No. Many religions accept that their texts lack scientific accuracy. IT's only a problem when religous authorities present those texts as absolute and literal truth, something which is more modern than you might expect.
Why Deep Space Nine is the Most Realistic Star Trek Series
- Thread starter Enterpriserules
- Start date
No. Many religions accept that their texts lack scientific accuracy. IT's only a problem when religous authorities present those texts as absolute and literal truth, something which is more modern than you might expect.
Ya but the faith is rooted in what at one time was treated as fact. And only through discovery has it been required to redefine itself. I know there are extremely intelligent religious people. The Vatican has a scientific academy even. But with what we know now of the universe, the scope of it, and creation, evolution, etc. people are still following a religion that anthropomorphizes god. And that's where the disconnect is for me.
The very bright people essentially just treat religion as a philosophy. They concede that the bible isn't fact. But the entire dogma and mythos was created by those who did believe it was. So when you're anthropomorphizing a deity, with all they admittedly know, I just can't connect the dots.
So my question is, do they believe in the savior and all that? Despite the fact that the archetype was borrowed from older religions? Do they still feel that god is a human centric thing, that we were put here on this earth in his image? Do they believe that evolution is just a theory? And if they don't believe in all of that, and just a greater power, then why label yourself a christian at all? Believing in <insert religion> is entirely different, at least from where I'm sitting, than believing that there might be a greater power that we can't conceive.
Unless you're a fundamentalist, I just don't understand the point of being religious if you embrace scientific discovery; it just seems completely contradictory. Or do they just pick and choose which facts that they want to acknowledge?
^Since your point pertains specifically to Christianity, it would be better that someone who is Christian answers you. I can't.
It sounds like you are already starting off with a bad assumption. If you think that being non-religious automatically makes you smart or that belief in God makes you stupid, then you aren't using logic. It's like was said earlier, the greatest scientific minds of history were not irreligious and often were very much so. That applies to my favorite scientist of all, Louis Pasteur, as well as the more famous ones like Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon.
You can't tell me that Iranian nuclear physicists are inherently flawed because they profess to believe in a certain religion.
The aliens in Star Trek are more diverse in their beliefs but that doesn't make them shallow and superstitious. I think the best example is Ducat showing a clear understanding of Bajoran beliefs but insisting that only he move the Cardassian dead because of his own beliefs. No it isn't entirely rational, but that goes back to the beginning of the franchise: Spock was too rational and couldn't understand the nuances of human behavior. As he became more wise, he started to see that pure logic was only the beginning of understanding. So if you say that something is simply not rational, it isn't the same as saying it is stupid.
Just as it would be impossible to satisfactorily explain a different belief to a religious fundamentalist or sway their existing views in any way, it is equally impossible to satisfactorily explain a different belief to an atheist fundamentalist or sway their existing views in any way.
Again, it might not be what the Bible says, but it's what the vocal minority of Christians are going on television and saying it says in order to scare the republican base into voting with them. But I don't see the majority of more reasonable Christians like yourself opposing the extremists when they try to edit science and history to their liking and force it into the textbooks that get sold all across the country.
You don't see enough of the Kiras of the world standing up to the Kai Winns of the world.
Yeah, I think it has to be said that there are more than a few religious schools that teach actual science and history; that is, evolution, the big bang theory, geology, et all. Even the Catholic Church has esteemed scholars in these fields (but not safe sex education, despite it being biological and psychological). They just make it a point to keep science in science and religion in religion class. Of course, kids will eventually get to the point where they try to reconcile both -- moral guide and scientific fact -- but that's a separate discussion. And with everything Kira's seen in the show, she herself has clearly determined her definitions of faith and science, something that Kai Winn can't or won't.
What you are describing, Cyke, is very much a view from the outside. The only time I've ever seen anyone say something like 'we don't want science' has either been in hostile satire (like Ned Flanders) or in obvious agents provocateur. I have been to a lot of different types of churches and heard a lot of different navy chaplains, and never has it been the view that actual science is wrong. It is people who have some sort of vendetta who are selling that view. I don't understand why religious people would or should team up against their own kind in order to appease the unappeasable.
That's not to say that they aren't going to believe things that you might find ridiculous, but again, that is not the same as being deliberately anti-intellectual and shunning the scientific method. It's ironic because atheists tend to come off as everything they accuse the religious of being - intolerant, forceful, and so on. I don't understand this notion that everyone has a hidden agenda. A lot of churches are moving away from what you might call a more moderate belief simply because anti-religious groups give them the impetus to. A study of history would actually make this expected.
That's not to say that they aren't going to believe things that you might find ridiculous, but again, that is not the same as being deliberately anti-intellectual and shunning the scientific method. It's ironic because atheists tend to come off as everything they accuse the religious of being - intolerant, forceful, and so on. I don't understand this notion that everyone has a hidden agenda. A lot of churches are moving away from what you might call a more moderate belief simply because anti-religious groups give them the impetus to. A study of history would actually make this expected.
Like me? I am not Christian. I am not relevant to the conversation.
This is personal experience, but the majority of atheists I know don't act like that, simply because of their own beliefs of live and let live and that life is too short to judge or interfere; rather, there's only opposition to religion if said-religion is imposing itself on others, often legislatively (i.e. sex education, LGBTQ rights, gender equality, the idea that only the religious have morals and thus should be the only ones to govern, that Christianity is a persecuted religion in America and so lead funding that way, etc).
(As for my observations about religious private and public schools, that also comes from personal experience, having attended both kinds throughout my life, as well as working with people who are employed in both types of schools).
Ultimately, that old saying that one shouldn't bring up religion or politics at a party? Atheists cover one side of that saying. I suppose the apolitical people cover the other side.
Sorry, I didn't know asking questions, or presenting facts and wanting to know what the rationalization is, was being offensive.
Furthermore, I never said religious people were dumb, or that non religious people were smart. I don't deal in absolutes, I'm not a child. Perhaps if you actually tried to answer my legitimate questions, instead of taking my queries as an attack, and automatically attacking back, you would see we could engage in a meaningful debate.
Your assertion about religious scientists throughout history is also flawed. Had Isaac Newton grown up today, I'd say there is a 99.9% chance he would not be religious. There are so many more varied perspectives, and sources knowledge available today. In that world, people that opposed religion in the past were considered heretics. Is your view on history so skewed that you forget what happened to some of the ground breakers in scientific discovery? This is no longer a fundamentalist society where we are required to be indoctrinated upon birth.
I also don't recall saying I'm an atheist. But thanks for being presumptuous.
I'll just drop it since the people I want to answer my questions perceive debate as an attack.
Furthermore, I never said religious people were dumb, or that non religious people were smart. I don't deal in absolutes, I'm not a child. Perhaps if you actually tried to answer my legitimate questions, instead of taking my queries as an attack, and automatically attacking back, you would see we could engage in a meaningful debate.
Your assertion about religious scientists throughout history is also flawed. Had Isaac Newton grown up today, I'd say there is a 99.9% chance he would not be religious. There are so many more varied perspectives, and sources knowledge available today. In that world, people that opposed religion in the past were considered heretics. Is your view on history so skewed that you forget what happened to some of the ground breakers in scientific discovery? This is no longer a fundamentalist society where we are required to be indoctrinated upon birth.
I also don't recall saying I'm an atheist. But thanks for being presumptuous.
I'll just drop it since the people I want to answer my questions perceive debate as an attack.
Last edited:
Wulfio you're all over the map, man. When you start categorically referring to religious leaders or historical figures as "troglodytes" and giving random quotes about "God is dead," it's a pretty safe bet to associate your viewpoint with atheism. Don't go trying to be offended or anything.
As far as all those great minds, I don't really like trying to use any picture of an ideal society to prove any point. We have different politics and beliefs than we did in the past, but I think you are being way too presumptuous to say that Isaac Newton (and presumably other scientists) would be irreligious if they simply lived in today's world. It goes back to that bias that intelligent people naturally gravitate away from religion, and I would say that the factors determining your belief (or lack thereof) are much more complex and personal than simply how high your IQ is. Most of the great scientists who were believers lived in the same time as the most quoted atheists of history, including your Nietzsche...who wasn't a scientist in any case.
I do take issue with the great lie that is always repeated - that religion is contrary to learning. It's actually the opposite if you look at the history of universities and of literacy among the common people. What you're probably referencing is Galileo, the inquisition, etc. If so, then I would say that it was obviously a measure of social control, as was restricting the languages used in religious services, the restriction of religious literature, and so on.
As far as all those great minds, I don't really like trying to use any picture of an ideal society to prove any point. We have different politics and beliefs than we did in the past, but I think you are being way too presumptuous to say that Isaac Newton (and presumably other scientists) would be irreligious if they simply lived in today's world. It goes back to that bias that intelligent people naturally gravitate away from religion, and I would say that the factors determining your belief (or lack thereof) are much more complex and personal than simply how high your IQ is. Most of the great scientists who were believers lived in the same time as the most quoted atheists of history, including your Nietzsche...who wasn't a scientist in any case.
I do take issue with the great lie that is always repeated - that religion is contrary to learning. It's actually the opposite if you look at the history of universities and of literacy among the common people. What you're probably referencing is Galileo, the inquisition, etc. If so, then I would say that it was obviously a measure of social control, as was restricting the languages used in religious services, the restriction of religious literature, and so on.
I live in California now, so I'm sure I see the full spectrum of people every day. The majority of people you pass on the street are ones whose beliefs you don't know at all. I don't want to give the impression that I'm judging an entire belief system based off of a few - normally people who you associate with being atheists are the ones who can't look at religion objectively. It's sort of like here - we aren't really talking about it except for its role in fiction, and then all of a sudden it's a discussion about whether religious people are smart enough for space travel. It's honestly pretty insulting, and I don't know what basis it has except for the image on TV of an ignorant caricature.
I think it's worth noting that in spite of the spiritual (un)beliefs of any given figure, scientists in the past firmly held notions about the nature of the universe that blinded them to its complexity. People of Newton's ilk believed firmly that the truth of the universe could not only be represented mathematically, truth was itself mathematical. Their work might still be considered broadly useful for most applications in engineering today, but the beliefs and prejudices about how the universe should be ordered would put them at odds with today's physics.
I believe in a God who created the universe and made it orderly and that has my foundation (and this was the foundation of may scientists in the past and now) helps me want to explore it and find out more about it. So, my belief informs me that I can know about this universe. I mean, logically, if the universe was not created and it's just an accidental combination of particles that happened to collide for no reason could there possibly be order out of chaos?
This also means that I don't believe we ever have a corner on knowledge. What we believe now may be proven wrong, just as history has shown that what was believed in the past was not always right. In the end, being a person of Faith makes me open minded to a lot because I believe I am meant to explore and know our universe because it is made in such a way that allows for that knowledge in the first place. I just know, from history and because I'm not God, that I'll never know everything.
In the end what I love most about DS9 is that it validates that faith and religion is not bad and it is something that is important and lasts.
My belief in God reinforces that there are discoverable laws of the universe, that there is order, not just chaos and that I can find out about it through the use of my mind and science. This example of me as a religious person who is influenced by that belief to study and know more I hope it is helpful.
This also means that I don't believe we ever have a corner on knowledge. What we believe now may be proven wrong, just as history has shown that what was believed in the past was not always right. In the end, being a person of Faith makes me open minded to a lot because I believe I am meant to explore and know our universe because it is made in such a way that allows for that knowledge in the first place. I just know, from history and because I'm not God, that I'll never know everything.
In the end what I love most about DS9 is that it validates that faith and religion is not bad and it is something that is important and lasts.
Man created religion to explain the unexplained and to ease his fear of death. Over 8000 recorded religions in the recorded history of mankind.
Cool! Man writes my favorite books, makes my favorite movies, and plays my favorite songs. I am a big fan of Man!
Me too. I am forever grateful for Man keeping me from getting bored.
Well said!
^Thank you!
Similar threads
