410 réponses à ce sujet

[Illegitimus]

It is fine if just believing, there is a difference between just believe in religion and become a devout religious person. Anyone can claim believing in God or higher power, but do they really following the doctrine and dogmas of their religion? In reverse any religious person may claim to accept what science and technology can offer, but are they really accept it as the whole? There will be a point where belief will clash with reasoning, everyone will use own justifications toward it.

 

Let say, the life support machine failed, the patient dead. How you view on it? The person dead because of the machine failed or because God take the person life? You may say "it is God's will" or you may say "the machine failed", or you say "it is God who make the machine failed"...so what you say? You blame God or you blame the machine?

 

One notes that Dragon Age is not a setting in which God is a micro-manager.  The Maker is perfectly content to let people pick their own time of passing with their mistakes and misfortunes.  

[Heimdall]

It is fine if just believing, there is a difference between just believe in religion and become a devout religious person. Anyone can claim believing in God or higher power, but do they really following the doctrine and dogmas of their religion? In reverse any religious person may claim to accept what science and technology can offer, but are they really accept it as the whole?

Yes. Religion isn't rigid, despite what some fundamentalists believe. It can be adapted and evolve to suit the needs of the times and the individual. Dogma and doctrine aren't the be all end all of it. Studying the ways African American Slaves in the US adapted Christianity to suit their needs in defiance of their masters' teachings is actually the subject of the thesis I'm writing.
 

Let say, the life support machine failed, the patient dead. How you view on it? The person dead because of the machine failed or because God take the person life? You may say "it is God's will" or you may say "the machine failed", or you say "it is God who make the machine failed"...so what you say? You blame God or you blame the machine?

I would blame the manufacturer of the faulty machine or the hospital staff that allowed it to fall into disrepair. Then I would console myself over the loss by accepting that I may see that person again one day in the afterlife, and that they are in better place.

Believing in a higher power does't mean you need to believe it's the only reason anything ever happens.

[AlanC9]

It is fine if just believing, there is a difference between just believe in religion and become a devout religious person. Anyone can claim believing in God or higher power, but do they really following the doctrine and dogmas of their religion? In reverse any religious person may claim to accept what science and technology can offer, but are they really accept it as the whole? There will be a point where belief will clash with reasoning, everyone will use own justifications toward it.

That dependson the religion, doesn't it?
 

Let say, the life support machine failed, the patient dead. How you view on it? The person dead because of the machine failed or because God take the person life? You may say "it is God's will" or you may say "the machine failed", or you say "it is God who make the machine failed"...so what you say? You blame God or you blame the machine?

Those two views are not in conflict in the first place, unless in your religion God's running around fiddling with stuff all the time. Not all religions require that. That always struck me as an awfully silly way for God to handle things, but since I don't have any religious faith in the first place this isn't a serious topic for me.

How'd we get onto religion, anyway? In Thedas magic and religion are almost unrelated.

[X Equestris]

How'd we get onto religion, anyway? In Thedas magic and religion are almost unrelated.

Because the OP's premise is that religion/magic and science must always be diametrically opposed, and thus the introduction of gunpowder would make magic obsolete, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Qis]

Yes. Religion isn't rigid, despite what some fundamentalists believe. It can be adapted and evolve to suit the needs of the times and the individual. Dogma and doctrine aren't the be all end all of it. Studying the ways African American Slaves in the US adapted Christianity to suit their needs in defiance of their masters' teachings is actually the subject of the thesis I'm writing.

 

Religion is opium for the mass...in certain amount it will destroy, in certain amount it will bring happiness...religion is a tool for control. Science is a tool for progressing our life. Religion what control it. too much science will also destroy.

 

Religion set up morality, compassion, eternal justice, a way to escape, hope. Science provide what we need to live. Which will be the dominant force? Extremism in either side will destroy, mixing both side will nullify each other.

 

 

I would blame the manufacturer of the faulty machine or the hospital staff that allowed it to fall into disrepair. Then I would console myself over the loss by accepting that I may see that person again one day in the afterlife, and that they are in better place.

Believing in a higher power does't mean you need to believe it's the only reason anything ever happens.

 

That is your own view and justifications on what happen.

[Heimdall]

Religion is opium for the mass...in certain amount it will destroy, in certain amount it will bring happiness...religion is a tool for control. Science is a tool for progressing our life. Religion what control it. too much science will also destroy.

Uh huh, I'm sure you think so. It sounds like you think every religion revolves around being slaved to a preacher's words. Not all religions are like that. More importantly, you seemed to have missed my whole point about people adapting religion to suit their needs. Case in point, slavemasters in the American south taught their slaves that God wanted them to be obedient. They took Christianity and created a their own understanding, a God that would see that would see them to freedom after their tribulations. Slaves risked whippings and even death to attend prayer meetings in secret. It was a source of strength and community among the slaves.

Does that sound like opium to you?

Yes, religion can be used as a social control but no more so than a secular ideology like nationalism for example, and it is much more than just a means of control.

And you've still yet to prove why science would destroy it. Numerous examples have been given of science and religion being quite harmonious.

Religion set up morality, compassion, eternal justice, a way to escape, hope. Science provide what we need to live. Which will be the dominant force? Extremism in either side will destroy, mixing both side will nullify each other.

That is your own view and justifications on what happen.

You asked for my view, so I gave it.

I for one am quite comfortable with having both in my life. Science helps me make deductions and better understand the workings of the physical world. Religion connects me to my family, my community, offers emotional solace and morale guidance. I don't find these things to be in conflict.

[Andraste_Reborn]

When you are seriously mix science with religion, you become like them, crazy and kill yourself

 

http://topdocumentar...rous-knowledge/

 

There are limits in everything, of course you can be a scientist as well a religious person, but one of the two will be your dominant attribute, if you level both, you will bang your head on the wall.

 

While 'why are so many brilliant mathematicians mentally ill?' is an interesting question (see also: John Nash) I don't think that link provides any evidence that it has anything to do with an inner conflict between religion and science. Were Boltzmann and Turing even religious in the first place? It's generally accepted that Turing's suicide had more to do with being chemically castrated by his own government than with mathematics.

 

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people with bipolar disorder, paranoid schizophrenia and major depression on all sides of the skeptic/believer divide.

[Qis]

Uh huh, I'm sure you think so. It sounds like you think every religion revolves around being slaved to a preacher's words. Not all religions are like that. More importantly, you seemed to have missed my whole point about people adapting religion to suit their needs. Case in point, slavemasters in the American south taught their slaves that God wanted them to be obedient. They took Christianity and created a their own understanding, a God that would see that would see them to freedom after their tribulations. Slaves risked whippings and even death to attend prayer meetings in secret. It was a source of strength and community among the slaves.

Does that sound like opium to you?

 

Yes, you know that addicts dare to do anything to get their drugs? Same here

 

 

Yes, religion can be used as a social control but no more so than a secular ideology like nationalism for example, and it is much more than just a means of control.

 

I agree, but religion is always political, it is true even today. Religion is not just about belief, or what you are believing in, it is the way of life, the only way to achieve it is through politic, through secular means. That's why in ancient time kings/caliph/raja/emperor are always "chosen by God/Allah/Dewa/heaven/the sky...ect", even today most Christians believe "God bless USA" and the POTUS was chosen by God.

 

Religion by it's nature is political, and can only move through secular means. Do you think religion is just a matter of belief? No, and it is proven historically and even today. In other way, ideologies are just ideas. Ideologies don't really need political movements or secular means to progress. You may agree or disagree with any ideologies, you don't really need to move politically to achieve, to make the idea into reality. Religion always do. What you called as "secular laws" and whatever laws are all comes from religion, secular and religion clings on eachother.

 

 

And you've still yet to prove why science would destroy it. Numerous examples have been given of science and religion being quite harmonious.

 

There is no harmony between the two, there is always struggle. Harmony only comes when one of each value become dominant without being extreme. It is like Yin Yang, two opposing forces always struggle to dominate, they will never mix but they will always exist. If one of the value is in total control, it break the balance. If they mix, they break the balance too. What do you believe about balance?

 

A balance is not about equality, being equal doesn't mean balance....

 

 

You asked for my view, so I gave it.

I for one am quite comfortable with having both in my life. Science helps me make deductions and better understand the workings of the physical world. Religion connects me to my family, my community, offers emotional solace and morale guidance. I don't find these things to be in conflict.

 

Well, good for you...

 

I am religious myself if you want to know, i am not an atheist. I just don't support or oppose something based on sentiments. I am a realist.

[Heimdall]

@Qis

A realist would base their opinions on evidence, as I have done. Not wallow in stubborn denial in the face of it as you have done.

When I was younger I bought into the myth as you do that science and religion were inherently at odds, but my study of history hasn't born that out at all, as evidenced by the examples of this thread.

[Qis]

@Qis

A realist would base their opinions on evidence, as I have done. Not wallow in stubborn denial in the face of it as you have done.

When I was younger I bought into the myth as you do that science and religion were inherently at odds, but my study of history hasn't born that out at all, as evidenced by the examples of this thread.

 

A realist see things without sentiments and look at things not just on face values.

 

I am not young, i am near 40, i have my own experiences, studies...and wisdom...i see science and religion by it's own nature are opposing values, it just people have justifications.

[Qis]

If you need science to backup what you believe in, then you're lack of faith, or your faith is not strong enough. If you use religion to backup your theories and reasoning, then it is not science.

 

If your faith is strong, you don't need anything to back it up, you don't need to proven anything, you simply believe. Why you need evidence to prove whatever you want to believe in is true? Does God need any evidence for His own existence? Does God need you to prove His existence?

 

In other way, if you put what you believe into your theories and reasoning and call it a fact, that is not science. You can't say God create lightning, that is how lighting is created and that is a fact. "God create this and that" is your own belief, other people may believe in different God, and some God don't create lightning.

 

See what i mean?

[Heimdall]

If you need science to backup what you believe in, then you're lack of faith, or your faith is not strong enough. If you use religion to backup your theories and reasoning, then it is not science.

If your faith is strong, you don't need anything to back it up, you don't need to proven anything, you simply believe. Why you need evidence to prove whatever you want to believe in is true? Does God need any evidence for His own existence? Does God need you to prove His existence?

In other way, if you put what you believe into your theories and reasoning and call it a fact, that is not science. You can't say God create lightning, that is how lighting is created and that is a fact. "God create this and that" is your own belief, other people may believe in different God, and some God don't create lightning.

See what i mean?

Not at all, I don't see why a higher power couldn't have created a world where the lightning could be explained by electrostatic discharge. Electrostatic discharge is a fact. That a higher power created the rules that make it possible is a belief. One can accept both and acknowledge the difference between them.

Again, science isn't a religion. It's just a methodology. Nobody has to make a choice between science and religion because they fulfill totally different functions in society and unless you're a literalist there's no reason they need to be in conflict.

Science just helps us understand the workings of the world. That is all. It doesn't require religious faith be abandoned to employ it in studying natural phenomena.

You keep positing a false either or situation "you can believe God did it or science did it." They aren't necessary. I don't have to believe a scientific explanation and the existence of a higher power are exclusive, because there's no reason a higher power couldn't have crafted the workings of the universe that make that explanation possible. You seem to, but that's on you.

[Heimdall]

A realist see things without sentiments and look at things not just on face values.

I am not young, i am near 40, i have my own experiences, studies...and wisdom...i see science and religion by it's own nature are opposing values, it just people have justifications.

Ignoring evidence to the contrary when it doesn't suit your "realist" view doesn't speak highly of your "wisdom".

[MyKingdomCold]

 

See what i mean?

 

No

[AlanC9]

Because the OP's premise is that religion/magic and science must always be diametrically opposed, and thus the introduction of gunpowder would make magic obsolete, despite all evidence to the contrary.

So the OP's setting up dopey premises. Makes sense. But really, we should just keep attacking the premises.

[AlanC9]

A realist see things without sentiments and look at things not just on face values.
 
I am not young, i am near 40, i have my own experiences, studies...and wisdom...i see science and religion by it's own nature are opposing values, it just people have justifications.

The problem is that you don't have a coherent argument for why science and religion are opposed, or even a coherent definition of science. And when people point this out, you get mad and assume that we!re not listening. But we are listening; that's how we know that your arguments are nonsense.

[Gothfather]

Science and magic have been mixed in fantasy literature for a LONG time. You may not LIKE it but that is a subjective opinion and doesn't actually result in science ruining magic when they mix.

 

As for religion vs. science I am not touching that with a 10 foot pole except to say Newton and Einstein the two greatest physicists the world has ever know both were theists, so doesn't that prove the OP doesn't actually know what he is talking about?

[Qis]

Not at all, I don't see why a higher power couldn't have created a world where the lightning could be explained by electrostatic discharge. Electrostatic discharge is a fact. That a higher power created the rules that make it possible is a belief. One can accept both and acknowledge the difference between them.

 

Some God in some religion don't create lightning, God in your religion maybe, but there are religion that have God for certain creation, and some God just create the frame and then don't care what happen afterward, and there are also God that don't create anything

 

Saying "God create this and that", is not a fact, not science. You believe your God create this and that

[Qis]

Ignoring evidence to the contrary when it doesn't suit your "realist" view doesn't speak highly of your "wisdom".

 

I take that as personal attack, i never attack you personally arent i? I can see here you taking me as your subject of argument

[Heimdall]

Some God in some religion don't create lightning, God in your religion maybe, but there are religion that have God for certain creation, and some God just create the frame and then don't care what happen afterward, and there are also God that don't create anything
 
Saying "God create this and that", is not a fact, not science. You believe your God create this and that

...None of this addresses what I said.

[Qis]

...None of this addresses what I said.

 

Well, your premise is science and religion can get along, i just debunk you

[Dean_the_Young]

I take that as personal attack, i never attack you personally arent i? I can see here you taking me as your subject of argument

 

Possibly because you are arguing poorly.

 

Or in bad faith. But we're giving you credit for that.

[Heimdall]

I take that as personal attack, i never attack you personally arent i? I can see here you taking me as your subject of argument

I'm making an observation about your conduct and pointing out your reaction to anyone poking a hole in your ideas.

If you don't want people to be point out your refusal to actually consider the evidence instead of repeating your ideas over and over, don't post on a public forum. I'm not attacking you, I'm not calling you stupid, I'm pointing out a flaw the way you're engaging in this discussion.

If you want to argue your ideas, you need to address the criticism and evidence that others level against it. You've done none of those things.

[Heimdall]

Well, your premise is science and religion can get along, i just debunk you

All you said was that religion isn't science. That doesn't contradict anything I've said. I've never claimed they were the same.

You're the only one here so convinced that one can only hold one idea without committing suicide.

[vbibbi]

Yes. Religion isn't rigid, despite what some fundamentalists believe. It can be adapted and evolve to suit the needs of the times and the individual. Dogma and doctrine aren't the be all end all of it. Studying the ways African American Slaves in the US adapted Christianity to suit their needs in defiance of their masters' teachings is actually the subject of the thesis I'm writing.
 

OT but that sounds really interesting. Did slaves in the American South meld multiple religions like those in the Caribbean brought over some West African traditions?