What do you think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians)? My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at:
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html
The webpage was prepared to generate a discussion. Those who post comments should refer to specific “contributions,” as numbered (or to specific persons, as numbered at the beginning). This will simplify the discussion.
And let us keep in mind that the main topic is peaceful coexistence. Is it possible? Is it desirable? What should we do promote it? etc. .
Ludwik Kowalski (see Googl or Wikipedia)
.
.
.
Science studies things that are, measures their properties, models their behavior and judges its success by predicting behavior and measuring how close reality matches the model. If a better model comes along, then it is scientific practice to use the new model, and the old model is relegated to historical background and for cases where the ease of use of the old model completely outweigh the quantifiable inaccuracies of the older model.
What is Theology?
What is Theology?
Is peaceful coexistence between theists and atheists possible? I think it is. Is it desirable? Yes, it is. What should we do to move toward such coexistence? I do not know. To promote a debate I collected a large number of short Internet statements addressing this issue. The link is:
OOPS, clickable links are not allowed. You must create the URL by yourself. The string in the next line is should be pasted into a browser. But do not forget to remove asterisks, after pasting. I hope this will not be consider spam.
ht*t*p:*//csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.h*t*m
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.
OOPS, clickable links are not allowed. You must create the URL by yourself. The string in the next line is should be pasted into a browser. But do not forget to remove asterisks, after pasting. I hope this will not be consider spam.
ht*t*p:*//csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.h*t*m
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.
QUOTE (kowalskil+)
What do you think about peaceful coexistence between those who study our material world (scientists) and those who study our spiritual world (theologians)?
My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html
Is peaceful coexistence between theists and atheists possible? I think it is. Is it desirable? Yes, it is. What should we do to move toward such coexistence? I do not know.
Professor Kowalski,
Your attempt at writing an essay on this subject failed because it is nothing new. Ian Barbour was credited for igniting the field of science and religion when he wrote his book “Issues in Science and Religion.” I’m assuming that since you are a professor that you are aware of the institutes that focus on this issue.
THE INSTITUTE ON RELIGION IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
Graduate Theological Union
In my humble opinion, the scientists who attempt to mix science with theology are ill-informed on theology. The theologians who attempt to mix theology with science are ill-informed on science. Religion and science are immiscible. Those who think it is compatible are ill-informed and of course, the main concern should be the demarcation problem .
"It is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."
Richard Dawkins
As far as a peaceful coexistence is concerned, we do have a peaceful coexistence, at least in the United States. Atheists do not start violent conflicts or wars in the name of atheism. It is simply a lack of belief. People have the right to believe what they want, no matter how naïve. Atheists permit and defend this right. It is religious people who are less tolerant of other religions that disagree with their own.
If you are referring to living in harmony, free from disputes, or controversy, it is simply impossible. I think the bigger issue here is respect, which religion demands. Atheists respect a person’s right to believe. However, we do not respect the belief itself. All religions want to be viewed as different, esteemed, and held in high or special regard. You can disagree with something and still tolerate it but you cannot respect it. Tolerance is required, and not unreasonable, but to respect the belief is asking too much. They want us to view their beliefs in a positive light and they want privileges that they are not entitled to.
If someone makes a claim, and wishes others to believe it and respect it, then they deserve a response, critical or not. Atheists should accept a person’s right to believe but should not be required to accept the belief itself. Tolerance does not mean that they will not be subjected to ridicule. If ridicule is warranted then so be it.
“I am pleased, but not surprised, that the new survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows that atheists know just as much -- if not quite a bit more – about religion than do religious people in general. The simple truth is this; the more someone knows about religion, the more likely they will reject it as mythology.”
US Religious Knowledge Survey
If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into what you believe? The things most worth reading are precisely those that challenge our convictions.” ~Author Unknown
My attempt to write an essay on that subject failed, as you can see at: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.html
Is peaceful coexistence between theists and atheists possible? I think it is. Is it desirable? Yes, it is. What should we do to move toward such coexistence? I do not know.
Professor Kowalski,
Your attempt at writing an essay on this subject failed because it is nothing new. Ian Barbour was credited for igniting the field of science and religion when he wrote his book “Issues in Science and Religion.” I’m assuming that since you are a professor that you are aware of the institutes that focus on this issue.
THE INSTITUTE ON RELIGION IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
Graduate Theological Union
In my humble opinion, the scientists who attempt to mix science with theology are ill-informed on theology. The theologians who attempt to mix theology with science are ill-informed on science. Religion and science are immiscible. Those who think it is compatible are ill-informed and of course, the main concern should be the demarcation problem .
"It is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."
Richard Dawkins
As far as a peaceful coexistence is concerned, we do have a peaceful coexistence, at least in the United States. Atheists do not start violent conflicts or wars in the name of atheism. It is simply a lack of belief. People have the right to believe what they want, no matter how naïve. Atheists permit and defend this right. It is religious people who are less tolerant of other religions that disagree with their own.
If you are referring to living in harmony, free from disputes, or controversy, it is simply impossible. I think the bigger issue here is respect, which religion demands. Atheists respect a person’s right to believe. However, we do not respect the belief itself. All religions want to be viewed as different, esteemed, and held in high or special regard. You can disagree with something and still tolerate it but you cannot respect it. Tolerance is required, and not unreasonable, but to respect the belief is asking too much. They want us to view their beliefs in a positive light and they want privileges that they are not entitled to.
If someone makes a claim, and wishes others to believe it and respect it, then they deserve a response, critical or not. Atheists should accept a person’s right to believe but should not be required to accept the belief itself. Tolerance does not mean that they will not be subjected to ridicule. If ridicule is warranted then so be it.
“I am pleased, but not surprised, that the new survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows that atheists know just as much -- if not quite a bit more – about religion than do religious people in general. The simple truth is this; the more someone knows about religion, the more likely they will reject it as mythology.”
US Religious Knowledge Survey
If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into what you believe? The things most worth reading are precisely those that challenge our convictions.” ~Author Unknown
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jan 26 2011, 06:55 PM)
If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into what you believe? The things most worth reading are precisely those that challenge our convictions.” ~Author Unknown
I prefer to read articles that confirm my opinions.
I prefer to read articles that confirm my opinions.
That was the point she made, I thought.
So do I, and that leads us to different conclusions. The idea of reading a Charles Krauthammer op-ed is as bad as trying to sit through a Westborough Baptist hate-preach, though, so I'll stick with liberal ideals that I know to be better than phony outrage or trumped-up dismay by liars whose tactics are worse than those they denounce.
Reload, everyone!
So do I, and that leads us to different conclusions. The idea of reading a Charles Krauthammer op-ed is as bad as trying to sit through a Westborough Baptist hate-preach, though, so I'll stick with liberal ideals that I know to be better than phony outrage or trumped-up dismay by liars whose tactics are worse than those they denounce.
Reload, everyone!
QUOTE (Granouille+Jan 26 2011, 10:39 PM)
That was the point she made, I thought.
It probably was. But I was simply pointing out that an "open mind" can be indicative of a severe head injury.
It probably was. But I was simply pointing out that an "open mind" can be indicative of a severe head injury.
QUOTE (Granouille+Jan 26 2011, 02:39 PM)
That was the point she made, I thought.
So do I, and that leads us to different conclusions. The idea of reading a Charles Krauthammer op-ed is as bad as trying to sit through a Westborough Baptist hate-preach, though, so I'll stick with liberal ideals that I know to be better than phony outrage or trumped-up dismay by liars whose tactics are worse than those they denounce.
Reload, everyone!
Donovan,
You have your own forum. Why can’t you stay over there? You don’t contribute anything here. You aren’t even entertaining and I’ve grown tired of you.
You’re a theist. If you think you are capable of presenting your views in a rational and coherent manor then by all means, be my guest. However, if you are here only to call me a cunt or twat in the feedback then you should anticipate being dismissed with little afterthought.
Deb
So do I, and that leads us to different conclusions. The idea of reading a Charles Krauthammer op-ed is as bad as trying to sit through a Westborough Baptist hate-preach, though, so I'll stick with liberal ideals that I know to be better than phony outrage or trumped-up dismay by liars whose tactics are worse than those they denounce.
Reload, everyone!
Donovan,
You have your own forum. Why can’t you stay over there? You don’t contribute anything here. You aren’t even entertaining and I’ve grown tired of you.
You’re a theist. If you think you are capable of presenting your views in a rational and coherent manor then by all means, be my guest. However, if you are here only to call me a cunt or twat in the feedback then you should anticipate being dismissed with little afterthought.
Deb
Well, theologians have a great deal of work studying history, philosophy, ancient languages, anthropology, etc. They're really useful in that regards.
Asking if they study the 'spiritual' is weird. To my knowledge, there're aspects of the 'spiritual' that are testable and explorable - but that's science (e.g., using rituals to invoke feelings of well-being) - and there're aspects that are not testable or explorable. The study of ancient thinkers and spiritual gurus is more a combination of anthropology and philosophy.
So, there's obvious cross-over between religion and science. And there's cross-over between theology and religion.
IMO, there's no conflict between theology and science: there's only cross-culture pollination opportunities. It's only religion that's the problem, and that's only a problem when they make claims that they could not possibly know
Asking if they study the 'spiritual' is weird. To my knowledge, there're aspects of the 'spiritual' that are testable and explorable - but that's science (e.g., using rituals to invoke feelings of well-being) - and there're aspects that are not testable or explorable. The study of ancient thinkers and spiritual gurus is more a combination of anthropology and philosophy.
So, there's obvious cross-over between religion and science. And there's cross-over between theology and religion.
IMO, there's no conflict between theology and science: there's only cross-culture pollination opportunities. It's only religion that's the problem, and that's only a problem when they make claims that they could not possibly know
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jan 26 2011, 06:18 PM)
Donovan,
You have your own forum. Why can’t you stay over there? You don’t contribute anything here. You aren’t even entertaining and I’ve grown tired of you.
You’re a theist. If you think you are capable of presenting your views in a rational and coherent manor then by all means, be my guest. However, if you are here only to call me a cunt or twat in the feedback then you should anticipate being dismissed with little afterthought.
Deb
I don't really care what you think, so stuff it. Call me a "whiskey ***" all you like, drama queen.
I am a deist, by the way.
Dismiss, then. I heard you were selling camel parking in your south 40, is that true?
[Moderator: Suspended 40 days for trolling.]
You have your own forum. Why can’t you stay over there? You don’t contribute anything here. You aren’t even entertaining and I’ve grown tired of you.
You’re a theist. If you think you are capable of presenting your views in a rational and coherent manor then by all means, be my guest. However, if you are here only to call me a cunt or twat in the feedback then you should anticipate being dismissed with little afterthought.
Deb
I don't really care what you think, so stuff it. Call me a "whiskey ***" all you like, drama queen.
I am a deist, by the way.
Dismiss, then. I heard you were selling camel parking in your south 40, is that true?
[Moderator: Suspended 40 days for trolling.]
The thought of giving up god altogether is too difficult for some. They were able to give up the fairytale but they can’t let go of the fairy. They struggle to create some type of relationship between science and religion.
“In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don't talk about reconciling science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it's the most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially powerful.
Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.
And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we're not yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won't magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be without the fog of superstition!”
Science and religion aren't friends
“In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don't talk about reconciling science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it's the most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially powerful.
Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.
And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we're not yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won't magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be without the fog of superstition!”
Science and religion aren't friends
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jan 28 2011, 08:02 AM)
The thought of giving up god altogether is too difficult for some. They were able to give up the fairytale but they can’t let go of the fairy. They struggle to create some type of relationship between science and religion.
“In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don't talk about reconciling science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it's the most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially powerful.
Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.
And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we're not yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won't magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be without the fog of superstition!”
Science and religion aren't friends
It may not be as simple as you imply. Not all religious belief is malignant. Being in a profession where I have seen children mutilated and disfigured, the religious faith of the parents and the child is not only positive in most cases, it is necessary. The parents pray while the child is in surgery. Sometimes the doctors pray with the parents before surgery.
Would you refuse to allow a doctor to operate on your child, if the doctor believed in a god?
It is easy to be tough and arrogant toward religion when everything is going your way. And there are just as many malignant atheists as there are theists.
Religion and science are no more in conflict than religion and football. One can pray to catch the ball, but the actual catching is still up to the receiver.
“In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don't talk about reconciling science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it's the most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially powerful.
Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.
And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we're not yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won't magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be without the fog of superstition!”
Science and religion aren't friends
It may not be as simple as you imply. Not all religious belief is malignant. Being in a profession where I have seen children mutilated and disfigured, the religious faith of the parents and the child is not only positive in most cases, it is necessary. The parents pray while the child is in surgery. Sometimes the doctors pray with the parents before surgery.
Would you refuse to allow a doctor to operate on your child, if the doctor believed in a god?
It is easy to be tough and arrogant toward religion when everything is going your way. And there are just as many malignant atheists as there are theists.
Religion and science are no more in conflict than religion and football. One can pray to catch the ball, but the actual catching is still up to the receiver.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jan 28 2011, 12:36 PM)
Would you refuse to allow a doctor to operate on your child, if the doctor believed in a god?
I'd be more inclined to choose a doctor who knows that the outcome of the surgery is based on his training, skill and concentration to the task at hand than one who believes the outcome is in the hands of a diety.
Arthur
I'd be more inclined to choose a doctor who knows that the outcome of the surgery is based on his training, skill and concentration to the task at hand than one who believes the outcome is in the hands of a diety.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 28 2011, 05:52 PM)
I'd be more inclined to choose a doctor who knows that the outcome of the surgery is based on his training, skill and concentration to the task at hand than one who believes the outcome is in the hands of a diety.
Arthur
Good advice. Next time a child needs emergency surgery I'll look for the closest Children's Hospital of the Avowed Atheists.
Arthur
Good advice. Next time a child needs emergency surgery I'll look for the closest Children's Hospital of the Avowed Atheists.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jan 28 2011, 12:56 PM)
Good advice. Next time a child needs emergency surgery I'll look for the closest Children's Hospital of the Avowed Atheists.
No, but you might want to stay away from Christian Scientists.
No, but you might want to stay away from Christian Scientists.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jan 28 2011, 09:36 AM)
It may not be as simple as you imply. Not all religious belief is malignant. Being in a profession where I have seen children mutilated and disfigured, the religious faith of the parents and the child is not only positive in most cases, it is necessary. The parents pray while the child is in surgery. Sometimes the doctors pray with the parents before surgery.
Would you refuse to allow a doctor to operate on your child, if the doctor believed in a god?
It is easy to be tough and arrogant toward religion when everything is going your way. And there are just as many malignant atheists as there are theists.
Religion and science are no more in conflict than religion and football. One can pray to catch the ball, but the actual catching is still up to the receiver.
Derek,
Atheists have an enormous amount of sympathy. Atheists are not arrogant and unsympathetic. Most people in America are religious and we realize that grief is emotional and not logical. Grief is set in a religious framework.
We truly recognize the finality and devastation of the loss of a loved one. The only difference is that we don’t say things like he’s in a better place, you’re in my prayers, he’s watching you from heaven, he’s with grandma now, or god must have needed him. We can allow them to express their feelings and most of us won’t shush them. We can acknowledge their loss and let them know that their sorrow is justified.
The thought of my loved ones living an eternity in heaven is not comforting to me. Besides, you still have the fearful questions. Does god love them as much as I would? Were they good enough? Did they make it in? Did they play the game correctly? What if they went to hell?
I’m getting ready to attend a funeral this afternoon. He was a deacon in the church. I ran into his wife at dinner last night. I was with him when he was dying. She thanked me for all that I did. I said nothing and only hugged her.
Deb
Would you refuse to allow a doctor to operate on your child, if the doctor believed in a god?
It is easy to be tough and arrogant toward religion when everything is going your way. And there are just as many malignant atheists as there are theists.
Religion and science are no more in conflict than religion and football. One can pray to catch the ball, but the actual catching is still up to the receiver.
Derek,
Atheists have an enormous amount of sympathy. Atheists are not arrogant and unsympathetic. Most people in America are religious and we realize that grief is emotional and not logical. Grief is set in a religious framework.
We truly recognize the finality and devastation of the loss of a loved one. The only difference is that we don’t say things like he’s in a better place, you’re in my prayers, he’s watching you from heaven, he’s with grandma now, or god must have needed him. We can allow them to express their feelings and most of us won’t shush them. We can acknowledge their loss and let them know that their sorrow is justified.
The thought of my loved ones living an eternity in heaven is not comforting to me. Besides, you still have the fearful questions. Does god love them as much as I would? Were they good enough? Did they make it in? Did they play the game correctly? What if they went to hell?
I’m getting ready to attend a funeral this afternoon. He was a deacon in the church. I ran into his wife at dinner last night. I was with him when he was dying. She thanked me for all that I did. I said nothing and only hugged her.
Deb
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jan 28 2011, 07:00 PM)
Atheists have an enormous amount of sympathy. Atheists are not arrogant and unsympathetic.
That is a blanket statement. Apparently you and I don't hang around with the same type of people.
That is a blanket statement. Apparently you and I don't hang around with the same type of people.
Then perhaps, we can agree. Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things.
Have a good day, Derek!
Have a good day, Derek!
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jan 28 2011, 07:51 PM)
Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things.
Sometimes.
Sometimes.
QUOTE (kowalskil+Jan 24 2011, 10:14 PM)
Is peaceful coexistence between theists and atheists possible? I think it is. What should we do to move toward such coexistence? I do not know. Is it desirable? Yes, it is. To promote a debate I collected a large number of short Internet statements addressing this issue. The link is:
OOPS, clickable links are not allowed. You must create the URL by yourself. The string in the next line is should be pasted into a browser. But do not forget to remove asterisks, after pasting. I hope this will not be consider spam.
ht*t*p:*//csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.h*t*m
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.
There will never be coexistance between hard line theists and atheists. At the moment there seems to be some peaceful coexistance in certain parts of the world, but as an example, I can see dangerous (less peaceful) times ahead with theists in the US, who are becoming more and more agressive in their teachings.
One such individual is Pastor Tony Smith (google him) who preaches an ultra conservative and distorted version of christianity, wherein he encourages sinners to be thrown into jail where they should rot and die. I am an extremely tollerant individual and believe in people having the right of choice regarding many things including the right to believe in a god or not, but I would never be tolerant of this maniacs teachings, and I don't think I should tolerate it.
I am willing to tolerate anyone who tolerates my current belief and allows me to peacefully exist without judgment or persecution. I will not tolerate those who dictate to me what they believe is right or wrong. That includes atheists who may be intollerant of my belief as an agnostic ......I do not tolertate such individuals either.
However, I do peacefully coexist and do tolarate even these radical elements on either side of the spectrum, because I need to demonstarte that I am willing to allow them their beliefs in return for them respecting my beliefs. When and if that fails, I become way less tolerant of such an individual.
OOPS, clickable links are not allowed. You must create the URL by yourself. The string in the next line is should be pasted into a browser. But do not forget to remove asterisks, after pasting. I hope this will not be consider spam.
ht*t*p:*//csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theology3.h*t*m
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.
There will never be coexistance between hard line theists and atheists. At the moment there seems to be some peaceful coexistance in certain parts of the world, but as an example, I can see dangerous (less peaceful) times ahead with theists in the US, who are becoming more and more agressive in their teachings.
One such individual is Pastor Tony Smith (google him) who preaches an ultra conservative and distorted version of christianity, wherein he encourages sinners to be thrown into jail where they should rot and die. I am an extremely tollerant individual and believe in people having the right of choice regarding many things including the right to believe in a god or not, but I would never be tolerant of this maniacs teachings, and I don't think I should tolerate it.
I am willing to tolerate anyone who tolerates my current belief and allows me to peacefully exist without judgment or persecution. I will not tolerate those who dictate to me what they believe is right or wrong. That includes atheists who may be intollerant of my belief as an agnostic ......I do not tolertate such individuals either.
However, I do peacefully coexist and do tolarate even these radical elements on either side of the spectrum, because I need to demonstarte that I am willing to allow them their beliefs in return for them respecting my beliefs. When and if that fails, I become way less tolerant of such an individual.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Jan 29 2011, 03:35 PM)
There will never be coexistance between hard line theists and atheists. At the moment there seems to be some peaceful coexistance in certain parts of the world, but as an example, I can see dangerous (less peaceful) times ahead with theists in the US, who are becoming more and more agressive in their teachings.
One such individual is Pastor Tony Smith (google him) who preaches an ultra conservative and distorted version of christianity, wherein he encourages sinners to be thrown into jail where they should rot and die. I am an extremely tollerant individual and believe in people having the right of choice regarding many things including the right to believe in a god or not, but I would never be tolerant of this maniacs teachings, and I don't think I should tolerate it.
I am willing to tolerate anyone who tolerates my current belief and allows me to peacefully exist without judgment or persecution. I will not tolerate those who dictate to me what they believe is right or wrong. That includes atheists who may be intollerant of my belief as an agnostic ......I do not tolertate such individuals either.
However, I do peacefully coexist and do tolarate even these radical elements on either side of the spectrum, because I need to demonstarte that I am willing to allow them their beliefs in return for them respecting my beliefs. When and if that fails, I become way less tolerant of such an individual.
I see your point. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I had in mind futile insulting confrontations. The authors are usually neither scientists nor theologians.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
One such individual is Pastor Tony Smith (google him) who preaches an ultra conservative and distorted version of christianity, wherein he encourages sinners to be thrown into jail where they should rot and die. I am an extremely tollerant individual and believe in people having the right of choice regarding many things including the right to believe in a god or not, but I would never be tolerant of this maniacs teachings, and I don't think I should tolerate it.
I am willing to tolerate anyone who tolerates my current belief and allows me to peacefully exist without judgment or persecution. I will not tolerate those who dictate to me what they believe is right or wrong. That includes atheists who may be intollerant of my belief as an agnostic ......I do not tolertate such individuals either.
However, I do peacefully coexist and do tolarate even these radical elements on either side of the spectrum, because I need to demonstarte that I am willing to allow them their beliefs in return for them respecting my beliefs. When and if that fails, I become way less tolerant of such an individual.
I see your point. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I had in mind futile insulting confrontations. The authors are usually neither scientists nor theologians.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jan 26 2011, 06:55 PM)
Professor Kowalski,
Your attempt at writing an essay on this subject failed because it is nothing new. Ian Barbour was credited for igniting the field of science and religion when he wrote his book “Issues in Science and Religion.” I’m assuming that since you are a professor that you are aware of the institutes that focus on this issue.
THE INSTITUTE ON RELIGION IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
Graduate Theological Union
In my humble opinion, the scientists who attempt to mix science with theology are ill-informed on theology. The theologians who attempt to mix theology with science are ill-informed on science. Religion and science are immiscible. Those who think it is compatible are ill-informed and of course, the main concern should be the demarcation problem .
"It is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."
Richard Dawkins
As far as a peaceful coexistence is concerned, we do have a peaceful coexistence, at least in the United States. Atheists do not start violent conflicts or wars in the name of atheism. It is simply a lack of belief. People have the right to believe what they want, no matter how naïve. Atheists permit and defend this right. It is religious people who are less tolerant of other religions that disagree with their own.
If you are referring to living in harmony, free from disputes, or controversy, it is simply impossible. I think the bigger issue here is respect, which religion demands. Atheists respect a person’s right to believe. However, we do not respect the belief itself. All religions want to be viewed as different, esteemed, and held in high or special regard. You can disagree with something and still tolerate it but you cannot respect it. Tolerance is required, and not unreasonable, but to respect the belief is asking too much. They want us to view their beliefs in a positive light and they want privileges that they are not entitled to.
If someone makes a claim, and wishes others to believe it and respect it, then they deserve a response, critical or not. Atheists should accept a person’s right to believe but should not be required to accept the belief itself. Tolerance does not mean that they will not be subjected to ridicule. If ridicule is warranted then so be it.
“I am pleased, but not surprised, that the new survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows that atheists know just as much -- if not quite a bit more – about religion than do religious people in general. The simple truth is this; the more someone knows about religion, the more likely they will reject it as mythology.”
US Religious Knowledge Survey
If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into what you believe? The things most worth reading are precisely those that challenge our convictions.” ~Author Unknown
Thank you for very informative reply, and for links. No I was not aware of these institutes. My specialty is science; in the field of theology I am an amateur.
Best regards,
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.
Your attempt at writing an essay on this subject failed because it is nothing new. Ian Barbour was credited for igniting the field of science and religion when he wrote his book “Issues in Science and Religion.” I’m assuming that since you are a professor that you are aware of the institutes that focus on this issue.
THE INSTITUTE ON RELIGION IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE
The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion
Graduate Theological Union
In my humble opinion, the scientists who attempt to mix science with theology are ill-informed on theology. The theologians who attempt to mix theology with science are ill-informed on science. Religion and science are immiscible. Those who think it is compatible are ill-informed and of course, the main concern should be the demarcation problem .
"It is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."
Richard Dawkins
As far as a peaceful coexistence is concerned, we do have a peaceful coexistence, at least in the United States. Atheists do not start violent conflicts or wars in the name of atheism. It is simply a lack of belief. People have the right to believe what they want, no matter how naïve. Atheists permit and defend this right. It is religious people who are less tolerant of other religions that disagree with their own.
If you are referring to living in harmony, free from disputes, or controversy, it is simply impossible. I think the bigger issue here is respect, which religion demands. Atheists respect a person’s right to believe. However, we do not respect the belief itself. All religions want to be viewed as different, esteemed, and held in high or special regard. You can disagree with something and still tolerate it but you cannot respect it. Tolerance is required, and not unreasonable, but to respect the belief is asking too much. They want us to view their beliefs in a positive light and they want privileges that they are not entitled to.
If someone makes a claim, and wishes others to believe it and respect it, then they deserve a response, critical or not. Atheists should accept a person’s right to believe but should not be required to accept the belief itself. Tolerance does not mean that they will not be subjected to ridicule. If ridicule is warranted then so be it.
“I am pleased, but not surprised, that the new survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life shows that atheists know just as much -- if not quite a bit more – about religion than do religious people in general. The simple truth is this; the more someone knows about religion, the more likely they will reject it as mythology.”
US Religious Knowledge Survey
If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into what you believe? The things most worth reading are precisely those that challenge our convictions.” ~Author Unknown
Thank you for very informative reply, and for links. No I was not aware of these institutes. My specialty is science; in the field of theology I am an amateur.
Best regards,
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.