Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[The Free Joy State]

That is simply looking at a coincidence and calling it a prerequisite.

Being willing to accept and admit the possibility of being wrong definately is a prerequisite for the scientific method. It is in fact its basis.

It is true that it is coincidence that a religion was the thing that provided this will and that other philosophies could have provided it as well... but history is what it is.

I think again this comes back to there being different stripes of religious belief, which differently enable different people to engage fully (or not) in the scientific process.

To be able to pursue research or engage with research, a person must be able to consider a hypothesis and discard it if it proves to be flawed. This may be difficult when an individual has one version of truth that they cleave to (regardless of all evidence; even that of their own eyes; such as flat-earthers' responses to photos taken from space, including "Nice try with the fish eye, but it’s flat.").

It's no different to anyone who pursues research, or seeks out previous research hoping solely to support one rigid idea they feel they must push at all costs (that their preferred system of governance is perfect, that the monetary system they happen to have a vested interest in is wonderful, that everyone would be happier if they were taken away from their parents at sixteen and assigned a spouse by lottery, just for a few of the... ideas I've heard pushed in the past).

If people do not have a rigid mindset, religion and science deal with two different areas (one the testable observable realm of the world around us, and the other spiritual) and I think both mindsets can coexist in one person.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

This conversation is more suited to the Christian Discussion Thread no, but there is no mention that Cain is the first child of Adam and Eve, most explanations I've seen is that the 'others' are previous children of Adam and Eve and their related families.

Most religious scholars don't demand absolute literal truth from the Bible, more absolute truth of the message and guidance not the details.

Anyway, it has little to do with the compatibility of religion and science.

WOw.... FIRST ANGEL ADAM and Second Lilith

[Bombadil]

I'd argue this was more to do with the extent that the ancient greek rationalists were held in reverence, less to do with Christianity, in fact it was that philosophy finally overcoming the grip of Christianity.

Because the feudal regime was not strong enough after the decline of RCC, capitalism developed. A new system needs a new set of ideas.In fact, the economy has overcome religious control. The economic basis determines the political and ideological models

I'd say the Black Death is the key game changer really. The Peasant's Revolution of 1381 is incredibly interesting to look at, their demands are very close to democratic socialism.

When Adam delved and Eve span
Who was then the gentleman?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Because the feudal regime was not strong enough after the decline of RCC, capitalism developed. A new system needs a new set of ideas.In fact, the economy has overcome religious control. The economic basis determines the political and ideological models

I'd say the Black Death is the key game changer really. The Peasant's Revolution of 1381 is incredibly interesting to look at, their demands are very close to democratic socialism.

When Adam delved and Eve span
Who was then the gentleman?

But it's not just the black death. And the failure of the Crusades, the destruction of the Mongols and the rise of the Ottoman Empire occupied the trade channel.And then the internal division of RCC and the separation of factions.All these have cleared the way for the rise of European capitalism

[Bombadil]

I'd say the Black Death is the key game changer really. The Peasant's Revolution of 1381 is incredibly interesting to look at, their demands are very close to democratic socialism.

When Adam delved and Eve span
Who was then the gentleman?

But it's not just the black death. And the failure of the Crusades, the destruction of the Mongols and the rise of the Ottoman Empire occupied the trade channel.And then the internal division of RCC and the separation of factions.All these have cleared the way for the rise of European capitalism

Specifically capitalism came from colonialism, venture funds to explore new lands turned into what is now the stock market. One could further argue this came from lords and barons demanding that they had to have a say in funding wars dating back to the Magna Carta.

[Mirjt]

I'd argue this was more to do with the extent that the ancient greek rationalists were held in reverence, less to do with Christianity, in fact it was that philosophy finally overcoming the grip of Christianity.

Because the feudal regime was not strong enough after the decline of RCC, capitalism developed. A new system needs a new set of ideas.In fact, the economy has overcome religious control. The economic basis determines the political and ideological models

Disclaimer: I am a leftist and I hold economic eco-socialist viewpoints (though I am willing to compromise with moderates like Social Democrats and Distributionists).

I don't see how an economy overcoming religious control, leads to capitalism or to any specific economic system. I also don't see how the decline of any religious beliefs could or did lead to capitalism. I can see how the decline of feudalism enabled capitalism (though I consider capitalism to just be feudalism 2.0), and European feudalism was deeply intertwined with the Roman Catholic Church, if that is what you mean. I do agree that economic stability and frameworks can have a strong impact on our political and ideological models and understanding, after all the economy is how we get the things we need and want to survive, and we have survival instincts (if we didn't we likely would have died out). I also don't see how the advent of rationalism, is in any direct way related to the development of capitalism.

[Neanderthaland]

The last one got locked because it died.
But have at it, is religion and science compatible at all? Somewhat? What religions or views are compatible?
Here is the link to the original thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=475180

I have a challenge fr religious believers.

Stop seeking doctors. If you are afflicted with a disease, pray over it. Doesn’t the scriptures teach the God or the Gods will heal it ? Fine. Avoid surgery or medicine. The Lord or Gods you follow will do it by prayer. Surely as the scriptures say you will live.
This experiment will go on a full year. If there are more healings from it, the Lord or the Gods get all the credit. If not, then one should question the real presence of the Lord or the Gods.

There are religious people who do this.

It has not worked out well for them, their children, or anyone else. So let's not encourage it.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Because the feudal regime was not strong enough after the decline of RCC, capitalism developed. A new system needs a new set of ideas.In fact, the economy has overcome religious control. The economic basis determines the political and ideological models

Disclaimer: I am a leftist and I hold economic eco-socialist viewpoints (though I am willing to compromise with moderates like Social Democrats and Distributionists).

I don't see how an economy overcoming religious control, leads to capitalism or to any specific economic system. I also don't see how the decline of any religious beliefs could or did lead to capitalism. I can see how the decline of feudalism enabled capitalism (though I consider capitalism to just be feudalism 2.0), and European feudalism was deeply intertwined with the Roman Catholic Church, if that is what you mean. I do agree that economic stability and frameworks can have a strong impact on our political and ideological models and understanding, after all the economy is how we get the things we need and want to survive, and we have survival instincts (if we didn't we likely would have died out). I also don't see how the advent of rationalism, is in any direct way related to the development of capitalism.

Yes，I'm talking about Western Europe.
The rise of capitalism has led to the development of ideas to protect individual rights. Capitalists need a system and ideology to protect their property.The theological control at that time had a conflict with this demand. Capitalists demand that ‘Human’ be the first in economy and politics, not God.If the church forbids a capitalist to do something in the name of God, the capitalist will say, "Dammit, it stops me from making money."But they need ideas as a weapon.
(Dammit My Mirinda jar fell on my computer)

[Mirjt]

I would like to add another aspect to this discussion of the compatibility of religion and science. It is this, is there any conflict between purely cultural religious practices and science? For example you have people who are cultural Jews, whom go to Temple, whom practice all the holidays and traditions, whom hold the same cultural values, whom may find value in their religious texts, but whom do not actually believe in any of the supernatural aspects of the faith and may not even believe any of the texts completely. Or you have some people whom read the Bible for the lessons it can give, and consider themselves followers of Jesus, but whom once again do not believe any of the supernatural aspects of the faith and may not even believe any of the texts completely (some even refer to themselves as Atheist Christians). You also have similar analogs in other faiths, such as people who practice what they call Atheist/Non-Theist buddhism, etc... If religion is incompatible with science (and I am not saying that it is or isn't in this specific post), is purely cultural religion incompatible with science (does the practices and cultural values and traditions themselves cause some kind of incompatibility)? or is purely cultural religion compatible with science? or does purely cultural religion not count as religion?

Note: I am not a purely cultural Christian, I genuinely believe the Christian Bible, I just don't consider the Christian Bible infallible or completely literal. I, however, avoid most of the Christian culture in the U.S. because it is dominated by right-wing, conservative, evangelical, and intolerant, literalists, whom I disagree with and are not comfortable around usually.

[Bombadil]

Disclaimer: I am a leftist and I hold economic eco-socialist viewpoints (though I am willing to compromise with moderates like Social Democrats and Distributionists).

I don't see how an economy overcoming religious control, leads to capitalism or to any specific economic system. I also don't see how the decline of any religious beliefs could or did lead to capitalism. I can see how the decline of feudalism enabled capitalism (though I consider capitalism to just be feudalism 2.0), and European feudalism was deeply intertwined with the Roman Catholic Church, if that is what you mean. I do agree that economic stability and frameworks can have a strong impact on our political and ideological models and understanding, after all the economy is how we get the things we need and want to survive, and we have survival instincts (if we didn't we likely would have died out). I also don't see how the advent of rationalism, is in any direct way related to the development of capitalism.

Yes，I'm talking about Western Europe.
The rise of capitalism has led to the development of ideas to protect individual rights. Capitalists need a system and ideology to protect their property.The theological control at that time had a conflict with this demand. Capitalists demand that ‘Human’ be the first in economy and politics, not God.If the church forbids a capitalist to do something in the name of God, the capitalist will say, "Dammit, it stops me from making money."But they need ideas as a weapon.
(Dammit My Mirinda jar fell on my computer)

This is completely wrong given individual rights against the king came long before capitalism. Capitalism came from colonial ventures. India's the first country to be conquered by a private enterprise.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Yes，I'm talking about Western Europe.
The rise of capitalism has led to the development of ideas to protect individual rights. Capitalists need a system and ideology to protect their property.The theological control at that time had a conflict with this demand. Capitalists demand that ‘Human’ be the first in economy and politics, not God.If the church forbids a capitalist to do something in the name of God, the capitalist will say, "Dammit, it stops me from making money."But they need ideas as a weapon.
(Dammit My Mirinda jar fell on my computer)

This is completely wrong given individual rights against the king came long before capitalism. Capitalism came from colonial ventures. India's the first country to be conquered by a private enterprise.

The feudal kings of Western Europe were not completely opposed to capitalism.They are opposite in class, but in system, the king can still be a capitalist.Even now, many European royal families are part of the capitalist system.Colonialism is the work of the capitalist royal family.Early colonies were often used as sources of raw materials. Materials were shipped back to the colonies. That's why the first industrial revolution took place in England,not North Ameria

[Bombadil]

This is completely wrong given individual rights against the king came long before capitalism. Capitalism came from colonial ventures. India's the first country to be conquered by a private enterprise.

The feudal kings of Western Europe were not completely opposed to capitalism.They are opposite in class, but in system, the king can still be a capitalist.Even now, many European royal families are part of the capitalist system.Colonialism is the work of the capitalist royal family.Early colonies were often used as sources of raw materials. Materials were shipped back to the colonies. That's why the first industrial revolution took place in England,not North Ameria

You’re not saying anything..

Merchants, trading and property are not capitalism, these have existed throughout history.

Individual rights go back a long way, the Magna Carta was 1215, the Peasants Revolution was 1381, and should rightly be called the merchants revolution given it was set off by merchants complaining about high taxes. Read up on it, you’d like it, practically communists if not the original Bernie Bros.

When Adam delved and Eve span
Who then was the gentleman

Capitalism was formed when private venture funds invited individuals to invest to share in the spoils of colonial ventures, originally the Dutch but perfected by the East India Company. This is the birth of private enterprise, venture capital and stockmarkets.

It really is CCP propaganda to say individual freedoms and rights are a subsidiary of capitalism because then you can dismiss them as f***doms of a capitalist system.

They’re not.

[The Free Joy State]

The feudal kings of Western Europe were not completely opposed to capitalism.They are opposite in class, but in system, the king can still be a capitalist.Even now, many European royal families are part of the capitalist system.Colonialism is the work of the capitalist royal family.Early colonies were often used as sources of raw materials. Materials were shipped back to the colonies. That's why the first industrial revolution took place in England,not North Ameria

You’re not saying anything..

Merchants, trading and property are not capitalism, these have existed throughout history.

Individual rights go back a long way, the Magna Carta was 1215, the Peasants Revolution was 1381, and should rightly be called the merchants revolution given it was set off by merchants complaining about high taxes. Read up on it, you’d like it, practically communists if not the original Bernie Bros.

When Adam delved and Eve span
Who then was the gentleman

Capitalism was formed when private venture funds invited individuals to invest to share in the spoils of colonial ventures, originally the Dutch but perfected by the East India Company. This is the birth of private enterprise, venture capital and stockmarkets.

It really is CCP propaganda to say individual freedoms and rights are a subsidiary of capitalism because then you can dismiss them as f***doms of a capitalist system.

They’re not.

I can't help but suggest that the long history of the concept of individual freedoms and rights -- accurate as it is, and I truly do understand your passion for the subject -- also seems about as related to the compatibility of religion and science as the earlier discussion on Cain.

[Bombadil]

You’re not saying anything..

Merchants, trading and property are not capitalism, these have existed throughout history.

Individual rights go back a long way, the Magna Carta was 1215, the Peasants Revolution was 1381, and should rightly be called the merchants revolution given it was set off by merchants complaining about high taxes. Read up on it, you’d like it, practically communists if not the original Bernie Bros.

When Adam delved and Eve span
Who then was the gentleman

Capitalism was formed when private venture funds invited individuals to invest to share in the spoils of colonial ventures, originally the Dutch but perfected by the East India Company. This is the birth of private enterprise, venture capital and stockmarkets.

It really is CCP propaganda to say individual freedoms and rights are a subsidiary of capitalism because then you can dismiss them as f***doms of a capitalist system.

They’re not.

I can't help but suggest that the long history of the concept of individual freedoms and rights -- accurate as it is, and I truly do understand your passion for the subject -- also seems about as related to the compatibility of religion and science as the earlier discussion on Cain.

Well these clashes converged in a similar timeframe and are interrelated - from Aquinas trying to merge Ancient Greek rationalism with religion to the slow erosion of divine rights of the king, these all melted around the same time and it's useful to have historic context to understand why religion and science divided sharply over the last 600 years.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The feudal kings of Western Europe were not completely opposed to capitalism.They are opposite in class, but in system, the king can still be a capitalist.Even now, many European royal families are part of the capitalist system.Colonialism is the work of the capitalist royal family.Early colonies were often used as sources of raw materials. Materials were shipped back to the colonies. That's why the first industrial revolution took place in England,not North Ameria

You’re not saying anything..

Merchants, trading and property are not capitalism, these have existed throughout history.

Individual rights go back a long way, the Magna Carta was 1215, the Peasants Revolution was 1381, and should rightly be called the merchants revolution given it was set off by merchants complaining about high taxes. Read up on it, you’d like it, practically communists if not the original Bernie Bros.

When Adam delved and Eve span
Who then was the gentleman

Capitalism was formed when private venture funds invited individuals to invest to share in the spoils of colonial ventures, originally the Dutch but perfected by the East India Company. This is the birth of private enterprise, venture capital and stockmarkets.

It really is CCP propaganda to say individual freedoms and rights are a subsidiary of capitalism because then you can dismiss them as f***doms of a capitalist system.

They’re not.

Colonialism is the early primitive accumulation of capitalism. They did not become mature and perfect capitalism at that time.The Magna Carta is the product of the struggle between aristocratic rights and monarchy.Its main purpose is to weaken centralization and feudal autocracy. I didn't say that capitalism brought personal rights.
I mean, because of the development of capitalism, individual rights have been widely developed.In fact, the prototype of individual rights appeared in ancient Greece, which also helped the enlightenment and the Renaissance.When "Jus Nafural" was put forward, the thought of individual rights was basically improved.This part of work is mainly completed by the capitalist class.Like Marx, there was communism before, but Marx sorted out the system and perfected it.

Maybe you have a serious prejudice against the Chinese Communist Party, but I don't understand that you regard it as a loyal supporter of capitalism. Shouldn't the last bastion of capitalism be America?

And as you said, capitalism was started in the Netherlands. Their royal family is the standard bourgeois royal family.Then Britain and France.All of this is the early history of capitalism.At this time, the ideological system of individual rights has not been fully formed.But the power of the church has been greatly weakened, and then there is almost no business for them

[The Free Joy State]

I can't help but suggest that the long history of the concept of individual freedoms and rights -- accurate as it is, and I truly do understand your passion for the subject -- also seems about as related to the compatibility of religion and science as the earlier discussion on Cain.

Well these clashes converged in a similar timeframe and are interrelated - from Aquinas trying to merge Ancient Greek rationalism with religion to the slow erosion of divine rights of the king, these all melted around the same time and it's useful to have historic context to understand why religion and science divided sharply over the last 600 years.

Context is important (hence how the debate about literalism in a scientific context originally began; the point being that literalist readings may be harder to marry with scientific views). I think sometimes though sidetracks can become so sidetracked that the original thread gets lost.

Hence the Cain embargo. And possibly the risk of lingering too long on capitalism and the CCP? Might be handy to marry the sidetrack back to the thread?

EDIT: I think religion and science never "divided", incidentally, for they were never the same discipline. Christians and Muslims were among the first eminent scientists, true. But religion and science still represent, at their heart, very different ways of looking at the world. As a result, it's possible for an individual to value both, one or neither.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I can't help but suggest that the long history of the concept of individual freedoms and rights -- accurate as it is, and I truly do understand your passion for the subject -- also seems about as related to the compatibility of religion and science as the earlier discussion on Cain.

Ok,maybe It's time to let go of the debate about history

[Bombadil]

Well these clashes converged in a similar timeframe and are interrelated - from Aquinas trying to merge Ancient Greek rationalism with religion to the slow erosion of divine rights of the king, these all melted around the same time and it's useful to have historic context to understand why religion and science divided sharply over the last 600 years.

Context is important (hence how the debate about literalism in a scientific context originally began; the point being that literalist readings may be harder to marry with scientific views). I think sometimes though sidetracks can become so sidetracked that the original thread gets lost.

Hence the Cain embargo. And possibly the risk of lingering too long on capitalism and the CCP? Might be handy to marry the sidetrack back to the thread?

EDIT: I think religion and science never "divided", incidentally, for they were never the same discipline. Christians and Muslims were among the first eminent scientists, true. But religion and science still represent, at their heart, very different ways of looking at the world. As a result, it's possible for an individual to value both, one or neither.

Fair enough, SIC is becoming slightly incoherent anyway..

Well it's fair to say religion housed learning, owned it, so any progress had to emanate from religion, Aquinas is a good example, or the guy who observed evolution in peas.. so they were entwined, in Europe at least.

Yet the logical progression of scientific endeavour led to a natural separation, Descartes, the modern father of the scientific method would not comment on theologies relation with science, early on they realised they were incompatible.

[Hanafuridake]

The last one got locked because it died.
But have at it, is religion and science compatible at all? Somewhat? What religions or views are compatible?
Here is the link to the original thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=475180

I have a challenge fr religious believers.

Stop seeking doctors. If you are afflicted with a disease, pray over it. Doesn’t the scriptures teach the God or the Gods will heal it ? Fine. Avoid surgery or medicine. The Lord or Gods you follow will do it by prayer. Surely as the scriptures say you will live.
This experiment will go on a full year. If there are more healings from it, the Lord or the Gods get all the credit. If not, then one should question the real presence of the Lord or the Gods.

You would have a point if we didn't recognize medicine as valid.

Which we do, rendering your point silly.

[Bombadil]

As a PS to SIC though, it might surprise you to know I'm essentially a communist, I just believe in bottom up rather than top down.

[Mirjt]

As a PS to SIC though, it might surprise you to know I'm essentially a communist, I just believe in bottom up rather than top down.

I am just curious as to how you are defining communism.

I define communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society, where the entire economy has been socialized and private property (not personal property) as been abolished. I consider communism to be a form of anarchism, which is a form of libertarian socialism. Also, while I myself am not a communist, I consider communists to be comrades and would rejoice in their success.

[Dylar]

Because the feudal regime was not strong enough after the decline of RCC, capitalism developed. A new system needs a new set of ideas.In fact, the economy has overcome religious control. The economic basis determines the political and ideological models

I'd say the Black Death is the key game changer really. The Peasant's Revolution of 1381 is incredibly interesting to look at, their demands are very close to democratic socialism.

When Adam delved and Eve span
Who was then the gentleman?

Ah damn it you got Wir sind des Geyers schwarzer Haufen stuck in my head because of that last line.

[Bombadil]

As a PS to SIC though, it might surprise you to know I'm essentially a communist, I just believe in bottom up rather than top down.

I am just curious as to how you are defining communism.

I define communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society, where the entire economy has been socialized and private property (not personal property) as been abolished. I consider communism to be a form of anarchism, which is a form of libertarian socialism. Also, while I myself am not a communist, I consider communists to be comrades and would rejoice in their success.

Well.. I'll spoiler this bit so as not to derail the discussion but..

The evolution that has led to humanity clearly contains benefits in cooperation, altruism, community and a sense of fairness. Even monkeys show traits of fairness and altruism, do they require a god to inform them?
The great inventions of our time are rarely spurred by monetary gain, to say capitalism is required for progression is clearly nonsense, Jonas Salk didn't cure polio for money, the internet was not created for commercial gain, people don't sing or learn to create art for the money.. it's the passion and the interest.
The law is really only required because people are dickheads, I laugh at freedom patriots gathering to fight the lockdown, if idiots like them didn't ignore common sense and simply wear masks and a degree of social distancing and hygiene you wouldn't need lockdown laws from the government. No one thought 'I'm going to kill' but then thought 'wait a minute, let me quickly consult the bible again.. oh yeah, do not kill, silly me', nor did they really consider the law.
Infrastructure - when Typhoon Mangkut decimated our coastline we all went out, cleaned the beaches, fixed the venues, people brought food and drink, in three weeks we'd cleaned those beaches, rebuilt the front and for what.. no reward apart from working together and being fed - a society that cooperates for mutual benefit can achieve.
Property - who creates such arbitrary lines in the sand, why does HK belong to China, because of history, geography? We have different values, language and culture, why are we bound by lines. I don't care to belong to China or not, just not this China.

At best I can see a central body that coordinate two things: education and health - a healthy and educated society solves 90% of problems in the first place, especially if combined with a free-minded, cooperative and altruistic society.

However I absolutely do not agree with top down authoritative implementation of thought, regardless whether revolutionary communism or religion. I react strongly against it and that's why I'm against Xi Jinping and organised religion. I'd rather a degree of regulated capitalism than either of those.

History is a long, slow process of individual rights and fighting for equality. Unfettered capitalism results in the private enterprise of the East India Company with their private army colonising India and China. Top down authority results in the horrors of Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol,Pot, the Taiping Rebellion, the burning of witches and any other number of catastrophes.

And evolution, for me, teaches that diversity is an absolute strength not a weakness. Each to their own and their place in society. Do not begrudge the artist over the potato picker, each has their place.

So keep organised religion and top down authoritative bodies out of our lives if possible, they are incompatible with science and the rights of individuals.

[Salus Maior]

The last one got locked because it died.
But have at it, is religion and science compatible at all? Somewhat? What religions or views are compatible?
Here is the link to the original thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=475180

I have a challenge fr religious believers.

Stop seeking doctors. If you are afflicted with a disease, pray over it. Doesn’t the scriptures teach the God or the Gods will heal it ? Fine. Avoid surgery or medicine. The Lord or Gods you follow will do it by prayer. Surely as the scriptures say you will live.
This experiment will go on a full year. If there are more healings from it, the Lord or the Gods get all the credit. If not, then one should question the real presence of the Lord or the Gods.

God doesn't tell us to be idiots, so no.

[Geneviev]

Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

There are definitely other people mentioned there. I don't think Adam and Eve were the people he was afraid of.

No, according to Genesis 4, his conversation was with the Lord. It was the Lord who was driving him out from his land:

13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear.
14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

That there were unrelated people he was afraid of is unsupported by the text (if read in a literalist interpretation). Remove the literalist interpretation and you're probably right; it's highly unlikely that all of humanity was related to one Cain (I certainly don't believe they would have been; I accept the science of evolution).

But there's nothing in the whole of Genesis 4 (and I've just reread it) to support that reading, if you're reading it literally.

I'm referring to the "whoever finds me will kill me." Even a literalist interpretation should acknowledge that that is referring to other people.