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

[Tony]

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.

I don't worship anything.

I don't believe in any "higher power" above me.

I'm just a part of the psysical world as everything and everybody else.

Don't tell me please what to imply or not.

My free will and freedom is very important to me too.

If free will was important to a person, that person would never put him/herself in this "slave-like" situation.

Religious organizations do it to theists and theists do it to themselves.

I don't put them in that situation.

As soon as a person starts to believe that there is something (god, "higher power", "intelligent designer")"above" him/herself, that person puts him/herself automatically "below" it.

That's what I call a "slave-like" situation.

 

[evearael]

Read Foucault. Learn about the power dynamics inherent in every relation.

 

[Tony]

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.

My mistake!


Thanks for the offer!

I read about few religions and all of them, that I read have one thing in common - they look for an answer outside of science and physical world.
What's the point of reading about all of the religions when the difference is in not what people worship but about why people worship anything at all?

 

[Green Gaia]

I read about few religions and all of them, that I read have one thing in common - they look for an answer outside of science and physical world.
What's the point of reading about all of the religions when the difference is in not what people worship but about why people worship anything at all?

You have obviously NOT read about all religions. Why do you keep generalizing all religions to be exactly the same?

 

[Booko]

As soon as a person starts to believe that there is something (god, "higher power", "intelligent designer")"above" him/herself, that person puts him/herself automatically "below" it.

Hi Tony:

Just a quick question...do you think "Truth" is higher than you are?

 

[Booko]

I read about few religions and all of them, that I read have one thing in common - they look for an answer outside of science and physical world.

Oh, I know what you mean. But it pays to be careful or you may wind up the equivalent of aliens that land in the Sahara and then proclaim the entire Earth a desert.

One thing I am peculiar about asking people to do, whether theist or non-theist, is do the research as best you can.

What's the point of reading about all of the religions when the difference is in not what people worship but about why people worship anything at all?

How can you expect to understand why people worship at all if you don't do a good study of why, in fact, people from various religions and povs worship? (Not to mention what people actually think it means to "worship" -- you might be surprised.)

If you limit your view to a couple of Western religions, that makes as much sense as someone doing research on human sexual practices, but only looking at what happens in North American culture, and then making conclusions about human sexual practices generally.

There's a little more to the world than just that slice. Same thing with religions. If you want to be scientific, you won't hear complaints from me, but take care your methodology is sound.

 

[Nehustan]

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

There is certainly philosophy of science. Google 'Popper' or 'Kuhn'.

 

[kevmicsmi]

As soon as a person starts to believe that there is something (god, "higher power", "intelligent designer")"above" him/herself, that person puts him/herself automatically "below" it.

That's what I call a "slave-like" situation.

Wow you have some crazy definitions of things. So anybody who strives for good in anything is a slave to something? You might want to read about slavery and let me know if slavery is a choice.

You know what Tony.....THANK YOU.....I wish I would have had your definitions before I was self employed. Gosh I could have just told my boss that even though Im getting paid what the market bears for my job, I was going to sue him because I was "below" him, and that is like uh slavery and stuff.:bonk:

 

[Nehustan]

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.

Actually it is considered a matter of honour to be called a 'slave' or 'Abd'. The scholar Al Ghazali writes in his book the 99 beautiful names of God, that it is impossible for man to manifest the attributes of the infinite and absolute, but by invoking these names by becoming slave, i.e. Al Haqq/The (source of) Truth, Abd' Al Haqq/Slave of The (source of) Truth, one might make the human equivalent of the divine trait become manifest within the person.

 

[Nehustan]

Hi Tony:

Just a quick question...do you think "Truth" is higher than you are?

....and I come to Booko's post...having just read his reply to Mike...and what does he bring up but truth....Slave of the Truth Booko?

 

[Booko]

....and I come to Booko's post...having just read his reply to Mike...and what does he bring up but truth....Slave of the Truth Booko?

Hey, when I was an atheist if someone had called me a slave to the Truth, I would've been honoured to wear the tag.

Needless to say, "the truth" does *not* refer to a fellow RF user.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

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.

Do you understand that there are several religions that celebrate nature and natural science as miracles? (NOT that they're holy or that they're powered by supernatural forces- simply that the fact that the earth is able to do what it does is incredible enough in itself.) Do you understand that most religions do not conflict with science? Do you understand what is meant by 'generalizing', and why so many people have asked you to stop doing it?

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.

Falling into the same category as generalizations, you're assuming that all religions subscribe to the idea that, if there is a god or goddess, that they are higher than the practitioner. As a pagan, I am the equal to my gods. I am no lower nor higher than they.

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

Again, assuming every religion collects money from its practitioners or members. They don't, which will hopefully show you why calling theists 'slaves' is unkind, at best.

Thanks for the invitation![/quote]

 

[nutshell]

I don't worship anything.

Oh really? You don't have a belief system at all?

I don't believe in any "higher power" above me.

So perhaps you worship yourself?

I'm just a part of the psysical world as everything and everybody else.

Is everything in the physical world equal or do you see any natural heirarchies?

Don't tell me please what to imply or not.

I wasn't aware I did. Sorry.

My free will and freedom is very important to me too.

Me too. I value those things very much.

If free will was important to a person, that person would never put him/herself in this "slave-like" situation.

I'm not in a slave-like situation. I had my free will and freedom before I accepted God and I still have it today.

Religious organizations do it to theists and theists do it to themselves.

Do what? Make themselves slaves? As I've stated before, I'm not a slave because I continue to have free will.

I don't put them in that situation.

That's right. Everyone makes their own personal choice.

As soon as a person starts to believe that there is something (god, "higher power", "intelligent designer")"above" him/herself, that person puts him/herself automatically "below" it.

Being below something does not equate slavery. I'm below the President of the United States because he has more authority than me. Does that make me an American slave to George W. Bush?

That's what I call a "slave-like" situation.

We'll, we obviously have different interpretations.

 

[Steve]

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

Many of histories greatest scientists were Theists and contrary to your statement "More and more facts from science contradict religious points of view", i believe the oposite is true - more and more facts from science contradict atheistic points of view.

Science is not opposed to religion, science is suppose to be a search for the truth. However the way many now define science will not even permit a designer/creator so its no big supprise when their athesitic view of the world yeilds only athesitic answers.
It dosnt matter how implausible abiogenesis or mutions causing a light sensitive cell are - if one only permits atheistic explanations then thats all you will get no matter how absurd that explanation.

 

[standing_alone]

However the way many now define science will not even permit a designer/creator so its no big supprise when their athesitic view of the world yeilds only athesitic answers.

The reason science doesn't consider a designer or creator is because science only deals with natural evidence. A designer or creator is of the supernatural.

 

[Steve]

The reason science doesn't consider a designer or creator is because science only deals with natural evidence. A designer or creator is of the supernatural.

Natural evidence can indicate design as the best explantion for somthing, therefor it is supporting evidence that for the notion of a designer/creator.
There is no rule that says the natural is all there is, in fact the creation we see and study around us is clear evidence (i believe) of a creator. The nature of the natural world can provide clear evidence of the supernatural.
Its only when we will not allow the supernatural that we neglect design detect (somthing we use in many other areas of science) and instead search for purely atheistic answers.

Suppose we had a time machine and we took a computer back 3000 years and left it their for people to discover - their is no way they would conclude it was the product of chance.
Yet many think it intellectual to say that every biological system (including our brain which is so far beyond any computer) in existance is the result of random mutations and natural selection eliminating those that can no longer survive.
Combine that with the idea that befor all this took place, matter/energy itself came into existance without a cause and is now able to comprehend itself - all by chance!
Its a fairy tale and takes more faith to believe in then to believe there is a creator beyond our reality or time/space/matter.

 

[standing_alone]

Natural evidence can indicate design as the best explantion for somthing, therefor it is supporting evidence that for the notion of a designer/creator.

How so? Tell me how there is natural evidence for a creator or designer. I want specifics. I still stand by my statement that a creator or designer cannot be considered by science because science deals with natural evidence and a creator or designer is supernatural. Assuming a creator made the Earth would go against making a conservative hypothesis - using established scientific findings - and go against making a simple hypothesis - not assuming that if something is not understood at the moment that it must be the result of supernatural.

 

[Booko]

The reason science doesn't consider a designer or creator is because science only deals with natural evidence. A designer or creator is of the supernatural.

Very true, but I think there's an additional historical and very human aspect of this also.

Many scientists, or just people with a love and knowledge of science, don't want to hear about the supernatural *at all*, even when it doesn't step on the toes of science or pretend to be "scientific" (which it shouldn't).

But one can hardly blame them for this reaction, given the abuse scientists suffered at the hands of so-called religion in Western Europe centuries ago. I mean, when you start burning people at the stake and cutting them out of society just because they dare to ask a question about natural phenomena, people do sorta remember that.

But then, why would people still be so upset about what happened centuries ago?

Well, for one, there are Muslims who are still upset about the Crusades, and that was even longer ago, so that doesn't seem all that unusual for humans to do.

Second -- there are still theists out there who are trying to keep science and scientists penned in a box, not for ethical reasons, but because they want everyone to adhere to their theistically insecure and limited worldview based on overly literal translations of one scripture.

When theists stick to theism and the ethics that grow out of it, and let science investigate natural phenomenon in its own way, this whole false dichotomy thing with science and religion will finally fade away.

Er... thank God.

 

[Booko]

Natural evidence can indicate design as the best explantion for somthing, therefor it is supporting evidence that for the notion of a designer/creator.

From a strictly empirical pov, no, it isn't.

Here's where people who don't have the needed background in scientfic method and philosophy come up short. It pays to get your terminology right. I mean, if you want to communicate with someone from another country, you learn their language. And if you want to communicate with scientists, you need to learn their language too.

Now, if you want to widen your epistemological scope a bit and look beyond just empirical data and reason (which is fine with me), then you might say that natural evidence proves there is a God. Though frankly, I wouldn't even go so far as that. It may "suggest" a God, but not prove.

Its only when we will not allow the supernatural that we neglect design detect (somthing we use in many other areas of science) and instead search for purely atheistic answers.

It's only when certain theists start sticking theistic methods into scientific inquiry that we search for theistic answers in science.

Sheesh, it's called "faith" for a reason.

Suppose we had a time machine and we took a computer back 3000 years and left it their for people to discover - their is no way they would conclude it was the product of chance.

I have seen this stupid canard for well on three decades now. It's so illogical I refuse to even waste my time explaining why.

Really, I don't mean this personally but ...can't you guys at least come up with something original? :ignore:

Combine that with the idea that befor all this took place, matter/energy itself came into existance without a cause and is now able to comprehend itself - all by chance!
Its a fairy tale and takes more faith to believe in then to believe there is a creator beyond our reality or time/space/matter.

The problem is, I'm guessing your alternative contains all sorts of, er, fantastic tales that for some reason you expect people with a with a fondness for empiricism and reason to just accept hook line and sinker, apparently with little critical thought.

If you want to appeal to someone with a scientific worldview to accept the idea that there is a God, it would help if you would stop savaging the very thing they love to make your argument.

What you're doing is the equivalent of someone trying to persuade you to their religious pov and then making all sorts of claims about how Jesus didn't exist, didn't die on the cross, your holy book is untrustworthy, etc. Would that fly with you? Uh...probably not...and I wouldn't blame you a bit if you politely told that person to take their arguments on a hike.

 

[mr.guy]

...can't you guys at least come up with something original?

At the very least, they've proven the existence of watchmakers!