Religion and Science - Barbour’s dialogue model represents wise approach

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.

You clearly did not read him or you would not summarize his work as such. Try reading the NYT article for a brief overview/ introduction to his work

I did. He doesn't explicitly say that, but that is what he is doing.

Ok to me he is discussing that religion and science address different aspects of seeking truth.

Science is a methodology for understanding physical phenomena in measurable ways that need to be able to replicated consistently.

Religion addresses meaning and ontological spiritual Experiences such as prayer, worship and acts of service based on shared spiritual beliefs. They are not only different forms of knowledge but approach truth in different ways.

Neither one has all the answers .

Right. So he compartmentalizes. And when he finds some unknowns in science he assumes it’s divinity.

The idea for the dialogue model is to create thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between the two rather than compartmentalization, which is the hallmark of post Enlightenment Western thinking.

Connections that exist in the real world or the supernatural world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.

You clearly did not read him or you would not summarize his work as such. Try reading the NYT article for a brief overview/ introduction to his work

I did. He doesn't explicitly say that, but that is what he is doing.

Ok to me he is discussing that religion and science address different aspects of seeking truth.

Science is a methodology for understanding physical phenomena in measurable ways that need to be able to replicated consistently.

Religion addresses meaning and ontological spiritual Experiences such as prayer, worship and acts of service based on shared spiritual beliefs. They are not only different forms of knowledge but approach truth in different ways.

Neither one has all the answers .

Right. So he compartmentalizes. And when he finds some unknowns in science he assumes it’s divinity.

The idea for the dialogue model is to create thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between the two rather than compartmentalization, which is the hallmark of post Enlightenment Western thinking.

Connections that exist in the real world or the supernatural world?

Just real world. God is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.

You clearly did not read him or you would not summarize his work as such. Try reading the NYT article for a brief overview/ introduction to his work

I did. He doesn't explicitly say that, but that is what he is doing.

Ok to me he is discussing that religion and science address different aspects of seeking truth.

Science is a methodology for understanding physical phenomena in measurable ways that need to be able to replicated consistently.

Religion addresses meaning and ontological spiritual Experiences such as prayer, worship and acts of service based on shared spiritual beliefs. They are not only different forms of knowledge but approach truth in different ways.

Neither one has all the answers .

Right. So he compartmentalizes. And when he finds some unknowns in science he assumes it’s divinity.

The idea for the dialogue model is to create thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between the two rather than compartmentalization, which is the hallmark of post Enlightenment Western thinking.

Connections that exist in the real world or the supernatural world?

Just real world. God is real.

OP - that was not me but I do I think he sought connections that could be helpful in the real world . For example, finding ways for religion and science to work together to combat extreme poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.

You clearly did not read him or you would not summarize his work as such. Try reading the NYT article for a brief overview/ introduction to his work

I did. He doesn't explicitly say that, but that is what he is doing.

Ok to me he is discussing that religion and science address different aspects of seeking truth.

Science is a methodology for understanding physical phenomena in measurable ways that need to be able to replicated consistently.

Religion addresses meaning and ontological spiritual Experiences such as prayer, worship and acts of service based on shared spiritual beliefs. They are not only different forms of knowledge but approach truth in different ways.

Neither one has all the answers .

Right. So he compartmentalizes. And when he finds some unknowns in science he assumes it’s divinity.

The idea for the dialogue model is to create thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between the two rather than compartmentalization, which is the hallmark of post Enlightenment Western thinking.

Connections that exist in the real world or the supernatural world?

Just real world. God is real.

That which can be asserted without evidence an be dismissed without evidence.

Hitchens Razor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see nothing remarkable about the number of religious people who came around to believe in science. They basically had to to retain any credibiilty. The church eventually came around to believing the earth did revolve around the sun, but it took about 15 centuries. Some still argue against "eviloution." And believe the creation story in Genesis is literally true. I have heard this listening to Christian radio.

+1

At best, scientists aren't hampered by religion. At worst, they are called heretics and killed.

It is interesting that the most dogmatic and close-minded posters in this forum appear to be atheists.

Try reading the highly educated and brilliant Barbour and comment on his typology rather than regurgitating the same unnecessarily hostile opinions in every thread.

In summary, he uses divinity to explain the unknown.

You clearly did not read him or you would not summarize his work as such. Try reading the NYT article for a brief overview/ introduction to his work

I did. He doesn't explicitly say that, but that is what he is doing.

Ok to me he is discussing that religion and science address different aspects of seeking truth.

Science is a methodology for understanding physical phenomena in measurable ways that need to be able to replicated consistently.

Religion addresses meaning and ontological spiritual Experiences such as prayer, worship and acts of service based on shared spiritual beliefs. They are not only different forms of knowledge but approach truth in different ways.

Neither one has all the answers .

Right. So he compartmentalizes. And when he finds some unknowns in science he assumes it’s divinity.

The idea for the dialogue model is to create thoughtful dialogue and meaningful connections between the two rather than compartmentalization, which is the hallmark of post Enlightenment Western thinking.

Connections that exist in the real world or the supernatural world?

Just real world. God is real.

OP - that was not me but I do I think he sought connections that could be helpful in the real world . For example, finding ways for religion and science to work together to combat extreme poverty.

For example through organizations such as this …
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fighting-poverty-with-faith/

[Anonymous]

^^^^

Apart from fighting extreme poverty, another area where religion and science can collab is better understanding Just War Theory and Practice in modern contexts. Just War theory was originated by St Augustine in fourth century and refined by St Aquinas in Middle Ages and has been employed by many countries over hundreds of years to shape their war responses. It emphasizes that wars of aggression should be presumed to be immoral unless in cases of self defense and that civilian loss and non military targets should be avoided.

Now modern warfare can operate so differently with drones/ nuclear arms/ chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Science and religion could dialogue to propose moral limits for many forms of modern war fare.

Much of the non Western world is very religious and many people tend to trust religious leaders more than scientific leaders/ politicians. Again, religion and science could engage in dialogue to figure out the best ways to serve many people facing unprecedented challenges related to climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

Apart from fighting extreme poverty, another area where religion and science can collab is better understanding Just War Theory and Practice in modern contexts. Just War theory was originated by St Augustine in fourth century and refined by St Aquinas in Middle Ages and has been employed by many countries over hundreds of years to shape their war responses. It emphasizes that wars of aggression should be presumed to be immoral unless in cases of self defense and that civilian loss and non military targets should be avoided.

Now modern warfare can operate so differently with drones/ nuclear arms/ chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Science and religion could dialogue to propose moral limits for many forms of modern war fare.

Much of the non Western world is very religious and many people tend to trust religious leaders more than scientific leaders/ politicians. Again, religion and science could engage in dialogue to figure out the best ways to serve many people facing unprecedented challenges related to climate change.

Is this true?
Jimmy Swaggert
Jim Bakker
Joel Osteen
Ted Hagard
and too many Catholic priests to name?

I think your premise is a bit off here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

Apart from fighting extreme poverty, another area where religion and science can collab is better understanding Just War Theory and Practice in modern contexts. Just War theory was originated by St Augustine in fourth century and refined by St Aquinas in Middle Ages and has been employed by many countries over hundreds of years to shape their war responses. It emphasizes that wars of aggression should be presumed to be immoral unless in cases of self defense and that civilian loss and non military targets should be avoided.

Now modern warfare can operate so differently with drones/ nuclear arms/ chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Science and religion could dialogue to propose moral limits for many forms of modern war fare.

Much of the non Western world is very religious and many people tend to trust religious leaders more than scientific leaders/ politicians. Again, religion and science could engage in dialogue to figure out the best ways to serve many people facing unprecedented challenges related to climate change.

Is this true?
Jimmy Swaggert
Jim Bakker
Joel Osteen
Ted Hagard
and too many Catholic priests to name?

I think your premise is a bit off here

I was talking about in non western countries. I have lived in countries where religious leaders are far more respected by average people.

For US -I like the non partisan faith cased group cited above dedicated to making practical progress in quality of life for Americans.

Many mainstream Christians in the US are extremely skeptical of white nationalists/ mega churches/ TV preachers/ and prosperity gospel preachers. I am not Catholic but friends have told me that they have many more safe guards in place now and pedo priests are no longer shuffled around but prosecuted and expelled. That was scandalous but there do remain many faithful Catholics in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

Apart from fighting extreme poverty, another area where religion and science can collab is better understanding Just War Theory and Practice in modern contexts. Just War theory was originated by St Augustine in fourth century and refined by St Aquinas in Middle Ages and has been employed by many countries over hundreds of years to shape their war responses. It emphasizes that wars of aggression should be presumed to be immoral unless in cases of self defense and that civilian loss and non military targets should be avoided.

Now modern warfare can operate so differently with drones/ nuclear arms/ chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Science and religion could dialogue to propose moral limits for many forms of modern war fare.

Much of the non Western world is very religious and many people tend to trust religious leaders more than scientific leaders/ politicians. Again, religion and science could engage in dialogue to figure out the best ways to serve many people facing unprecedented challenges related to climate change.

So…social science, not physical science?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

Apart from fighting extreme poverty, another area where religion and science can collab is better understanding Just War Theory and Practice in modern contexts. Just War theory was originated by St Augustine in fourth century and refined by St Aquinas in Middle Ages and has been employed by many countries over hundreds of years to shape their war responses. It emphasizes that wars of aggression should be presumed to be immoral unless in cases of self defense and that civilian loss and non military targets should be avoided.

Now modern warfare can operate so differently with drones/ nuclear arms/ chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Science and religion could dialogue to propose moral limits for many forms of modern war fare.

Much of the non Western world is very religious and many people tend to trust religious leaders more than scientific leaders/ politicians. Again, religion and science could engage in dialogue to figure out the best ways to serve many people facing unprecedented challenges related to climate change.

Is this true?
Jimmy Swaggert
Jim Bakker
Joel Osteen
Ted Hagard
and too many Catholic priests to name?

I think your premise is a bit off here

If a list was made of politicians who abused their power, people who they were elected to represent, and amassed wealth through their elected office, it would be massive.

Politicians are not who we see in campaign commercials. They ultimately want power and money. They don’t do what they do for free and they use our money taken by taxes. They vote themselves raises-funded by our taxes. Their office and staff and travel are paid for by our taxes. They have lots of money given to them by wealthy donors who have unfair access to government, beyond what an average citizen has. (Even though we all pretend that is not the case.) So really, politicians are the worst of all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

Apart from fighting extreme poverty, another area where religion and science can collab is better understanding Just War Theory and Practice in modern contexts. Just War theory was originated by St Augustine in fourth century and refined by St Aquinas in Middle Ages and has been employed by many countries over hundreds of years to shape their war responses. It emphasizes that wars of aggression should be presumed to be immoral unless in cases of self defense and that civilian loss and non military targets should be avoided.

Now modern warfare can operate so differently with drones/ nuclear arms/ chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Science and religion could dialogue to propose moral limits for many forms of modern war fare.

Much of the non Western world is very religious and many people tend to trust religious leaders more than scientific leaders/ politicians. Again, religion and science could engage in dialogue to figure out the best ways to serve many people facing unprecedented challenges related to climate change.

Is this true?
Jimmy Swaggert
Jim Bakker
Joel Osteen
Ted Hagard
and too many Catholic priests to name?

I think your premise is a bit off here

If a list was made of politicians who abused their power, people who they were elected to represent, and amassed wealth through their elected office, it would be massive.

Politicians are not who we see in campaign commercials. They ultimately want power and money. They don’t do what they do for free and they use our money taken by taxes. They vote themselves raises-funded by our taxes. Their office and staff and travel are paid for by our taxes. They have lots of money given to them by wealthy donors who have unfair access to government, beyond what an average citizen has. (Even though we all pretend that is not the case.) So really, politicians are the worst of all.

Sure, but we expect that from politicians. Not clergymen who are supposed to be pious and holy. Also a politician in his or her woildest dreams couldn't expect to make as much money as one of these popular evangelists. You wanna get filthy rich? Start a religion and pass the collection plate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

Apart from fighting extreme poverty, another area where religion and science can collab is better understanding Just War Theory and Practice in modern contexts. Just War theory was originated by St Augustine in fourth century and refined by St Aquinas in Middle Ages and has been employed by many countries over hundreds of years to shape their war responses. It emphasizes that wars of aggression should be presumed to be immoral unless in cases of self defense and that civilian loss and non military targets should be avoided.

Now modern warfare can operate so differently with drones/ nuclear arms/ chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Science and religion could dialogue to propose moral limits for many forms of modern war fare.

Much of the non Western world is very religious and many people tend to trust religious leaders more than scientific leaders/ politicians. Again, religion and science could engage in dialogue to figure out the best ways to serve many people facing unprecedented challenges related to climate change.

Is this true?
Jimmy Swaggert
Jim Bakker
Joel Osteen
Ted Hagard
and too many Catholic priests to name?

I think your premise is a bit off here

If a list was made of politicians who abused their power, people who they were elected to represent, and amassed wealth through their elected office, it would be massive.

Politicians are not who we see in campaign commercials. They ultimately want power and money. They don’t do what they do for free and they use our money taken by taxes. They vote themselves raises-funded by our taxes. Their office and staff and travel are paid for by our taxes. They have lots of money given to them by wealthy donors who have unfair access to government, beyond what an average citizen has. (Even though we all pretend that is not the case.) So really, politicians are the worst of all.

Sure, but we expect that from politicians. Not clergymen who are supposed to be pious and holy. Also a politician in his or her woildest dreams couldn't expect to make as much money as one of these popular evangelists. You wanna get filthy rich? Start a religion and pass the collection plate.

* wildest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^

Apart from fighting extreme poverty, another area where religion and science can collab is better understanding Just War Theory and Practice in modern contexts. Just War theory was originated by St Augustine in fourth century and refined by St Aquinas in Middle Ages and has been employed by many countries over hundreds of years to shape their war responses. It emphasizes that wars of aggression should be presumed to be immoral unless in cases of self defense and that civilian loss and non military targets should be avoided.

Now modern warfare can operate so differently with drones/ nuclear arms/ chemical warfare and cyber attacks. Science and religion could dialogue to propose moral limits for many forms of modern war fare.

Much of the non Western world is very religious and many people tend to trust religious leaders more than scientific leaders/ politicians. Again, religion and science could engage in dialogue to figure out the best ways to serve many people facing unprecedented challenges related to climate change.

Is this true?
Jimmy Swaggert
Jim Bakker
Joel Osteen
Ted Hagard
and too many Catholic priests to name?

I think your premise is a bit off here

If a list was made of politicians who abused their power, people who they were elected to represent, and amassed wealth through their elected office, it would be massive.

Politicians are not who we see in campaign commercials. They ultimately want power and money. They don’t do what they do for free and they use our money taken by taxes. They vote themselves raises-funded by our taxes. Their office and staff and travel are paid for by our taxes. They have lots of money given to them by wealthy donors who have unfair access to government, beyond what an average citizen has. (Even though we all pretend that is not the case.) So really, politicians are the worst of all.

Sure, but we expect that from politicians. Not clergymen who are supposed to be pious and holy. Also a politician in his or her woildest dreams couldn't expect to make as much money as one of these popular evangelists. You wanna get filthy rich? Start a religion and pass the collection plate.

No one is holy but God. You think we should expect our elected officials to abuse their power? Politicians are given a “they all do it” pass? I can’t believe the American public expects to be abused and taken advantage of financially or otherwise by politicians. That’s a ridiculously bad excuse.

And politicians don’t get rich from their government salaries. Most politicians make under $100 k per year from their government salary. Somehow, they end up with hundreds of millions of dollars. How? Abusing their elected offices. Really, get elected, make a salary off the taxpayers, and then get donations and use your office to become wealthy. And people like you are happy to excuse it? That’s not what we should expect of our elected officials. Maybe you excuse it, because you are ok with it? And most if not all politicians claim to be religious and talk about their faith and piety. They play both sides of the aisle and fill their bank accounts the whole way.

[Anonymous]

Jimmy Swaggart-$10-15 million
Jim Bakker-$500,000
Joel Osteen- $100 million
Ted Haggard- $200,000

From google, these are the estimated worth of the men you listed.

Nancy Pelosi- $120 million

Nancy has been in government her whole life. Has she ever worked a private sector job? She is proud to talk about her Catholic faith.

Pelosi has been in office for 34 years, during which she earned $193,400 per year. That adds up to under $7 million dollars.

Because Congress members are required only to disclose a range of values for their assets and liabilities, the Center for Responsive Politics provides a minimum and a maximum net worth for each member. It calculates an average of those two numbers to determine an estimated net worth. Her maximum net wealth could be as much as about $251 million.

Nancy is not at all atypical. She is a good example of how our elected officials use their elected offices and privately held faith to amass wealth and power, while also claiming to be pious.

Please, cite more examples of politicians who became wealthy via their government jobs. While we provided them a salary, office, a staff, transportation, per diem, etc.

[Anonymous]

Ted Haggard via google is worth $200,000.