Fundamentalism and Science
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2016, 08:42 AM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2016 08:46 AM by Noric.)
Fundamentalism and Science
Now I'm gonna start off by saying I don't know jack shit about deep philosophy, science, or religion really, at least comparatively. But there's a qualm I've always had with the science denying flavor of fundamentalism. Now I'm a theist to a certain degree, but if by some off chance we were put here, we're obviously also supposed to survive. So using that basic concept, isn't it kinda... ass backwards do deny the understanding and continuing study of the earth and environment and universe around us to better use it to our advantage and prolong the survival of our species, even based on religious doctrines? What are you guys thoughts on this? I can clarify if anything I said was vague. I tend to do that...

Acceptance is a hell of a drug.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 08:49 AM
RE: The philosophy of science and religion?
(05-01-2016 08:42 AM)Noric Wrote:  Now I'm gonna start off by saying I don't know jack shit about deep philosophy, science, or religion really, at least comparatively. But there's a qualm I've always had with the science denying flavor of fundamentalism. Now I'm a theist to a certain degree, but if by some off chance we were put here, we're obviously also supposed to survive. So using that basic concept, isn't it kinda... ass backwards do deny the understanding and continuing study of the earth and environment and universe around us to better use it to our advantage and prolong the survival of our species, even based on religious doctrines? What are you guys thoughts on this? I can clarify if anything I said was vague. I tend to do that...

I guess there could be different degrees of theism, but the idea of such confuses me. God is or S/He isn't. How could there be degrees of Godism? One of the basic things I was taught in religion is that it is the truth or it isn't. SO I did as suggested and checked it out and decided that without doubt it was NOT truth and dumped it. If it is not truth it is lies, not a degree of God. Kind of like Schrodinger's cat maybe? God both dead and alive until we peek in? And some peek in when He is alive, but I peeked when he was dead?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerFish's post
05-01-2016, 08:57 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
Point taken. My idea contradicts itself, but I don't like absolutism. When I say "to a degree" I mean like, level of strength in that belief if that makes any sense? If there is a God, awesome, if not, why would I care? If everything just goes dark after I die, by definition I wouldn't even know it or even be capable of caring anyway.

Acceptance is a hell of a drug.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
Agree with the premise that IF the universe, earth, and humans are all the work of a divine architect, he/she/it couldn't possibly condemn us for using our intellects to our advantage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mr. Boston's post
05-01-2016, 09:46 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(05-01-2016 09:14 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  Agree with the premise that IF the universe, earth, and humans are all the work of a divine architect, he/she/it couldn't possibly condemn us for using our intellects to our advantage.


Unless human intelligence is an unforeseen outcome and the divine architect is like "What the fuck? How do I kill off this infection?"

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
05-01-2016, 09:48 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(05-01-2016 09:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 09:14 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  Agree with the premise that IF the universe, earth, and humans are all the work of a divine architect, he/she/it couldn't possibly condemn us for using our intellects to our advantage.


Unless human intelligence is an unforeseen outcome and the divine architect is like "What the fuck? How do I kill off this infection?"

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

Acceptance is a hell of a drug.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 10:15 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(05-01-2016 09:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 09:14 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  Agree with the premise that IF the universe, earth, and humans are all the work of a divine architect, he/she/it couldn't possibly condemn us for using our intellects to our advantage.


Unless human intelligence is an unforeseen outcome and the divine architect is like "What the fuck? How do I kill off this infection?"

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
05-01-2016, 10:33 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(05-01-2016 08:42 AM)Noric Wrote:  So using that basic concept, isn't it kinda... ass backwards do deny the understanding and continuing study of the earth and environment and universe around us to better use it to our advantage and prolong the survival of our species, even based on religious doctrines?

This is one of the huge qualms I have with religions, they consider the planet a waystop or testing ground, not the final destination, especially the rapture sect. As such turning the planet into a garbage dump and driving species to extinction is no big deal, after all, God is going to take us to Heaven isn’t He? Why should we care if the oceans are polluted or the forests are burnt to the ground as long as we burn incense and force others to adhere to ancient texts written by goat herders who shat in their own water supply? All in the name of a mythical creator being.

The human species could not be a worse steward for future generations. Monkeys do a better job.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
05-01-2016, 11:04 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
The problem fundamentalism tends to have with science and the free pursuit of knowledge is that following the evidence where it leads tends to lead away from, not towards concepts such as the inerrancy of scripture. Those on that side of the fence have seen the conflicts arise between scripture and reality. They have chosen to follow scripture over following the evidence where it leads.

There are many flavors of theism of course. Some take it as read that scripture contains errors, but will insist it still holds value if you exercise careful judgement about which parts to skip and which to interpret liberally.

Others set out on a journey thinking that the evidence will obviously lead to the conclusions they already hold. If you follow that journey courageously I predict that one day you'll need to make a decision either to join the fundamentalists in denying where the evidence leads, or joining the liberal theists who only take both the path of evidence and the tenets of their religion in small enough doses not to have to deal with the conflicts between them.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
05-01-2016, 11:16 AM
RE: Fundamentalism and Science
(05-01-2016 11:04 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The problem fundamentalism tends to have with science and the free pursuit of knowledge is that following the evidence where it leads tends to lead away from, not towards concepts such as the inerrancy of scripture. Those on that side of the fence have seen the conflicts arise between scripture and reality. They have chosen to follow scripture over following the evidence where it leads.

There are many flavors of theism of course. Some take it as read that scripture contains errors, but will insist it still holds value if you exercise careful judgement about which parts to skip and which to interpret liberally.

Others set out on a journey thinking that the evidence will obviously lead to the conclusions they already hold. If you follow that journey courageously I predict that one day you'll need to make a decision either to join the fundamentalists in denying where the evidence leads, or joining the liberal theists who only take both the path of evidence and the tenets of their religion in small enough doses not to have to deal with the conflicts between them.

Wouldn't the latter decision develop a bit of willful ignorance from both of those sides, and then you'd basically be at square one again? I couldn't imagine a perfect equilibrium with those kinds of things because it comes at the cost of basically not wanting to deal with the conflicts by way of not knowing what the conflicts even are. Like ignorance of the law doesn't mean you're immune to it.

Acceptance is a hell of a drug.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Noric's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: