Episcopalian here and weekly attendee and hardly delusional. I actually enjoy going to church and also, seeing the money I give go to the needy and other giving programs is quite satisfying. We also are hardly devoid of science. My Sunday School class leader is a PhD research scientist at Tulane and in our class is a neurosurgeon.
Personally, I think it’s a bad idea to set aside some period of time specifically to do something like learn science, or for that matter practice religion, unless it’s something that absolutely requires it. Personally, I’d rather research scientific topics, or pursue spiritual matters whenever the mood strikes me, which is fairly often.
Particularly to the OP, yes, I think it’s unfortunate that a lot of religious people aren’t scientifically literate but, intentionally or not, presenting religion and science as mutually exclusive isn’t fair. Personally, I don’t just wish religious people were more scientifically literate, but that everyone was, as I’ve known more than a few atheists who barely knew much either. And, for that matter, I wish more people were also more spiritually aware and literate. And this isn’t necessarily a matter of religious belief, but could be as simple as meditation, having an appreciation for our connection, comptemplating morals, and all of that sort of stuff. We’d all benefit from improving in both.
And this is indicative of the issue. I’m not involved with a church, but I have family that is heavily involved, keeping up on this stuff, and they always have new things to share about various lessons, new scholarly research, etc. So, just at the same time where I may express interest in a new scientific discovery and they’re unaware, then they bring up something new and I’m unaware. It goes both ways.
:rolleyes:
What makes you think we don’t?
:rolleyes:
Moreover, it’s really bad for science, too. Entirely aside from the question of whether religion is right or not, the fact remains that people really, really like it. If you set it up as a choice of science versus religion, science is going to lose. Set them up as complements, though, and some of that popularity of religion is going to rub off onto science.
Does it? I always sort of assumed most of tithes go to supporting Church employees and buildings, but I’d be interested in a breakdown if you have it.
I go out for Sunday brunch early enough to beat the church crowd. I could do it differently and go later, but where’s the fun in that?
Gosh, yes! Imagine how far science would have gotten if, instead of going after the facts no matter where they lead, they always went the popular route! Astrology would be taught in today’s institutes of learning, we wouldn’t waste money on expensive telescopes because stars are just lights in the sky, and everything would be powered by cold fusion.
Pray tell, what concessions would religion be making to this partnership?
Thanks, StGermain for putting perfectly into words the feeling I get every time I see an anti-religion thread.
Perhaps convert is the wrong word, but I’m pretty sure the “Religion is stupid” threads FAR outnumber the “Religion is cool” threads on this board.
It seems to me to be brought up QUITE often…
Sure. Most atheists/agnostics/lapsed-christians wake up on Sunday and start catching up on science and solving pollution, sure.
BTW, I have a nice bridge over the Humber and I’m ready to let it go for a sweet, sweet price.
Reread the OP-I don’t think that’s what it said.
John Lennon wondered much the same thing and put his musings to music. Made about as much difference to society as this thread has, but it did make him millions more dollars. Lesson: don’t just muse, monetize.
As for me and mine, we’re quite happy going to, supporting and being involved in a local church. Do I ever wonder how it would be different if we didn’t? Sure. Much the same way I wonder how it would be different if I woke up one day with a prehensile dong. Interesting thought experiment, but not gonna happen.
Why don’t you recommend they go out Saturday night & look through a telescope? Then they can sleep in on Sunday. Why must they get their science predigested in little blog-size pellets while they sit on their ass?
Getting out of the house occasionally is good for you–whether you go to church, to the museum or a friendly bar. Just don’t overdo any of them! (Some people can do more than one.)
I watch Meet the Press on Sunday morning. Do I have to stop doing that too?
Good idea. The logic classes should address the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
I used to bartend, I love to drink now, but the amount of money and time spent doing nothing useful amazed me. If we’re going to start cutting corners on what people do to enjoy their free time lets start with bars.
Re: Lucky you. Where I come from, the largest items in the government budget are the military, pensions, Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt.
If you’re concerned about the plight of people in poor countries, then there’s really no way around it but to donate, either through your church or through some secular organization. We spend a trivial proportion of our tax money on foreign aid.
Re: The reason I said “instead” is that I don’t think I’ve heard anything new in Christianity in 20 years.
Christianity isn’t necessarily supposed to be about novelty (and new takes on Christianity do emerge all the time, but it’s more a matter of centuries than of decades). Why would you expect new Christianities to be popping up all the time?
Speaking as an Atheist, what organized religion really has going for it is community. Multiple generations of your neighbors gathering every week creates a sense of community. Sure there are downsides (xenophobia, gossip) but if there was an organized event every week with my neighbors without the magic show I’d go and take my kids.
Why “instead of”? Why not both?
Except that it hasn’t. Science and religion have been in conflict for centuries, and it’s been religion not science that has lost. Overwhelmingly. Religion as it is now in most of the world is a crippled shadow compared to what it used to be.
Science after all works, while religion doesn’t; societies that side with science over religion prosper, while those that choose religion don’t. And in the long run it turns out most people will choose longer life, fewer dead children and prosperity over religion.
No; it means that religion will try to twist science into a religion-supporting pseudoscience, and that the believers will explode with rage at any supporters of science who fail to cave in.