Why can't science and religion just get along?

[Miss Chicken]

Isn't it also bigotry for someone to think that my simple statement "I am an Atheist" is offensive when the same person thinks there is nothing offensive about someone making a statement "I am Jewish", "I am a Buddhist" etc to an atheist? Why should atheists have to shut up about their philosophical beliefs but religious people should not. This is a widely held view in society even in Australian society which outwardly isn't that religious. I wouldn't call either of my sisters fundamentalists (though one I would say is a reasonably devout Catholic). However I have told a Catholic nun that I was an atheist and she was not offended by the idea.

 

[StarryEyed]

Isn't it also bigotry for someone to think that my simple statement "I am an Atheist" is offensive when the same person thinks there is nothing offensive about someone making a statement "I am Jewish", "I am a Buddhist" etc to an atheist? Why should atheists have to shut up about their philosophical beliefs but religious people should not. This is a widely held view in society even in Australian society which outwardly isn't that religious. I wouldn't call either of my sisters fundamentalists (though one I would say is a reasonably devout Catholic). However I have told a Catholic nun that I was an atheist and she was not offended by the idea.

Of course it is and it sounds like you were very gracious and patient. I would have been considerably less so.

There is no question that any peace - never mind partnership - between atheists and religious liberals/moderates has to incorporate two-way respect or at least, tolerance. Somebody has to be the first to lay down the sword though.

 

[Amaris]

Isn't it also bigotry for someone to think that my simple statement "I am an Atheist" is offensive when the same person thinks there is nothing offensive about someone making a statement "I am Jewish", "I am a Buddhist" etc to an atheist? Why should atheists have to shut up about their philosophical beliefs but religious people should not. This is a widely held view in society even in Australian society which outwardly isn't that religious. I wouldn't call either of my sisters fundamentalists (though one I would say is a reasonably devout Catholic). However I have told a Catholic nun that I was an atheist and she was not offended by the idea.

Of course it is and it sounds like you were very gracious and patient. I would have been considerably less so.

There is no question that any peace - never mind partnership - between atheists and religious liberals/moderates has to incorporate two-way respect or at least, tolerance.

There's a growing separation between the two, in my opinion. For example, one of my friends completely distrusts atheists. He's been moving more and more into the fundamentalist mind set, even saying that people who sing secular music can't sing Gospel music because it doesn't count. That one caught me by surprise. He's also highly suspicious of anyone who is classified as a "tree hugger" because he believes they're more prone to Pagan Idolatry (his words). He also feels that non-Christians have no idea how to love their children, and that they can't soothe their children's fears because they don't believe that God exists.

Another friend of mine who was far more relaxed about his faith, has started to make a sharp u-turn and is becoming more fundamental than he was before, making comments about not trusting people of other religions, and that people who don't believe in God (as in "of Abraham") aren't really people. I was really surprised by that statement when he made it.

So there are rifts forming for some reason, and I am not certain as to why. I am noticing more and more, however, not just in my friends, but in those I correspond with on a regular basis, and even just talking with colleagues who have found the same sentiment starting through their own organizations.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Isn't it also bigotry for someone to think that my simple statement "I am an Atheist" is offensive when the same person thinks there is nothing offensive about someone making a statement "I am Jewish", "I am a Buddhist" etc to an atheist? Why should atheists have to shut up about their philosophical beliefs but religious people should not. This is a widely held view in society even in Australian society which outwardly isn't that religious. I wouldn't call either of my sisters fundamentalists (though one I would say is a reasonably devout Catholic). However I have told a Catholic nun that I was an atheist and she was not offended by the idea.

I'm not quite sure why you thought that my statements in that instance were directly addressed to you as a comment on the story you posted, but they were not. However, the main point I was making remains--it is not the statement of beliefs in ANY case, be it Christian, Jewish, atheist, or other, that is the problem, nor is it intellectual debate. The problem is when people use their beliefs as a bludgeon--that is, when they use it to degrade and belittle others.

To say "I am an atheist" is not offensive, even though I completely disagree. What would have been offensive would be following that up with something like, "And I think you're a moron for falling for that crap." That would be a personal attack, and would be offensive. Same deal when a Christian does the mean-spirited "You're going to hell!" routine. That's a personal attack and I have no patience with it.

As long as people do not cross the line into personal attacks or degrading language towards each other, then I have no problem.

 

[StarryEyed]

In the USA, we seem to be in a particularly polarized time. It's not surprising, really. Polls taken across the last two decades clearly indicate that Christianity is in a slow decline while secularism is on the rise. Other religions (particularly Wicca) are on the rise. Some Christians are understandably spooked. These are the ones who have been raised with the propaganda that Christians have a monopoly on morality.

 

[Jetfire]

I believe in a power higher than myself, a power we are all connected to...I believe we each have a soul/spirit or unique energy and I believe in love...but as far as I am concerned...the "God" of the Bible and other related text has nothing to do with it. Just going on what I've seen.

He also feels that non-Christians have no idea how to love their children, and that they can't soothe their children's fears because they don't believe that God exists.

Guilting, bullying someone into love is not love, neither is having conditions. JMHO.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I'm not quite sure why you thought that my statements in that instance were directly addressed to you as a comment on the story you posted, but they were not. However, the main point I was making remains--it is not the statement of beliefs in ANY case, be it Christian, Jewish, atheist, or other, that is the problem, nor is it intellectual debate. The problem is when people use their beliefs as a bludgeon--that is, when they use it to degrade and belittle others.

I wasn't suggesting that your post was directed at me - I was pointing out that even moderate Christians can be quite bigoted towards moderate atheists (yet very few moderate atheists have a problem with moderate Christians).

My sisters, who as I said are not fundamentalists but moderates (or maybe even only nominally Christian in one of my sisters' case), do not have a problem with Buddhists, or Jews, or any other religion - but they have a major problem with me making a simple fact "I am an atheist". They say they even respect my father being an atheist because he didn't talk about it. I actually don't think their respected my father's beliefs at all.

My recently widowed sister doesn't attend church. She had her children christened as Catholics but that is the extent of her involvement in Catholicism or any organised religion. She does believe in God and an afterlife but I don't think she would actually qualify herself as being Christian. Why should she be so upset about me declaring that I am an atheist especially in a situation when it is the other person who brings up religion in the first place?

 

[Kestra]

What I have a problem with is when people demonstrate contempt towards each other on the basis of religion.

Is contempt always wrong? I mean, if someone is flat out wrong, can I have contempt for them? Would you have a problem with that?

 

[Miss Chicken]

I am contemptuous of Scientology because it was made up by a guy who just wanted to make money.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Oh, and plenty of groups have faced insults or criticism from two different directions. Blacks who face racism from whites while being told that they're not "black enough" from other black people for one example.

Actually, that's a good example and one that did not cross my mind as I was writing. In that case the statement that the situation moderate Christians face is unique was not correct.

Moderates have always been caught in the middle. That's kind of the definition of being a Moderate.

Isn't it also bigotry for someone to think that my simple statement "I am an Atheist" is offensive when the same person thinks there is nothing offensive about someone making a statement "I am Jewish", "I am a Buddhist" etc to an atheist? Why should atheists have to shut up about their philosophical beliefs but religious people should not. This is a widely held view in society even in Australian society which outwardly isn't that religious. I wouldn't call either of my sisters fundamentalists (though one I would say is a reasonably devout Catholic). However I have told a Catholic nun that I was an atheist and she was not offended by the idea.

I figured out there was no such thing as gods when I was nine or ten. I had never heard of Atheism, so I thought I had made a great discovery. My family was less than impressed, though. Whereas before I was considered the brilliant whiz kid who was pure of heart and could do no wrong, after that they treated me very suspiciously, accused me of doing things I never did, called me a liar, told me I had no feelings, insulted and criticized me for everything, and so on. That pretty much continues to this day. And this is part of the problem with religion; many of the religious equate religion with not just morality, but Humanity.

In the USA, we seem to be in a particularly polarized time. It's not surprising, really. Polls taken across the last two decades clearly indicate that Christianity is in a slow decline while secularism is on the rise. Other religions (particularly Wicca) are on the rise. Some Christians are understandably spooked. These are the ones who have been raised with the propaganda that Christians have a monopoly on reality.

This is exactly right. As the influence of religion continues to decrease, the remaining religious will be comprised more and more of extremists.

Is contempt always wrong? I mean, if someone is flat out wrong, can I have contempt for them? Would you have a problem with that?

Contempt is certainly justified at times. I have contempt for Nazis and Klansmen and Al Qaeda and the Moral Majority and such groups.

 

[JarodRussell]

I am contemptuous of Scientology because it was made up by a guy who just wanted to make money.

And I assume Jesus had the same motives. All of the "miracles" he did can be broken down to a couple of cheap tricks to fool his followers.
We've seen how absolutely faithful someone can be, and sect leaders shamelessly exploit that. They have done that thousands of years ago, they do it today and they will do it thousands of years from now.

 

[SPOCKED]

Science and religion should just have hot, monkey sex and be done with it.

 

[opali]

^^^

But what would they call their love child?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

What I have a problem with is when people demonstrate contempt towards each other on the basis of religion.

Is contempt always wrong? I mean, if someone is flat out wrong, can I have contempt for them? Would you have a problem with that?

To mistreat another person because of even a vehement disagreement...I do not think that being cruel to someone over that would be right. Pursuing justice or self-defense is another matter. If someone puts life or limb, or your property in danger, you absolutely have the right to defend yourself. I also think that if someone's wrong becomes a legal matter, I have absolutely no problem with the idea of suing them. I also do not have a problem with that. Justice and contempt actually do not have to go together--and really never should, in my opinion because we need to keep a clear head when we make decisions of that nature.

I would, however, draw the line at returning someone's contempt with an assault, going after someone's family, or doing anything of that nature. And as I think we well know, there's a big difference between despising what someone has done, and becoming consumed by hate for them.

I am contemptuous of Scientology because it was made up by a guy who just wanted to make money.

And I assume Jesus had the same motives. All of the "miracles" he did can be broken down to a couple of cheap tricks to fool his followers.
We've seen how absolutely faithful someone can be, and sect leaders shamelessly exploit that. They have done that thousands of years ago, they do it today and they will do it thousands of years from now.

If there's one thing Jesus never had during the time of his ministry, it was a bank account. (If he had anything for business purposes before, it never helps him later, or someone would've at least gotten the money out to bury him...it seems from that, that he must've given it away somehow.) He led what we would consider these days a very impoverished lifestyle. There do seem to have been funds to take care of the basic needs of the disciples, perhaps to compensate those who hosted them (we know Judas Iscariot was in charge of something), but what's ironic is that Judas seems to think they could have gotten more money out of people, but they're not. (The other thing that suggests they didn't have a big purse was the fact that on multiple occasions, when big crowds showed up for an all-day speech, the disciples clearly didn't have enough money on them to feed even a small portion of the crowd the normal way, or that whole logistical issue would never have cropped up. )

As to exploitation, I don't see evidence that people were coerced or anything of that nature...what's actually very interesting to see is that the miracles Jesus worked did not have much "staying power" among the people, and a lot of people who were around because they wanted to see something cool didn't stick around. They didn't want to commit to what Jesus was teaching, and He didn't force them to.

 

[Kestra]

What I have a problem with is when people demonstrate contempt towards each other on the basis of religion.

Is contempt always wrong? I mean, if someone is flat out wrong, can I have contempt for them? Would you have a problem with that?

To mistreat another person because of even a vehement disagreement...I do not think that being cruel to someone over that would be right. Pursuing justice or self-defense is another matter. If someone puts life or limb, or your property in danger, you absolutely have the right to defend yourself. I also think that if someone's wrong becomes a legal matter, I have absolutely no problem with the idea of suing them. I also do not have a problem with that. Justice and contempt actually do not have to go together--and really never should, in my opinion because we need to keep a clear head when we make decisions of that nature.

I would, however, draw the line at returning someone's contempt with an assault, going after someone's family, or doing anything of that nature. And as I think we well know, there's a big difference between despising what someone has done, and becoming consumed by hate for them.

I really don't think we're talking about the same thing here. I'm not talking about justice, or physical assault, or legal matters. I'm talking about the fact that some religions have beliefs that have been scientifically proven to be incorrect. And that having contempt for people who have incorrect beliefs isn't in itself, wrong.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Because we are talking about core beliefs, I think the story below is actually more common than is reported.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiyJzWy3CDQ[/yt]

 

[JarodRussell]

As to exploitation, I don't see evidence that people were coerced or anything of that nature...what's actually very interesting to see is that the miracles Jesus worked did not have much "staying power" among the people, and a lot of people who were around because they wanted to see something cool didn't stick around. They didn't want to commit to what Jesus was teaching, and He didn't force them to.

That's how it always works with sects. You never get the feeling of being forced. Do you think if you talked to Katie Holmes that she would tell you she feels being forced into Scientology?

And Jesus became so famous for his miracles that people even followed him to "deserted places" even though he had expressed his wish to be left alone.


There are 44 miracles listed in the New Testament.

Especially the "calming the storm" one is hilarious. Which goes back to what I said earlier about people being afraid of thunder and lightning.

3 times he resurrects "dead" people. Pretty sure that 2000 years ago, people were often declared dead although they could have been revived.

 

[RJDiogenes]

And I assume Jesus had the same motives. All of the "miracles" he did can be broken down to a couple of cheap tricks to fool his followers.

A trick or two with lepers and the whole town's on its feet.

^^^

But what would they call their love child?

Cylons!

 

[TIN_MAN]

I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if this has already benn touched on?

Those who indulge in the conflict fail to realise that fundementalism is a peculiar disease of the human mind that niether side is immune to, scientific materialists on the one side, and religious literalists on the other.
Also, both science and spirituality have been bent to serve political and social ideologies. And I submit it is these ideologies, at least in the public arena, and the power and prestige that go with it, that the two camps are really fighting about? IOW, it's a false choice.
As for why individuals get so red-faced and belligerent when their positions are challenged (which 'scientific" fundementalists are just as guilty of as anybody else) I think it just has to do with wanting to be right, and resenting having their cherished beliefs challenged? nobody wants to be wrong.

 

[JarodRussell]

A "scientific fundamentalist" is kinda contradictory in itself. What would he do that makes him a fundamentalist?