It’s a quick Google search

again, not a literal interpretation. The meanings are symbolic. They don’t align perfectly with each other. It is a story, God wasn’t literally sitting up there just like clueless.

I am not aware of scientific arguments for gods. But I am aware of people using gaps in science to assert gods. — Tom Storm

Fine Tuning argument - the constants of physics, such as g, k, G, and many more, are so precise that if they were any different the universe would not be physically possible. There is simply no explanation for this. Infinite universes and bounce-back universe are disproven.

Cosmic Argument (Cause and Effect) - the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang, must have been caused by something outside of the universe. Everything in the universe has a cause. The causes go all the way back to the Big Bang. The Big Bang itself can’t be the un-caused cause because it is inside the universe. Therefore, there must be an un-caused cause beyond our universe. This doesn’t assert that the un-caused cause is a loving God or a hateful God, but that simply it is sort of “god” in the logical sense that it is beyond the universe itself.

Back to the topic. Do you have an argument for religion and science being incompatible? What is your stance?

...again, not a literal interpretation. The meanings are symbolic. — ButyDude

Funny how apologists run away to metaphor at the first sign of critique. "I didn't mean it..."

Fine Tuning, Cosmic Cause and Effect, etc. It’s a quick Google search — ButyDude

I'm guessing you won't want to fill these out, and if we were to critique them, you'd say they also were "metaphor".

So why are you here? Why pretend to present your ideas for inspection, then doge and weave?

the constants of physics, such as g, k, G, and many more, are so precise that if they were any different the universe would not be physically possible. — ButyDude

So how does this imply a creator? Anselm's "and this we all call god"? Finish the argument.

the Big Bang, must have been caused by something outside of the universe. — ButyDude

That's just not accepted, as Hawking showed, for example in "The boundary conditions of the universe". But also there are good reasons not to accept that every event must have a cause.

Can you prove that everything in the universe has a cause? Or is it just an assumption on your part?

Can you prove that everything in the universe has a cause? — Banno

Yes, slap yourself in the face. You will quickly see cause and effect. Seriously, you are questioning logic itself.

Article: https://www.opencollege.info/law-of-cause-and-effect/#:~:text=The%20law%20of%20cause%20and,cause%2C%20an%20original%20starting%20point.

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_causation#:~:text=7%20External%20links-,As%20axioms%20of%20causality,an%20equal%20and%20opposed%20reaction.

That's just not accepted, as Hawking showed, for example in "The boundary conditions of the universe". — Banno

From the website, “[Hawking’s paper] was an attempt at explaining how the Universe could arise out of nothingness, applying quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle at the beginning of time.” Space and time emerged at the same point, so if this is saying that quantum mechanics’ uncertainty principle was applied to space that was there before time, this notion is outdated. If he is saying that quantum mechanics existed before the universe itself, then logically, that could be “our god.” Or, how is there quantum mechanics with no universe?

Finish the argument. — Banno

Fine Tuning has three answers. One, there is a fine tuner, who is God. Two, there are many universes. This attempts to explain the extremely low chances of the fine constants allowing life, by saying there are infinite chances. Imagine flipping a coin, and trying to get heads fifty times in a row. If you flip a coin for an infinite amount of time, you will get there. Third, it should not even be answered. Some have said that as life living in the universe, we can not reasonably answer this question. Article: https://www.templeton.org/news/what-is-fine-tuning

In/compatibility depends entirely on the religion in question. Science rolls on just the same. Religions can sort of say whatever, science can't. So, uni-directional dependency of in/compatibility.

-Einstein — Isaiasb

Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated "I believe in Spinoza's God". He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever." In other interviews, he has stated that he thinks there is a "lawgiver" who sets the laws of the universe. Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me." He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups. — Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein

↑ Scientists and Belief · Pew Research Center · Nov 5, 2009



↑ Preliminary Survey results | What do philosophers believe? (2009)



↑ Survey Results | Philosophers on Philosophy: The 2020 PhilPapers Survey

Fine Tuning argument - the constants of physics, such as g, k, G, and many more, are so precise that if they were any different the universe would not be physically possible. There is simply no explanation for this. Infinite universes and bounce-back universe are disproven. — ButyDude

I don't think those are scientific arguments as such. They are god of the gaps arguments. The argument is essentially - "How else can we explain x...?" It's also a fallacy from incredulity.

I'm not sure this is the place for atheism /theism arguments 101. They seem to crop up all over this site.

My position on any of this stuff - cosmological, ontological, Aquinas's five proofs, whatever it is is this: we don't have to know why the universe is what it is or what it is. I generally like, "I don't know," as my go to answer. But posing gods provides no explanation either because gods have no explanatory power, it is no different than saying 'the magic man did it, how else can you explain it." Problem with magic men is we still don't know how or why or what the situation was. So no explanation at all, just 'magic'.

Do you have an argument for religion and science being incompatible? What is your stance? — ButyDude

I don't think the question is clear. It's so broad as to be virtually meaningless. Which science versus which religion?