Actually, I think it’s magic. And directly contrary to natural selection, which is why I chose it.
Liberal, you appear to be saying that religion and science are different things and address different issues. If this is your intent, we are in agreement.
But keep in mind that it’s proponents of religious views who are the ones insisting on a face-to-face challenge. They’re the ones dressing up religion like science and insisting relgion should be taught in science classes. You don’t hear about any scientists insisting on equal time opportunities to deliver sermons on evolution during church services.
No one knows if the Popes and Kings responsible for the bloodshed were truly religiously motivated, but if you think none of the foot soldiers were, you are in deep denial. Or you are saying that religion can have good effects but never bad. Nice of you to defend the Cossacks.
Wrong. Some people say that religion is responsible for most evil - no one says all.
And the “non-religious” people were very religious - not in a god sense, but with all the accoutrements of religion - holy, inerrant writ, icons, and saints.
Cite? Give me one example of a public school (elementary or high school) where a teacher of evolution also teaches god does not exist. It would cause such a stink that we’d be hearing about it forever. So I call bullshit on this one.
BTW, teaching that would violate the first amendment just as much as teaching creationism.
My knockis that religion doesn’t do what its adherents claims. Religious people self-righteously claim than you can’t be moral without religion. Yet religious differences cause just as much suffereing as the non-religious regime you write of.
I don’t steal, maim or kill because I appreciate the benefits of living in a civil society and one of the best ways to tear that society down is to act in an antisocial manner.
However, I’m glad that those who need a monitor to prevent their running amok have one.
Inasmuch as religion is about the supernatural, I agree with you. But if a religion includes statements about God’s interaction with the physical, natural world (creation, flood, making the sun stand still) - is this religion treading into non-religious areas? Specifically, is much of the Bible non-religious, if interpreted as a statement about the world and not allegory?
No, Liberal, the “supernatural” is a topic that, by definition, does not exist. The term “nature” encompasses every thing and phenomenon that exists – including God, if God exists. And everything that exists falls within the purview of science if there is any way to study it scientifically.
In order to get to that opinion, (for opinion it is), you need to assert a reality that a great many people perceive very differently. In fact, it almost appears that you are simply trying to “define” the debate away by assigning new values to words, then denying the arguments of your opponents on the basis that they are simply talking about nonexistent things.
You may, indeed, believe that there is nothing outside the natural and that others are discussing the nonexistent, but you cannot legitmately insert your belief into the discussion by assertion.
You may declare that that is your belief and that therefore, discussion is at an impasse. Or you may declare that it is “true”–at which point you have the burden of proving your assertion.
But you do not get to simply “define” the discussion away.
I have a problem with talking about “both sides” of this debate as being equivalent. Sure, the odd scientist here or there may try to debunk God, but that represents the extremely rare exception. But let’s look at Christianity, as an example of the religions side. Every believer in Christianity makes claims about the interaction of the supernatural with the natural. Every single one. I cant see anything remotely equivalent about the two sides of this debate.
No, I don’t think so. Theologians, who are philosophers of a type, have peer review journals too. I think you’re setting the bar at one height for scientists and at another height for religionists. A scientist who is writing a book for sale to the general public, or who is speaking on a TV program, for example, may opine about God, and that would be equivalent to a religionist doing so about science in the same sort of informal venue.
What it appears to me that you do not see (surprising, incidentally, given your impressive talent for seeing from other points of view) is that all claims are not scientific by default, such as a claim about the interaction of the supernatural with the natural. The claim is scientific only if it is made in scientific terms, as when neurological researcher VS Ramachandran, for example, writes extensively about the spiritual experiences of people whose temporal lobes have been stimulated. His claims, by the way, are scientifically valid.
That assertion is prima-facie absurd, and is the logical equivalent of saying that the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true. The usage of nature to mean everything conceivable plus everything that isn’t is an abuse of the term.
But isn’t that where the contradiction or conflict is introduced-- when a claim is made about the interaction of the supernatural with the natural?
When the Catholic Chruch, for example, declares a miracle to have occured, that seems to me to be equivalent to a Protestant Fundamentalist saying that God created humans 6,000 years ago. Same thing when Christian Theologians claim that Christ died and came back to life, or that He is the literal son of God. No?
What tomndeb said, plus:
The above statement is prima facie incorrect and easy to refute. Mathematics falls completely outside the purview of science, although I have seen some people argue in GD that 2 + 2 = 4 could be tested by experiment.:rolleyes:
What we call Science was originally known as “Natural Philosophy,” to which name I think it’s about time to revert, owing to the fact that the word “science” now has so many overly positive/negative connotations to so many people, and is so generally misused.
I hope you are not suggesting that Ramachandran claims that the supernatural interacts with the natural.
Isn’t the supposed supernatural realm merely a collection of ideas in various peoples minds? It appears to me that the supernatural doesn’t exist as anything that is separated from the person who entertains the idea of the “supernatural.”
As an idea in the mind, the supernatural certainly would be subject to scientific inquiry. One of the active areas in science right now is how the mind works; how we see, how we process information, get ideas and so on.
I am using the word “nature” to mean everything that is. No more than that. If God exists, then God is part of nature. If magic exists, then magic is part of nature. Nothing that exists is “supernatural.”
“There’s a glory for you.”
If you define nature as “everyting that is” then “supernatural” has no meaning.
Thus it is nonsensical to say there is no supernatural.
Errmm . . . You’re stating that just exactly backwards. If you define nature as “everything that is” (which is exactly what the word means, in this context), then “supernatural” has no meaning – thus it is nonsensical to say there is a supernatural.