Comments on: How Religious People Misunderstand Scientists http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/08/14/how-religious-people-misunderstand-scientists/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:22:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: How Scientists Really Feel About Religion - Science and Religion Today http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/08/14/how-religious-people-misunderstand-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-3680 How Scientists Really Feel About Religion - Science and Religion Today Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:51:31 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=2933#comment-3680 [...] study of scientists religious views, surveying 1,700 of them and interviewing 275 in depth. As she told us earlier this year: We already know that not all scientists are atheists, but I found that almost 50 percent identify [...] [...] study of scientists religious views, surveying 1,700 of them and interviewing 275 in depth. As she told us earlier this year: We already know that not all scientists are atheists, but I found that almost 50 percent identify [...]

]]> By: Vinay Ambegaokar http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/08/14/how-religious-people-misunderstand-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-2734 Vinay Ambegaokar Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:29:25 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=2933#comment-2734 Have you read Judge Jones's opinion? It demolishes the arguments made in his court by the proponents of "intelligent design," and wonderfully refers to the "breathtaking inanity" of the School Board's actions. If this rational judicial decision makes you uncomfortable, you are showing your true colors: as someone trying to paper over an unbridgeable divide. Good luck in your quest for the Templeton Award! Have you read Judge Jones’s opinion? It demolishes the arguments made in his court by the proponents of “intelligent design,” and wonderfully refers to the “breathtaking inanity” of the School Board’s actions. If this rational judicial decision makes you uncomfortable, you are showing your true colors: as someone trying to paper over an unbridgeable divide. Good luck in your quest for the Templeton Award!

]]> By: How Scientists Misunderstand Religious People - Science and Religion Today http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/08/14/how-religious-people-misunderstand-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-1491 How Scientists Misunderstand Religious People - Science and Religion Today Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:54:20 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=2933#comment-1491 [...] general American public are most concerned about is how to tackle religious challenges to science. We know religious people often misunderstand scientists, but on the other side of the coin, scientists sometimes misunderstand religious people. Here, [...] [...] general American public are most concerned about is how to tackle religious challenges to science. We know religious people often misunderstand scientists, but on the other side of the coin, scientists sometimes misunderstand religious people. Here, [...]

]]> By: Ted K http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/08/14/how-religious-people-misunderstand-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-321 Ted K Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:21:27 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=2933#comment-321 Amar: Modern science does not talk about "soul" or "angels", and the concepts are irrelevant to evolution through natural selection. Yet your concept of "soul" is itself unclear. You imply that only humans have "souls". But that is not the traditional view of "soul" that has come to us from the ancient Greeks. For them, whatever moved by its own power had a soul. Dogs and people have souls, as do plants if we extend that to movement by self-growth, a living "thing". Some Greeks even thought magnets had souls. The distinctions were made as to the different type of souls, and humans are privileged in having a rational soul, which for Christianity means an immortal soul. Indeed, if a human has a soul while all other biological entities do not, then it should be showable through a scientific investigation. But in point of fact, science has not shown that, and moreover, science ignores any concept that cannot be investigated empirically. So you must define what you mean by "soul". If you say that Islam supports a limited idea of evolution, then I would agree, but then, Islam is by no means unique in prefiguring the modern theory of evolution. Traditional Christianity understands God to have planted seeds, the rationes seminales, into His creation which over time, "sprout" to create new phenonomena in creation such as the species of animals; that is the doctrine of St Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century A.D. As for the way the media portrays Islam, and I do not know why you lump Christianity with the media since the Western media is generally anti-Christian, I appreciate your suggestion that Islam is a religion of peace. It may very well be, but it is difficult for us to understand when we see on the news imams preaching in mosques carrying a full equipment of machine guns and ammunition on them and exhorting those present in those holy places towards holy war. I do not think you should blame the media for that, less still, Christianity, even if Christianity is what the holy war may be against. Amar:
Modern science does not talk about “soul” or “angels”, and the concepts are irrelevant to evolution through natural selection.
Yet your concept of “soul” is itself unclear. You imply that only humans have “souls”. But that is not the traditional view of “soul” that has come to us from the ancient Greeks. For them, whatever moved by its own power had a soul. Dogs and people have souls, as do plants if we extend that to movement by self-growth, a living “thing”. Some Greeks even thought magnets had souls. The distinctions were made as to the different type of souls, and humans are privileged in having a rational soul, which for Christianity means an immortal soul. Indeed, if a human has a soul while all other biological entities do not, then it should be showable through a scientific investigation. But in point of fact, science has not shown that, and moreover, science ignores any concept that cannot be investigated empirically. So you must define what you mean by “soul”.
If you say that Islam supports a limited idea of evolution, then I would agree, but then, Islam is by no means unique in prefiguring the modern theory of evolution. Traditional Christianity understands God to have planted seeds, the rationes seminales, into His creation which over time, “sprout” to create new phenonomena in creation such as the species of animals; that is the doctrine of St Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century A.D.
As for the way the media portrays Islam, and I do not know why you lump Christianity with the media since the Western media is generally anti-Christian, I appreciate your suggestion that Islam is a religion of peace. It may very well be, but it is difficult for us to understand when we see on the news imams preaching in mosques carrying a full equipment of machine guns and ammunition on them and exhorting those present in those holy places towards holy war. I do not think you should blame the media for that, less still, Christianity, even if Christianity is what the holy war may be against.

]]> By: Amar http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/08/14/how-religious-people-misunderstand-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-319 Amar Sun, 16 Aug 2009 03:12:08 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=2933#comment-319 Although Islam is under scrutiny in light of recent events, Islam is a peaceful religion unlike what the Western/Christian media portrays. If one was to read and study the Quran, one would find many answers to your questions that are not in other scriptures. To highlight, there is a verse in the Quran that relates to this topic of discussion regarding Religion & Science. Basically, one of angels question's God saying: you're going to give it a soul? God responds: you don't know what I know. Ananlyzing the angel's comment particularly the word 'it', one can conclude that something existed prior to God giving 'it' a soul. 'It' being an animal that is human like, perhaps an ape, which were around before Adam was created. God created something special unlike other animals or creatures which is the soul that makes us different from the rest. Having a soul makes us unique, makes us human, as oppose to an animal with no soul. Islam does recognise evolution, natural selection upto a certain point. In science, there will always be that missing link between ape and humans for that reason. Although Islam is under scrutiny in light of recent events, Islam is a peaceful religion unlike what the Western/Christian media portrays. If one was to read and study the Quran, one would find many answers to your questions that are not in other scriptures. To highlight, there is a verse in the Quran that relates to this topic of discussion regarding Religion & Science. Basically, one of angels question’s God saying: you’re going to give it a soul? God responds: you don’t know what I know.
Ananlyzing the angel’s comment particularly the word ‘it’, one can conclude that something existed prior to God giving ‘it’ a soul. ‘It’ being an animal that is human like, perhaps an ape, which were around before Adam was created. God created something special unlike other animals or creatures which is the soul that makes us different from the rest. Having a soul makes us unique, makes us human, as oppose to an animal with no soul. Islam does recognise evolution, natural selection upto a certain point. In science, there will always be that missing link between ape and humans for that reason.

]]> By: bobxxxx http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/08/14/how-religious-people-misunderstand-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-316 bobxxxx Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:19:58 +0000 http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/?p=2933#comment-316 "It is also important to remember that not all atheist scientists are hostile to religion. Indeed, only five (!) of the atheist or agnostic scientists I had in-depth conversations with were actively working against religion." That's too bad. It would be much better if virtually all scientists attacked religious stupidity. America's Christians have made our country a laughing stock with their constant attacks against science education. Their disgusting childish beliefs should not be tolerated. “It is also important to remember that not all atheist scientists are hostile to religion. Indeed, only five (!) of the atheist or agnostic scientists I had in-depth conversations with were actively working against religion.”

That’s too bad. It would be much better if virtually all scientists attacked religious stupidity. America’s Christians have made our country a laughing stock with their constant attacks against science education. Their disgusting childish beliefs should not be tolerated.

]]>