On 23/04/2010 08:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Trevor wrote:
**********. It goes to credibility. People who embrace the supernatural
have a real credibility problem when it comes to logic and reason.

That's not so. Many believe in a 'higher power' but eschew formal
religions, all of which date back to the days before even pretty basic
scientific knowledge.


Theist agnosticism, then. I find that position relatively easy to
understand. I really can't reconcile people well able to deploy logic
and reason being religious.

Robert Winston put it quite well in a recent TV programme, explaining
his faith as inexplicable and a form of cultural baggage that just is,
and better for everyone to move on and not try to equate his personal
beliefs with his professional work. They're two different things. Well,
he didn't put it quite like that I'm sure but that's what I remember.

Still don't get it - if I believed in that type of thing, I'd want to
know why, given how fundamental it is. Perhaps you have to be one to
know it. Dunno.

Just knowing that vinyl and valves sound better is good enough for me,
though :-)

Rob

"Rob" wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2010 08:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Trevor wrote:
**********. It goes to credibility. People who embrace the supernatural
have a real credibility problem when it comes to logic and reason.

That's not so. Many believe in a 'higher power' but eschew formal
religions, all of which date back to the days before even pretty basic
scientific knowledge.


Theist agnosticism, then. I find that position relatively easy to
understand. I really can't reconcile people well able to deploy logic and
reason being religious.

Nor me, but there are scientists, good scientists, who nevertheless have a
religious faith.

Robert Winston put it quite well in a recent TV programme, explaining his
faith as inexplicable and a form of cultural baggage that just is, and
better for everyone to move on and not try to equate his personal beliefs
with his professional work. They're two different things. Well, he didn't
put it quite like that I'm sure but that's what I remember.

On the radio recently someone compared the arguments between science and
religion as being like a fight between a shark and a tiger. Both supreme in
their own environment but each quite out of place in the other. I liked the
analogy, religion can talk about morality and the human spirit but just
looks ridiculous when it tries to present the Bible as a credible account of
the creation or as reliable history. OTOH science is amoral, it cannot say
what is "right" or "wrong".

Still don't get it - if I believed in that type of thing, I'd want to know
why, given how fundamental it is. Perhaps you have to be one to know it.
Dunno.

Personally I have no need of a belief in a supernatural god to inform my
notions of right and wrong, though I understand that other people do. What I
don't understand are those who will reject well-tested science in areas such
as cosmology or evolution in favour of a patently absurd account of creation
from the past just because the later comes from a "Holy Book".

Just knowing that vinyl and valves sound better is good enough for me,
though :-)

Better to you maybe, but not necessarily to anyone else. :-)

David.

"David Looser" wrote in
message

On the radio recently someone compared the arguments
between science and religion as being like a fight
between a shark and a tiger.

There is no necessary fight between the two.

Both supreme in their own
environment but each quite out of place in the other.

They share the same environment.

I liked the analogy, religion can talk about morality and the human
spirit

You've missed the point of spirituality, and conflated it with religion. 2
strikes!

but just looks ridiculous when it tries
to present the Bible as a credible account of the
creation or as reliable history.

One of the worst mistakes to make is to try to see the Bible as a historical
or scientific document.

OTOH science is amoral,
it cannot say what is "right" or "wrong".

Science can give valuable insights into what is the best thing to do, all
known things considered. That could be thought of as a kind of ethical
guide.

Personally I have no need of a belief in a supernatural
god to inform my notions of right and wrong,

Hmm, so you hold yourself up as being a good example of a person with good
mastery of right and wrong?

though I understand that other people do.

The obvious implication that you think of yourself as being superior to many
people comes through pretty clearly.

What I don't understand
are those who will reject well-tested science in areas
such as cosmology or evolution in favour of a patently
absurd account of creation from the past just because the
later comes from a "Holy Book".

The people who think that they can find science-grade information about
cosmology or evolution in the Bible are obviously traditionalists who have
not kept up.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in
message

On the radio recently someone compared the arguments
between science and religion as being like a fight
between a shark and a tiger.

There is no necessary fight between the two.

There needn't be.

Both supreme in their own
environment but each quite out of place in the other.

They share the same environment.

They do? So in your view religion is about answering questions about the
physical world, and science is about morality etc?

I liked the analogy, religion can talk about morality and the human
spirit

You've missed the point of spirituality, and conflated it with religion. 2
strikes!

And the "point" of spirituality is what, in your view? And no, I didn't
conflate it with religion, I said religion could talk about it. In my
experience Christians are given to talking about "spirituality" and, indeed,
confusing it with religious belief.

but just looks ridiculous when it tries
to present the Bible as a credible account of the
creation or as reliable history.

One of the worst mistakes to make is to try to see the Bible as a
historical or scientific document.

On that, at least, we are in agreement. Unfortunately a large proportion of
your fellow countrymen and women believe otherwise.

OTOH science is amoral,
it cannot say what is "right" or "wrong".

Science can give valuable insights into what is the best thing to do, all
known things considered. That could be thought of as a kind of ethical
guide.

Nope, science does not give "insights", it gives information. What you do
with that information could be the result of a moral choice.

Personally I have no need of a belief in a supernatural
god to inform my notions of right and wrong,

Hmm, so you hold yourself up as being a good example of a person with good
mastery of right and wrong?

Who doesn't?

though I understand that other people do.

The obvious implication that you think of yourself as being superior to
many people comes through pretty clearly.

Pot, kettle, black!

What I don't understand
are those who will reject well-tested science in areas
such as cosmology or evolution in favour of a patently
absurd account of creation from the past just because the
later comes from a "Holy Book".

The people who think that they can find science-grade information about
cosmology or evolution in the Bible are obviously traditionalists who have
not kept up.

But there are plenty of them about :-(

David.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:41:17 +0100, Rob
wrote:

Robert Winston put it quite well in a recent TV programme, explaining
his faith as inexplicable and a form of cultural baggage that just is,
and better for everyone to move on and not try to equate his personal
beliefs with his professional work. They're two different things. Well,
he didn't put it quite like that I'm sure but that's what I remember.

That's just a cop-out. A necessary one, in the circumstances. But a
cop-out.