Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Historically, many religions were more flexible and syncretistic than they are today. Take a little of this if it works, leave that behind if it doesn't, absorb certain elements of other religions into yours to form stronger cultural bonds, etc.
Today, everything seems rigid and inflexible. There's no deviation allowed from established dogma, less you be the heretic.
The concept of heresy entrenches ancient dogma as inerrant and infallible stagnating any growth of understanding at the primitive level of our ancestors. It has been the major stumbling block to understanding God, IMO.
...
Science at least has the decency to be silent or to be transparent that it is only speculating on things it is not certain of. That has nothing to do with whether any of its discoveries are valid. Your cell phone, toaster, TV and car still work -- all of which are technology (applied science), even if science doesn't know how to build a practical production fusion reactor or generate a gravity field. Yet.
If you read the articles on the NASA websites, you will find many many many speculations and very few absolutes. The words used indicate that we are supposed to take what they say as the 'truth' in spite of them not having anything to back up their opinions. The articles definitely do NOT say they are speculating. Unfortunately, what that means is that people take what they say as fact and that is not the case at all. Science has got above itself and scientists are taken very much as doctors are these days I reckon.
Quote:
They don't. They compartmentalize. Of course by "believe in a God" you likely presuppose they believe as you do. Many are not Christians, or are not Biblical literalists. There are plenty of Christians who are scientists, but there are zero literalist / inerrantist / fundamentalist Christians who are, say, paleontologists. Unless they are lying to their church or to their employer.
But...they may well call themselves Christians which brings me back to the parameters to belong to the Christian 'group' are very wide and nebulous.
You only need to announce your membership of the group for each person to accept it - because they wont challenge it.
It is only in forums like City-Data that people will suggest someone is 'not a Christian', they certainly would not do it spoken to someone's face for fear of a backlash, and that might prove they themselves are not a 'proper' member of the group.
If you read the articles on the NASA websites, you will find many many many speculations and very few absolutes. The words used indicate that we are supposed to take what they say as the 'truth' in spite of them not having anything to back up their opinions. The articles definitely do NOT say they are speculating. Unfortunately, what that means is that people take what they say as fact and that is not the case at all. Science has got above itself and scientists are taken very much as doctors are these days I reckon.
Both doctors and parsons no longer enjoy the unalloyed social standing that they used to.
I don't know that scientists, apart, perhaps, from a few "rock stars", ever have.
In any case since I have no idea what you claim NASA is speculating about I can't address that. Perhaps you could give a couple of specific examples. My guess is that you are mistaken that they don't have "anything" to back up their statements. If you want every statement hyper-qualified such that no one can discuss a topic in the context of widespread consensus and agreement or with the understanding that all data is subject to new information becoming available in the future, then that is a level of control you will never achieve.
Both doctors and parsons no longer enjoy the unalloyed social standing that they used to.
I don't know that scientists, apart, perhaps, from a few "rock stars", ever have.
In any case since I have no idea what you claim NASA is speculating about I can't address that. Perhaps you could give a couple of specific examples. My guess is that you are mistaken that they don't have "anything" to back up their statements. If you want every statement hyper-qualified such that no one can discuss a topic in the context of widespread consensus and agreement or with the understanding that all data is subject to new information becoming available in the future, then that is a level of control you will never achieve.
Dont worry, it is a soap box of mine and not really relevant here. I should not have gone there in the discussion.
If you read the articles on the NASA websites, you will find many many many speculations and very few absolutes. The words used indicate that we are supposed to take what they say as the 'truth' in spite of them not having anything to back up their opinions. The articles definitely do NOT say they are speculating. Unfortunately, what that means is that people take what they say as fact and that is not the case at all. Science has got above itself and scientists are taken very much as doctors are these days I reckon.
But...they may well call themselves Christians which brings me back to the parameters to belong to the Christian 'group' are very wide and nebulous.
You only need to announce your membership of the group for each person to accept it - because they wont challenge it.
It is only in forums like City-Data that people will suggest someone is 'not a Christian', they certainly would not do it spoken to someone's face for fear of a backlash, and that might prove they themselves are not a 'proper' member of the group.
Even well-established science is generally referred to as a "theory." Something can be easily repeatable, verifiable, etc., and still be a theory
Even well-established science is generally referred to as a "theory." Something can be easily repeatable, verifiable, etc., and still be a theory
That is incorrect. A "theory" and a "scientific theory" are not the same thing.
"A scientific theory is a well-established explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Theories come from scientific data and multiple experiments. While it is not possible to prove a theory, a single contrary result using the scientific method can disprove it. In other words, a theory is testable and falsifiable."
"Usually, a scientific theory is just called a theory. However, a theory in science means something different from the way most people use the word. For example, if frogs rain down from the sky, a person might observe the frogs and say, “I have a theory about why that happened.” While that theory might be an explanation, it is not based on multiple observations and experiments. It might not be testable and falsifiable. It’s not a scientific theory (although it could eventually become one)."
There are a number of explanations and examples at the link.
That is incorrect. A "theory" and a "scientific theory" are not the same thing.
"A scientific theory is a well-established explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Theories come from scientific data and multiple experiments. While it is not possible to prove a theory, a single contrary result using the scientific method can disprove it. In other words, a theory is testable and falsifiable."
"Usually, a scientific theory is just called a theory. However, a theory in science means something different from the way most people use the word. For example, if frogs rain down from the sky, a person might observe the frogs and say, “I have a theory about why that happened.” While that theory might be an explanation, it is not based on multiple observations and experiments. It might not be testable and falsifiable. It’s not a scientific theory (although it could eventually become one)."
There are a number of explanations and examples at the link.
I wonder if people welcome religion more as they age.
As a life long realist, I always looked down on religion, more so with age. But I do wonder if some people are warming up to religion as they get older and closer to death.
I am confidents I am going to another planet after I pass away, one filled with music and glorious cars, honest people and cool dogs.
Haha I like your version of the afterlife, although I don't think there is one it's kind of fun to make up stuff you would like to have or experience in another life. Especially all the cool dogs.
I don't think though that with age comes religion. Far from it. I think one grows further and further away from it once realizing the ridiculousness of it. I think (as an older person myself) that we get older, wiser and more in tune with what it is we believe and most importantly, what we don't believe.
There's no need to worry about it, like I said before there are no guarantees before we are born and there are none after we die. It is a sorted mess of life that is happening but in death, complete peace. I'm not mad about that.
I wonder if people welcome religion more as they age.
As a life long realist, I always looked down on religion, more so with age. But I do wonder if some people are warming up to religion as they get older and closer to death.
I am confidents I am going to another planet after I pass away, one filled with music and glorious cars, honest people and cool dogs.
I, too, also find your afterlife pretty cool. Most people I know have stayed constant. There have been a few people who became more serious about their belief in God and the customs that go along with religion, but did not necessarily become a Bible reader, which is what I define as a religious person.
One person told me that when he dies, he wants the full funeral service at a church, even though he rarely attends church. He has two reasons for this. One is that God would not approve of cremation. I never heard this person mention God when he was younger. The second is that he wants people to cry for him.
The other person is also middle-aged. I meet up with a group close and distant friends maybe twice a year. One of the distant friends suddenly blurted out, "God talks to me." I did not expect that in this kind of social setting.
I am not going to wait until I am older to share my deepest desire. If there is an afterlife, then I want to be able to meet up with my daughter again.
Dont worry, it is a soap box of mine and not really relevant here. I should not have gone there in the discussion.
It is really pretty simple.
People push back against science ONLY if it goes against their religious or political viewpoint.
And there is another area which I call "crackpot" science. Where someone goes against the mainstream of science to make a buck and make normal people think they are smarter than everyone else. (anti-vax, diet fads, some supplements. etc)
Science that we can't "hold in our hands" such as Mr. Mordant referred to seems more easily accepted than science that has to do with origins and outer space and things like that. Even medical science at the molecular level provides room for skeptics.
There is no controversy surrounding orthopedics for example. But there is about COVID or cancer treatment.
I still think heart transplant is the best example of where science and religion meet. Heart transplants are only taboo among a handful of Christian denominations. This despite the fact that Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit does or doesn't "live" in your heart.
Yet despite that...
A Christian would happily have a heart transplant from an atheist if it meant prolonging their life.
There basically is no controversy over this.
Meanwhile, the Christian who doesn't protest getting the atheist's heart will many times vociferously protest that the scientist says the Adam and Eve story isn't true.
Why? Because no matter how you believe regarding Adam and Eve... your life isn't at stake.
Meanwhile, the scientific stance that there aren't any spiritual entities living in anybody's heart can be easily accepted if a Christian needs a heart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
