• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

WIll growing religiosity in the world by 2050 hurt science and space development?

back to the topic at hand..
No.. I don't belive that religion, growing or not, will hurt science.. I mean as an example, the 50's and 60's we were WAY more religious, with Jim Lovel quoting scripture on apollo 8 (Try to do that now.. ) and we made it to the moon.. there was no pastor or bishop saying.. THE MOON IS SACRED! The Saturn 5 is the devil! ( Well some kooks probably did.. but not mainstream)
Its not like a religious person is a ludite, that there like the Amish shunning any scientific advancement..
Did religion, of old times hamper scientific advancement.. Oh hell yes it did.. happening now in Middle East..
But that is about control, the church was in control, and they didn't want to let go.. the church isn't in control now, you can do or say something without being called a Heritic..
 
As someone who holds to Christian beliefs I see no contradiction between religion and science, the struggle between the two camps is mainly who wants to be in control of society. The fundies be they 'Christian' or 'Islamic' are panicking cos they see society changing all around them and they fear the lack of control. I find it ironic in the Western world the only nation that does not have an official religion has higher church attendance than here in Western Europe and we have state churches (or used to).
 
SpaceKat said:
The complexity and diversity of life on Earth cannot be explained by the idea of evolution. Matter has never created information and there isn't one instance where we see that one species has evolved into another. If you don't believe in a creator God that is your right to believe as you wish. That being said you can just say that you don't know how we came to be, because evolution doesn't hold up to science.
Click to expand...

So, life on Earth is too complex to be explained by evolutionary theory (despite mountains of empirical evidence supporting it), but I'm supposed to just accept that there's an entity even more complex, vastly more complex, complex enough to have created all life and the natural world as we know it? And why should I believe that? Because some people wrote down a story about it few thousand years ago?
 
Trinity Gingerbread said:
No no wasn't having a go at you just the messed up quotes made the two almost identical posts look funny till I read them.
Click to expand...
No worries. It took me by surprise, too, until I noticed the lone quote tag at the bottom.

I always try to proofread any post I make that has quotes so they don't get messed up. I guess some other people don't.

Nyotarules said:
As someone who holds to Christian beliefs I see no contradiction between religion and science, the struggle between the two camps is mainly who wants to be in control of society. The fundies be they 'Christian' or 'Islamic' are panicking cos they see society changing all around them and they fear the lack of control. I find it ironic in the Western world the only nation that does not have an official religion has higher church attendance than here in Western Europe and we have state churches (or used to).
Click to expand...
I assume you mean the U.S.?

Canada has no official religion, and according to Wikipedia, only 21% of Canadians over the age of 15 attend any kind of regular religious service (the percentage is much higher in the U.S.). But of course it depends on the region, as some areas of Canada have more people who identify with some religion or other than other areas do.

That's why my refusal to swear on a bible resulted in shocked people giving me dirty looks, when the reaction in another province (Quebec, for instance) would just have resulted in people shrugging. There's a very strong push in that province to get religion out of politics and the courts.

J.T.B. said:
So, life on Earth is too complex to be explained by evolutionary theory (despite mountains of empirical evidence supporting it), but I'm supposed to just accept that there's an entity even more complex, vastly more complex, complex enough to have created all life and the natural world as we know it? And why should I believe that? Because some people wrote down a story about it few thousand years ago?
Click to expand...
Of course you're expected to believe because of an old story, part of which was cribbed from earlier civilizations.
 
No, I don’t think so. It depends on the religion but my view is that Christianity is a support and driving force to science and philosophy. When it comes to space exploration I feel that goes twice.

Christianity is responsible for a great deal of scientific inquiry itself and many forget the role it has played in the very evolution of science itself. In modern times so many are not aware of how political push is encouraging agendas, particularly a competition between faiths; intersectional statist athiesm for instance which is a pseudo religion at odds with Christianity but in favour of other collectives like Hindu and Islam.

Anyway, my view is that ethics and philosophical inquiry are scientific in basis and promote science, not denounce it.
 
Timewalker said:
^Can we not get into the "atheism is a religion" garbage? Because atheism is not a religion.
Click to expand...

It’s not garbage. Here’s the simplified version: A majority of athiests vote left which represents higher state control. The state itself is based on faith. Leaders have no authority but the belief of others (God), they have their temples (parliament), they have their ethics (laws), they have their dogma (social construct) etc. All of these things are not based objectively but in the sheer belief of them. It’s a statist pseudo religion. There no element of religion that is not present in statist athiesm and only a minority of athiests do not conform so it’s fair to say approximately 20% of athiests can declare not to be pseudo religious but not athiesm itself.
 
valkyrie013 said:
Jim Lovel quoting scripture on apollo 8 (Try to do that now.. )
Click to expand...
Well, at least one astronaut has had communion multiple times on the ISS, so I'm not going out on a limb to say that the Bible is going out into space with humanity.

In 2013, International Space Station astronaut Mike Hopkins, a Catholic, arranged with his pastor and diocese to carry a pyx with six consecrated hosts broken into four pieces, enough for him to receive weekly Communion for the 24 weeks he was in space.​

https://bccatholic.ca/voices/paul-schratz-life-in-the-schratz-lane/astronauts-found-god-in-space

Seriously, take one look at America today, and what's hard to believe is that no astronaut in space will read from the Bible on TV ever again.

It's a good bet that at least one prayer will be said aloud at the first burial in space.
 
Personal Truth (Self, self-intent, self-reasons, self-actions, sexuality etc.)

Political Truth (Nation states, institutions & systems, political parties, some religions etc.)

Objective Truth (Scientific)

If religion moves from the realm of political truth and into personal truth, we would all be better off.
 
Ocanain said:
It’s not garbage. Here’s the simplified version: A majority of athiests vote left which represents higher state control. The state itself is based on faith. Leaders have no authority but the belief of others (God), they have their temples (parliament), they have their ethics (laws), they have their dogma (social construct) etc. All of these things are not based objectively but in the sheer belief of them. It’s a statist pseudo religion. There no element of religion that is not present in statist athiesm and only a minority of athiests do not conform so it’s fair to say approximately 20% of athiests can declare not to be pseudo religious but not athiesm itself.
Click to expand...
Here's my simplified version: Stop trying to 'splain my worldview to me. I know what it is. You obviously do not, nor do you appear to respect my stance that atheism is not a religion. We don't believe in deities, spirits, or the paranormal. Governments are irrelevant in this. If a government is intent on being a tyranny, it will do whatever it thinks necessary to control the people. That sometimes means imposing a particular faith on them. Sometimes it means removing the tools the people would normally used to express faith. The Tudor monarchs kept switching back and forth between executing Catholics and Protestants, both of which are some variety of Christianity. So don't hang this all on the communists.

And when you do insist on 'splaining to people, at least have the courtesy to get the spelling right. "Athiests" is not a word.
 
Y
Timewalker said:
Here's my simplified version: Stop trying to 'splain my worldview to me. I know what it is. You obviously do not, nor do you appear to respect my stance that atheism is not a religion. We don't believe in deities, spirits, or the paranormal. Governments are irrelevant in this. If a government is intent on being a tyranny, it will do whatever it thinks necessary to control the people. That sometimes means imposing a particular faith on them. Sometimes it means removing the tools the people would normally used to express faith. The Tudor monarchs kept switching back and forth between executing Catholics and Protestants, both of which are some variety of Christianity. So don't hang this all on the communists.

And when you do insist on 'splaining to people, at least have the courtesy to get the spelling right. "Athiests" is not a word.
Click to expand...

You’re clearly quite perturbed and defensive on this matter. I simply provided the underlying logic in a concept you described as garbage. I have no desire to convince you or ‘win’ an argument on this topic.

Athiests is in fact a word, I mentioned nothing about communism and an 80% correlation to statism is not insignificant. You can make up your own mind of course but if I were to explain anything, it would be to maintain some decorum and not call peoples views garbage if you can’t tolerate logical reasoning.
 
At the very least, please either learn to spell or use a spell checker. It's atheists, not athiests. Your "logical reasoning" is weakened by poor presentation, never mind a complete lack of actual logic backed up by verifiable information complete with references. Your use of punctuation could also do with some improvement.
 
Ocanain said:
Y


You’re clearly quite perturbed and defensive on this matter. I simply provided the underlying logic in a concept you described as garbage. I have no desire to convince you or ‘win’ an argument on this topic.

Athiests is in fact a word, I mentioned nothing about communism and an 80% correlation to statism is not insignificant. You can make up your own mind of course but if I were to explain anything, it would be to maintain some decorum and not call peoples views garbage if you can’t tolerate logical reasoning.
Click to expand...
When you show me some logical reasoning, fine. But so far you haven't.

No, "athiests" is not a word. "Atheists", however, is a word. If you're going to try to tell me what my worldview is, at least have the courtesy to spell it correctly.

I live in a bible belt region of Canada, where the provincial government keeps trying to impose its version of Christianity on us by sneaking it into the laws they pass. It's having a detrimental effect on certain groups of people.
 
Asbo Zaprudder said:
At the very least, please either learn to spell or use a spell checker. It's atheists, not athiests. Your "logical reasoning" is weakened by poor presentation, never mind a complete lack of actual logic backed up by verifiable information complete with references. Your use of punctuation could also do with some improvement.
Click to expand...

Oh whoops. You’re right on the athEist thing. My punctuation and logic is fine though. One might even assert that your disagreement is the motivation for your demeanour.

By the way I wasn’t having a debate, I was illustrating how the perspective wasn’t garbage. Publishing an array of political statistics seemed a little excessive but you’re more than welcome to investigate in your own time. This reaction is not particularly consistent with any retort of substance and logic and reference are different avenues, not to mention a criticism of presentation is down right amusing.
 
SpaceKat said:
The complexity and diversity of life on Earth cannot be explained by the idea of evolution.
Click to expand...
Erm, no. Evolution by natural selection can explain these aspects of life just fine, thank you. It's also backed up by countless man-years of research.
Matter has never created information
Click to expand...
You just did by creating your post. Unless you are claiming to be an incorporeal being.
...there isn't one instance where we see that one species has evolved into another.
Click to expand...
The fossil record argues otherwise as do cases such as the peppered moth.
These changes take place generally on a time scale much longer than a human lifetime but we can measure rapid genomic changes in populations of single-celled organisms in response to environmental factors.
If you don't believe in a creator God that is your right to believe as you wish.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your permission.
That being said you can just say that you don't know how we came to be, because evolution doesn't hold up to science.
Click to expand...
Now we're getting to where you're coming from. I guess someone told you that and you just accepted it in return for the promise of eternal life for not doubting the credo. Your choice...
How do you think dna came about?
Click to expand...
Science is working on it. I grant it's not an easy problem to crack but we're getting there. I don't know about current research but here is a review paper from 2011 about how RNA nucleotides (which are closely related to DNA nucleotides) might have come about:

https://art.torvergata.it/retrieve/handle/2108/85168/170889/PoLRev 2012.pdf
How do you think fish that were perfectly suited to their environment left the water and became a different species, but the other fish stayed fish? It's not logical. Why isn't there a single example of one species becoming another?
Click to expand...
Human life is very short and the earth is 4.55 billion years old. Species don't wholesale change into other species. There is variation due to mutation and recombination during meiosis. Some inherited traits randomly confer a survival advantage or a disadvantage depending on the environmental conditions and the availability of suitable ecological niches. Many mutations are dead ends - offspring that even survive to maturity are unable to have viable progeny or even to breed at all. Over long periods of time, mutation, inheritance and survival of the best adapted leads to divergence of species (speciation). The classic example case is Darwin's finches. Intermediate species are poorly represented in the fossil record as we only have access to a minute fraction of the record of past life. Even so, we do know of examples of intermediate forms such as tiktaalik, archaeopteryx and ambulocetus. There are other examples such as the evolution of the human ear.

Some fish seem to be still trying to leave the water, catch up guys.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top