This question was posed on another forum, and a lively debate ensued. However, i found the responses less thoughtful and incisive than i would have liked, and bet myself that progressive Canadians would handle the subject better.
Can Science and Religion Co-exist Peacefully?
Sat, 2010-11-27 10:19
#1
Can Science and Religion Co-exist Peacefully?
Sat, 2010-11-27 11:12
#2
Religion and religion can't even coexist peacefully.
Sat, 2010-11-27 11:17
#3
Nor can science and science when the circumstances are wrong.
I think the real question is can PEOPLE co-exist peacefully.
Sat, 2010-11-27 11:42
#4
Nor can science and science when the circumstances are wrong.
Give me an example where rival scientific theories have led to civil strife or war or segregation or hatred or unwillingness of people to socialize and marry and play and go to school and work in the same factory and live in the same neighbourhood.
Sat, 2010-11-27 14:20
#5
@ Unionist
My point was actually that religion, science, politics can all be vehicles for hatred and discrimination. It ultimately comes down to the people making the decision to hate or not.
And in drawing the science parallel, I was actually thinking of Sabin and Salk, Edison and Tesla, or any one of a number of rival technologies and theories.
But to go with the paradigm you are setting up, I think a lot of hatred and discrimination - in particular the racism and segregation you mention - has used science or the pretense thereof: racial theories, intelligence and abilities tests, eugenics, and euthanasia (read: murder), and development and education (read: destruction of culture).
There have also been pseudoscientific attempts to apply scientific theories to the social realm, for instance the notion that it is natural for certain societies to replace others, by whatever means, or that culture and tradition can be interpreted in the same way as a genetic trait.
We could also look at examples of technologies that have been put on ice in order that profiteers can benefit from less efficient technology. There are quite a few examples of this in energy and transportation - from generation and storage systems to vehicles.
Or the alternative - a less efficient and more corporate-controlled technology is forced to replace perfectly sound, and usually more sustainable traditional technology. Since a lot of the latter example has been used to "revolutionize" agriculture and medicine, I would guess that a fair bit of death and suffering has resulted from it, and given the narrowing of the gene pool that we are seeing in many of our staple crops, I think there may be a fair bit more death to come.
The patent and copyright wars are the latest example of profits being put ahead of efficiency.
Again, the bulk of this is not fake science against real science; it is just science that can be used for profit against traditional and open source technologies.
And finally, war and technology have always been a vicious circle. Most of our greatest inventions came from war, but the cost has always been more escalation and more death. Whether it is the horse, wine, the cannon, gunpowder, seagoing vessels, the long bow, steam, the rocket, nuclear power, or the internet. A leap in rival technology has almost always led to imbalance and overcompensation, and greater suffering.
(edit)
To use just one example, what was the U.S. Civil War about if not a technological imbalance? From the perspective of some if was a moral and religious campaign to free the slaves. To the federal government it was a campaign to maintain the union. But to the south it was nothing other than a struggle against superior and more advanced industrial technology, and a legal attempt to outlaw the technology (barbaric and racist, but a technology nevertheless) - human slavery - they used to run their primarily agricultural economy.
Sat, 2010-11-27 15:22
#6
Both the Catholic and Anglican Churchs support the theory of evolution nowadays.
Pope Nazinger is even down with the use of condoms.
And some babblers might even be shocked to know that the Vatican's chief astronomer says that we are probably not the sum total of crowning glory in all of the universe. Pat Robertson wouldn't approve of that idea, and neither would former televangelist Jerry Falwell.
I think that the modern low and high church beliefs could work in combating religious fundamentalism. I'm not sure what the Churchs stances are on the illegal and immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Apparently they are as silent about illegal wars today as when the Nazis were on the rampage.
Sat, 2010-11-27 15:22
#7
Not a bad answer, 6079. But no. Science, politics, etc. can be "vehicles" for anything at all. I can even imagine science being used to create a powerful bomb that could kill 100,000 people in one blow!
I can also imagine religion being a "vehicle" for something good. Like, convincing people that God wants them to love each other.
But without being a real big expert on the subject, I don't think that what I just said tells the actual story.
Religion has primarily enshrined two things: 1. ignorance of reality; and 2. hatred of others. I'm sure it has been used that way deliberately. But even without that deliberate and conscious manipulation, I think its essence gravitates toward deception and division.
So can science and religion coexist? Of course they can - they always have. Can they do so peacefully? It's like asking whether human beings can coexist without strife. There is no war between science and religion. I think the question is a little off base.
Sat, 2010-11-27 16:16
#8
Yes, the question is off base. You're completely right about that, Unionist.
Some people seem to regard religion and science as autonomous entities with lives and volition of their own, rather than as products of the human mind. The people who were discussing it in this way are USian, and i wonder whether their attitude is a result of the recent political rift there. It seems to me that politics pervade the way we think about everything.
That's kind of why i don't agree with you about religion. Ignorance and hatred are part of the political agendas which also commission scientists to create weapons of genocide. The real - we might say original, pre-institutional, spiritual - role of religion was to express our wonder and gratitude for the world and life; its roots are the same as those of music and mathematics. I don't think we can be human without that feeling... Of course, i'm not sure we can ever be altogether at peace within ourselves.
Sat, 2010-11-27 16:24
#9
@ Unionist
Agreed. That's why I said it really comes down to people. It's not like philosophies and scientific methods get angry, after all. They are just ways of thinking. And despite the obvious discrimination and dogma in some religion, and to a lesser degree some science, the actual conflict comes down to our thinking, our prejudices and our priorities.
Sat, 2010-11-27 16:34
#10
i think the intersection of religion and science is that religion makes attempts to answer what are ultimately scientific questions in a very primitive way. religion was the pre scientific way of asking questions about the world in some ways. The problem with religion is that it really can't evolve like science, which leads to strife between people for obvious reasons. sure, people try (like the vatican accepting evolution) but it's more an attempt to keep the religion relevant than any real effort to progress.
on the other hand, both science and religion can lead to massive violence. but the two together are REALLY dangerous. put high tech weapons in the hands of someone who thinks there is a wonderful after life waiting for them, or that they can carry out some gods wishes and you are in trouble.
Sat, 2010-11-27 17:53
#11
Le T
Western Science, which is what most people are thinking of when they construct the dichotomy of science vs. religion, is a religion. Dogmatically believing that only empirical data exist is as much of an unsubstantiated leap of faith as believing in some diety (which is usually what people mean by "religion" when they construct the aformentioned dichotomy). Not only this, but erasing all of human knowledge that was created outside of post-Enlightenment Europe (or with the tools created by this small group of humans in this tiny flash of time) is just as ignorant and violent in my opinion as any religious crusade or war.
Give me an example where rival scientific theories have led to civil strife or war or segregation or hatred or unwillingness of people to socialize and marry and play and go to school and work in the same factory and live in the same neighbourhood.
Off the top of my head...
The burning of witches in Europe
The Residential School System in Canada
The Human Genome project
The pattening of life
Banning hunting and fishing because of competing views of conservation science
Sat, 2010-11-27 18:03
#12
Hi, Le T, good to see you.
Sat, 2010-11-27 18:04
#13
I think the problem of the last 30 years has been more an intersection of politics and religion. 9/11 actually began at a time when Zbigniew Brzezinski and the CIA were snookering the Sovs into Afghanistan. [url=http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7zs6x_al-qaeda-doesn-t-exist-documenta... doesn't exist - part 1[/color][/url] video
Sat, 2010-11-27 18:20
#14
Western Science, which is what most people are thinking of when they construct the dichotomy of science vs. religion, is a religion.
Why do you say that? Religion is based on faith and tends to disregard empirical evidence, unlike science. Calling science a religion seems a bit confusing.
Sat, 2010-11-27 18:35
#15
@ Le T
Very good points.
I think the anti-religious people make a mistake however, when they take religion down to belief in unsubstantiated claims, and its dogma and oppression. If that were all there was to it, religion would have been gone long ago. It retains its power - even greater than political power - because of its ability to transform, comfort, sustain and heal. You can't really hold religion and science up to each other because they relate to different parts of our experience. That is why religious people really go wrong when they treat scripture as a literal description of reality, or when anti-religious people dismiss faith outright because creationism is just hokum. For instance, I think, regardless of what scriptures say the point of a religious discipline not the taboo (that pork or wine are inherently evil) at all, but the discipline itself.
In fact, I think the whole notion of religion (or even the "western" approach to science) being good or bad doesn't show the whole picture. A good friend of mine said these powerful forces are actually two-edged swords, and that the more power something has, the greater its power to help or kill (actually he was speaking specifically about sacraments, and he said that any one of them - wine, tobacco, food, water, sex - can save you or kill you, depending on how you use it).
I remember hearing a similar saying that the greater a thing is, the greater its capacity for good or evil. Not sure of the source, but I think it is a more accurate way of looking at these things.
Sat, 2010-11-27 19:03
#16
@ Le T
Very good points.
I think the anti-religious people make a mistake however, when they take religion down to belief in unsubstantiated claims, and its dogma and oppression. If that were all there was to it, religion would have been gone long ago. It retains its power - even greater than political power - because of its ability to transform, comfort, sustain and heal.
A falsehood that is comforting is still a falsehood. It might please us to think that clouds are made of cotton candy but that doesn't make it so.
Sat, 2010-11-27 19:04
#17
Mixing politics with religious fundamentalism hasn't been very good for tens of millions of women in Central Asia in recent history either. [url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/466.html]How U.S. destroyed progressive secular forces in Afghanistan[/url]
The revolutionary regime set up extensive literacy programs, especially for women. It printed textbooks in many languages—Dari, Pashtu, Uzbek, Turkic and Baluchi. "The government trained many more teachers, built additional schools and kindergartens, and instituted nurseries for orphans," says the country study.Before the revolution, female illiteracy had been 96.3 percent in Afghanistan. Rural illiteracy of both sexes was 90.5 percent.
Sat, 2010-11-27 19:09
#18
I think the anti-religious people make a mistake however, when they take religion down to belief in unsubstantiated claims, and its dogma and oppression. If that were all there was to it, religion would have been gone long ago. It retains its power - even greater than political power - because of its ability to transform, comfort, sustain and heal.
Sounds a lot like alcohol.
Sat, 2010-11-27 19:36
#19
Western Science, which is what most people are thinking of when they construct the dichotomy of science vs. religion, is a religion. Dogmatically believing that only empirical data exist is as much of an unsubstantiated leap of faith as believing in some diety (which is usually what people mean by "religion" when they construct the aformentioned dichotomy). Not only this, but erasing all of human knowledge that was created outside of post-Enlightenment Europe (or with the tools created by this small group of humans in this tiny flash of time) is just as ignorant and violent in my opinion as any religious crusade or war.
Sorry I must have missed something. I was under the impression that the dark ages played a large part in promoting widespread illiteracy throughout much of Western Europe. Paper making originated in Egypt and China and eventually percolated into Europe by the 16th century. Some historians credit trade with Muslim countries for paper making being introduced to Europe and proliferating after the printing of the Gutenberg bible.
Give me an example where rival scientific theories have led to civil strife or war or segregation or hatred or unwillingness of people to socialize and marry and play and go to school and work in the same factory and live in the same neighbourhood.Off the top of my head...The Residential School System in Canada
I believe the federal Government in Ottawa also played a large part in enabling residential school system. After WW II, they tied child support money to school attendance. It was a case of no school attendance no money for impoverished FN families.
Sat, 2010-11-27 19:39
#20
How about we get to the real question?
Can religion survive science? The answer is no.
Why is it, that this subject keeps coming up here at Rabble, the home of the Canadian PROGRESSIVE left?
Why don't you kill it once and for all. Religions are based on old philosophies, that have long since pasted their due date.
Maybe you should be asking, why do the bourgeoisie help propagate religious myths?
Sat, 2010-11-27 20:04
#21
Religious leaders were the first scientists actually. Tribal shamans were the first investigators of the unknown. They used hallucinogens, drums and meditation to get in touch with the spirit world where imagery and symbolism first influenced art and culture, architectural ideas and so on. Today we have ancient tribal medicine men and women to thanks for sex, drugs and rock and roll.
And if we read modern science today, it appears that the rift between religion and science seems to be re-merging somewhat with atheist scientists like Larry Krauss suggesting that the new science seems to be validating old notions of the metaphysical. "Spirit worlds" and other worlds in general aren't all that fantastic according to modern science. Is Richard Dawkins right and seven old world religions wrong? What is the truth? Perhaps all of us everywhere are in search of the same truths.
Sat, 2010-11-27 20:34
#22
Le T
Religious leaders were the first scientists actually. Tribal shamans were the first investigators of the unknown. They used hallucinogens, drums and meditation to get in touch with the spirit world where imagery and symbolism first influenced art and culture, architectural ideas and so on. Today we have ancient tribal medicine men and women to thanks for sex, drugs and rock and roll.
This is inacuarate, Eurocentric and colonial.
Maybe you should be asking, why do the bourgeoisie help propagate religious myths?
The same reason that they propogate scientific myths, hegemony and power.
Sat, 2010-11-27 20:47
#23
Fidel:
Mixing politics with religious fundamentalism hasn't been very good for tens of millions of women in Central Asia
It's not all that great for the US, either. Or anybody. In fact, mixing it into politics is what turned religion into a force for evil in the first place. We can maybe grow out of superstition and belief in impossible things, but we can't get rid of the part of humanity that needs to dream and feel awe. We can make ourselves less than human, but can't ever become perfect Vulcans. Come to think of it, even Vulcans can't.
Sat, 2010-11-27 21:23
#24
@ Doug
@ Unionist
What is a falsehood? Is 1 Corinthians 13 a falsehood? It doesn't matter if you are athiest or not. The words seem pretty true to me.
Ridicule and dismiss it if you wish, but there is nothing rational about ignoring a power which exists, and much of the real power of religion has nothing to do with creationism or transubstantiation or even belief in a God.
Sat, 2010-11-27 21:27
#25
Religious leaders were the first scientists actually. Tribal shamans were the first investigators of the unknown. They used hallucinogens, drums and meditation to get in touch with the spirit world where imagery and symbolism first influenced art and culture, architectural ideas and so on. Today we have ancient tribal medicine men and women to thanks for sex, drugs and rock and roll.This is inacuarate, Eurocentric and colonial.
Yes it's [url=http://www.shamanicstudies.net/schamanismus/index.asp]very European[/url]
Since the West overwhelmingly lost its shamanic knowledge centuries ago due to religious oppression, the Foundation’s programs in core shamanism are particularly intended for Westerners to reacquire access to their rightful spiritual heritage through quality workshops and training courses.
Our political and religious leaders here in the far west told native people in this hemisphere long ago that their ways and beliefs were worthless. And centuries worth of cultural genocide and even physical elimination of indigenous people later, their cultural ways are making a comeback. There is still much work to be done in reversing the long term effects of federal Liberal and Tory policies for Canadian apartheid. And political parties like NDP and civil society groups are working hard to achieve a mdoern democracy in general in Ottawa as exists in European countries, like Germany and Austria, home to the Shaman Studies Institute.
Maybe you should be asking, why do the bourgeoisie help propagate religious myths?The same reason that they propogate scientific myths, hegemony and power.
Yes I think I do understand why cultural genocide of "Indians" in this hemisphere took place over a number of centuries. And I am willing to attribute blame where deserved with the Church as well as those two political parties and other representatives of the rich who have monopolized federal power in Canada's Parliament and that abomination of modern political science referred to as the Senate since Confederation and even before that. But I think laying all of the blame for centuries' worth of imperialist maneuvering at the feet of the Church is bad history. We should always ensure that those deserving of significant credit for cultural genocide of indigenous people receive their fair share.
Sat, 2010-11-27 23:26
#26
Perhaps, the problem with this question is that it really depends on what strand of religion we're talking about. For instance, I don't think the Religious Right can co-exist with (certain) science ('evolution is just a theory, teach creationism/intelligent design in the classroom!...., climate change is not real because it isn't in the bible!"). Of course, there are perhaps certain types of science that the Religious Right can get behind ("we need science to build better weapons"), but I think there will be an inherent conflict between the Religious Right and certain forms of science.
On the other hand, the little I know about the Religious Left, suggests that they accept the findings of modern science as legitimate, so I don't really think there would be a much of a conflict. (Where's the conflict? What's the conflict?).
BTW, I'm an atheist, I find the concept of 'God' as quite silly, God is as meaningful to me as the 'tooth fairy' is (as I think on the Simpsons, a character goes "God is my favourite fictional character")....Nonetheless, I think there might be a tendency to group too many things under the aegis of 'religion'. Religion is a highly differentiated species.
Sat, 2010-11-27 23:36
#27
Yes, science for deadlier and more destructive WMD in order to kill more women and children!!
But not when it comes to medical science. Then the kids born into poverty and illness can all go straight to hell in a hand bag, because Ned Flanders doesn't think playing God is a good thing.
Acshully, I think aspiring to be more like God is a good thing. I think God would feel validated in knowing that his kids are taking up his vocation in life. Like the bible thumpers say, there is a spark of divinity in each of us. Why not play it up a little and go for it?
Sun, 2010-11-28 00:26
#28
@ Doug
@ Unionist
What is a falsehood? Is 1 Corinthians 13 a falsehood? It doesn't matter if you are athiest or not. The words seem pretty true to me.
Yes - more than true, they're beautiful - as is much else in literature and poetry. But I see nothing in them that smacks of "religion". If you know of a religion that preaches and practises those words, let me know.
Ridicule and dismiss it if you wish, but there is nothing rational about ignoring a power which exists, and much of the real power of religion has nothing to do with creationism or transubstantiation or even belief in a God.
If you'd like to define religion as (for example) love for people, awe before nature, yearning for a better future, caring for the planet - then sign me up.
Ok?
I will then agree to only loathe and despise those religions which preach or practise deception, hatred, and division. Let me know when you'd like a list.
Sun, 2010-11-28 00:30
#29
Perhaps, the problem with this question is that it really depends on what strand of religion we're talking about.
To a degree, though as an example you only have to look at Roman Catholicism and you will find every belief under the sun, from far right to far left, tolerant and intolerant, by the book and laissez faire, creationists and those who recognize scientific findings, capitalist, fascist, communist and everything in between, including those who are so far to the right that they observe the pope's sovreignty in name only, and believers who are condemned by church dogma, yet still consider themselves fervently catholic.
Sun, 2010-11-28 09:22
#30
Acshully, I think aspiring to be more like God is a good thing. I think God would feel validated in knowing that his kids are taking up his vocation in life. Like the bible thumpers say, there is a spark of divinity in each of us. Why not play it up a little and go for it?
Lovely! Have you read Tom Harpur? Particularly The Pagan Christ. He upbraids the Christianists for taking religion too literally (something we atheists are so often accused of) as history and dogma, rather than metaphor - a celebration of the divine spark in man.
Sun, 2010-11-28 09:29
#31
Perhaps, the problem with this question is that it really depends on what strand of religion we're talking about.
To a degree, though as an example you only have to look at Roman Catholicism and you will find every belief under the sun,
That's because the Roman Catholic church, in its firs thousand years of political power, gobbled up all the pagan cults of Europe - and maybe borrowed a bit from south and east, from wherever the Roman empire had brought back slaves and mercenaries, war brides and traders. It's still Eurocentric; still quite different from the far eastern and new world religions, but certainly more accommodating and interesting than the latest US version of protestant.
Sun, 2010-11-28 10:29
#32
Boom Boom
The Anglican Church of Canada still has a ways to go. Here in the Diocese of Quebec, for example:
"The Bishop has stated that the performing or blessing of same sex unions is not to done by clergy in this diocese."
In fairness to our bishop, though, he can not change this rule except through the will of the diocesan synod, which has debated this issue and hasn't reached a consensus on changing it (yet). I expect it will take clergy breaking the rule (and risk losing their positions) to force the issue back on to the agenda.
Sun, 2010-11-28 10:55
#33
@ absentia
I agree completely. To be clear, I am not trying to justify catholicism or say that it is a good thing - only that it is a very complex group of things, some of which are very powerful, and not all of which are entirely bad.
And to seriously talk about whether it should exist or not is high-order foolishness. It exists, and if it weren't in the form of catholicism it would be in simpler forms like amway, the secret, AA, Oprah, flying saucers or lottery tickets.
Sun, 2010-11-28 11:32
#34
autoworker
I don't think that pure science (reason) can be reconciled with religion (belief), because the former is dispassionate, while the latter is emotional. However, religion often employs applied science (technology) in the sevice of its own rationalization and propogation. Are our brains hard-wired for religion? Can this be scientifically proven?
That said, religion can, however be a bulwark against the misuse of science; as when earlier progressives, with their 'social gospel', fervently eschewed Darwinian theory that was put in the service of justifying social and economic hierarchies.
I think the question should be: should Science exist witout Ethics?
Sun, 2010-11-28 11:59
#35
I don't know about the brain being hard-wired for religion... or anything, really: it's quite a malleable organ. But i do know that reason and emotion have always coexisted - and need to. People have no trouble changing moods and modes: we have sentimental engineers and creationist dog-breeders and lyrical astronomers; we can be loving and angry, practical and poetic, sad and optimistic, even at the same time. The human mind is large enough to contain great variety and contradiction.
What i think has happened - the crime i think has been committed - is that a society is being forced to choose sides. Decent, science-oriented atheists and god-fearing men of good will ought to be on the same side against the exploiters. The exploiters have divided us into armed camps, exiled the intellectuals, replaced the natural social innovators with puppet-masters.
Sun, 2010-11-28 12:03
#36
Le T
I don't think that pure science (reason) can be reconciled with religion (belief), because the former is dispassionate, while the latter is emotional. However, religion often employs applied science (technology) in the sevice of its own rationalization and propogation. Are our brains hard-wired for religion? Can this be scientifically proven?
"pure science" as reason? "religion" as belief? I think that this discussion suffers from a lack of clear definitions. This idea that "science" is dispassionate or objective is totally false. It is just as steeped in the politics, emotions and worldview of the society that uses it as any religion.
Again, the belief that the world is only empirical, that we must disregard what we cannot sense or measure, is as fanatical a belief as any other. The fact that people try to replace "religion" with "science" or set up this competition shows me that they are in fact two sects of the same institution.
Sun, 2010-11-28 12:19
#37
Again, the belief that the world is only empirical, that we must disregard what we cannot sense or measure, is as fanatical a belief as any other.
Science doesn't preach that. It maintains that we must study and pay close attention to what we cannot sense or measure, so that we can emerge from our state of ignorance and come to understand.
For example, we can't sense the beginning of the universe - and of course at one time we couldn't measure any aspect of it. Religion responds by making up morally uplifting (or downputting) stories and, too often, suppressing, ostracizing, incarcerating, torturing, or killing those who don't agree.
Science, on the other hand, spends lots of time and effort seeking to understand that event, reproduce aspects of it, theorizing, drawing conclusions, in ways that can be validated and agreed upon by other researchers of different cultures, different faiths, different ways of life.
Sun, 2010-11-28 12:28
#38
"pure science" as reason? "religion" as belief? I think that this discussion suffers from a lack of clear definitions. This idea that "science" is dispassionate or objective is totally false. It is just as steeped in the politics, emotions and worldview of the society that uses it as any religion.
Again, the belief that the world is only empirical, that we must disregard what we cannot sense or measure, is as fanatical a belief as any other. The fact that people try to replace "religion" with "science" or set up this competition shows me that they are in fact two sects of the same institution.
Once again, I don't think that's a useful way of thinking about it. Scientific theories are subject to empirical testing, while religion is (these days) mostly based on faith and makes few (if any) empirical claims. I think lumping them together confuses multiple issues.
The reason that people might want to discuss how they relate is that religion used to be more willing to make empirical claims, but has retreated to faith because there's less risk of being proven wrong.
Sun, 2010-11-28 13:47
#39
How about we get to the real question?
Can religion survive science? The answer is no.
Why is it, that this subject keeps coming up here at Rabble, the home of the Canadian PROGRESSIVE left?
Why don't you kill it once and for all. Religions are based on old philosophies, that have long since pasted their due date.
Maybe you should be asking, why do the bourgeoisie help propagate religious myths?
I actually got up and went to a church this morning - one of a handful of times that I have done that since I was a kid.
I didn't hear anything about torturing, killing, correcting my thoughts and my base impulses, or obeying the word of a god. I can think of plenty of other places that have nothing to do with religion where I am told much more frequently that I am wrong, and should change what I do and think.
I would suggest that those who think religious philosophies are past their due date might want to take a look at some of the progressive people who are doing social justice work right alongside them.
And I neglected to mention in my last post (where I closed with a thought about irrational beliefs), that sometimes spiritual belief can play an important role in someone becoming a better, stronger and more compassionate person. It's not the only way, but for some people it works.
But I forgot.... science thread.
Actually we can not only sense the beginning of the universe, we can hear it (the cosmic background radiation) and measure it (the temperature of deep space, which is a few degrees above absolute zero).
I would suggest that someone who thinks science and religion cannot co-exist is probably right, and that someone who can balance the two ways of looking at the universe and human nature is probalbly right also.
Sun, 2010-11-28 13:53
#40
What did you hear in church today, 6079?
Sun, 2010-11-28 14:11
#41
What did you hear in church today, 6079?
Some thoughts about the upcoming climate strategy meeting in Cancun, and on those people throughout the world who are paying the price for our extravagant way of life.
An address about the things people can do to sustain and take care of themselves, to balance looking after one's self and working for the good of community and family.
Words of thanks for all the good things we have in our lives.
A mention in opening and closing that their common purpose was to help make the world a better place, and that all who felt they wanted to be there were welcome no matter what their beliefs or doubts.
There was a money collection. Half of it went to an important project in our city to set up a food store, clinic and library in a part of town where those services do not exist.
I'm not religious, nor am I into the social aspect of church, so I don't plan to make it a regular thing. But I think it can't hurt to go and see with my own eyes what we are talking about, and it seemed like a pretty good place to me.
Sun, 2010-11-28 14:25
#42
Catchfire
I think the worst thing about the decline of religious services in society is that people no longer have a reason to stand up and sing with each other in chorus. Not only is nobody learning how to sing anymore (or, more accurately, that they can sing, because everyone can sing, they just need to be taught the words); but that oceanic moment of singing together, shoulder to shoulder with your friends, family and neighbours is a wonderful thing--and it's disappearing. My musically-challenegd father-in-law told me about a dream he had where he was on his death bed. As his life slipped away from him, he had the happy thought: "There is no cause for sadness. I am going to heaven: and in heaven, I'll be able to sing." Isn't that a parable for the revolution?
I went to see Howard Zinn's Marx in Soho in Vancouver last weekend--it was a great, uplifting performance, but by a country mile, the best moment was at the end of the play when the entire audience stood up and spontaneously burst into a chorus of the Internationale. To my shame, I didn't know the words (but everyone I was with went home and taught themselves the lyrics). The actor, who had just finished his curtain call, came running back in with his fist held high, singing along. It was pure magic.
It's one of the reasons I think karaoke is the path to socialism.
Sun, 2010-11-28 14:38
#43
N.Beltov
On that note, a pretty decent baritone singer, now deceased, advocated a theory called "two magisteria" in regard to the relationship between science and religion. While I don't, ultimately, agree with the perspective it does make for some interesting reading.
Check it out over here. The author's name was Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002).
Sun, 2010-11-28 14:47
#44
Thanks, 6079. More questions:
What was it about the morning you described that qualifies as "religion"?
Sun, 2010-11-28 15:49
#45
Acshully, I think aspiring to be more like God is a good thing. I think God would feel validated in knowing that his kids are taking up his vocation in life. Like the bible thumpers say, there is a spark of divinity in each of us. Why not play it up a little and go for it?
Lovely! Have you read Tom Harpur? Particularly The Pagan Christ. He upbraids the Christianists for taking religion too literally (something we atheists are so often accused of) as history and dogma, rather than metaphor - a celebration of the divine spark in man.
I've read a few of his books but not that one. I've listened to him speak on Heaven and Hell. He's very spiritual. His book on life after death is a good one, especially the chapter, New Light From Science.
Sun, 2010-11-28 15:51
#46
Singing is one of the ways religious communities affirm their communion. And that's something a common faith (or world-apprehension, if you prefer) does better than any other bond that i know of. Possibly, this feeling of connectedness to one's neighbours could be achieved in other ways (Maybe we could invite Gareth Malone to organize choirs in Canada. That be cool!) and i've certainly come close to that feeling on a bus full of demonstrators... singing. Nobody asked, getting on the bus, whether you were a believed in a god or were a stalwart atheist: it was enough to believe in social justice.
Sun, 2010-11-28 15:58
#47
Tom Harpur....I've read a few of his books but not that one.
There was a documentary on it - not very satisfactory, all in all, but the thing i recall most vividly is the succession of prelates, saying "He's wrong." No explanation, no refutation - just, "He's wrong."
Sun, 2010-11-28 16:28
#48
It's one of the reasons I think karaoke is the path to socialism.
Hahaha. Too true. I think a certain Ms. Goldman said something similar about dancing.
Sun, 2010-11-28 16:30
#49
I think Harpur has his own personal inquisition dogging his every utterance. Some of the things they accuse him of are pretty lame, too.
Sun, 2010-11-28 17:02
#50
@ Unionist #43
Well I won't be coy. They were Unitarians. I would think their describing themselves as a religious community, and that their concern is both personal welfare as well as social welfare, that they are open to people expressing their good intentions for the world from a spiritual prespective makes them a religion.
I think I understand where you are going. I recognize that good works and self-care are not by definition religion, and that they can happen in a secular way. On the other hand, for rsome people it is spiritual, and that is just how it is.
As well, I don't completely divorce slaughter, injustice and oppression from the religions that are used to justify them. I don't think we should do that with good works either.
I mis-spoke ealier. I have actually been to quite a few religious ceremonies. It is just that I have only been in Christian church services two or three times in the last 20 years. I have to say that if I had to choose, I would be drawn to something with more symbolism than an all-inclusive religion like Unitarianism. But that's just me, and from my perspective I think it is wise to recognize friends when we see them, take allies and good works where we can get them.
(edit)
But I should also say that as big a tent as I think Catholicism is, I don't trust the hierarchy of that church one bit. Not too long ago they had a hospital taken away from them in our province because they were opening patient records to see who had had tubal ligations. I wouldn't trust them to take over dogcatching duties.
Sun, 2010-11-28 19:07
#51
I think that music and human soul and the cosmos are connected. Our mind's and the works of our hands are the source of all human creativity and "wealth" and not machines. Money is not the source of wealth either, whether it's paper money, coins or created artificially by usurous banksterism and credit card companies as imaginary numbers stored in computers. The human mind and form are divine creations. And the blueprints were there all along for scientists to unravel and learn from and allow us to rise up from our lowly status in the universe. It's high time that we throw off our shackles of insect-like imperial rule and become the star people we were always destined to become. We are all star dust and share an important connection to the cosmos. Indigenous people around the world have always known it to be the truth.