Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I say there is a potential yes in all pf them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it possible.....
- Thread starter Ehav4Ever
- Start date
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yesterday's mythology, today's mythology.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Ad 1) Yes.
Ad 2) Yes.
Ad 3) No, Not if thinking of ideas of Big Bang in the Standard Cosmology. Ancient religions have the Creation to be of an eternal nature.
Ad 4) Yes. IMO it already is superstitious regarding dark matter, dark energy and black holes.
Ad 5) Yes. Most cosmological educated individuals just repeat former assumptions without practicing any individual critique. And so do most of the uneducated persons.
Ad 6) Yes - and this goes for some scientific educated persons too.
Ad 7) Yes, absolutely. Religions i.e. their Creation Stories, are holding much more cosmological informations than thought of by most persons and it really could be lifting both the word "religion" and "science" up to another maximalistic level.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
[yawn] no real point or support. [/yawn]
https://biologydictionary.net/spontaneous-generation/
spontaneous generation | Examples & Experiments
Yes
Yes
Possible yes, i don't know of any though
No
Yes, although is it difficult to go through life without doing any scientific experiments. But you may not realise it.
Yes, i am pretty sure there are one or few on RF
Yes
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
People here have been following an old wives' tale from the 19th century known as Conflict Thesis.
Conflict thesis states that science and religion have ALWAYS been at odds with each other. But not only is this stupid (it assumes that religion somehow keeps people in the technological past) but let's consider how recent this theory is. History went through tons of periods without anyone coming to this conclusion. In fact, the church was always one of the big patrons of the sciences. But whenever someone mentions this, they trot out Galileo or Darwin, as if these sum up all relationships with science and religion. Actually, Darwin was a jerk. So was Galileo. Here's what wiki says on the matter.
Conflict thesis - Wikipedia
Galileo was a ******** who, despite being favored by the Pope, bit the hand that fed him. He deserved what he got.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
1. Yes, as long as the religion does not deny what we know to be factually true about reality, there is no conflict.
2. Non religious people very often know more about the religions and mythologies they are founded upon than those who practice the religion know about them.
3. Almost anything is possible. What is probable is more important than what is possible.
4.This is an ill-formed question. Science is a collection of methodologies used to understand the observed universe. Those methodologies have a strong proven track record of producing correct answers to questions.
5. Yes. But it is not necessary to be a scientist to discuss science. Is it necessary for everyone who wishes to be religious to have a theology degree?
6. Religious people do have a tendency to just believe what they have been told without critically examining it. That can sometimes be said of people with virtually any viewpoint, though.
7. I don't know what you mean by "minimalist" here. You might need to give examples.
The careful wording of the questions in the OP leads to 'yes' for me - that is "some people" and "could".
That's true for the non-religious as well. Look at what's going on with anti-vaxxers and covidiots. And most people don't look at scientific papers when it comes to belief let alone do experiments. For example, how many have labs equipped to study cytokine storms and COVID-19.
There is some fascinating (to me) research into what might be called Biblical mythology that shows there might be elements of fact. My favorite example is the "crossing of the reed sea" which at root could have been due to knowing how the winds can create a passage under certain conditions. Another is that Jericho's wall could have been breached and as a guess a wind instrument used to signal the start of the battle.
Of course there's a heavy addition of mythology to what appears to be a real underpinning but that shows how what appears to be pure mythology can be found to be a mixture of fact and fable.
Great point. Anyone who cooks or cleans is in fact doing scientific experiments. Of course they are not breakthrough studies but they are actually the kind of experiment that might be used to teach science and scientific research.
That's true for the non-religious as well. Look at what's going on with anti-vaxxers and covidiots. And most people don't look at scientific papers when it comes to belief let alone do experiments. For example, how many have labs equipped to study cytokine storms and COVID-19.
There is some fascinating (to me) research into what might be called Biblical mythology that shows there might be elements of fact. My favorite example is the "crossing of the reed sea" which at root could have been due to knowing how the winds can create a passage under certain conditions. Another is that Jericho's wall could have been breached and as a guess a wind instrument used to signal the start of the battle.
Of course there's a heavy addition of mythology to what appears to be a real underpinning but that shows how what appears to be pure mythology can be found to be a mixture of fact and fable.
Great point. Anyone who cooks or cleans is in fact doing scientific experiments. Of course they are not breakthrough studies but they are actually the kind of experiment that might be used to teach science and scientific research.
The line between "fascinating research" and informed speculation is thin to nonexistent. Books such as Pellegrino's Return to Sodom and Gomorrah and Sivertsen's The Parting of the Sea are certainly entertaining. As for claiming that these biblical narratives "at root could have been" that, of course, wholly depends on how little or how much is meant by "at root."
I suspect that most folk etiology contain trace historical elements, but mining those elements requires more than stringing together could-of-beens.
chinu
chinu
cladking
Well-Known Member
It is a certainty that today's science is tomorrow's superstition. Of course the Newtonian laws and most modern theory will still serve for most practical purposes when they are correctly applied and computed. Today's beliefs will come to be seen as very narrow and limiting and the models as largely being incorrect.
There are no "contradictions" between science and religion. We merely perceive such differences because we all think just about the same way and religious precepts appear to contradict experiment.
Sure. Evidence is needed. We can start with an apparent mistranslation of Yam Suph (Sea of Reeds) as "Red Sea". Then we have a known phenomenon "wind setdown" which has caused water to recede until certain conditions. The Science of the Red Sea's Parting | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine
Is this proof? Of course not. It's still a "could have been". But it's a bit stronger than a miraculous parting of a very large sea and now into the realm of scientific "could have been".
My first science lesson will stay with me for ever(ish). The teacher emphasised that cooking was essentially science. It was the hidden but obvious point in my post.
Eyes to See
Well-Known Member
Yep on all counts.
As to question 5, I enjoy listening to why scientists of various fields explain why they came to believe there is a Creator.
Here are some interviews with some of them:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/categories/OriginsLife
Question 6, there are many things that people believe today that in the future will be seen as superstitious. In the past bloodletting was considered a standard medical practice. Famous people, including George Washington were killed because of the ridiculous practice. Today people are given blood transfusions. It has been seen more and more how damaging it is, and unnecessary. In the future there is no doubt that practice will be put on par with blood-letting.
Some good interviews with scientists in the field of medicine about advances in bloodless medicine:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/categories/VODOrgBloodlessMedicine
Last edited:
There are over 8 million scientists, around 7% if them hold a religious faith of some sort. That's over half a million with a religious conviction. Your link shows 10 and i am not sure medical doctors really count, but i may be wrong there
There are over 8 million scientists, around 7% if them hold a religious faith of some sort. That's over half a million with a religious conviction. Your link shows 10 and i am not sure medical doctors really count, but i may be wrong there
Onoma
Active Member
Yes to all, except 4, because after looking over the other answers, I'm curious if you actually meant that today's science would become tomorrow's " folly " and that " superstition " may not have been the best word to use ( Unless you actually meant it in the common sense )
" Is it possible that today's science could end up being the future's " folly " ?
In that case I would say definitely yes to 4, but it really depends on the specific case, and in some it appears there is no one answer because we use still use fallacious examples by analogy for teaching
A good example is the Bohr model in physics. We know now that electrons don't have classical Newtonian orbits, yet we use the concept as a teaching tool to give a visual representation of discrete energy levels
1-7: Yes.
Eyes to See
Well-Known Member
Its a new series. So there aren't going to be that many. There are a lot more available in print.
I remember my twin and I were in the same biology class. The biology teacher had never questioned evolution before in her life. We would bring up interesting observations throughout the two semesters in her class. I remember once when we came across a statement in the biology textbook that scientists had done mutations on fruit flies as evidence of evolution. I had read about the study before starting biology and knew of the outcome. I found it amazing the outcome was not explained the the textbook. I asked the biology teacher if she knew what the outcome of the study on the mutating fruit flies was. She didn't know. I showed her the study showing that successive generations of fruit flies normalized. Left in their natural state there were hereditary codes within the genetic makeup of the DNA that fixed the genetic damage caused by the mutations, and normal fruit flies were the outcome.
Actually here it is:
Darwin Retried: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”
The teacher was astounded I was aware of the study the biology textbook talked about. And gave her more detailed info than the textbook gave. The textbook left out the results of the study. It only stated that mutations were done on fruit flies, giving the impression that scientists had proved evolution on some level. When I showed her this it was amazing the transformation that took place in her. At the end of the year she told us that she never had students that were so well informed on the subject. And no one had ever argued with evidence the way we did why we believe in God. But more interesting was her comment on our behavior. She said we were the most well-behaved students and were a joy to have in her class. Then she said, you know, you two could convert me into believing that Jesus really did live.
I have many other stories of conversations with teachers in other studies like this one.
People are logical for the most part. When you discuss things logically, a logical mind will come to a logical conclusion.