This is mainly directed at the people who align themselves with science. I don't profess to have a certain side, but I'll explain more at the end.
Right. Let's pick this one apart then...
Why is it that atheists so vehemently reject all God and religion?
Utter and complete lack of evidence. At least for my part.
As I see it, religion, science, and philosophy are all facets of the same gem trying to convey the same point and message.
Then I propose that you read more books on religion, science and philosophy. You are, in a word, wrong.
I'm aware that there are certain elements of religion that are incompatible (from an atheists viewpoint) with science and philosophy and logic, because there is simply no evidence for it.
Science relies utterly and completely upon evidence. No evidence, no case. That means that any outlook on matters that does not include evidence as its basis cannot in any way be compatible with science.
By this, I am mainly referring to the presence of "noun-gods." The monotheistic or polytheistic religions that claim a God that can intervene in our worldly realm.
Theists who do not believe in a god that intervenes in "our worldly realm" are, by definition, not theists. They are deists. Or for preference animists or what have you. But they are not theists.
But why do these approaches have to be taken literally?
Well, a significant part of the religious people do and they have been cramming that stuff down our throats for centuries now, so...
I see them out-right rejected by atheists, rather than interpreted for their metaphorical meaning and message.
What meaning? What message?
I'm all for debate, but these concepts are too quickly scrapped. Religion should be a highly individual path -- often religious teachings are distorted through history by "authorities" who know no more than the average person.
Science and religion are pointing in the same direction.
Nope. One is magic. The other is...not magic.
That is, the Oneness, the Ultimate Reality of everything.
Let's see where Superstring Theory takes us on this one.
Science approaches it by explaining it, breaking it down mechanically, rationally, logically.
And it has been DAMN successful at doing the job so far... I mean, air planes, cars, mobile phones, computers, lasers, food, housing, energy, medicine, knowledge...
Religion has a myriad of approaches to explaining reality. But in general it is trying to convey that reality "just is." The Ultimate Reality, the Universe just is.
Wow... that is so...deep...
Seriously? What bollocks!
We know reality "is". And our scientists are working their buttocks off to figure out exactly how it "is" while some old men with robes and funny headgear are trying to guilt-trip us into submitting to them in "this" reality because they are peddling real estate in the "next" one?
Yeah, right.
How is that wrong or different from explaining it scientifically?
The short version? Because it contributes nothing, explains nothing and because it gets in the way of science.
They two different ways of saying the same thing.
Errr... no. One says the universe is magic, the other does not. WAY different message.
The Universe speaks to people in different ways. There are 6 billion of us on this planet -- you cannot expect everyone to realize TRUTH by the same method.
"Truth" is a tentative term, but if you want to know WHAT IS, then science has all other methods beat by a landslide. It's not even close.
Let's take a micro example. We're sitting on chairs. Science may describe the solidity of the chair by explaining particle theory, etc. How is that different from saying it "just IS"? Macro-mize (I know, not a word) and it applies to the Universe as a whole. Religions can be distorted and skewed in their meaning. They are adapted through history based on social and political conditions. But the underlying message runs through ALL religions, and through SCIENCE. It simply takes on a different path. I have no issue with religions being refuted, disproved, etc., but in doing so, so many people ignore the UNDERLYING current and profess themselves atheists too quickly.
The word "atheist" means "someone who does not believe in a god or gods". And that is ALL that it means. And until someone comes up with some really compelling evidence that is the position I'll stick to.
From my experience, atheists reject God, and then proclaim that particular religion invalid because of that.
You must have met some rather silly atheists then. I don't reject god because I don't believe in any such notion. I proclaim religions invalid because they do not have a shred of evidence for their central claims which, despite what you would like to claim, is not that the universe "just is". If that was all they claimed then we wouldn't be in this mess and they would not have any followers. I mean, what on Earth would the sermons be about?
Religion has more purpose than just the existence of God(s).
A few might but they still postulate a supernatural something for which they do not have any evidence whatsoever.
Science is not flawless either. Look at the inductive problem, for example. And if a scientific theory is thought to be proven, but in the end new discoveries bring us new knowledge that proves the theory obsolete, people do not instantly proclaim all of science to be wrong.
Errr... Science does not claim to be flawless. In fact, it is generally viewed as one of science's greatest strengths that it will change its view in the light of new evidence.
Religion is looked at too narrowly. People reject religious views, but fail to explore it on their own -- which is ultimately where real meaning can be derived from.
Don't see any value in that.
This post is slanted in view of religion against science, but it's for purpose of debate. The argument could easily be flipped around. (I just don't like the attitude of atheists in general.) Religion is just as guilty as rejecting science, and not realizing that science is trying to point at the same thing religion is trying to point at. World religions are stunted by dogmas and fallacies that I do believe should be eliminated through argument and debate. I hope this makes sense. It makes a lot more sense intuitively where it comes together in my head. It's very hard to find the right words to convey what I'm trying to say, and I am not convinced I did it adequately. It would take a book to do that, I imagine. As for me personally I don't take on a theistic view. I have a highly personalized view that combines pantheism (verb Gods), Oneness, Ultimate Reality, Science, and Philosophy. So I guess I'm not a theist in the "traditional sense". But I understand how all religions are trying to say the same thing.
I think you are way out on a tangent on this one and I think you are romanticising something that has no need for it. Science and religion have diversely opposite methods and core views on reality. That is unlikely to change. Also, it should be noted that science is not a philosophy or a belief or anything of the sort. Science is a method of inquiry and it is the most successful idea we humans have come up with.
The goal should be unbiased search for truth!
Only if that "truth" is firmly grounded in evidence.
