Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 21, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 249

Religion and science

:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Religion is a stop on science. It is not ethical, it is dishonour.

Do you agree or not?
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icontempusnexus:
TempusNexus Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Wait, do you favor religion or science in this discussion? Because neither one of them is a serious impact on the other. Religion favors the things we can't know, don't understand, and trust to be real. Science is what we can know, understand and prove to be real. Neither is a block, and both are part of the way things are.
Reply
:iconmosobot64:
mosobot64 Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Student General Artist
This might surprise you, but some of the leading minds in science are deeply Christian, even now, and scientific and archaeological expeditions have often been conducting in the hopes of finding some evidence. Religion can interfere with science, certainly, but it can also help it along.

(btw, I'm a Pagan, just so you know.)
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012
Less than 30% of scientists believe in a religion and those that do compartmentalize those beliefs from their science.
Reply
:iconmosobot64:
mosobot64 Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012  Student General Artist
Nevertheless, they exist; there used to be more religious scientists, but the number has gone down as different options have become more apparent.
Anyway, there's no trash talking religious people who are also doing their part to advance human knowledge as we know it, so I think I made my point.
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012
It's called cognitive dissonance.
Reply
:iconmosobot64:
mosobot64 Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012  Student General Artist
That implies that every scientist is in conflict about their beliefs. This may not be the case.
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Nov 24, 2012
Like I said they compartmentalize them or come up with a rationalization.
Reply
:iconmosobot64:
mosobot64 Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012  Student General Artist
Not every scientist has problems with this actually. Consider this:

In theory, when the big bang was first happening, the universe was a single, perfectly spherical mass. In order for said mass to separate into the uneven chunks we see today, some outside force HAD to be involved. Some think a monotheistic God was behind that.
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2012
That is the rationalization I was talking about.
But neither matter nor dark matter is distributed evenly throughout the universe and can easily be refuted through the cyclical or multiple universe model.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconneurotype:
neurotype Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Since when did science care for honor or dishonor? Also, Jesuits.
Reply
:iconhanciong:
hanciong Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
again, in my opinion, religion consists of spirituality and dogma. spirituality is NOT the enemy of science, but dogma IS
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
True.
Reply
:iconatomkat:
atomkat Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012
Unlike 400 years ago, science and religion has to coexist. People have died for claiming Earth wasn't the center of the universe. As we generally got a better grasp on how the universe works, religion has adapted. And religion continues to adapt; it's basically very Darwinistic.
Reply
:iconrosleinrot:
RosleinRot Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012   Photographer
Science is delicious.
Reply
:iconnashiil:
Nashiil Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You will be surprised to know that the Catholic church actually acknowledges and supports science then. Not trying to pick a fight here, but it does. Catholic schools teach both science and religion, without claiming that science is wrong. Copernicus's theories are also presented, but only to show that they were wrong. It is a misconception that religion is a stop on science.
Reply
:iconatomkat:
atomkat Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012
But it hasn't always been that way - just ask Galileo.
Reply
:iconnashiil:
Nashiil Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
No, but what does the past have to do with it? The world has moved on and people need to realize that they are believing misconceptions about each other.
Reply
:iconatomkat:
atomkat Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012
It goes to show that religion adapts. As we get wiser, religion compromises, and becomes more diffuse. Basically, religion acts like a parasite.
Reply
:iconnashiil:
Nashiil Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I wouldn't call it a parasite because it shares none of the characteristics of one.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Not in it`s totality. The psychology department in this university is constantly having to fight off the theology department`s votes on allocation of funding to more... "acceptable" outlets. I suspect they fear that various psychologies are developping in ways that are making them severely contest the possibility for a "soul" to exist.

The catholic church is a stop to science that it cannot absorb.
Reply
:iconnashiil:
Nashiil Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
'Funding' is the cause, not religion vs science. These disputes could easily and probably do happen, between other departments. There is no length that a department will not go to in order to get grants. It gets really nasty and there is a lot of backstabbing and mud slinging. That's the problem there.

There are zealots out there, which give all religions a bad name, but they do not represent the majority. It is terrible that most people still think that religion does not support science. If that was true then most of my former chemistry, microbiology, abnormal psychology, genetics, and physics and biology teachers would not have been teaching, seeing as how all of them were Catholic (and one Hindu). I also would not have majored as a Pre-Vet. I have yet to meet any Catholics that do not support science.

I guess media lies, stereotypes, and vapid misconceptions are more readily believed than truth.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I belong to neither department. If I made such a remark it is because other causes are unlikely. Usually it is over allocation for funding between two scientific areas, they themselves will not see a cent, they just always favor the other side, as though if they were in charge psychology would all but be cut from the university. These two are virtually poles apart it seems.

In the psychological department(especially social psychology, developmental psychology and neuropsychology) they are very clear in their lectures that they consider that theology was a majoritive reason for why psychology only started developping as a science in the 19th century, when theological explanations were being challenged by scientific discoveries, etc... Meaning they are implying at the very least that religion has been a bad thing in recent centuries for society.(In clinical pathology they even go so far as to directly say it, in the case of mental diseases.).
Whereas in the theological department certain taught subjects deny completely 50 years of discoveries in social psychology, cognitive psychology(partially) and certain points in neuropsychology. This means there are students learning 2 opposing things less the 5 km from each other.

This is from on the ground experience. Catholics love to support the majority of biology, physics, chemistry, medicine, etc... but discoveries made by exactly the same system that they are not quite capable of integrating into their world model without radically changing another huge chunk of their doctrine, very very few of them are capable of supporting. Essentially they accept what is convenient and do not make too much noise about their opposition with the rest because of the stereotypes in place. Which do not seem too unjustified on the face of things.
Reply
:iconnashiil:
Nashiil Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Both departments are definitely wrong there! Any department could say some thing similar about another. Ah, when zealots on both sides collide!

Not to be cranky, but it has nothing to do with not being able to fit it into our world model, or having to change our doctrine to accept it. They are an issue of morals and ethics, not religion. That's why some things are not accepted. For example, embryonic stem cell research is not accepted, but for moral and ethical reasons. And to be fair, non religious groups are also against it. Adult stem cell research is not opposed.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
No, I support the psychological side. The Theological teachings are based on zero scientific justification. I have personally read quite a bit of the research justifying the ideas behind the psychological teachings and I have to say that it is about as solid as it comes. Religious explanations had their role to play in holding back science on the whole, forget just psychology.

Very few non-religious groups with any notion of science are. And that is only a smaller level issue closer to home. Not a thing on the planet could let the theology departmant have a say in allocating THAT funding, considering it`s importance and such.
Reply
:iconnashiil:
Nashiil Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Ah! So, it is all about the money, even if neither department will physically see a cent. You seem to have no idea of the lengths any school department will go through to get any kind of funding. Everyone has their own idea of what is important, and when money is involved, each department thinks they are more deserving that the others. The Math department is more important than the Technology department, and the English department is more important than the Theater Arts department. These types of fights happen every where, even private schools. From personal experience (12 years of working as a teacher's aid in a Catholic school), these professors will stoop to degrading rival departments during lecture and ranting with their own personal opinions.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
This is not high school. This is a research university. The funding is for research and at most will be used for doctorat students as far as teaching goes. The teaching body of the university recieves funding and otherwise from governmental sources according to the number of students they have, and their credibility. Research funding usually comes from trusts, charities, companies and the government in specific aims. The best research for arriving at these aims are what the university board decides. If we are talking medical research for example, then the funds will be specifically for that, meaning NO MATTER WHAT that the theology department muscling in will not gain them any extra funding at all. And because of their motivations they are deemed unobjective in such decisions and are thusly excluded from that board.

They never degrade rivalling departments, not here. This goes to a disrespect of the belief, not the people. Many of the lecturers in question have no problem with each other, only the general philosophies the other side represents. The decisions on the board are mostly purely intellectual ones. From both sides. They both honestly believe that it is morally wrong or a waste of funding to pursue research in that direction in such a domain.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondadona777:
dadona777 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012
science is "how," religion is "why." "how" and "why" are two different things and can easily coexist

problem?
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Read a little into neurology, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, etc...

It should be fun.
Reply
:icondadona777:
dadona777 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012
I have lol. it's very interesting
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
So you don`t notice the flaw in there for religion? The one very slowly appearing?
Reply
:icondadona777:
dadona777 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012
what flaw?
Reply
:iconsaeter:
Saeter Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012
This [link] and this [link] .
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
The slowly disappearing space for a soul.
Reply
:icondadona777:
dadona777 Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012
how does that disprove religion in any way? just because consciousness can be measured and dissected into neurons and synapses doesn't mean the soul does not exist
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Yes. Somewhat like the fact that if we can explain the material world entirely without the need for a theological explanation this does not mean god does not exist.

It only takes away any tiny likelihood that he ever had of existing.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconsolum-ipsum:
Solum-Ipsum Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Not.
Reply
:icontdroid:
tdroid Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012
I agree in the sense that there is religious people who actively oppose science for the sake of protecting their holy texts and this is problematic in some parts of the world.
Reply
:icontimehasanend:
TimeHasAnEnd Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist
No, science only enhance religion beliefs.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
When on the whole they have never been less accepted?
Reply
:icontdroid:
tdroid Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012
Unless you specificly refer to your own, personal religion that is not based on any old religious text, I don't think so.

Well, thinking about it some more, there is a nugget of truth in your statement here. A lot of people have a hard time accepting that we don't know of any higher purpose without lives and many of them seem to be unable to grasp even the most basic principles of evolution, which does lead them to be more open for religious beliefs which, after all, explains it in a much more simplistic way by invoking magic... uh... I mean God.
Reply
:iconkausawolf:
kausawolf Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I disagree.
It's silly that people think you can't believe in evolution or science and God.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Deism and agnosticism are both dead - get a life.
Reply
:iconkausawolf:
kausawolf Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Wow rude.
I believe in God and evolution, its not a crazy far fetched idea that a lot of people do.
Why can't we have both? Who says we can't believe in both?
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Yea or nay, said Jesus, yea or nay.
Reply
:iconkausawolf:
kausawolf Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
What if I don't believe in Jesus?
There are more religions than those that follow Jesus.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I don't believe in Jesus but I believe he is right on this occasion.
Reply
:iconkausawolf:
kausawolf Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Hm riight.
Well whatever man, I'm gonna keep believing in God and science, you can keep looking down on me all you want.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
I cannot believe that you can believe in both.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconincandescentinsanity:
IncandescentInsanity Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Student General Artist
I find it scary that religion is so rampant still. The internet provides all the information it takes to debunk every religious belief
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
The internet is full of rubbish from a terminal mind.
Reply
Add a Comment: