The Search for Truth

[Being1]

Isn't it true, that we (Mankind) are looking for the Truth. Not everybody all the time, but collectively as a species. Since the question first arose, 'what is this world I am in', hasn't the search for an answer to this, the search for Truth, been of prime interest to us? And is it not the drive behind both science and religion?

Is it correct to define science as that which studies the world, that which looks into the matter in an effort to understand it? And is it correct to define religion as a looking within to faith and belief in order to make sense of, and feel ok about the world?

[Sender]

BTW ad hominems are not within the spirit of this forum and put the perpertrator ar risk of being excluded.

Please keep it up.

That would be typical, your loud mouth trolling, I call you on it, and I get thrown out. That wouldn't suprise me.

[bernee51]

BTW ad hominems are not within the spirit of this forum and put the perpertrator ar risk of being excluded.

Please keep it up.

That would be typical, your loud mouth trolling, I call you on it, and I get thrown out. That wouldn't suprise me.

And that would be whose fault?

If you don't agree with what I say please refute my opinions.

I'm sure my 'loud mouth trolling' will (would have?) come to the attention of the moderators.

[Sender]

BTW ad hominems are not within the spirit of this forum and put the perpertrator ar risk of being excluded.

Please keep it up.

That would be typical, your loud mouth trolling, I call you on it, and I get thrown out. That wouldn't suprise me.

And that would be whose fault?

If you don't agree with what I say please refute my opinions.

I'm sure my 'loud mouth trolling' will (would have?) come to the attention of the moderators.

You never answer anyones questions with any seriosness. People lay out a good thought, and you come in and try to get people off topic. And you make no sense. That my friend is a troll. If I am asked to leave because of what I say to you then so be it. You are a loud mouth troll! Your posts prove it.

[bernee51]

You never answer anyones questions with any seriosness.

I am not even going to bother pointing out to you how incorrect you are.

People lay out a good thought, and you come in and try to get people off topic.

Are you referring to your 'good thought' or those of others?

And you make no sense.

How is it my problem if you fail to understand what I am trying to get across. You can always ask for clarification.

That my friend is a troll. If I am asked to leave because of what I say to you then so be it. You are a loud mouth troll! Your posts prove it.

If you have a problem take it up with the moderators.

I respectfully ask you to stop posting ad hominems

[Sender]

You never answer anyones questions with any seriosness.

I am not even going to bother pointing out to you how incorrect you are.

People lay out a good thought, and you come in and try to get people off topic.

Are you referring to your 'good thought' or those of others?

And you make no sense.

How is it my problem if you fail to understand what I am trying to get across. You can always ask for clarification.

That my friend is a troll. If I am asked to leave because of what I say to you then so be it. You are a loud mouth troll! Your posts prove it.

If you have a problem take it up with the moderators.

I respectfully ask you to stop posting ad hominems

Then start using your brain and stop sarcasm.

[palmera]

What can you tell me about this symbiotic relationship science and religion had before the enlightenment? It may help me see your position.

I never claimed western science and Christianity in Europe were in a symbiotic relationship. My point is this: Our discussion about the oppositional nature of science and religion, of the two paths to truth they seek to attain is oversimplified in this dialogue because the concepts of both are not well understood as they developed over the past two thousand years. Modernity has changed the way we think and talk about the world. For one thing, in modernity religion became an inward path focused on the individual in a way it never had before- notice that forums have been set up just to talk about religion; why? because it's taboo to do so in western society today in the company of strangers- and even those close to us do not necessarily want to divulge their beliefs. Pre-enlightenment "religion" wasn't an object of discussion the way we think of it today- it further wasn't set in opposition to science. Before the enlightenment one's religion was intimately tied up into daily life and dialogue- it was so pervasive as to not be relegated as we do it, into a category of life or one certain aspect of life. (here I'm speaking on a social level, not an individual level) Also, pre-Enlightenment "scientists" were nobility and clergy. There was no distinction between scientist and preacher- and for that matter nobility and clergy were so intimately tied together, often a distinction was not to be made either. So, in the minds of the masses clergymen were learned scholars who also partook in studies of the natural world. Science was wrapped up in the dogma of the church- it wasn't that there was a symbiotic relationship, it's that the two were never thought of as coexisting entities to be in relationship with one another: there wasn't "religion," or "science" but The holy Roman Church. There were no two truths- science was a part of faith. It was an enactment of faith in God, a way to better see and understand the divine using that faculty which distinguishes humans from all other life on earth: reason. It's not until the authority of the church was questioned through scientific inquiry that "science" and "the church" (later on, "religion" become two separate entities. That's what I mean it was about power. Certainly in a concrete way, but also symbolically. Thus the opposition of science and religion was never about God or different ways of seeking truth, but about politics and power. A veil was dropped on the masses clouding this reality, and instilling in minds the idea that somehow science and religion don't go together, that they cannot ever fit. As we can see, this veil has worked so well that most people never even question the logic of it all- even when learning about Gregor Mendel. What I'm getting at is that our perceptions of the two have changed over time- so that today we simply accept that the two are in opposition and that "historically" they always have been. In large part, this has been spurned on by churches and fundamentally religious folk acting as though the goal of science is to debunk the creation stories or even disproving God fearing that the plurality of society and the great importance of technology and its pursuits will lead people away from Christianity. What people don't seem to get is that science's goal is simply to soak up as much knowledge the world/universe it can through observation, analysis, and to check itself using the scientific method. Even today, science and religion are not in opposition- when's the last time you saw scientists arguing with clergymen? It's the you's and me's who struggle dellusionally over this issue. The idea that science and religion seek truth in different ways is a proliferation of a misconstrued reality. The idea of scientific truth v.s. religious truth is an appealing distinction to make because it's useful for those who really believe they are in dire opposition- but it's not correct. The notions of both science and religion are so far from where they began in the perceptions of the masses that debates such as the teaching of church dogma in public classrooms as science to kids of all religions is given serious consideration. This debate, first manifested in the Scopes Monkey Trial has seen we here (at least in the US) lose track of ourselves. There's not a lot of questioning and listening going on anymore, simply a lot of adamant folk all jumping ahead of the next person to say their peace. I realize I'm off topic- my main point is that the argument for the two truths and two paths in opposition to one another is historically based in power struggle, not on grounds of truth or of the legitimacy of the Bible or of Christianity. The argument has become that, but it never started out that way.... basically, we've been hoodwinked for hundreds of years.... and I dare say people feel more comfortable that way.

[BeHereNow]

palmera

I guess we have read different history, religion, and history of religion books.
I can agree with very little of what you say. You seem to recognize that your viewpoint is counter to conventional wisdom, so one would think you would realize the need to support your broad statements with specifics.
Or is it that you think what you express is obvious?
If it is not obvious, explanation would be in order.

Until the enlightenment, western science was hamstrung by Christianity.
Science does not try to dictate to the religious community, but the religious has and continues to dictate to the scientific community.
Christians have fostered an adversarial relationship with the empirical evidence and truth offered by science.

There has never been a time when Christianity (as an institution), has been open or supportive to science. When the church controlled what might loosely be called science, there was of course support, but I question calling this science.
Shamans and witch doctors use a kind of science to show their understanding and control of the natural world.
The church has done similar.

[palmera]

Until the enlightenment, western science was hamstrung by Christianity.
Science does not try to dictate to the religious community, but the religious has and continues to dictate to the scientific community.
Christians have fostered an adversarial relationship with the empirical evidence and truth offered by science.

You have summed up some of what I said and yet you say you disagree with everything I said. The problem is, we have similar viewpoints, but slightly different lenses through which we are looking. First, lets be more specific about "Christians." This adversarial relationship was not fostered always by all Christians, but by those who held power in the Church at the point in time scientific inquiry challenged Church authority. This idea spread out from the church, it was not previously a paradigm of thought. Further, like I said, the scientific community indeed does not dictate to the religious community because that's simply not part of the foundation of science or within the realm of concern for scientists- how exactly are disagreeing so far??

There has never been a time when Christianity (as an institution), has been open or supportive to science. When the church controlled what might loosely be called science, there was of course support, but I question calling this science.
Shamans and witch doctors use a kind of science to show their understanding and control of the natural world.
The church has done similar.

This is simply incorrect. You need a different history book. As for the example you were looking for I've already provided Gregory Mendel who as you know did not practice shamanism or anything of the sort, nor were his experiments under the thumb of the Church, dictated as you seem to suggest was the sole relationship between science and relgion. Further, you are still arguing as though science and religion (here Christianity) were always considered to be completely seperate entities. Again, get a better book. The concept of both as we know them did not exist in the perceptions of western thinkers and esp. common folk before the enlightenment.

I'm not sure what type of explanation you wish me to provide. Do you want lists of others like Gregor Mendel who were monks and scientists- do you want accounts of common life in western Europe pre-Enlightenment? I've outlined a rough, and certianly an oversimplified version of the complex beginnings of this pervasive debate; so, like I said, you need a different book(s)... a little variety never hurt anyone. This explanation though requires books within the fields of anthropology, religion, history, politics, economics and psychology... not to mention linguistics. The schism between science and religion as we know it is far more complex than

There has never been a time when Christianity (as an institution), has been open or supportive to science. When the church controlled what might loosely be called science, there was of course support, but I question calling this science.

[BeHereNow]

It seems we agree on the what, but not the why or how.

palmera: Further, you are still arguing as though science and religion (here Christianity) were always considered to be completely seperate entities. Again, get a better book. The concept of both as we know them did not exist in the perceptions of western thinkers and esp. common folk before the enlightenment.

I’m not saying they were considered to be completely separate.
I’m saying they were separate, because they are separate, although science was considered to be a subdivision of Christianity. Science which agreed with Christianity was acceptable, science which did not, was dealt with accordingly. Science was not allowed free inquiry of the natural world when it differed from the accepted view of the Bible.

Mendel’s work is sometimes referenced as invalidating Darwinism. I don’t know if the church fathers viewed it this way at the time (perhaps you do), but it is certainly possible. It should not surprise us that any science that refutes evolution would be embraced by the church.
Do you have some monks-who-practiced-science in mind who refuted church doctrine and were simultaneously embraced by the church, for the sake of truth. In other words, in the search for truth, are there examples where the church put truth ahead of its own self interest?
We should be able to agree that science routinely does this, although not universally.

[palmera]

Mendel’s work is sometimes referenced as invalidating Darwinism

In what way? Mendel's work would validate evolutionary theory- natural selection... it would explain how traits selected for through natural selection would be passed down ("inherited").

I’m not saying they were considered to be completely separate.
I’m saying they were separate, because they are separate, although science was considered to be a subdivision of Christianity.

This is my point exactly- perception is everything here. Your statement that they are seperate is not based on a reality outside of your own perception. It's not as though modernity uncovered the truth about science and religion- perceptions changed. What I've been getting at is that in the forum this issue must be addressed in order to make sense of "the search for truth." We were assuming an historical seperation of science and religion from the beginning, assuming also that the truths they saught were always percieved as opposing processes. Furhter, we assumed that the search for truth is the foundation of religion and/or science. Basically I've been trying to argue that we need to deal here with the complexities of the issue of the schism between science and religion as we percieve it before basing arguments off of false assumptions.[/quote]