Science, Religion, and the Surrounding Confusion.

[Pico and ME]

Ok ok ok ok

[morethanpretty]

Late into the convo, but I'm gonna try.

To me science doesn't trump religion nor religion trump science. I believe science over religion but don't completely trust it. There have been many scientific "facts" or theories that have been debunked. Science is a constant search for the truth and is always modifying and updating itself to incorporate new discovers. Religion claims to be the only truth (at least most of them do), the core of religion doesn't change. The religious text will dictate the (general) belief of its followers even though the text has not changed (beyond translation) in thousands of years. In the end, they were written by man and are subject suspicion because of this. We don't teach out of science books from even a hundred years ago, but many people center their life around an ancient text. On that note I don't believe such texts are obsolete, just like the Pythagorean theorem is not obsolete. They have their uses, laying out generally a good moral system for one thing, even if I do think parts of that are outdated. In the end I'm agnostic, I can't prove to myself God is there, that he isn't there, or that one religion is right about Him over another. Science I can believe in, even if I can't always trust it.

[TheMercenary]

Late as well.

I see little conflict between the two and the potential to have conflict if you so desire.

I have always viewed organized religion from a historical perspective, something that was developed by less educated people, when science was infintile, and the world left most without a logical explaination for what we observed going on around us in our daily life. Religion was also a form of power and a method to rule the common people. Even the King/Queen feared the power of the Bishop. As science evolved more about the observed world was explained logically and the reason to have things explained by religion lessoned. Even today there is much we can't explain and people like to fill that void in with religon. Religious texts which continue to be in use to day were written by people at the direction of people. Some person(s) were told what to include and what not to include in those texts. History(Science) has shown us that much may have been excluded. Yet we have, in this day and age, people who will quote you from various texts as if they are(were) the voice and word of some God.

Spirituality is a similar topic, but hardly the same. Spirituality and religion are often confused as being the same.

[miketrees]

I heard an interview with Michael Heller the other night.
He had just won some prize for being a smarty.
Anyway he sounded quite brilliant, he claims science and religion can fit in perfectly together.
Its strange to hear such logic from a Cath-Aholic priest

[Flint]

Catholicism seems to produce some pragmatic thinkers. Unlike, say, Southern Baptists.

[miketrees]

Or JW`s

[regular.joe]

In respect to any religion:

It seems to me that many people fail to see the beauty of the forest, distracted by the ugliness of a few of the trees.

[Undertoad]

Often the forest is ugly.

Times of London: "A third of Muslim students back killings"

ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll.

The study also found that two in five Muslims at university support the incorporation of Islamic sharia codes into British law.

The YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) will raise concerns about the extent of campus radicalism. "Significant numbers appear to hold beliefs which contravene democratic values," said Han-nah Stuart, one of the report’s authors. "These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said there is no extremism in British universities."

...

In the report, 40% of Muslim students said it was unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely. Homophobia was rife, with 25% saying they had little or no respect for gays. The figure was higher (32%) for male Muslim students. Among nonMuslims, the figure was only 4%.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Often the forest is ugly.

Times of London: "A third of Muslim students back killings"

For the record (and for those who don't click the link and read the whole article):

Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, condemned the study. “This disgusting report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right-wing think tank – not the views of Muslim students across Britain,” he said. “Only 632 Muslim students were asked vague and misleading questions, and their answers were wilfully misinterpreted.”

I was very surprised to see the figure so high. But I also accept that many 18-21 year olds hold views I find abhorrent. From the same article, 4% of non-Muslim students had little or no respect for gays. Which would be wonderful... except it certainly doesn't reflect what I hear. And (in this country at least) non-Muslims don't have religion to hide behind.

I may be wrong, the survey may be right. It's pretty grim if it is. But just wait. These Muslim students will face the reality of the jobs market pretty soon. A lot of attitude ends up washed away in the 07.30 shower when you have to get up 5 days a week to go to work. And I mean that across the religious and racial spectrum.

Dana - any comment on the Muslim students at your Uni?

[Trilby]

oh, UT. You know you're lying again.

[Cicero]

So who's house is the Ramadan party at this year? It seems my schedule conflicts a little because Rash Hashanah will also be happening during this period....hmmm...


So who's house is the Rashamadan party at this year?!?

(at least one thing is clear, no one will be bringing the ham)

Oh hai, just making jokes..I'm out!

[DanaC]

As I see it, the 'conflict' between science and religion need not be confined to the external world. That conflict can fully rage within an individual. It's less about people who are scientists versus people of faith, as it is decisions or theories based on science versus theories and decisions based on faith.

At the point that somebody chooses to seek an answer from faith, they are no longer acting scientifically. When someone seeks their answers from scientific study, they are no longer acting on faith. The two cannot coexist in answering a question, but they can coexist within the same individual. As modes of thinking they are entirely atithetical. People, however, are very multi-levelled in their thinking. It's quite possible to embrace scientific reason and faith ....but it's highly unlikely one will exercise them at the same time.

[Aliantha]

632 is not a very large survey group. In fact, I'd be surprised if this so called study was even acknowledged by scientific journals with figures like that.

eta: I don't find it alarming that any number of students might think it's ok to kill in the name of religion. Muslims certainly do not have the sole rights to that view.

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

632 is not a very large survey group. In fact, I'd be surprised if this so called study was even acknowledged by scientific journals with figures like that.

eta: I don't find it alarming that any number of students might think it's ok to kill in the name of religion. Muslims certainly do not have the sole rights to that view.

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"
A favorite quote of a very conservative, fundamentalist Christian I went to school with.. and he had friends.

[miketrees]

""At the point that somebody chooses to seek an answer from faith, they are no longer acting scientifically. When someone seeks their answers from scientific study, they are no longer acting on faith. The two cannot coexist in answering a question, ""

Faith will take you nowhere, stick with science.

If you like you can claim God gave you intelligence to find the answers with science