Do evolution and bigbang always have to be in conflict with religion/spirituality/Philosophies?

[idav]

In my opinion, there are some beliefs, cultural beliefs and practices that are in tune with science.
Religion always isn't anti science.

I've found it correlating to education and the amount of distaste some denominations may have with science. Here in my state my kid is taught evolution. In the next state over my sister-in-law gets students not taught evolution properly, people fight more to get creation into schools in this state, people write long things after an assignment explaining that its wrong cause jesus..... etc. And she is about to have a phd in archaeology specializing in human evolution. I had to pick her brain, fascinating stuff.

 

[Sapiens]

(Emphasis mine.)

...I suppose it kind of does...?

You said you were familiar with some of those terms, but based on these last few responses (and the only Anglo-Saxon source mentioned being Beowulf), I suspect your understanding of them doesn't quite match my own, or that of current Heathenry.

We read some stuff from each of the four major Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, but I hardly consider myself an expert or even a scholar on the subject, just a student almost have a century ago. I know my knowledge does not match your in detail, but I respectfully doubt that your's matches mine in dispassion.

 

[Thief]

I'm not sure you're understanding. Only one of those words, Os (the Old English word for a God among the Esan, called the Aesir in Old Norse), communicates something that could be considered "supernatural" (a concept I consider self-negating, anyway). There's no guarantee of frith at a RenFair. I understand that they have no thews, either.

At Disneyland, you can enter and leave however, and do (mostly) whatever you want, however you want, while there. I've never been to a RenFair, but I understand it's kind of the same way. But at a Shinto Shrine, you have to walk to the side of the gate when entering, because walking down the middle is considered reserved. And while there, you have to observe what Heathens call frith.

You don't need to fake having a feeling of reverence in a Frithyard, but you cannot act irreverent. Consider how we are expected to act at, say, a wedding, or a graduation, or a courtroom trial, or a funeral.

That's what's being rebuilt: the entire mindset of pre-Christian Northern Europeans. On the more extreme ends, Theodsmen are actually working hard to retrain their entire ways of thinking about and looking at themselves and the world. I may not be quite that extreme, but I am working on "unlearning" a lot of the assumptions I was raised with. Including dichotomous thinking.

you are more prepped for the afterlife than you think.....

 

[Riverwolf]

We read some stuff from each of the four major Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, but I hardly consider myself an expert or even a scholar on the subject, just a student almost have a century ago. I know my knowledge does not match your in detail, but I respectfully doubt that your's matches mine in dispassion.

To be perfectly honest, I can't even tell if we're really talking past each other, or if my brain is just going into "ARGUE-DISAGREE-ALWAYS!" mode and we're actually on the same page.

Most of my understanding of these concepts comes from reading modern Heathen books (in particular works from the Wodening brothers, who are admittedly a bit dubious in linguistic authority just based on my own research), talking online with other Heathens now and then, a podcast called Heathen talk, and research on websites like wiktionary, Online Etymology Dictionary, and the Anglish Moot.

I will point out that there's been a LOT of new information and insight since "half a century ago." For instance, I remember reading an article that suggested (don't know how reliable it is since I haven't followed up on it) that the initial "Hwæt" in Beowulf isn't meant to be an interjection. That is, it's not supposed to read "Listed! We Spear-Danes in days gone by...", but rather, "What we Spear-Danes in days gone by...".

I didn't even list all the terms I could have. Others like "Main", "Luck", "King", etc. have survived to Modern English, but have VERY different meanings in Heathen contexts.

 

[Riverwolf]

you are more prepped for the afterlife than you think.....

Which is relevant... how?

 

[Thief]

Which is relevant... how?

have you a belief in the next life.....?
I recall a denial....

but your previous post indicates ...you might be going 'there'.....

 

[Riverwolf]

have you a belief in the next life.....?
I recall a denial....

but your previous post indicates ...you might be going 'there'.....

What does that post have to do with an afterlife?

 

[Sapiens]

To be perfectly honest, I can't even tell if we're really talking past each other, or if my brain is just going into "ARGUE-DISAGREE-ALWAYS!" mode and we're actually on the same page.

The latter.

Most of my understanding of these concepts comes from reading modern Heathen books (in particular works from the Wodening brothers, who are admittedly a bit dubious in linguistic authority just based on my own research), talking online with other Heathens now and then, a podcast called Heathen talk, and research on websites like wiktionary, Online Etymology Dictionary, and the Anglish Moot.

I will point out that there's been a LOT of new information and insight since "half a century ago." For instance, I remember reading an article that suggested (don't know how reliable it is since I haven't followed up on it) that the initial "Hwæt" in Beowulf isn't meant to be an interjection. That is, it's not supposed to read "Listed! We Spear-Danes in days gone by...", but rather, "What we Spear-Danes in days gone by...".

I thought that I was acknowledging both that and my, "familiarity only in passing."

 

[Riverwolf]

The latter.

I thought that I was acknowledging both that and my, "familiarity only in passing."

...yeah, the latter. LOL

 

[Thief]

What does that post have to do with an afterlife?

your previous post indicates to me.....
you might have what it takes to continue....after your last breath.

 

[gnostic]

Do evolution and bigbang always have to be in conflict with religion/spirituality/Philosophies?

In my opinion, there are some beliefs, cultural beliefs and practices that are in tune with science.
Religion always isn't anti science.

The Big Bang and Evolution are never in conflict with any religion, because each respective theory make any mention of religion, spirituality or philosophy. Both theories don't mention any of deities, angels, demons, Jinns, spirits or fairies; none of the modern scientific theories do.

If none of the other theories do, why should theory on the expanding universe model, or on biodiversity?

I don't think the problem is with science.

The problem is with some religions, or more specifically with some religious people, who can't accept that their religions get ignored, particularly with their deities. They want to force others to believe in their superstitions of some mythological and unsubstantiated powerful beings.

Primitive superstitions are still embedded in living religions.

Philosophies are whole different propositions. Some philosophies accept religious or spiritual teachings, as well as the presences of gods or spirits, while others don't. It depends on the philosophy's position.

The thing is that philosophy is not always logical or wise. It would rationalise anything and everything, and in many cases don't have any substance other than rationality of what they teach to be "true". The "logic" presented by the philosophers is only true, if they can back them up with more than just playing word game or mind game; logic alone, is not enough, especially when they venture into the supernatural, as religions do.

Many of the philosophies are just nothing more than an exercise of sophistry.

Although I do find some of philosophies to be fascinating to read about, I don't think a whole lof of them holds substance.

I think the only philosophies that are close to science, is when epistemology works with empiricism, like logical empiricism or logical positivism, where the truth is verified through tests or evidences.

Science don't work on logic alone; it required any statement to be tested, and have several different steps to verify what is objectively true, like falsification (testability and refutability), scientific method (the actual process of testing, quantifying, or evidence gathering), hypothesis being reviewed by peers.

Science allows for correction of error in any statement, theory or hypothesis, and thee conclusion are based on data, tests or evidences, and not on some personal beliefs.

 

[Thief]

science refrains the mention of spirit....as there is no experiment that will go there.....

 

[Riverwolf]

your previous post indicates to me.....
you might have what it takes to continue....after your last breath.

Please explain how this is even remotely related to this topic, which is not about an afterlife.

 

[Thief]

Please explain how this is even remotely related to this topic, which is not about an afterlife.

so creation has nothing to do with you and your life?.....this or the next?

 

[Riverwolf]

so creation has nothing to do with you and your life?.....this or the next?

I'm not talking about "my life". I'm talking about this thread.

 

[Thief]

I'm not talking about "my life". I'm talking about this thread.

so your life has nothing to do with philosophy and the participation you have after the 'bang'?

 

[Riverwolf]

so your life has nothing to do with philosophy and the participation you have after the 'bang'?

Are you going to explain yourself? Or just keep asking meaningless questions?

 

[Thief]

Are you going to explain yourself? Or just keep asking meaningless questions?

same to you.....
I see avoidance

 

[Riverwolf]

same to you.....
I see avoidance

Yeah. I'm "avoiding" falling into a meaningless tangent.

You've yet to explain what my post has to do with an afterlife, or what this thread has to do with an afterlife. So explain what you mean, or I can safely assume it's just hot air.

 

[gnostic]

science refrains the mention of spirit....as there is no experiment that will go there.....

They don't go there because it is nothing more than useless superstition; in another word, it is not real.

Why mention spirit at all be mentioned in science when it's (spirit) existence is no more credible than pixies, leprechauns, goblins or trolls?

If you want to believe in spirit, than that's your problem, because it has nothing to do with this thread.

Science has no conflict with religion because science is not theology. Science is not a study of god or gods. Science is not about the make-believe heaven or hell, or eternal salvation or eternal torment.

Likewise religion is not science, but creationists cannot help themselves by butting in things they don't understand about the real world, preferring superstitions and twisted fantasy of afterlife with obsession with sins and death.

The problem is with some religious people who refused to give up their primitive superstitions for something is real that they forget to live.