Why can't science and religion just get along?

[Amaris]

That's why I've always been in an odd position as a Protestant, though I think some Protestants believe it and do not say it for fear of what their fellows will say. Truth be told I lean towards Orthodoxy, but as you might imagine, it greatly complicates matters for me as a woman, that I believe at some point in my life I am called into the ministry. I do not believe I would be called and then be told I am more unequal to such service than any man is. (Because we all are--but that's what grace is about. )

That is something that has always rubbed me the wrong way, the idea that a woman can't answer a Call into the ministry. Last time I checked, having certain anatomical differences doesn't make you any more or any less of a child of God/Earth/the Universe.

Well, that's how the Methodist Church sees it...they have many women in the clergy, and based on discussions I have had with my pastor they seem a bit more laid back on independent thought in their ministers as long than some stricter denominations might be. So for that I am quite thankful, that I was put in a place where I can answer the calling when the time comes. (And I finally have a sense now for when...I believe that when the time comes for me to transition out of the job I just took, that will be it.)

My best to you in that regard. Here's hoping you find fulfillment.

 

[StarryEyed]

Those who would clash science up against religion and vice-versa have no understanding of either the concept of science or religion. (that would be the "Science proves that God's not real so you're all delusional" people up against the "Science doesn't state the Truth because God's Truth overpowers science" people).

I'm biased but I think it is far easier to work on the former than the latter because the former are open to factual and logical arguments while the latter are usually not.

It is easier to work from that standpoint, but it's all an exercise in futility. "God doesn't exist and here's why" won't get anywhere with reasonable people who truly believe in God, while "your religion is wrong about the age of the earth because" will get further with most reasonable religious people. Usually, it's best to work from a positive.

What I meant to say was, I believe most of the "Science proves that God's not real so you're all delusional" people can be persuaded to take a more moderate position. I usually appeal to them with the following practical argument:

Atheists/Agnostics/Non-Religious are a minority. Even if you honestly believe all religious people are idiots, you need some of them on your side when it comes to politics. You won't win any of them over by belittling them. You need to make it Non-Religious + Liberal/Moderate Religious vs. Fundamentalist Religious. If it's Non-Religious vs. Religious, you lose.

I will also point out that coming across as intellectual snobs pisses off the religious just as them coming across as moral snobs pisses off us.

 

[Deckerd]

Non-religious vs religious would have an entirely different outcome in Europe, for instance. I know it's difficult but the world is not the USA.

 

[T'Girl]

^ ^ ^
I might point out that while Europe is not the USA, in terms of the world when it come to the break-down of faith, non-faith and anti-faith, the USA is closer to the rest of the world than is Europe. Percentages do vary depending on the resource you access, however possessing faith is more common in the both the world (outside the USA and Europe) and the USA than it is in Europe. Europe is the exception.

The problem with that is that we build technology based on our understanding of the physical world.

But we do not base our technology upon evolution, not even chemical and biological engineering. "Believing" in adaptation doesn't depend upon adhering to the entirety of the evolutionary theory.

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?

That I do take issue with, as I believe governments should be mindful and considerate, but ultimately neutral when it comes to religion.

I'm coming to believe that the best course of action would be for the government(s) to get out of the marriage business, if you think about it a "marriage license" is a silly and bureaucratic thing to impose on citizens.

.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I'm coming to believe that the best course of action would be for the government(s) to get out of the marriage business, if you think about it a "marriage license" is a silly and bureaucratic thing to impose on citizens

I think a couple who decide to live in a long term relationship/marriage need some sort of legal contract to protect their assets etc if the relationship fails and for that reason I think there has to be some sort of government involvement.

 

[Deckerd]

Europe is the exception.

Not if we're talking about secular government, they're not. By that I mean that the government explicitly considers itself separate from religious bodies and their influence.

 

[Goliath]

Atheists/Agnostics/Non-Religious are a minority. Even if you honestly believe all religious people are idiots, you need some of them on your side when it comes to politics. You won't win any of them over by belittling them. You need to make it Non-Religious + Liberal/Moderate Religious vs. Fundamentalist Religious. If it's Non-Religious vs. Religious, you lose.

That's true. But it's also very frustrating.

In such a situation, the Fundamentalist Religious are allowed to bray on and on, while the Non-Religious are compelled to censor themselves, so as not to offend their Liberal/Moderate Religious allies.

Is it any wonder, then, that people start thinking like Sam Harris, and seeing the moderate majority as part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

 

[StarryEyed]

Atheists/Agnostics/Non-Religious are a minority. Even if you honestly believe all religious people are idiots, you need some of them on your side when it comes to politics. You won't win any of them over by belittling them. You need to make it Non-Religious + Liberal/Moderate Religious vs. Fundamentalist Religious. If it's Non-Religious vs. Religious, you lose.

That's true. But it's also very frustrating.

In such a situation, the Fundamentalist Religious are allowed to bray on and on, while the Non-Religious are compelled to censor themselves, so as not to offend their Liberal/Moderate Religious allies.

Is it any wonder, then, that people start thinking like Sam Harris, and seeing the moderate majority as part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

It's understandable but it isn't practical. I think if all non-believers were to limit their attacks specifically to fundamentalists and not paint all religious people with one brush, we would be better off.

Sam Harris is right in that fundamentalism would not be able to thrive without some support from the moderates. But the idea of fighting all religion is ludicrous because it is a battle that can't be one. It is much more practical to appeal to the moderates to join us against the fundamentalists.

Aside from practical issues, it isn't right to go after moderates who only wish to be allowed to do their own thing and be left alone. If they are not trying to usurp church-state separation (USA) or trying to attack science education, then it would be hypocritical to attack them while at the same time, calling for acceptance of atheism.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

StarryEyed has it right. The thing about being a moderate is that you encounter bigotry from BOTH sides--both from fundamentalists who attack you for not being literal enough, and from hardline atheists who attack you for the fact that you believe at all (and in a few cases actually seem to get MORE irritated at the idea of striking a balance because they think you're just covering for the fundamentalists or lying). Fundamentalists will tell you you're lukewarm in your faith and possibly damned because you refuse to check your brain at the door, and hardline atheists will tell you that you're deluded and possibly even a worse threat than the fundamentalists because you refuse to deny spirituality.

The thing is that both sides are engaging in the exact same behavior. How many other groups that have faced discrimination in this country have had to face it from two completely different directions? Those of us of moderate religious beliefs encounter that exact situation. Some refuse to speak up because frankly, they may believe they need the protection of the fundamentalists in order to keep from being trampled on and are afraid of losing that protection if they go against them. And they do not believe that the moderate atheists/agnostics would protect them, aside from a minority, given that so few restrict their criticisms to fundamentalists. I know that I worry about losing my legal and social rights to speak and practice my faith, should things go too far, at the very same time that I worry about the self-destructive things that we do within the church sometimes. I have to worry about losing my place in my faith AND in society at the same time.

Which leads to a rather unfortunate and uneasy alliance, and I believe THIS is the main reason that many moderates refuse to be as vocal as some of us choose to be. When we DO speak out, we are incredibly vulnerable to a degree that hardliners are not. We do want to be left alone...but often we believe that in order to be left alone, we have to be silent. But speaking for myself, anyway, I DO want to be able to speak freely, and not have to be told that I'm going to hell, OR be told that I'm an idiot or that my religion is hate speech just because some people decided to be jerks about it.

 

[Kestra]

^^^ I've got to disagree a bit. I put myself in the moderate category when it comes to religion and I don't get many attacks from people of my own faith or from atheists. I suppose it's very much different for a Christian, but then that's something that should be noted.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

The Abrahamic religions draw particular ire, compared to the others, which are not perceived as the "threat" that our three faiths are. I believe that even if we take believer conduct out of the equation, it is due to the fact that Abrahamic faiths speak in absolutes...even moderates. We believe in objective truths, and I think that in itself offends people no matter how kindly one may state it.

 

[T'Girl]

f you think about it a "marriage license" is a silly and bureaucratic thing to impose on citizens

I think a couple who decide to live in a long term relationship/marriage need some sort of legal contract to protect their assets etc if the relationship fails and for that reason I think there has to be some sort of government involvement.

I agree with legal protections, it's the granting of "permission" from the state to enter into the union in the first place that is the problem.

Europe is the exception

Not if we're talking about secular government, they're not. By that I mean that the government explicitly considers itself separate from religious bodies and their influence.

The problem with that is that "religious bodies" are composed of the nation's citizens, not just religious leaders. Maybe it your (and others) use of the word explicitly when referring to the separation of church and state. While I want a secular government and a general separation of church and state (and a reciprocal separation of state and church), a complete disconnect would separate the body government from the needs and philosophy of the people the government serves.

There is also the fact that the government and the nation are two separate entities, a secular government in no way necessitates a secular nation (or populace).

 

[Locutus of Bored]

How many other groups that have faced discrimination in this country have had to face it from two completely different directions? Those of us of moderate religious beliefs encounter that exact situation.

Wait, so you're trying to make criticism of moderate Christians into a special class of discrimination unlike any seen in this country before? Oh, good grief.

Get back to me with how discriminated-against Christians are in this country when they can't get into admitted into a school, can't get hired for a job, can't practice their beliefs, or are denied rights by the government specifically because they are Christian. That's real discrimination. The rest is just a massive and completely baseless persecution complex and an inability to deal with criticism or insult.

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.

 

[StarryEyed]

Christians (or those of any other faith) need not fear losing their protection. The First Amendment isn't going to go away.

 

[JarodRussell]

http://xkcd.com/154/

 

[Goliath]

But speaking for myself, anyway, I DO want to be able to speak freely, and not have to be told that I'm going to hell, OR be told that I'm an idiot or that my religion is hate speech just because some people decided to be jerks about it.

This confuses freedom of speech with freedom from criticism. They're not the same thing.

I am myself a follower of a controversial new religious movement. And I too would like to be like to be able to talk about it freely, without being told that I'm going to hell, or being told I'm an idiot.

But you know what? It's not going to happen. Nor should it ever happen. In fact, I would fight to prevent it from happening.

People have every right to criticize my beliefs, just as I have every right to criticize theirs. No one and no thing is above criticism. And that's a good thing.

If you don't want others to criticize or attack your beliefs, then don't share your beliefs with others. It's just that simple.

If you're going to join this particular conversation, then you'd better be ready for intellectual combat. As Voltaire said: "To hold a pen is to be at war."

Because the world doesn't owe our opinions a thing. Not courtesy. Not respect. Not even a hearing.

We have to earn all of these things. And that's the way it should be.

 

[StarryEyed]

I think some of you are missing the context of this argument. It is evident from Nerys Ghemor's previous posts that she is fully aware that nothing is above criticism. She isn't trying to shut anyone up and neither am I. We seem to agree that refraining from criticizing religion across the board is politically wise if you want to neutralize the influence of the fundamentalists.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

People have every right to criticize my beliefs, just as I have every right to criticize theirs. No one and no thing is above criticism. And that's a good thing.

If you don't want others to criticize or attack your beliefs, then don't share your beliefs with others. It's just that simple.

If you're going to join this particular conversation, then you'd better be ready for intellectual combat. As Voltaire said: "To hold a pen is to be at war."

Because the world doesn't owe our opinions a thing. Not courtesy. Not respect. Not even a hearing.

I agree. In person, I'llk usually try to hold back. But if someone states their beliefs here, the gloves are off. If they can't demonstrate that a god or anyhting spiritual exists - if they can't even define what spiritual means, aside from some arbitrary notion that answers everything while managing to answer nothing at all - they I'm not going to "nice" about my criticism.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I gave an example a few months ago of the difference between the attitudes towards being an atheist and the attitudes towards being a fundamentalist Christian.

I was at my brother-in-law's funeral when a guy who I didn't know but who was introduced as Steve to me started to talk to me about the church, the Bible etc. I wasn't interested in what he was saying but politely nodded etc until I was able to tell him that the people I was getting a lift with were about to leave.

Next day I mentioned to my other sister (not my newly widowed sister) that if Steve had asked me to go to the church I would have told him "No thanks, I am an atheist". My sister told me it would have been very rude for me to do this as it would be offending his beliefs. I asked her if I was a Buddhist and told Steve that would I be offending his beliefs she said that was different. She said only saying there was no God was offensive not saying that you worshipped another God wasn't ((actually I say I have never seen proof of God not that there is no God)

She must have said something to my widowed sister because just after the funeral that sister had arranged for herself, Steve and wife and me to meet for lunch but she phoned him up and postponed it because I might have offended him over lunch.

Neither of my sisters showed any respect for my beliefs and my feelings despite the fact that I will quietly sit through services at weddings and funerals without stating my atheism and the only time I mention my atheism is when someone asks me about my beliefs. What is wrong with me being honest about my beliefs to someone who initiates a discussion concerning religion.

Remember I never actually told Steve that I was an atheist - I only said I would mention it if he asked me to go to his church. My sisters got angry over something I thought I might do, rather than something I actually did do.

I told me sisters that in future I would tell people who bought up religion that I was a Secular Humanist and they said that was offensive too. They said that my Dad didn't let his atheism be known, I said "no wonder, he knew what sort of flack he would get."

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

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.

Thank you for providing that; I actually think it makes a very good comparison for what it's like to be in that sort of middle-ground situation, and the effects it can have upon a person or upon a group, and why it creates something of a bunker mentality in those who are experiencing that kind of bi-directional discrimination.

Also (and wow, it seems that quite a pattern is developing here!) StarryEyed is right again...logical debate, and criticism in that sense of the word I have no problem with. What I have a problem with is when people demonstrate contempt towards each other on the basis of religion. And as I think I have made it most clear, that can come from any source, be it fundamentalist or hardline atheist. The types of statements that I was talking about that are offensive are when someone takes a doctrinal or philosophical disagreement and turns it into a value judgment on the person (which is what happens both when someone claims they know you're going to hell as if they're God or something, or they call you a bigot or throwback because you are a believer and apparently that must mean you hate everybody).