Uhh...that was Dark Helmet who said that, not Skroob. 
Why can't science and religion just get along?
- Thread starter Infinitus
- Start date
They say things like that because major religious assholes have said things like this:
Source: here
What's more, four hundred years later, there are still major religious assholes saying things like this. Luckily for science, they no longer have the power they did four hundred years ago.
For now.
And Bingo was his name-O. This is essentially what I was trying to say in my original post. Thanks for saying it so succinctly.
I agree with the previous post that most people integrate both science and religion into their own lives and beliefs with no problem- as if there each subject has "fuzzy edges/unknowns" that allow the two to fit together.
It is the folks at the extremes ("There is NO WAY that there is a Creator" vs. "MY interpretation of the words of MY Sacred text is the ONLY possible Truth") that cause problems for those of us in the vast middle who think compatibility is possible (and desirable).
I once heard it described that science attempts to describe how the universe got to be here, while religion attempts to describe "why" the universe is here.
Kenneth R. Miller (author of "Finding Darwin's God") is a Catholic who teaches science and has some neat ideas on how religion & science can co-exist. Interested folks may wish to read some of his writings.
It is the folks at the extremes ("There is NO WAY that there is a Creator" vs. "MY interpretation of the words of MY Sacred text is the ONLY possible Truth") that cause problems for those of us in the vast middle who think compatibility is possible (and desirable).
I once heard it described that science attempts to describe how the universe got to be here, while religion attempts to describe "why" the universe is here.
Kenneth R. Miller (author of "Finding Darwin's God") is a Catholic who teaches science and has some neat ideas on how religion & science can co-exist. Interested folks may wish to read some of his writings.
Uhh...that was Dark Helmet who said that, not Skroob.
D'oh!
At least I got the right movie....
Uhh...that was Dark Helmet who said that, not Skroob.
The Schwartz is strong with this one.
I majored in Atheist Assholery at Idont B. Leevin U., so I think I qualify.
Science and religion are only in conflict when both parties have the wrong idea about the other. Scientists who think they have all the answers and believers who take their faith literally, they're equally wrong.
Of course, the long and painful history between the two doesn't help.
But in the mean time, I firmly believe (no pun intended. Well, not really
) that religion and science are not only equally valid, but necessary.
Of course, the long and painful history between the two doesn't help.
But in the mean time, I firmly believe (no pun intended. Well, not really
) that religion and science are not only equally valid, but necessary.
I have no problem with religion at all. I have a problem when people call me a selfish asshole for being atheist.
The only christians I've met all have asked me if I believe in god. When I reply no but say I respect all peoples faiths they nearly ripped my face off. I HATE those kind of people.
You can think whatever you want to think, but don't try to kill me because I don't think god is real.
The only christians I've met all have asked me if I believe in god. When I reply no but say I respect all peoples faiths they nearly ripped my face off. I HATE those kind of people.
You can think whatever you want to think, but don't try to kill me because I don't think god is real.
If they thought they had all the answers, why would they be Scientists?
Science and Religion are in conflict because Science is based on reason and proof, while religion is based on faith and faith. Many of the religious are intimidated by the rigorous requirements of reason and become more and more hostile, to the point where they attack reason as a moral deficit. Therein lies the conflict.
Last edited:
I don't understand why some people are actually against religion/atheism. I'm an atheist but I understand that people have always felt the need to explain how the universe works with either science, religion or both. In ancient times, they couldn't explain things with science, so they started believing in some kind of a god, gods or a spirit. I respect people of all faiths or a lack of it thereof for as long as they respect my atheism and others' faith.
At least from my own perspective, if someone is not being insulting, or otherwise being an asshole (i.e. behaving in some way that usually "earns" that name) then their belief isn't going to justify that name.
Sorry to hear that happened.
Like I said above, when people can respect each other despite differences, I'm always glad to see that regardless of whether or not I agree. I think that both groups are very often on the defensive against each other because that respect is so rare that it's hard to believe sometimes that the other person actually MEANS it when they say they respect those who disagree.
And it's a great shame our society has reached that point.
People don't define their terms explicitly, and this causes confusion. Most folks addressing the failings of religion, particularly its impact on society, use "religion" as congruent with the institutional monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam and Judaism in those forms that are most supportive of cultural norms. This is not the whole of religious impulse or religious belief.
^^ This is true. The term used should be "organized religion." Religion is seldom harmful on an individual level, but seldom helpful on an industrial level.
How so?
Yes, he was judging them when he said that they're judgmental, but that seems a little specious to me.
^^ This is true. The term used should be "organized religion." Religion is seldom harmful on an individual level, but seldom helpful on an industrial level.
Actually, I think the term should be, "dogmatic religion." The conflict comes when a religion makes non-negotiable claims which are scientifically testable. For instance, the claim that the universe is 6000 - 10,000 years old is testable and can easily be shown to be false. A religion need not make testable claims. One that does not can not be in conflict with science.
Christianity/Islam/Judaism are fractured (especially Christianity) so there are going to be those of each of those pursuations who insist on a literal interpretation of their respective holy books and those who do not. The fundamentalists of any dogmatic religion are always going to be at odd with science (and reality) of course.
Yes, "dogmatic" or "extremist" would be appropriate labels.
A
Amaris
Guest
Unfortunately, I can say from experience that many of my friends are becoming more dogmatic and fundamental in their faiths.
If they thought they had all the answers, why would they be Scientists?
Exactly. Which is why 'scientists' who do claim that, or people who think that all scientists do, are hard to take seriously.
Similar threads
