outhouse
Atheistically
Not really
Take YEC, they all avoid the realty of education and knowledge, same for all muslims.
-
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!
Study: Science and Religion Really are Enemies...
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Not really
Take YEC, they all avoid the realty of education and knowledge, same for all muslims.
Okay...what about Judaism? Non-YEC Christians and Muslims? Buddhists? Sikhs? Hindus? Jains? Taoists? Confucianists? Shintoists? Pagans? Shamans? Animists? LHP'ers? Thelemites? Wiccans? Zoroastrians? Gnostics?
Point being, look at the diversity here (not to mention the diversity within each faith and path). Are you to tell me that every single of these religions (plus more) is going to be a natural "enemy" of science?
Also, "same for all Muslims"?
A blanket statement that you are in absolutely no position to assert as factual.
I am not sure I agree. After all, I have a strong faith yet I love science and did very well in science classes in school: Both high school and college. I am but one example but I doubt seriously I am the only one of my kind.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Absolutely.
Last edited:
Yes, this, among other issues (See Legion's post: excellent points).
The study discussed in the article is an example of science, wherein a researcher/s tried to clearly define and test the relationship between variables. There is a statistical correlation, but I'll need to actually see the full study to be able to talk about what's strong or weak, and how significant the results are in a statistical sense.
The article itself is not science, and as a former journalist, I'll reserve judgement on how good of reporting it is until I see the original study and any public relations materials (news releases, etc) issued by the study's source organization. It is clear from several statements that the individual writing the article either does not really understand the methodology and meaning of scientific statistical studies, or is posing a "gee whiz!" attitude--for example, the way the author noted that the study controlled for FIVE other variables; any decent grad student should be able to come up with 20 other potentially important variables that should or could have been included. Why weren't they? Did the researchers actually include them, but dropped them out of the reporting because they didn't show a significant effect? Did they then test for linking effects?
One observation: just looking at the neat little graphs, while they have determined the trend-line of the data (EVERY data set is going to have some sort of a trend line), the spread-out nature of the results strongly suggests that this is really a fairly weak correlation. If it were strong, all of the datapoints would be very close to the trend line. Inclusion of error bars would help in determining just how meaningful this correlation might be. If this sort of statistical detail is not included in the reviewed study, then I would have strong doubts about the methodology used.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
My condolences.
outhouse
Atheistically
Sorry literalism is required for ALL of the religion
If you do not believe all muhammads words come from god, and follow all of he Koran as correct, you are not a muslim.
I have not met one muslim that deviates from this.
outhouse
Atheistically
Different religions all hold different degrees of fanaticism and fundamentalism.
Judaism has its orthodox members that do deviate from education and knowledge/reality.
Christians have YEC
muslims follow a literal Koran interpretation
Diversity is my point, and many lay in the far right hand corner of fanaticism.
outhouse
Atheistically
No one can lump all Christians together, because the religious dogma varies.
Most people classified as Christian don't even go to church and know nothing other then they follow Jesus and god.
They you have YEC who fight education and knowledge.
Judaism has diversity as well.
We don't see that with muslims, I have not met one who will face credible history, which will translate to science. Even staff here.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
In Judaism, the general rule-of-thumb that most subscribe to is if the interpretation of a narrative defies reason, go with reason and look for alternative interpretations. As an example, for the vast majority of us, the theory of evolution has not been an issue that needed to be rejected.
outhouse
Atheistically
Agreed.
To me Judaism is the most rational and reasonable of all Abrahamic religions.
You do have a few that follow the pseudo history literally, but not as bad as others who have plagiarized the religion.
Last edited:
Cause if religion were giving us just the facts we would call it knowledge instead of faith. Religion doesn't seem to mind science when it helps their own cause, but they attack if science isn't agreeing. Science doesn't need the faith but the religious do need the knowledge.
I thought that, rather than simply going over the source behind the OP's link, it might be useful for those interested to look at other sources that, while perhaps more technical, are also a bit more broad in scope. Unfortunately, even with the vast amount of freely available sources, it is hard to find studies and other sources that are freely (and legally) available, accessible, and that accurately review the state of research on the interaction(s) between science and religion. Generally speaking, whenever someone is interested in a topic but doesn't know which sources to trust, I recommend one of the many Handbook/Companion series published by Oxford University Press, Blackwell, Cambridge University Press, and Routledge (all academic publishing companies). The present a broad spectrum of views on a particular topic (from computational linguistics to Socrates) in the form of paper by experts which are intended to be introductory and provide excellent bibliographies.
Luckily, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science is available to read online here (the link also provides various ways to download the book, including as a pdf file). I am pretty familiar with the hosting site archive.org, as they host a great deal of out-of-print, historical, government, and other documents but rarely are they able to host modern ebooks due to copyright constraints. Thankfully, an increasing number of academic publishing companies are making some of the publications free and apparently this is one.
For an interesting review (mostly) on the ways in which religion and science have interacted may be found in the paper Harrison, P. (2006). “Science” and “Religion”: Constructing the Boundaries. The Journal of Religion 86(1), pp. 81-106.
I chose it because, apart from being freely available, it presents research not generally known even to philosophers & historians of science: that "religion" as we generally understand the term is a fairly modern construction (mostly generated by, and based upon, a fairly late era of Christian thought). Additionally, the author presents what is probably a minority view but a substantial one: rather than examine how Christianity influenced, was responsible for, or played an essential role in the emergence of science he (accurately) recognizes that "science" as distinct from natural philosophy postdates Galileo, Newton, Laplace, and everybody else prior to the mid-19th century. Personally, I'd argue for greater continuity than the author, but then one must deal with the influences of Christianity on the origins of science (and almost as complicated, the divide between technological or philosophical developments and science). Additionally, the author is able to go beyond the historical influences that are almost entirely Christian and look at the ways in which e.g., Buddhism continues to motivate research by e.g., neuroimaging studies on meditation. As someone who conducts neuroimaging studies, I'm less than pleased by the plethora of junk neuroscience motivated by alternative therapies and the like, but I have to concede that mainstream neuroscience is also filled with junk studies.
For those who want an in-depth and very balanced but highly accessible text on the modern relationship between scientists and religion (and by extension science and religion) there is a well-done, scholarly, and relatively cheap book: Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think.
Apart from that, the literature is vast, complicated, and while I'm happy to recommend sources (and check to see if they are available for free), I don't think most are interested enough to read hundreds or thousands of pages.
Luckily, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science is available to read online here (the link also provides various ways to download the book, including as a pdf file). I am pretty familiar with the hosting site archive.org, as they host a great deal of out-of-print, historical, government, and other documents but rarely are they able to host modern ebooks due to copyright constraints. Thankfully, an increasing number of academic publishing companies are making some of the publications free and apparently this is one.
For an interesting review (mostly) on the ways in which religion and science have interacted may be found in the paper Harrison, P. (2006). “Science” and “Religion”: Constructing the Boundaries. The Journal of Religion 86(1), pp. 81-106.
I chose it because, apart from being freely available, it presents research not generally known even to philosophers & historians of science: that "religion" as we generally understand the term is a fairly modern construction (mostly generated by, and based upon, a fairly late era of Christian thought). Additionally, the author presents what is probably a minority view but a substantial one: rather than examine how Christianity influenced, was responsible for, or played an essential role in the emergence of science he (accurately) recognizes that "science" as distinct from natural philosophy postdates Galileo, Newton, Laplace, and everybody else prior to the mid-19th century. Personally, I'd argue for greater continuity than the author, but then one must deal with the influences of Christianity on the origins of science (and almost as complicated, the divide between technological or philosophical developments and science). Additionally, the author is able to go beyond the historical influences that are almost entirely Christian and look at the ways in which e.g., Buddhism continues to motivate research by e.g., neuroimaging studies on meditation. As someone who conducts neuroimaging studies, I'm less than pleased by the plethora of junk neuroscience motivated by alternative therapies and the like, but I have to concede that mainstream neuroscience is also filled with junk studies.
For those who want an in-depth and very balanced but highly accessible text on the modern relationship between scientists and religion (and by extension science and religion) there is a well-done, scholarly, and relatively cheap book: Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think.
Apart from that, the literature is vast, complicated, and while I'm happy to recommend sources (and check to see if they are available for free), I don't think most are interested enough to read hundreds or thousands of pages.
I feel that science is basically useful and harmful as well because it depends how you use it. For example a gun may be used to protect you or you can misuse it, but there is a vast number of things created with the help of science like fan, bulb, tube light etc which are very very useful but religion is the base of wars and fights among human beings. can anyone tell me anything that religion has created so far for the benefit of human beings except myths, stories, illusions, mysteries unexplained fears etc. and most of times remain UNPROVEN AND UNJUSTIFIED.
And because you, personally, in your incredibly limited experience by virtue of just being a single person, have never met a Muslim that deviated from that, you have it on authority to say that no Muslim can deviate from that?
It's one thing to say that one has never come across a specific thing. I say this all the time. But I just leave it at that: I don't take it to the incredibly tempting but fallacious conclusion that it positively does not exist.
It is worth remembering that the Qur'an was transmitted orally for over 100 years before it was written down. I remember someone coming on this forum a very long time ago (I don't know if you were a member yet) who claimed that two verses in the current Qur'an were man-made interpolations. Because of 100 years of oral transmission, it stands perfectly to reason that something may have been lost or added during that time.
Besides, I've not read all of the Qur'an, but I've read bits of it. It's vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations.
jtartar
Well-Known Member
Sunstone,
Even though many do not believe it, Science and Religion are the best of friends.
Even though the Bible has not been written as a science text book. Every place where something is mentioned concerning science, The Bible is inerrant in what it says. Many times mankind has not learned the truth about the things it is speaking, scientists are but babes as to learning all the things that God has created. Even though man will continue to learn, for eternity, they will never discover the things possible. Remember the Bible says that God has been working until now, John 5:17. This means; if we learn every day we will never even scratch the surface of all the knowledge God has, Ecc 3:11, 8:17.
Many times Religious leaders believe something that the Bible just does not say. This is called doctrinaire, and is the reason why some religious leaders believe things that science has proved is not correct. This is not Bible truth, but errors or a twisting of what the Bible actually says. They really do not fully understand what the Bible is saying, 1Tim 1:6,7. If they misapply God's word on purpose, or with an ulterior motive, a worse punishment awaits them, 2Pet 3:15-17.
Remember, God is the Almighty Creator of all things, Acts 17:24-24, He knows all things, Job 36:4, 37:16.
Since it is actually God who had The Bible written, and made sure it was accurate, Ps 12:6,7, 2Tim 3:16,17, 2Pet 1:20,21, would it not be more wise to learn what He says, instead of trying to reason on something so much greater than we are? Obey God and live forever!!!
outhouse
Atheistically
I don't think you can prove to me that muslims are not all required to be literalist.
Every encyclopedia Ive read states they are. THE first sentence hits you over the head with it.
Islam (/ˈɪslɑːm/;[note 1] Arabic: الإسلام‎, al-ʾIslām IPA: [ælʔɪsˈlæːm] ( listen)[note 2]) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God
The Five Pillars of Islam (arkān al-Islām أركان الإسلام; also arkān al-dīn أركان الدين "pillars of the religion") are five basic acts in Islam, considered mandatory by believers and are the foundation of Muslim life
Brother, I know you know what mandatory means.
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I think it's a pretty lame "study." Carried out by an economist, examining only America, and it seems to completely overlook and ignore history in which religion and science have not been in conflict. There seems to be a lot of goalpost moving. I also searched the article for any mentions of Gregor Mendel and there are none. The conflict can't be all doom and gloom when a friar gave us Mendelian inheritance.
Last edited: