Are religious descriptions of science deliberately deceiving?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Seattle, May 11, 2019.

  1. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    It's actually more like a scientific experiment which clearly shows the two don't mix.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    And is that in any way relevant to the dishonest depiction of science by certain advocates of religion?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    I hear that's where God lives.
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    That would be the Devil...that tricky beast...
  9. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    ....coin, coin, spinning coin....
  10. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    You might need to read more widely. Here's Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, a Christian journal devoted to science and religion whose scientific articles are often very good.

    Here's one of the articles from this journal, by a committed Christian in a Christian publication, that serves as a pretty good survey article on human evolution. It should be a valuable read, even for most atheists:

    Here's Religion and Science - Historical and Contemporary Issues, a book by Ian Barbour, a Christian with a physics PhD who subsequently veered off into philosophy, that constitutes a very valuable introduction to the history and philosophy of science. (Far more sophisticated than anything that the "new atheists" have ever put out.) I read this book years ago and it influenced me.

    There are many other places that seem to me to try to approach the science/religion interface in an informed manner.

    Here's an explicitly religious (and very research-productive place) where the science is impeccable:

    These are interesting too:

    To discuss anything, it helps to know something about it. That goes for atheists as much as for religious people (not all of whom are theists).

    I'm often appalled by how crude atheists' knowledge is of the breadth and scope of human religiosity. Far too often, "religion" turns into a caricature, where "religion" = "Christianity" = the most extreme examples of "Protestant fundamentalism". Too often we see atheists pronouncing confidently on theology, religious doctrine and philosophy of religion, to say nothing of logic, metaphysics and epistemology, without having ever studied any those subjects and in almost complete ignorance of them. Given that some of these atheists have advanced degrees in their own subjects (whether theoretical physics or evolutionary biology) and are respected university professors, I can only conclude that it's "deliberately done".
    Last edited: May 18, 2019
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    al-a-ka-ZAM !

    why did god make gold soo hard to find ?
    and coal
    how many people have died trying to mine gold & coal ?
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's more common among theists arounds here. It's often the frame of the discussion as set by the dominant Christian evangelists in the US. And calling it "caricature" seems a bit odd - caricatures are not ordinarily self-generated.
    As for "extreme": read "dominant, mainstream". Calling the predominant beliefs and behaviors of the common run "extreme" misleads.
    And somehow getting it right, pronouncing accurately - which must be a bit disconcerting to the properly studious.
    It is difficult to get things right by accident - assuming deliberation and purpose seems reasonable.
    Less sophisticated about the current situation of religion and science than Daniel Dennett's writings.
    Scholarship and learned exposition are valuable and worthy endeavors, but this, say - - has little bearing on the current Western conflict between "religion" (actually: Christianity and Islam's politically dominant sects) and science. Its sophistication is largely irrelevant in that particular matter.
    The breadth and scope of ivory tower philosophizing has no necessary claim on the attention of people with other concerns.
    On this forum it's the theists, not the atheists, who have been the more difficult to shake loose from insular assumptions about human religiosity - such as all religions have gods, say, or that these gods are all variations and manifestations of one true God, or that all humans have a natural tendency to believe in God which atheists have rebelled against.
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Here is a tit bit for thought

    Group on TV talking about how Christianity was the most persecuted religion, far more so than others

    OK so what are the persecuting people saying about Christians?

    For me probably 3 main messages

    We don't want you here, go away and/or

    We are happy with the religion we have and/or

    Your teachings are crap

    So is the drive to get converts the turn off?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    I think most people are content to live and let live. Unfortunately, it's the more extreme of all sides of an issue that are usually the most vocal. In other words, you seldom hear from the more moderate and rational people. The mundane average Joe doesn't make the news.
  15. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Only Christians would consider that persecution.
    OTH, what they have done to Jews, Muslims, Native Americans N&S, Native Australians, Africans, Hindu's and assorted pagans - well, that's not persecution; that's just setting people straight, bringing them the Good News.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Bothsides is bullshit.

    When the average and mundane Joe votes and cheers for W's invasion of Iraq, they make the news. When 63 million of them vote for a fascist demagogue because they like what he says and stands for, they make the news.

    But not for their live and let live preferences.
  17. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Let's see how many Iranians are let live.
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Unfortunately, they often try to do just that.
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Hey, Ken Hamm can use his money however he wants! I don't even have an issue of him getting donations for it, as long as it is very clear that the donations are for building his Ark thing.
  20. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    That’s fine, I’ll still cringe.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    I sort of want to go to see it; just to see his silly rationalizations trying to explain how Noah and his sons built something that cost Hamm over $150 million and required dozens of cranes, bulldozers and backhoes. Although I might need a few drinks before going in.
  22. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    I give science credit for the benefits it brings to the table--modern medicine, technology, and space exploration. I give religion (spirituality) credit for the benefits it brings to the table--meaning, hope, and aspiration to do better.

    Now, some will be quick to point out the terrors religion has brought to the world, but I would argue that science has done just as much if not worse. We are capable, despite the best possible use, to turn anything into a tool for destruction--whether that be science or religion.
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    I see just the opposite in religion - the hopelessness of the ones with the wrong religion and the aspiration to do worse things to the ones with the wrong religion.
    Science may provide the tools but it's politics that uses them - and the politics is often motivated by religion.

Share This Page