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.
As a world renowned scientist, his religious or atheist views are going to be taken note of.
There is no reason imo that science and religion are mutually exclusive, even evolution (rejected by most hardcore Evangelicals) is scientifically accepted by more mainline Christian groups.
His views in the article are very interesting, although he is moderate and not a "militant atheist" per se.
He was even raised in a nominally Christian household.
That depends on just what parts of Christianity you believe and how tightly you believe them.
In a lot of ways, science and religion ARE mutually exclusive.
Even if you see all of the Bible stories as allegories, metaphors, and stories rather than literal truth, the problem really comes down to Jesus's crucifixion.
IF evolution is true, then the story of Adam and Eve is not.
Which means there was no Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, no forbidden fruit, no disobedience, no punishment and henceforth no actual sin. Certainly no original sin.
And that means that Christ dying for our sins on the cross is, well ... redundant at best, superfluous at worst.
Because there was nothing to forgive in the first place.
These are the sorts of stumbling blocks that even Christians who accept evolution have to face. While I'm certainly glad that they aren't taking the Bible so literally that they have to deny science to keep their faith going, there is still that bit of cognitive dissonance that allows them to continue to believe in the divine Christ even though evolution makes such a story irrelevant and moot.
That depends on just what parts of Christianity you believe and how tightly you believe them.
In a lot of ways, science and religion ARE mutually exclusive.
Even if you see all of the Bible stories as allegories, metaphors, and stories rather than literal truth, the problem really comes down to Jesus's crucifixion.
IF evolution is true, then the story of Adam and Eve is not.
Which means there was no Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, no forbidden fruit, no disobedience, no punishment and henceforth no actual sin. Certainly no original sin.
And that means that Christ dying for our sins on the cross is, well ... redundant at best, superfluous at worst.
Because there was nothing to forgive in the first place.
These are the sorts of stumbling blocks that even Christians who accept evolution have to face. While I'm certainly glad that they aren't taking the Bible so literally that they have to deny science to keep their faith going, there is still that bit of cognitive dissonance that allows them to continue to believe in the divine Christ even though evolution makes such a story irrelevant and moot.
What you mean to say is the INTERPRETATIONS of the stories and their import to human life are inconsistent. If we see the knowledge of good and evil as just the awakening of our consciousness, the original sin nonsense disappears. The crucifixion of Jesus is not affected because the problem remains that our survival instinct and pleasure/pain motivations conflict with our conscious sense of right and wrong (good and evil) and need to be overcome. The story of human existence has been painted against that internal conflict. Jesus is the manifestation of total control over those instincts and motivations through horrendous scourging and crucifixion out of a love for us all because we know not what we do. His love was undiminished even for His torturers and murderers, something Buddha would NOT have been able to achieve in his quest to be indifferent to the pains and pleasures of the world and achieve Nirvana.
There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.” (From an interview with Diane Sawyer in ABC World News (June 7, 2010))
It could probably be safely concluded that he hadn't had a spiritually transformative experience at any point in his life. And I'd agree with his implied view that religion won't work - much of society, like religion, works on being told what to do and whilst it arguably creeps along, it's fairly disfunctional.
However, without getting soppy, I think the concept of spirituality (essence of being) based on love for others is what also works. The Lord's prayer probably sums up the right take with respect to understanding where we fit in the bigger picture.
Last edited by mensaguy; 03-15-2018 at 06:59 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote tag
However, without getting soppy, I think the concept of spirituality (essence of being) based on love for others is what also works. The Lord's prayer probably sums up the right take with respect to understanding where we fit in the bigger picture.
Religion has utterly failed in that regard.
Obviously, religion hasn't been very successful at getting us all to love one another -- not even in a distant, professional sort of way.
All religion has done is to teach us to love those who belong to the same denomination of the same religion and hate just about everyone else. Or, at the very least, display a certain sense of bigotry and intolerance.
As for spirituality -- perhaps.
But as long as spirituality is shackled to religion, forget it.
That depends on just what parts of Christianity you believe and how tightly you believe them.
In a lot of ways, science and religion ARE mutually exclusive.
Even if you see all of the Bible stories as allegories, metaphors, and stories rather than literal truth, the problem really comes down to Jesus's crucifixion.
IF evolution is true, then the story of Adam and Eve is not.
Which means there was no Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, no forbidden fruit, no disobedience, no punishment and henceforth no actual sin. Certainly no original sin.
And that means that Christ dying for our sins on the cross is, well ... redundant at best, superfluous at worst.
Because there was nothing to forgive in the first place.
These are the sorts of stumbling blocks that even Christians who accept evolution have to face. While I'm certainly glad that they aren't taking the Bible so literally that they have to deny science to keep their faith going, there is still that bit of cognitive dissonance that allows them to continue to believe in the divine Christ even though evolution makes such a story irrelevant and moot.
Precisely.
There’s really no way harmonize the central theme of traditional Christianity with modern science. Which is why the more conservative Christian factions (Protestant and Catholic) reject evolution, cosmology, geology, etc.
That depends on just what parts of Christianity you believe and how tightly you believe them.
In a lot of ways, science and religion ARE mutually exclusive.
Even if you see all of the Bible stories as allegories, metaphors, and stories rather than literal truth, the problem really comes down to Jesus's crucifixion.
IF evolution is true, then the story of Adam and Eve is not.
Which means there was no Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, no forbidden fruit, no disobedience, no punishment and henceforth no actual sin. Certainly no original sin.
And that means that Christ dying for our sins on the cross is, well ... redundant at best, superfluous at worst.
Because there was nothing to forgive in the first place.
These are the sorts of stumbling blocks that even Christians who accept evolution have to face. While I'm certainly glad that they aren't taking the Bible so literally that they have to deny science to keep their faith going, there is still that bit of cognitive dissonance that allows them to continue to believe in the divine Christ even though evolution makes such a story irrelevant and moot.
Religion can drive people from God as scientism can drive others from science.
They both may get into areas they don't belong.
There many scientists who have no trouble doing science whilst holding to their faith.
It never bothered Newton.
It didn't cause Darwin to adopt atheism.
There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.” (From an interview with Diane Sawyer in ABC World News (June 7, 2010))
It could probably be safely concluded that he hadn't had a spiritually transformative experience at any point in his life. And I'd agree with his implied view that religion won't work - much of society, like religion, works on being told what to do and whilst it arguably creeps along, it's fairly disfunctional.
However, without getting soppy, I think the concept of spirituality (essence of being) based on love for others is what also works. The Lord's prayer probably sums up the right take with respect to understanding where we fit in the bigger picture.
Yes, but you are rather subtle, too elegant by half. I'd like to flesh your idea out.
First some spiritual ground rules.
God only does for us what we cannot do for ourself.
People can place themselves beyond human aid, addicts are one group.
Science has no answer for this because it centers in the mind, its a spiritual illness.
These are the ones who , if they cross all the T and i's, can cross the gap of reason that cannot be bridged by intellect or science .
It requires a leap of faith.
And that's when they find out if there is a thing we call God or not.
I was atheist for 45 yrs and had that experience
, its not necessary to die to find out.
But spending a few decades clinging to the gates of hell does help make the stubborn teachable.
Last edited by mensaguy; 03-15-2018 at 07:01 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote inside of the quote
As a world renowned scientist, his religious or atheist views are going to be taken note of.
There is no reason imo that science and religion are mutually exclusive, even evolution (rejected by most hardcore Evangelicals) is scientifically accepted by more mainline Christian groups.
His views in the article are very interesting, although he is moderate and not a "militant atheist" per se.
He was even raised in a nominally Christian household.
Steven Hawkins first wife is a Christian, even though Hawkins was an unbeliever during the marriage. Even so they managed to make the marriage work and his wife did really support him when his condition got worse. He would have likely to have died much younger if it was not the support from his first wife and he would have been much less known in this world. Of course even though they did not agree on the concept of God, they did respect each other on views of God, however she did did find it uncomfortable when he stated he is an atheist while speaking in public.
The movie based on Steven Hawkin which was "Theory of Everything" was based on an book autobiography from his first wife Jane.
Obviously, religion hasn't been very successful at getting us all to love one another -- not even in a distant, professional sort of way.
All religion has done is to teach us to love those who belong to the same denomination of the same religion and hate just about everyone else. Or, at the very least, display a certain sense of bigotry and intolerance.
As for spirituality -- perhaps.
But as long as spirituality is shackled to religion, forget it.
It'll never work.
You might benefit from observing what happens in the absence of god.
Try Soviet russia, murdered millions.
Communist china.
Crazy korea.
Whenever spirituality is connected to religion it loses its traction, because religion is a middleman.
Religions ,at best, are signposts.
I saw a signpost to the north pole in s. dakota.
That doesn't mean ive experienced the pole.
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.
