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.
And how does that relate to your claim that, "So for most people science and religion are very compatible. to the tune of 93% of the world."?
Science is used and accepted around the world. Its not a problem. People use and accept and comfortably integrate science and religion. Everyday. Every where. They are complementary.
Yes 84% of the world identifies with religion
Plus the 8% religious in unaffiliated = 92 % of the world is religious or worships.
.
It's rmarkable how in the face of unbelief, all religious differences are forgotten and they are all 'religious or worships'. Indeed as you pointed out the majority (actually nearer half - that might be global or the US figures, I'm not sure) the unaffiliated believes in a god.
Now I forgot what your point was...hang on... Yes, 90% of the word is religious and they use science (or rather rely on the products of science) thus you assert there is no conflict between religion and science.
But here again as in science itself, it only works because they are kept separate. The sportsman may credit God with the sucess he had, but he got that success through training, not prayer.
The scientists makes discoveries using the methods of science, not of religion. They really do not wprk or belong together and really never did.
Quote:
Tzaphkiel;50877303]Science is used and accepted around the world. Its not a problem. People use and accept and comfortably integrate science and religion. Everyday. Every where. They are complementary.
They are not. They are kept separate. That's how they can co-exist.
I don't understand why you call this a dilemma. It is just people deciding that religion has no role to play in their lives. I know some religious people have a hard time understanding this, but for an increasing number of people religion is not a part of their lives at all. It is not a dilemma or tough choice, religious beliefs are simply meaningless and irrelevant to some people.
"Teenagers even say family, friends, money, music and even reality television are more important than religion." How can anyone argue with the truth of this statement? That is a much more healthy approach to life than living in constant paralyzing fear of pissing off sky daddy.
Fundamentalists are exempt from this because they are fundamentalists. Their entire worldview is shaped by being a believer. Those people wouldn't know how to function without the crutch of religion and their faith that they are special to an invisible deity.
I wish I could you 1000 reps. This is brilliant. Why do religious people feel this constant need to convert non believers? Ugh! That is so disrespectful. Teenager have the right to choose whether or not to be religious and brainwashing them to be believers from a young age seems to be the norm among fundies. I'm glad my parents were of two conflicting faiths and neither practiced their faith. Let left me a free thinker. Yes I experimented with three different churches in my teen years, but I was still able to decide for myself if religion was or wasn't for me. I decided that it wasn't for me. So what? If you want to believe? So what. Life is about choices that should be respected.
Outright Biblical literalism is an American idea introduced by the Puritans.
Read up on Darbyism (1830s). That is the root of modern US fundamentalism. Puritanism has some similarities but is different from that, it is straight up authoritarianism and that goes back to antiquity, though it's always morphing. The RCC was authoritarian about certain things, like apostasy, and they had a habit of declaring rather bizarre things to be apostasy, like a heliocentric cosmology. IIRC there were even discomfited by the discovery of the Jovian moons, some of them considering telescopes the work of the devil. They only got around to admitting (in a half-baked sort of way) that they were wrong to put Galileo under house arrest and otherwise persecute him, around the turn of this century. Better late than never, I guess.
It might be feasibly argued the modern fundamentalism has borrowed from Puritanism to create its own unique fusion of Puritanism and Darbyism. Darby thus serving as more their theological roots, Puritanism as some of their ideological roots including some of the desire to impose their morality on outsiders by breaking down the political walls between church and state. But Darby and the Puritan movement both had their own roots further back. MUCH further back.
Science is used and accepted around the world. Its not a problem. People use and accept and comfortably integrate science and religion. Everyday. Every where. They are complementary.
1. Most people don't really think about that at all, so to say they accept and comfortably integrate the two is an overstatement.
2. Apparently you are unaware of many people's attitudes toward science, whether it be regarding evolution or vaccines, the endless debates about whether space travel is worthwhile, global climate change, protecting the environment, etc. Pew reports on public attitudes toward science, including -- if you wade through it -- how religion changes views toward science. Factors Shaping Public Attitudes Toward Science | Pew Research Center
This young generation is increasingly either openly non-religious or part of the more hardline groups. Two thirds of teenagers don't believe in God - Telegraph https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle1320112/
Previous generations never had this mentality, where you either need to obey every rule in your religion to a tee or couldn't consider yourself religious at all, but this generation it seems to finally be happening. Young people think because they have sex, party, have gay friends, etc that they are not welcome in their religion. Confusing about this, for Christianity at least, is that the churches their parents went to (Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed etc) tend to talk very little about these subjects especially compared to the churches where younger people are more highly represented (Pentecostal, Charismatic, Evangelical Baptist, Non-denominational Evangelical etc). Most of the larger mainline protestant churches have actually stopped condemning homosexuality and the like and many have a large number of LGBT members in the clergy. I've heard this is a similar issue in the Jewish community, where sects like Reform and Conservative are shrinking, but the ultra-Orthodox communities are thriving. I'd imagine it's similar in Islam and Eastern Religion as well.
What is giving the younger generation this dilemma?
Ok, so the young generation is less hypocritical (on average) compared to previous generations. I call it progress.
1. Most people don't really think about that at all, so to say they accept and comfortably integrate the two is an overstatement.
Most people don't really think about breathing and blinking at all, they accept and comfortably integrate the two.
Let me guess....are you seriously going to say that is "an overstatement."
That's the whole point. That's what comfortably integrated is.
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.
