That's right, human civilization on this planet is in dire straits these days. It's true that there have been times in the recent and distant past when mankind was suffering, but nothing like today.
The reason why things are so bad now is because of the enormous disparity among the human population of earth. Disparity not only between the haves and the have-nots, but also a great disparity between material and scientific achievements and man's spiritual status. The former places us squarely in the 21st century, the latter finds us in the Middle Ages. The fact of our material progress indicates that we could do better on the social and spiritual front.
So the question is: what can we do as individuals and as a society to bring man's social and spiritual reality up to date? What can we do to bring harmony between science and religion? Clearly we can't just continue as we have been for the past hundred years or so; we would just continue the downward spiral. Nor can we mouth platitudes about peace, cooperation or love. We have to get up off our pews and actually do something.
So my question to you is what, exactly, can we do? What can you do? Let's share some ideas here.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 49
Do you think that we are worse off than those who lived in the Early Middle Ages? Do you think our "times" are worse than when almost half of Europe died as a result of the bubonic plague? What about the 70 million or so people, mostly civilians, who died as a result of World War II? Are we worse off now than during times of widespread war...famine...disease?
"The fact of our material progress indicates that we could do better on the social and spiritual front."
How so?
"What can we do to bring harmony between science and religion? "
Science and religion are not comparable and cannot be harmonious. The effort to unite the two is due to the frustration with the attrition of region because of the advances of science. The more answers science provides for us...the less we need the conjecture of religion.
For example...the debate of creation v evolution has been weakened for the creation side by the gradual realization (in general) that the science of evolution is more likely to be factual than the Biblical account of creation. So in an effort to defend the Biblical account of creation and therefore..the need for a god and ultimately...the "proof" that a god exists...the concept of intelligent design was born.
ID is an effort to maintain the word of the Bible as factual despite overwhelming evidence otherwise....an attempt to blend science and religion...and it doesn't work.
“There is a profound difference between science and religion in its conception of truth. Science requires an open mind, free inquiry, critical thinking, the willingness to question assumptions, and peer review. The test of a theory or hypothesis is independent (or at least one would hope) of bias, prejudice, faith, or tradition; and it is justified by the evidence, logical consistency, and mathematical coherence. Science claims to be universal... transcending specific cultures and replicable in any and every laboratory in the world.” Paul Kurtz "Science and Religion...Are They Compatible" (Prometheus Books)
Scientists can be biased or prejudiced also...but the preconceived notions that scientists hold are subject to the continued investigations that will ultimately yield the truth. In other words...science is a never ending inquest...religion is not.
What you are asking for Thomas...("What can we do to bring harmony between science and religion?") is a method by which religious dogma can be accepted as truths within the standards of science...and they cannot. You are asking for the advancement of pseudoscience... a belief or process which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms. *
* http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
Thomas: The above I think goes to the heart of your question as I see it. We need to re-evaluate how and what we are teaching and to once again get back to crtical thought processes, instead of blindly following dogmatic teaching from either science or religion without any questioning. Life is a process and thus religion and science are a process. There should be no conflict if the process of life were foremost instead of personal or institutional agendas.
In other words...it's not that my view of reality is "off the mark"...what ever that means..it is that you are unwilling to discuss your assertions....which you have presented as "fact" ..period.
You cannot state as FACT that a god exists (your "author" of science and religion). You may offer your point of view as opinion...not as fact....not unless you can substantiate your position that a god exists with verifiable evidence. This does not exist...if it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation (using the term loosely).
You unwillingness to discuss rather than flippantly dismiss my opinions indicates a weak position. You haven't the strength of opinion to defend those opinions.
Here's a further thought of MINE on this subject.
"Science and religion are in complete and total harmony"
Complete and total harmony....
"In and specific case where they are not one of them is wrong. "
Hmmmm...they are in complete and total harmony..but in some cases the complete and total harmony is not complete nor is it harmonious. Sounds contradictory to me.
No... I can't. I can't prove spiritual reality by any means...and neither can you.
Maybe some other time.
You had a great post recently about symptoms and how we should look beyond those to discover what was actually happening. You were absolutely, 100 percent correct in that observation.
" Yes, science has correctly demonstrated that evolution is factual."
Not even close. Why do you repeat such "dogma", if you feel dogma is what needs to be challenged? Oh, I know, you can spout endlessly about what some evolutionists imagine happened, and call that factual information, but hey, phrenology was once respectable science too, and evolution "scientists" will be in precisely their boat, should evolution cease to be an unquestioned "scientific fact", so . . . who's zoomin' who? All such "dragons in the clouds" sorts of speculation based "sciences", are nothing more than guessing games for pay.
You can add all the major anything you like, I understand evolution theory, and I see major flaws in it. I will discuss that stuff, if you can, but I do not care how many people bleat that tune, it's not factual at all. It's what some folks think reasonable to believe happened, and not one in a thousand of those that do, even know what it entails. Fifty billion flies can be wrong ; )
Asked my dentist, but:
1) He doesn't remember practicing in pre-history
2) He was evolving right before my very eyes and was very distracted by it all - he is growing a "Mr. Thirsty" wand where his left ring finger used to be!
-Mark
-Mark
Well, we ate a lot of tough things in the past, and if we ate them now, those teeth would come in pretty handy, don't ya think? Today, dentists are not nearly as gung-ho about pulling them as they once were, and in societies that don't engage in our hyper-tenderized dietary habits, these teeth are not a big problem. Turns out, they tend to have larger more powerful jaws, which those teeth are not so out of place in, very often. Further, the ingestion of various growth hormones and the like, are strongly implicated in various changes in the timing of human development in the "western world", and that could be part of what we see going wrong here. It's not really a slam dunk that these are "evolutionary vestiges", though "micro evolution" could of course be taking place, and playing a part as well.
Regardless, this would not be "evolution" anyway, it would be "devolution", which involves all sorts of potential factors, that do not serve to explain how such teeth were "added" in the first place. It's that "adding" that is extremely difficult to fit into evolution theory. Consider, please; To evolve from truly simple life forms, into something like ourselves, would require literally trillions of "positive" changes in the genetic coding, and we have never witnessed a single such "additive" change, in any mutation ever studied. Not one.
Those gene things ain't like Lincoln Logs, or Erector Set parts. There are numerous safeguards in place in all creatures, precisely to PREVENT stray genetic material from screwing things up, and NOBODY has come up with a plausible explanation for why the very creatures that are the most advanced, and therefor the presumed inheritors of the most positive changes, are also the ones with the most safeguards in place to prevent such things from happening . . .
And, there's lots more cracks in the "factual" wall of evolution, but no time or money is spent by established science, checking that stuff out, for the very reason you spoke of; All the major research institutions are sold, and work only to further cement the belief in whatever way they can. It's a virtual echo chamber, just as one would expect when science turns into a "scientists opinions are facts" charade. The deck is stacked, and the dealers are PROUD of that!
You really ought to check out the end of the Book, it's not exactly a happy one, in terms of the things you mention. No where does the Word speak of "religion" saving the day, and unless you've got some sort of truly magical powers, we can't actually know what sort of nightmares would have occured without religion being around.
In just the last century, over a hundred million human beings were murdered in cold blood, by non-religious zealots of one sort or another . . so, any notion that religion is the big problem, is not really all that historically grounded, is it?
If everybody has their wisdom teeth yanked out, why do we have them in the first place?
Other than providing dentists and oral surgeons with a steady source of income, wisdom teeth are useless to us now, but our ancestors needed them. Primitive human beings ate meats so tough that the extra molars in the back of the mouth aided them in ripping and chewing the flesh. As humans evolved, our brains became larger (well, for most of us) and our face positions moved farther downward and inward. Our protruding jawbones moved backward, making the jaw itself shorter -- hence, no room for those back teeth! Most people's jaws no longer have the capacity to accommodate these teeth and, thank goodness, we don't need them for meat-eating.http://www.almanac.com/question/oneanswer.php?questionnumber=11964
Now I think, teeth or no teeth, everyone should enjoy and share pieces of your chocolate rabbits and jelly beans. Tehn go talk to your dentist who likely took some medical history courses in grad school.
"Certainly, you can see evolution in our universe, in our natural world (plants, birds, reptiles etc.)."
Let's be perfectly clear; I can NOT see evolution in any "world" but my imagination. You may call what you see in there a fact if you wish, but I won't be acknowledging such things as facts.
I am a man of science, and as such, I do not consider what humans merely imagine, to be a factual record of the past. If one assumes evolution, sure, the observable variations of living things can be fitted to that assumption . . . but that in no way eliminates the alternative possibility. You tell me, please; What would you expect to see if the basic kinds were created directly by God?
There is no need for argument ?? or there is no need for discussion? You have declared that Greg's view is the right one...but that does not make his view the right one.
Don't you understand the difference in an OPINION and a FACT?
Greg is willing to have a "lively discussion"...he is willing to engage in an exchange of ideas...which is not necessarily an argument. (But it's great to have a lively, good discussion.) And Greg has raised some very valid points.
I won't add further to what I have said to you...it is clear to me that my input is unwanted...it doesn't support your point of view. But I just can't help pointing out the unreasonableness of a closed minded attitude such as yours.
Let me offer this Thomas....I would be interested in having a discussion with Greg...here in this thread....about the topic at hand. Do you have an objection to this?
I think we have the same problems that we had hundreds of years ago. Everyone is waiting for someone else to make the first move. If we don't learn from history then history repeats itself. As long as the earth is inhabited by billions of people we will always have this problem. Some people will be "good" some of the time, but not all people will be "good" all of the time.
I know that sounds like flapdoodle, but it makes perfect sense in my little ol' head.
The world will never be a peaceful planet.....until after Christ's return. Does it mean that we shouldn't strive to make the world a better place? No, it doesn't mean that at all. It's like knowing that we will never be as good as Jesus, but still we try to be Christ-like because we (some of us) want to be all we can be for HIM.
We can't give up, roll over and play dead. If we do, then what's the point? What's our purpose of being here? We do (every single one of us) have a purpose. I know what my purpose is. Do you? :-)
Good article. Makes people think.
Theology deals with the supernatural while science deals with the emperical.
Are you sure about that Cap?
Would a theologian or an empiricist interpret this passage?:
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. . .
Genesis 1:14
Theology is known as the queen of sciences because it has been thought that the study of God, by definition the source of all truth, informed and illuminated all other branches of knowledge.
-Wiki wiki
-Mark <3
"Do you get the analogy?"
Of course, but that does not mean everyone that dogmatically refuses to consider their opinion less than "gospel truth", so to speak, is in the position of the "round earth" advocates.
Greg spoke of a need to "re-evaluate how and what we are teaching and to once again get back to crtical thought processes, instead of blindly following dogmatic teaching from either science or religion without any questioning." and on that I heartily agree . . . but such words have no real meaning if one means only questioning the dogmatic teachings one personally disagrees with.
Simply declaring a thing inarguable, is not critical thinking.
As far as your questions are concerned, it's not my job to see that people understand how science and religion, or a belief in God, are not at odds. The first reason is what I explained above, and the second reason is that not everyone is capable of understanding, and my chosen profession isn't teaching, anyway. I think I make very important contributions to my community, but raising social conciousness per se, doesn't happen to be my balliwick.
Well said, Greg!
-Mark
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
(I won't believe you though, I have eyes ; )
Very interesting discussion! I can add nothing of substance to it. I've been taught as a child that God created the universe and everything in it but that we don't know what process he used. If he chose to make man out of mud patties and give it mouth to mouth, so be it. However, those who believe that the creator was capable of creating by causing things to assemble by themselves, was powerful indeed, and his doing so in no way diminishes his supremacy.
While I personally agree that religion and science are compatible, I recognize that there can be disagreements of the interpretation of either, leading to strong feelings and arguments. Those who would blind themselves to a reasonable scientific assertion are committing themselves to a theology rather than to God. He could do it however he wished!
Like all the other comments, these are my personal opinions, to which I believe I am entitled, and are not intended to change or persuade anyone differently.