Blind faith. I don't like how this term is thrown around and applied to everything religious. There is a reason behind all faith; it may not be properly examined; but it's there. Be it tradition, acceptance, a crutch, intuition, or those events in your life that lead you to your faith. My faith as undergone great examination and still is. Some may not care to examine it because it serves its purpose without conflict or they're just not that serious about it.
If religious faith were so blind, why are there so many different religions and denominations? Dissension is antithetical to blind following. Our pluralistic world is a testament to the rarity of blind faith.
10 April 2007
Science Vs. Religion
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 ...
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Ridiculous. That's what I think of the "debate"
Science deals with objective facts. Religion deals with subjective perceptions. Two totally different things that need not be argued about. Both exist harmoniously in the human experience.
First, after actually enjoying my science classes and taking the time to read various sacred texts by myself; I think the science/faith argument is rather silly. I may be simplifying this too much; but, science is objective and faith is subjective. How do you use a text written by poets to determine the age of the universe? How can science actually prove/disprove God (the worldview not just a specific religious diety)? I see two different realms of existence that don't need to piss on each other.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941 ...
"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.
The two are not rivals. They are complementary.
Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."
Martin Luther King Jr.
Ridiculous. That's what I think of the "debate"
Science deals with objective facts. Religion deals with subjective perceptions. Two totally different things that need not be argued about. Both exist harmoniously in the human experience.
First, after actually enjoying my science classes and taking the time to read various sacred texts by myself; I think the science/faith argument is rather silly. I may be simplifying this too much; but, science is objective and faith is subjective. How do you use a text written by poets to determine the age of the universe? How can science actually prove/disprove God (the worldview not just a specific religious diety)? I see two different realms of existence that don't need to piss on each other.
Religion and today's society
Does religion have a useful role in today's society?
I see this question a lot and I'm starting to have issues with it. It's almost like asking if art, marriage, and prostitution are worthwhile. Bad associations, I know; I mean, it seems to be a moot point. Religion is so rooted in the world just like art and prostitution. It's a function of culture. It'll never be eradicated; it just changes right along with the rest of society.
It seems like people think that if everyone would just learn to think scientifically and logically, then religion would vanish. I think this notion fails to acknowledge some key factors in the human experience; like emotion, subjectivity, and intuition. I'm saying that there are fundamental cultural traits that will always feed religion; positively and negatively.
Religion is a man-made institution. An organized group with common supernatural ideas. It is subject to the same fame and faults of any organization. It depends on those who created it and those who participate.
It's been argued that religion is not needed as a moral guideline. My spiritual ideas about myself, others, and this world greatly affect my principles, my conscience, and my actions. No one can invalidate the basis for my values because those basis don't apply to them.
As long as a majority of charitable organizations are founded by religions; I'd say religion will remain worthwhile.
Of course, I have to quote the bible: James 1 v 26,27
"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
I see this question a lot and I'm starting to have issues with it. It's almost like asking if art, marriage, and prostitution are worthwhile. Bad associations, I know; I mean, it seems to be a moot point. Religion is so rooted in the world just like art and prostitution. It's a function of culture. It'll never be eradicated; it just changes right along with the rest of society.
It seems like people think that if everyone would just learn to think scientifically and logically, then religion would vanish. I think this notion fails to acknowledge some key factors in the human experience; like emotion, subjectivity, and intuition. I'm saying that there are fundamental cultural traits that will always feed religion; positively and negatively.
Religion is a man-made institution. An organized group with common supernatural ideas. It is subject to the same fame and faults of any organization. It depends on those who created it and those who participate.
It's been argued that religion is not needed as a moral guideline. My spiritual ideas about myself, others, and this world greatly affect my principles, my conscience, and my actions. No one can invalidate the basis for my values because those basis don't apply to them.
As long as a majority of charitable organizations are founded by religions; I'd say religion will remain worthwhile.
Of course, I have to quote the bible: James 1 v 26,27
"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)