knowledge vs. religion?

is it just me or has there been an uprising of a new religion lately? starting back away, in the day of copernicus and galileo. heck, it started even way before that. it started when man (and woman) stopped accepting things based on faith, and asked why? people stopped turning to religion to answering questions, and deided to do their own research. this has been around for a while, but i see more and more of it appearing in recent times. i dont know if its because the faiths no longer punish the practice as heresy punishable by death, or if mankind has become more questioning. is it science that is the new religion? i couldnt say, but i will say that a lot of people are believing nowadays in what has been proven through science. is it mankind's drive to quest for knowledge (more apparent in some than others) that has driven us away from religion? is the scientist the new preacher? or is it all a big conspiracy planted by the government? (who knows?)

in this post, i am not saying religion is a bad thing, or that it is obsolete, or anything negative about it, so please dont get after me for an objective post. i think that all things are good taken in moderation, including religion, so dont make a big deal of one lousy post.
after all, Voltaire said "If there were no god, then it would be necessary to invent him."

there is no conflict between religion and knowledge. its between science and religion. about the same time as the reformation of the chruch, and perhaps becasue of it, there was a split in thinking. not only did they moderate ane extremeist groups fraction off from the church, but a group also rose up that swore off all religion. religion and science should complement each other. as htey do for the most part. religion refers to things outside the natral order of things. science by definition, can not explian, confirm or deny religion. however around the 1800's that changed. for some reason, "all" the scientist suddenly declared that becasue science can not prove god exist, therfore he does not exist, and there starts the war. science has done nothing to disprove religion, or god. all u get misinforamtion that each sides love to produce and throw and few if any know enough to actully debate it, but all try. so u wind up each side getting frustrated by the sheer "stupidity" of the other and things degrade.

well that is case in meny ways..... But by this you can find which religinos are better than others....

look

man discovered that the universe is spiral! right???
long after meny scripts (Bibel and Quran) said that it is spiral.... People then simply didnot agree with those stuff and conflict used to arise. They used to belive that the earth was flat.

haha

if people then used those informations they cauldhave been further away......

I somethimes think they were aware of those facts and we just discovering some stuff that they had already discovered.

i might also be possible.

I agree with you Worm Wood. Science and religion are two separate entities, and should remain so. One deals with the natural, and looks for evidence. The other deals with the supernatural, and relies on faith.

However, while both sides spew propoganda, it is the religious side that really contains the hatred. Most scientists could not care less about convincing people one way or the other. However, as our knowledge grows, man has less and less need for religion. Example: we no longer pray for health, we go see a doctor. We don't pray for a good harvest, we try to ensure it as much as possible through good farming techniques. This scares the religious people who possess little faith, and they feel the need to convince everyone to come back and see things their way. The people of great faith aren't worried, but those people are few and far between.

If you are religious and you feel the need to combat knowledge, reason your faith, and use scientific evidence to bolster your belief, then you probably need to re-examine your position.

i disagree with ure assertion that the most hatred is on the religious side. no one is more fanatical than an atheist who knows hes right. well except for maybe mac users. next would have to be the southern baptist. :D

i agree that religions tend to be more vocal about things, but one thing u must relize, america is very anti religious. or rather its ok to be religious, but god forbid u try to express it in public. i mean, if church groups protest anything in public they are painted as fanatical. if anyone protests something a church does they are seen as concerned citizens trying to protect themselves from fanantics attempting to upsurp the constatution. it has toned down a lot recently...but i still remember the protest from the SYATP program when it first came out. ive seen picket lines infront of church camps, just becasue it was a church group that rented some camp grounds at a public forest. i know this is a minority of the people, but by the same token its is by the minority of extremeist in the religious side that we are judged by.

and yes both sides "spew" propaganda mainly because its all they know.

Maybe I adhere to my views because I live in Oklahoma, which is populated mainly by those Southern Baptists that you speak of...not too many mac users though :D

As for the atheists, I agree with you. Anyone who does not even acknowledge that other opinions exist is someone who really has not been able to form one of their own (IMO) Just because I might disagree with someone does not diminish their possibility of being correct; it's just that I think they might be full of it. I respect everyone's right to assert a point; I just might disagree. Unfortunately, many people on both sides of this issue just can't stand for someone else to disagree with them...I guess they just aren't as enlightened as us :D

Like I said, it's probably because of where I live that the majority of the fanaticists seem to be on the religious right...it also disgusts me when atheists (or others) infringe on religious peoples' rights to practice their faith...as long as it's not forced upon someone

BTW, what is the SYATP?

See You At The Pole.


its a program started years ago. it just encouraged ppl to gather at the schools flagpole beofore school on a certain date and pray. no one had to show up, and no one was banned, and it was non denomanational, and was taking place before school started. the first copule of years several groups actully got picketed and the groups were sued to stop it. they lost of course, but occasoinly ppl still file petitions to get it banned or stopped.

I know that program...I actually even participated a couple of times when I was in high school. It's a shame that kids would get picketed just for gathering before school and praying. Wonderful way to teach them about the first ammendment, huh? :p

I wouldn't exactly say non-denominational though. That makes it sound like they would have taken all comers..they sure wouldn't have taken buddhists or muslims..just protestants, and maybe a Catholic or two.

Not trying to pick a fight, I just think that sometimes in similair cases (school prayer, etc.) that defenders of the right (and I do believe they have that right) assert that it's not just a Christain gathering, but one in which anyone could participate. Like the moment of silence in Oklahoma schools every morning. If you think kids with non-WASP religious beliefs would not be ridiculed, harassed, or worse, your kidding yourself.

Just a thought...Thanks for the posts...this has been fun :cool:

ive seen the see you at the pole take place before, and i dont think that it was in any way harmful to people of other religions, i think that any religion should be able to gather in a public place (you know, like they say in the constitution) as long as theyre not offending others.

dont knwo if you all relized this but see you at the pole was a world wide affair. and its not exactly oraganized, and all our welcome, or are supposed to be. now if some shows up with cow bells to pray of an animal to sacrafice thast different. but i know that at some of these some muslims did show up. i mean for the most part is was silent prayer, with a few speakers praying outloud. and if u refuse to display ure religion in public for fear of being heckled over it, u cant really be that faithful now can you? im not saying its right, but at the same time, u cant use it as a reason not to do something. and in all honesty it dosent matter if it offends others. there is no ammendment that sas u have a right to never be offended. all we did was gather around a flagpole and pray.

Quote:

---

As for the atheists, I agree with you. Anyone who does not even acknowledge that other opinions exist is someone who really has not been able to form one of their own (IMO)

---

As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." You're comment is stereotypical to say the least. What you just said can be applied to any religion. Atheism is nothing more than a religion (never say that to an Atheist tho). It's a religion that doesn't accept a god. I spent the majority of my life as an Atheist, I've heard all the arguments and I've argued all the points. Atheists acknowledge others opinions better than any religion out there. Try giving another opinion to a Catholic or a Baptist (since those are the most hardcore of the religions), or a Witness. You'll never convince them of other opinions. They are right and that's all that matters, you're wrong so you are going to hell... unless you are Catholic and repent on your death bed :D. I spent my childhood as a Catholic, my teen years as an Atheist, aside from a two year period where i dabled in Daoism (Taoism) and Buddhism, and recently I've been studying Christianity, attempting to move towards it. There are obviously your hardcore religious nuts out there, and that's fine... they're happy how they are. However, even if you aren't a hardcore religious nut, you need faith.

"You can do very little with faith, but you can do nothing without it" (Samuel Butler).

Religion VS Science is a horrible term. Religion is a form of faith, it's faith in what you believe is there - maybe what is really there, or maybe what you want to be there. Science is just another form of faith. It's faith in what you can prove, in what you can see. Atheism, it's faith again, faith that there is no higher power. They have said for 100s of years, that man needs religion. This isn't true. Man needs faith and Faith is what is important. Who cares what you have faith in. Be it faith in God, Jesus Christ, Jehoviah, Allah, Buddha, Satan, Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, Mars, Science, the lack of a god, or even in yourself. You need faith. If you have faith in something, anything. It will give you the strength to get threw the hardest times, which is why religion is so important to so many people.

In tradition with WWJD (What Would Jesus Do).. there's a new slogan out. PUSH (Pray Until Something Happens) and if that's what you have to do, but it gives strength and helps you carry on do it. Instead of contrasting these things, we should be comparing our beliefs and our faith, we'd have less wars and less problems.

lol arguing atheism is a religion is a good way to get banned from a board, cuz i promise you will say something that pisses off a mod. :D

Quote:

---

You're comment is stereotypical to say the least. What you just said can be applied to any religion.

---

EXACTLY I meant it just as I said it. The idea that one cannot discount someone else's opinion as being less than their own just because they disagree with it is exactly what I meant. I'm not sure if you disagree with that point or are supporting it. :confused:

Quote:

---

"You can do very little with faith, but you can do nothing without it" (Samuel Butler).

---

So, exactly how much more than nothing is a little? And how would that little amount make it such an important thing?

Quote:

---

Religion VS Science is a horrible term. Religion is a form of faith, it's faith in what you believe is there - maybe what is really there, or maybe what you want to be there. Science is just another form of faith.

---

and then

Quote:

---

Instead of contrasting these things, we should be comparing our beliefs and our faith, we'd have less wars and less problems.

---

If religion and science are faiths, and religion vs. science is bad, then how is faith vs. faith okay?

Lastly, I disagree that science is a form of faith. Science is interested in the study of tangible, explainable, reproducable results. Religion (and faith) has nothing to do with any of these. That is why they are called faiths .

I'm glad to see you are exploring many of the religions out there. Exploration leads to knowledge and knowledge (even when misused) is never a bad thing. I also enjoy the interaction, and if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, maybe you could explain it for me.

Science in its true form is not a religion. It is simply a search for knowledge and understanding through experimentation and observation.

Unfortunately, the "science" that people often refer to today is not true science. I'll pick on evolution this time around, simply because I know that'll get people's dandruff up quickly, but there are plenty or targets in modern "science". The THEORY of evolution is a prime example of faith based science. You can't measure it, you can't experiment with it, and you can't observe it. So, you're forced to make observations over a very short time period and form hypotheses and theories about longer time spans. No one has ever found any (real) missing links, no one has ever seen any species change into a new species (adaptation is not evolution) and there really isn't any hard evidence for evolution. The universe obviously had to come from somewhere, and people in general dislike the idea that God created it (because that means they're accountable to a higher being), so they had to figure out how else the universe could have gotten here. Enter the big bang theory, evolution, and a horde of other theories. Unfortunately, they can't prove any of these theories. So what are you left with? You either choose a "religion" or you choose evolution. It's faith either way you look at it, it's just that some people just don't realize that their belief in evolution is indeed faith. So I'm going to have to agree with HTRegz that modern science is indeed a religion.

KeyserSoze:

I'm glad you used disagree instead of you're wrong, shows a lot of intelligence.

Anyways..

To address those issues.

1) I agree with:

Quote:

---

Anyone who does not even acknowledge that other opinions exist is someone who really has not been able to form one of their own

---

However I disagree with the fact that you mentioned Atheists immediately before it. It's like saying that statement applies only to Atheists, and yes their are a long of teenagers out there who claim they are Atheists and that there is/are no God(s), but they have no idea what Atheism is. Atheism is no different than any other belief. If anyone is bad for not acknowledging other opinions, it is Catholics and Baptists. Anyways, I hope that clears that up a bit.

2) I personally believe that faith can make a huge difference, even if it is a little bit. I've seen so many people, myself included, that have completelely lost faith in everything and they tend to be really down or depressed, but usually given something to have faith in or to believe in helps you out, it gives you something to look towards.

3) Faith VS Faith isn't ok either. When I think vs I think against each other, and nothing should go against something else because the clash is bad. However, we should compare our faiths and see the similarities. That isn't putting them against eachother it's putting them together, with each other.

I hope this helps.

[EDIT]
Thanks str34m3r, I forgot to mention that in my post, and was just about to go back and add it when I noticed yours, that is exactly what I was refering to.
[/EDIT]

Firstly, I never meant to insinuate that atheists are usually the ones who are most intolerant. Look at some of my earlier posts in this thread and I think you'll see that. (Living in Oklahoma, most of the intolerance I experience comes from the "religious right") :)

However, I am glad that str34m3r brought up the notion of evoluationary theory being a religion. As a science teacher, this is something I hear from people alot, usually because they want me to teach creation along with evolution. Evolution is very different from religion because of the following:

1. Evolutionary theory follows the scientific method and reasoning. It's true, not all of the facts are in yet. Any good scientist will tell you that theories usually change, and true scientists are not against that. Scientists pursue the truth based on what they can see and observe. Based on what we can see and observe, the theory of evolution provides the best answers.

2. You seem to emphasize that the theory of evolution is somehow less valid because it is termed a "theory". This is an argument of semantics. In science, many ideas we hold as true are called theories for a long time, because of the change mentioned above. Example--Theories you probably accept w/o protest: Theory of relativity, Theories of gravity (both Newton's and Einstein's), Cell theory, these are all just theories in the view of science.

Now, about evolution in general...(and please forgive the simplicity employed)

1. Adaptation is evolution. Adaptation laid the whole groundwork for Darwin's theory. Adaptation leads to natural selection. Natural selection leads to advantageous traits. When one species acquires enough advantageous traits, it might differ significantly from its original brethren. When this happens, a new species arises, and evolution has occured.

2. The fossil record is continually revealing itself. Lots of "missing links" have been and are still being found. However, the Earth is a mighty big place and we have only been looking for 100 years. It won't happen overnight.

3. Many experiments are done with organisms that have short generation times, i.e. bacteria and the like. They have supported the theory.

Will evolution still be the prevailing theory on the origin of species and the differences between them in 100 more years? Who knows, but hopefully there will be people of integrity looking for answers. I believe that is all those people are doing now, and just because those answers are grounded in observation and reason does not mean that they are trying to duck accountability to a higher power.

P.S. It is an awful big stretch of philosophy to begin with the assumption that the universe had to arise from something, let alone someone. Following that logic, who/what created God?

We seem to be running off on a tangent from the original post, but I'll reply one more time before heading off to bed and letting the thread return to its original course. First I'd like to point out that in my first post, I did mention that not all people who believe in evolution are using it as a religion. There are some who truly understand that the theory of evolution is a work in progress, but few teachers teach it as such. Several high school teachers I have observed and all of the college teachers I have observed basically teach it as if it's fact. I believe that in those cases, it is roughly equivalent to teaching a religion.

Quote:

---

Evolutionary theory follows the scientific method and reasoning. It's true, not all of the facts are in yet. Any good scientist will tell you that theories usually change, and true scientists are not against that. Scientists pursue the truth based on what they can see and observe. Based on what we can see and observe, the theory of evolution provides the best answers.

---

I'd like to hear your explanation of why evolution follows the scientific method better than creation does.

Quote:

---

You seem to emphasize that the theory of evolution is somehow less valid because it is termed a "theory". This is an argument of semantics. In science, many ideas we hold as true are called theories for a long time, because of the change mentioned above. Example--Theories you probably accept w/o protest: Theory of relativity, Theories of gravity (both Newton's and Einstein's), Cell theory, these are all just theories in the view of science.

---

Actually, the verdict on both the theory or relativity and the theory of gravity are still up in the air due to the fact that they haven't figured out a way to prove them. Several experiments in recent years have cast doubt on the validity of the theory of relativity. I'll try to dig through my old magazines to see if I can find some references. The difference is that when I was going through school (past elementary school), they were very careful to note that these were indeed theories and that alternate theories existed. This was not the case for evolution.

Quote:

---

Adaptation is evolution. Adaptation laid the whole groundwork for Darwin's theory. Adaptation leads to natural selection. Natural selection leads to advantageous traits. When one species acquires enough advantageous traits, it might differ significantly from its original brethren. When this happens, a new species arises, and evolution has occured.

---

I'm sorry, but I don't think that adaptation is evolution. I'll use cars as an illustration since I'm tired and can't figure out a better one. The evolution process is equivalent to a tricycle spontaneously becoming a dragster. Adaptations are slight modifications such as changing the shape of the spoiler to increase aerodynamics. There's a large difference.

Quote:

---

The fossil record is continually revealing itself. Lots of "missing links" have been and are still being found. However, the Earth is a mighty big place and we have only been looking for 100 years. It won't happen overnight.

---

I haven't heard of any of these "missing links" being found except the fake ones. Would you mind pointing me towards some references for these? I'd be interested to read them.

Quote:

---

Many experiments are done with organisms that have short generation times, i.e. bacteria and the like. They have supported the theory.

---

The only ones of these I'm familiar with are slight adaptations which I covered above. Viruses are probably the closest thing to the textbook definition of evolution, but it's still a large stretch. Again, references would be appreciated.

Quote:

---

Will evolution still be the prevailing theory on the origin of species and the differences between them in 100 more years? Who knows, but hopefully there will be people of integrity looking for answers.

---

I certainly hope so.

im not going to fuel this debate, seeing that it is off topic, but i have to add, several of these groundbreaking finds are blown out of porportion, i mean on one of the species that is an "ancestor of man", all they have found is three teeth and part of the lower jaw bone. from that they drew a pic and claimed that it walked upright and was capable of communicating vocaly.
how do they come to these conclusions, they looked at evolution and said that it would have to to fit into the place they had for it. they put the cart before the horse. they are filling in gaps with what they need to be there. the problem with accepting theories that cant be tested is that u begain to make assumptions based upon them that can lead you down the wrong path. and its one thing to say that an animal can adapt to meet its enviroment. its another to say that an animal can change its DNA and morph into another creature. adn thats what it does. lates take on evolution is that it idles along balanced out until somethin gupsets the balance, then it goes into overdrive, and almost all the creatures around have been replaced with new ones, then it stops.