Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do the religious want scientific enquiry to end?
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 1 of 111 (529077)
10-08-2009 6:31 AM


In mankind's unending pursuit of knowledge there have been many times when religious institutions have found their core tenets put in question by the work of scientists. Galileo faced house arrest for daring to propose that the Earth was not at the center of the universe, a view which has subsequently (though not without great struggle) been accepted by most modern churches. Darwin rattled the fundamentalists' cage even further (and this continues in full force today) with the ToE.
Those are only two of the most prominent examples that stand out in my mind, though there are undoubtedly others. The "Absolute Truths" of the Bible (at least in the fundamentalists' view) are irrefutable, and any scientific evidence that might contradict those absolute truths is (in their view) either false, misinterpreted, or in some cases accepted on the grounds that a reinterpretation of the Bible can allow for them (I give you the "Creation Week" as creationists call it).
So my question, directed to those of you who consider yourselves religious, is simply this:
Would you like to see scientific enquiry end?
Should we throw away our microscopes and telescopes, and just keep a copy of the Bible on the nightstand for those times when we feel a bit curious? I'll admit that this is a loaded question, but I believe it is nonetheless valid. There appears to be, amongst the religious, the belief that science is out to disprove God, when in fact science has no opinion on the issue of God. Science deals with observations, evidence, experimentation. If the evidence contradicts an ancient religious text, the scientific community does not feel obliged to hide this evidence.
In a thread I engaged in recently here, I found the OP (a religious person) to be consistently unimpressed with scientific studies and conclusions, going so far at one point as to suggest that I was the one who was deluded for accepting these things.
I'm curious how others (of perhaps less fundamentalist inclination) viewed this issue.
Edited by Briterican, : needed the core question to stand out more
Edited by AdminModulous, : closing blockquote and qs tags in the correct order.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 1:03 PM Briterican has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 111 (529080)
10-08-2009 6:58 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Do the religious want scientific enquiry to end? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 3 of 111 (529083)
10-08-2009 7:26 AM


I have to say "yes" they do
I'm not that religious, but it is clear that at least with a very vocal minority, they would be best served by having all scientific inquiry shutdown entirely, as it is a threat to their very survival.
Their institutions exist through ignorance ("god said it, I believe it, that settles it") and fear (the inquisition, blasphemy laws and sentences for the same) and demand respect for feats that are not theirs to claim (the creation of the world, knowledge of the inner workings of the universe).
As mankind's knowledge grows, their grip on the people falls - why SHOULD people give them respect when they don't deserve it?
Harsh, I know, but that's my view.
But before you get the pitchforks and torches, understand that I mean only the vocal extreme minority.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Briterican, posted 10-08-2009 7:57 AM greyseal has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 4 of 111 (529089)
10-08-2009 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by greyseal
10-08-2009 7:26 AM


Re: I have to say "yes" they do
I would agree with your proposition that as mankind's knowledge grows, their [religious leaders] grip on the people fails.
I would also agree that it is probably a very small minority that would actually argue for the cessation of scientific research.
What continues to trouble me is, what do those middle ground folks think? I worry that, although they would not call for an end to scientific research, they would adopt the view that science is not to be trusted, and then pass this view on to all those to whom they are a peer.
I wonder how the following question would be answered by our religious contributors:
The life of a child is in the balance. Who would you trust more for advice?
(a) A trained and respected scientist familiar with illnesses in children.
(b) A trained and respected clergyman familiar with illnesses in children.
I think if some of the fence-sitters would be honest with themselves, and delve deeply into their true nature, they would find themselves less and less likely to rely on supernatural solutions over those based on observable reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by greyseal, posted 10-08-2009 7:26 AM greyseal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 9:25 AM Briterican has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 5 of 111 (529112)
10-08-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Briterican
10-08-2009 7:57 AM


Re: I have to say "yes" they do
I think the argument is a bit more complicated than that. Religion has always been a way for explaining the natural world; that is, HOW the world works. Case-in-point, lightning used to be a tool for showing the displeasure of the Heavens.
What science has done is usurp this role that used to be religion's and done a better job than religion ever could. While a good number of religions are fine with science explaining the HOW of the world, a great deal more see this as a loss of power.
For instance, the Buddhists are less concerned with the natural world and more with the state of a person's soul. The Buddhist philosophy deals with how a person can live their life in order to build up good karma. If I am not mistaken, it doesn't attempt to explain natural processes, but it may explain WHY certain things do happen (karma.)
Religion needs to redefine itself less as a way of explaining HOW the Universe operates and focus on the core of any religion - WHY we should live this way and not some other way. After all, the theory of evolution or gravity do not give a clue as to how a person can lead a better life. Science does not tell us how to live.
That said, even if the majority of people are unwilling to cease scientific inquiry, the natural conclusion for refusing to teach certain sciences because they contradict some holy writings is to cease scientific curiosity. Many fields of Science are in contradiction to the writings in the Bible. For instance, there are fundamentalist families who still believe disease is a consequence of demonic possession, in accordance with certain passages in the Bible and in contradiction to the germ theory of disease. These people will pray and pray for God to heal their child even as their child slowly dies. What's even worse is that they never considered that perhaps all our advances in understanding the Universe might be the will of God (speculation, of course.) Because the germ theory of disease is in contradiction to the Bible, studying this field might be considered an affront to God. in their minds, it is sinful and should be stopped causing any research into curing or preventing diseases to cease.
That's the end effect of allowing one small victory to fundamentalists in public policy. Eventually all policy must fall in line with their teachings. For that to happen, all scientific inquiry must cease. And we know this because the Catholic Church was in control of policy for many centuries. It was after the Church's hold on policy was opposed by a rising middle class who had time to study and learn that scientific progress once again resumed.
Think about it this way. The Romans had many of the amenities of a modern city including a sanitation system, well-built roads, aqueducts, dams, and even flush toilets. The best the Church could come up with is having people throw their waste directly out of their window from chamber pots.
Religion needs to focus less on HOW things work and focus more on the WHYs. Let science deal with HOW.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Briterican, posted 10-08-2009 7:57 AM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by tuffers, posted 10-08-2009 10:04 AM Izanagi has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 6 of 111 (529116)
10-08-2009 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 9:25 AM


It's less complicated than you think
No! It's a lot less complicated than you think.
Religion is all about undemonstratable (if that's a word!) dogma, and power. There always has to be something to a religion that you cannot tie down, that you cannot demonstrate. That's its secret of success.
If everything about a particular religion were to be proven (capable of being repeatedly demonstrated, for example) it is no longer a religion - it becomes science.
That's why religion and science will never be compatible, although religion will always try and use science wherever it can to try and gain a bit of credibility, in the same way a conjuror will show you there's nothing up his sleeve while he's hiding something behind his back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 9:25 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 10:44 AM tuffers has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 7 of 111 (529123)
10-08-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by tuffers
10-08-2009 10:04 AM


Re: It's less complicated than you think
That's why religion and science will never be compatible
I completely disagree with this statement. Or rather, while I agree dogmatic religion and science are not compatible, religion as an exploration of how to live is very much compatible with science. Science explains HOW our Universe works, but it does little to impart meaning to life. You might question why life should have any meaning at all, and you would be right to question that statement. But it is my belief that life needs meaning to help a person overcome the difficulties inherent in life. We are not solely instinctual animals. We have reason and thought. Our reason can overcome the instinct such that instinct is not the only driving force in our lives. Hope and optimism provide a force that can be far greater than pragmatism and realism. With our creative intellect, hope and optimism can cause a person to pursue a worthwhile goal despite all evidence that such an undertaking might have little chance of success. It allows a person to be a pariah of the community for a new, better idea simply because they believe one day people will come to accept this new idea. That is the benefit of religion.
That is to say that one needs belief in a deity in order to have hope and optimism. It's just that having a belief in a deity does, in some way, make it easier to deal with certain realities and to try and overcome those realities. But belief should not be unyielding belief. Belief must be fluid to encompass all things, even the possibility that a deity does not exist.
I think Kevin Smith said it best in this exchange from "Dogma"
quote:
Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.
That's the problem with fundamentalists - their belief is unyielding. They place too much emphasis on the details and not enough on the substance. Fundamentalism and Science are incompatible. But religion, as long as it is not dogmatic and allowed to flow, and science are compatible.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by tuffers, posted 10-08-2009 10:04 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by tuffers, posted 10-08-2009 11:43 AM Izanagi has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 8 of 111 (529132)
10-08-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 10:44 AM


Re: It's less complicated than you think
Isanaqi
I presume you meant to say "That is NOT to say one needs belief in a deity ...".
I think we can probably agree that science is not concerned with the meaning of life and that religion may to some extent be concerned with that, although it does not have a monopoly on that issue.
In my opinion, it is not necessary for anyone to have to use religion to find some meaning or purpose for their life. Religion may be one tool for finding some kind of meaning or purpose, but it will always be a meaning and purpose that it is founded in unsubstantiated dogma - often complete nonsense. Is that a good thing?
And so I still have to argue that science and religion are not ultimately compatible because, for a religion to survive, it must always have some slippery facet that escapes possible scientific analysis. As stated in my previous message, religion will use science where it can to its advantage, but can never fully embrace it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 10:44 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 12:10 PM tuffers has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 9 of 111 (529136)
10-08-2009 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by tuffers
10-08-2009 11:43 AM


Re: It's less complicated than you think
My alias is Izanagi, actually. Minor point really, but I like this alias.
I presume you meant to say "That is NOT to say one needs belief in a deity ...".
Yes, that was a typo.
I think we can probably agree that science is not concerned with the meaning of life and that religion may to some extent be concerned with that, although it does not have a monopoly on that issue.
I agree, it doesn't have a monopoly on it, but I would also be wary of science telling me the meaning of life as I would religion. Religion, at the very least, I can deny in the face of evidence. Science is more difficult.
For instance, Germany prior to WWII tried to use science to show that certain races were inferior. White supremacists constantly are looking for evidence of it to this day. Because of this, scientists have been wary of doing research into the differences between races, despite the fact that there may be medical benefits to doing so. Even science can be twisted to be used to support certain ideas some of which are even non-religious.
In my opinion, it is not necessary for anyone to have to use religion to find some meaning or purpose for their life. Religion may be one tool for finding some kind of meaning or purpose, but it will always be a meaning and purpose that it is founded in unsubstantiated dogma - often complete nonsense. Is that a good thing?
No, you are right that it is not necessary. And I agree it is one of many tools that people can use to find meaning and purpose in life. I usually think of the Buddhist philosophy. From my readings about Buddhism, there are many paths to enlightenment, and not all of them follow from studying Buddhism all your life. Buddha was careful to avoid adding dogma to his teachings. That's why said that no one way was the correct way. What mattered was that you reached enlightenment in the end, however you reached it. In essence, Buddhism is a religion, but it is less dogmatic than many of the religions you find around the world. For Buddhists, science holds no contradiction to their beliefs.
This is why I believe science and religion are compatible. What is important is that religion avoids making dogmatic statements about the world and focus on what it is best at, that is, instilling hope and optimism in people around the world. Science, as well, must avoid dogmatic adherence to a single idea or theory, and be willing to consider other competing theories. Once dogma is introduced in either science or religion, the results are an unyielding system of ideas and that, in the end, stifles humanity.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by tuffers, posted 10-08-2009 11:43 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by tuffers, posted 10-08-2009 12:35 PM Izanagi has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 10 of 111 (529144)
10-08-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 12:10 PM


Re: It's less complicated than you think
Izanagi
Sorry I got your name wrong!
I maintain that religion CANNOT abandon its dogma and just concentrate on instilling hope and optimism. Something that ignores dogma and just concentrates on helping people is an example common humanity and nothing to do with religion. Religion by definition must always be tied to belief in a deity or some other superstitious, unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable) belief. The only way to perpetuate a superstitious belief is through dogma and indoctrination.
To answer your original question, I don't think the religious generally want all scientific enquiry to end. As I said, they use some of it to suit their purpose, but they will always shy away from full scientific enquiry of their beliefs (or adapt their beliefs to avoid scientific enquiry). It's a game that will be played as long as religion exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 12:10 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 1:25 PM tuffers has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 11 of 111 (529153)
10-08-2009 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Briterican
10-08-2009 6:31 AM


Plucked straight from CreationWiki with their definition of The TOE (emphasis mine):
The concept dates back to the ancient Greeks,[1] and was repopularized in modern times by naturalists such as Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin who provided the biological aspect with a mechanism (natural selection). Much of its theoretic development was based on philosophical materialism (matter is the only reality),[2] and it either implicitly or explicitly denies the existence of God (atheism).[3] As a worldview, it serves as the antithesis of religious creationism, and is supported evangelically today by what is known as scientific naturalism.[4]
So you see, they assert that somewhere in the TOE that it even makes mention of god, that it implies atheism. and that people who understand evolution and accept it as a theory ( I refuse to say "believe" evolution as it is NOT a belief), automatically reject god due to the TOE. They also fail to realize that Darwin, in fact, was a Christian.
I have spoken with a couple creationists in real life (teh webz are not real!), and it is/was their honest belief that Evolution and science ARE out to disprove god. They also wholeheartedly believe that Evolution is a belief, nothing more, in that we worship Charles Darwin and/or Richard Dawkins.
From that, it is hard to imagine that they would take any other scientific endeavor seriously.
Further down, we have this:
Abiogenesis
Main Article: Abiogenesis
It is furthermore believed that life began as a result of spontaneous chemical reactions, which gave rise to a single ancestral cell known as the last universal ancestor. It is believed this hypothetical organism developed either here on Earth or elsewhere through a process commonly called abiogenesis, a strictly naturalistic process that states life can come from non-life. This is completely contradictory to what is already a very well established scientific law of biogenesis.
The theory of evolution can be defined as follows:
the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.[6]
which is saying that the TOE is reliant upon abiogenesis.You can even see....IN THEIR DESCRIPTION OF ABIOGENESIS that said life form COULD indeed come from somewhere else i.e; a possible god form.
I'm sorry, but how can you take any science seriously if you grossly misrepresent what IS science and have no solid understanding of it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Briterican, posted 10-08-2009 6:31 AM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Briterican, posted 10-08-2009 1:08 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 12 of 111 (529155)
10-08-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by hooah212002
10-08-2009 1:03 PM


I'm sorry, but how can you take any science seriously if you grossly misrepresent what IS science and have no solid understanding of it?
I have to agree wholeheartedly with this.
In my opinion the only way science and religion can complement each other is if your religion is very very very ambiguous, which tends not to be the case with any religion.
To simultaneously believe the core tenets of just about any religion, and the evidence of the scientific community.... well it's just indicative of cognitive dissonance.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 1:03 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 1:20 PM Briterican has not replied
 Message 18 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 1:44 PM Briterican has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 13 of 111 (529160)
10-08-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Briterican
10-08-2009 1:08 PM


IMHO, all it takes is to NOT read any bible as literal. The teachings of Jesus Christ were great....provided you don't see him as a messiah and more of, say, just some hippie.
It's when you (religious person) take the bible to be THE literal word of god that things get seriously fucked. This has led me to my personal agnosticism, in that, god, to me, if he were there, is just everything around us. The life that drives us all. Not so much an actual spiritual being. I guess I would associate "mother earth" type being to god more so than what is perceived to be YHWH. Having said that, you could take some of what is said in the bible to be almost true. "god breathed life into adam"? sure. as long as you dont think adam is an actual dude, but more like life itself. "created adam from dirt"? sure. there is lot's of dirt on earth and what is in that dirt? plenty of the necessary shit for "life".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Briterican, posted 10-08-2009 1:08 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 1:28 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 14 of 111 (529161)
10-08-2009 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by tuffers
10-08-2009 12:35 PM


Re: It's less complicated than you think
Religion by definition must always be tied to belief in a deity or some other superstitious, unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable) belief. The only way to perpetuate a superstitious belief is through dogma and indoctrination.
Then we'll probably never reach an accord. Buddhists believe in the supernatural and they have no problems with science because their beliefs only deal with achieving enlightenment by whatever path they want, either through science or through faith.
I believe in God. But like the Buddhist, I try not to make my belief dogmatic and stand in the way of the evidence observed in the world around me. I don't go out to convert people into my way of thinking. I'll talk about them, sure, but if people choose not to believe me, then that is their choice and they are not wrong for choosing so. Actually, sometimes I think they would be right for not choosing my particular way of belief. I imagine that when I die, my way of believing will die with me because if I have children, I would want my children to arrive at their own conclusions, to use their own intelligence to learn about the world around them.
But just as I don't let my own beliefs blind me to the richness of the natural world, I hope that you aren't blind to richness of beliefs that exist. Otherwise, you only subscribe to the same ideology that the fundamentalists do - that science and religion are incompatible. You would be the polar opposite of those you are fighting against. If you do believe that, you only give credence to the fundamentalist argument that science and religion are incompatible and you ignore the billions of people who are open to both because both have importance in different aspects of their lives. In essence, you would be just as unyielding as they are.
I have always felt that Science has its own realm and Religion has its own realm. As long as either does not cross into the other's realm, they both can coexist. Science does little to provide meaning in a person's life. It is up to the person to find that meaning. A person does not need religion to find meaning, but religion is one tool to guide a person on the path to being a better person. Religion, on the other hand, does little to provide answers as to the workings of the Universe. It is to scientists that we turn to help us understand how things work. But understanding how something works does little to help us to understand why.
There are religious people who are able to make this distinction. These are people who have faith, but are not guided by dogma. They are able to appreciate the natural wonders around them without resorting to dogma to explain such wonders. But they turn to their faith because it gives them solace in times of grief, hope in times of suffering, and perseverance in times of hardship and helps them to be better people.
Ultimately, it is the fundamentalist that wants an end to scientific inquiry, that are constantly driving this issue, that believe that science and religion are incompatible. But ending scientific inquiry robs humanity of its mind. But if you hold a dogmatic adherence to the idea that science and religion are incompatible except on the other side, the you too will rob humanity of something which I believe is equally important, something that science cannot conceive of or imagine - you would rob humanity of its soul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by tuffers, posted 10-08-2009 12:35 PM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 1:32 PM Izanagi has replied
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2009 1:44 PM Izanagi has not replied
 Message 71 by tuffers, posted 10-09-2009 5:16 AM Izanagi has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 15 of 111 (529162)
10-08-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by hooah212002
10-08-2009 1:20 PM


Jesus IS a hippie
Then I'm glad I don't take the Bible literally, though, to be honest, I gave up on such childishness years ago. I view it as a book of guidelines and stories and sometimes use it to help me through some of the more difficult times.
And actually, I do view Jesus as the first hippie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 1:20 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024