You could mix science with religion though, it's not like you're trying to disprove the existence of god or anything. Science to my recollection was never about going against any sort of religious deity, science is about learning about the world around us (and the universe too) and finding ways to improve life. There's no reason for it to clash with religion, but atheists and religious people alike tend to crash both into each other in an attempt to prove their side. Many scientists were religious, no? And many religious people I know trust science and even believe evolution was possible.
I agree, we need to take a stance against atheists who constantly use science to disprove religion and assume that's what science was about as likewise, we need to take a stance against religious people who refuse to prioritize safety and health. The Pope did right by allowing the use of condom and birth control, as well as allowing same-sex marriage. That's the kind of advancement religions need to become better. Religions need to evolve with the times, in my opinion. One thing I can't stand though is when parents refuse to get treatment for their kids and jeopardize them just because of god.
You missed my point a bit. I am not saying you can't be religious and scientific, just the opposite, you can be both. The issue is not mixing them, keeping the boundaries of each clear. My point is that if you are basing your religious beliefs on science (say evolution or the age of the universe) or your science on your religious believes (say, you believe the bible to be a source of any form of scientific knowledge) you are doing science and religion wrong because you are going outside the scope of what each does. Science does not attempt to answer nor cares about spiritual matters. Religion done right does not attempt to answer scientific questions nor cares about scientific matters.
Also, I am pretty sure the pope has not "allowed" any of the things you mention. The current pope has not actually changed anything whatsoever. He hasn't really said much about birth control from what I recall and his attitude towards same sex marriage is not "permissive". What this pope has is simply a different attitude from past popes, not different beliefs. This pope in regards to other popes has simply said that gay people, divorces, transsexuals and other folk should be treated as people, as actual human beings, that we shouldn't focus on judging them for their sexual orientation and whatnot. However the church itself (the pope included) still sees gay marriage and other things pretty much the same as always, a sin. From what I gather the pope wants to make the church and church members more tolerant, more inclusive and make followers not be quick in judging others. Well, he did say the bit about civil unions however that is not in itself allowing marriages within the church. Its a legal thing which serves practical legal purposes. In fact when he said that bit he still said the church is opposed to same sex marriages.
About that last question...the assumption in the question oversimplifies religion...religion offers comfort that the life and hardship spend here is not in vain, so I think if you want to simplify religion, then this is a more appropriate simplification...and it also provides a value system, and by its conservative nature it helps to preserve cultural identity...
Religion itself is not wrong or irational...fundamentalism is wrong, many times the Church is wrong (or Churches), blind faith and superstition is...so that is why it still holds ground in many societies in this world...
PS: I refer mostly to the western world here...I don't really know much about the rest of the world
Last edited by benelori; May 05, 2014 at 03:24 PM.
I didn't miss your point, I said there shouldn't be much of an issue mixing science and religion together. A religious person can be a scientist who believes God created first forms of life, which then evolved into what it is today. From what I read, the main reason why religion and science stopped getting along was because the monarchy and the Church feared losing power (since religious leaders do seem powerhungry and selfish, regardless of any religion), so they made going against the Bible heresy and condemned science.
But what are science and religion done right? Religion is about believing in the deity, no? Maybe I am simplifying it too much, but that's the general gist I get. Science is about discovering the world and improving life. Both can be mixed together.
Really? The news have said he supports same-sex marriage and encourages birth control.
I don't think we are actually disagreeing here, we just have a slightly disparity is semantics or something lol. I think you are referring to the "mixing" as a person being both things, spiritual and scientific. I made the point that a person can be both things without issue but the science and spirituality can't mix. I am not talking about a person's capacity to be both things with but rather the scope in itself of the definition of each. Spirituality, religion, refer to the metaphysical, to god, morals, afterlife and a bunch of other things. Science is not as broad, science refers specifically to the study of the world in the form of testable predictions and models. What I mean by them not being mixable is that by how religion and spirituality are defined things are either religious or scientific and do not get into the territory of the other. By bad science or bad religion I refer to someone using one to make a point in the other (say, creationists using the bible to say the earth is 6000 years old or someone saying evolution disproves the genesis).
I do think science and spirituality can mix, it's happened before. It would not necessarily alter anything as long as the person is open minded and considers any possibility. Or are you talking differently?
Science is is very broad, maybe broader than spirituality, whose limitation can be based on what specific religion you're studying or talking about. Science can be the study of biology, chemistry, marine life, physics, astronomy, and myriads of other stuff, where spirituality would not clash.
But I'm assuming the contrary to your example of bad science or religion, that neither side will bring up religion or science. A good scientist won't say "but the Bible says the Earht is 6000 years old, so how can this sediment be over 1 million years old?" But from what I've read, the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, it was more like lessons to teach. Probably another reason why both sides got along.
As for why atheism is so low in numbers: there are hundreds of religious groups, each people with their beliefs. Different religions have different sets of beliefs, along with society, that makes people either believe or be forced to believe. It's easier to become an open atheist in US than it is in India.
I am not sure on what exactly you mean by mixing or by it happening before. How do you mix the two into something coherent? As you say, science is broad and covers a lot of areas however at the heart of all that there is the fact that science deals with facts, measurements and testable predictions. Properly religious topics don't involve things you can make testable predictions on.
Well, you can believe in God but not let that affect your conclusions. The idea of Creationism coupled with science can be done, but the problem is that atheists tend to say pure evolution or religious fanatics just say it's God and deny any evidence that shows evolution could have played a part. I mean, it's not like believing in God means evolution is wrong, or believing that life was created due to natural occurrences would prove God wrong. Atheists and religious people don't seem to understand the whole point behind science, and I believe that's where the problem lies.
Also, much respect to Urey-Miller for an experiment that created life.
It depends on what time of creationism you are talking about. There is theistic creationism which pretty much accepts science as it is but sees natural processes merely as the methods or tools through which things were created (so god is never actually a part of the scientific explanation of why something happens). I think this is what you are referring to as a mix of the two. In turn I was using that particular logic to say they shouldn't mix lol. In theistic creationism science and religion are effectively separated IMO because god or the supernatural never have a place in a properly scientific argument (because you can't make testable predictions on the existence of god or the supernatural). In turn the remaining forms of creationism pretty much blend science and religion together into something that just does not make sense from a purely scientific point of view. You have "theories" like "god created the earth out of nothing 6000 years ago" or that "certain things in the universe can only be explained by divine intervention and not natural processes". Those are what I am referring to as a mix of science and religion and I call bad science and bad religion.
If one were to take a look at the historical progression of science, they could see that Christianity paved the way for scientific progression which the modern era either willfully rejects or ignorantly rejects. In a way, the Western world still operates in a Christian framework whether you believe it or not. This could either be a positive Christian theology or a negative Christian theology such as Atheism. Why? Even atheists requires God in order for they belief system to work.
Theology could be divided into two categories, as I understood it, to be special revelation and natural revelation. Special revelation deals with the Bible and what God has revealed Himself to humanity. Natural revelation is what human beings could understand through their natural senses. As time went on, natural revelation took precedence over special revelation. With this there was an increased push in the sciences. As science progressed, for some, Christianity became more mechanical and Deism was formed. A famed Deist was Thomas Jefferson. Deism is Christianity without the miracles, wonders and supernatural. For others, the progression of science strengthened their faith in Christ because natural theology revealed that there are universal constants that when changed will endanger or destroy life. They asked how such constants were put into place.
Now, in theology, both creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) and evolution can exist. This is because of a theological and philosophical conclusion which is that there is no infinite regression or in simpler terms, no infinite past. Thus, there is a beginning. If there is a beginning, we have two possibilities, either there was nothing or there was an infinitely condense mass which both are impossible. The problem is that something or someone has to kick off both processes, and this is where some will not like the fact that someone outside the system needs to interact with the system for it to work.
I would like to state that from a theological point of view, natural theology and science are the same although it is also attested that philosophy is what undergirds science.
From my observations, there will always be arguments for or against whatever people believe in be it God or no God. The entire discussion at the academic level is complex but highly informative. Complex not in just it is hard but you get lots of wacky information that needs to be sorted out.
Another observation I have made, not all Christian should be disregard was stupid and foolish. There are those who are highly intellectual. Another observation I have also made regarding atheists, only highly intellectual atheists fully comprehend the devastation that result from not having no God the center. Such atheists are Zizak, Sloterdijk and Meillassoux. Bottomline is that both sides conclude that this world is a piece of shit place to live in, but Christianity can baffling allow a person to enjoy this dump.
Yeah, atheists mostly view God as a claim that can't be proved.
Sort of like if I claim there's an invisible unicorn, and you tell me there isn't, and neither of us can prove the other wrong.
So, your belief that there's no unicorn? That doesn't really mean your system of belief requires the unicorn. You just reject is entirely.
(I don't mean that atheism or theism is fundamentally more correct, I just mean that you're, at the very least, fully misrepresenting atheism with that sentence. It's true that atheism rejects the concept of God and such a concept must exist as a concept before you can reject it, but... that means nothing. The God Himself doesn't need to exist in order for him to be rejected.
Yes, the Western world does still operate in a Christian framework, and that's what holds us back.
Atheists do not require God for their belief system to work. I do not need God, simply because I don't think about him or give a crap about him. Only atheists that keep clamoring that God is fake would need him for their belief system to work since it focuses on negating the existence of God.
From my observation, it has been mostly the religious side that has come up with wacky information. "So we evolved from monkeys? If we evolved from monkeys, why are they still here?" As if, these people did not bother reading up on the theory and just heard few words of it and made their own conclusion without understanding.Quote:
Who has? I haven't seen a lot of people say all Christians or believers of God are stupid and foolish. There are plenty of brilliant scientists who believe in a deity no matter what their religion was.Quote:
If I recall, Native Americans were thriving without having God at the center, they only believed in the spirit/s and were living well until the white settlers (Christians and Catholics) forced them out of their land, killed a lot of them, and moved them to a small camp/area. however, I'm not sure how accurate this is, with the thriving and all. But it seems Native Americans had the better religion/belief than Christians because they actually respected life. Or was that just few tribes?
How does Christianity allow someone to enjoy "this dump?" Christians are too scared to go to Hell, so they spend their lives appeasing something they were brainwashed to believe in from a young age without any proof he exists, doing what society tells them. You seem to be highly biased towards Christianity.
Fact is, no religion or lack of allows someone to enjoy "this dump," it's totally up to the person him or herself. An atheist like me can enjoy living in this world while a Christian like you would hate this world and think about committing suicide despite Jesus loving you and all that stuff.
Anyone who says we evolved from monkeys should also keep in mind that there is a difference between monkeys and apes. Monkeys have a tail whereas apes are tailless.