Science and Religion, a comparative study [W:222]

[pinqy]

Welcome to Poetry Corner.

A Shropshire Lad LXII​

Why, if 'tis dancing you would be,
There's brisker pipes than poetry.
Say, for what were hop-yards meant,
Or why was Burton built on Trent?
Oh many a peer of England brews
Livelier liquor than the Muse,
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.
Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think:

A.E. Housman

 

[Angel]

Every child who has the use
Of his senses knows a goose.
See them underneath the tree
Gather round the goose-girl’s knee,
While she reads them by the hour
From the works of Schopenhauer.
How patiently the geese attend!
But do they really comprehend
What Schopenhauer’s driving at?
Oh, not at all; but what of that?
Neither do I; neither does she;
And, for that matter, nor does he.

— Oliver Herford

Only a science-is-everything type would answer Emily Dickinson with O Herford.

And as for O Herford's "insight" into Shopenhauer, namely, that Shopenhauer didn't know what Shopenhauer was about, it is sheer frivolity.
Shopenhauer thought more profoundly on the world than anyone since Kant, and Kant more profoundly than anyone who ever lived.
To the science-is-everything crowd, following Dopey Dick Dawkins, although they've never read either Kant or Shopenhauer, both are delusional.

 

[Angel]

A Shropshire Lad LXII​

Why, if 'tis dancing you would be,
There's brisker pipes than poetry.
Say, for what were hop-yards meant,
Or why was Burton built on Trent?
Oh many a peer of England brews
Livelier liquor than the Muse,
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.
Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think:

A.E. Housman

Housman was a great classical scholar and a good poet whose religious faith was shaken by the Boer War, in which he lost a brother, and World War I, not to mention Victorian strictures on homosexuality. That he would be at pains "To justify God's ways to man" is small wonder. Good selection, pinqy. Heartening, given the topic we are mooting.

 

[Angel]

Einstein on the OP 2

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery–even if mixed with fear–that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms–it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
— Albert Einstein
The World As I See It (2006), 7.

While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious and moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they would hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.
— Albert Einstein
In response to a greeting sent by the Liberal Ministers’ Club of New York City, published in 'Religion and Science: Irreconcilable?' The Christian Register (Jun 1948). Collected in Ideas and Options (1954), 52.

https://todayinsci.com/E/Einstein_Albert/EinsteinAlbert-Science-Quotations.htm

 

[devildavid]

Access is by faith.

Do you think poetry accesses truth?
Do you think music accesses truth?

Advocates of scientism must hold that POETRY IS A DELUSION and MUSIC IS A DELUSION.

Is that what you hold as well, David?

I hold that poetry and music are only valid in human society and have to do with insights into human nature. There is no poetry or music in the universe outside of human society because those are concepts created by humans. On a more mundane level, poetry and music are entertainment for humans. I like poetry and music and I enjoy the emotions they evoke. They relate to the human experience of life because they are the expressed views and emotions of other human beings. I don't think there is this thing called "truth" that they access, unless you are talking about the truth of being a human being.

 

[pinqy]

Housman was a great classical scholar and a good poet whose religious faith was shaken by the Boer War, in which he lost a brother, and World War I, not to mention Victorian strictures on homosexuality. That he would be at pains "To justify God's ways to man" is small wonder. Good selection, pinqy. Heartening, given the topic we are mooting.

You forgot that his homosexuality also made him dislike the Church and the secular government:

The Laws of God, the Laws of Man,
He may keep that will, and can.
Not I. Let God and Man decree
Laws for themselves, and not for me.
And if my ways are not as theirs,
Let them mind their own affairs.
Their deeds I judge, and much condemn,
But when did I make laws for them?
Please yourselves, say I, and they
Need only look the other way.
But no, they will not. They must still
Wrest their neighbour to their will,
And make me dance as they desire,
With gaol and gallows and hellfire....

 

[soylentgreen]

This was your original claim:

Your playing both ends against the middle here, criticizing the article for starting with the false premise that science is not responsible and the false premise that science is responsible. Make up your mind. Did you read the article?

No, i am pointing out that the article is misleading in its claim of morality. Science is subject to ethics. By scientists and by others.

 

[Angel]

You forgot that his homosexuality also made him dislike the Church and the secular government:

The Laws of God, the Laws of Man,
He may keep that will, and can.
Not I. Let God and Man decree
Laws for themselves, and not for me.
And if my ways are not as theirs,
Let them mind their own affairs.
Their deeds I judge, and much condemn,
But when did I make laws for them?
Please yourselves, say I, and they
Need only look the other way.
But no, they will not. They must still
Wrest their neighbour to their will,
And make me dance as they desire,
With gaol and gallows and hellfire....

I don't know that I "forgot," pinqy. Housman may have had issues with church and state as regards homosexuality, but his crisis of faith appears to be related to war and death in the main. Here I post the remainder of the poem you posted where he seems to submit, unhappily, to church and state.
Then a post a Housman poem that expresses his agnosticism and hid dim view of Man most poignantly.

...
And how am I to face the odds
Of man's bedevilment and God's?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made.
They will be master, right or wrong;
Though both are foolish, both are strong.
And since, my soul, we cannot fly
To Saturn nor to Mercury,
Keep we must, if keep we can,
These foreign laws of God and man.

I - EASTER HYMN

If in that Syrian garden, ages slain,
You sleep, and know not you are dead in vain,
Nor even in dreams behold how dark and bright
Ascends in smoke and fire by day and night
The hate you died to quench and could but fan,
Sleep well and see no morning, son of man.

But if, the grave rent and the stone rolled by,
At the right hand of majesty on high
You sit, and sitting so remember yet
Your tears, your agony and bloody sweat,
Your cross and passion and the life you gave,
Bow hither out of heaven and see and save.

A.E. Housman - selected poems

 

[Angel]

No, i am pointing out that the article is misleading in its claim of morality. Science is subject to ethics. By scientists and by others.

Again i must ask you whether you read the article?
For, after that introductory section on the traditional or official view of science, the article makes a very strong case for the morality of science. Here are a couple of excerpts:

The Idealism of Science

The modern scientific project was not conceived or born as a morally neutral quest after facts. On the contrary, launched in the seventeenth century out of frustration with the barren philosophies of the European universities, modern science was a profoundly moral enterprise, aimed at improving the condition of the human race, relieving suffering, enhancing health, and enriching life.
The Idealism of Science The modern scientific project was not conceived or born as a morally neutral quest after facts. On the contrary, launched in the seventeenth century out of frustration with the barren philosophies of the European universities, modern science was a profoundly moral enterprise, aimed at improving the condition of the human race, relieving suffering, enhancing health, and enriching life.


Science, and again I speak mostly but by no means exclusively of biomedical science, is driven by a profound moral purpose. This purpose does not itself emerge from scientific inquiry, but it guides, shapes, and directs the scientific enterprise in every way. By presenting itself as morally neutral, science sells itself far short.

The Moral Challenge of Modern Science - The New Atlantis

 

[Angel]

Talk about cherry picking.

Ah, but cherries are sweet! One must beware of the pits, however.

 

[Angel]

I hold that poetry and music are only valid in human society and have to do with insights into human nature. There is no poetry or music in the universe outside of human society because those are concepts created by humans. On a more mundane level, poetry and music are entertainment for humans. I like poetry and music and I enjoy the emotions they evoke. They relate to the human experience of life because they are the expressed views and emotions of other human beings. I don't think there is this thing called "truth" that they access, unless you are talking about the truth of being a human being.

I hold the very same view, but of art in general, David -- namely, that it is a form of entertainment. Our question is, Is that all it is? Is it only entertainment? Or is there something more to entertainment which rises to the level of art? And does that "something more" deserve to be called Truth, whether as regards human nature or human life, as you suggest, or in some other sense?

 

[blarg]

Only a science-is-everything type would answer Emily Dickinson with O Herford.

And as for O Herford's "insight" into Shopenhauer, namely, that Shopenhauer didn't know what Shopenhauer was about, it is sheer frivolity.
Shopenhauer thought more profoundly on the world than anyone since Kant, and Kant more profoundly than anyone who ever lived.
To the science-is-everything crowd, following Dopey Dick Dawkins, although they've never read either Kant or Shopenhauer, both are delusional.

speaking of delusional hows a poem tell you that science is the only thing that matters to some one?

 

[RogueWarrior]

Your "corrections" need correcting, RW. Changing my "how Man developed" to your "how life started" is only the most egregious misrepresentation.


This in a nutshell is the problem with scientism. It claims that the only kind of knowing we need is scientific knowing. That reductionism is something for the birds!
Yes, scientism (Dawkins, Harris, RogueWarrior, William Rea, Tim the Plumber, RAMOSS, Gonzo Rodeo, et al.) would have it that not only is religion a delusion, but also poetry, art, music.
The Poetry Delusion
The Music Delusion
None of the advocates of scientism posting here have bothered to read the New Atlantic article I posted three times in this thread, in which this harmful epistemic reductionism is criticized.
None of the advocates of scientism posting in this thread even recognized the poems I posted -- they can't read poetry! It's "gibberish" to them.
Humanity has been reduced to pools of chemicals by the advocates of scientism.
Humanity has been diminished owing to this bogus article of faith:

We've been sold this bill of goods for the last half-century.
I'm not buying it.

I can understand why you won't address the critical issue of faith being unreliable pathway to the truth about reality.

 

[devildavid]

I hold the very same view, but of art in general, David -- namely, that it is a form of entertainment. Our question is, Is that all it is? Is it only entertainment? Or is there something more to entertainment which rises to the level of art? And does that "something more" deserve to be called Truth, whether as regards human nature or human life, as you suggest, or in some other sense?

What is considered art is just a subjective human view of the various creations of human beings. There is not a thing called Truth which exists without human beings. Truth is a human concept for those who want to think there is some deeper meaning to physical existence. Same as God. It is impossible to define it and there can never be universal agreement on what it is. People choose to see as little or as much meaning in life as they like. The only truth we have is our own personal truth, but there is no agreed upon universal Truth that any one of us can claim to be true for all.

 

[zyzygy]

Only a science-is-everything type would answer Emily Dickinson with O Herford.

And as for O Herford's "insight" into Shopenhauer, namely, that Shopenhauer didn't know what Shopenhauer was about, it is sheer frivolity.
Shopenhauer thought more profoundly on the world than anyone since Kant, and Kant more profoundly than anyone who ever lived.
To the science-is-everything crowd, following Dopey Dick Dawkins, although they've never read either Kant or Shopenhauer, both are delusional.

I have never read a book by Dawkins or ever seen a video.

 

[blarg]

Only a science-is-everything type would answer Emily Dickinson with O Herford.

And as for O Herford's "insight" into Shopenhauer, namely, that Shopenhauer didn't know what Shopenhauer was about, it is sheer frivolity.
Shopenhauer thought more profoundly on the world than anyone since Kant, and Kant more profoundly than anyone who ever lived.
To the science-is-everything crowd, following Dopey Dick Dawkins, although they've never read either Kant or Shopenhauer, both are delusional.

omg ob1 is a sith

 

[William Rea]

I have never read a book by Dawkins or ever seen a video.

Wow, you mean you're an atheist/agnostic and you don't have a secret shrine to Dawkins that you sacrifice babies in front of?

I'm reporting you to the Atheist Central Committee!

 

[zyzygy]

Wow, you mean you're an atheist/agnostic and you don't have a secret shrine to Dawkins that you sacrifice babies in front of?

I'm reporting you to the Atheist Central Committee!

Do your worst, I am not a member! I am a person who would believe in a creator god if there was evidence of the existence of said god. No such evidence exists.

 

[Angel]

Two well-considered posts, David.
We are all much obliged to you.

I hold that poetry and music are only valid in human society and have to do with insights into human nature. There is no poetry or music in the universe outside of human society because those are concepts created by humans. On a more mundane level, poetry and music are entertainment for humans. I like poetry and music and I enjoy the emotions they evoke. They relate to the human experience of life because they are the expressed views and emotions of other human beings. I don't think there is this thing called "truth" that they access, unless you are talking about the truth of being a human being.

What is considered art is just a subjective human view of the various creations of human beings. There is not a thing called Truth which exists without human beings. Truth is a human concept for those who want to think there is some deeper meaning to physical existence. Same as God. It is impossible to define it and there can never be universal agreement on what it is. People choose to see as little or as much meaning in life as they like. The only truth we have is our own personal truth, but there is no agreed upon universal Truth that any one of us can claim to be true for all.

Science is as much a human creation as art or religion, David. And like God, according to you and Dawkins, Truth may be a delusion, but it is a necessary delusion, without which human life would never have been civilized.

When you come right down to it, whether we honor it with the title "truth" or not, which is more important to human being qua human and qua being -- theoretical knowledge about the physical world or wisdom about human life?

 

[Angel]

speaking of delusional hows a poem tell you that science is the only thing that matters to some one?

And do tell where's the post in this thread that told you that a poem tells me that science is the only thing that matters to some one, speaking of delusional?

(N.B. Please parse carefully before replying. )

 

[Angel]

I can understand why you won't address the critical issue of faith being unreliable pathway to the truth about reality.

Do tell. What is "the truth about reality"?
When you tell us that, I'll address "the critical issue of faith" for you.
Deal?

 

[Angel]

Einstein on the OP 3

When men are engaged in war and conquest, the tools of science become as dangerous as a razor in the hands of a child of three. We must not condemn man because his inventiveness and patient conquest of the forces of nature are being exploited for false and destructive purposes. Rather, we should remember that the fate of mankind hinges entirely upon man’s moral development.
— Albert Einstein
In 'I Am an American' (22 Jun 1940), Einstein Archives 29-092. Excerpted in David E. Rowe and Robert J. Schulmann, Einstein on Politics: His Private Thoughts and Public Stands on Nationalism, Zionism, War, Peace, and the Bomb (2007), 470. The British Library Sound Archive holds a recording of this statement by Einstein. It was during a radio broadcast for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, interviewed by a State Department Official. Einstein spoke following an examination on his application for American citizenship in Trenton, New Jersey. The attack on Pearl Harbor and America’s declaration of war on Japan was still over a year in the future.

Science has gone a long way toward helping man to free himself from the burden of hard labor; yet, science itself is not a liberator. It creates means, not goals. It is up to men to utilize those means to achieve reasonable goals.
— Albert Einstein
In 'I Am an American' (22 Jun 1940), Einstein Archives 29-092. Excerpted in David E. Rowe and Robert J. Schulmann, Einstein on Politics: His Private Thoughts and Public Stands on Nationalism, Zionism, War, Peace, and the Bomb (2007), 470. The British Library Sound Archive holds a recording of this statement by Einstein. It was during a radio broadcast for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, interviewed by a State Department Official. Einstein spoke following an examination on his application for American citizenship in Trenton, New Jersey. The attack on Pearl Harbor and America’s declaration of war on Japan was still over a year in the future.

https://todayinsci.com/E/Einstein_Albert/EinsteinAlbert-Science-Quotations.htm

The third and last post citing Einstein on the OP topic.
The science-is-everything crowd, characteristically, has had nothing to say about these posts.

 

[blarg]

And do tell where's the post in this thread that told you that a poem tells me that science is the only thing that matters to some one, speaking of delusional?

(N.B. Please parse carefully before replying. )

none that told you 1 where u told us 827

so how can you tell that?

 

[blarg]

Einstein on the OP 3

https://todayinsci.com/E/Einstein_Albert/EinsteinAlbert-Science-Quotations.htm

The third and last post citing Einstein on the OP topic.
The science-is-everything crowd, characteristically, has had nothing to say about these posts.

you have yet to show such a crowed exists on hear and not just in your mind

 

[Angel]

none that told you 1 where u told us 827
so how can you tell that?

you have yet to show such a crowed exists on hear and not just in your mind

Science-is-everything types can reliably be identified by
1.) their intolerant jeering and mocking attitude toward those professing religious faith;
2.) their own blind faith in science as the last word on everything;
3.) their inability to engage in critical thought, especially about their own beliefs;
4.) their overall ignorance of and lack of appreciation for the Arts (music, literature, painting, sculpture);
5.) their silly off-topic posts;
6.) their ad hominem style of discussion;
7.) their intellectual dishonesty.

Do you think you belong to a secret society, blarg? I guess non-believers can be delusional too!