Do the religious want scientific enquiry to end?

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.

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.

My alias is Izanagi, actually. Minor point really, but I like this alias. Yes, that was a typo. 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. 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.

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.

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.

Well, I would say that is true of most religions. That's why I admire the Buddhist ideas and why I have incorporated them into my own way of thinking.Buddha made sure that his followers didn't codify anything to dogma. He didn't want them to worship him as a prophet or as a god. All Buddha wanted from his followers was that they spread the message of enlightenment and how to achieve it.The thing is, Buddha said that there were many paths to enlightenment. In his own life he began as a prince and indulged in every kind of vice. But he felt his life was empty. Then he gave up everything and lived the poor life. But that too was empty. What he realized upon reflection was that there was a Middle Way that incorporated all paths.When he taught his philosophy, he never wanted it to contain any sort of dogma or any sort of ritual. What he wanted people to do was to meditate on their own life and their own experiences and to gain wisdom from it. From that wisdom, he said, you would be on the Middle Way to Enlightenment to which the ultimate goal is Nirvana, or the obliteration of the self and incorporation into the Universe.I do hope that I got it right though. Anyway, the main point is that Buddhism is a religion very accepting of reality. All it concerns itself with is Enlightenment and the path to Nirvana.If you like to learn more, please check your local library.The more you know...

Well, no. You don't need religion. But sometimes you do need a little faith. For example, Obama's first few months in office have been a disappointment to his supporters. In American culture that expects instantaneous results, the fact that Obama seemingly hasn't fulfilled many of his campaign promises has been saddening. Even worse, Obama has had trouble getting legislation through a Democrat controlled Congress. The realist expects that Obama will not be able to accomplish much and will just be another Washington politician. But there are people who still believe in Obama and that he will succeed in turning America around. And many of those supporters will go out there and work hard to help Obama succeed. That's the power of faith. Sometimes, faith is important to mobilizing people into doing something, even if it seems that the chance of it happening is slim, even if the majority is against you. When used well, it can change the world for the better. When used poorly, it can harm the world.This is something that I believe science doesn't supply in huge amounts. Perhaps I am wrong and science can make something like that happen through facts and figures. But even if I am, nothing much would change from my life.

Going back to wiki

quote:

---

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

---

Faith in the broader sense seems almost a necessary thing. We use faith to talk about the future because sometimes what we expect from the future doesn't rest on a logical proof or material evidence. It is a concept that relies on the person believing something will happen even if there is no reason to believe that it will. But with anything you have faith in, you never know until it does or does not happen. Even though we could vote Obama out of office in 2012, does that mean we know Obama will fulfill his campaign promises? Is there anything that suggests that he will definitely do what he said he would do? The point is that we won't know if our trust in Obama is justified until the end of his first term in 2012. It's just like I won't know if there is an afterlife until I die.That's what faith is - believing in something and not knowing if that belief is justified until it does or doesn't happen. It doesn't matter that what it is we believe in is a person or a flying spaghetti monster or that our knowing if our faith was justified will occur tomorrow or decades from now, it's still a belief.

Of course, which is why I am the last person to say my personal faith is right. I don't know if what I believe is right. When I do know, if I ever can find out, I most certainly won't be able to tell anyone.People who say their faith is the right one are lying - there is nothing to prove that they are right. That's why more and more Christians are beginning to believe that maybe no faith is the "right" one and that maybe all faiths have something to offer. There are Christians who hold less to doctrine and more to "faith." That is, they are willing to believe but are not willing to say that their belief is the "right" one. They do not shackle themselves to dogma, instead they follow the spirit of the religion which is essentially to guide them on the path to being better people.

Oh, I hope you never concede, but constantly grow and change your ideas. And as long as you are a decent person, and I believe that you are, then it really doesn't matter if you believe in God or Zeus or nothing at all.Sorry for being off-topic.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

True, but that is inductive logic. Inductive logic is never as valid as deductive logic.For instance:
Big Mac 1 I ate did not poison me.
Big Mac 2 I ate did not poison me.
Big Mac 3 I ate did not poison me.
Big Mac N I ate did not poison me, where N is some random number.
Does that mean Big Mac N+1 will not poison me?Inductive logic, in my opinion, plays a large role in faith. Past experiences do not serve well to justify future expectations. The fact that you opened your front door one hundred thousand times and did not fall down does not mean that the one hundred thousand and first time you open your door, you will not fall down. But your expectations are that you won't fall down simply because you didn't fall down the first one hundred thousand times.Inductive logic serves to allow us to proceed normally in our daily lives without fear that something unusual or extraordinary will occur. It also serves to inform our responses in various situations. Because your friend has proven himself trustworthy in the past, you would trust him in the future. If he ever betrays that trust, you would be shocked since it didn't occur to you that he would betray your trust because he had always proven himself trustworthy in the past. But without inductive logic, you would always distrust, because why should past actions inform you of future expectations? Therefore you would expect anything.Inductive logic is the essence of faith, I think.But you are right, God can never be objectively proven. But for myself, I have experienced things that have given me faith in God, or at least some deity. For me, I have my own subjective reason for my faith in God. What I don't do is let my faith blind me to the realities of Universe.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.