DiscussMormonism.com

I use the terms "science and religion" as what is generally accepted here, as I understand that both science and religion are non-conscious entities. But there is an idea that religion hates science, but I've never seen it this way.

There are science communities and religious communities, and in my experience, the science communities are constantly trying to invalidate religious belief. They go through great pains to disprove religious beliefs, such as did Jesus walk on the water, did Moses part the Red Sea, etc.

It seems to me that the science community thinks that if they can disprove these commonly accepted ideas that religion would simply die. And so they, the science community are constantly poking fun at the religious folks for believing things that perhaps are obviously untrue.

I consider this disrespectful. If religion is pushing back at science community, I don't see it as hateful. It's more defensive. Many non-religious scientists would destroy religion completely if they could. Perhaps it's a vengeance for happened to Copernicus, but what about what the science community did to the witches and healers of the Dark Ages? They literally made it a death penalty for women to study and practice medicine, which led to the Black Plague and allowed the use of sugar to invade the European Nations.

But science is the one most threatened in this conflict. People survived fairly well without advanced science. Now, the science community does what they claim is wrong with religion, and that is force their will upon the people.

Point is, the science community is the hostile one here. Religious use and love science as a rule, but they want freedom to believe whatever and science community simply isn't going to allow that.

But, I'm here to stand for religion. Moses called the creation of the universe as well as Steven Hawking, within context. Now, the science community is backing away from the Big Bang, but 20 years ago anyone that didn't accept the Big Bang was a heretic. The idea that the universe is an illusion, perhaps consciousness based is in the discussions now. I've heard several of worlds top physicists admit that some greater power obviously organized the universe.

Anyway, to the idea that if hate or disrespect does exist in this relationship, I think it's the science community that is being aggressive and rude.

SPG wrote:Perhaps it's a vengeance for happened to Copernicus, but what about what the science community did to the witches and healers of the Dark Ages? They literally made it a death penalty for women to study and practice medicine, which led to the Black Plague and allowed the use of sugar to invade the European Nations.

Umm, no. That was the religious community who burned supposed "witches" at the stake, not the scientific community.

But science is the one most threatened in this conflict. People survived fairly well without advanced science.

Umm, no they didn't. Infant mortality was sky-high, people generally died far, far sooner, and cholera, polio, and smallpox were rampant.

Now, the science community does what they claim is wrong with religion, and that is force their will upon the people.

No they don't.

Moses called the creation of the universe as well as Steven Hawking, within context.

Moses didn't do any such thing.

Now, the science community is backing away from the Big Bang, . . .

No it isn't.

I've heard several of worlds top physicists admit that some greater power obviously organized the universe.

No you haven't.

Dr. Shades wrote:Umm, no. That was the religious community who burned supposed "witches" at the stake, not the scientific community.

They used the church, that is true, but it was the efforts of the kings and merchants that supported "doctors of science" to take over the healthcare system of Europe so they could import sugar, something the witches resisted.

Umm, no they didn't. Infant mortality was sky-high, people generally died far, far sooner, and cholera, polio, and smallpox were rampant.

They still lived, laughed, loved, had sex, and died. We do it a little better, but it hasn't changed much. People still die, still suffer, are killed, etc.

No they don't.

Yes they do.

Moses didn't do any such thing.

Moses is credited with the first 5 books of Bible, my scholarly findings imply that he and his Egyptian traditions wrote the "in the beginning. . . . . ."

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

No you haven't.

Have too.

SPG, this framing of rather complex issues seems to be a compulsion for you. Maybe you should look inward to see why this is so. These strange cartoons of "science" and "religion" are about something else.

Maksutov wrote:SPG, this framing of rather complex issues seems to be a compulsion for you. Maybe you should look inward to see why this is so. These strange cartoons of "science" and "religion" are about something else.

I'm not sure how to even respond to this. Of course everything is about something else.

SPG wrote:I'm not sure how to even respond to this.

We know how you feel...

SPG wrote:

Maksutov wrote:SPG, this framing of rather complex issues seems to be a compulsion for you. Maybe you should look inward to see why this is so. These strange cartoons of "science" and "religion" are about something else.

I'm not sure how to even respond to this. Of course everything is about something else.

As Dr. Shades has pointed out, you've invented a completely fictional "history" of science vs religion, in my opinion to justify some resentment you have towards science. You feel science is persecuting religion. For the most part science is ignoring religion because it's focused on other things. There are scientists who study questions that impinge on religion and some of their findings are not complimentary towards the religions. And so the affected parties squawk. But the study of the universe continues despite the protestations of this preacher or that. As it should.

Xenophon wrote:

SPG wrote:I'm not sure how to even respond to this.

We know how you feel...

Justice.

Maksutov wrote:As Dr. Shades has pointed out, you've invented a completely fictional "history" of science vs religion, in my opinion to justify some resentment you have towards science. You feel science is persecuting religion. For the most part science is ignoring religion because it's focused on other things. There are scientists who study questions that impinge on religion and some of their findings are not complimentary towards the religions. And so the affected parties squawk. But the study of the universe continues despite the protestations of this preacher or that. As it should.

Science, as a science, is innocent. It's the self righteousness of some atheists that try to use science as a method to attack religion. Einstein wasn’t exactly religious but still seemed to believe in God. Newton and many other ground breaking scientists were both scientific and believed in God. I personally adore science and fiction, both have valid roles in reality.

I'm not saying that the atheist science communities are inhuman, just rather immature. Religion has been making outrageous claims for a long time. Sort of like Paul Bunion and his Ox named Blue, after being humiliated moved North and to this day Blue's wild eyes cause the northern lights. The story tells of something real about the decline of northern loggers. But of course, the story is BS.

So atheist scientific thinkers feel like if they prove 40' tall Oxen never existed that they are doing the world a favor. But they are missing the point. It was never about giants or big beef. It was about how mechanical industrial systems ended the rough and tough northern loggers.

Same with religion. It's not about God as it is about man's effort to understand his destiny. I don't know if you have watched many people die, but for me, I'm convinced it doesn't end at death.

My uncle is approaching his last few days of life. Though he shed religion a long time, even taught against it, his last few days have been filled with affirmation for all things his old religion gave him. The love that people had for him and that he had for them seem to be all that matter. This is a common pattern in my experience.

SPG wrote:Same with religion. It's not about God as it is about man's effort to understand his destiny. I don't know if you have watched many people die, but for me, I'm convinced it doesn't end at death.

My uncle is approaching his last few days of life. Though he shed religion a long time, even taught against it, his last few days have been filled with affirmation for all things his old religion gave him. The love that people had for him and that he had for them seem to be all that matter. This is a common pattern in my experience.

Yes, I've seen people die. I've held them in my arms in their final moments. But it had nothing to do with God or a life beyond. It was a person dying whom I loved. I couldn't stop it, I didn't want it, but my reaction was not to suddenly believe in things I knew to be impossible. My reaction was to hurt and grieve. And then to comfort those around me who also hurt and grieved.

I accept that I have a beginning and an ending. I don't have to like it. But it makes sense, and I am not so special that I need to occupy eternal space in the universe. I exist on a finite planet that can't sustain my old ass forever. So at some point I need to die and make room for someone else. That's how I got here and how the next generation will, too. We won't mind being dead. You'll never know a moment in which you're not alive. It's the worry about it beforehand that stresses people. And much of it is unnecessary.