Endin' the Feudin' Between Science and Religion »
Posted By Spadecaller 1 year, 9 months ago in News"Those who posit that religion and science are inherently in conflict are two sides of the same counter productive framing of the argument. Those who support religious pluralism, sound science, and science education are natural allies against religious supremacy, Christian nationalism, and crackpot science of the religious right."
Read Full Story at talk2action.org:80 »
345 Views Share Story 46 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Spadecaller
Welcome to my profile. About me: I'm an artist of several kinds; from bull to painting. I don't spare too many words. Most ...
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 169 of 251 Comments (view all)
-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In American politics, clergy and politicians have joined in an unholy marriage, and scientists have been given a seat in the back of the bus.
James Dobson and the other kooks like him must be exposed for what they are: religious fanatics who believe it is their holy mission to dominate the rest of us.
Reply-
Neutral
GHOSTWHOWALKS1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Aw yes the age old argument. Just as old as the good verse evil. Science and religion should be working together to solve the riddles both try to understand instead of demeaning one, or the other. It'll never happen since religion is a point of view and science to the unending search for the betterment of all mankind. Really is a shame.
Throughout history the battle against science and the oppression of it by various ideologies has never solved one question and as long as there a nuts running around with their patronizing, fanatical views, there is always going to be conflict. Who is right? Who is wrong? How about neither,
since one is about absolutes and the other a matter of personal choice. The argument can't be won.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
daducha1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for sharing. These are good developments. But personally, science does not come in conflict with my faith in my God. I do not go on debates nor heated discussions about why I believe in God and about my faith, I keep it to myself and I do not disagree with other people who have different views. But if they end up this conflict between science and religion, then good.
Reply -
Neutral
walden31 year, 9 months ago
-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You might also note that the United Church of Christ is the denomination of which Sen. Barack Obama is a member. Some members here have tried to advance the false image of his church as a "kooky" institution, but it comes across as pretty reasonable here.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
texangelwings1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Faith can not be force fed to another human being. Science is still trying to understand God's creations. Humankind is always growing and learning something new!
We are all created by God and we are His children! I think that science and religion should work hand in hand to make life better for us all!
Thanks Spadecaller, good article!
Reply -
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user7 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
ameliog1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We are often trapped by the frame that we're told to exist within. If science and religion are two separate things, then they must be in opposition. I reject that frame. If both the spiritual and physical realities exist, then they should ultimately harmonize.
Obviously, people who don't believe in a spiritual element will sit firmly on science's side because there is nothing else to them that is believable. They aren't necessarily antagonistic toward the spiritual belief so much as they see it as an equation that doesn't add up, like 1 plus 1 equals 7, so it's dismissed without prejudice.
Reply -
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
About Christian nationalism according to the author of the article:
"But the Christian nationalist narrative has a fatal flaw: it is based on revisionist history that does not stand up under scrutiny. The bad news is that to true believers, it does not have to stand up to the facts of history to be a powerful and animating part of the once and future Christian nation. Indeed, through a growing cottage industry of Christian revisionist books and lectures now dominating the curricula of home schools and many private Christian academies, Christian nationalism becomes a central feature of the political identity of children growing up in the movement. The contest for control of the narrative of American history is well underway."
Reply-
Neutral
ameliog1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
People of faith should not promote their agendas primarily on the assumption their creator is sanctioning their activities. They might be operating just off of head knowledge. Does this further the finest ideals of the faith or does it primarily satisfy egos and perpetuate conflict? We each must answer for ourselves. Reminds me of the wise words "check yourself before you wreck yourself!" :)
Reply -
rdy2rckComment removed: Hard Banned12 Replies
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem with that viewpoint Spadecaller is that the liberals have created their own books first. If we go back to the books of the 19th century the viewpoint is much different than the liberal books of today. Of course we must turn a blind eye to that correct? We must only take what the current liberal teachings are as being right.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As an agnostic, even I find it incredible that so many "religious" people have a problem with science...
To me, it's very simple (taking the christian faith as an example). "God" created the earth in 6 Days.... Someone want to state (and either prove or disprove) that "His Day" didn't equal 800 million years (give or take a few), which would roughly match with science ??
Having never spoken to the Deity myself, I'll accept that his version of "Day" versus ours may just differ......
Why is this so hard for some to comprehend ???
Reply-
Neutral
ameliog1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
icono11 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fundamentalist any-religion is usually an anti intellectual growth crowd.
Some of the Christian fundies I have had the great displeasure to talk to because of my degrees in Mathematics and Physics are always telling me that Science is the work of Satan because it undermines the 'intuitive sense' (ie fundie definition of God), that God wanted man to have of God.
(another case of mere humans being able to devine the mind of the Devine and therefore "speak for God" which I think is dangerous buiness because God may not care for that at all.)
So I say !!!!OK.
But: (I usually reply)IMHO;
That scientist are, by my understanding of God's definition not theirs, part of God's creation and that a person who studies science is only studying what God initially created in the first place to be discovered by his creation Man and studied by his creation Man and or applied by God's creation Man.
cont.
Reply-
Neutral
icono11 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So they usually try to save my apparently lost soul by spouting off a few verses from the Bible which of course goes no where quick. Next they resign themselves to the fact, that in their eyes, I am just a God-less Atheist and will burn in hell for, by their definition again, my lack of a God worshipping and God fearing soul.
To which I usually reply "Good..... See you there and we can continue this discussion in Hell."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Rinty1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Religion:
A powerful healing force. In a world torn apart by religion.
It's up too us as individuals, no matter what your religious background and beliefs are to be tolerant and respectful of one another.
Personally, I grew up in a family divided by religious beliefs. My mother was an Irish Catholic and my father was Scots Presbyterian, it was so bad back then they had too elope, and we never had both sets of Grandparents in our home at the same time. Yet they loved us unconditionally.
My children are being taught 'day to day' what religion they choose, if any, is their choice. They are also being taught that you don't need to walk into a building and recite verse in order to be a good person and make a difference in their world.
Reply-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rinty:
My ex's mother was a fanatical bitc* about not doing certain things or doing certain things. She tried to teach my daughters that. Her and I went to war. I flat told her "you screwed up your kids, you'll not screw up mine!!"
She was one of those holier than thou's who feel it's OK to judge everyone else by the ten commandments. Yet she and her kids were perfectly fine.
I finally had to bar her from coming to my house. I didn't stop the kids from seeing her, she just wasn't welcome to bring her hatred into my home.
She reminds me of the neocons of today self righteous, pompous and arrogant while being completely wrong.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Edmar141 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am constantly asked the question by my students if science and religion are in opposition to each other. As a professor in modern world history, western civilization has gone through it's dark period, reformation and today we are in a technological period unprecedented in history. My answer to this question is always the same- science is not in opposition to religious belief or vice versa. The bible tells us that God created the universe, the planets and the earth in particular. It doesn't however tell us how these feats were accomplished. Science attempts to continue where religion leaves off. Whether the universe was created by a big bang does not create a rift in religious belief. The big bang may be what God used to create the universe. Religion teaches us that the earth was created in 6 days but the bible never explains how long a day was. Time of creation was in the hands of the almighty not necessarily in the hands of a 24 hour a day clock.
Reply-
Neutral
Edmar141 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We know that the dinosaurs lived millions of years before man appeared on the earth. Fossils and bones have led us down a path never experienced by the authors of the bible. And yet, assuming that man was created on the fifth day, each day being millions of years in time, the dinosaurs would have appeared and disappeared on the second, third or fourth day. Our understanding of time has gone through several revisions, as has our calendar. This doesn't make religion any less believable, it just makes our understanding of religious teaching a little more technological. In the end, religion teaches us the why and the when, science teaches us the how. In almost every instance in the Bible, God worked his wonders not by simply stretching out his hand, but by either an act of nature or some other physical action. Sodom and Gomorrah didn't just disappear, it was destroyed using acts of nature. Science attempts to explain God's actions, not to disprove God.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In an effort to disguise my ignorance, I just did a bunch of skim reading about some of the early scientific thinkers who embraced the metaphysical (speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.)
I failed at finding a place or time when the schism appeared but there where quite a few really smart folks that believed their was more than one type of knowledge and actively pursued both at the same time, Here are some of them (please forgive pasties):
Pythagoris:
Pythagoreanism is a term used for the esoteric and metaphysical beliefs held by Pythagoras and his followers, the Pythagoreans, who were much influenced by mathematics and probably a main inspirational source for Plato and Platonism.
Aristotle:
Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is not precise knowledge, like logic and mathematics, but general knowledge like knowledge of nutrition and exercise. Also, as it is a practical discipline rather than a theoretical one.
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thomas Aquinas:
Aquinas argued that the truth in Aristotle's philosophy is complemented and completed by the truth revealed in the Christian tradition.
Roger Bacon:
(1214â;;1294), was one of the most famous Franciscan friars of his time. An English philosopher who placed considerable emphasis on empiricism, he is sometimes credited as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Fly,
A more apt investigation might be when did religion part from the "mystical" (St. Francis, etc.) and become dogmatic, concrete and political? Religion is man's early attempts to comprehend the universe, they got some of it right and they got much of it wrong. For modern man to accept it as fact is counterproductive. To dismiss it entirely is also counter productive. Remember that Bacon for instance, would have to temper his words to avoid jail, excommunication, or torture by the "political" church of the day.
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bacon did spend a fair amount of time in the can.
Mostly by his fellow Franciscans, the Pope actually gave him some latitude.
I could easily take the other side of this argument.
Call it hard headedness but it seems I feel compelled to speak for the minority here.
dogmatic, concrete and political?
I have seen it from both sides.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to legend, the Greek philosopher Pythagoras discovered the concept of harmony when he began his studies of proportion while listening to the different sounds made when blacksmiths' hammers hit their anvils. The weights of the hammers and of the anvils all gave off different sounds. From here he moved to the study of stringed instruments and the different notes they produced. He started with a single string and produced a monochord in the ratio of 1:1 called the Unison. By varying the strings, he produced other chords: a ratio of 2:1 produced notes an octave apart. (Modern music theory calls a 5:4 ratio a "major third" and an 8:5 ratio a "major sixth".) In further studies of nature, he observed certain patterns and numbers recurring. Pythagoras believed that beauty was associated with ratios of small integers.
Reply -
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Pythagorean idea that whole numbers and harmonic (pleasing) sounds are intimately connected in music, must have been well known to lute-player and maker Vincenzo Galilei, father of Galileo Galilei. While possibly following Pythagorean modes of thinking, Vincenzo is known to have discovered a new mathematical relationship between string tension and pitch, thus suggesting a generalization of the idea that music and musical instruments can be mathematically quantitated and described. This may have paved the way to his son's crucial insight that all physical phenomena may be described quantitatively in mathematical language (as physical "laws"), thus beginning and defining the era of modern physics
Reply -
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It does. The Alchemists also had some fascinating metaphysical philosophy. I don't know if they were right. What I'm saying is that at some point religion began to assume an anti science stance. That pinpointing that moment may be more useful than pinpointing the time when science became anti religious (because it never has).
Reply
-
-
Neutral
annoDomini1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Science enlightens our minds and enlarges our imaginations. Because of science, we know some things about our universe. We know that we are the inhabitants of an unremarkable planet, circling an unremarkable star in a universe of at least 10,000,000... stars. We believe the universe was born 15,000,000,000 years ago in a huge explosion. Science tells us what makes the stars shine, why water is wet, and how genetic information is conveyed from one generation to the next.
Religion enlightens our minds and enlarges our imaginations. Because of religion, we know something about the being that created the universe. We know that God intended us to be inhabitants of the planet. Religion tells us what, why, and how to do good and to be good.
Reply -
Neutral
canadianrancher571 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have often wondered when religion and science first came to oppose each other. I feel it came even before there was any recognize science. If you look at some of the earlier types of religion they had sacrifices, they knew if they took a persons blood the person died so blood was the esence of life, but if you took away a persons ability to breathe the person died so you had the breath of life, different ideas over time have been used by religion to try and explain the source of life and I feel that none have been successful, but also science has not been able to explain the source of life. After this little rant I have just one thing that I wish someone could explain, Why do we all have different fingerprints, to me they are a form of identification but why?
Reply-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Regarding the fingerprints...
If we are all unique and yet the same, then we all deserve to be treated as unique and wonderful creatures.
When diversity is made shameful, evil reigns. In a loving world, some call it heaven on earth, some call it utopia, and some refer to it as the hereafter, but in this realm there are no misfits. In this realm all human beings belong in the scheme of things.
Many of us strive for this kind of peace and good will towards all. Isn't that both scientific and spiritual?
Reply
-
-
Neutral
annoDomini1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some may think that science in religion are different because science is based on facts and religion is based on opinion, but I believe that conclusion is a fundamental mistake.
Those of us who are true scientists recognize that science is about INTERPRETED facts. We infer from what we see and we postulate theoretical explanations. It may be difficult for non-scientists to really appreciate this because they see the amazing technological gadgets we have created and, because they cannot understand the technology, are simply amazed. The problem really is that in order to make any interpretation of the data, one has to know a lot of science already. Almost all science today is done from a chosen point of view that is based on what we think we know from past science. This isn't to say that science is not about facts, only that it is also about what we already believe.
Reply -
Neutral
Francisca1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for this story Spadecaller! I think the both aren't incompatible. Human needs the both anyway!(with moderation)As I am Cartesian I only would say...what is the most dangerous: an insane scientist? Or a Fundamentalist-heretic?We can't live without faith and we can't live without progress!! It's up to us to find the "right"balance.
Reply-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Golden Mean:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philo...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
annoDomini1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those of us who are true believers recognize that religion is not ONLY about faith. Our beliefs are motivated by seeking to understand real facts in our universe, and that includes more than just viewing the planets and stars. It includes trying to understand something about the miracles described in the Torah, how it is that so many could have claimed that Yeshua was raised from dead, or the incredible potency of the message Mohammed delivered.
Science and religion are intellectual cousins, both searching to explain what we experience and what motivates the beliefs that we know in ourselves and in others. Indeed, much of the intellectual scrutiny in history has been supported by the church. Neither can claim absolute knowledge because each bases its conclusions on a combination of interpretation and experience; therefore, both must be open to correction when it is warranted.
Reply -
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.