If our religious teachings are contrary to science and reason should we reject them?

[Viker]

I sure dont see that.
The Aztecs among others were into
human sacrifice.
Moraliy is a human construct.
Imo, all due respect,y bit you are just saying
things.

They were also into engineering and astronomy. They made little distinction between science and religion. They weren't perfect. They had a lot of spooky things with the awesome things. And yes, morality is a human construct...a well intended construct.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Science and religion should never be together.

It's simply a matter of being two completely different things with no existing relationship or connection.

Dear Twilight Hue,

Though I’d agree that science studies “worldliness” - the manifested reality of Man - and religion addresses what it believes lies behind it; these are still but two sides of one coin and do not oppose each other in the manner that many make out.

One may also want to remember that science has its roots in the works of ancient monks, who historically viewed nature as a window to understanding God.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Aupmanyav]

How do you know that divinity doesn't exist? By divinity I mean supreme ideals of morality, ethics, reason, and virtue. By divine I mean total innocence as well. Or are we all doomed to relativity, never transcending what we are as physical creatures?

There probably isn't a God, but humans can submit to a transcendent power of divine attributes. The power realized in creativity, imagination, and bringing into existence what may not have ever existed before.

What will unify humanity in the future? What are the foundations of the future if we don't strive for better, and for all? What does better look like?

Who is saying that social ideals of morality, ethics, reason and virtue do not exist? All societies have them, though they may differ from one society to another. But what is 'divine'? Kindly do not use the word 'divine' without defining that (people give different meanings to the words they use). Total innocence would not be useful, it will not even recognize the difference between good and evil.

I have no problem if you submit to ideals of morality, ethics, reason and virtue. On the contrary, I would like all people to submit to them. Now what are you trying to bring into existence which did not exist previously? Do you want to bring in a false idea? Why should you do that? Does that satisfy the measure of ethics, reason?

Religion was created by shamans (priests, clerics and brahmins) for their own hegemony and benefit. Can we not have hope without religion? Can we not overcome our adversities without religion?

Humans cannot be unified more than how unified they are at present. And religion is the reason why they cannot be unified more. We all play our own drums.

 

[pearl]

Why is there suffering?

The first question faith asks is why is there anything? as opposed to nothing; Theology, faith's answer, all that is, exists because of creative love.

Why is there suffering? God wills it.

This is an infantile concept of God.

Now I have my answers.

No, you have the same answers you began with, no change.

And why should one respect theology, but not the Magic 8-Ball?

Whatever floats your boat, enjoy your magic ball.

 

[pearl]

1879 “I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” Darwin

Albert Einstein is probably the closest to an Atheist we have so far — he was raised as a Jew, but in later life he rejected the idea of a “personal god”, a benevolent, human-like entity who took an interest in human affairs. He did not describe himself as an atheist, though he did not believe in an afterlife — he believed that God existed, but that he was nebulous, universal, and not comprehensible to the human mind.

And this reflects the belief held by many, including myself, God is Mystery and incomprehensible.
So, yes, it is possible to be a religious individual, and be a scientist, the two are not mutually exclusive.

What is mutually exclusive is religious fundamentalism. If you believe that God literally made the world in 7 days, formed mankind in his image, women from a man’s rib, and all the other ‘creation myth’ type stuff in the Bible, Torah, Qu’ran or any other religious text, that is going to be problematic.
Did History's Most Famous Scientists Believe In God? (forbes.com)

 

[osgart]

Who is saying that social ideals of morality, ethics, reason and virtue do not exist? All societies have them, though they may differ from one society to another. But what is 'divine'? Kindly do not use the word 'divine' without defining that (people give different meanings to the words they use). Total innocence would not be useful, it will not even recognize the difference between good and evil.

I have no problem if you submit to ideals of morality, ethics, reason and virtue. On the contrary, I would like all people to submit to them. Now what are you trying to bring into existence which did not exist previously? Do you want to bring in a false idea? Why should you do that? Does that satisfy the measure of ethics, reason?

Religion was created by shamans (priests, clerics and brahmins) for their own hegemony and benefit. Can we not have hope without religion? Can we not overcome our adversities without religion?

Humans cannot be unified more than how unified they are at present. And religion is the reason why they cannot be unified more. We all play our own drums.

Divinity just means a higher excellence than what we currently are; a supreme moral, ethical, and reason standard. Divinity is that which surpasses normal human standards.

As for religions, not all of them are the same. It's not all hegemony, and sham. I would say there's a big difference between cults and religions. I will admit that much of so called religion is false power.

For many people religion is a genuine journey. They are usually the people that don't take on priestly roles. To me religion is a way to express the soul, and the spirit, but you don't have to believe in those things as I do to have a genuine religion. If I remember correctly, you have a religion or philosophy yourself?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Divinity just means a higher excellence than what we currently are; a supreme moral, ethical, and reason standard. Divinity is that which surpasses normal human standards.

As for religions, not all of them are the same. It's not all hegemony, and sham. I would say there's a big difference between cults and religions. I will admit that much of so called religion is false power.

For many people religion is a genuine journey. They are usually the people that don't take on priestly roles. To me religion is a way to express the soul, and the spirit, but you don't have to believe in those things as I do to have a genuine religion. If I remember correctly, you have a religion or philosophy yourself?

Yes, I can accept that meaning of 'divinity' till someone injects Gods into it. And yes, I have a religion and a philosophy. A cult is following or worship of a person or a particular deity. I do not follow any cult.

 

[Lekatt]

Don't forget there is a dramatic difference between religious and spiritual beliefs. There are three players in the game of reality, maybe more, science, spiritual, religion.

 

[firedragon]

A fundamental teaching of the Baha’i Faith is the harmony between science and religion. Abdu’l-Baha whose passing 100 years ago was commemorated by Baha’is worldwide this year, went even further.

“If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination.”

Superstition | Bahá’í Quotes

Religion is often criticised on the basis of making claims that contradict reason and science. Some religions even celebrate claims where Divine Revelation is upheld over science. Other religions attempt to move away from literalism in their religion by considering allegorical interpretations and the like.

Each religion including the Baha’i Faith grapples with similar dichotomies, finding the balance between faith and reason. How do we deal with statements made by our religious founders that contradict science and religion? Is their guidance within your religion that better enables you to negotiate such dilemmas.

I’ve put this in the Interfaith discussion section as I’m interested to hear from practitioners from different religions and how they respond to such dilemmas. I’m disinterested in hearing from one group who simply wants to bash another.

When Abdul Baha says "religion and science", which era is he speaking of? Can a religion that says it is in agreement with todays science contradict itself tomorrow when that science changes?

Conceptually any one can make "teachings". But specifically could one?

Also you spoke of Bahaism, and you spoke of "some religions leaving literalism and embracing allegorical interpretations" but the Bahai theology embraces all kinds of allegorical interpretations of every single previous religion or/and scripture it would even attempt to embrace into the universal theology concept. I mean it. Every single scripture. When ever something needs to be harmonised it is allegorised. I believe that is a contradiction.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I can accept that meaning of 'divinity' till someone injects Gods into it. And yes, I have a religion and a philosophy. A cult is following or worship of a person or a particular deity. I do not follow any cult.

I believe you follow a cult, because you do worship a deity, you just have a different explanation insistently comparing with a "personal God" to escape your contradiction of atheism. I think its not just a cult using your own type of language and standards, it is also a hypocritical cult.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have no personal God. But I know you are none other than Brahman, being a collection of atoms aka energy. You are it (Tat twam asi), for sure.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I have no personal God. But I know you are none other than Brahman, being a collection of atoms aka energy. You are it (Tat twam asi), for sure.

"Particles and other “naturalistic” candidates for the ground floor level of reality are all compounds of act and potency, form and matter, essence and existence; accordingly, they are in need of actualization and are therefore necessarily less than the “pure act” or Subsistent Being Itself which alone could, even in principle, be that which causes without in any way being caused (or, as I would prefer to say, which actualizes potency without itself being actualized)." (Edward Fesser)

 

[Valjean]

"Particles and other “naturalistic” candidates for the ground floor level of reality are all compounds of act and potency, form and matter, essence and existence; accordingly, they are in need of actualization and are therefore necessarily less than the “pure act” or Subsistent Being Itself which alone could, even in principle, be that which causes without in any way being caused (or, as I would prefer to say, which actualizes potency without itself being actualized)." (Edward Fesser)

What is a "compound of act and potency?? That seems like a made up term. Nothing "on the ground floor level of reality" (whatever that means) are even compounds.

What is this "actualization" you mention? How do you know about this? Where is the evidence of this?
Are you just attempting to manufacture a need for a divine magician?

 

[Wildswanderer]

A fundamental teaching of the Baha’i Faith is the harmony between science and religion. Abdu’l-Baha whose passing 100 years ago was commemorated by Baha’is worldwide this year, went even further.

“If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination.”

Superstition | Bahá’í Quotes

Religion is often criticised on the basis of making claims that contradict reason and science. Some religions even celebrate claims where Divine Revelation is upheld over science. Other religions attempt to move away from literalism in their religion by considering allegorical interpretations and the like.

Each religion including the Baha’i Faith grapples with similar dichotomies, finding the balance between faith and reason. How do we deal with statements made by our religious founders that contradict science and religion? Is their guidance within your religion that better enables you to negotiate such dilemmas.

I’ve put this in the Interfaith discussion section as I’m interested to hear from practitioners from different religions and how they respond to such dilemmas. I’m disinterested in hearing from one group who simply wants to bash another.

Science isn't fact. It can be wrong and often is.

 

[Valjean]

Science isn't fact. It can be wrong and often is.

What is a "fact," then?
Isn't the fact that science reflects the current information and analysis a strong point? Isn't the fact that it changes its assessments as new data comes in a good thing?

If science isn't the gold standard, what is? On what should we base our ideas of what the world is and how it works?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What is this "actualization" you mention? How do you know about this? Where is the evidence of this?
Are you just attempting to manufacture a need for a divine magician?

Some one said "Nothing is unstable". Turns into something.

If science isn't the gold standard, what it? On what should we base our ideas of what the world is and how it works?

Simple. Your book.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What is a "fact," then?
Isn't the fact that science reflects the current information and analysis a strong point? Isn't the fact that it changes its assessments as new data comes in a good thing?

If science isn't the gold standard, what it? On what should we base our ideas of what the world is and how it works?

It reflects the currently accepted theories.
Those theories change all the time.
Science doesn't claim to deal in facts.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What is a "compound of act and potency?? That seems like a made up term. Nothing "on the ground floor level of reality" (whatever that means) are even compounds.

What is this "actualization" you mention? How do you know about this? Where is the evidence of this?
Are you just attempting to manufacture a need for a divine magician?

Potentiality and actuality - Wikipedia

Actus purus - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

It reflects the currently accepted theories.
Those theories change all the time.
Science doesn't claim to deal in facts.

Isn't a fact an observation or well-supported hypothesis?

Science takes facts/observations, forms hypotheses from them, tests them, and forms theories from the results.
The theories rarely change. Most change occurs at the edges of our understanding, as new discoveries alter hypotheses.

 

[Valjean]

Potentiality and actuality - Wikipedia

Actus purus - Wikipedia

So... a medieval reïnterpretation of Aristotelian philosophical concepts?