And let's not forget the contributions to science, philosophy and education made by religion. In terms of Christianity for example, someone who thinks that religious thought is all dogma has obviously never read St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Friedrich Schleiermacher and countless others.

In fact the notion of science and religion being in opposition is very much a false construct, and has nothing to do with the nature of things. Dogma is the enemy of reason, not religion, spirituality or even scriptural study. Just that some people have trouble seeing past surface appearances and don't want to engage with the symbolic side of life, which is as rich and complicated - regardless of the religious tradition that might originate it. This goes for people of both extremes by the way.

Well the evolution stopped rather a long time ago. Make up a religion tomorrow. You will be called a cult leader. The 3 major monotheisms already have claim to all the knowledge of the universe, and they wrote that down unerringly a long time ago.

Someone like myself who studied physics 25 years ago is hopelessly out of date in physics, yet a biblical (or koranic) expert from 250 (or far longer) years ago knows no less than a biblical expert now. What has evolved in judaism and christianity is that the people who claim membership to the religions ignore huge swaths of it. How many people who want the 10 Commandments treated with respect in a courtroom know that the punishment for violating most of them is death? In the case of islam, the trouble is that it is currently evolving in the wrong direction---towards being more true to the book, rather than dumping all the insane parts. Regardless, though, the insane parts are still there, even in the other 2 that precede islam. Ignoring them makes for better people and societies, but the religions themselves are no better.

Religion is by definition irrational. Science is known in common sense as "trial and error." Every human uses the scientific method almost every day. If they treated religion with the same critical eye they use to so much as cross a busy street, they'd have dumped it long ago.

For the "spiritual" take from a non-religious POV, Sam Harris is pretty interesting, actually.

Very true. And, as much as it pains me to concede it, we would not have modern academics without the Roman Catholic Church. I am a tremendous detractor of Catholicism, but they kept the torch of knowledge lit during the dark times that followed the fall of Rome.

I wasn't really arguing with you, per se, just going off on a tangent. My bad.

I find it an interesting discussion to have, and the internets is sort of the best place... it can tend to blow up at dinner parties :)

:haha: Isn't that the truth! And I was not offended. Just wanted to clarify my stance.

...as did Muslim and Jewish scholars, by the way. If it weren't for them, we would not have access to many of the Greek and Roman texts that later helped bring about the rebirth of classical science, philosophy and education in the Renaissance later on.

Excellent observation. I couldn't agree more. I see no personal conflict between science and faith.

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. Ecclesiastes 3:8

Do not be afraid of those (man) who kill the body but cannot kill the soul (spirit). Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body.
Matthew 10:28

Read the book of Ecclesiastes you pagans then you wont be scared anymore...:smug: :O: Plus its one of my favorite books in the bible different from all the others & tells it like it is.

Anyways I'm off to play my pagan RPG's. :haha:

Fus Roh Dah, baby. Fus Roh Dah.

Sooo.... a Time Lord? They seem to have had that capability...

The Bible is starting to make sense...

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

Way to go nappie! :yeah:

Hi everybody,

Thanks for your answers to my questions. It is true that discussions on these matters can become bogged down in angry mudslinging, and it is nice to see that has not happened here. Not surprising though, that's exactly why I love this place! :D I was having a similar discussion on a documentary site, that has deteriorated several times, but during an argument with someone who claimed they believed that dark traveled faster than light :o I had an interesting thought -

One of my favorite books is 'A Wizard of Earthsea' by Ursula K. Le Guin it is a childrens story and in it is a short poem :-

Only in silence the word,
Only in dark the light,
Only in dying life,
Bright the hawk's flight upon the empty sky.

Now this to me is a simple yet beautiful description of the antagonistic duality of existent things, one is the absence of the other yet without one the other cannot exist. Since I was arguing that dark was not a thing itself but only the absence of a thing, and a candle casts a shadow... my thought is this; all existent things are knowable by two means - either their presence or their absence, or both. (Damn that's three... :damn:) but it leads me to a question regarding God/afterlife/supernature/souls/miracles/(insert magical proposition of your choice here). Surely if any of these things existed, we would know, for certain, by either their presence or their absence, or both, no?

I like Takeda's 'personal' sort of religious thinking it seems more rational than other sorts, closer to Oberon's spirituality, and my philosophy etc. I think (if it is to survive our own evolution) religion needs to evolve into something more like philosophy, but that's me, whatcha gonna do. I am strictly agnostic, but atheist works for me when defined simply as 'not a theist' and I have a very simple explanation for morality. (good) Morality is a blanket term for altruistic empathic reactions. I think all empathic reactions develop as a natural side effect of a small conceptual leap that occurs for most when they are infant. Namely 'placing yourself in an others position' - the principle behind 'do unto others etc.' To make this leap, requires one to accept the knowledge that the other is an another entity similar to oneself. Once this is done, it enables one to 'feel' how the other would feel regarding ones own words/actions toward them, though this is only a projection and can be misleading, none the less it is the best gauge we have. Now as the mind develops and acquires knowledge, this simple principle can be applied to more than just other humans, animals are not so different that the imagination will not allow it for instance. Approaching the adult level of mind development the principle can become abstracted, and applied to inanimate objects, groups of objects, even complex systems, though this is harder. If one were able to apply this simple idea to every existent thing, one would become absolutely conscientious, and I doubt any human being has ever achieved this, possibly Buddha and likely Mr Christ was well on his way. Exceptions like extreme autism prevent sufferers from understanding that they are even an entity in the first place, and psychopaths are somehow disconnected to empathic feelings altogether. I'm not sure how this evolved but I would humbly suggest it coincided with the development of the larger social group.

@Ducimus - Thanks for the linked video I quite often have this 'well actually the human eye is a bit naff really' argument. I haven't had time to watch it yet but I will give it a blast tomorrow. I like the watch in the desert argument the best, the fact that if you assert the watch must have had a designer due to it being clearly more complex and different from its surroundings, you are actually asserting that - the desert was not designed. :DL

Regards, Sam.