10
   

How can religion exist after Darwin? Is it bound to die?

 
 
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2010 06:47 pm
How can religion exist after Darwin? Is it bound to die?

To my mind, for religionists of all stripe to maintain a faith in a creator God, we, yes we, I an a religionist, we have to throw out most of the science that we have worked hard for 2,000 to gain and learn.

Scientists are putting up and not needing to shut up in all fields of study.
Religionists are not putting up much of anything and yet we will not shut up.

http://fora.tv/2009/11/17/Great_Issues_Forum_What_Is_Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZM3FXlLMug

It seems to me that there are many issues coming to a head where non believers are getting quite peeved with religionists. Even as a religionist, I cannot blame them.

More and more militant secular confrontations of religionists are in the offing as more and more of them get tires of being denigrated and told yhey are going to hell if they do not believe as believers do. I do not blame them as I have been told this quite often by those who do not like my personal beliefs in the Godhead.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/why-religion-should-be-co_b_775163.html

I recognize why religions exist. I can personally see some of the good that churches bring to community.

http://www.canada.com/life/Religion+calms+anxiety+says+scientists/3236785/story.html

I do not like the way they teach of God though if it happens to be a literal reading or fundamental church.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make all believers into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy and magic is evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqGhcwwE1s

I do not look forward to a full secular system but if trends continue and I think they will, my grand children will not be able to believe as they wish because of the damage and ill will that believers are presently creating.

People are getting brighter. Non believers that is.
Not believers. Most seem to not know why they are in religion and I would think that they are there just for the sake of tradition. Traditions that swiftly are showing that they belong to an older time and are dying.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/10/03/2010-10-03_the_unbelieveable_truth_why_america_has_become_a_nation_of_religious_knownothing.html

I believe that if religion is to stop backsliding, it must shed itself of literalists and fundamentals. Belief in magic and fantasy cannot survive in a world where minds are getting brighter. I D has had it’s day in court and until God steps into our time from His out of time position, according to many, then I fear that secularism will shortly win the war for the hearts and minds of the vast majority.

What do you think. The numbers look bad. Most secular morals are starting to show how evil the morals of most Gods are. The number of new literature is coming out against religions and the historicity of Jesus and Moses with back up from Gnostics, Hebrew and Jewish writings and discoveries.

Is there any way to reverse these trends without God actually making an appearance or is religion bound to continue to shrink and die?

Regards
DL
 
Neil D
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2010 08:05 pm
I'm one of those people who believe in the possible existence of a God, but am opposed to religion. Religion has no concrete basis for any of its claims. Most of it is gibberish, and is tantamout to the rantings of a lunatic. Its dangerous. I need not give examples.

Science gives me substance. I could ponder something so far out as gravity being God. Its a varying omnipresent force. Now there's a God-like quality. Well, maybe gravity isnt a force, but its an example of other avenues of pursuit in finding God other than religion.
littlek
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2010 08:12 pm
Religion will do as it always has done: it will evolve.
plainoldme
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2010 08:37 pm
When I was a sixth-grader in a Catholic elementary school, one of my classmates asked our teaching sister whether it was "alright" to believe in evolution. She said as long as you believe that at some point, God breathed a soul into an ape. That was in 1959 and we were 11 or 12. I accepted that explanation then and I still think it gives people who believe in God and/or follow a religion, a backdoor.

Anyone who thinks a belief in God and a respect for science are incompatible, needs counseling.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2010 09:07 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
She said as long as you believe that at some point, God breathed a soul into an ape.


The implausible stories, the ones that the pope was supposed to be infallible on, need to keep being tweaked in order to keep the faithful duped.
Miss L Toad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2010 10:55 pm
@JTT,
I'm just worried about the end of the universe and xmas.
55hikky
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2010 11:48 pm
@Greatest I am,
I LOVE the way you post your question.
Specific, LOADED with proofs of what you mean and how your reasoning come from. I thought I was thorough, but I never put up articles to back up my premises. Not many people do this, and when I ask that they do, most people here will get angry at you and just call you stupid so a little note for you JUST in case you are rather new to this forum.

I am an atheist, and but foster many views similar to yours; literalists are harming themselves, and religion IMO, is great in what they do for communities and churches do many and volunteer work that is so amazing for humanity as a whole on a utilitarian notion. It is sad how some extremists can ruin such institution capable of good-natured acts.

Beyond our views, I think I have an analysis I have seem to agreed upon, so let me hear what you think.
Though you did not require, I will talk a bit about science, since you seem to run on the notion that science is somehow more superior to religion on some aspects that are not specified, so to further our general understanding of it I'll explain my view of science and the materialistic world.

I was a biochem major, if it was not biochem engineering, it is the next most empirical scientific field there is i think, so I hope this wins my credential in criticizing or analyzing the field of science.
My conclusion is; science is severely limited in what it is capable of, and religion becomes perverted with people trying to logically prove the validity of the bible.
So what do I mean by science being severely limited: everything is empirical. This might be difficult to understand for those people who are materialists and have not really contemplated on what there is to life other than what they see and feel and rather build their entire life, understanding, explanation, and "reality" about the notion of "what I see, is." It may seem that science is everything (since most societies were built by, and for upholding this view of reality; education systems, social structure, morals and values)... but it really isn't, and I am JUST becoming to realize this notion after becoming a philosophy major AFTER a biochem major, and learning about spiritual aspects of humans. But to me, science is one of the most overrated genre of life, and our current life proves it (money driven, prejudice, conflict, corruption, oppression, exploitation, anti-semantic, etc. all for what? they want someTHING. this thing is not love, not harmony, not understanding, which are all not what science was made not to accomplish)

And with religion, what I have found out, is that people try to LOGICALLY and DEDUCTIVELY prove the validity of the bible... can you imagine people making science theorems with beliefs? Science requires pragmatic, empirical data and the purity of this data is what makes a more valid theorem, law or equation. likewise, the beauty of religion, in my understanding is in the spirituality; belief, hope, feelings, mourning, altruism, moral, beneficence. Science should stay scientific, and religion needs to stay religious.

Though I am an atheist, I am actually against some of the scientific approach to life, particularly in the aspect that everything is governed by this; desire, belief, and values. We, I feel, by submitting ourselves to material (and consequently money) we are losing humanity, and religion of all kinds, is desperately struggling to sustain the humane, spiritual side of us which include but are not limited to beneficence (by all to all), reciprocity (of care and love), hope (for a good future), faith (in others). Unfortunately this is severely exploited by the few that take it beyond this level. Which is why, I am assuming, religion persists, because there is so much good that arise from the notion, but meet so much negativity due to any acts that breach this parameter and capacity...

also i will finally apologize that I did not read nor watch any of your proofs (links) you have provided, but if my notion is clearly explored or rejected in any of these links, i'd appreciate it if you can just post the link so I can just beat myself to death.

regards,
55hikky
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 02:37 am
The central issue is this : there is no requirement of "a creator" in science.
Theists faced with this "Occam's Razor" argument operate the catch-22 clause that the "rationality" of scientists is "God's gift".
Religion will survive because at the end of the day humans require a psychological buffer against the possibility of the futility of their existence.
MonaLeeza
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 06:08 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Religion will survive because at the end of the day humans require a psychological buffer against the possibility of the futility of their existence

What's wrong with 'the possibility of the futility of existence'? I'm not sure that having no inherent meaning or purpose makes it futile anyway - just being can be quite satisfying. Humans are a very self-important species.
MonaLeeza
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 06:10 am
@Miss L Toad,
Quote:
I'm just worried about the end of the universe and xmas.

Clearly your family isn't as obnoxious as mine.
Greatest I am
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 11:16 am
@Neil D,
Neil D wrote:

I'm one of those people who believe in the possible existence of a God, but am opposed to religion. Religion has no concrete basis for any of its claims. Most of it is gibberish, and is tantamout to the rantings of a lunatic. Its dangerous. I need not give examples.

Science gives me substance. I could ponder something so far out as gravity being God. Its a varying omnipresent force. Now there's a God-like quality. Well, maybe gravity isnt a force, but its an example of other avenues of pursuit in finding God other than religion.


I agree with all except that gravity is considered by science to be a force.
A force it definitely is.

Regards
DL
Greatest I am
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 11:18 am
@littlek,
littlek wrote:

Religion will do as it always has done: it will evolve.


By force it seems.

I E.

http://home.pacific.net.au/~amaxwell/bdigest/bd12bbs.tx

Regards
DL
0 Replies
 
Greatest I am
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 11:21 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

When I was a sixth-grader in a Catholic elementary school, one of my classmates asked our teaching sister whether it was "alright" to believe in evolution. She said as long as you believe that at some point, God breathed a soul into an ape. That was in 1959 and we were 11 or 12. I accepted that explanation then and I still think it gives people who believe in God and/or follow a religion, a backdoor.

Anyone who thinks a belief in God and a respect for science are incompatible, needs counseling.


I agree that any that will ignore 2,000 years of scientific discovery for blind faith without facts need help.

Regards
DL
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 12:03 pm
@MonaLeeza,
MonaLeeza wrote:

Quote:
I'm just worried about the end of the universe and xmas.

Clearly your family isn't as obnoxious as mine.


Both these comments are funny, thank you! A little relief from dry matter.
0 Replies
 
Greatest I am
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 12:08 pm
55hikky

We are about on the same page.
I say it this way. man has two natures. A political nature that looks after the physical. The other is our spiritual nature that pushes hopes and dreams and faith.
As a religionist or spiritual man I have no problem with those who hope and pray that there is something unseen or holy but do not take it to faith without facts.
I became a religionist based on facts and not fantasy.
I cannot prove my apotheosis or Godhead, a cosmic consciousness any more than anyone else can for their Gods and this is why I do not push it or have a dogma to sell. I do not honor or love or give supernatural powers to what I found.
It is the literalists and fundamentals that do the harm and I would like to prune them from religionist ranks. If religion is to survive, they will have to do the same with those extremists.

Regards
DL

0 Replies
 
Greatest I am
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 12:13 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

The central issue is this : there is no requirement of "a creator" in science.
Theists faced with this "Occam's Razor" argument operate the catch-22 clause that the "rationality" of scientists is "God's gift".
Religion will survive because at the end of the day humans require a psychological buffer against the possibility of the futility of their existence.


I agree. We all at some time or other can use a crutch. It is also healthy to have a belief to help ease stress. I just do not like it when otherwise good minds shed logic and reason when the crutch becomes faith instead of hope and their Gods become stagnant pools of old unchanging laws in an evolving world.

Regards
DL
0 Replies
 
Greatest I am
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 12:20 pm
@MonaLeeza,
MonaLeeza wrote:

Quote:
Religion will survive because at the end of the day humans require a psychological buffer against the possibility of the futility of their existence

What's wrong with 'the possibility of the futility of existence'? I'm not sure that having no inherent meaning or purpose makes it futile anyway - just being can be quite satisfying. Humans are a very self-important species.


No argument on your last but for some, that is all they have.
We in the comfortable west forget how lucky we are.
It was not always so and we have to gradually learn as these comforts find all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Try to wonder why these kept praying even after finding that God had abandoned them. Futile perhaps but it is the hope of being wrong that kept them waking up every morning.

Regards
DL
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 02:05 pm
@littlek,
Religion, evolve ???
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 02:07 pm
@MonaLeeza,
Well said, Mona we don't need a god to appreciate and enjoy life.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2010 05:36 pm
@eurocelticyankee,
At least someone saw that.....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » How can religion exist after Darwin? Is it bound to die?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 08:56:28