Why Religion has an Edge

Somehow I don't think these cartoons are going to be popular with everyone.

I think you're right. : )

thanks for sharing

My pleasure!

Bingo!

: )

That's not a good bingo. People who lean toward science as a worldview make stuff up all the time. There's a bunch of yahoos of the scientific variety who would insist that the big bang, evolution, and the rest of universal history, and reality as it presents itself today gives us a "great epic" upon which to base our commonality. To wit, the link below is to a site created by one such bunch. Very nice idea, but some very unscientific conclusions have been jumped to...

http://www.thegreatstory.org/what_is.html

Point well taken.

The majority of US scientists believe in God or a supernatural presence.

Tell me more about what you mean by "supernatural." I certainly sense that "something" generates and holds all of this together. But I don't envision it as supernatural.....natural, yes.

The data are from a 2009 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, which I just googled to find the survey wording. "Which of the following statements comes closest to your belief in God?" "I believe in God" 33%; "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in a universal spirit or higher power" 18%. This is among US scientists, among whom 89% hold advanced degrees. Some of the confusion about science and religion is that many people see them as being in conflict. I don't accept that an inherent conflict exists, although it makes for humorous cartoons at times.

51% is technically a majority. Thanks.

It's an "edge," right? But it's obviously not about majorities, in the sense that if we just look at the one out of three US scientists that believe in God, one might contemplate their ability to understand two views simultaneously. Their religious faith and their work in the scientific community coexist. I don't think that's a matter of fuzzy thinking.

LOL - My laughter does not equal agreement; it was just a reflexive response to a good setup and punch line.

: )

Can we nominate the barmaid as a 3rd Party Presidential candidate? She has always made more sense than anyone else I can think of (Except Bernie Sanders)

I could definitely support the barmaid!

To expand on Rick's comment above, the image of science painted by the cartoon is somewhat simplistic. Science does not tell us "the Truth" about reality (reality meaning that which really exists and how things really are), but creates ("makes up") models and theories (explanatory frameworks) that are consistent with observations. If these frameworks have predictive power in the areas we need them for, we have good science, even though we're dealing with a model constructed by our own minds and not reality (as defined above), and in many cases the crudeness of our model is quite obvious.

The above is true about all science, but if we have one quick look at modern physics and the attempts to account for the deficiencies of the Standard Model, the claim that science "refuses to make stuff up" becomes especially smile-provoking.

Insightful comment. Thanks. : )

A fun but treacherous path to hike along, eh, friends? Great comment Aniko! Making stuff up is an inherent part of both philosophical camps, but what is done with the new stories after the act of creation seems to be a major difference. Either stance fails to cover all the questions.

Science and religion are obviously different approaches, but I don't believe they divide people into two philosophical camps. (If you meant that, Rick--I'm not sure.) Some people of course believe that the two are incompatible, but others disagree and present worldviews informed by both.

What is "done with the stories" also covers a wide range for both science and religion, it seems--M-theory is very different in this respect from, say, molecular biology.

I have to agree with Rick and Aniko. The cartoon (which I dont really find to be that funny, but maybe just because I have seen it so many times) is completely wrong in the punch line.

Science and religion operate in very similar ways. They both strive to make sense of the world as it is, and both seek to find rules and order in what seems to be a chaotic reality. Both disciplines make things up all the time, in fact science does this a lot more than many religions. In science we call this hypothesis generation. In religion it might be called revelation. In both cases we start with observations, in both cases we refer to previous knowledge and theories, and in both cases we test the new idea against reality.

There are some crucial differences, based on the nature of the questions being asked. The critical difference is that science based testing depends on an objective sense of truth, namely something is considered to be true only if all observers find the same result. For faith based answers, subjective reality is just as important. It we are talking about the mechanism of an enzymatic reaction, or the existence of exoplanets, then objective truth is more useful, and a scientific approach is called for. If we are seeking answers to things like the nature of good and evil, there are no objective ways to do this, and we need the religious approach.

There is no real conflict between science and faith, other than in the minds of extremists on both sides. The real world requires and benefits from many different ways to view reality. We should take advantage of all the means at our disposal.

Well, said. Science and religion really don't address the same questions, and they don't have the same purpose.

I strongly differ with the logic of the cartoon.

Science and religion ask different kinds of questions and approach them from different angles.

What's interesting is that the two seem to converge increasingly with reason becoming
more holistic in their viewpoints, recognizing that spiritual values have a place in humanity's considerations.

Religions are also increasingly having to consider science in their views of truth. It's to the Dalai Lama's credit to say that he will reconsider his beliefs if science indicates it to be necessary.

It would be great if some hard-nosed other religions stuck in the past were to also reconsider scientific relevance of the 21st century.

Cool--you're having a debate with yourself within a single comment!

"Science and religion ask different kinds of questions and approach them from different angles." Or not. When one of you wins the debate, be sure to report back!

Is it a matter of a debate and winning it?

The two are different takes on reality and existence. Those who want to can dispute the other but that would be pointless. What's important in any case is that there are valid reasons for what they purport and believe.

I'm noting your dispute with yourself, Frank. How's that going?

Is my presenting two points of view about the issue a dispute with self or seeing more than black and white views?

You are promoting two views that are in direct conflict with each other. Pick a lane, Frank.

As I say, I don't want to be locked into black and white decisionis about something that can be disputed endlessly.

Is that OK or not?

You said "I strongly differ with the logic of the cartoon."

Not just a "gray area," maybe yes, maybe no, wishy-washy kind of difference, but a strong difference.

Then you immediately stated where your strong disagreement came from: "Science and religion ask different kinds of questions and approach them from different angles."

But, darn it, it turns out that religions have to "consider science in their views of truth." Frank's science stick is coming out, and somebody's gonna get beat up, namely "hard-nosed other religions." Time to beat up those beliefs other than your own with that science stick, right, Frank? But wait--wasn't that precisely the point of the cartoon with which you so "strongly" disagree?

Dave, It seems to me that if religion is so hard-nosed about change and perception of truths, that is basis for a lot of the grief faith can cause.

I so admire the Dalai Lama for saying if science can prove his faith wrong, he is ready to change.

Would that some of the other faiths mired in the past were as reasonable.

Hello Chris, thank you for getting me to laugh. Religion based on faith is a theology created by mankind to bring order and harmony to a group of people. We know there are multiple kinds of religions developed by different groups of people. Many faiths take on different approaches such as Hindu, Buddhist, and those that spring from the same monotheistic beliefs first developed by the Ancient Egyptians, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

It is clear that mankind cannot agree on what is God and perceive God with different sets of dogma or scriptures. However, from a general standpoint, most people, including intelligent college graduates believe there is a God. Still, none of these people have any idea of who this God is except through the dogma provided by their religious leaders.

In reality, nobody knows God and the Ancient Egyptians may have had a better understanding that God is mysterious, unknowable, and incomprehensible.

The biggest schisms exist between the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions in that they all relate to the same God but view that God differently. In actuality, their beliefs in a soul, a hereafter, one-universal God, and even a Son of God, all stemmed from the Egyptian religion. You will never hear a religious leader from any of these faiths acknowledge the words of one of the most praised men of God, Jesus. In Revelation 3:14, Jesus proclaimed Amen is, "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God."

Few people are aware that Amen was the greatest Egyptian God for over 2,000 years before the birth of Jesus. Those of you who would like to appreciate why Jesus would make such a claim about Amen, click on the following link: Future of God Amen

Thanks again Chris for bringing a smile on my face. People have to understand that one path is faith built upon dogma to provide a moral code whereas, science is built upon facts and findings for people to better understand their world.

Yes, there is a Great Unity between science and religion around book sales. Amun to that!

Amon indeed!

But let's not forget the Beauty of Making Stuff Up, either. The Vibrating Cosmic Energy around book sales is so Great that the Making Up of Stuff doesn't even need any actual science, religion, history, or linguistics to get It going. It quantum-fluctuates into existence on Its own--creatio ex nihilo.

That is, in fact, how the ancient Egyptians developed that concept when they felt it was socially advantageous to do so. The religious leaders and orthodox authorities of the world don't want you to know this, but "creatio" is the same word as Egyptian "khewad" (rich), while "nihilo" is from "nekhit" (strong), which clearly demonstrates how wrong most people have been about this throughout history. Luckily, I'm here to tell them the Real Truth!

Facts and findings, facts and findings,

Go together like books and bindings,

Ya can't have one, ya can's have one,

You can't have one without the other!

Wow! So this seems to be saying, "If you Make Stuff Up, you've Created Nothing, but out of Nothing you get Rich!" Is this where the phrase, "Publish or Perish" comes from? (Sometimes we say stuff and we don't know where it comes from!

Do you have an ebook coming out, Anikó? Can we pre-order?

She doesnt, but I do. While Nicholas is on the right track, he is a bit off. The real God of all is not Amen, but Kerchoo. As I have pointed out right here on Gather, and as is fully explained in my new book "God Bless You - The Ultimate Hidden Secrets of the True God, Kerchoo" (link coming soon), Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, and Amen, are all derived from the great cosmic sneeze (sometime referred to as the Big Bang) created by Kerchoo at the beginning of time.

Oh, my! I must thank all of you for such insightful and entertaining comments! You've made my day!

I agree Chris. The comments made to my response were funny. In fact, laughable.

Hilarious!

Thanks!

Has the relatively unknown The New Apostolic Reformation hit your radar yet?

A Leading Figure In The New Apostolic Reformation spoke with Terry Gross recently. Check out online (Fresh Air radio)

October 3, 2011 Several apostles affiliated with the movement helped organize or spoke at Rick Perry's recent prayer rally. A leading apostle, C. Peter Wagner, talks about the movement and its missions, which include acquiring leadership positions in government, the media, and arts and entertainment.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152034/meet_the_christian_dominionist_'prayer_warriors'_who_have_chosen_rick_perry_as_their_vehicle_to_power/
Meet the Christian Dominionist 'Prayer Warriors' Who Have Chosen Rick Perry as Their Vehicle to Power
by Rachel Tabachnick
The New Apostolic Reformation seeks dominion over society and government -- and it looks like Perry is their chosen candidate.
August 15, 2011

I was impressed with Mr Wagner's responses that were not wildly evangelistic, in fact very thoughtful even with Terry Gross's tough questions.

I do believe that religion and state should be kept separate but I believe the US and a lot of Americans get spooked by even spirituality mentioned.
I.e: is there any problem having a moment of contemplation and silence to think before class, nothing about religion mentioned and each child free to be silently contemplating in their own way? And the same silent moments before Congress, business, political and government functions? It seems it would be conducive to calming things down for gathering thoughts and may produce better thinking, sorely to be desired.

??