Ahhh, religion...
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Thursday, April 16, 2026 19:08
VIEWED: 10206
PAGE 3 of 7
I respectfully disagree with you Niki, I do not believe religion impedes science. You'll always see those morons wanting to believe the earth is flat or something, but how many of them (the morons) do you think would make scientific discoveries under different circumstances?
I believe faith and science can coexist, though as one is clearly observable and the other not so much, they can rarely support each other. Yet so often we see them being used to oppose each other and that baffles me. 'Course, those of us arguing this ain't making any scientific discoveries either, lol. Perhaps someone could elaborate on how religion is impeding our scientific progress?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Damn. Lost my post. I know I started out asking goodness, where did I say science is impeded by religion? If I did, I wrote it wrong, because that’s definitely not what I believe. I know scientists who are religious and religious people who accept science, they are unquestionably not mutually exclusive in thinking people. I’m not sure where you got the idea I said that.
I forget the rest, so I’ll start again:
I do definitely disagree that “for every one...” I think the ratio is more in the other direction. We just hear about, see and interact more with the ones who are rigid in their religiosity (certainly I do, the minute they find out I’m buddhist!). I don’t think the ratio is anything like what Trader offered, from MY experience. Tho’, as you said, my experience is my experience, and just as, to cite an example, Wulf’s experiences have led him to completely believe many things are true of people, if his experience were wider, he might feel differently.
Religion may make a good “target”, but in far too many instances it is USED to negative ends, which puts it up there in the target range. No, I don’t think nutjobs wouldn’t be nutjobs if religion were eliminated, they’d find something else to be nutjobs about. But religion IS there, and convenient, so it gets its fair share of the blame. Obviously many humans gravitate toward anything that lets them view things through “us v. them”, nationalism, racism, wealth, politics, religion, status—that doesn’t let religion off the hook because it’s only ONE of them. I don’t think it’s been used any more or less than the others if you look throughout all of mankind’s history, but no, it’s not a “target” per se, what is said is accurate. It’s just not the ONLY target.
I agree religion doesn’t “create” nutjobs, don’t think I ever contended otherwise. But it’s a draw for them, as are all the above, which I think is the point being made. Take religion out of creating nutjobs, and the fact that it attracts so many, and in enough cases encourages them to behave in negative ways, and it’s valid to decry it. And I disagree that it’s only “the occasional” leader who “bends religious ideals to suit his or her purposes”. Perhaps I’ve seen an overportrayal in my lifetime of such people, but it only takes one Marjo Gortner or Billy Grahamto affect an awful lot of people, turn them away from what the religion intends, create a cult, get rich off the people, or any number of other things. The majority of PEOPLE who follow a religion may be good folk, but a lot of them can be turned into gullible fools by ONE charismatic leader. Look at all the scandals and figure out how many people were cheated, lied to, etc., etc., by each David Koresh (sp?). For example, under “Famous Evangelist Scandals” on Wikipedia, it listsQuote:
Consider how many good, religious folk were impacted by each of those leaders, and you’ve got quite a crowd...and that’s just evangelicals!
Aimee Semple McPherson, 1920s–40s
Lonnie Frisbee, 1970s–1980s
Billy James Hargis, early 1970s
Marjoe Gortner, early 1970s
Jim & Tammy Bakker , 1986 and 1991
Jimmy Swaggart, 1986 and 1991
Peter Popoff, 1987
Morris Cerullo, 1990s
Mike Warnke, 1991
Robert Tilton, 1991
W. V. Grant, 1996 and 2003
Bob Moorehead, 1998
Roy Clements, 1999
John Paulk, 2000
Paul Crouch, 2004
Douglas Goodman, 2004
Kent Hovind, 2006
Ted Haggard, 2006
Paul Barnes, 2006
Lonnie Latham, 2006
Gilbert Deya, 2006
Richard Roberts, 2007
Earl Paulk, 2007
Coy Privette, 2007
Thomas Wesley Weeks, III, 2007
Michael Reid, 2008
Joe Barron, 2008
Todd Bentley, 2008
Tony Alamo, 2008
George Alan Rekers, 2010
Eddie L. Long, 2010
Robert Schuller, Crystal Cathedral Debts, 2010
I would also caveat that what you said about scientific theory is true for religion, too. It is just as much an “unproven theory” as any scientific theory, however much anyone may believe in it. Everything you say about science can be turned around; there has yet, to my knowledge, been any scientific t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Whew. Sorry, fascinating subject and I get carried away.
I'm right there with ya!
Quote:
I would also caveat that what you said about scientific theory is true for religion, too. It is just as much an “unproven theory” as any scientific theory, however much anyone may believe in it. Everything you say about science can be turned around; there has yet, to my knowledge, been any scientific theory to PROVE God exists any more than any which disproves it. “Absence of poof” doesn’t prove anything, either.
I wouldn't argue that. I'm more arguing for the possibility of a higher power and the acknowledgment and acceptance of that possibility than trying to prove it exists.
Quote:
Religion may make a good “target”, but in far too many instances it is USED to negative ends, which puts it up there in the target range. No, I don’t think nutjobs wouldn’t be nutjobs if religion were eliminated, they’d find something else to be nutjobs about. But religion IS there, and convenient, so it gets its fair share of the blame. Obviously many humans gravitate toward anything that lets them view things through “us v. them”, nationalism, racism, wealth, politics, religion, status—that doesn’t let religion off the hook because it’s only ONE of them. I don’t think it’s been used any more or less than the others if you look throughout all of mankind’s history, but no, it’s not a “target” per se, what is said is accurate. It’s just not the ONLY target.
Excellent point. Religion can merely be a catalysts, along with several other things. So if we equated these catalysts to say... flammable materials for lack of a better analogy. Is it better to get rid off these flammable materials one by one, or try and educate people not to be jackass's with fire? I guess that might as well be hypothetical.
I still don't get where yall get this blind faith idea from. I go to church, listen to the preacher and occasionally disagree with his conclusions. Then I read the bible passages he mentioned, do a little of my own research and I learn more about my faith. I believe that is how Jesus would want us to be active in our faith and not a bunch of drones or sheeple. As far as evangelism is concerned, I believe the best method is to simply live your live by your principles as best you can and share your story with those who would like to hear it.
A while back on npr, I caught an interview with an author who wrote a very interesting sounding book on a bit of Alaskan history that was largely overshadowed by a gold rush or something (I'm sorry I can't remember the details). Title was something to the tune of "A murder, a cover up and the great reindeer rescue" or some such. Anyhow, US had just acquired Alaska and no one wanted to move there but Methodists Evangelicals and the like wanting to spread the word. Not surprisingly, a fair number of these were racists holier than thou jackasses, they'd shout scripture all confrontational like and tell them as different were going to hell. But our hero was one of the good ones, he thought the best way to reach these people was to lead by example and help them out without some kind of "you have to convert first" prerequisite. One of the bad evangelicals did something really terrible (I can't remember, it was a long drive and interveiw, maybe rape or something) and one of the natives killed the guy.
The good evangelical knew if the national guard was brought in it would be hell on the natives that were slowly getting kicked out of their own land, so he helped cover it up. Then, he began working on a plan to make the natives a permanent part of the economy, to keep them from being forced out. He worked with the natives to acquire a herd of Russian reindeer that they would raise and sell to the US, which was finding transportation up there more than a little problematic. So they get their herd, get all the female deer pregnant and then some whaling ship got stuck in the ice and the government ordered them to take the herd to go rescue the whalers.
These people were brok
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Religion doesn't like you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Christ in a pineapple, Mary in a grapefruit...
Reminds me of one of my favorite people, a co-worker at my old job for a tiny startup. He's this total atheist old guy who says all the things you're not supposed to say in polite company. And he especially likes poking fun at religion. Had religious sin-cleaning handy-wipes in his office, for example.
So one day a born-again type was visiting from Exxon/Mobile or somesuch, and this was on the day that, after a good decade of unclean dishes, my company finally got hot water to flow in the little employee kitchen. (Hot water was apparently too hard for a bunch of engineers and fluid flow specialists to handle HA!)
Anyway, my buddy walks in the room saying: "Hallelujah we have hot water! I saw the Virgin Mary as the water splashed in my hands!" and the born-again guy replies with a snort of disgust, but with complete, absolute seriousness, "How would YOU know what SHE looks like?"
Religion is not good for some people's sense of humor, I guess.
Hey, I have never seen scientists trying to say that God doesn't exist. They have said God isn't *needed*, but that's a different statement. Frankly, science doesn't need God. (Which is what I think offends so many religious people.) Science would be happy to never mention God again, but leave it for the home life. Science is forced, against its will, to care about God only when Religion goes public about taking the word of its favorite book above actual observation of reality. Humans riding dinosaurs in the WhackJob Creationist Museum, for example.
Problem is, with some people, religiosity closes their minds tight, and they try to shut down anyone with a still open mind. I've seen it right here on this site - people's religious beliefs are so tied into their emotions and self identities that they cannot even enter some conversations. They can't look at the fossil record, or discuss the bizarreness of an omniscient God. Try to get them to talk about it and they get all offended and sometimes even angry, then disappear.
Science, on the other hand, is a not a belief system, no matter how much Religion tries to portray it as such. Science welcomes doubt. The scientific method is in fact a codified way of revealing your own blind assumptions--the best thing you can do as a scientist is figure out where you're wrong. You strive for this. Experiment, the observation of nature, comes before any word that any human has ever written. I don't care if you're Stephen Hawking himself: if someone makes an observation that counters your theories, you HAVE to change them.
Try talking the Pope into changing his theories. Ha! Good luck with that.
Or to be fair - try making those extremist Muslim types (which only a SMALL percent of Muslims are!) give woman full and equal rights. Can't do it. Their belief are too ingrained, and they are too incapable of observing the raw, naked reality that woman are equally human.
(And pardon me for speaking for Science as if I represent it. I certainly don't, but the post worked better that way.)
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, I don't exactly represent all religions either, but no one else will advocate on their behalf, so I feel obligated to give it my best shot.
I'd argue the religion closes minds about as often as science makes an arrogant elitist tools. Scientist ain't exactly immune to close mindedness either. Faith should be able to stand up to questioning. If it can't, then maybe there's something wrong (hey, almost like scientific theories).
The thing about religion, it's about as reluctant to compete with science or more so than science. Religion is about how to live your life, follow your deity and help your fellow man. It's supposed to be interpreted by individuals and the context in which things are written tend to be kinda relevant to the message. Why are their two separate genesis stories in the bible? Why weren't we supposed to eat pork in the old days?
The science vs religion argument is kinda pointless. Like arguing tennis vs chess or something. They really don't share a context to be judged in.
Had more but I lost it and ran out of time. Might be back in this thread later.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Indeed, some scientists can be impassioned dicks about whatever theory they get into. The difference between Science and Religion is: Science is designed to get around these human failings. The final answer comes from nature, which anyone can observe, if they take the time to learn how. Anyone can pick up a rock and drop it, then draw conclusions about gravity. And no matter how much power the guy with the prevailing theory has, if Joe Schmoe from Bumfuck, MO publishes a paper proving the theory wrong, and other scientists can replicate those results, that’s it. The elitist jerk with the attitude is done for.
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
I'd argue the religion closes minds about as often as science makes an arrogant elitist tools. Scientist ain't exactly immune to close mindedness either.
Does that apply to the Pope? No way it does. Doesn’t matter how many molested kids are out there, or how many women who are quite capable of being first rate priests. If the Pope says no, forget it.
Quote:And yet, I've not seen religion question itself the way Science does.
Faith should be able to stand up to questioning. If it can't, then maybe there's something wrong (hey, almost like scientific theories).
Pardon me, I know I’m about to offend. Please understand that this is based on my experience, which is likely a bit limited: I see religion as a trap of judgment and ignorance that some people manage to rise above. Some people don't believe all that: "stone to death your sexually active daughter and gay neighbor" crap. They stick to the good messages. (You seem to be one of these, HappyTrader
) But, very clearly given the rhetoric out in the public sphere these days, plenty of people actually believe in that crap. It’s behind many ills the world has seen, and still sees.On the other hand, Science is something that people fall below. Human failings such as pride and selfishness can slow Science down, but the method is strong enough to pull the scientific community as a whole forward. The jerks may prevail for a day, but only a day. The observation of nature is what wins in the end.
Quote:Indeed. I wish it wasn’t necessary, but I continually experience religious people trying to redefine Science as a belief system, or trying to stop open discussion. Trying, in effect, to stifle reality Hey, I think the world would be a better place if people (in general, not you) were better at logic and truth, so I can’t stop trying.
The science vs religion argument is kinda pointless.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Opposing religion is a losing position. Strategically, you might want to rethink it. The majority of people belong to one, many people belong to several ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Opposing religion is a losing position. Strategically, you might want to rethink it. The majority of people belong to one, many people belong to several ;)
Ah - but the worm has turned, my friend. 100 years ago I might have been in serious trouble for saying all that I just did, and 500 years ago I'd have been burned at the stake.
The light is shining brighter and brighter all the time... not even the Tea Party can turn it off now!
And as my wise old pa used to say: if a billion people have a dumb idea, it's still a dumb idea.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A religion that teaches you God is something outside the world--something separate from everything you see, smell, taste, touch, and hear--is nothing but a cheap hustle.
-Duncan Michaelson
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME