Will science destroy religion

#106
#106
It won't destroy it but science, along with continued steep technological ascension/instant availability of information, will continue to change it. Possibly to a point that it will be something alien to a modern observer within a few generations.
 
#107
#107
orangepridenation said:
It won't destroy it but science, along with continued steep technological ascension/instant availability of information, will continue to change it. Possibly to a point that it will be something alien to a modern observer within a few generations.
Click to expand...

We only have 13 years left till AI rises up and smites us all.
 
#109
#109
MaxamusXIII said:
We only have 13 years left till AI rises up and smites us all.
Click to expand...

Less than that. I saw an article on cnn or fox's website last week that a biblical scholar has predicted that this coming Saturday the 23rd the earth will collide w/another planet that's headed our way. :loco:

I'm more incline to believe that there will be a nuclear war to come with that goofy dumbass NK's leader fat boy Kim to destroy the planet rather than a rouge planet coming our way.
 
#110
#110
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Less than that. I saw an article on cnn or fox's website last week that a biblical scholar has predicted that this coming Saturday the 23rd the earth will collide w/another planet that's headed our way. :loco:

I'm more incline to believe that there will be a nuclear war to come with that goofy dumbass NK's leader fat boy Kim to destroy the planet rather than a rouge planet coming our way.
Click to expand...

Mars?
 
#112
#112
MaxamusXIII said:
So secularism has been cast out in turkey and the result is an attack on science.
Click to expand...

Religion has risen to power in Turkey and the result is an attack on science.

MaxamusXIII said:
Would it not be better for science to leave there secularism at the door?
What's more important?
-being right about the existence of G-d or scientific truth?
Click to expand...

This assumes that science is secular. Sure, science tends to thrive in secular societies versus religious ones, but it's not absent in certain religious ones (look at the modern Catholic Church).

Science cares chiefly about its own endeavors; not the politics of the day. It finds, and has found in the past, secular and religious societies/situations to thrive.
 
#113
#113
PKT_VOL said:
Religion has risen to power in Turkey and the result is an attack on science.



This assumes that science is secular. Sure, science tends to thrive in secular societies versus religious ones, but it's not absent in certain religious ones (look at the modern Catholic Church).

Science cares chiefly about its own endeavors; not the politics of the day. It finds, and has found in the past, secular and religious societies/situations to thrive.
Click to expand...

Religion in, secularism out.
Potato/potatoe.

Edit: and it doesn't assume science is secular.....it assumes turkey is coming off their most secular period in history. That the secularism of the previous administration was presented and pushed threw science. And the rejection of that previous administration has resulted in a rejection of science in turkey.
A potential case study for both the religious and secularists
 
Last edited:
#116
#116
MaxamusXIII said:
Religion in, secularism out.
Potato/potatoe.

Edit: and it doesn't assume science is secular.....it assumes turkey is coming off their most secular period in history. That the secularism of the previous administration was presented and pushed threw science. And the rejection of that previous administration has resulted in a rejection of science in turkey.
A potential case study for both the religious and secularists
Click to expand...

Science would need to be tied to secularism, it's not.

Science happened to be an unintentional benefactor during a secular society and unintentional victim during a religious rise to power.

I'm not seeing the case study here.
 
#117
#117
GAVol said:
He'd be shocked to consider how many of us religious types there are that actually consider the science and the order of the universe to be a comfort and not a threat and are perfectly fine with nonliteral interpretations.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Armchair lives in his own bubble.
 
#122
#122
ClearwaterVol said:
How does one decide which parts to take literally and which are the true words of God which are to be followed?
Click to expand...

That's an excluded middle, no? You're assuming God couldn't speak through poetry and parable when most of Jesus' public teaching was parable?

Interesting.
 
#123
#123
hog88 said:
Guess that requires a holy man like understanding the constitution requires a lawyer.
Click to expand...

It basically only requires a desire to know how to interpret, as well as effort to study how to do it, much like most everything else in life.
 
#124
#124
Orange_Crush said:
That's an excluded middle, no? You're assuming God couldn't speak through poetry and parable when most of Jesus' public teaching was parable?

Interesting.
Click to expand...

I thought you took a literal view of the bible and believed that the stories of Noah and Jonah were truth and not parables. I could be wrong.

And yes, you are correct. My previous statement was too broad. It just seems too easy to simply revise one's reading of the bible based upon new scientific evidence.
 
#125
#125
ClearwaterVol said:
I thought you took a literal view of the bible and believed that the stories of Noah and Jonah were truth and not parables. I could be wrong.

And yes, you are correct. My previous statement was too broad. It just seems too easy to simply revise one's reading of the bible based upon new scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

You're still suffering from excluded middles. I believe Jonah and Noah to be literal history, and i also believe that the bible contains things that aren't too be taken literal.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top