Religion using Science Irony

[brandoncotten]

One thing has been bothering me lately. I seen a video of this old african man standing under a tabernacle using a microphone screaming how the white man as brought nothing but torture and sin to the black people. My very first thought was, but he is using the tools created by the white man to preach his hate about the white man. I seen nothing but Irony. I try and apply this same logic to Christians, modern day Christians or not. Should they enjoy the benefits of automobile transportation, medicines or anything that had to use math and science to further its progression

My argument is should the religious use anything that was made with science?

Edited December 13, 2011 by brandoncotten

[Phi for All]

First off, I wouldn't call the microphone a "tool created by the white man". James West, a black man, did research on transducers that are used on nine out of ten microphones built today. He has 47 US patents and over 200 foreign patents on microphones and telephones.

 

Second, the majority of Christians in the world accept many scientific theories. The Pope acknowledges Big Bang and Evolution. Only some shun technology, like the Amish, who openly declare their dislike for science.

 

But I get the feeling you're talking about creationists, people who believe in only one book, and consider most of the evidence that supports scientific theory to be false. If they believe their god put oil in the ground for them to use, the fact that they reject science's explanation for how it got there doesn't make them hypocrites. Now if they think their god is responsible for the lights that go on when they flip a switch in their house, then I think they should have their utilities cut off.

 

There are crackpots, not necessarily religious, who complain about Relativity but use their computers and GPS map service, and that seems hypocritical.

 

I think the key here is to take everybody as an individual, and not group them all into categories so we can judge their actions based on what only a few do.

[brandoncotten]

I was dating further back to the origins in 1870's with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Berliner

[imatfaal]

I was dating further back to the origins in 1870's with http://en.wikipedia..../Emile_Berliner

 

Your question does seem to presuppose that scientific and technological advancement is the preserve of the White post-Enlightenment Rationalist - and whilst a fair percentage of scientist nowdays might fall into that category, it is by no means the case over history. The apportioning of scientific advancement to one race, colour or creed is nonsense. The whole of modern science is incredibly indebted to the pagan Greeks, the Muslim Scholars, the Hindu Aesthetics, the Christian Monks, the Jewish diaspora etc...

 

The marvellous thing about science is that there is no added value to a theory which comes from the progenitor or his/her societal status - the only value comes from the details of the theory itself. the corollary to this is that science is completely blind to those who utilise the theories, ideas and processes of science; now this could be catastrophic as well as brilliant - but there is no possibility of science becoming race-orientated. Scientists are too obsessed with the answer, with the next question, with the tiny glimpse of truth to worry about race, colour and religion - they leave that to the politicians and the priests.

[Nassar Jad]

Religion is a science of it's own, and modern day christian are still as evil as they use to be, but in a more quit way, don't confuse religion with sorcery, religion is also history and an idea of the origin of the world.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Nassar Jad

[Mrl4]

What the hell does science have to do with Christianity?!

 

Science is just a generalization of specific events, it's just rules for things that happen every day, like when you throw a ball or make statistics... sometimes it's only theories that are false, and other times it's things that are true. It has nothing to do with religion. Maybe getting sucked into it and caring about nothing else takes you far from your religious side but other than that there's nothing to it.

 

Personally, I think that science is just human beings discovering how this world works. And technology, it's just making everyday life easier. I mean, even if you don't like it, you need it, or else you will get behind all the others. Technology began in the perspective of making life easier, but it's gotten too far where companies try to surpass others and innovate only for financial profit (in terms of robots replacing humans and such). But when technology is beneficial for you, then why not.

Let's not get carried away and insulting others based on prejudice and lack of information.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Mrl4

[swansont]

Second, the majority of Christians in the world accept many scientific theories. The Pope acknowledges Big Bang and Evolution. Only some shun technology, like the Amish, who openly declare their dislike for science.

 

But their "dislike" seems (to me) to be different from the "dislike" of much of the religious right, who have made a choice and decided that ideology is correct, and bash any science that contradicts it. The Amish shun modern technology. The question that would distinguish is whether they ignore a scientific approach to, say, improving farming techniques, that does not involve modern technology. Would they, for example, use animal husbandry knowledge that's based on systematic investigation? I don't know enough about Amish culture to say.

 

I do agree, though, that there is a large swath of people who don't see the irony in their aversion to science. Reject relativity, as you say, and use GPS. Denounce evolution and get a flu shot. Call QM silly and use any modern electronics.

[Phi for All]

Personally, I think that science is just human beings discovering how this world works.

It's also the methodology used. A way to make sure the discoveries you make are valid. A careful, precise, painstaking methodology that allows you to trust the conclusions you make.

 

To use an analogy, have you ever done the NY Times crossword puzzle in ink? There are times when you think you know an answer, it's the right number of letters, it makes perfect sense, it may even give you a letter that works for another answer you think you know. But if you don't check every letter first, don't make absolutely sure your first answer was right, don't predict where this answer will intersect other answers, if you assume your answer is 100% correct and put it down in pen you could be making a mistake that will make all your other answers worthless. So science doesn't assume they have the answer "correct". They check the answer against everything that's gone before, and predict how that answer will fit in with future answers. That's how science discovers how the world works, and how you can trust its theories to be the best possible explanations.

 

But their "dislike" seems (to me) to be different from the "dislike" of much of the religious right, who have made a choice and decided that ideology is correct, and bash any science that contradicts it. The Amish shun modern technology. The question that would distinguish is whether they ignore a scientific approach to, say, improving farming techniques, that does not involve modern technology. Would they, for example, use animal husbandry knowledge that's based on systematic investigation? I don't know enough about Amish culture to say.

It IS different. The Amish aren't anti-technology, they just prefer to use their own power and that of their animals. No hypocrisy there.

 

Mostly, they don't want to be dependent on technology. They don't want to rely on anything but themselves. I think they're allowed to use things like modern grease for their axles, and certainly use modern techniques for breeding and care of their animals and irrigating their fields. They believe dependence on technology reduces their community values, their reliance on one another to help get things done. That's the part I remember because that's the part I like best. I would love to participate in a barn-raising.

 

I do agree, though, that there is a large swath of people who don't see the irony in their aversion to science. Reject relativity, as you say, and use GPS. Denounce evolution and get a flu shot. Call QM silly and use any modern electronics.

Quite so. And I think these people are often guilty of hypocrisy in many other areas. Like the Christian fish and Pro-Life sticker on the bumper of the car that's speeding and weaving in and out of traffic. Or the ones who can sing Let There Be Peace on Earth or Bomb, Bomb Iran with equal zeal.

[brandoncotten]

I was just under the assumption that if you were going to choose a side say religion, and preach their word but use the tools of the sinners its just too much irony to bear.. now i know there are religious scientists but i view those people as fence sitters that claim to be on 1 side. I do not think in the biblical context you can have your cake and eat it too.

[zapatos]

Religion is a science of it's own, and modern day christian are still as evil as they use to be, but in a more quit way, don't confuse religion with sorcery, religion is also history and an idea of the origin of the world.

Well thank you for that massive generalization. But somehow I'm having a tough time figuring out when my grandmother had time to be evil when she was so busy with her charitable work. Can you be more specific about what evil traits she has?

 

I was just under the assumption that if you were going to choose a side say religion, and preach their word but use the tools of the sinners its just too much irony to bear.. now i know there are religious scientists but i view those people as fence sitters that claim to be on 1 side. I do not think in the biblical context you can have your cake and eat it too.

Yeah, I feel the same way about the non-religious who utilize many of the religious based food pantries or charity hospitals.

 

Can you give me the biblical context that says it is wrong to use technology?

Edited December 15, 2011 by zapatos

[brandoncotten]

Yeah, I feel the same way about the non-religious who utilize many of the religious based food pantries or charity hospitals.

 

Can you give me the biblical context that says it is wrong to use technology?

 

is not the notion of being the religious is to preach the word, and love god and love thy neighbor? is not food pantries and charity hospitals one of this worlds BEST ways to show love to thy neighbor?

i think its completely acceptable for the non-religious to go to these things.. seeing it otherwise is arrogance and ignorance

 

on the flip side, when you start your car and drive to work, your really relying on engineering and math to get you to your point of interest. i would say if you were a true believer, "faith of a mustard seed so the speak" you could walk on water, move mountains, all the "if you were as complete as you should be" ideas here.

 

so to me what your trying to do is exactly this. You are not complete so you have to live with what the world gave you. And you see that as completely fine. I see it as irony. tbh, you should be WAY more devout. Follow the bible to the T. Not I will follow this and I will follow that, "if it fits into my everyday comings and going".

 

If you are to use the tools of the sinners or the heathens, or any amount of scientists that create things, be that advancements or what, and they are openly atheist, or partake in their reindeer games, I am sure the allmighty all powerful god that doesn't exist would say sorry kid, you got intoxicated with their perfume.

[zapatos]

is not the notion of being the religious is to preach the word, and love god and love thy neighbor? is not food pantries and charity hospitals one of this worlds BEST ways to show love to thy neighbor?

i think its completely acceptable for the non-religious to go to these things.. seeing it otherwise is arrogance and ignorance

 

I too think it is acceptable. Who is the arrogant and ignorant one who said otherwise?

I said it was ironic that one group would deny the other, then benefit from the others fruits. Just as you did.

 

on the flip side, when you start your car and drive to work, your really relying on engineering and math to get you to your point of interest. i would say if you were a true believer, "faith of a mustard seed so the speak" you could walk on water, move mountains, all the "if you were as complete as you should be" ideas here.

 

In what religion can you walk on water and move mountains if you are a true believer? And again, can you tell me where in the bible it says you cannot or should not utilize engineering and math to get you to your point of interest?

 

so to me what your trying to do is exactly this. You are not complete so you have to live with what the world gave you. And you see that as completely fine. I see it as irony. tbh, you should be WAY more devout. Follow the bible to the T. Not I will follow this and I will follow that, "if it fits into my everyday comings and going".

 

Thank you for your advice on how I should behave myself spiritually. Any comments on how I raise my children?

 

If you are to use the tools of the sinners or the heathens, or any amount of scientists that create things, be that advancements or what, and they are openly atheist, or partake in their reindeer games, I am sure the allmighty all powerful god that doesn't exist would say sorry kid, you got intoxicated with their perfume.

 

What religion are you talking about?!?

 

So in your mind it is ironic that theists utilize the work of atheists, but not ironic that atheists utilize the work of theists.

 

How ironic...

[Moontanman]

Well thank you for that massive generalization. But somehow I'm having a tough time figuring out when my grandmother had time to be evil when she was so busy with her charitable work. Can you be more specific about what evil traits she has?

 

I agree, while i don't know your grandma it's unlikely she was evil simply because she was religious, evil is an emergent property of religion and unlikely to be participated in voluntarily and knowingly as evil by the general membership of that religion.

 

Yeah, I feel the same way about the non-religious who utilize many of the religious based food pantries or charity hospitals.

 

I've had to utilize religion based food banks before but I also give to those organizations, food banks especially, I feel do a good job of helping people, their religious nature would not keep me from helping them do this.

[zapatos]

I agree, while i don't know your grandma it's unlikely she was evil simply because she was religious, evil is an emergent property of religion and unlikely to be participated in voluntarily and knowingly as evil by the general membership of that religion.

Yeah, it may be an emergent property of religion, but I've always thought it was probably an emergent property of people. I know this is anecdotal, but over time I've found that the groups of people I've thought highly of for one reason or another, all turn out to be just about like any other group. It seems all groups have a similar percentages of people who are nice, smart, jerks, arrogant, helpful, etc.

 

At first I was shocked when I heard priests had molested so many boys, thinking there should not be many people like that in the priesthood. Then it seemed like every other priest was involved. Finally I heard that the percentage of priests molesting boys was roughly the same as the percentage of people molesting children in the general population.

 

I'd guess it would be the same for other attributes as well. If an evangelical today who thought only his type of person would go to heaven was suddenly sent to 1930's Germany, he would probably make a great Aryan. That is, he would express his high esteem for his group, whether his group happened to be religious or of some other type.

Edited December 18, 2011 by zapatos

[Phi for All]

Yeah, it may be an emergent property of religion, but I've always thought it was probably an emergent property of people. I know this is anecdotal, but over time I've found that the groups of people I've thought highly of for one reason or another, all turn out to be just about like any other group. It seems all groups have a similar percentages of people who are nice, smart, jerks, arrogant, helpful, etc.

 

At first I was shocked when I heard priests had molested so many boys, thinking there should not be many people like that in the priesthood. Then it seemed like every other priest was involved. Finally I heard that the percentage of priests molesting boys was roughly the same as the percentage of people molesting children in the general population.

This is a great point. Remember that most of the time you hear about people doing <insert any negative behavior here>, it's a function of either heresay or 24/7 media coverage. Back when CNN started and the 24/7 news monster was just a baby, there was a woman named Susan Smith who drowned her two boys and blamed it on a fictitious transient. When it was finally established that she killed her own kids, CNN reported on two other instances where parents had killed their own offspring. Even though the stories were separated by thousands of miles and several months apart, the coverage made it seem like there was an epidemic going on.

 

Just because we hear about all the negative stories doesn't mean the world is full of hypocrites and thieves and murderers. As zapatos points out, any group is going to have its share of all types.