it seems that a battle goes on between
religion and science…i think science and religion need each other…and the philosopher is needed to point out what common ground may be present…
it could be a very important job…i suppose the philosopher would also have to be a referee…
what do you think???
I think you’re out of your mind.
Religion is about faith and Science is about evidence and reason.
They are truly irreconcilable.
how about the example of the head of nih–
francis s. collins???
Relating to this I would like to repost an earlier opinion of mine:
Will Durant from The Story of Philosophy:
[b]What [Herbert Spensor] finds…is that every theory of the origin of the universe drives us into inconceivables. The atheist tries to think of a self-existent world, uncaused and without beginning; but we cannot conceive of anything beginningless or uncaused…and to the theologian who says, ‘God made the world’, the child’s unanswerable query comes, ‘Who made God?’. All ultimate religious ideas are logically inconceivable
All ultimate scientific ideas are equally beyond rational conception. What is matter? We reduce it to atoms, and then find ourselves forced to divide the atom as we had the molecule; we are driven to the dilemma that matter is infinitely divisible—which is inconceivable; or that there is a limit to its divisibility—which is also inconceivable. So with the divisibilty of space and time; both of these are ultimately irrational ideas. Motion is wrapped in a triple obscurity, since it involves matter changing, in time, its position in space. When we analyze matter resolutely we find nothing at last but force…and who shall tell us what force is? Turn from physics to human psychology and we come upon mind and consciousness; and here are greater puzzles than before. ‘Ultimate scientific ideas’, says Spencer, ‘are all representations of realities that cannot be comprehended…in all directions the scientist’s investigations bring him face to face with an insoluable enigma. He learns at once the greartness and the littleness of human intellect—its power in dealing with all that comes within the range of experience, its impotence in dealing with all that transcends experience. He more than any other, truly knows that in its ultimate nature nothing can be known’. The only honest philosophy, to use Huxley’s word, is agnosticism.
The common cause of these obscurities is the relativity of all knowledge. ‘Thinking being relating, no thought can express more than relations…Intellect being framed simply by and for converse with phenomena, involves us in nonesense when we try to use it for anything beyond phenomena.’[/b]
[i]The science here may be dated [Durant’s book was published in the 1920s.] but I would imagine its conjectures are still in and around the bullseye. And I recognize, of course, that science, by its very nature, will keep probing. Modern science is, after all, barely in its infancy. What will we know about these astonishing mysteries a 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years from now? Again, I suspect the things we think we know about them now will be in museum exhibits. Folks will talk about Stephen Hawking and Alan Guth and marvel at the depth of their ignorance.
But what intrigues me most about attempts to answer questions like these [scientifically or religiously or philosophically] is this: what happens if we do? What if we finally do figure out – objectively – how all these thoughts do relate to each other metaphysically?
For the life of me I can’t imagine how this would not dispense altogether with human autonomy.[/i]
And also relating to this I would like to repost an earlier opinion of mine:
“It seems to me that science has a much greater likelihood of being true in the main than any philosophy hitherto advanced (I do not, of course, except my own). In science there are many matters about which people are agreed; in philosophy there are none. Therefore, although each proposition in a science may be false, and it is practically certain that there are some that are false, yet we shall be wise to build our philosophy upon science, because the risk of error in philosophy is pretty sure to be greater than in science. If we could hope for certainty in philosophy, the matter would be otherwise, but so far as I can see such a hope would be chimerical.” – Bertrand Russel (Logical Atomism, 1924)
To which I would add another of my favorite Russell quotes:
“That Man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.” – Bertrand Russell (A Free Man’s Worship 1903)
And also relating to this, I would like to repost an opinion of mine:
No man, just get over the tyrannical fairies already.
Relating to this, I would like to repost an earlier opinion of mine.
It is the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant and can be found at most libraries or online. Comments forthcoming.
To which I would like to add The Republic by Plato.
He has committed intellectual suicide in his book the moment he admitted that he became a theist after seeing a 3 piece- frozen fountain that reminded him of the trinity.
I concur. Obama needs bozos like this to keep the general populace from realizing he’s a closet atheist.
Swim towards land, little turtle. Swim for your life. 
Lol, not that you probably think much of me, but this comment made me like you again.
What makes landing any less perilous? The Philosopher-Kings are everywhere now. 
I think you’re a rude SOB.
What do I think…?
Well, I just mean to express that, not to attack you.
The battle between science and religion has existed for about 4 centuries. Religion qua religion should be by default against any science, then adaptations are always possible (and have been made). The problem is probably more on the Religion’s side, scientists do not feel so compelled to argue with theologians, ideally most scientists think that the only argument is proof or confutation, else there’s no point in arguing.
The modern politically correct way to see this could be that science is about reality as we experience it, while religion deals with some other reality, which we may get to know (some day). So one can argue that there is no common ground. Still using this image, we may represent philosophy as being in between those two realities, then, as you say, it could be considered as a sort referee.
To me it’s all BS.
Philosophy, the part I belong to at least, see both supposed realities as myths (and philosophers have toppled many other myths along with them).
Philosophers have always fostered doubts about reality, and the best ones suspects too. Frankly the idea that the world is not exactly as we see it is quite reasonable. There are even more justifiable doubts about other realities, these indeed can be seen as pure artifacts and deceptions, deserving no further investigation. Ultimately those two supposed realities rely on faiths, while we have to accept no faith, unless we want to.
Philosophers have to look for no middle ground for scientists and believers, they are possessed by ghosts they can’t control, they are helpless… If there is any inquiry about reality (whatever that might mean) worth doing, then philosophers lead, the rest can follow.
I think your theory that they need each other is what drives this post. Why do you think that?
That’s ok. It comes with the territory.
What territory is that!? D… oh hello Only Humean 
I wasn’t about to use ad homs, honest. 
Each adherer has chosen his flag.
Speak to either and the other is “the enemy”.
The true resolve (“peace”) between them is simple enough, but none care in their lust for domination and control over all others.
Blindness rules the night.
Why would an altruistic philosopher unite such creatures?
Is the domination of all life really an altruistic goal?
Religion is not needed by anyone, or anything. Religion is man’s way of explaining what he cannot. Science is an attempt to create facts out of this earthly, material realm that we, as humans, seem to be in. Philosophy is to find out what we can truly know, as humans, of which I have only found that I exist, in some form or another.
When I first read this, I thought ‘transcendental metaphysics.’ I have really no idea what that means–I thought I’d simply put two words together that made sense to me, somehow. But I’ve found that there is such a ‘thing.’ I’m still learning about it, however.
One thing I have to keep in mind is that religion, in this case, shouldn’t mean RELIGION, but rather thinking that goes beyond the dogmatic, organized religious teachings. As for science–which science do you mean, turtle? Imm, when people say ‘science,’ they often mean theoretical sciences based on whether or not something can be shown to be most probably true based on the scientific method. So there is a difference between ‘science’ and the ‘scientific method.’
That said, I think there is a relationship between theoretical sciences and ‘transcendental metaphysics’–I just haven’t put it all together into words–yet.