• How about the possibility of converging?

    Well if you are discussing the actual details of science and how religion can be compatible, then you are right. But I would talk about it from the other perspective, like I did in the above post (, which you might have missed or wasn't convincing enough that you didn't think it was worth replying.
  • How about the possibility of converging?
    So you see there's nothing wrong in combining religion and science.TheMadFool

    I think he is referring to the fact that if you believe in a religion and science at the same time, then you will have to 1) religion your science out, and 2) science your religion out.

    If you religion your science out, that is totally fine because you can just say science is merely a method to understand what a divine being has made. However, if you science your religion, then since religion is not experimentally or theoretically provable, religion is unscientific to believe in(I am not saying it is false but unscientific). Because believeing in a religion is unscientific, if you believe in both religion and science, you contradict yourself by believing something unscientific.

    In actuality, this is like a vicious circularity. If you science your religion, you will have to conclude that believing in religion is an unscientific thing to do. However, you have just now done science, which is a discipline to understand what a divine being has made. But that itself is unscientific to believe in because you can't prove that scientifically...And so on. Therefore, believing in both science and religion is paradoxical.

    (There is also another option, though: refuse to think about it, which is what most religious theists that believe in science do.)
  • How about the possibility of converging?

    Do you have an easy-to-understand conception of this ''something'' you refer to. My imagination fails me.

    Also ''both God but not God'' is a contradiction provided that ''God'' refers to the same thing.

    I think it is easier to understand it by interpreting it from the other end. We have this "something" that is supposedly the cause of the universe, and it is up to us to interpret it as whether this is God or not. In the current situation, we do not have a clue in understanding this "something," and I think this makes up much of the reason for having so many interpretations "something" that contradicts each other. One of those interpretations happened to be God, and still, we have tons of interpretation regarding the concept of God too (think about how many religion we have).

    What I am arguing in the example given in the OP is that, if someday we have better and better understanding of "something" by obtaining more evidence, then it is very likely that our current available interpretations are adjusted by the people who believe them so that they are made compatible in light of the new evidence. If we continue on with obtaining evidence, each of the interpretations will eventually go to the same direction, ultimately converging into one single objective understanding of "something".

    Of course, I don't know what this "one single objective understanding of 'something'" is; no one does at the current stage because we don't have enough evidence to make people believe in the same thing.
  • How about the possibility of converging?
    That is surely one of the possible interpretation of the current situation. But what is important is what I've said after that part.
  • How about the possibility of converging?

    I don't have any general disagreement/agreement in what you've said. But just to clear things up.

    Well the god-like thing I was talking about is more like an example. There are still some arguments out there that does not consider god as a being but in a form of something else, that is theist and atheist alike. So when I say "one of the possibility", it is just "one" of the several possibility I had in my mind when I think about cases like convergence of ideas. I just chose the one that many people may be familiar with. I would like the discussion to be more general and inclusive of many theories out there.

    I agree that religious theists may have more difficulty in adjusting their views in light of new evidence. If the more logical ones of the theists (meaning those who thought themselves out to think that god exist, instead of just blindly believing it) were to see this new evidence, I am quite sure they will adjust their views. That is of course if they are honest, but that goes for atheists too.

    Just to note, I actually don't believe that it is necessary that there is a cause to everything. Precisely, I am not saying there doesn't have to be a cause to everything. My view on this "cause and effect" metaphysics thing is more agnostic than anything else. I, myself is an atheist, but I don't necessarily completely reject theism (as long as they are logical).

    So the OP is purely based on what I see, as a third-person, of the situation regarding people arguing whether God exist or not. So what I actually think about of the situation regarding God exist or not is irrelevant for now.
  • the limits of science.

    The book is too long to read for a little given time I have.

    Do you have some short summary of what this new method is?
  • the limits of science.
    I agree that science is based on empirical derivation of what can be observed and interpreted from a phenomenon, making it a logical fallacy to believe them to be indisputable truths of the world. Nonetheless, like you said this "empirical derivation" makes good sense, and it works. Not only does it work by itself, but works across many other scientific disciplines and works well. This is true since almost all technological advancement is based on science, and we can actually use them with confidence most of the time. We put faith in what we discover because it works.

    So do you suggest you have a better non-fallacious basis that works better? Why would anyone ever come up with questions like "meaning of life" without empirical basis? Science or not, it does not make a difference that we can only come up with questions that are based on what we can experience and interpret from it. Arguments like existence of God is still based on experience because the concept arises from the fact that most of what we experience seemingly have a beginning and our attempt to explain this.