How will you react if the Klingon War Arc isn't wrapped up?

[Mark 2000]

And 'people making it work' is literally what I have been arguing for. I'm arguing for the individuals right to choose how they interpret two very different systems and how they incorporate these systems into their lives.

That's not quite true. You've been arguing that science and faith are "compatible". What Bakker does is not compatibility. By saying evolution is a supernaturally guided process he is literally ripping out a portion of both science and religion to make the two fit together and he's a bad scientist for it. Denying a natural evolution dictated by the environment is a pretty major lapse. That's the central part of evolution. This is not a good example of coexistence at all.

People have the right to try to make it work. People also have the right to point out that it doesn't really work.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

I would argue it was explicitly stated throughout all six seasons. Head Six throughout the entire show was quite clear with Baltar that everything was the work of God, and that she, and Baltar because of her, was an agent of God. She was aware of upcoming events, she was almost completely aware of things that Baltar wasn't. Many viewers ASSUMED it was some kind of Cylon trickery, that she was a chip or a mental projection or what have you because they did not want to think in a space opera God and faith was the right answer, but the character was clear throughout the show who she was and what was going on.

Six seasons? There were only four.... unless.....

ARE THERE TWO SECRET SEASONS OF MY FAVOURITE TV SHOW THAT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT??????? TELL ME NOW DAMMIT! TEEEEEELLLLLLLL MEEEEEEEEEE

 

[EnderAKH]

Six seasons? There were only four.... unless.....

ARE THERE TWO SECRET SEASONS OF MY FAVOURITE TV SHOW THAT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT??????? TELL ME NOW DAMMIT! TEEEEEELLLLLLLL MEEEEEEEEEE

Ick. Was ahead when I was typing to Head Six. Fixed.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

That's not quite true. You've been arguing that science and faith are "compatible". What Bakker does is not compatibility. By saying evolution is a supernaturally guided process he is literally ripping out a portion of both science and religion to make the two fit together and he's a bad scientist for it. Denying a natural evolution dictated by the environment is a pretty major lapse. That's the central part of evolution. This is not a good example of coexistence at all.

People have the right to try to make it work. People also have the right to point out that it doesn't really work.

No. How about you don't try and dictate to me what I am trying to say. I'm arguing that individuals can make science and faith compatible for themselves and that for many people religion and science is not binary. Whether you think people are right to think this way is up to you, but it doesn't negate the fact that people do think this way.

 

[Spot261]

People also have the right to point out that it doesn't really work.

Only if you start from flawed understanding of the concepts and this is what people are getting frustrated trying to explain to you. The incompatibilities lie in your own internalised versions of those concepts, not their true forms.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'll find out about the Klingon Arc tonight but I won't find out about God and The Afterlife until I die... and I'm not in a hurry to die.

 

[Mark 2000]

No. How about you don't try and dictate to me what I am trying to say. I'm arguing that individuals can make science and faith compatible for themselves and that for many people religion and science is not binary. Whether you think people are right to think this way is up to you, but it doesn't negate the fact that people do think this way.

What I'm trying to say is that you can believe in God and scientific truth. It's not mutually exclusive.

Believing in scientific truth is not ignoring the environmental impact on evolution and inserting god instead. Look, I'm not trying to get you, I just want to make sure we keep discussing the same thing.

 

[Spot261]

Believing in scientific truth is not ignoring the environmental impact on evolution and inserting god instead. Look, I'm not trying to get you, I just want to make sure we keep discussing the same thing.

Would it change your perspective if I pointed out that before my life took a sudden sideways skew out of academia into the harsh consequence filled real world my own post grad research area was in fact evolutionary psychology? Specifically into the extent to which cognitive modularity was shaped by the various models of the evolutionary environment? (I'm personally an advocate of weak and localised modularity)

That as someone from that background myself I have no problem squaring it with the idea of someone's faith because nothing about that framework actually precludes that faith unless you start from a false premise. A false premise that many share, but a false one nonetheless?

On the contrary much of the most pressing selection pressures in that environment would have been social and ironically been major drivers in development of the (theorised) "god module" whose existence underlies many of these issues in the first place.

 

[Shawnster]

Give it 2.000 years, both will be back, religion and science. But guess what? only one of them will look exactly the same as it is now: science
It is fact based, it is logic based, there is no believe involved. the law of gravity doesn't change, the speed of light doesn't change. science is constant.
religion? it is based on the time a specific religious system is developed, culture, history, stories and nurseries. the religious texts in 2.000 years will lokk very different that they do now

My religion is fact based and logic based. In fact, the biblical definition of faith is: " the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen." Proper faith is based on assurance and evidence. Anything not based on fact, logic, and evidence is mere belief True faith is not blind.

Back on topic. I hope the war is wrapped up. Maybe not full peace but a cease fire. Allows for traditional Trek stories with occasional Klingon tension.

 

[lawman]

...I'm arguing that individuals can make science and faith compatible for themselves and that for many people religion and science is not binary. Whether you think people are right to think this way is up to you, but it doesn't negate the fact that people do think this way.

On that basic point, then, we're in agreement. Obviously a lot of people can and do believe both in the empirical scientific world in which they live, and in unseen supernatural entities and other religious concepts for which the only support is "faith." One has only to look around to see this is so. I would argue that anyone who takes both sets of beliefs equally seriously is going to have to contend with a lot of cognitive dissonance, but that doesn't change the basic observation.

I think we're getting some wires crossed here, though, because there are others who are staking out bolder propositions — e.g., Spot261, who seems to be arguing that there it is in fact right and useful to hold both sets of beliefs, because (as he defines them) they concern non-overlapping areas of concern.

Would it change your perspective if I pointed out that before my life took a sudden sideways skew out of academia into the harsh consequence filled real world my own post grad research area was in fact evolutionary psychology? ...much of the most pressing selection pressures in that environment would have been social and ironically been major drivers in development of the (theorised) "god module" whose existence underlies many of these issues in the first place.

Dunno about Mark2000, but it wouldn't change my perspective at all. Whether or not there have been evolutionary pressures that favor developing such beliefs (I think it likely that there have) has nothing whatsoever to do with whether such beliefs actual entail accurate perceptions of reality.

 

[fireproof78]

they concern non-overlapping areas of concern.

As my social psychology teacher would state, that's where philosophy comes in.

 

[DaveyNY]

I believe in a GOD and Science.

I think SHE's the one who ignited the spark that created the BIG BANG to begin with.

 

[Spot261]

Dunno about Mark2000, but it wouldn't change my perspective at all. Whether or not there have been evolutionary pressures that favor developing such beliefs (I think it likely that there have) has nothing whatsoever to do with whether such beliefs actual entail accurate perceptions of reality.

My point was aimed at @Mark2000 and was more about the perception that a scientific background would necessarily bias one away from accepting that the two could legitimately co exist. There really is no reason why it should and where I am an atheist it is a personal belief, not a product of science. Making that coexistence work isn't a question of removing aspects of what defines them, it is about ignoring additional and unwarranted associations they have gained in the public consciousness.

I probably shouldn't have clouded the issue with mention of the god module as it wasn't really central to the point I was making.

 

[lawman]

As my social psychology teacher would state, that's where philosophy comes in.

I don't actually agree that they're non-overlapping... that's Spot261's (and Stephen Jay Gould's) proposition, not mine.

However, to the extent that there are certain kinds of questions (within reality!) that are not answerable by the scientific method, I agree that they're the realm of philosophy. Still no need to invoke the supernatural.

...where I am an atheist it is a personal belief, not a product of science. Making that coexistence work isn't a question of removing aspects of what defines them, it is about ignoring additional and unwarranted associations they have gained in the public consciousness.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Insofar as you are an atheist, how is that merely personal? It's a statement about reality — it says "there are no gods," not "there are no gods for me."

Why then is it constructive to say that (some specifically limited version of) religious belief would be compatible with this? What purpose does that serve?

Especially when it still rules out the vast majority of people's actual religious beliefs, which don't correspond to your definitional constraints? After all, religion is an intersubjective construct — it's very much a product of the public consciousness. You can't just set that aspect aside.

 

[Spot261]

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Insofar as you are an atheist, how is that merely personal? It's a statement about reality — it says "there are no gods," not "there are no gods for me."

Why then is it constructive to say that (some specifically limited version of) religious belief would be compatible with this? What purpose does that serve?

Especially when it still rules out the vast majority of people's actual religious beliefs, which don't correspond to your definitional constraints? After all, religion is an intersubjective construct — it's very much a product of the public consciousness. You can't just set that aspect aside.

Because my statement I am an atheist is entirely personal, it is a belief that is mine and mine alone, entirely aside from my academic history. It is neither necessitated nor hindered by any other aspect of whom I am and if I woke up tomorrow seeing the world differently there would still be no conflict.

Equally no one else's beliefs are inherently incompatible with that background or the premises inherent to it. Natural selection in no way precludes a god and if someone else chooses to believe differently to me then specific beliefs are the only basis on which we need diverge. Science should not have anything to say either way unless you overextend it's reach and that is the mark of a bad scientist.

I completely agree religion is intersubjective, but that someone's belief is shaped by organised religion does take away from the fact that they internalise that belief, it becomes theirs. What purpose that serves depends upon whose needs it is serving, it has value of some kind to that person, value which by it's very nature isn't for me to explain or theorise on.

 

[Mark 2000]

Making that coexistence work isn't a question of removing aspects of what defines them, it is about ignoring additional and unwarranted associations they have gained in the public consciousness.

Except that it does. In the continually brought of case of Robert Bakker he is ignoring the heart of evolution by saying god guides it, not the environment animals live in. That's removal and replacement. Conversely, he is removing everything in his own bible that says the Earth had no evolution. Everything on it today was there from the start. It doesn't even list the coming of species in anything close to the right order. That's a huge removal.

 

[Spot261]

Except that it does. In the continually brought of case of Robert Bakker he is ignoring the heart of evolution by saying god guides it, not the environment animals live in. That's removal and replacement. Conversely, he is removing everything in his own bible that says the Earth had no evolution. Everything on it today was there from the start. It doesn't even list the coming of species in anything close to the right order. That's a huge removal.

But I'm not Robert Bakker, I don't subscribe to his views, nor have I said I do. I merely said others have formulated similar frameworks.

Compatibility doesn't require that removal, it merely requires that people understand the limitations already inherent to those disciplines and adhere to them when they frame their arguments.

 

[XCV330]

My religion states that when faith and established scientific fact differ, scientific fact is to be accepted. So I don't see a conflict, only errors and misunderstandings.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't actually agree that they're non-overlapping... that's Spot261's (and Stephen Jay Gould's) proposition, not mine.

However, to the extent that there are certain kinds of questions (within reality!) that are not answerable by the scientific method, I agree that they're the realm of philosophy. Still no need to invoke the supernatural.

"Need?" I don't necessarily feel a need but it is a topic that I believe is worth exploring.

My religion states that when faith and established scientific fact differ, scientific fact is to be accepted. So I don't see a conflict, only errors and misunderstandings.

Well put.

 

[BillJ]

Don't care if it is resolved or not. We all know how it turns out either way. The Federation is on 150 planets in TOS, so obviously they win the war.