|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Way Forward is Through Science and Religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I have just been re-reading Schroeder's book "The Hidden Face of God" when I came to the following paragraph.
Gerald Shroeder writes: Spinoza's ideal in which we might find our way to perfection by rational processes alone is an age old dream. The nature of the human psyche makes it an unrealistic goal. Both science and religion acting alone have produced irrational and horrific behaviour. Like rain in the growth of a tree, the blessing of insight from above must mesh with the roots of material reality from below. Neither by itself can achieve the goal of peace on earth and goodwill toward all. This paragraph resonated with me. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a theocracy that has advanced the cause of peace and neither has the cause of peace been advanced by a government based on the idea that the only truth that exists is what can be determined scientifically. A good case in point was the French Revolution which was a response to a corrupt theocracy which was then followed by a beheading of French intellectuals. The basis of this forum is the debate between evolution and a literal reading of the Bible. A debate should hopefully involve actually hearing what the other person is saying without labelling, name calling or rancour. I suggest that if we only try to score debating points without really listening to each other we're likely to go on making the same mistakes that we always have. We should be searching for truth wherever we find it. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2542 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
now if we can only get those literalists who think that science cannot co-exist with religion to shut up and sit down, we might be able to do this.
chances of that happening?I'd say near to none--this battle won't stop until either the literalists feel they have won or until they are wiped out by accepting reason and rationality instead of having some insecure need to believe in something, no matter how irrational the belief. sorry for being cynical--idea sounds good, but . . . All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
I don't think science and religion can work together. Religion continuously stands in the way of science, both in terms of explaining natural phenomena and in the application of useful scientifically-grounded knowledge. Instead of thinking things through in a rational manner and changing beliefs to fit the evidence, many religions demand that their followers stick relentlessly to the teachings of ancient people who lacked scientific knowledge, or to flawed interpretations of those teachings, as is seen with creationism in the United States. It would be nice if the two could work together, but science and religion oppose each other so strongly that I don't see how it is possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
GDR writes:
To the best of my knowledge there has never been a theocracy that has advanced the cause of peace and neither has the cause of peace been advanced by a government based on the idea that the only truth that exists is what can be determined scientifically. Perhaps we should ask which nation has advanced the cause of peace more than any other in modern times and see what its attributes are that may help to explain such behavior? I would like to vote for Switzerland. Now just to fend off any criticism, I am positing Switzerland as the nation that has advanced the cause of peace more than any other. I did not say perfect or heaven on Earth. Switzerland is guilty of acting as Hitler's bankers in WWII. If anyone would like to propose another nation that has done more to promote peace in modern times, lets say the last 100 years, please feel free to do so. Now what is it about Switzerland that makes it different? Is it religion? 44% Catholic and 38.5% Protestant. Seems pretty even. Are the Swiss more rational, or do they value rationality, more than the population of other nations? Maybe. So what is the big difference between Switzerland and other nations? Look I may have found it: From Wikipedia Switzerland - Wikipedia
Direct democracy Switzerland features a system of government not seen at the national level any other place on Earth: direct democracy, sometimes called half-direct democracy (this could, or could not be correct as theoretically, one could state that the people have full power over the law). Referenda on the most important laws have been used since the 1848 constitution. Any citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament. If he is able to gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority whether to accept or reject the law. Also, any citizen may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the constitution. For such an amendment initiative to be organised, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18 months. Such a popular initiative may be formulated as a general proposal or - much more often - be put forward as a precise new text whose wording can no longer be changed by parliament and the government. After a successful vote gathering, the federal council may create a counterproposal to the proposed amendment and put it to vote on the same day. Such counterproposals are usually a compromise between the status quo and the wording of the initiative. Voters will again decide in a national vote whether to accept the initiative amendment, the counterproposal put forward by the government or both. If both are accepted, one has to additionally signal a preference. Initiatives have to be accepted by a double majority of both the popular votes and a majority of the states. Maybe when the populace of a nation has more political power than usual, they promote peace rather than the warlike greed of powerful individuals or favored groups. Edited by anglagard, : proper attribution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThingsChange Member (Idle past 5955 days) Posts: 315 From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony) Joined: |
The basis of this forum is the debate between evolution and a literal reading of the Bible. It's not just the Bible. Why are you picking on the Bible Inerrant Christians (a more appropriate label than "literalist")? It's not the only religious dogma preaching creationism. Science takes a further back seat in Islamic countries than in the West, where Christians are more predominant. And, Islamic extremists hold a gun to a person's head and force him to convert or die. You should turn your attention more to Islam than Christianity, in my opinion. Anyway. Expand your debate to all religions. Now, for your debate...Root cause analysis of the controversial differences between science and religion boils down to truth being scientific method or testimony (resulting in the Bible, Torah, Quran, whatever).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2542 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
question--does science teach morality? ethics?
in a word, no. does religion teach morality? ethics? in a word, yes. what you object to is oganized religion. it is the teachings that are important--do unto others, don't lie, kill, steal, cheat. treat people with respect. of course, an argument could be made (and Mill did) that morality in religion is actually founded on utilitarianism, but that's a whole 'nother topic. without ethics, there would be no consternation over abortion, stem cell research, cloning, the development of nuclear, chemical, conventional weapons (particularly of the WMD type). without morality you would descend into the world of Hobbes (contemporary of Locke, so it might be Calvin Hobbes, not sure though (but am about time))--one of anarchy, every man out for himself (literally). All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
If that's the case, then atheists should be very amoral people. Instead, however, I see religious people of many different faiths acting in very immoral ways. Look at the War on Terror. There are immoral people on all sides, while I would expect atheists to be more likely to be against the whole war.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Gary writes: I don't think science and religion can work together. Religion continuously stands in the way of science, both in terms of explaining natural phenomena and in the application of useful scientifically-grounded knowledge. Instead of thinking things through in a rational manner and changing beliefs to fit the evidence, many religions demand that their followers stick relentlessly to the teachings of ancient people who lacked scientific knowledge, or to flawed interpretations of those teachings, as is seen with creationism in the United States. It would be nice if the two could work together, but science and religion oppose each other so strongly that I don't see how it is possible. I don't know what percentage of Christians would call themselves literalists. I suggest that even in N. America they represent a minority. Frankly I don't think that most are concerned that much one way or the other. My own view is that the Bible represents the true nature of ourselves and of God but I don't believe that it should be read like a science text or a newspaper. I tend to think that the majority of Christians have somewhat similar beliefs. Those that believe that the world is 6000 years old would, in my opinion, represent a very small minority. People like myself find science fascinating. I continue to marvel at the beauty and the complexity of His creation. Christianity has historically followed two scriptures. Paul even talks about it in Romans. We have the Bible and we have the creation of which we are apart. Two scriptures. Science is the study of the second scripture. Schroeder is convinced that the scientific study of the physical is coming closer and closer to rubbing up against the metaphysical. (This is not to suggest that the metaphysical is open to the scientific method.) Hopefully as we learn more and more about our creation our understanding of how to interpret the Bible will increase as well. Hopefully that will come in time that it can make a difference. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I don't know what percentage of Christians would call themselves literalists. I've not seen a thread on it yet. I believe the Bible is, literally, the word of God. But I don't take it literally. What does that make me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2542 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Which is why Mill argued that Utilitarianism is the foundation of the morality found in relgion and all over the world.
also, remember the questions I asked?science doesn't teach morality. Religion is in the business. it's up to the individual person to follow through on this, though. after all, we are all imperfect. Oh, and the War on Terror doesn't really have anything to do with religion. bad example to use. If it was about religion, then we should be out there trying to exterminate islam--which we aren't. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Perhaps we should ask which nation has advanced the cause of peace more than any other in modern times and see what its attributes are that may help to explain such behavior?
Maybe the Soviet Union (USSR). During the cold war things never got too far out of hand. The wars were relatively limited in scope. Now that the cold war is over, all hell is breaking loose. Note: this is not intended as any kind of endorsement of USSR.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2542 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
a rational person?
oh, I know. a . . . . . . metaphoricist. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
But several polls indicate that a huge proportion of Americans, at least 40% and probably more, believe the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old. These people are more likely to vote than people with different views, and so the government is entirely Christian. We have a president who opposes stem cell research and who feels intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution in science classes. It seems like the most extreme beliefs are the ones that people find easiest to get behind.
I would imagine things are better in Canada, but I haven't read anything about the situation there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Note: this is not intended as any kind of endorsement of USSR. Wait until we run out of molybdenum. Coming to a war near you soon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gary Inactive Member |
While the War on Terror is too complicated to be boiled down to religious belief, I find it interesting that fundamentalist Christians have supported it so thoroughly. I don't think the problem is with Islam though - I think it is with religious belief, no matter which religion it is.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024