Why can't science and religion just get along?

[StarryEyed]

You ought to take a few moments to put yourself in our (unbelievers) shoes. People like Luther Sloan honestly believe that a supreme moral authority has decreed that it is just that we burn in Hell for eternity simply for being wrong. If Luther Sloan is right, people like myself who's rational judgment is that the stories in the Bible are human fables are to burn in Hell for ever for being wrong. To me, that is the greatest atrocity imaginable. Try to think back to the worst pain you have ever experienced. Perhaps a tooth ache, an ear infection or a burn wound. Hell is much worse than that it lasts for ETERNITY! For being wrong! And you WORSHIP this God! And you think WE are being unkind?

Something interesting C.S. Lewis did in the Chronicles of Narnia (and his writing in Mere Christianity makes it explicitly clear that he did mean this scene to be the way it comes off):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeth

C.S. Lewis has a very esteemed position as a Christian thinker, and also as an author--which one would THINK would have caused this to garner serious attention. (Or maybe it wasn't as controversial back in his day?) I really find myself wondering why a major controversy hasn't blown up over this yet. I'm actually hoping a controversy WILL blow up about it, if the Chronicles of Narnia movie series ever gets to the point of The Last Battle.

Interesting. I'm familiar with the first few books of the Narnia series but not the latter ones.

C.S. Lewis also has some vocal critics in the Christian community regarding Narnia. Is this Emeth character a big part of that?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Hm...the main criticisms I have heard do not address the character of Emeth at all. I have heard the magic/pagan references criticized, I have heard his treatment of women (which wasn't always very informed) and other races (a claim on shakier ground than the gender one, but I do think you still see the age of the work there) criticized...but I truly think that if the criticism regarding Emeth had ever come up, it would've blown up even bigger than any of the other areas where Lewis has been criticized. I mean, the implications of it are truly staggering, and it's been in this kids' book all along!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

This might sound disrespectful, but somehow, the caller in this video is talking a lot like Luther Sloan. Of course the mannerisms and speech might be different but the content is ... well

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KlhaEJnQiw[/yt]

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Luther.. I don't see anywhere in his over 15-part series anywhere where the author of this video series is ever taking a leap of faith. In fact, he is constantly and willingly checking himself almost every single minute he speaks, and he always justifies or demonstrates every single claim he puts forward!

He makes assumptions that why doesn't God create a big huge Bible that cannot be ignored and seen out in the open (is by definition of how he would like things to be rather than for what they are). That is a leap of faith. His belief in of itself is a leap of faith. His stitching together what he knows and not what he has actually proven to be true without taking all of the facts into account. Even from the Christian's perspective.

I mean, the fact that he ignores the trinity of God within the Bible is proof that he doesn't either know all of the facts or he is selective and one sided in his argument.

I've watched the entir 15-part video series, and, as a result, your statement is keeping me up at night.

You say that AronRa, the maker of these videos, is taking a leap of faith. How can you say that? He obviously is well-schooled in the Bible. In fact, he is well-schooled in nearly all religions. Are you calling his series a lepa of faith?

Please, please clarify

 

[RJDiogenes]

A lot of people on both sides of this discussion are not being nice. Most of the Posts I've read do not cross the line. However, these two Posts:

It's interesting to take note of the effects of Luther Sloan's insane rantings.

I thought I was attacking what the poster said (insane rantings) rather than the poster himself. I've been assuming this forum operated pretty much like the old TNZ before it descended into un-moderated bedlam. That was the guideline there - okay to attack the posts but not the poster.

My "insane rantings" comment was a generic barb without specifying why I thought nearly everything he had said earlier were insane rants. Is that the problem?

Just trying to get a better feel for where the "line" is in this forum so I don't inadvertently cross it again.

Any semantic quibbles aside, referring to a specific Poster's "insane rantings" is equivalent to calling that Poster insane.

 

[Deckerd]

Well I say you're cross-eyed RJD.

I suppose somewhere in the 23 pages someone has pointed out that one doesn't 'believe in' a scientific principle. One can accept it but it isn't a religion so using religious language to describe that acceptance is playing into the hands of the people whose agenda is to set the two in opposition.

 

[Miss Chicken]

A lot of people on both sides of this discussion are not being nice. Most of the Posts I've read do not cross the line. However, these two Posts:

I thought I was attacking what the poster said (insane rantings) rather than the poster himself. I've been assuming this forum operated pretty much like the old TNZ before it descended into un-moderated bedlam. That was the guideline there - okay to attack the posts but not the poster.

My "insane rantings" comment was a generic barb without specifying why I thought nearly everything he had said earlier were insane rants. Is that the problem?

Just trying to get a better feel for where the "line" is in this forum so I don't inadvertently cross it again.

Any semantic quibbles aside, referring to a specific Poster's "insane rantings" is equivalent to calling that Poster insane.

So it is wrong for someone to say that his ranting are insane is wrong but for him to suggest that my beliefs are destructive and disgusting garbage is OK? Why isn't him saying that the equivalent of saying that I am destructive and disgusting.

 

[JarodRussell]

And I'd still really like to know what experience Luther Sloan had.

 

[TheBrew]

Maybe it was too traumatic... or he had too much wine as an alter boy.

 

[RJDiogenes]

So it is wrong for someone to say that his ranting are insane is wrong but for him to suggest that my beliefs are destructive and disgusting garbage is OK? Why isn't him saying that the equivalent of saying that I am destructive and disgusting.

Because one is an attack on a Poster and the other is an attack on a philosophy. Let's not turn this into an endless digression of who's attacking who and who is the more injured party. The point is that this is Misc, and I'm encouraging you all to be civil to each other.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Maybe it was too traumatic... or he had too much wine as an alter boy.

And, again, this is talking about the Poster and not the Post. It doesn't contribute to the discussion at all.

 

[Jetfire]

The point is that this is Misc, and I'm encouraging you all to be civil to each other.

NEVER!!!







Guys...Don't hate the player, hate the game!

 

[Miss Chicken]

So it is wrong for someone to say that his ranting are insane is wrong but for him to suggest that my beliefs are destructive and disgusting garbage is OK? Why isn't him saying that the equivalent of saying that I am destructive and disgusting.

Because one is an attack on a Poster and the other is an attack on a philosophy. Let's not turn this into an endless digression of who's attacking who and who is the more injured party. The point is that this is Misc, and I'm encouraging you all to be civil to each other.

So it OK to refer to his "insane religion" (because I am only attacking a philosophy) , just so long as I don't say 'his insane rantings"?

I been civil though out this thread but I now feel if he can freely state that my beliefs are destructive and disgusting without fear of reprimand than I should be able have the same freedom to treat his beliefs with the same contempt.

 

[RJDiogenes]

It's really very simple. Personal attacks are not okay. Everybody here has been in Misc long enough to know how it works. If you're really that motivated to nitpick semantics and diagram sentences so you can find a way to attack somebody personally, it might be time to take a break from the Thread, or take it to TNZ.

Now is there any discussion left here, or is this Thread done?

 

[Jetfire]

One of the biggest problems with this issue is ego...the extremes of both sides won't move and inch to let a healthy debate happen. Those on the extreme have to have it their way...or no way.
A religious person cannot deny science and science has to be open to all possibilities. As far as one faith fighting with another...this is just childish and because how can one honor their faith when all the ones I know of teach tolerance and the ones that don't are not really spiritual to begin with. Christians are to treat others how they would want to be treated...lest we forget.

 

[Amaris]

Having been on all sides of the fence with a pair of wire cutters and a weed whacker, I can honestly say there is no reason why science and religion cannot get along. Science explains the wonders of our natural universe in a way that helps us to understand it as a practical consideration. Religion, and spirituality as well, let us delve into ourselves to further understand the world around us that is more a spiritual application. One does not require the other, but they can augment one another.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I have respect for Christianity but not for the more extreme forms of Christianity. I see no reason to respect the belief that the world is only a few thousand years old. It is a laughable belief founded on lies and ignorance. The belief that the story of Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve should be taken to be the literal truth is also ludicrous.

I also have respect for Buddhism, Jainism, Wicca and many other religions. in fact the more inclusive a religion is the more respect I have for it generally.

A religion that is so exclusive that it states if you don't believe the same things as we do you will go to hell is in my view destructive and disgusting.

 

[Amaris]

I have respect for Christianity but not for the more extreme forms of Christianity. I see no reason to respect the belief that the world is only a few thousand years old. It is a laughable belief founded on lies and ignorance. The belief that the story of Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve should be taken to be the literal truth is also ludicrous.

I also have respect for Buddhism, Jainism, Wicca and many other religions. in fact the more inclusive a religion is the more respect I have for it generally.

A religion that is so exclusive that it states if you don't believe the same things as we do you will go to hell is in my view destructive and disgusting.

I have learned to cope with that. While I find the belief that people who don't follow a certain deity's commands will be struck down into eternal hellfire and torture to be appalling, I don't feel that way toward the holder of that belief. If anything, I feel saddened by the cage that surrounds that person, a cage of fear and uncertainty that is most difficult to break, because it only reinforces itself the more resistance that is exerted upon it.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I would be quite happy to let them get on with their delusions if they didn't try to inflict their beliefs onto others.

The majority of Australians are supportive of gay marriage. However groups like The Australian Christian Lobby are very much oppose to it and they, and other groups like them, are the reason why we don't have gay marriage in Australia. No-one is suggesting that they will have to marry gays within their churches or force gay marriage onto them individually so why should they be able to force their ideas onto gay people?

 

[Jetfire]

I always thought Jesus dying on the cross saved us weather we accept it or not...wasn't that the whole purpose??? I think most Christians should not worry about others judging them or judging others...it is up to God and it shows a lack of Faith to become the judge yourself. JMHO.