Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 479
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?Page 12 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
sounds to me like many people in germany were lacking critical thinking.

peons always do, but so do the leaders, as they vie for acceptance and popularity.
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 480
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/10/2010 11:53:38 PM
An excellent essay on why science and religion are incompatible:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-11-column11_ST_N.htm


USA TODAY OPINION

On Religion

Faith. Religion. Spirituality. Meaning.

In our ever-shrinking world, the tentacles of religion touch everything from governmental policy to individual morality to our basic social constructs. It affects the lives of people of great faith — or no faith at all.

This series of weekly columns — launched in 2005 — seeks to illuminate the national conversation.



Why Science And Religion Aren't Friends

By Jerry A. Coyne

Religion in America is on the defensive.

Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is still to be an outcast, America's fastest-growing brand of belief is non-belief.

But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a "New Atheist," there are many others attacking the "movement" and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident. The biggest area of religious push-back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually improving dialogue.

As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk. Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they may have a dialogue, it's not a constructive one. Science helps religion only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science.

Irreconcilable

"But surely," you might argue, "science and religion must be compatible. After all, some scientists are religious." One is Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. But the existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science, doesn't prove that the two areas are compatible. It shows only that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time. If that meant compatibility, we could make a good case, based on the commonness of marital infidelity, that monogamy and adultery are perfectly compatible. No, the incompatibility between science and faith is more fundamental: Their ways of understanding the universe are irreconcilable.

Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority rejected. No finding is deemed "true" — a notion that's always provisional — unless it's repeated and verified by others. We scientists are always asking ourselves, "How can I find out whether I'm wrong?" I can think of dozens of potential observations, for instance — one is a billion-year-old ape fossil — that would convince me that evolution didn't happen.

Physicist Richard Feynman observed that the methods of science help us distinguish real truth from what we only want to be true: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

Science can, of course, be wrong. Continental drift, for example, was laughed off for years. But in the end the method is justified by its success. Without science, we'd all live short, miserable and disease-ridden lives, without the amenities of medicine or technology. As Stephen Hawking proclaimed, science wins because it works.

Does religion work? It brings some of us solace, impels some to do good (and others to fly planes into buildings), and buttresses the same moral truths embraced by atheists, but does it help us better understand our world or our universe? Hardly. Note that almost all religions make specific claims about the world involving matters such as the existence of miracles, answered prayers wonder-working saints and divine cures, virgin births, annunciations and resurrections. These factual claims, whose truth is a bedrock of belief, bring religion within the realm of scientific study. But rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma and authority. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude.

And this leads to the biggest problem with religious "truth": There's no way of knowing whether it's true. I've never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can't rationalize as consistent with a loving God. It's the ultimate way of fooling yourself. But how can you be sure you're right if you can't tell whether you're wrong?

The religious approach to understanding inevitably results in different faiths holding incompatible "truths" about the world. Many Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus as savior, you'll burn in hell for eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God's son are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah. Which belief, if any, is right? Because there's no way to decide, religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity's miserable history of religious warfare and persecution.

In contrast, scientists don't kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science — just science, a multicultural search for truth. The difference between science and faith, then, can be summed up simply: In religion faith is a virtue; in science it's a vice.

But don't just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith — it's amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists. While only 6% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, the figure for American scientists is 64%, according to Rice professor Elaine Howard Ecklund's book, Science vs. Religion. Further proof: Among countries of the world, there is a strong negative relationship between their religiosity and their acceptance of evolution. Countries like Denmark and Sweden, with low belief in God, have high acceptance of evolution, while religious countries are evolution-intolerant. Out of 34 countries surveyed in a study published in Science magazine, the U.S., among the most religious, is at the bottom in accepting Darwinism: We're No. 33, with only Turkey below us. Finally, in a 2006 Time poll a staggering 64% of Americans declared that if science disproved one of their religious beliefs, they'd reject that science in favor of their faith.

'Venerable superstition'

In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don't talk about reconciling science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it's the most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially powerful.

Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.

And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we're not yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won't magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be without the fog of superstition!

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. His latest book is Why Evolution is True, and his website is www.whyevolutionistrue.com.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 482
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/11/2010 7:34:20 PM
RE Msg: 584 by arwen52:
Religion in America is on the defensive.
I would agree that things seem to be that way, at least, on a surface examination. However, consider these 2 statements from his article:
Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible,

Which belief, if any, is right? Because there's no way to decide, religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity's miserable history of religious warfare and persecution.

In contrast, scientists don't kill each other over matters such as continental drift.

Out of 34 countries surveyed in a study published in Science magazine, the U.S., among the most religious, is at the bottom in accepting Darwinism: We're No. 33, with only Turkey below us. Finally, in a 2006 Time poll a staggering 64% of Americans declared that if science disproved one of their religious beliefs, they'd reject that science in favor of their faith.
It seems to me, that according to Jerry A. Coyne, if religious people were so intolerant as to kill everyone who disagreed with their faith, then most scientists would be dead, having been killed by religious Americans, who number as many as 270 million. However, AFAIK, that's not only NOT the case, in reality, most scientists don't even get death threats, and even those who have, nearly all are alive and kicking, and haven't had to fend off any religious Americans armed to the teeth with machine guns and bazookas.

So, what we CAN see, is that in America, although there is a lot of grumbling from some religious people about evolutionary theory, and there is some political pressure to support some communities social mores, in general, American scientists are treated pretty damn well, because scientists like Jerry A. Coyne are slagging off religions by implying that they are irrational, and bordering on saying that religions are totally evil, and they are still not being beaten up.

If someone said that the American beliefs of liberty for all, was an evil crack-whore, who should have been aborted at birth, I think a LOT of Americans would want to beat that person up, and a lot probably would. Jerry A. Coyne gets to say far worse about religious people's beliefs, and yet, he's OK.

If religion is on the defensive in America, it's because the religious aren't really fighting back all that much. They are turning the other cheek, for the most part. But atheists seem quite keen to not hold back.

Harvard has a saying on this, that when one plays hardball and one plays softball, the one playing softball almost always loses his shirt. In this case, atheistic American scientists like Jerry A. Coyne are playing hardball, and religious Americans are playing softball. So it's no wonder things seem bleak for religion in America.

However, if you keep chucking rocks at a group of 10 bears, eventually, they will get p*ssed off enough to swipe you back, even if they've been mostly ignoring you. So the situation cannot continue forever like this. Eventually, religious Americans are likely to get p*ssed off enough for them to all take action, or words, and with 10 religious Americans for every one non-religious American, and with 843.75 religious Americans for every one atheistic American scientist, you can bet that it's a fight they cannot hope to win, not even with words.

So he's dealing with an illusion, an illusion that is more and more likely to do a U-turn the longer things go on as they do.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 483
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/11/2010 9:37:43 PM
Scientists make so much sense. Christian believers also accept much that Science ultimately proves. But, Science is in direct conflict with Religion. Scientists cannot prove that God exists. End of debate. For Scientists. Sigh, yawn. Neither can believers re: god. Sigh, yawn. What a wonderful conundrum. What music.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 485
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/12/2010 6:53:16 AM
However, AFAIK, that's not only NOT the case, in reality, most scientists don't even get death threats, and even those who have, nearly all are alive and kicking, and haven't had to fend off any religious Americans armed to the teeth with machine guns and bazookas.

No, at the moment the religious folks are too busy bombing Planned Parenthood clinics and shooting doctors who work at abortion clinics.

So, what we CAN see, is that in America, although there is a lot of grumbling from some religious people about evolutionary theory,

As in filing law suits against school boards to get creationism taught in classrooms (in addition to the above).

If religion is on the defensive in America, it's because the religious aren't really fighting back all that much. They are turning the other cheek, for the most part. But atheists seem quite keen to not hold back.

Bullshit. The (christian) religious nuts in the US are constantly pushing a religious agenda. The only reason that athiests are fighting back is to keep the christian religious nuts from taking over. I live here. I see it everyday. The entire republican party is filled with fundamentalist bible thumpers who follow religious nuts like Pat Robertson, and other televangelists. You could not admit to being an athiest here and stand much chance of getting elected to political office because the word athiest itself is an effective epithet.

However, if you keep chucking rocks at a group of 10 bears, eventually, they will get p*ssed off enough to swipe you back, even if they've been mostly ignoring you

That's backwards, too. The fundamentalists (and that's a LOT of people in the US) have tried hard to marginalize so many different groups of people (gays, athiests, muslims, even catholics, you name it), that the conflict is becoming one between fundamentalists and everyone else (except, perhaps fundamentalist militia/survivalist nuts). If the religious right had their way, the only difference between the US and places like Iran would be which god we had to worship to avoid being stoned to death.

 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 486
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/12/2010 9:20:15 AM
I agree with abelian's points on the matter.

It seems to me, that according to Jerry A. Coyne, if religious people were so intolerant as to kill everyone who disagreed with their faith, then most scientists would be dead, having been killed by religious Americans, who number as many as 270 million.

You are looking at the issue with too limited a scope. You are only looking at the lack of internal violence in the US. The nice thing about a civilized society is that people cannot just go around killing whomever as the impulse strikes. This ignores the history of Catholic persecution of scientists who dared contradict doctrine. The pope just got around to apologizing for that in the last century. This ignores US bullying and empirialistic tendencies abroad by our "Christian" presidents. If Iraq were a Christian totalitarian nation, I think things would have been very different.

As abelian pointed out, this ignores the violence against abortion doctors and clinics, and the nonviolent legal attempts some influential Christian groups make to suppress anything that counters their beliefs. There have also been shooting sprees and bombing attempts by Muslims.

haven't had to fend off any religious Americans armed to the teeth with machine guns and bazookas.

I realize that you were being facetious here, but this still has more truth to it than you realize. Witness the Branch Davidians and militias who largely identify as Christians and are heavily armed. There is a lot of fear mongering regarding government overreach these days...
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 487
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/12/2010 5:30:38 PM
Good post, though I would disagree with Coyne to some extent. While the greater number of scientists are atheist, in the sense of not subscribing to a sect of organized religion, a poll conducted by other scientists (I posted the findings in an earlier post in this thread) reveals that this is not true when asked the question of whether they retained a sense of spiritualism. Belief in organized religion is not the same as possessing a sense of spiritualism.


Atheism is a disbelief in a deity. It has nothing to do with whether you support *organized* religion or not. Many people believe in God who have no association with an organized religion.

I don't know what you mean by a "sense of spiritualism." Science is about verifiable facts. A belief in God requires believing in something that is not verifiable. There is no measurable, verifiable evidence for the existence of God.

I've known a number of research scientists over the years and in every case that's been the basis of their atheism. It has nothing to do with hypocrisy. Some of them practice meditation, yoga, belong to The Ethical Society because they find it fulfilling. Many of them possess a sense of wonder and experience transcendental states but it all falls within the realm of a secular humanist point of view.


It seems to me, that according to Jerry A. Coyne, if religious people were so intolerant as to kill everyone who disagreed with their faith,


He doesn't say religious people kill *everyone,* but it is a fact that people kill others in the name of religion. The attack on the World Trade Center, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust, all used religion as an excuse to kill in the name of God. Ghandhi was killed by a religious extremist. I can't recall scientists killing others because someone refuted their hypotheses.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 488
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/12/2010 10:10:58 PM
RE Msg: 591 by abelian:

However, AFAIK, that's not only NOT the case, in reality, most scientists don't even get death threats, and even those who have, nearly all are alive and kicking, and haven't had to fend off any religious Americans armed to the teeth with machine guns and bazookas.
No, at the moment the religious folks are too busy bombing Planned Parenthood clinics and shooting doctors who work at abortion clinics.
Hey, there's only a few doing that. There's 270 million in America alone. The other 269,900,000 could easily buy a machine gun and gun down every scientist in America if they wanted to.

So, what we CAN see, is that in America, although there is a lot of grumbling from some religious people about evolutionary theory,
As in filing law suits against school boards to get creationism taught in classrooms (in addition to the above).Yes, there is that. But why, I don't know. In the UK, we managed to get along quite fine without these sort of problems, for decades.

However, I did hear recently, that some car dealer has tried or even managed to open a school teaching creationism. Personally, I see that in the same vein as the popularity of high school proms and other Americanisations. The UK is being Americanised, and we are getting your problems as well as everything else.

If religion is on the defensive in America, it's because the religious aren't really fighting back all that much. They are turning the other cheek, for the most part. But atheists seem quite keen to not hold back.

Bullshit. The (christian) religious nuts in the US are constantly pushing a religious agenda. The only reason that athiests are fighting back is to keep the christian religious nuts from taking over. I live here. I see it everyday. The entire republican party is filled with fundamentalist bible thumpers who follow religious nuts like Pat Robertson, and other televangelists. You could not admit to being an athiest here and stand much chance of getting elected to political office because the word athiest itself is an effective epithet.
I agree that there are quite a few people in America who are pushing a religious agenda on a daily basis. But it seems to me that it's the same minority of people pushing the same things every day.

If it was the majority of religious people, then since Xians number 240 million, they could get the laws changed to ban atheism, simply by majority vote. It wouldn't even be that hard. All you'd need to do is to get atheists to agree that atheism is NOT a religion, and then atheists are not protected by the Free Exercise clause.

The fact that atheists have not been expelled, like the Jews were from England, and from Spain, and have not been subject to slaughters of thousands of atheists like the Jews were all over Europe, and have not been subject to any extremely discriminatory behaviours like in Muslim countries, beggars belief. It goes against all prior behaviour of countries.


However, if you keep chucking rocks at a group of 10 bears, eventually, they will get p*ssed off enough to swipe you back, even if they've been mostly ignoring you
That's backwards, too. The fundamentalists (and that's a LOT of people in the US) have tried hard to marginalize so many different groups of people (gays, athiests, muslims, even catholics, you name it), that the conflict is becoming one between fundamentalists and everyone else (except, perhaps fundamentalist militia/survivalist nuts). If the religious right had their way, the only difference between the US and places like Iran would be which god we had to worship to avoid being stoned to death.
Not quite. The posters here who have said negative things about religion, have been clear that they see Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews, as all just as deserving of their disgust, hatred, and that they would like to see those religions removed totally, even to the extent of banning them. Non-religious gays, atheists, non-religious liberals, and many non-religious social crusaders appear to be on common ground, as there are so many who are vocal that they seem to want to see religions forcibly removed from the world, and there are precious few who say that they oppose such anti-religious views.

However, I am in the UK, and have a more European view of things, or a global view of things, as I was raised in Europe, my father was from North Africa, and have spent years in the Middle East. So the things that are happening in America might have been purely an internal American problem, that might be misunderstood as a war on religion.

However, the problem is that America is the most powerful country in the world, both economically and militarily, and has been so for the past 60 years. It's influence has changed the European economy to run like America, and is causing Brits to adopt American customs, and has caused the same views of the Xian fundamentalists and strongly anti-religious atheism to leach over here. Whether Americans like it or not, they are at the head of the world, and they are directing the way the world goes, and when it doesn't go their way, they seem to be quite keen to invade and force things their way. So, what happens in America, is spreading to the rest of the world.

But, in the rest of the world, it doesn't look at all like a war between Xian fundamentalism and everyone else. Xians, Muslims and Jews are all seeing this sort of thing as a direct attack of their lives to force them to be atheists, and in the process, they are now coming together as brothers-in-arms, more and more. I know this, because I know people who work in interfaith relations, and in state schools, and this is what is happening.

The war in America might seem to be between Xian fundamentalists and everyone else. But as it moves to the rest of the world, it's a war between atheism and all religions of the world.

So you might see the American bear as a pup. But you're kicking and shooting the bears in the rest of the world, and they outnumber Americans by 19 to 1, and by American atheists by 190 to 1.

So if it is an internal problem, and you don't want this to escalate to even more worse things than the terrorism of 9/11, you'd better change your attitude, and you'd better tell the world that it's Americans who are the problem, and you don't have a problem with anyone else, and you decry anyone who even suggests that this problem exists anywhere else, and Dawkins is most emphatic that it is a war on religion, and particularly wants to see it banned in the UK, and he is considered a global representative of atheists worldwide.

RE Msg: 592 by flyguy51:
You are looking at the issue with too limited a scope. You are only looking at the lack of internal violence in the US. The nice thing about a civilized society is that people cannot just go around killing whomever as the impulse strikes.
Yes. But the countries that do have internal violence against atheists, are also those countries in which religious people can get put in a Bangkok Hilton for looking at a policeman in the wrong way. Horrible things happen to everyone in those countries, atheists and theists alike, to such an extent, that what happens to atheists for being atheists is almost a drop in the ocean.

I'm not excusing it. I'm saying that these countries are so corrupt, and so full of atrocities, that you just cannot consider atheists to be singled out for special treatment all that much more than anyone else.

This ignores the history of Catholic persecution of scientists who dared contradict doctrine.
I've investigated that. So far, I've only come across Giordano Bruno and Galileo, and I've investigated them both. To be honest, if they made equivalent theories today in America, I think atheists would be demanding they spend the rest of their lives in jail, but would probably lose their funding, and any option to teach, and would be discredited as crackpots.

The pope just got around to apologizing for that in the last century.
I haven't heard about that. The only thing I heard the pope apologise for, was for Xians killing so many jews.

The pope also acknowledged that evolution was not in conflict with Xianity. But that's not an apology, shouldn't have to be, especially when it's been acknowledge by Catholic Bishops in the UK for almost as long as Darwin's theory has been around.

This ignores US bullying and empirialistic tendencies abroad by our "Christian" presidents.
I've heard many non-Americans say that America bullies the rest of the world. But I've NEVER heard ANYONE suggest they do it because they are Xians, not even from Muslims. Everyone I've spoken to, say that America does it just so they can keep being top dog of the world.

If Iraq were a Christian totalitarian nation, I think things would have been very different.
The UK is the closest to you, and is officially a Xian country. Our politicians are terrified of p*ssing off America.

As abelian pointed out, this ignores the violence against abortion doctors and clinics, and the nonviolent legal attempts some influential Christian groups make to suppress anything that counters their beliefs.
I agree that happens. But to be honest, there have been far more crimes against animal labs by animal rights protestors, and again, the violence is in America for the most part, and Americans have far more homicides than other Western countries.

There have also been shooting sprees and bombing attempts by Muslims.
Yeah. But the West has paid for revolutions in Muslim countries to put their own puppet into power, like Operation Ajax. The West has sold arms to Iran and Iraq for 10 years, to keep them killing each other. The West invaded Muslim countries, and then stayed there, and controlled their oil. The West has supported the Saudis for decades, when they take nearly all the money, and leave most of the rest as dirt poor. The Middle East has been turned into a nightmare by the West. I'm surprised that it didn't happen 10 years ago. I'm also surprised that the West didn't see it coming. Muslim Arabs have been sending their kids to American universities to learn chemistry since the 60s. With the way they've been treated, and teaching them the chemistry to make bombs with, it was only a matter of time.

This is payback, mate, for screwing the Muslims right up, just to get money and power, for several decades.

haven't had to fend off any religious Americans armed to the teeth with machine guns and bazookas.


I realize that you were being facetious here, but this still has more truth to it than you realize. Witness the Branch Davidians and militias who largely identify as Christians and are heavily armed.
Right now, they have arms, true. Mind you, from what I hear, practically everyone in Texas has a handgun. You guys have way more guns than we do, even per person, and it's easy to buy an illegal gun in the UK, if you really want to. Remember, I'm a Jew. I remember what the Cossacks did. They would just grab swords and stab all the Jews they saw. You really have no idea what violence is, if you think that the Waco Massacre was a big deal. We lost more than that in Piper Alpha.

There is a lot of fear mongering regarding government overreach these days...
I agree. But I think that atheists are a lot more paranoid than they have reason to be, and I think the media is driving it. It's causing a wedge in society. There is an old rule of war, and particularly of politics, "United they stand, divided they fall". Americans, and Westerners in general, are becoming divided due to this supposed conflict, and it pretty much guarantees the people will never unite to defend themselves against either politicians or bankers.

You're being screwed, screwed to the wall, and you're letting politicians and corporations do it to you, by buying in to media fear.

Your choice. But then expect to be screwed over, and most of all, by the people you are putting your trust in.

RE Msg: 593 by arwen52:
He doesn't say religious people kill *everyone,*
Scuse me, but when you have a religious massacre, yes, they do. Ask the Jews. Ask the Bosnians. Ask the Serbs. Ask the Hutus. Ask the Tutsis. Better still, ask the survivors of Hiroshima. There is no middle ground in these wars.

but it is a fact that people kill others in the name of religion. The attack on the World Trade Center, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust, all used religion as an excuse to kill in the name of God. Ghandhi was killed by a religious extremist.
If a woman says that a guy told her he loved her and wanted to be with her forever, and she slept with him because of what he said, and then he never called her again, would you say that she was right to believe him?

Guys lie all the time, if it will get them what they want.

You don't judge men by their words. You judge them by their actions.

A religious war is when you start a war with someone who G-d would want you to kill, but not because you stand something to gain from it.

If American started a war with the U.S.S.R., and China, and Butan, for practising Vodun, but didn't touch their brother Muslims, like Iraq and Afghanistan, and didn't do things like Operation Ajax, or selling arms to both the Iraqis and the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war, then they'd be following religion.

But the other way around, means that America goes to war with countries that are their religious brothers, as Muslims and Xians both believe in Jesus, but who have vested interests like oil, and don't start on anti-Xian countries that they have nothing to gain from in money and power.

You either think like a woman who believes men who tell her they love her on the first date, or you judge them by their actions, and by their actions, nearly ALL of these religious wars are about money, power, and things like vengeance, but never about religion.

I can't recall scientists killing others because someone refuted their hypotheses.
I can. Pythagoras burned a student to death for claiming that negative numbers exist. In Western countries, a scientist would get arrested for literally killing someone. But they don't have to. A ruined reputation, killing their tenure, denying them funding, and basically driving them out of science, is academic homicide. It's the academic version of murder.

I don't know what the numbers are. But I know this. I've heard of that sort of game-playing a lot in academic circles, enough that if you counted it up, it would count up to a lot of murders in the academic fashion.

Summary:

I'm not saying that atheists don't get it in the neck. But a few Jews die every year from anti-Semitism. Xians die every year from attacks, as do Muslims. Actually, relatively speaking, atheists have probably one of the easiest times when it comes to group discrimination.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 489
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/12/2010 10:35:44 PM

If religion is on the defensive in America, it's because the religious aren't really fighting back all that much. They are turning the other cheek, for the most part. But atheists seem quite keen to not hold back.

You know not about what you speak.

If it was the majority of religious people, then since Xians number 240 million, they could get the laws changed to ban atheism, simply by majority vote. It wouldn't even be that hard. All you'd need to do is to get atheists to agree that atheism is NOT a religion, and then atheists are not protected by the Free Exercise clause.

You obviously do not understand the establisment clause to the first amendment. The free exercise of religion, by necessity must protect people FROM religion. It bars the government from establishing ANY religion, which is why teaching creation in publicly funded schools has been ruled unconstitutional. Banning athiesm is exactly the same thing as forcing religion on athiests. Read a few Supreme Court rulings on the subject before babbling. In fact, try living here like I do before you start telling me that religion is being marginalized by militant atheists. You're full of shit, as usual.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 491
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/13/2010 1:13:24 PM
RE Msg: 595 by abelian:

If religion is on the defensive in America, it's because the religious aren't really fighting back all that much. They are turning the other cheek, for the most part. But atheists seem quite keen to not hold back.
You know not about what you speak.
Well, I haven't been to America yet. But I've seen discrimination in lots of places, and when people have been holding their tongue for fear of reprisals. I know what it looks like.

So I guess at this point, we'll have to agree to disagree.


If it was the majority of religious people, then since Xians number 240 million, they could get the laws changed to ban atheism, simply by majority vote. It wouldn't even be that hard. All you'd need to do is to get atheists to agree that atheism is NOT a religion, and then atheists are not protected by the Free Exercise clause.
You obviously do not understand the establisment clause to the first amendment. The free exercise of religion, by necessity must protect people FROM religion. It bars the government from establishing ANY religion, which is why teaching creation in publicly funded schools has been ruled unconstitutional. Banning athiesm is exactly the same thing as forcing religion on athiests. Read a few Supreme Court rulings on the subject before babbling. In fact, try living here like I do before you start telling me that religion is being marginalized by militant atheists. You're full of shit, as usual.
I have read a bit on the subject. An atheist in prison tried to hold weekly atheist meetings. The prison refused. The case went to the Supreme Court. They ruled that the prison had to allow atheistic meetings, using the Free Exercise clause, by declaring that, in terms of the First Amendment, atheism IS a religion, and by pointing out that there are numerous precedents which used the same. That was the basis of my point.

FYI, if you read Jefferson's letter on the wall of separation between church and state, he was very clear, that:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

It's pretty clear to me from that, that the wall of separation is designed to stop the government interfering with religious duties, and so is a clause that the government cannot stop Free Exercise OF Religion. Atheism is only covered there, by calling it a religion.

Of course, you are quite welcome to keep insulting me, if that takes your fancy.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 492
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/13/2010 2:19:51 PM
RE Msg: 598 by annasthasia:

Of course, you are quite welcome to keep insulting me, if that takes your fancy.
There goes the victim card again...
Quite the reverse. I put it in, because I realised that it's no skin off my nose.


I suppose you see yourself as a bear having rocks thrown at you?...
Not at all. I try to avoid hurting people, as when I do, whether by force or words, people seem to get hurt as if I was Tyson.

I'll tolerate a lot more than most. But if it's too much, and the person refuses to stop, and refuses to even listen to any compromise, is stop being around them. Then, the sh*t comes, they don't see it, I am no longer there to warn them, and their lives go to hell on Earth. But then, they were the ones who pushed me away.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 493
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/13/2010 3:08:01 PM
RE Msg: 600 by annasthasia:

Then, the sh*t comes, they don't see it, I am no longer there to warn them, and their lives go to hell on Earth. But then, they were the ones who pushed me away.
Really???
Yes.

I analyse nearly everything. I also have a great internal desire to help others avoid problems. So yes, I do think about everything that goes on, in everyone else's lives, and when I see a potential problem coming up, I assess its likelihood, consider it again, in case I am wrong, and then I warn people who I feel MIGHT listen.

A lot of my work employers have told me that they really appreciated it, and of my friends, they often say that either they appreciate it, or they wish they'd listened. So I keep doing it.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 495
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/14/2010 12:14:30 AM
Krebby.....you aim at eight grade level? Your aim is not filled with insight. You need to understand that making a living eclipses any pondering of why Science is in conflict with Religion. You got the bucks to breathe, you win. You don't have the bucks to breathe consider your ass done. Is it any more difficult than that? Science is just another realm of the fortunate. Most of the unfortunate and disenfranchised do not appreciate the efforts. The end. Would you?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 496
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/14/2010 10:06:14 AM
I'll skip your personal interpretation of Jefferson. Since you also did not cite the case to which you referred, I'll assume for the sake of argument that it's correct and point out exactly why you're prevaricating again.

They ruled that the prison had to allow atheistic meetings, using the Free Exercise clause, by declaring that, in terms of the First Amendment, atheism IS a religion, and by pointing out that there are numerous precedents which used the same. That was the basis of my point.

Then your point is without the basis you asserted. Legal definitions are often inconsistent with definitions that are strictly correct. The most obvious example is legally classifying drugs like methamphetamine as a narcotic. It obviously is not a narcotic. So, I'll just ssume that the Supreme Court really did say what you are claiming they said and refer to the statement you made that I called bullshit on:

If it was the majority of religious people, then since Xians number 240 million, they could get the laws changed to ban atheism, simply by majority vote. It wouldn't even be that hard. All you'd need to do is to get atheists to agree that atheism is NOT a religion, and then atheists are not protected by the Free Exercise clause.

The entire medical establishment agrees that methamphetamine is not a narcotic by definition of what a narcotic is. That is a scientific fact about which no debate exists, yet that has not resulted in legislation that would change anything at all for legal purposes. Either you are constantly trying to backpeddle over your previous statements when you're wrong with deliberately twisted logic you hope no one will follow so you don't have to admit it or you are incredibly dense. Take your pick.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 497
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/14/2010 1:43:44 PM
RE Msg: 602 by annasthasia:
Ok... the door is wide open for interpretation here... I will refrain... There are so many things I could wite right now... but I will not... It is futile and a waste of time.
Yes, it is. I grew up with many strong women, who would put my words and my actions to the test.

RE Msg: 605 by abelian:
Since you also did not cite the case to which you referred, I'll assume for the sake of argument that it's correct and point out exactly why you're prevaricating again.
I forgot to include a reference. Look up "Kaufman v. McCaughtry". It's an interesting read.

The entire medical establishment agrees that methamphetamine is not a narcotic by definition of what a narcotic is. That is a scientific fact about which no debate exists, yet that has not resulted in legislation that would change anything at all for legal purposes. Either you are constantly trying to backpeddle over your previous statements when you're wrong with deliberately twisted logic you hope no one will follow so you don't have to admit it or you are incredibly dense. Take your pick.
OK then. I am human. I can be wrong, and then maybe I am.

I was trying to point out that it might be more in the interest of atheists to try to achieve a peaceful co-existence with others. It's up to all atheists to choose how to live. I just know that been taken to see many monuments to what has happened in the past, and from what I have learned of my own experience, conflict breeds more conflict, and I was trying to help others out. But it's still everyone's choice over how to act.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 498
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/17/2010 6:44:51 PM
I don't see any overlap between religion and science either, they are separate enities, serving different purposes. It's the same with art and science, in the sense of an analogy.


Bohr’s discerning conviction was that the invisible world of the electron was essentially a cubist world. By 1923, de Broglie had already determined that electrons could exist as either particles or waves. What Bohr maintained was that the form they took depended on how you looked at them. Their very nature was a consequence of our observation. This meant that electrons weren’t like little planets at all. Instead, they were like one of Picasso’s deconstructed guitars, a blur of brushstrokes that only made sense once you stared at it. The art that looked so strange was actually telling the truth.

It’s hard to believe that a work of abstract art might have actually affected the history of science. Cubism seems to have nothing in common with modern physics. When we think about the scientific process, a specific vocabulary comes to mind: objectivity, experiments, facts. In the passive tense of the scientific paper, we imagine a perfect reflection of the real world. Paintings can be profound, but they are always pretend.

This view of science as the sole mediator of everything depends upon one unstated assumption: While art cycles with the fashions, scientific knowledge is a linear ascent. The history of science is supposed to obey a simple equation: Time plus data equals understanding. One day, we believe, science will solve everything.

But the trajectory of science has proven to be a little more complicated. The more we know about reality—about its quantum mechanics and neural origins—the more palpable its paradoxes become. As Vladimir Nabokov, the novelist and lepidopterist, once put it, “The greater one’s science, the deeper the sense of mystery.”

The fundamental point is that modern science has made little progress toward any unified understanding of everything. Our unknowns have not dramatically receded. In many instances, the opposite has happened, so that our most fundamental sciences are bracketed by utter mystery. It’s not that we don’t have all the answers. It’s that we don’t even know the question.

This is particularly true for our most fundamental sciences, like physics and neuroscience. Physicists study the fabric of reality, the invisible laws and particles that define the material world. Neuroscientists study our perceptions of this world; they dissect the brain in order to understand the human animal. Together, these two sciences seek to solve the most ancient and epic of unknowns: What is everything? And who are we?

This world of human experience is the world of the arts. The novelist and the painter and the poet embrace those ephemeral aspects of the mind that cannot be reduced, or dissected, or translated into the activity of an acronym. They strive to capture life as it’s lived. As Virginia Woolf put it, the task of the novelist is to “examine for a moment an ordinary mind on an ordinary day…[tracing] the pattern, however disconnected and incoherent in appearance, which each sight or incident scores upon the consciousness.” She tried to describe the mind from the inside.

Neuroscience has yet to capture this first-person perspective. Its reductionist approach has no place for the “I” at the center of everything. It struggles with the question of qualia. Artists like Woolf, however, have been studying such emergent phenomena for centuries, and have amassed a large body of knowledge about such mysterious aspects of the mind. They have constructed elegant models of human consciousness that manage to express the texture of our experience, distilling the details of real life into prose and plot. That’s why their novels have endured: because they feel true. And they feel true because they capture a layer of reality that reductionism cannot.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_future_of_science_is_art/


You cannot analyze a piece of art, and predict it's popularity ahead of time.

You can't program a computer to create a song, paint a painting, write a poem or a novel either - with any hope of much success, compared to a human creation.

Novels are fictional stories, yet people can (and do) find value in them. Art, many times, is "useless" (at least in the minds of some) if you look at it in a totally rational and logical way.

Something that one person loves, another hates. Sometimes, years later, that may suddenly change.

No one is arguing that art should be banned, are they ?

What I've come to appreciate is that the human mind is a complex thing, and it's not totally "logical" in the way it functions. To go too far into that "Spock" mode means we ignore the "other side" we all have as human beings. That does us a great disservice, plus...it's not really "us".

The scientific method relies on logic, and dissection of information and data into things that can be explained by experiments and theories in repeatable ways. To me, I see that a bit like dissecting a frog into it's c0mponent parts.

Quite important to understanding "what" a frog is, and how it functions, without any doubt.

Unlike that frog, at least so far as we understand frogs today, we are far more than a bunch of assembled parts that do things that keep us alive and moving. We have emotions, something that also defies logic (many times) almost by definition. If we were indeed totally logical and rational beings all the time, what type of world would we live in now ?

Perhaps far more advanced, but also perhaps far less beautiful and fulfilling.

Someone with a million dollars in the bank can feel lonely and worthless - while someone else with far less may be perfectly happy.

Science itself isn't perfect, as viewpoints shift with things like time and technology. What was right at one time, is now sometimes wrong thanks to that progression.

Both creationists and scientists face the same dilema over the start of our existence. What existed one second "before" that moment, and how did it come to be ? That's a question that may never be answered by either camp, honestly.

I think part of this debate centers in the way we see religion today, and that's changed quite a bit in my lifetime.

Religion used to be something that was for you and your family, and to never be imposed upon others. Fanatics have radicalized religion, and sought to use it as a weapon against others. That dogmatic side has grown, many times. When faced with logical scientific questions, that dogma has reacted by simply strengthening, and not weakening. That's a normal reaction, I think.

Now you could argue that this was the case in the past too, and you wouldn't be far wrong.

When I was younger, these two camps seemed to agree to live in different realms, and accept each other fairly well. Perhaps it's like everything else today, and showing the efforts of more and more polarization upon us.

I do think there's a need for spiritual considerations, and I avoided using the word "religion" simply thanks to the perjorative sense of the word it's so often associated with.

Look at a country like the Netherlands, where organized religion has fallen out of favor generally. It's quite a secular society, quite "left wing" (by American standards, anyway), and yet even among many " non-religious" people there is a still a spiritual belief.

Even one quarter of non-believers "pray".


A 2007 research God in Nederland, based on in-depth interviews of 1132 people concluded that 61% of the Dutch are non-affiliated. Fewer than 20% attend church regularly. Similar studies were done in 1966, 1979 and 1996, showing a steady decline of religious affiliation. That this trend is likely to continue is illustrated by the fact that in the age group under 35, 69% are non-affiliated.

However, those who are religious tend to be more profoundly religious than in the past.

Religious belief is also regarded as a very personal affair, as is illustrated by the fact that 60% of self-described believers are not affiliated with any organised religion. There is a stronger stress on positive sides of belief, with Hell and the concept of damnation being pushed into the background. One quarter of non-believers sometimes pray, but more in a sense of meditative self-reflection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands


As I've alluded to before, this spiritual need may in fact be an expression of something inate that helps to hold back that reptilian brain from acting in ways that would risk society and survival of the species. At it's best, it's seeing ourselves in others, and acting compassionately towards them.

Are those that argue that all religion is simply some silly misguided superstition also going to invalidate someone like the Dali Lama ?


All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives.

If you can, help others; if you cannot do that, at least do not harm them.

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion.

If you have a particular faith or religion, that is good. But you can survive without it.

Dalai Lama


Those are the words of someone I personally consider highly spiritual, and it's a message that science cannot invalidate.

If more "religious people" followed it, there'd be less of a call for religion to be invalidated.
 JP1111
Joined: 4/13/2008
Msg: 501
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/27/2010 2:23:05 PM
How on earth could something that is factual, studied with r-e-a-l-i-s-t-i-c and tangible outcomes ever be in conflict with something that is held in your heart, studied with no real results or outcomes, based solely on a book of what people wrote eons ago, then translated, them redone in many other forms of religions?

It is with all of this that I CAN'T see any link between the two. I've said it once and I'll say it again, I would see much more of a closeness between God and Santa Clause. Both are stories past on from person to person, there are many books on Santa Clause, we celebrate Santa Clause every year etc... But in the end, I will celebrate Sana Clause but I don't believe in God.
 hungry_joe
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 502
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/27/2010 3:43:41 PM
I'll be honest with you I haven't read all the posts, simply because there's a lot of them and I tend to be a a slow reader.

However theres some points that stuck out in my mind that I'd like to address.
First in my reading of the Bible nowhere did it discuss the exact movement of the celestaial bodies. Genensis (not the band) does leave some room for interpertation. The flat world and fix stars was a Hellinestic philosophy of Ptolomey.

Secondly in all honesty Atheism is not a "religion" for one important distinction it has not fixed ritual. Therefore, it is only a philosophical stance. It would be better to say that it is dogmatic in it doxy.

Is Science and Religion in conflict? Only when we choose it to be. Otherwise both have their place in the understanding of Humanity and its role in the larger Universe. On the contrary they are very simmular both searching for the truth, and being cerebal in nature. It is how we come to these interpertations which conflict begins to arise. Science has a foundation in the languge of math, whereas, religion has a foundation in emotion. This is where the turmoil begins.

As to specific religions that were metioned as being blood thursty. The religion itself is not blood thursty it is when it becomes political in nature that it can be used to justify doing bad things to people. True of all religions.
 hungry_joe
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 504
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/28/2010 3:32:45 AM
Short answer is yes. I will give more detail after I return from work. But lets not limit it to one religion or another.

The Spanish Inquistion was more a political activity then it was a religious one. The king used religion to justify his actions. Remember the King of Spain had just finished conquering Iberina. Therefore he was trying to unite the kingdom under one religion and expelled Jews and Muslims.

The Crusades were a war, a political act. And which crusade are we talking about?

Would you say that Bin Laden is more a political figure or a religious one?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 506
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/28/2010 1:02:40 PM

The Crusades were a war, a political act. And which crusade are we talking about?

Would you say that Bin Laden is more a political figure or a religious one?

How about just considering the existence of religion to be politically motivated? It's hard to beat the promise of an afterlife as a reward for obedience and the concept seems to be as flexible as people have ingenuety to make it serve their political aspirations.
 hungry_joe
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 507
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/28/2010 4:42:52 PM
I can totally accept the concept of religion being politically motivated. Again we should name which religion in which we are speaking of. This is true of the three Western religions, and for different reasons. We have to look period of time and context in which the events (large and small) in which they happen in.

Let's take the begining of Islam, and the war between the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) and the Sarriasains. Did one influence the other? I would argue yes, but that is another topic for another thread or exploration in a book.

Lets get back to the Spanish inquistion, Spain finished its conquest in 1492, durring the same period we had the upheaval of Christain Western Schism (Reformation) and ideas on Orthopraxy as well as Orthodoxy Theolgy. I would say that it was that The Church was more influenced that it would have a Theological Ally, the chruch had in influencing Spanish interal affairs. A weakened Church could ill afford to loose Spain, and have a new Theolgoical and Military threat.

I honestly think that it is more the State that influences the church vs. vice versa.
So that you don't think I'm picking on one religion or another. You can ask the same question of Jerry Farrwell. Is Jerry Farrwell more a poltical figure or a religious figure. I would say political.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 509
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/28/2010 8:04:52 PM

Again we should name which religion in which we are speaking of.

All of them.
 hungry_joe
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 510
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/28/2010 8:10:32 PM
I would agree that not all people that are of a religious bend are political. I pick specific individuals that are closer to the polar extreme to deminstrate my point that it is the intermingling of religon and politics which people get most upset about because of the potentally dangerous effects.

Lets take Bin Laden. A deeply devout man, that is running an international Terrorist Orgainization which goal is to establish an Worldwide Caliphate based off an idealized concept of the 4 rightly guided Caliphs. Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, and Ali. This orgaization is using religion as a catalist for funding, recruitment, and orgazational structure. It is futher disgusing its aims as a political movement by selectively chooing Surras out of the Qu'ran that justify their means, and murders. Saying that God told us to do so therefore, we must. But if one looks at the entire context around the verse that is used, you will see that the meaning of the verse is completely changed.


Now lets take the late Rev. Farewell. Again another devout man, that many would not doubt in sincerity of his religious conviction. Yet, he, the late Dr. Kennedy, and Rev. Jim Baker (not to be confused with the former Sec. of State durring the Bush 41 Adm) founded the Christian Colltion (sp) which later was better know as the religious right. Its aim was to use Christian Mores in the Evangelical Protestant tradtion to influence U.S. Government policy, and law. This lobbying is an overt act of politics. Rev. Fawell would boldly and proudly proclaim his political agenda(s) on the radio and television, and again would use Chapter and verse to "strengthen" is arguement, that it was theologically as well Biblically sound. A examination of the context both literal and historical gives a different interpertation then the one that he presented. I will not say that this was always the case, but more often then not. Does this make Rev. Farwell a bad man? No, because I think that he truly beleived everything he said, and as he understood it. But how can you not call someone that overtly tries to influence politics a non-partasain? Furthermore, how can you not say that he wasn't more politican then Rev when he founded one of the most influential and partisan lobby organizations in modern American politics. Again doesn't make him bad, just makes him a politican as well as a Rev. I never said you couldn't be both. Did I?

....

In my study of world religion(s) not all religions are politically motovated. Hindus come to mind, as well as Doaists. When you get to Buddhism, you need to whittle it down a little more and find the sect. Zoroastrians aren't political at all, and they don't accept converts, you have to be born into this Persian religion. Then you have the Bi Hia. Shinto is about worshiping your anscestors so I doubt that it is very political. Whereas, Cofusianism is very political it is about the right action, and class distinctions. So again we have to examine each world religon for its own faults and merits, without out of hand rejecting them all or saying that they are all alike.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 512
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/28/2010 10:44:34 PM
What always exists are the Northern Lights, deserts, sunrises, sunsets, movement that brings a truth harder to deny...Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...then if you really insist upon being contrary..... a denial that this gift you have been given..... since your very first breath is up for debate. Hey....I remember the sun on my head, I am four...it is mud..or sand...and I am complete. Science (evolved) and religion (evolved) will never win when it comes down to what really matters. A dance and communication between yourself and this place and this thing called Mother Earth. Whatever. Bring on the aliens.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 513
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 10/29/2010 5:10:23 AM
Science (evolved) and religion (evolved) will never win when it comes down to what really matters. A dance and communication between yourself and this place and this thing called Mother Earth.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but I can say that by studying science, one is able to appreciate natural phenomena, like the northern lights, to a greater extent than those who haven't could imagine is possible, especially people who are satisfied to stop thinking and just call the phenomena gifts from god.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >