Including the page on facebook, which recently posted this: Perhaps that is one of the reasons why most religions hate science, because it reminds them of how slow they are to change....
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
Religion as a whole I've not seen that from very often, but I have seen it from individual religious people a few times now.
Totally agreed! I'll supplement this with my quote regarding people strongly affiliated with their political stance and/or religion (I'm not exempt). "You can't argue or reason with a crazy person."
Even if the evidence is supported, it depends on the other party accepting that evidence :)
Faktrl is Best Pony
10th September 2007
Well yeah, it's a sin to even try to change the religious texts =p
Anybody detecting a pattern here?
"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.
I'm confused, if they aren't supposed to change the texts, then how has it been added to (or translated) in the past few millennia? I smell controversy *singsong*
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
A lot of the subtlety in religion is more around the interpretation of the texts than it is their exact word. Depending on what you subscribe to there is such a thing as the priesthood of all believers which forwards the interpretation that it's everyone's prerogative to come to a fuller understanding of what god means - or to put it another way, 'You make your own Christianity.' (aka Biblical hermeneutics.)
Even among groups that don't have something like PAB, which interpretations you're given of the Bible vary widely. Anyone who says they just follow what's written in the Bible has a huge job to do in explaining why they still have eyes in their head.
And it's like that for a lot of religions. In so far as you think Buddhism is a religion 'Don't believe anything you've not experienced to be true.' In so far as Islam is a religion there are various forms of it going around - Sunni and Shia spring to mind as the two main groups. Christianity? Catholicism, Protestantism....
Wars have been fought over it - wars are still fought over it. Just because someone wanted to change their mind. :(
But many of them would claim to follow the same texts. And for the most part that's generally true. Shia and Sunni Muslims both consider the Qu'ran holly, but they'll differ greatly when it comes to things like Ijtihad - how reasoning should be applied to the interpretation of justice in a religious context.
Even the different versions of the Bible are more similar than they are different.
It's sad that so much blood gets shed when people should just sit down, have a cup of tea and talk and try to live together. I mean if there is a god I really doubt he wants blood shed over essentially an argument as to who loves him more and what the best way to show that love is. Would you want your children to kill each other to resolve who loves you? Yeah... not seeing that as a fun thing to come home to. "Oh good, you killed Johnny =D THIS IS PROOF OF YOUR LOVE!"
... And now I'm seeing Cain and Abel as a rather cynical prelude to the Crusades >_<
But... people change. Even religious people change. ;) It does them a disservice to pretend otherwise. When you say that a people are incapable of change you eliminate the possibility of dialogue with them, and in some ways strip them of the essential possibility of being considered truly human. It brings us a step closer to the situation where the only way to deal with our differences is to try to kill everyone involved. Or in the words of an old prophecy: solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant
Well they have to change. Adapt or die! But who's to say they're not also becoming more "accurate" in the same way science is. Saying religious people hate science is a pretty silly thing to say. Wasn't KK pretty religious? Smart as fuck and ran after tornadoes.
Nemmerle, I'd be surprised if you haven't written a book :p
Pertaining the last bit, how many of us are truly adaptable "humans"? Who are the monsters? Who are the people of religious instinct? There's not a good, or even nonmalleable way of answering that, and that's what keeps it interesting.
It's seriously more diverse and relevant now than race, which is a bit fascinating to me. Just, what's thought of as important vs then and now. It's one of those things that doesn't matter to me, but general public is what I'm referencing :)
24th October 2007
You can often times tell the difference between the practitioners of science and the followers of science.
The followers preach what they wish they understood, whilst the practitioners are out being useful.
It's almost like they've become the very bigots they swore to destroy