« Previous entries · Next entries »
July 29, 2007
Posted at 9:00 am by Richard and tagged arthur-c-clark, church, conflict, interpretation, myth, religion, science, technology, war. Popularity: 19% [?]
What is with the resurrected war between science and religion?
I must admit, I used to think that science and religion were natural enemies. How can something that relies on faith not be in direct opposition to a practice which specifically relies on reason and evidence? The thing is, it wasn’t always like that, and to some it still isn’t. Of course, there are those who choose to create conflict, but conflict isn’t necessary. Historically, science grew from the church. The first scientists were clergy, and scientific research was sponsored by the church. The church wanted to understand God’s world, and science was one of the ways they tried to do that.
Before I really began looking into things myself, I thought that the only rational scientific view could be that God (as always, I use the term very loosely) does not exist. But there is so much magic in the universe that we can’t help but feel insignificant in it. Even if the universe does exist due to a cosmic fluke, that’s still pretty darn amazing and if we could ever truly understand that, I think that would be on par with a religious experience.
Arthur C. Clark’s famous quote “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” seems to be true not only of technology as we know it, but also the natural world around us, which possibly explains why many seem to believe the only option is that this world was created by a “sufficiently advanced being”. As our science advances, we discover more and more things that seem like magic - we continually discover new exciting things that seem completely unreal and magical. The quantum world, for example - even the greatest scientific minds still can’t fully grasp what happens in our world on a quantum level. As time goes on, our science progresses, and we understand these things differently, but that doesn’t make them any less amazing. While I accept that both science and spirituality/religion have limits to what they can explain, they both seem to be striving to understand this same magic.
Can’t science be a path to God? If God exists in all things (as is often claimed), then by understanding the world around us through science, we could begin to understand God. Sure, the God we might find wouldn’t be Yahweh, Allah or Jesus - but some parts of the bible have to be interpreted as metaphor, right? 
Further Reading:
Permalink
Share This
Posted at 10:31 am by del.icio.us and tagged atheism, beer, bible, catholicism, christianity, debaptism, fundamentalism, google, humour, jesus, language, Links, map, mashup, mathematics, movies, pacifism, religion, spoilers, war, wwjd. Popularity: 36% [?]
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
Permalink
Share This
July 14, 2007
Posted at 10:35 am by del.icio.us and tagged atheism, biology, creationism, design, evolution, feuerback, god, hegal, history, humour, islam, kant, koran, Links, marx, osama, pascal, philosophy, proof, religion, science, sex, stupidity, terrorism, usa, violence, virgins, women. Popularity: 36% [?]
Here are some of the sites I’ve been looking at recently, that I wanted to share:
Permalink
Share This
July 12, 2007
Posted at 2:33 pm by Richard and tagged atheism, belief, christianity, church, definitions, evangelism, religion. Popularity: 14% [?]
Here’s a concept I hadn’t come across before - an irreligious Christian. The post at DeConversion centres around the quote from an apparently irreligious Christian:
“Christianity is not about a religion… Christianity is about a relationship…” I even recall myself saying, on probably more than one occasion, “I’m not religious, I’m a Christian.”
While “Thinking Ape” claims this person is being dishonest about their religion, I think it is (at least in principle) possible to distinguish between the two. Religion, according to one definition is “an institution to express belief in a divine power”. By this definition, perhaps “the church” and “religion” would be synonymous. My major gripe with religion has always been the institution associated along with it - sure, the beliefs are almost certainly delusional as well, but the beliefs alone (in my view) don’t cause any harm. It’s for this same reason that I disagree with organised atheist evangelism.
For me, the first step away from religion (although I was never raised in a particularly religious family) was when I rejected organised religion. I was inclined to think that, while the beliefs may have been true, the institutionalisation and control from the Church was problematic. An irreligious Christian would, I imagine, reject the various denominations of Christian churches, like I did. They would also not necessarily accept the interpretations of any one denomination, and would (hopefully) be more open to semi-rational thought.
I say, good on them. Sure, it’s not ideal, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.
Link: I’m not religious, I’m Christian (DeConversion)
Permalink
Share This
Posted at 12:57 am by Richard and tagged christianity, humour, jesus, mohammed, philosophy, religion, socrates. Popularity: 10% [?]
I thought Jesus and Mo was a perfect combination to highlight the illogical nature of religion, but I was wrong - who could pick apart Christianity better than Socrates?
It’s a long read, but it seems to sum up Christianity quite well. A small snippet to tempt you:
Socrates: If God created man’s eyes, legs and mind, he also created man’s desires; all his desires, even his desire for knowledge and sex. Why did man sin?
Jesus: He sinned because of his weaknesses and his evil nature.
Socrates: Who created man’s nature?
Jesus: God.
Socrates: It seems to me that you Lord God has merely created man to watch him suffer. This business of Satan, the Garden of Eden and free will is merely a facade. God merely wanted an excuse to harass, persecute, torment and oppress mankind. If an all-powerful and all-knowing being creates everything, and allows his creations to react in a certain way, he actually intended them to act in that way and is solely responsible for the results.
Link: Socrates Meets Jesus
Permalink
Share This
« Previous entries · Next entries »
Posts
