Can science and religion coexist peacefully?

Ok, I totaly agree with vassily77 but he's a total dick, too. It's stupid now. You attacked him without a reason. If you will attack everyone who disagreeses with you on some topics, then I recommand you to leave this forum. This isn't place for row, it's a place for sharing our opinions. For accepting others. To be tolerant. If he thinks he's so goddamn right, then covince him that his wrong. And you can't say you can't do that. Where are mods ? Ungovrn. and party ? Ungovrn. would enjoy this !

 

Haha you guys crack me up, some of you need to give at rest though.

Personal attacks will always make ones argument seem idiotic
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ad+Hominem

 

my god hates all of you.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7052OC20110106

So what now?
The Pope has officially denounced the creation theory that is presented in the bible, meaning roman catholics should not take the Genesis story literally, but instead metaphorically!

i cant wait tell they tell us Jesus should be taken metaphorically as well, that he never walked on water and never had magical powers! lol
i guess the pope has realized the bible is a bunch of bullshit!

but this could liberate some of the archaic catholics that take the bible literal, and science could gain some new supporters now!

 

They will rather join in with opus dei or the multitude of other ultra-conservative sects of the catholic church.
Today my arch-catholic mum blamed me on the phone for being guilty that the pope is going mad because of all the atheists like me...

 

"Benedict said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting" because "they only arrive at a certain point ... and do not manage to explain the ultimate sense of reality ...""

Irony.

 

Hm, people over here are starting to believe that the Devil is a myth or personification of mental insecurity, craziness, the ego, etc. That's coming from the case that God is too pure and full of love to actually create something as evil as the devil and explain all cases of the Devil in the Bible as mere diseases, talking to the self, and the like. Such as when Jesus exorcises a devil from the son of some guy, they explain that the son was crazy and had some kind of disease and not possessed by the devil; or when the Devil tempted Jesus to make bread of stone, that is was Jesus speaking and questioning himself and it was not Satan that spoke to him.

 

Dunno, didn't the church of england abolished the devil and hell too some 15 years ago? I remember some german newspaper articles describing the new standard catechism like this: Satan is only the erroneous assumed personification of the absence of god and hell is only a place where god isn't present - so there is no evil in the world, but only the absence of pure good - at least for the british protestants.
American theologist elaine pagels wrote a book about the "origins of satan" - working out the development of the satan-idea in the young christianity as a necessary tool to emphasize the difference between the jewish origins of christian believes and the already growing church. Jahwe isn't perfect, he is jealous, avid for revenge and unforgiving like a father frost stalin in heaven - so the jewish never needed an antagonist opposing god. The good father of christianity is perfect - so the christians needed someone to blame for the fact that people make the "wrong" decision - not to obey, not to serve the christian cause and consequently to renounce the return to daddy's lab after death. And blaming real life people to be the satans get because they stray left and right from the right path proved quite useful in justifying the quite early starting persecution of non-believers, heretics and dissidents.
And benedict served many years as the prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith when he was still a cardinal - the congregation is the successor of the former inquisition...

 

I think, until people realize the role myths play in their everyday lives, the conflict between science and religion will just go on and on. Religions endure because of the grain of truth therein. It is because of that, gullible (mentally lazy) people will mistake entire theologies as literal fact. I'm speaking mainly of theistic belief systems. Buddhism, at least, teaches to question EVERYTHING...including Buddhism.

Science deals with what is provable. Religion requires faith in the face of conflicting evidence. So, no, they can't really co-exist and shouldn't. But, at best, they'll ignore each other for as long as possible.

 

our greatest weekly magazine "der spiegel" (the mirror) has a great easter cover story:
jesus the revolutionary, challenging the roman empire and the religious establishment and he was anti-hierarchy, anti-colonial and a feminist too, and and and: jesus christ superstar!

at least in the western version - but in asia it's very often quite the opposite and with that very similiar to the western religions in their traditional numbness.

 

I think religion is, has and will always cause problems within the scientific community because religion is based on dogma, it may not change (obviously, it does change based on the political motives of religious leaders, but no-one's supposed to notice) and, therefore, science is very dangerous in the eyes of religion.

However, there is a distinct difference between organized religion and spirituality/personal belief-systems.

Alan Moore illustrated the difference perfectly in this interview:
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cam2kK7J_8k[/video]

 

No, I do not think they can coexist, and I believe religion is dangerous to Scientific logic, and truth, because science has proved religion wrong, and supporters of religion worship blindly because they just read some old book created by fellow humans, and believe that it was created by some giant man in the clouds named God/Allah/Yahweh/Elohim. This idea is idiotic, and is believed blindly by the masses who are busy blindly believing in religion, mostly the Working and Middle Class that they do not see that Capitalism is wronging them, and do not criticize their system and Capitalism, and even when religous priests and leaders do revolt and rebel against the system it is just to cause the revolutionaries against the state to take their side, and the revolutionaries will become theocrats or monarchs like the Islamic revolution in Iran where the Ayatollah gained power and became more oppressive and repressive than the Shah in which they lied to their people that they would have Democracy, and Science will help destroy the Authoritian dogmatic lies of Religion. People believe in Religion, because they are afraid to die, and it is this fear that keeps religion successful, and the state uses Religion to control the Working and Middle Class from having a revolution because the economy is bad. Religion is a tool used by the state to keep masses ignorant and stupid, so they do not rise against the system.

 

The worlds descended from one couple in the bible due to incest. The bible is white trash hillbilly. It avocates incest.

 

There is a concept called Theistic Evolution. Which

I do say that to an extent science and religion can exist together. Yet there are going to be some areas where they will not, such as Darwins Theory of Evolution.

Personally I think that it's possible for creatures to evolve and adapt, but the fact that it would take a million, billion years is absurd.

 

well, there are sciences like archeology and paleontology proving with hard evidence that it took around 3,5 billion years from the first unicellular organisms to todays living beings - it's hard to imagine or comprehend this enormous period of time, but it's a fact and far from being absurd. i'm still getting dizzy each time i try to understand that the universe is around 17 billion years old...

 

I think Ungovernable is wrong about religion and science creating a capitalist (or generally fascist) vehicle to oppress and delude the masses. Pankucnik was right when he said that church (rather than religion) and science are the dangerous mix.

There are somethings that religion cannot explain, and results that can be benefited from practice.

There are somethings that science cannot explain, and results that can be benefited from practice.


Personally I believe both of these things are ignorant to some degree. While religion holds truths to the subjective POV. Science holds truths which are objective and thus turn into rationality/status quo (but by no means does it indicate an absolute truth, but rather, something that can be measured and replicated so we have a solid foundation for communication).

Both of these must not be ignored (with the exception of church).