Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Religion AND Science: Middlegound possible?

religion science rleigion vs science darwinism creationism dinoasaurs

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#16    Orphalesion

Orphalesion

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2014
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2014 - 02:06 PM

@ Starmountainkid: I see what you mean, yet... sometimes there are scientists (not all of them, but some) who are so full of themselves and so convinced of their own superiority that they causally and callously reject any other theories. Like I had a university professor who would start his first lecture in a semester with "You are free to believe in a God, but I will think of you as stupid for doing so." And would continue to jab at religion throughout his lectures, is that not, in a way, a very anti-religious dogma and somewhat narrow minded? After all, where is his proof that there is no God? And what does it hurt him if others believe?

@ redhren: See that's waht I mean: Religion and Science often go together, for a truly devout person Science should be a tool to understand God's creation better, not an enemy to fight.

@ JJ 50: I agree with you that the Bible is probably not the absolute truth. Good that you keep an open mind. I salute you, kind madam


#17    JJ50

JJ50

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Joined:25 Apr 2014
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 May 2014 - 02:35 PM

I would be a fool to dismiss the possibility of a deity of some kind, even though I think the deities worshiped by humans don't exist.

“The wise recognise their failings and laugh at their idiosyncrasies” RJG



#18    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 27 May 2014 - 02:38 PM

"had a university professor who would start his first lecture in a semester with "You are free to believe in a God, but I will think of you as stupid for doing so." And would continue to jab at religion throughout his lectures, is that not, in a way, a very anti-religious dogma and somewhat narrow minded?"

Yup, this happens every fall throughout North America and Europe. Some call it Cultural Marxism, also known as political correctness. It didn't used to be this way. This theist-baiting in the classroom took hold in the 1960's and now it's just an accepted norm in academia.

This is a 90 minute documentary on this ideology that is promoted on colleges. You can just watch the first two minutes to get the gist of it.



Edited by redhen, 27 May 2014 - 02:41 PM.


#19    Orphalesion

Orphalesion

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2014
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2014 - 03:11 PM

Wacthed the first 15 minutes. Uhm...no. That seems to have very little to do with the topic at hand. The movie appears to be concerned with racial issues. And that professor was the only one at my uni who was like that and he was infamous among students and his own collegues for his staunch stand the topic of Religion vs. Science. Insulting people has nothing to do with political correctness and it was not just Christians he dismissed, but any sort of Religion or Belief. I respected him in some ways, because he DID know a lot about his field.
I remember university very much as a market place of ideas where I would never have to be afraid to speak what I had in min and I was more often rewarded for doing so rather than rebutted or silenced. I don't think I was ever silenced. Then again I can't talk about American Universtities, maybe it is very different over there.  
Professors are just people too, with their own quirks, part of it is that a student has to learn to work with all sorts of people, some more reasonable, some less.


#20    Lumpino

Lumpino

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Joined:18 Sep 2011
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 May 2014 - 04:44 PM

The fundamental problem is not between science and God.  The problem is between science and religion only. :innocent:


#21    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,769 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 29 May 2014 - 09:33 PM

View PostOrphalesion, on 27 May 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

@ Starmountainkid: I see what you mean, yet... sometimes there are scientists (not all of them, but some) who are so full of themselves and so convinced of their own superiority that they causally and callously reject any other theories.

Its pretty obvious from this sentence that you don't understand science, nor the scientific method.


View PostOrphalesion, on 27 May 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

Like I had a university professor who would start his first lecture in a semester with "You are free to believe in a God, but I will think of you as stupid for doing so." And would continue to jab at religion throughout his lectures, is that not, in a way, a very anti-religious dogma and somewhat narrow minded?

Possible, but this has nothing to do with science.


View PostOrphalesion, on 27 May 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

After all, where is his proof that there is no God? And what does it hurt him if others believe?

You can't prove a negative. And do you really want me to list here and start listing off the reasons why living your life according to spurious faith and not evidence-based reason is bad for the individual, society and civilisation??


View PostOrphalesion, on 27 May 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

I agree with you that the Bible is probably not the absolute truth.

No "probably" about it.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#22    Orphalesion

Orphalesion

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2014
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 May 2014 - 02:21 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 29 May 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

Its pretty obvious from this sentence that you don't understand science, nor the scientific method.


Arrogance is arrogance, no matter if it comes from  (former) Pope Benedict XVI or Richard Dawkins. I understand that every article and thesis/statement a scientist makes/publishes has to be severely researched, cross-referenced and  peer-reviewed in order to be taken seriously and that any ungrounded, unverified wack-job idea has a snowballs chance in hell of making it to publication. I just think that tomorrow (or in 20 years or in an hour) we could discover something that totally proves a lot of what we "know" wrong. The professor I took as example once told me (for we had a rather positive work relationship, mainly because I thought a laboratory or  lecture theater weren't the right place to push my private opinions) that when he was young, his geography professor refused to even consider the idea of continental draft and instead preferred the outdated idea of animals travelling via (now sunken) land bridges. That is the sort of arrogance I am against, not if someone is confident in their theories because they are well researched and acknowledged by the scientific community. I really just meant the few black sheep among the scientists, and I fully admit that there are plenty, plenty of that type of person in religion and I take just as much offense to it whenever they try to push it on me.



View PostEmma_Acid, on 29 May 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:


Possible, but this has nothing to do with science.


Ah I think I see what you mean here, it has nothing to do with Science as an abstract concept. But it was to do with the people who make up the scientific community. I don't believe that there is a plot among the scientific community to root out all religion, just like I don't believe that there is a plot in most (reasonable) religious communities to root out science  (that would be dumb and shortsighted and I would be the first to speak against it)  Though yes there are more Religious leaders that spout stupid nonsense against scientific research that (fully acknowledged and acclaimed) scientists that "preach" against religion to the public

View PostEmma_Acid, on 29 May 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

You can't prove a negative. And do you really want me to list here and start listing off the reasons why living your life according to spurious faith and not evidence-based reason is bad for the individual, society and civilisation??

No you can't. I admit that was a rather dump statement of mine. But he should not call people stupid for having a personal philosophy, as long as they don't hurt anybody and don't interfere with his life/work.

I know that there are plenty of dangers in organized religion. Let's start: The various wars and genocides that people justified by using Religion or religious rhetoric and those that (as far as I know) were caused by religion alone, if there really were any (The witch burnings are all I can think of, even the Crusades had a variety of reasons, beyond religion), the mistreatment/suppression of women ingrained in many (if not all) mayor religions (I don't know enough about Hinduism to be sure about it) and the misogynistic behavior this can cause, persecution of homosexuals and the possibility for religion-induced self-hate of religious homosexuals, the danger of indoctrination from a very young age, suppression of new knowledge or discoveries because some person thinks they are contradicting their believes, instead of adapting their believes to the new knowledge. The general idea many/most/all religions have that there is one, and only one, right way to speak/think/act and to generally live your life no matter if you wan to/can follow that path. The danger that most religious texts are extremely old have been over the course of time been cut, expanded (the tacked-on moral ending to Ecclesiastes), edited and translated for all sorts of reasons and with various amounts of skill, and can now be interpreted to pretty much further any agenda you want to push. The high amount of peer pressure and mob mentality (you can say) that prevails among many religious groups (like for instance my Bible group turning on me for suggesting an alternative interpretation of Genesis) The danger of accepting what amounts to guesses and (unproven) theory as facts and law. Some people eschewing modern medicine because of some interpretation of something that someone wrote a thousand years ago for possibly entirely different reasons.Pretty much any time religion and politics met.
And I have barely scratched the surface.

Just this month Tony Abbot is wasting 245 MILLION AusD to send preachers into schools to warn against the dangers of homosexuality. That's ******* stupid and can lead to a number of short and long term problems (increased homophobia and hate of LGBT people up to and including a danger that there will be more hate crimes and long term depression, self-hate and suicides among LGBT teens)

However, Eugenics has and still leads to all sorts of discrimination as well. And is the theory (Don't know how recent that is anymore, haven't read anything on the subject in a while) that as a homosexual you are a genetic reject, a mistake caused by an unfeeling system in a indifferent universe, any better?

Personally I believe that Faith and Science are both good things that can help society and individuals, but can lead to pretty bad stuff if misused. (Eugenics is highly criticized among the general scientific community, Leviticus is a primitive and outdated Juristic text of the ancient Hebrew people, not a religious book) Unfortunately everything can be perverted and misused. Blind followers deserve their own fate and while certain passages in the Bible seem like they promote unquestioning fate (Matthew 18:3, which can be interpreted in plenty of ways) a lot of other places warn against unquestioning faith in the books and words of prophets (The Apostle Stories, Peter's and Paul's letters, Revelations).

Faith and Science both seek truth, science has the better tools, but both should never stop doubting and reevaluating themselves.    

View PostEmma_Acid, on 29 May 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

No "probably" about it.
Agreed, I only wrote "probably" because I try to avoid definitive statements whenever I can. One can say with a good amount of confidence that there is more than enough evidence against it being 100% true and were little empirical evidence to give any credibility to the Old Testament. What some modern churches forget is that there is a difference between "(possibly) divinely inspired, written down (and messed around with) by fallible people " and "absolute truth dictated by God and never trifled with". And that's were the false dichotomy between faith and scientific facts arises.

Edited by Orphalesion, 30 May 2014 - 02:35 PM.


#23    Khamical X

Khamical X

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 220 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Desolation Row

  • To be labelled a SAVAGE is a powerful/divine title if you overstood it's true meaning.

Posted 04 June 2014 - 03:47 PM

Religion in actuality is the catch and the trick !

The more ancient one goes into the spirituality of the world, spiritual systems becomes much more complex and most of all~ scientific. I did a thread last year or so on the identity of God and how ancient people ranging from the Ancient Africans to the Ancient Hindus to the Native Americans. All of these people viewed God in the same aspect, which was the balancing factor of NATURE, rather than an anthropomorphic entity. Spiritualiy deals with seen and unseen energy which makes up the four major energies that makes up LIFE~ Gravity/Electromagnetism/Strong Force/Weak Force.

Edited by Spore, 04 June 2014 - 03:48 PM.


#24    Mojohand

Mojohand

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male

  • The tyranny of Mrs. Grundy is worse than any other tyranny we suffer under.
    -Herbert Spencer

Posted 04 June 2014 - 05:25 PM

So.....  Buddhism and science have no quarrel.  Why does everyone always discount eastern religion and philosophy in their p***ing contests?  Is it the whole "crazy" reincarnation part?

Edited by Mojohand, 04 June 2014 - 05:28 PM.


#25    apron

apron

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2014
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • I am Joseph.

Posted 04 June 2014 - 08:00 PM

In revelation 11:8 sodom and Egypt been called the place ' where jesus crucified '. Our lord Jesus Christ crucified not in Jerusalem , egypt and sodom literaly.
    Bible is a book for soul and heart. Jesus is not alive, risen christ for 'modern' day christianity.  99% of modern day christians ' rejoice over him (dead body of jesus )and make merry, sending gifts one to another; because jesus tormented them'/paraphrased from Revelation 11:10
    But 1% christians 'mourning for him, as one mourn for his only son, and  in bitterness for him , as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.' Zechariah 12:10
  From these one out of hundred sheep,to some of them -who wait for risen christ - Jesus will show himself as he (did ) for Mary Magdelene

I am Joseph; doth my father yet live ?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users