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.
While research indicates opinions about whether science and religion can overlap are changing, white men are among those "most likely" to hold "a negative view" on the topic, according to a study released on Monday. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...ort/ar-AAWAqyZ
Hm, I'm not sure that really demonstrates cause vs association -- and I'm not sure about the implication that the view that science and religion is incompatible is somehow elitist, etc. But it is true that many, MANY religious are perfectly capable of reconciling, e.g., evolution or biogenesis with the origin mythos, or of compartmentalizing other places where a literal understanding of the Bible conflicts with science. It is just that it requires a relaxation of inerrancy and literalist interpretations. Not even that much really, but it is beyond the ken of enough Christians that it becomes a hill they want to die on.
Even fundamentalism accommodates science to an extent. It is impossible for the dead to be raised or water to become wine for example but that is comfortably dispensed with by saying that "signs and wonders are not for today" now that we have the Bible to tell us that they happened, safely in the distant past. Even pentecostals perform parlor tricks while failing to empty children's cancer wards, but the latter can be blamed on our insufficient faith in god. Emptying a children's cancer ward is possible in principle, but we are not worthy enough. It's aways your fault somehow when it doesn't work!
The situation that actually exists is that anything grounded in real evidence and experimental outcomes with the well-recognized checks and balances against bias that science provides (however imperfectly), DOES trump dogma where they conflict, otherwise we are just cherry-picking. The Dali Lama is one of, if not the only, leader of a major religion who has unambiguously said that where science and religion conflict, religion must defer to science. Whereas Christianity has tended to use language more along the lines of science being "thinking god's thoughts after him", with the implication being that a truly mature science will eventually agree with Christian scriptures, that any conflict is apparent and not real.
I am confident of where I have placed my bets.
However, this doesn't mean that science and religion cannot coexist or have to have titanic fights all the time.
Gender has no meaning when what we are is spirit, and One with Divinity.
Although I don't believe in "divinity", I actually agree with you regarding gender having no meaning in spiritual matters.
The only problem with this post that I'm responding to is that you didn't respond to what I posted. You just added something to the conversation.
The FACT remains that many religions do not honor women in the ranks of monks, priests, imams, etc. You may not like that. You may not think that it should be that way. But that's the way it often is.
Hm, I'm not sure that really demonstrates cause vs association -- and I'm not sure about the implication that the view that science and religion is incompatible is somehow elitist, etc. But it is true that many, MANY religious are perfectly capable of reconciling, e.g., evolution or biogenesis with the origin mythos, or of compartmentalizing other places where a literal understanding of the Bible conflicts with science. It is just that it requires a relaxation of inerrancy and literalist interpretations. Not even that much really, but it is beyond the ken of enough Christians that it becomes a hill they want to die on.
Even fundamentalism accommodates science to an extent. It is impossible for the dead to be raised or water to become wine for example but that is comfortably dispensed with by saying that "signs and wonders are not for today" now that we have the Bible to tell us that they happened, safely in the distant past. Even pentecostals perform parlor tricks while failing to empty children's cancer wards, but the latter can be blamed on our insufficient faith in god. Emptying a children's cancer ward is possible in principle, but we are not worthy enough. It's aways your fault somehow when it doesn't work!
The situation that actually exists is that anything grounded in real evidence and experimental outcomes with the well-recognized checks and balances against bias that science provides (however imperfectly), DOES trump dogma where they conflict, otherwise we are just cherry-picking. The Dali Lama is one of, if not the only, leader of a major religion who has unambiguously said that where science and religion conflict, religion must defer to science. Whereas Christianity has tended to use language more along the lines of science being "thinking god's thoughts after him", with the implication being that a truly mature science will eventually agree with Christian scriptures, that any conflict is apparent and not real.
I am confident of where I have placed my bets.
However, this doesn't mean that science and religion cannot coexist or have to have titanic fights all the time.
The statistics state what polled people reported. Unfortunately, some of the self-proclaimed gate-keepers of accepted science historically have found little to no value in other cultures and especially their spiritual beliefs.
No offense meant, but if you are confident with your views, why do you consistently feel compelled to state your position? Unless someone wants a personal relationship with you or is trying to recruit you, it's the conversational equivalent of routinely stating you prefer jam over jelly, no matter the topic.
The statistics state what polled people reported. Unfortunately, some of the self-proclaimed gate-keepers of accepted science historically have found little to no value in other cultures and especially their spiritual beliefs.
No offense meant, but if you are confident with your views, why do you consistently feel compelled to state your position? Unless someone wants a personal relationship with you or is trying to recruit you, it's the conversational equivalent of routinely stating you prefer jam over jelly, no matter the topic.
Although I don't believe in "divinity", I actually agree with you regarding gender having no meaning in spiritual matters.
The only problem with this post that I'm responding to is that you didn't respond to what I posted. You just added something to the conversation.
The FACT remains that many religions do not honor women in the ranks of monks, priests, imams, etc. You may not like that. You may not think that it should be that way. But that's the way it often is.
The only problem that I see exists is that you show too much regard and respect for what monks, priests and imams think. I know Divinity does not care about gender, because Brhman has no gender.
The only problem that I see exists is that you show too much regard and respect for what monks, priests and imams think. I know Divinity does not care about gender, because Brhman has no gender.
I would remind you that a number of times a certain poster has attacked me for not accepting and not respecting what monks do...which is nonsense.
I'm not Hindu, so I'm discussing the issue from a Hindu perspective. And to stay on topic, I would remind a poster that part of the title of the thread indicates the issue is in regard to christians.
No offense meant, but if you are confident with your views, why do you consistently feel compelled to state your position? Unless someone wants a personal relationship with you or is trying to recruit you, it's the conversational equivalent of routinely stating you prefer jam over jelly, no matter the topic.
I have views, I express them. You have views, you express them. That's how this works. It's called a conversation.
Aside from that -- people are more likely to state their views if they are reasonably certain of them, wouldn't you think? Do you post your views more when you're not sure of them? If I am unsure of myself I ask questions.
I have views, I express them. You have views, you express them. That's how this works. It's called a conversation.
Aside from that -- people are more likely to state their views if they are reasonably certain of them, wouldn't you think? Do you post your views more when you're not sure of them? If I am unsure of myself I ask questions.
I don't post my personal views for several reasons. The primary reason is that my views are not stagnant. A secondary reason is who cares?
Why do I post here? I enjoy reading about the expats' travels and dialoguing with those who are not so personally invested with other posters.
I don't post my personal views for several reasons. The primary reason is that my views are not stagnant. A secondary reason is who cares?
Why do I post here? I enjoy reading about the expats' travels and dialoguing with those who are not so personally invested with other posters.
Sure. You do you. And let me do me.
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.
