Jump to content

Trying to reconcile my love for science and religion


Recommended Posts

 

According to the wiki article, Muslims recognize that evolution is real. They have more of a problem with not being able to claim Adam as the first human. It seems many Muslims are willing to attribute processes science knows to exist to their god. And apparently, they have no young Earth creationists, so they've got that going for them. Which is nice.

If that article was an attempt to show reconciliation between the Muslim faith and evolution it read like a failure to me. Anyone who tries to keep Adam as the first human misses the point of evolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I wonder if you have really given this much thought.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing in God, so long as you don't base your scientific conclusions on that belief. My signature is applicable here: As long as you don't mix the two up,

There's no need to look at alien species to test the universality of specific religions; we have already observed on Earth that religion can't spread without human impetus. There were no Jews in ancie

Posted Images

I reckon Tielhard de Chardin shows that there is no necessary conflict between evolution and Catholicism. As for mysticism, evolution would be the basis for the unfolding of the world.

 

I haven't followed the discussion but would say that it is not difficult to reconcile religion and science. What would be difficult is to reconcile the crazy ideas that some people have about religion and science.

 

But of course here's the whole problem. In both areas of study it takes a lot of work and some dedication to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

According to the wiki article, Muslims recognize that evolution is real. They have more of a problem with not being able to claim Adam as the first human. It seems many Muslims are willing to attribute processes science knows to exist to their god. And apparently, they have no young Earth creationists, so they've got that going for them. Which is nice.

 

So some muslims accept mainstream evolution completely, just as some Christians do. However, has religion ever helped?

 

Grievances:

- Religion spreads unscientific alternatives and suppresses the teaching of the scientific theories, and has even threatened their advocates with execution.

 

Commendations:

- Ironically, opponents have given certain scientific theories more hype???

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, has religion ever helped?

 

 

 

In the early days, more so than now, I have absolutely no doubt religion has helped many people, greatly.

My only real objection to religion, other than genocide in its name, is its desire to convert everyone; even when those they seek to convert share the same basic beliefs (whether through god or other).

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

Details!

 

The one thing I can think of is astrology. Astrologers took something completely irrelevant, planetary motion, and imbued it with occult mystery. Geocentrism persisted because they could not detect stellar parallax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When did astrology become a religion?

Astrology doesn't denote any distinct religious system, but it was very intertwined with ideas about fate and divine revelation.

Edited by MonDie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Astrology doesn't denote any distinct religious system, but it was very intertwined with ideas about fate and divine revelation.

 

 

Don’t confuse religion with what has been done in its name; essentially religion seems to be trying to convey a means to enjoy life and so would facilitate life (and thus help); rather than dictate a doctrine that hinders life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You gave up too soon.

I meant to hell with religion. :P

 

Dont confuse religion with what has been done in its name; essentially religion seems to be trying to convey a means to enjoy life and so would facilitate life (and thus help); rather than dictate a doctrine that hinders life.

Besides Christian Catholicism, what political interests depended on Earth being the center of the universe??? That's all Galileo said was wrong, and he was threatened to retract it or die. suffer torture.*

 

* http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html

"even with the threat of torture"

Edited by MonDie
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It seems many Muslims are willing to attribute processes science knows to exist to their god.
That is, they say they accept evolution, but they don't accept natural selection.

 

So Darwinian theory is in fundamental conflict with Islam, as it is with most theistic religions in their ordinary theological form.

 

Then there are the derivative or subsidiary issues - the evolution of humans, for starters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mondie - The story of Galileo is a little more complex than you suggest. It is actually quite convoluted, and certainly not as incomprehensible as it might appear if the difficulties facing the various participants is taken into account. It is a curious incident that reflects badly on the Church of Rome, but it was not quite the black and white affair that is usually presented.

 

I don't think any religion anywhere would accept Neo-Darwinism as it is formulated at present since it entirely ignores consciousness, but then it does not seem to be correct yet. One does not have to be religionist to reject it. That said I would agree, of course, that a religious belief is not a good reason for rejecting a scientific theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mondie - The story of Galileo is a little more complex than you suggest. It is actually quite convoluted, and certainly not as incomprehensible as it might appear if the difficulties facing the various participants is taken into account. It is a curious incident that reflects badly on the Church of Rome, but it was not quite the black and white affair that is usually presented.

 

I don't think any religion anywhere would accept Neo-Darwinism as it is formulated at present since it entirely ignores consciousness, but then it does not seem to be correct yet. One does not have to be religionist to reject it. That said I would agree, of course, that a religious belief is not a good reason for rejecting a scientific theory.

How did Galileo get so many enemies, enemies who likely created a fake 1615-1616 "inquisition file" to frame him?

I say religion's habit of pretending to know things played its part in the conflict.

 

From the same source above:

 

Lorini said that Copernican doctrine violated Scripture [...] Joshua 10:13 which says "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven" or Isaiah 40:22 that speaks of "the heavens stretched out as a curtain" above "the circle of the earth"?

 

[...]

 

[Father Lorini] would stop at almost nothing to destroy the "Galileists," as is shown from his alteration--in certain key places--of the text of Galileo's Letter to Castelli.

 

[...]

 

To [Cardinal] Bellarmine and much of the Church's upper echelon, the science of the matter was beyond their understanding--and in many cases their interest. They cared about administration and preserving the power of the papal superstate more than they did getting astronomical facts right.

credit Doug Linder of umkc

Link to post
Share on other sites

There’re many religious scientists, Mondie, including some of the giants of science; would you really put them in the same category as these nut jobs?


The point is groups like the KKK have a hate filled agenda and used the bible as means to legitimise the hate by cherry picking ambiguous passages, of which there are many (caused by time and translation), and twist the meaning to their needs.

 

IOW it’s people that diminish religion not the book.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

There’re many religious scientists, Mondie, including some of the giants of science; would you really put them in the same category as these nut jobs?

 

Of course they can coexist, but this response is wanting. It portrays religion only as something to be regulated or even eliminated, not fostered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course they can coexist, but this response is wanting.

 

 

Really?

 

 

It portrays religion only as something to be regulated or even eliminated, not fostered.

 

 

 

No it doesn't, read again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, has religion ever helped?

In the early days, more so than now, I have absolutely no doubt religion has helped many people, greatly.

 

My only real objection to religion, other than genocide in its name, is its desire to convert everyone; even when those they seek to convert share the same basic beliefs (whether through god or other).

 

How has it helped?

How does it help?

 

If it's not helpful, then the safest disposition is abstinence.

Edited by MonDie
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How has it helped?

How does it help?

 

If it's not helpful, then the safest disposition is abstinence.

 

 

Yet again you need to read again, specifically, post #33.

 

It helps because some people take succour from their beliefs and are better for it; you show signs of hatred maybe you should really think about that and allow people the choice.

Can’t you see?

 

That it’s hatred that leads to suffering?

 

If your hatred can’t be relieved then it’s you that suffers; if your hatred is relieved then it’s others that suffer; that has NOTHING to do with a book.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Astrology doesn't denote any distinct religious system, but it was very intertwined with ideas about fate and divine revelation.

Don’t confuse religion with what has been done in its name; essentially religion seems to be trying to convey a means to enjoy life and so would facilitate life (and thus help); rather than dictate a doctrine that hinders life.

 

Your response seemed unrelated (and highly tenuous). I argued that astrology got astronomy going, for otherwise the planets were just tiny, irrelevant dots with no pressing importance.

 

The preservation of life is probably indirectly beneficial to scientific progress, but your enjoyment hypothesis doesn't explain hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but your enjoyment hypothesis doesn't explain hell.

 

 

I never tried to but if you want, I will.

Your response seemed unrelated (and highly tenuous). I argued that astrology got astronomy going, for otherwise the planets were just tiny, irrelevant dots with no pressing importance.

 

 

"Irrelevant" being the operative word.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

you show signs of hatred maybe you should really think about that and allow people the choice.

 

I only hate myself, and only for not always thinking this clearly.........

Edited by MonDie
Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back to the OP, maybe reconciliation isn't the best option. The OP claims that he's disinclined to relinquish his religion, but feels a need to be more rational. This sounds a bit like staying in a bad marriage, hoping something will change, or doing it for the kids.

 

If religion isn't productive, and science is, reconciling a love for both may be a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.