Why do religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and Science?

[dimreepr]

Science consists of claims arrived at through a particular method of investigating the world. Religions are probably best defined as consisting of statements originating from a common set of authorities or texts with no limit on the sorts of claims made as long as they include claims about non-animalian minds or other planes of existence and descriptions of recommended ritualistic behavior. The word "religion" ends up being pretty useless.

 

 

You’re missing the point, science explains our current thinking, and religion explains our previous thinking, who knows what will explain our future thinking.

[zapatos]

If that is the only claim made by about a god then i agree.

Well, there are of course many more claims made about gods, but that doesn't make my statement any less true.

 

We think of it as the only claim of most moderate people's god because science has set limits on what can be said about god. No longer can people say, 'yes, god just came along and parted that massive sea over there'. Surely science would have something to say about that?

Yes, science does have something to say about that. Science can explain the universe without god, but it cannot disprove god.

[Prometheus]

Well, there are of course many more claims made about gods, but that doesn't make my statement any less true.

 

I agree it doesn't: i misread your statement as something else (and gave you a -1 so bad was my reading: would be awesome if someone reading could chuck a +1 in there.)

 

Yes, science does have something to say about that. Science can explain the universe without god, but it cannot disprove god.

 

But this is a step forward for now we can place god in that category of things that cannot ever be disproved, like the Taoists have always done.

[dimreepr]

But this is a step forward for now we can place god in that category of things that cannot ever be disproved, like the Taoists have always done.

 

 

The real step forward is in understanding why a “god” doesn’t matter.

[Strange]

I am a bit disappointed (but not at all surprised) by the way this thread went.

 

I was more interested in finding out why some religious people are anti-science than why some atheists are anti-religion. After all, the latter has been expressed, with varying degrees of eloquence, on this and other science forums.

 

It seems much harder to get a clear explanation from religious people who are against science.

 

Anyway, carry on. Back to your entrenched positions.

 

Edit: I'll remove that last whimsical comment after reading the last few posts. There have been some interesting points made.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Strange

[Velocity_Boy]

I don't think the Believers "try to invent" that conflict.

 

I believe it is a very real one. And many of our more strident and vocal atheists, like the late Chris Hitchens, along with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have exacerbated this conflict. They claim that religion has had it too easy for too long and the time is nigh for it to be eradicated as the harmful viral plague it is to Science and Progress.

 

I personally agree with that view, BTW.

 

Religion has no choice but to conflict with science if they continue to believe in some of their absurd dogma and fables like we find in the bible. Where unicorns exist; serpents speak and seduce; sky gods stop the sun in the sky so as to allow more time for slaughter; seas divide to allow people to walk through them; and plants were created before the Sun.

 

Wow.

 

Yeah the more I think about it the more I totally disagree with you. In fact. I think religion has lamely TRIED to help close the gap between itself and science. Like with ID. Which is nothing but old Creationism gussied-up with some psuedo science in an attempt to get it snuck past school administrators and be taught in schools.

 

Religion HAS to concede to science like this, and do more, really, if it wants to survive. As it is, as every decade passes religion is swept further and further into the dark corner of superstition where it so rightfully belongs. People are leaving the churches in droves. Evolution gets more evidence and proof every single year. It is all but a LAW! Soon it will be.

 

"Science flies us to the Moon. Religion flies us into skyscrapers."

 

So what?

 

There is no reason to invent a conflict between them. Science and religion don't really have any connection or grounds for conflict. The things that religion deals with (gods, the supernatural, etc) have nothing to do with science and science has nothing to say about them.

 

Science investigates the natural world and attempts to understand it.

 

Unless your beliefs are contradicted by reality (such as people who believe the Earth is flat) then there should be no reason for conflict between your beliefs and science, because science just explores the real world.

 

 

I don't think the Believers "try to invent" that conflict.

I believe it is a very real one. And many of our more strident and vocal atheists, like the late Chris Hitchens, along with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have exacerbated this conflict. They claim that religion has had it too easy for too long and the time is nigh for it to be eradicated as the harmful viral plague it is to Science and Progress.

I personally agree with that view, BTW.

Religion has no choice but to conflict with science if they continue to believe in some of their absurd dogma and fables like we find in the bible. Where unicorns exist; serpents speak and seduce; sky gods stop the sun in the sky so as to allow more time for slaughter; seas divide to allow people to walk through them; and plants were created before the Sun.

Wow.

Yeah the more I think about it the more I totally disagree with you. In fact. I think religion has lamely TRIED to help close the gap between itself and science. Like with ID. Which is nothing but old Creationism gussied-up with some psuedo science in an attempt to get it snuck past school administrators and be taught in schools.

Religion HAS to concede to science like this, and do more, really, if it wants to survive. As it is, as every decade passes religion is swept further and further into the dark corner of superstition where it so rightfully belongs. People are leaving the churches in droves. Evolution gets more evidence and proof every single year. It is all but a LAW! Soon it will be.

"Science flies us to the Moon. Religion flies us into skyscrapers."

 

 

I'll go along with that.

 

 

I will go along with us scientists not attacking religion and doing our damndest to keep it (and it's show pony, ID) out of the classrooms, so long as they stay where they belong. Which is in the arena of literature and Mythology and Superstition. And NOT in any real discussions about how the Earth or the Cosmos came into existence.

Genesis as a guide to the Creation of the Cosmos is about as useful as reading "Lord of the Rings" to learn about Geoscience.

 

What really irks me about the religious zealots and biblical literalists is their continued hypocritical refusal to hold their own holy book up to the same level of criticism and analysis they try to do with science. Never mind that we can explain 95% of how the Big Bang or Evolution work--they take the remaining as-yet-explained 5% and say, "Aha! You can't explain it because god did it!"

 

Jeez that ticks me off.

 

OK I better quit, I get too worked up on this topic! LOL

[Moontanman]

 

I don't see what difference it makes.

 

 

I can prove that the abrahamic gods do not exist... either that or they lie, take your pick...

I am a bit disappointed (but not at all surprised) by the way this thread went.

 

I was more interested in finding out why some religious people are anti-science than why some atheists are anti-religion. After all, the latter has been expressed, with varying degrees of eloquence, on this and other science forums.

 

It seems much harder to get a clear explanation from religious people who are against science.

 

Anyway, carry on. Back to your entrenched positions.

 

Edit: I'll remove that last whimsical comment after reading the last few posts. There have been some interesting points made.

 

 

The religious leaders need to convince there followers that their beliefs are being persecuted and science is an easy mark since science negates the holy books of all mainstream religions...

[Raider5678]

I don't think the Believers "try to invent" that conflict.

 

I believe it is a very real one. And many of our more strident and vocal atheists, like the late Chris Hitchens, along with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have exacerbated this conflict. They claim that religion has had it too easy for too long and the time is nigh for it to be eradicated as the harmful viral plague it is to Science and Progress.

 

I personally agree with that view, BTW.

 

Religion has no choice but to conflict with science if they continue to believe in some of their absurd dogma and fables like we find in the bible. Where unicorns exist; serpents speak and seduce; sky gods stop the sun in the sky so as to allow more time for slaughter; seas divide to allow people to walk through them; and plants were created before the Sun.

 

Wow.

 

Yeah the more I think about it the more I totally disagree with you. In fact. I think religion has lamely TRIED to help close the gap between itself and science. Like with ID. Which is nothing but old Creationism gussied-up with some psuedo science in an attempt to get it snuck past school administrators and be taught in schools.

 

Religion HAS to concede to science like this, and do more, really, if it wants to survive. As it is, as every decade passes religion is swept further and further into the dark corner of superstition where it so rightfully belongs. People are leaving the churches in droves. Evolution gets more evidence and proof every single year. It is all but a LAW! Soon it will be.

 

"Science flies us to the Moon. Religion flies us into skyscrapers."

 

 

I will go along with us scientists not attacking religion and doing our damndest to keep it (and it's show pony, ID) out of the classrooms, so long as they stay where they belong. Which is in the arena of literature and Mythology and Superstition. And NOT in any real discussions about how the Earth or the Cosmos came into existence.

Genesis as a guide to the Creation of the Cosmos is about as useful as reading "Lord of the Rings" to learn about Geoscience.

 

What really irks me about the religious zealots and biblical literalists is their continued hypocritical refusal to hold their own holy book up to the same level of criticism and analysis they try to do with science. Never mind that we can explain 95% of how the Big Bang or Evolution work--they take the remaining as-yet-explained 5% and say, "Aha! You can't explain it because god did it!"

 

Jeez that ticks me off.

 

OK I better quit, I get too worked up on this topic! LOL

The fables you brought up, while they seem impossible without God, seem slightly more possible with God. Its taking it out of context. If I were to claim that two pieces of metal magically fly together, it would seem stupid. If you add magnetism to it, it seems more likely. BTW, isn't the big bang a theory?

 

And in my not so professional opinion, science isn't being halted by religion. Other then "scientists" devoting their life's work to proving there is no religion.

 

Also, where did you hear people were leaving the churches in droves? I kinda heard the opposite.

[zapatos]

I was more interested in finding out why some religious people are anti-science than why some atheists are anti-religion. After all, the latter has been expressed, with varying degrees of eloquence, on this and other science forums.

Can you please define what you mean by anti-science? Maybe some examples?

 

In my experience, religious people are not what I would call anti-science. They are not against it. They still get their kids vaccinated, fly in planes, and want people to do research.

 

On the other hand, the religious people don't always believe what they are told about science, but to me that seems a more neutral position.

 

The reason for their stance seems quite simple. They are told conflicting things and must make a choice, not really being in a position to verify either for themselves.

[Velocity_Boy]

The fables you brought up, while they seem impossible without God, seem slightly more possible with God. Its taking it out of context. If I were to claim that two pieces of metal magically fly together, it would seem stupid. If you add magnetism to it, it seems more likely. BTW, isn't the big bang a theory?

 

And in my not so professional opinion, science isn't being halted by religion. Other then "scientists" devoting their life's work to proving there is no religion.

 

Also, where did you hear people were leaving the churches in droves? I kinda heard the opposite.

 

 

Your magenetism analogy with god is flawed.

 

Why?

 

Well, because magnetism is a proven occurrence. It is a Law. We have seen it work millions of time and it is used everyday. Probably millions of times. It can be seen and witnessed and felt and touched and experienced. We have mathematical proofs and equations outlining its process and methodologies. Several pretty famous scientists--Gauss comes to mind--have made it a central work of their opus.

 

God? LOL. Not so much. In fact, that idea has NONE of those things.

 

As far as declining church attendance, here's a bit more.......http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/139575-7-startling-facts-an-up-close-look-at-church-attendance-in-america.html

[Strange]

I can prove that the abrahamic gods do not exist... either that or they lie, take your pick...

 

 

You may be able to prove that to yourself (and other atheists). And I assume you would do that using some sort of logical argument.

 

I don't think you can do it with science. But that isn't really the point of the question.

[disarray]

Zapatos, you said that, "Science has something to say about how the universe evolved, not about how it came to be"

 

I don't see how you can make such a claim given the work done by scientists to either do just that, or alternatively, to show that the universe, in effect, had no begging, e.g., Higgs and Hawking, respectively.

 

Perhaps you meant to say that the Theory of Evolution has something to say about how living creatures evolved, but not about the origin of life. But it would be no surprise if the origins of life one day is explained by scientists in terms of the evolution of bits of crystal or RNa or whatever that led (perhaps rather smoothly) to the beginning of life forms. Indeed, the line between non-organic and organic is somewhat gray.

 

Another point I would dispute is your claim that "religious people are not what I would call anti-science. They are not against it. They still get their kids vaccinated..."

 

Perhaps in your experience you have read or heard Creationists and Fundamentalists, in particular, rail against 'atheistic, materialistic, God-hating, scientists' as I have. Indeed, such examples are so prevalent in our society that I am surprised that you are, apparently, unaware of it. Then there is the claim made by some religious people that scientists can't criticize religion because, after all, science is a religion itself. Perhaps you might listen to the more conservative sermons that one hears on the radio.

 

And no, there are plenty of religious people who are against vaccination on religious grounds, not to mention birth control, and indeed, some religious people refuse to let doctors operate on their children. In any case, I am surprised that you would not be aware of this.

 

As for airplanes and the like, the Amish come to mind in that the simplicity they strive for is in keeping with their religious vision of life. And even your observation that those who oppose science still use things made by science ignores the fact that even neo-Luddites use technologies despite viewing them as the enemy...Indeed, unless one has the luxury of having land on which they can support themselves, most people are forced to use machines simply by virtue of living in a town or city, (e.g., no horses around, and if one is to feed oneself one must get a job, which is often too far away to walk to).

 

All in all, I think that it is a false generalization that religious people don't actively attack science and/or scientists.

Edited June 23, 2016 by disarray

[John Cuthber]

 

 

You’re missing the point, science explains our current thinking, and religion explains our previous thinking, who knows what will explain our future thinking.

Science will also guide our future thinking.

That's because science will change, though religion won't.

That's the origin of the conflict, and nobody had to "invent" it.

[Strange]

 

Zapatos, you said that, "Science has something to say about how the universe evolved, not about how it came to be"

 

I don't see how you can make such a claim given the work done by scientists to either do just that, or alternatively, to show that the universe, in effect, had no begging, e.g., Higgs and Hawking, respectively.

 

 

There is no scientific theory that describes the creation of the universe. There is speculation from the likes of Hawking, but I am not convinced that is any better (in terms of scientific support) than "goddidit".

 

 

Perhaps in your experience you have read or heard Creationists and Fundamentalists, in particular, rail against 'atheistic, materialistic, God-hating, scientists' as I have.

 

This may be a US vs rest of the world thing. Religious people who reject science, try to stop evolution being taught, etc. are almost unknown in Europe. (There is a tiny number of such people and they may get occasional press coverage but they have no real impact as far as I am aware.) As for vaccinations I have never heard of any connection between that and religion.

[Prometheus]

There is no scientific theory that describes the creation of the universe. There is speculation from the likes of Hawking, but I am not convinced that is any better (in terms of scientific support) than "goddidit".

 

It is at least possible (though i have no idea how likely) that science could sufficiently progress to explore pre-big bang. The question will then be what came before that and so on... I think there will always be something we do not know about. Personally, rather than say godditit i would rather say dunno, but each to their own.

 

I was more interested in finding out why some religious people are anti-science than why some atheists are anti-religion.

 

I'm not sure there are enough conservative religious people on here to get their view on that. I can offer an anecdote from my childhood: in science class a muslim friend of mine and i were banished to the naughty corner, so we used to just talk between ourselves. He explained once that he thought both the story of Adam and Eve and evolution was true - Adam and Eve were monkeys and then later evolved into humans. Not quite anti-science but it shows how religion provides a framework in which people understand things which could subvert a proper understanding of something.

[Strange]

It is at least possible (though i have no idea how likely) that science could sufficiently progress to explore pre-big bang. The question will then be what came before that and so on... I think there will always be something we do not know about. Personally, rather than say godditit i would rather say dunno, but each to their own.

 

 

I agree completely.

 

It seems some people are unable to accept "don't know" as an argument and so will assume an unidentified object is aliens or an unexplained phenomenon must be supernatural.

 

 

 

I'm not sure there are enough conservative religious people on here to get their view on that. I can offer an anecdote from my childhood: in science class a muslim friend of mine and i were banished to the naughty corner, so we used to just talk between ourselves. He explained once that he thought both the story of Adam and Eve and evolution was true - Adam and Eve were monkeys and then later evolved into humans. Not quite anti-science but it shows how religion provides a framework in which people understand things which could subvert a proper understanding of something.

 

I'm not sure that is unique to religious people. There are a great many people who like science but hold onto a very distorted view of what science says about things. I'm sure there are plenty of non-religious people who think that science has identified Adma and Eve (because of stories about "mitochondrial Eve" etc.)

[Memammal]

Sorry, I was out of circulation since my last posts. Let me quickly catch up.

 

As there is no science that says anything either way about "creation", I can't see how there can be a contradiction.

I see a contradiction but since this matter has been discussed quite a bit, I am not going to elaborate on this any further.

 

Is sin a genetic trait? That is a bizarre belief.

Yet the doctrine of original sin is of paramount importance to Christians. Every human being is perceived to be born "sinful" (see my comments below) and destined for hell unless saved by the blood of Jesus. In countries such as the one that I live in (where the white population consists mostly of the descendants of protestant reformers who fled Europe in fear of religious prosecution), these things are taken very seriously. Children are being brought up with it in homes and pre-school institutions and it is generally accepted within school, family and other social environments, in fact there is great concern for the soul of someone who is known to be areligious or "sinful" who ends up on his/her dead bead, or is buried. The same applies to many other staunchly religious countries in the world. Needless to say that evolution, or the teaching thereof, is not very popular in such societies and the topic is largely avoided and even dispelled. Hence my negativity against religion...it tends to dampen knowledge.

 

Are you saying that people never do bad things because evolution doesn't allow it?

I was talking about "sin", as in Biblical/Tanakh/Quran kind of sin. Obviously people do bad things, but how can it be a "sin"? Do animals "sin" in the eyes of a god in the sense that they need to be saved from eternal hell? Hence my reference to the so-called "extraordinary ability to sin". If such an idea would be considered from a scientific perspective...what evolutionary process could have explained the notion that (only) humans can "sin"?

 

As such things are not detectable and there is no evidence they exist, what does evolution have to do with it?

As per above. If such an idea would be considered from a scientific perspective...what evolutionary process could have explained the notion that (only) humans have immortal souls? Because that is what monotheistic religions claim.

 

But we are talking about science, not whether you or I agree with their beliefs. I don't care if they believe that; science has nothing to say about it and can have nothing to say about it. Unless you think you have a soul detector?

But Christians would not accept that. And science can't show them to be that.

Plenty of people do. So I guess you just lack imagination or an understanding of human nature..

Revisit the context of this part of the discussion with reference to my comments above. Many believers in many countries across the world have very strong views about these core beliefs. Keep in mind that they never experienced an enlightenment era. They believe in it so strongly that they do not accept anything that contradicts these beliefs. They are so programmed, so brainwashed by their culturally aligned religious inheritance, which is reinforced by their surrounding environments when they grow up, that they end up being close to cognitively impaired with regard to those issues. Some of them will sacrifice, even die for their religion, many do. So I am wondering what do I not understand about human nature? I am pretty convinced that the religious inclination of humanity stems from an untended by-product of evolution, which is wearing off as the result of among other things the age of enlightenment, the scientific revolution, etc. I realise that many people find it possible to live their lives with this illusion of the promised afterlife with their loved ones in heaven praising their God Almighty, or at least they want to keep that back door open just in case; or they enjoy (depend on-) the sense of spiritual belonging and gathering with fellow believers where they perform rituals such as prayers (for good fortune, health, etc) truly believing that their various programmed versions of God will provide. I presume that it must have something to do with the gene/environmental interplay. Some people will be susceptible to religion, others won't.

BTW, isn't the big bang a theory?

Yes, a scientific theory. Please don't steer in that direction...

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory).

[Strange]

Revisit the context of this part of the discussion with reference to my comments above. Many believers in many countries across the world have very strong views about these core beliefs.

 

 

You make some very good points. But there are probably details that could be argued about.

 

But it is all totally irrelevant. None of what you say has anything to do with science.

 

Of course evolution says nothing about immortal souls or original sin. They are outside of the scope of science. There is no science that can show that an undetectable entity does not exist.

 

 

 

what evolutionary process could have explained the notion that (only) humans have immortal souls? Because that is what monotheistic religions claim.

 

I don't think they claim it has anything to do with evolution. So there is no conflict with evolutionary theory. And you can't use evolution as an argument against it.

 

All you are doing is stating your disagreement with their beliefs and then insisting "because science". But there is no science of souls or sin.

[Memammal]

I sense a communication gap between us. No, of course they don't claim that it has anything to do with evolution. They claim that their god created humans differently to animals which will "explain" that humans have immortal souls and the ability to "sin" whereas animals don't. We as informed outsiders (should) know that we are in fact not unique or divine creations, that we are a product of evolution just as all the other animals and should therefore conclude that any such unique trait can only be brought about by evolution - how else? By admitting that there is no such proof of this ever happening we can dispel the idea that we are different to animals in this respect. So either all animals (including our species) have immortal souls and can "sin", or no living organism has those traits. Do you have an alternative idea as to how our species might have acquired said traits?

Edited June 23, 2016 by Memammal

[Strange]

Do you have an alternative idea as to how our species might have acquired said traits?

 

 

Well, duh. Obviously not through evolution.

 

I struggle to see the logic in your argument. I now finding myself trying to defend something I don't believe in!

 

If [someone believes that] God gave humans a special "thing" then the way humans acquired it was that God gave it to them. (Complicated, I know.)

 

How does an argument about evolution have ANYTHING to do with that?

 

 

No, of course they don't claim that it has anything to do with evolution. They claim that their god created humans differently to animals which will "explain" that humans have immortal souls and the ability to a "sin" whereas animals don't.

 

Quite. Nothing to do with evolution, then. So why do you keep trying to drag an irrelevant argument into it.

 

Can science detect a soul? No. So science has nothing to say about it.

Did the soul evolve? No. So science has nothing to say about it.

 

As this is not a conversation I am the least bit interested in. We can just leave it there.

 

Sadly, I am not going to be able to have the conversation I was interested in ... Any attempt is always hijacked by a[nti]theists.

[Memammal]

"Well, duh. Obviously not through evolution."

 

As such our species cannot be different to other animals w.r.t. having immortal souls or the ability to "sin" unless there was some sort of divine creation/intervention. Only we know our species was not created, we evolved. That leaves intervention. Exactly how and when would something like that have happened? Was it something in that darn apple? How would an entire species suddenly (naturally or supernaturally) acquire said traits? How and in what form are these traits being passed on to our children?

 

All just hypothetical questions of course. We should know better by now.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Memammal

[Strange]

As such our species cannot be different to other animals w.r.t. having immortal souls or the ability to "sin" unless there was some sort of divine creation/intervention.

 

 

At last. You've got it.

 

 

 

Exactly how and when would something like that have happened?

 

You can't answer that. You don't believe it happened. Who cares. But you can't use science to show that your belief is correct. How are you going to scientifically test for divine intervention? How are you going to objectively measure a "soul"?

 

Science has NOTHING to say about that one way or the other.

 

You are confusing your beliefs with science (and mistaking other peoples beliefs for something that science can disprove).

Edited June 23, 2016 by Strange

[MonDie]

It would seem that if the soul evolved, then some people who are still technically alive could lose their soul through mutation or brain trauma, and the soul would probably be acquired at a certain phase in development.

[Raider5678]

My tiny monkey evolved brain lost track of what the main question was. Oh yeah.

 

In my opinion, while there are a late number, but minor percentage of religious people protesting science, for generalization, they just want be in peace. Most of them aren't arguing in the stores about who's going to hell.

Gtg.

[zapatos]

Zapatos, you said that, "Science has something to say about how the universe evolved, not about how it came to be"

 

I don't see how you can make such a claim given the work done by scientists to either do just that, or alternatively, to show that the universe, in effect, had no begging, e.g., Higgs and Hawking, respectively.

Please tell me the name of the Theory that describes how the universe began.

 

Perhaps you meant to say that the Theory of Evolution has something to say about how living creatures evolved, but not about the origin of life. But it would be no surprise if the origins of life one day is explained by scientists in terms of the evolution of bits of crystal or RNa or whatever that led (perhaps rather smoothly) to the beginning of life forms. Indeed, the line between non-organic and organic is somewhat gray.

No, I am aware there is a difference between Evolution and the origin of the universe.

 

Another point I would dispute is your claim that "religious people are not what I would call anti-science. They are not against it. They still get their kids vaccinated..."

Unfortunately you failed to quote my entire sentence. Here it is: "In my experience, religious people are not what I would call anti-science."

 

Perhaps in your experience you have read or heard Creationists and Fundamentalists, in particular, rail against 'atheistic, materialistic, God-hating, scientists' as I have. Indeed, such examples are so prevalent in our society that I am surprised that you are, apparently, unaware of it.

What's with the hostile attitude? Can we do this without the petty insults?

 

And no, there are plenty of religious people who are against vaccination on religious grounds,

Those are really two different things. I'm against GMOs, but that doesn't mean I'm against science.

 

not to mention birth control, and indeed, some religious people refuse to let doctors operate on their children. In any case, I am surprised that you would not be aware of this.

 

Again? Please be civil.

 

As for airplanes and the like, the Amish come to mind in that the simplicity they strive for is in keeping with their religious vision of life.

You seem to be begging the question. A desire for one thing does not necessarily equate to an active stance against another. I strive to stay off social media, but I am not anti-internet, or even anti-social media. It's just not for me.

 

 

All in all, I think that it is a false generalization that religious people don't actively attack science and/or scientists.

I think my generalization is a lot closer to the mark than your generalization that religious people DO attack science and scientists.

Edited June 23, 2016 by zapatos