Why religious organizations are forced to use “scientific” language to prove their po

[Tony]

I think they do that because of the few things that they consider dangerous for religion:

1. Rapid advance of science. More and more facts from science contradict religious points of view.
2. People become more educated. Simple religious slogans are not convincing enough for them anymore.
3. Advance of democracy. People don’t want to be slaves anymore – not for kings, not for gods.

That’s why religious organizations are forced to look for more sophisticated ways for keep their psychological and financial “slaves” in check and recruit new ones.

You know what’s the most ironic thing?

The actual fact that religious organizations are forced to use “scientific” language is the proof that they are losing the battle for the minds of people.

Scientists don’t have to use “religious” language to prove their point.

The interesting thing is that even the pope said recently that religion and science should work together.

Scientists don’t say these things. They don’t need religion to continue their work.

Science rules!

J

 

[c0da]

What scientific language are you talking about? Maybe you could quote some credible religious figures...

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I'm sorry, but your continued antagonistic approach to theism is still not helping your 'cause'. You also don't seem to take into account those religions that embrace science, nor does your labelling of us 'slaves' include those religions that do not believe themselves to be the only path to god. (If there is a path to Diety.)

I will be creating a thread based on my confusion over your approach to these things. Please do me the honor of attending it.

 

[nutshell]

Tony, if you call me a "slave" for believing my religion then I must return the favor and call you a "slave" to the physcial world.

My religion does not use the scientific language you speak of. It leaves the spiritual to religion and the science to the scientists.

Not too hard a concept. To each his own.













....and never imply I'm a slave again. Free will is very important to me.

 

[evearael]

As I have said innumerable times before... the choice between science and religion is not binary. They are two separate fields with different methodologies, different requirements and coming from completely different perspectives. You can have both. Subjecting religion to science is absurd as subjecting the quadratic formula to literary criticism... it is irrelevant to the task at hand. This entire battle is completely irrelevant as science will never be able to disprove God and religion will never be able to prove God. There is a strong tendancy in humans to criticize what they do not understand, which brings out the worst in the scientist and believer alike.

 

[Mike182]

many religious speakers use philosophical language.... is philosophy a science? not in my mind, but i could be wrong

 

[Sunstone]

Science rules? Well, perhaps if you're willing to take ads claiming to sell a "scientifically designed" fishing pole as evidence for your thesis, then science rules.

For many people (perhaps for most people) science and technology are synonymous, and the proof that science is valid is nothing much more than its peculiar ability to come up with fuel injected cars, life extending pacemakers, new home cleaning products, and portable music. Those people don't so much look at the world through the lens of science, as they value and desire the technological marvels spun off from science. Both their desire for, respect, and understanding of, science is similar to a woman who loves a man only for his wealth, or a man who loves a woman only for her sex. If science ever quite spinning off new technology, they would fall out of love with it, and they would do so without ever having bothered to really understand and appreciate science in the first place. For the most part, I don't think you can properly call their views of the world "scientific", and it's questionable whether the impression science makes on them has much significance to their religiosity.

When a preacher sermonizes that "60% of AIDS cases in America involve homosexuals" he might sound a bit "scientific", but he's really doing nothing more than the copywriter who inserts the words "scientifically proven design" into his ad about fishing poles. Both the preacher and the copywriter are playing on the emotional appeal of "science" in order to gain respect for their drivel, but they most certainly are not promoting a scientific view of the world.

You see the same thing on a much grander scale when you go to a creationist website that purports to refute the theory of evolution with "scientific facts", or you go to the Focus on the Family website and read up on their "scientific evidence concerning homosexuality". You could study each of those sites for years and it would still be an unassailable Act of God if you could learn from those sites to have a genuinely scientific outlook.

Tony, I just don't think I can take your statement, "science rules", without some significant qualifications.

 

[Green Gaia]

1. Rapid advance of science.

Unitarian Universalists have no problem with science.

2. People become more educated.

I think about half the members of my congregations are college professors at several local schools.

3. Advance of democracy.

One of our Priniciples is affirmation and promotion of the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.

So Tony, I guess you're wrong.

 

[Booko]

You forgot the word "some" in your title.

Some religions are quite content to let science do its job.

btw, is the phrase "false dichotomy" at all familiar to you?

 

[Booko]

many religious speakers use philosophical language.... is philosophy a science? not in my mind, but i could be wrong

In older usage, "philosophy" meant "science."

As in Hamlet's comment to Horatio: "There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

[Tony]

What scientific language are you talking about? Maybe you could quote some credible religious figures...

Holy books were written a few thousands years ago with terminology from then modern science.
In our days modern religious “scientists” use modern scientific terminology to confuse modern people because they won’t believe the old scientific terminology.
So, any time you see modern scientific terminology in article written by religious “scientists” – beware!
It’s all tricks and logical traps.
In order to see HOW they trick people – people have to study logic and science.
Because religious “scientists” do study it to trick people better.

 

[nutshell]

Holy books were written a few thousands years ago with terminology from then modern science.
In our days modern religious “scientists” use modern scientific terminology to confuse modern people because they won’t believe the old scientific terminology.
So, any time you see modern scientific terminology in article written by religious “scientists” – beware!
It’s all tricks and logical traps.
In order to see HOW they trick people – people have to study logic and science.
Because religious “scientists” do study it to trick people better.

Can you give a specific example?

 

[Booko]

Holy books were written a few thousands years ago with terminology from then modern science.

Your title claims that you can find it everywhere on any religious site. Try this one:

http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-18.html


Oh, btw, my holy books were written in the last half of the 19th century.

Methinks you should get out more?

btw, I'm no fonder of the folks you're railing against than you are.

 

[Tony]

I'm sorry, but your continued antagonistic approach to theism is still not helping your 'cause'. You also don't seem to take into account those religions that embrace science, nor does your labelling of us 'slaves' include those religions that do not believe themselves to be the only path to god. (If there is a path to Diety.)

I will be creating a thread based on my confusion over your approach to these things. Please do me the honor of attending it.

There are no religions to embrace science. For all religions science is a mortal enemy because science studies and explains nature using non-religious approach.
There is no place for religion in science.

I don’t mean to offend people by calling them “slaves”.

Unfortunately, religious people put themselves in this “slave-like” situation.

As soon as somebody believes that there is anything supernatural above them and they call it “Lord” or “higher power” or “intelligent designer” – they automatically become their psychological “slaves”. If something is above you – you are automatically below it. You are not equal to it.

If people give money to religious organizations – they become their financial “slaves”.

Thanks for the invitation!

 

[kevmicsmi]

2. People become more educated. Simple religious slogans are not convincing enough for them anymore.
3. Advance of democracy. People don’t want to be slaves anymore – not for kings, not for gods.

Maybe its because Im an uneducatumed relijous zellott, but I didnt think democracy and slavery are mutually exclusive terms. Perhaps you meant freedom and liberty instead of democracy? Oh well, I have to go anyway.....my church is holding a special on how god holds the sun up with a yo-yo string.

 

[nutshell]

There are no religions to embrace science. For all religions science is a mortal enemy because science studies and explains nature using non-religious approach.
There is no place for religion in science.

I don’t mean to offend people by calling them “slaves”.

Unfortunately, religious people put themselves in this “slave-like” situation.

As soon as somebody believes that there is anything supernatural above them and they call it “Lord” or “higher power” or “intelligent designer” – they automatically become their psychological “slaves”. If something is above you – you are automatically below it. You are not equal to it.

If people give money to religious organizations – they become their financial “slaves”.

Thanks for the invitation!

You have yet to offer a specific example of what you're talking about. That tells me your argument is unsupported and, perhaps, not worth listening to.

You seem to take an either/or approach to science and religion. There is no reason why both cannot coexist. Science does not harm my religion in any way. We embrace science fully. We have one of the best universities in the country, have invented many every-day things, and believe that "the glory of God is intelligence."

So, please give a specific example, if you can.

 

[Green Gaia]

There are no religions to embrace science. For all religions science is a mortal enemy because science studies and explains nature using non-religious approach.

No, that's not true. I already gave you the example of my religion and how we welcome scienctific discoveries. Stop generalizing.

If people give money to religious organizations – they become their financial “slaves”.

I give money to my church to help keep the lights on, the keep grass cut and to fund programs for the kids, etc.,. It is my choice to do this, no forces me; I am no one's slave.

 

[Sunstone]

There are no religions to embrace science. For all religions science is a mortal enemy because science studies and explains nature using non-religious approach.
There is no place for religion in science.

It seems to me that you're mixing scientific materialism with philosophical materialism, Tony. The methods of science may be materialistic, but in themselves, they do not logically require metaphysical materialism. Or, are you privy to some proof that Ultimate Reality is solely material of which I am not aware? If so, please share it.

 

[Quiddity]

You barked up the wrong tree Tony...good luck.

 

[Mike182]

In older usage, "philosophy" meant "science."

As in Hamlet's comment to Horatio: "There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

quite true!

in fact, i would argue that philosophy is "the love of knowledge"

may i suggest, Tony, that you research the ancient religions that rested heavily on astrology, the oldest science.

i believe Islam showed that science and religion are not "mortal enemies"

you seem so adamant that religions do not accept science, show us! ....... (pst, that's the hint to provide examples and evidence for your arguments )