Nope. Science pushes forward, we learn more and we are more aware of the stuff we do not (yet) know scientifically, and we become more aware and more in awe of our breathtaking scientific ignorance.
Certainly there are lots of religious fools who choose to argue and to deny science its own domain. However on the other hand, there are lots of fans of science who attack religion needlessly.
Wrong again. Science is, always has been, and always will be the enemy of religion. Regardless of the intentions of the ( competent ) scientists in question; by doing their job properly, they are fighting against religion whether they know or care about it. And the acknowledgement of science as to its ignorance is a part of that; religion does the opposite and makes assertions about things it has no means of acquiring knowledge of. Every time some scientist says “We don’t know X; let’s find out”, they are acting in opposition to the essence of religion. Every time some scientist checks his facts or checks his logic, he is acting against religion. Every time a scientist admits his theory is wrong instead of lying about it, he is striking a blow at the patterns of thought that make religion possible.
Not true under any definition of Deism I’m aware of. Most people (alas) think that god has in some way inspired a moral code. True Deism I have no problem with. A true Deist is not going to go to church - why pray to a god who will never be involved, and true Deists won’t interfere with the rights of another for religious reasons. The majority is composed of theists, many of whom do all these things.
You wouldn’t bother informing her that the astrologer who claims it is an accepted science is lying? tsk
It is if you feel you may need the benefits of stem cells, which were not being federally funded due to religious reasons. It is not if your child is going to be taught myths instead of science. It is not if fools who were never taught evolution in any meaningful way run around with super germ killers which just create super germs.
Religion doesn’t have to oppose science - there are plenty of good Catholic evolutionary biologists and the Dalai Lama is pretty cool - but some forms of religion are dangerous.
Why wouldn’t it be rational?
In the United States this pass comes in the form of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Of course it also gives everyone the rights to express their skepticism and challenge theological claims.
The stem cell argument is a moral one regarding the value of life upon conception, not some scientifically provable theological claim. There is significant secular argument against against fetal stem cell research.
Religious claims should not be part of public education, IMO.
Super germ creation (in a lab) is an excellent example of where science should be influenced by morality, albeit not necessarily religious.
I don’t want to further hijack this thread but concerning this I’ll note that it seems no God, or gods, have interacted with us in a way in which we can measure and establish objectively right? All the things science has revealed so far were around even when mankind didn’t know about them or comprehend right?
Back to the OP,
Personally I think the giving any written word too much credence as “inspired by God” and giving it and anyone’s interpretation too much authority over us is a big mistake. As a former Christian my beliefs went through a series of changes when I started asking questions and then doing the research to answer them.
I began to see a reoccurring pattern in world religions and saw how much they were about tradition rather than truth.
The evidence , and there’s a lot of it, indicates that the Bible is a collection of writings written by, selected and interpreted by men. Whatever value and guidance they may have spring from the heart and spirit of the reader just as it does from any other so called “holy writings”
Beliefs about the Bible’s “authority” are IMHO, tradition, fueled by some personalities need to have an authoritative answer and create one even if it doesn’t exist.
It amuses me to note that in a religion that speaks so often of authority, and fulfilled prophecies, there is nothing in any of the canon to indicate that it was ever God’s intention that we have one final authoritative compilation of inspired writings.
Doesn’t it make more sense that if there is a God, a something more that we and all of creation are connected to, that communion would continue throughout the ages as we continued our search for truth and meaning?
Where did I say I wanted to censor religious expression? In the old days (and plenty of places today) expressing atheist ideas will get you in big trouble. Including things like blasphemy laws. Today you just get called an evangelical atheist.
Such as? I’ll remind you that the cells to be used came from fetuses which would be discarded, and with the permission of the parents. I fail to see the moral problem. Which method works best has no relevance, since we don’t know.
I lived in Cambridge during the recombinant DNA debate of the early '70s, and there was plenty of robust debate on the subject, fortunately none religious. But I was referring to supergerms created in the field by all those killing off weak germs which won’t hurt anyone and thus encouraging the evolution of supergerms. That is a far greater danger.
No argument. You have a rational view of this subject, and I’m not about to object to it.
Wow, took the words right out of my mouth.
I think you and I are on the same page on a lot of things.
Great to meet a fellow seeker!
Greetings fellow seeker
In my studies I noticed the common themes of brotherhood and the we are one concepts that are in a lot of religions. Those concepts seem to still ring true and science has done nothing to dispel them. It also seemed that as teachers came forward others tended to deify them and they became cloaked in a certain mythology.
There’s a certain power to belonging to a group with a belief system that makes it difficult to let go of some of the myths and religious tradition gets it’s hold in our psyche as something more important than it actually is.
Fortunately there are always those who place truth above tradition and gradually we {individuals and mankind in general} progress.
Hummm. So countries and cultures that reject religion and tradition are better places led by better people? You would have a bit of a hard time proving that by the evidence of the last century.
Works both ways, though. Are countries that embrace a certain religion better places than countries that hold it at arm’s length?
This is a good article on the subject -
It’s a hijack so I don’t really want to argue one side or the other, but I think it’s a valid ethical consideration apart from any theology.
Not that hard; Societies worse off ‘when they have God on their side’. Religion corrupts.
Because that’s a propaganda ploy, a bit of psychological manipulation; not a factual statement that science can disprove. I doubt that many if any religious people mean that literally after all; so it’s not like a scientist could impress anyone by, say, running a DNA comparison to prove that people really aren’t brothers and say “See! You AREN’T really brothers!”
The point of a claim like “we are all brothers” is ( fairly obviously ) to hijack the normal human family instinct to strengthen group loyalty. This can be well meaning ( “We are all brothers, so stop killing each other” ), or not well meaning ( “We are brothers! They aren’t your brothers! Kill them!” ); but it’s not meant as a factual claim, so it’s not something science can disprove.
Such manipulative assertions of familiarity aren’t even restricted to theism, Comrade.
You know the bible is gods word because about 1500 years ago some religious leader said so. And subsequent leaders have said so. That is all you need.
I’ll not get into the details of stem cells, but the article seems to be saying that those opposed to that ethical restriction are opposed to all, which is nonsense. On topic, the question is whether the ethical issue is purely religiously based. As a less extreme example, laws forbidding terminally ill patients from asking to end their own lives because certain religions forbid suicide are ethically suspect. of course most opponents will throw up a smokescreen of supposedly good reasons ( the SSM opponents have a million) but we can tell where the opposition really comes from.
How? The voices in your head?
By the identity of the people pushing for such laws. By the fact that there’s typically no other reason for it; what is the rational, moral, non-religious reason for opposing same sex marriage or stem cell research? By the fact that they often let slip their actual motives.
Is quoting against Islamic Law for some reason? I’m not at all sure who you are responding to most of the time.