Can Science and Religion Co-exist Peacefully?

Catchfire wrote:

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.

I agree. It's the only part I miss. And I deeply resent the fact that singing, in our society, has become a spectator activity rather than a participation one.

All right, since everyone asked nicely, I will reprint a meditation from the Unitarian church in Montréal. I can co-exist quite peacefully and scientifically with this:

Quote:

For Israel and Gaza

Meditation by Rev. Diane Rollert, 11 January 2009

This day I am awash
in the rivers of sadness.

Oh God of Abraham,
Oh God of Ibrahim,

Why have you forsaken your children?

Why have you left defenceless children
to grow up in a rain of bullets and bombs?

How can anything bloom in such darkness?
How can you let your ancient love
become justification for war?

We sit down by the rivers of Babylon and we cry
as we remember Zion and Palestine.

We sit on this side of silence,
helpless, angry, frightened for a world
whose future hangs in the balance;
Hanging by a thread of sanity so thin
in a place so small,
ready to brake at any moment
And leave us all falling, falling. 

My dreams are small.
My prayers are small:

Just food, water, shelter,
songs and lullabys for the smallest child,
a peaceful place
where a mother can rock her child to sleep
knowing they will wake in the morning alive
to the rhythm of life
without sirens or shattered news.

Freedom and security,
the simple hospitality of one stranger welcoming the other
Of strangers waking to bless the rising of the sun
with gratitude.

Peace, may we say to each other
and bring only the best to share,
to heal the wounds of centuries.

Please tell me it is not too much to ask.
Please tell me it is not too late.
For my children are your children
and our people are one.

Build us no borders,
No countries,
No homelands,
No shrines.
Build us peace.

Shalom.  Salaam.  Amen.

[url=http://www.ucmtl.ca/2009/01/for-israel-and-gaza.html#more]The Unitarian Church of Montreal web site.[/url]

@ Unionist

Yes, I know those are ideals that could also be approached from a secular and atheist perspective.

On the other hand, I prefer to let groups define themselves, and if they say they are a religious community I take them at their word.

<half joke> though personally, I'd make an exception for the Scientologists, who are  doing it for the tax breaks </half joke>

And besides, from what I hear from friends of mine many United Church congregations are similar, and they have a pretty solid Xian pedigree. Same thing for Quakers, some Anglicans, and various congregations in a lot of churches.

Also, I don't mean to insult your judgement, but knowing your position on religion I think you might be discounting the importance of the distinctly spiritual aspect for some of these people.

And again, there is nothing inherently religious about the actions of torturing and burning people at the stake either, yet we (rightly so) tie those actions to the religious and political groups which are responsible for them.

By the same token, if someone feels compelled to do good works out of a feeling of spiritual conviction we can't cherry pick that either.

(edit)

And I cross posted with you. Good prayer (or lamentation) . I will be sure to look at that website.

Brian White wrote:

Science can  never prove the existance or non existance of God or Gods.

It doesn't have to.  The burden of proof is on the religious believers.

What do you make of the argument that theology should be cut off from the university?

I wasn't referring to religious studies.  A friend of mine put it very well:

"I'm religious and I agree with Dawkins on this one. Most theology departments aren't really even run or funded by the universities with which they are affiliated anyway. Cut the cord, I say.Of course I feel the same way about other anti-empirical, special interest advocacy, social engineering departments like Business. Religious studies: yes; Theology: no; Economics: yes; Business: no.

I'm sick of the idea that departments dealing with, for instance, women and gender are routinely under for a non-existent advocacy agenda while Theology and Business get a free pass."

Unionist wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Unionist #43

Well I won't be coy. They were Unitarians.

Ok. I thought so. I like Unitarians, and I've attended events at the Unitarian church here (the oldest one in Canada).

Here are their principles:

Quote:

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations 
affirm and promote:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

  

Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth 
in our congregations; 

A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process 
within our congregations and in society at large;

The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

Respect for the interdependent web of all existence 
of which we are a part.

If that's a religion, then I'm a monkey's nephew.

Oh wait a sec...

Actually you are a more or less hairless ape, or a hairless tail-less monkey. And we Unitarians are more likely to describe ourselves as a religion but not a faith.

Almost as if I ordered it, Ancient Gods are everywhere!  Guess we should all convert to multi God religions.

(and we should probably turn off those broadcasts to space now too).

Gods are not necessarly friendly

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11888362

1 December 2010

'Trillions' of Earths orbit red stars in older galaxies

The only reason why you might think you need religion is because you need to be part of a social group. Go help out the food bank, it's a way better allotment of your time.

Policywonk wrote:

I find it interesting that morals or values haven't come up.

I have mentioned it a couple of times as something which anti-religious people tend to ignore (the positive values, anyway). And when I did so it was jokingly suggested that I might be drunk.

I didn't want to get into it as a justification for religion because one doesn't require religion to learn to be a better person, but that is certainly the reason why some people follow a religious philosophy. It is also the reason why religious people have been a part of many campaigns for positive social change.

And in the case of the British campaign to end slavery, it was the equivalent of our modern religious fundamentalists who spearheaded the campaign. So annoying and destructive as they can sometimes be, they also get it right on occasion.

trippie wrote:

The only reason why you might think you need religion is because you need to be part of a social group. Go help out the food bank, it's a way better allotment of your time.

Some religions organize severe weather shelters and not all of those proseletize.

Before this winds down, I should also recommend Stephen Jay Gould's book The Hedgehog, The Fox, and the Magister's Pox: Mending the gap between science and the Humanities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hedgehog,_the_Fox,_and_the_Magister's_Pox

It's not all about science vs. religion, but there is plenty that is relevant to the interaction between the two ways of thinking.

(edit) 

... and my browser seems to be breaking that link, anyway. Do a search on it an you will find it.

@ absentia. 

Put that way, I agree with you completely. I did not understand that you were making that distinction.

At least you didn't quote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Maybe there is a middle way?

Quote:

Aspirin doesn't work any less well if accompanied by a prayer, and if it makes the headache sufferer feel better in the meantime, what's the harm?

That it won't be long before that headache sufferer starts to become insufferable. Depending on their inclination, they might understand that the aspirin took away their pain, and leave it at that, but there's an unfortunately substantive chance that they'll believe it was mumbling homilies that did it, and that's when their intellectual sweater begins to unravel.

Quote:

If you forbid people to believe what you disagree with, because it might harm them in the long term - or for any other reason -  what are you?

Humankind has had a notoriously difficult time forbidding people to believe things, and I'm not interested in taking up the fight.

I'd much rather just point out that some things just aren't worth our belief. We can all agree on that, yes? How many people really believe that Zeus literally seduced Leda in the form of a swan? And how many believe that God literally appeared to Moses as a burning bush? If the first is just an amusing fable or fictional allegory, what about the second?

Notwithstanding the good old days of religion, when even uttering a few words of atheism was a ticket to being murdered, when has it ever been difficult for an atheist to get some traction for their views?  It's usually not all that difficult, when there's no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of something, to say that that something probably doesn't actually exist.

That's what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is:  proof of how easily people will agree that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist.  Even the folk who truly believe that Jesus made a dead man reanimate have difficulty with the FSM.  How do their imaginations just suddenly crap out like that?

With the new story of science, the atheists world of material reductionism has become a lot smaller while a universe of possibilities has become even larger than infinite if one can imagine. More room for spaghetti monsters today than in Thomas Huxley's time in the sun.

Scientists of the Royal astronomers once said that man would never cross the Atlantic in ships. They said we might as well dream of flying to the moon, it was that silly an idea. About 30 years later there were trans-oceanic steam ships. Scientists have been guilty of dogmatism and small mindedness, too.

So did the Romans, But the richest and most corrupt Romans only paid lip service to them. The marble busts of Jupiter etc were nice to look at and more symbols of personal prosperity than anything else. Today we have McMansions and snappy cars to make us feel like the gods of capitalism are smiling on us same thing. It won't last.

Okay, but let's not pretend that the ancient Greeks didn't believe in the Gods of ancient Greece.  It wasn't an allegory for them any more than Gonesh and Vishnu are allegories for Hindus.