Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

[kowalskiL]

Deists and scientists: peaceful coexistence

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians). My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:

Spirituality and science

The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.

And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc.

Thank you in advance,

Ludwik Kowalski (author of Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality )
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
.

[Arioch]

While I haven't had enough time to read the entire article you cited, I've found it interesting so far. As soon as time permits I'll give it the attention it deserves, and have far more input on it.

As it is though I have a question and a comment.

The title of this thread is "Deists and scientists...', yet in the text of the OP you use theologian instead of deist. Am I correct in assuming you're looking for input from all schools of theological thought and not just deist views (on the side of spirituality)?

My thoughts at this time are that science and spirituality, for the time being, can only peacefully coexist when they are kept separate. One is based upon empirical research, while the other is based upon things which generally cannot be tested for or observed. Conflict between the two seems assured. A spiritual person may argue that the bright light they saw during a near-death (or, as Mr. Durden would put it, 'near-life') experience is a glimpse of heaven, while a more scientific person would argue that it's a hallucination caused by lack of blood-flow to the brain.

Since people who are not having near-death experiences but who have blood-flow restricted for some reason have reported the same types of hallucinations (for example, pilots undergoing centrifuge tests), science seems to be vindicated.And yet the spiritual person may in turn argue that his or her experience was different, more real or leaving them with a sense of purpose that they cannot account for otherwise.

We find similar at each turn with science and spirituality: ghosts, miracles, spirits, etc. Though science seems to provide answers (and by science I include all scientific fields), the spiritual side may always argue that science is either incapable of detecting/proving what they claim to be real, or that we are not yet advanced enough to do so.

So, again, science and spirituality seem to coexist peacefully only when separated. When one tries to cross over in to the other there are always arguments and conflict.

[Stoney Toni]

Have to agree with Arioch, they're very different, and there's no problem until they begin encroaching on each others turf, so to speak. The scientific method quantifies and explores the natural world through observation and experimentation. The theologic method explores spirituality through feelings, emotion, and scriptures. Many scientists are spiritual, and there's no issue so long as they don't try to mix two immiscible philosophies when performing their work in the fields of science. The quality assurance of peer review in most cases would likely catch that before publishing, but it's not a perfect system. I would think there is more resistance to bringing spirituality into science, than vice versa.

[Owl]

And fanatics on both side of the question make the same mistake..

They take the scriptures literally

[JoeSchmoe]

I replied to a thread that was identical to this. What happened to that thread???

[Mark]

I replied to a thread that was identical to this. What happened to that thread???

Man! I thought that was dejavu. I also replied to your reply.

It may have gotten swept away with the cleanup.

[Freethinker]

I would very much like to know what people on this website think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians).

Scientists and theologians can have the same sort of *peaceful existence* with one another that a sane and rational man can have with a lunatic on the street who is swatting at imaginary angels flying around him; as long as the sane person pretends to go along with (or else simply ignores) the insane person and not overly upset him by pointing out that THERE ARE NO ANGELS flying around him, their coexistence can remain "peaceful".

But should the man of reason (iow, the scientist) ever dare point out to the irrational man (iow, the superstitionist) that there is no evidence or proof for the unseen and ephemeral things that he imagines to exist, strife and conflict will undoubtedly become a part of their interaction with one another.

[karrie]

Only those who demand that others see it their way, create strife and conflict. I've had many rousing discussions about theology with atheists, where we've discussed our reasons for our views, without ever insulting or disparaging one another. It helps when it doesn't open with insults and a declaration of where the conversation will end up, of course.

[kowalskiL]

Only those who demand that others see it their way, create strife and conflict. I've had many rousing discussions about theology with atheists, where we've discussed our reasons for our views, without ever insulting or disparaging one another. It helps when it doesn't open with insults and a declaration of where the conversation will end up, of course.

Yes, the "we know better" confrontations create strife. How to avoid such confrontations?

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

[kowalskiL]

While I haven't had enough time to read the entire article you cited, I've found it interesting so far. As soon as time permits I'll give it the attention it deserves, and have far more input on it.

As it is though I have a question and a comment.

The title of this thread is "Deists and scientists...', yet in the text of the OP you use theologian instead of deist. Am I correct in assuming you're looking for input from all schools of theological thought and not just deist views (on the side of spirituality)

You are correct. Using the term deist instead of theist was a mistake. At the time of writing I was not aware that these two words usually refer to different people, in American history.

Thank you,

Ludwik Kowalski
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html