|
Post by Lee on Jan 21, 2016 9:19:39 GMT -5
Here are several excerpts from a good review of Jacques Ellul's book The New Demons. link In his opinion the modern world is as religious as it ever was. The twentieth-century world was certainly marked by some the of the most hideous transfers of the sacred to the state. As an aside, I believe the rejection of nationalism by the JW sect was a recognition and reaction to this. The final three excerpts summarize Ellul's position on the new religion. [excerpt] Though the state does not explicitly set itself up as God, “people accept it… and look upon it as the great ordainer, the supreme and inevitable providence. They expect everything of it, accept its every intention, and inevitably and inexorably think of their lives and of their society in relation to it” (81). [excerpt] Since the state is sacred, central, and ultimate, politics “is the supreme religion of this age” (167). In relation to the state, politics is the chief sacramental action. “Widespread political religion is an expression of the sacralizing of the state” (198). Thus, everything that matters must be political. “Everything is political. Politics is the only serious activity. The fate of humanity depends on politics, and classic philosophical or religious truth takes on meaning only as it is incarnated in political action” (199). [excerpt] The central values of the sacred state are communicated in the new myths. “[M]yth at its deepest level is that collectively created thing which crystallizes the great, central values of a culture” (102). A sample of the new myths includes: Science and technology will ultimately save the day and relieve humankind of all its anxieties. Happiness will be achieved through scientific progress. Humankind is becoming more rational (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary). Humankind is progressing, “constantly moving toward a better state [and] will reach perfection as the result of a long-range movement of material progress that cannot be frustrated” (22). Humankind is not weak, but strong, and has taken its destiny into its own hands, thanks to science and technology (125). [excerpt] This new religion of the masses is like the old, but with one very significant difference: [excerpt] Nothing is more formidable than… political believers. Like all believers, they have a monopoly on truth, but with the difference that the truth can never be dissociated from the political power. Here is where political faith seems to me incomparably more dangerous than any other. Buddhism in no way implies an association with the political power. The contrary is the case. Neither does Christianity. If Christianity remains faithful to its inspiration and object, the God of Love, it is incompatible with the exercise of political power. The combination of the two came about by accident. [excerpt] On the other hand, political faith can be incarnate only in the political power, the modern state. In that respect it is the most atrocious of all the religions humanity has ever known. It is the religion of abstract power incarnated in the police, the army, and the administration, that is, in the only powers that are concrete and tangible. (177) [excerp] Ellul does not conclude his analysis by arguing that the state must be desacralized. The problem is not with the state, politics, or technology. “It is not technology itself which enslaves us, but the transfer of the sacred into technology” (206). Anytime the “sacred” is transferred to any other object than God, a new idolatry arises. We must be careful about attaching this word to any concept or object, even those we find of great value. The sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of our right to vote, the sanctity of the constitution, etc. are all bound to lead to distortions and idolatry. [excerpt] Desacralizing could be done only if, along with it, one supplied a reason for living adequate really to sustain life, and an answer really satisfying and clear. The answer and the reason for living must go together. May the person who cannot supply this enlightenment allow the rest of civilized, modern, and scientific humanity, be it Chinese or western, to sleep peacefully in its religious dream
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 21, 2016 9:20:36 GMT -5
Hello Dimmichgood, The central part of her post engulfs other, as she says Religions, Christianity is one Religion. Sadly divided,some divided by near uncurably exclusivisms,others divided by lesser and in some cases petty differences.. Jesus is not wanting to return to a divided bride. But thankfully as things are waxing worse the ecumenical sides of so many Christian persuasions and believers are not allowing them stay divided. As Islam State have us all on their death wish Christians united fronts are the greatest strength and unity in purpose and prayer involves God with us. It seems odd to me that you speak out against exclusive denominations while being a believer in an exclusive religion. On what is the good and bad of exclusiveness dependent?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 21, 2016 9:30:23 GMT -5
CS Lewis called reason the "organ of truth" and he said our imagination was "the organ of meaning". Both are necessary to arrive at truth. Watch this interesting video:
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jan 21, 2016 19:50:26 GMT -5
@laverdad "...I kind of resent the constant badgering of Christians for a few here". As dmmichgood wrote, I am referring to ALL religions, not just christianity. Walker1903, anyone who rigorously critiques (or 'badgers'?) the 2x2 group whilst resenting a generic critique of all religions is revealing that what they dole out to others, is not tolerated by themselves. One of the more persistent accusations made against the 2x2 group is the 'exclusivity' claim. I am interested to read any responses to rational's question "It seems odd to me that you speak out against exclusive denominations while being a believer in an exclusive religion. On what is the good and bad of exclusiveness dependent?" Lee I will listen to that video asap, thank you for sharing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2016 4:24:10 GMT -5
Atheism is growing in popularity, but if you notice the character of modern atheism (generally speaking), it is not about a non-belief in God or a supernatural being, it is very much a hatred for all things God and Jesus. Atheism in these cases is not about believing in nothing supernatural, but about "denying" God. Just listen to how some of them get wound up over hearing or reading the word "God" or "Jesus!" Their reactions speak louder than their words! These people do not have a disbelief in God, they have a hatred for him.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 22, 2016 10:39:21 GMT -5
Atheism is growing in popularity, but if you notice the character of modern atheism (generally speaking), it is not about a non-belief in God or a supernatural being, it is very much a hatred for all things God and Jesus. Redefining the term. It happens - consider the word 'cult'.It is not denying god but the statement of fact that they do not believe in the existence of a deity or deities. You are correct - atheism does not address the supernatural - that is a job for the skeptics.Then 'those' people are not atheists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2016 11:28:20 GMT -5
Atheism is growing in popularity, but if you notice the character of modern atheism (generally speaking), it is not about a non-belief in God or a supernatural being, it is very much a hatred for all things God and Jesus. Redefining the term. It happens - consider the word 'cult'.It is not denying god but the statement of fact that they do not believe in the existence of a deity or deities. You are correct - atheism does not address the supernatural - that is a job for the skeptics.Then 'those' people are not atheists. I agree rational. They are not true atheists, but they are a growing number and have hijacked atheism. Atheism hides their true colours. Just like many Christians are not true Christians, but have hijacked the term for their own set of beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jan 22, 2016 21:39:44 GMT -5
@ram you wrote "Atheism is growing in popularity, but if you notice the character of modern atheism (generally speaking), it is not about a non-belief in God or a supernatural being, it is very much a hatred for all things God and Jesus".
I can understand why christians (and Jewish people) feel discriminated against as media and others have succumbed to the restrictions imposed by the regressive left and desist from critiquing islam. The threat of being labelled Islamophobia or racist ( and the fear of fatal reprisals is probably also somewhat undermining of free speech!) successfully suppresses public discourse centered on the islamic faith. However it is ironic that those who criticise the 2x2 belief tend to resent a parallel critical, but generalized approach against christianity.
To hate god or Jesus is to affirm they exist. It is impossible to bestow any emotion on a non-entity or any historical figure who existed 1,000's of years ago.
The reason many people abhor religion is not due to a personal vendetta against supernatural beings but due to an acknowledgement that religiosity has extremely negative and dangerous global impacts. The following was submitted on past thread but will re-post the dangers emanating from religious belief here so you can see why it is misleading to trivialise an opposition to religion when based on the following:
-indoctrinating children into believing that which cannot be evidenced before they have the opportunity to apply unhindered rational inquiry
-dividing children from each other through faith schools and other means of segregation eg. disallowing them from participating in community activities incl sport
-Dangerous & cruel ritualistic behaviors: Female Genital Mutilation; Non-human animal sacrifice; Kosher & Halal slaughter techniques resulting in even > suffering than the typical killing of healthy animals for human consumption
-Male circumcision, though controversial due to some identified health advantages, this is traditionally performed as a religious ritual without anaesthetic
-sectarian violence throughout history and continuing into the present day
-fundamentalism: who can identify the mind which will absorb the preachings from violent texts and apply them literally? eg. ISIS; the shooting of abortion doctors; the shunning and exclusion of non-believers
-personal impacts eg. undermining self-esteem; the fragile and timid person is at risk of mental health issues
-covering up of criminal activity such as CSA. The church hierarchy adopts the role of law enforcer (or not)
-providing a fertile ground for criminal activities due to the inflated sense of trust in church members particularly the clergy/priests/workers
-vows of celibacy being a causation in CSA[/li]
+ the creation hierarchy causes sentient non-human animals to be considered as possessions or lesser beings despite their shared ability to suffer, fear and grieve as we do + separating family members: the saved from the unsaved + imposing death on apostates + intolerant of conditions which require medical or psychological support but instead are regarded as sinful resulting in excommunication or even death eg. homosexuality + retarding scientific progress throughout the ages and to present times due to superstitious claims and entrenched, unfounded beliefs + subordinating and disempowering of female church members + patriarchal church hierarchy limiting the role of female workers, clergy etc + controlling the female reproductive system thus preventing contraception and causing widespread poverty and suffering + preventing use of barrier contraceptive methods causing greater destruction and death through HIV
+ sanctification of human "life" prevent female access to abortion + sanctification of human life preventing optimal symptom management in the dying resulting in shocking suffering in the terminally ill + sanctification of human life preventing the abortion of foeti diagnosed with serious genetic and other conditions resulting in a life of misery
+ "honour killings" a distorted attempt to cover a families shame with a perceived transgressor ++ I forgot to add the $$! Fleecing the poor and gullible of money in the name of god(s) is notorious. Prayer is a remarkable catalyst for burgeoning the tax free coffers. Even the meetings have hidden funds and who knows how much lucre is at the governing bodies disposal? Financial corruption within religious organisations is not uncommon.
Religious belief is a scourge on this planet. This is why I care.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 22, 2016 22:25:17 GMT -5
"Religious belief is a scourge on this planet. This is why I care." Appreciate your thoughts and care. MANY bad "things" have been done by bad people using religion. I appreciated the perspective of Tim O'Neil, self described as atheist , medievalist , skeptic, ..historian, to the question of "if all religion was banned from the earth......... The simplistic idea that religion is somehow especially and inherently "bad" and so if we could make all forms of religion (and its weak and sickly cousin "spirituality") disappear the sum total of human happiness would instantly increase is a naive nonsense at the heart of what is wrong with "New Atheism". It's based on the trite idea that, somehow, religion has a special power to "make good people do bad things" and so is, somehow, magically corrosive of the common good and that if we all turned away from any form of religion everything would be much better................. (ii) The Control Freaks: These are people who like to dominate and control others. They usually let others do the dirty work for them (ie the Sadists) but like to run the show and benefit from the power and dominance that comes from making others do as they say. There are more of them than the Sadists, but they are still a minority and they like it that way. (iii) The Absolutists: These are people who can only think in black and white, who have no grasp of nuance and who find uncertainty or the cheerful achnowledgement that they simply don't or can't know something distressing. As a result, they are fundamentalists who believe in things absolutely and so consider anyone who believes otherwise to not simply be wrong, but also to be wicked and worthy of oppression (by the Control Freaks) or even persecution (by the Sadists). They might find this regretable in individual cases, but justifiable oveall. They form a majority of those who perpetuate religious evil. What we see here is that none of these people are unique to religious ideologies. In fact, we can point to nationalistic ideologies (Nazism, Fascism) or political ideologies (Communism) and find plenty of examples of ideologically-based evil being done by exactly the same types of people. These people's evil actions are not a result of religion, they are a result of being a certain kind of human. So if Dawkins and Co waved an anti-theistic magic wand and made all religion disappear tomorrow, the sum total of human happiness would not change one iota. The Sadists, Control Freaks and Absolutists would still be with us and would simply find some other absolute ideology as an outlet. It's not actually religion that we need to guard against or change, it's any form of absolutist ideology, whether the form it takes is religious or otherwise. That is the problem and the source of a great deal of human evil. The childish New Atheists' campaign against religion per se is simply far too narrow and inspired more by a misunderstanding of the source of religious evil (at best) or plain old bigotry (at worst) and so is not worthy of support by real humanists. www.quora.com/If-all-religion-was-banned-from-around-the-world-how-much-of-a-better-place-would-the-entire-world-be
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 22, 2016 23:16:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 22, 2016 23:26:39 GMT -5
I think Joanna brings out some good points about "religion", and in some ways "science" has more positive "path" to follow to God, and interestingly , many scientists have followed that path to God. Alvin “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”–Physicist Paul Davies, the winner of the 2001 Kelvin Medal issued by the Institute of Physics and the winner of the 2002 Faraday Prize issued by the Royal Society (amongst other awards), as cited in his book God and the New Physics (first quote), and from his acceptance address of the 1995 Templeton Prize (second quote). “In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.” —Werner Heisenberg, who was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics (which is absolutely crucial to modern science). godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god/ I t is not true that science can only proceed if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview. The very definition of "Theological" rules that out.
Theological http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theological Theological based upon the nature and will of God as revealed to humans.
It is a very small number of scientists who believe in a god, also many of those quotes were taken ourt of the context of the rest of the statement made by the scientists. All the quotes that you presented come from a Christine site, so naturally they are going to to reflect their bias.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 23, 2016 0:12:22 GMT -5
Yes, it's all relative and lots of knee jerk reactions, as it is impossible for humans to be COMPLETELY objective , as I think every one of us on this forum have clearly demonstrated at one point or another. lol Alvin en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies An opinion piece published in the New York Times,[8] generated controversy over its exploration of the role of faith in scientific inquiry. Davies argued that the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology, and that the claim that science is "free of faith" is "manifestly bogus."[8] The Edge Foundation presented a criticism of Davies' article written by Jerry Coyne, Nathan Myhrvold, Lawrence Krauss, Scott Atran, Sean Carroll, Jeremy Bernstein, PZ Myers, Lee Smolin, John Horgan, Alan Sokal and a response by Davies beginning I was dismayed at how many of my detractors completely misunderstood what I had written. Indeed, their responses bore the hallmarks of a superficial knee-jerk reaction to the sight of the words "science" and "faith" juxtaposed.[9] While atheists Richard Dawkins[10] and Victor J. Stenger[11] have criticised Davies' public stance on science and religion, others including the John Templeton Foundation, have praised his work.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2016 3:47:19 GMT -5
Yes, it's all relative and lots of knee jerk reactions, as it is impossible for humans to be COMPLETELY objective , as I think every one of us on this forum have clearly demonstrated at one point or another. lol Alvin en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies An opinion piece published in the New York Times,[8] generated controversy over its exploration of the role of faith in scientific inquiry. Davies argued that the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology, and that the claim that science is "free of faith" is "manifestly bogus."[ 8] The Edge Foundation presented a criticism of Davies' article written by Jerry Coyne, Nathan Myhrvold, Lawrence Krauss, Scott Atran, Sean Carroll, Jeremy Bernstein, PZ Myers, Lee Smolin, John Horgan, Alan Sokal and a response by Davies beginning I was dismayed at how many of my detractors completely misunderstood what I had written. Indeed, their responses bore the hallmarks of a superficial knee-jerk reaction to the sight of the words "science" and "faith" juxtaposed.[9] While atheists Richard Dawkins[10] and Victor J. Stenger[11] have criticised Davies' public stance on science and religion, others including the John Templeton Foundation, have praised his work. Check out Controversies about John Templeton FoundationControversies:
Broadly, controversial aspects of the Templeton Foundation fall into three categories:
The Foundation is seen by some as having a conservative bias. The Foundation receives criticism from some members in the scientific community who are concerned with its linking of scientific and religious questions. The Foundation stands accused of using its financial clout to encourage researchers and reporters to produce material favourable to its position linking religion to science etc.[62][63][64] from wiki
There is a very long list of controversies. Just google the John Templeton Foundation
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2016 5:27:02 GMT -5
The fact that God hates all religion other than his own, as well as distorted versions of his own, clearly shows that the true believer must look to God first and foremost for guidance in these matters, otherwise we tread on dangerous territory. Better to trust in God than have confidence in man. It's when the eye is off the ball that we lose the game.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jan 23, 2016 7:10:51 GMT -5
Hey Rationale,,Red Cross and Red Cresent you said. Yes but they are just a part of so many.You didn't mention the Salvos.I can assure you the stench of death as each day you help bury mums,or their baby because mum is dry,young men ravaged by injury and war.Plus raped and murdered girls and women. Never saw or heard of even one member of the only way 2x2s there,or even amongst the older teens and young adults that come in ,in groups (generally financed by the various congregations,and fund raisers from where they are from,all different brands together,one Godly purpose).These kids will clean,nurse,cook,help remove the critical to different tents for care,do support and clericals for the doctors who are mostly christian volunteers,administer medications (if any),and stronger young men help in removing and burying the dead. On top of this these teams begin the day in devotion and prayer,wind down by talking of the day to help loosen the horrors in each individual daily experience. And devotion and prayer closes. Some try and sleep and some remain on standby,sleep is usually an extention of exhaustion.If you think you are to old to get into this type of christian voluntry service,well just get involved and support those who give their time and vacation to help Gods hurting defenceless ones.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 23, 2016 9:28:49 GMT -5
If you think you are to old to get into this type of christian voluntry service,well just get involved and support those who give their time and vacation to help Gods hurting defenceless ones. Thanks for the lecture. You know, going to areas that that need assistance is not the only way to help. I have to ask why you think god is not protecting these "hurting defenceless[SIC] ones". Have they sinned?
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Jan 23, 2016 14:17:11 GMT -5
Hey Rationale,,Red Cross and Red Cresent you said. Yes but they are just a part of so many.You didn't mention the Salvos.I can assure you the stench of death as each day you help bury mums,or their baby because mum is dry,young men ravaged by injury and war.Plus raped and murdered girls and women. Never saw or heard of even one member of the only way 2x2s there,or even amongst the older teens and young adults that come in ,in groups (generally financed by the various congregations,and fund raisers from where they are from,all different brands together,one Godly purpose).These kids will clean,nurse,cook,help remove the critical to different tents for care,do support and clericals for the doctors who are mostly christian volunteers,administer medications (if any),and stronger young men help in removing and burying the dead. On top of this these teams begin the day in devotion and prayer,wind down by talking of the day to help loosen the horrors in each individual daily experience. And devotion and prayer closes. Some try and sleep and some remain on standby,sleep is usually an extention of exhaustion.If you think you are to old to get into this type of christian voluntry service,well just get involved and support those who give their time and vacation to help Gods hurting defenceless ones. So because you havent seen any '2x2's working with the salvos it means they are not involved in charity work ?? That is showing your ignorance. I know many many people in this church doing huge amounts of charity work for different causes. Charity doesnt necessarily mean you must form a group or operate under the name if your church. There are many aid organisations that a person can simply and quietly join and contribute to without making an announcement to the world. Isnt that what christian charity is all about?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jan 23, 2016 15:26:01 GMT -5
I am sure we would know if they were involved in some kind of charity organisation/ work. We usually have an idea of what those around us do.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 23, 2016 16:02:59 GMT -5
I agree withlove. Each person is unique and there is no 'one-size fits all' approach to empowering those affected by religious beliefs. I just hope that some believers may be encouraged to apply their own reasoning, and be motivated to research without feeling guilty or ashamed. SharonArnold only those who have a strong belief seem unable to understand that it is possible to live free of any belief system. Do you accept new information without question? If you are directed by your peers or manager or other to perform a task, do you enact that without consideration? It would be unusual and unlikely if you did not process and appraise data to determine whether it was constructive versus burdensome or dangerous. Once free of the mind numbing impacts of religion, I was able to make informed decisions. Being told not to question; to be as a child; to follow an individual's teachings which were recorded approximately two thousand years ago, and to believe the contents of a book which are literally unbelievable, has a negative impact on our brains. It numbs our potential for critical thinking. Einstein also wrote "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being".When encouraging people to opt for reason over faith; it is not imposing a fixed belief system but rather handing it over to the individual to source that which can be proven. Instead of adhering to a rigid and inflexible faith-based system and claiming you possess the truth without being able to prove this; it is being able to say "I do not know" thus inspiring a willingness to learn from those who are at the helm of scientific discoveries and other experts. It is ironic that those who speak about humility tend to have all the (non) answers and are so ready to accuse those of us who simply do not believe in that which cannot be proven and are open to learning and accepting new information. I suppose my approach on this forum does tend to conform to "the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth". My personal experience with religion and subsequently learning of the ubiquitous damage it inflicts across the globe inspires me to prompt others to allow their innate ability to reason, to predominate over their faith. If it was an exam question, I would speculate that I question things (on a moment-to-moment basis) that you haven't even thought of. I like that Einstein quote. Alvin posted another really good one: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.”—Albert Einstein I don't mind what you think, it makes no difference to me. But I do see it as a stage of psychological development (And, it's important, go for it.), not as "Truth". (And I don't mind what you think of my viewpoint as well.)
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 23, 2016 16:05:58 GMT -5
It is a very small number of scientists who believe in a god Mmmm. You might want to check the stats on this.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jan 23, 2016 16:42:42 GMT -5
As I pour you another coffee Rationale. I did say there is other ways to help . Without support this end the volunteer numbers would shrink. As for sin? What a question,that is very Penticostal,you are a bit crook you must have a burden to exorcise. In Australia some time back remove the three major Chtistian Charities from the Welfare areas and Australia would be broke in three years. The Uniting church (The largest welfare church,made up of the amalgam of Methodist,Congregational and Presbyterians,now one) has in Queensland alone a $2Billion budget.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 23, 2016 16:54:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 23, 2016 17:56:02 GMT -5
This makes a point, but it is a pretty small sample size. If you google "percentage of scientists believing in god", it gives somewhat of a different picture. And, of course we could debate who legitimately carries the designation of "Scientist". Does a degree in Science qualify you, or do we need to narrow the definition to a mindset or a particular set of accomplishments?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 23, 2016 18:26:29 GMT -5
This makes a point, but it is a pretty small sample size. If you google "percentage of scientists believing in god", it gives somewhat of a different picture. And, of course we could debate who legitimately carries the designation of "Scientist". Does a degree in Science qualify you, or do we need to narrow the definition to a mindset or a particular set of accomplishments? That quote has been kicked around for a long time. This website makes a good effort in defending the subject. www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/does-it-matter-that-many-scientists-are-atheistsThe main way of knowing in religion is revelation and faith, while in science it's measurement & evidence. I see the two an incompatible, but others do not. No need for NOMA for me. The other bothersome question is: Are we born with an innate need for god(s). I see a god belief as mainly cultural learning. It may have come from the practical need to put at rest the many unknowns, so you could do more and wonder less. Anthropologist Daniel Everrett experience was very telling about bringing the new idea of a god to an isolated people.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 23, 2016 18:43:20 GMT -5
This makes a point, but it is a pretty small sample size. If you google "percentage of scientists believing in god", it gives somewhat of a different picture. And, of course we could debate who legitimately carries the designation of "Scientist". Does a degree in Science qualify you, or do we need to narrow the definition to a mindset or a particular set of accomplishments? That quote has been kicked around for a long time. This website makes a good effort in defending the subject. www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/does-it-matter-that-many-scientists-are-atheistsThe main way of knowing in religion is revelation and faith, while in science it's measurement & evidence. I see the two an incompatible, but others do not. No need for NOMA for me. The other bothersome question is: Are we born with an innate need for god(s). I see a god belief as mainly cultural learning. It may have come from the practical need to put at rest the many unknowns, so you could do more and wonder less. Good article. NOMA is a little over-intellectualized for me. I like this (part of the quotes page Alvin posted earlier on this thread.): “This much I can say with definiteness – namely, that there is no scientific basis for the denial of religion – nor is there in my judgment any excuse for a conflict between science and religion, for their fields are entirely different. Men who know very little of science and men who know very little of religion do indeed get to quarreling, and the onlookers imagine that there is a conflict between science and religion, whereas the conflict is only between two different species of ignorance.” “The first important quarrel of this sort arose over the advancing by Copernicus of his theory that the earth, instead of being a flat plane and the center of the universe, was actually only one of a number of little planets, rotating once a day upon its axis and circling once a year about the sun. Copernicus was a priest – the canon of a cathedral – and he was primarily a religious rather than a scientific man. He knew that the foundations of real religion are not laid where scientific discoveries of any kind can disturb them. He was persecuted, not because he went against the teachings of religion but because under his theory man was not the center of the universe and this was most displeasing news to a number of egoists.” “To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.” “Religion and science, then, in my analysis are the two great sister forces which have pulled, and are still pulling, mankind onward and upward.” “The impossibility of real science and real religion ever conflicting becomes evident when one examines the purpose of science and the purpose of religion. The purpose of science is to develop – without prejudice or preconception of any kind – a knowledge of the facts, the laws and the processes of nature. The even more important task of religion, on the other hand, is to develop the consciences, the ideals and the aspirations of mankind.” —Robert Andrews Millikan, who won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the elementary charge of electricity and on the photoelectric effect.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 23, 2016 20:22:24 GMT -5
A worldwide study showing many false and common assumptions about science and faith. Alvin The study's results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious," Ecklund said. "And it's striking that approximately twice as many 'convinced atheists' exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent)." The researchers did find that scientists are generally less religious than a given general population. However, there were exceptions to this: 39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the general population of Taiwan. Ecklund noted that such patterns challenge longstanding assumptions about the irreligious character of scientists around the world. .......Ecklund and fellow Rice researchers Kirstin Matthews and Steven Lewis collected information from 9,422 respondents in eight regions around the world: France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S. They also traveled to these regions to conduct in-depth interviews with 609 scientists, the largest worldwide survey and interview study ever conducted of the intersection between faith and science. Read more at: phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html#jCp
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 23, 2016 20:43:08 GMT -5
While we're at it, might as well mention another scientist, and, no , not all scientists are atheists, not EVEN close. I might be mistaken, but I think Francis believes in miracles. AHAAAA, can't trust this guy for sure- a believer and a doctor NOPE something wrong, how can a believer be head of anything scientific and even " been elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science." Equally as ridiculous as the "idea" by a religious person that a certain doctor or scientist cannot be trusted because he is an atheist, and no atheist can be a scientist, or at least VERY few , almost none, because God wouldnt' give him the brains to ........... Alvin Francis Collins,(Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. Collins also has written a number of books on science, medicine, and religion, including the New York Times bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. the announcement of a working draft of the human genome.[20] He stated that "It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."[Another major activity at NHGRI during his tenure as director was the creation of the haplotype map of the human genome. This International HapMap Project produced a catalog of human genetic variations—called single-nucleotide polymorphisms—which is now being used to discover variants correlated with disease risk. Among the labs engaged in that effort is Collins' own lab at NHGRI, which has sought to identify and understand the genetic variations that influence the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jan 23, 2016 20:50:55 GMT -5
The following quote is lifted from this article In Age of Science, Is Religion 'Harmful Superstition'? "Science has an exquisitely refined series of methods honed over 500 years to find out what’s real and what’s false.
Richard Feynman gave the best definition of science I ever heard, “It’s a way to keep you from fooling yourself, because you’re the easiest person to fool.” Religion doesn’t have a methodology to weed out what’s false. In fact, it’s a way of fooling yourself. They have authority, revelation, dogma, and indoctrination as their methods and no way of proving their tenets false".Just to add; regarding those scientists (and they do comprise a minority) who remain religious: It would be interesting to know their cultural status Are they members of a predominantly religious community? Is their funding source linked to a religious organisation? Is their partner religious? Do they have parents who would be traumatized if they were to leave their religion? Are they immersed in a social network aligned with their church? Is it simply easier to maintain the (religious) status quo than to change? (convenience is convenient!)
|
|