It is said that evil prosper when good men do nothing. So, if I will just let this uh.... Statement of ignorance prevail, I think I will be as guilty as the OP for proclaiming inanity here on Facebook.
Anyway, let’s take a good look on what this Christian is saying.
According to Milkhey Pasco, “ Science can't stand alone without religion but religion doesn't care about science.” I don’t have any idea if this Mr. Pasco knows what he’s saying. Was the post intended to irritate rational people? Well, I am not irritated… surprised, maybe but irritated? Do he really believed what he posted? Maybe?
Do science needs religion?
Mr. Pasco never gave us any good example of how scientific studies are dependent with religion. In fact, there are even clashes with religion. The Dalai Lama XIV (which fortunately not a Christian) even nailed this issue in the lid when he said, “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” But it seems Mr. Pasco is ignorant on the matter.
Ken Ham, founding president and CEO of Answers in Genesis have expressed his idea of what science is all about. For these Bible literalists and Evangelical Christians, science must follow what the Bible declares. It must base its finding on what the Bible teaches. But how can science follow religion as what Mr. Pasco was trying to imply? Science is based on a trial-error method, not on absolute authority and revelation.
Religion doesn’t care about science?
It seems history will prove Mr. Pasco wrong. For many years, religion was affected by what science discovered. From a heliocentric solar system, up to biological evolution and even on the issue of vaccination, bio-ethics (stem-cell research, cloning), artificial birth control, the religious community reacts, even violently.
“Science is completely incapable of proving such as a proslogion.”
To most, science is not about proving the existence of a god. It is not a scientific problem. Others have already used science to prove the god hypothesis and as scientist Victor J. Stenger had already said, by using science, we will discover that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity and that God's existence, while not impossible, is improbable.
Theories and “unsolved mysteries.”
Theories are not about “unsolved mysteries.” Theories are working models in a scientific sense and “unsolved mysteries? Well, as my favorite character Dr. Gilbert Arthur "Gil" Grissom of CSI have said, there are no mysteries, just questions waiting for an answer.
“Albert Einstein said science without religion was lame…”
Mr. Pasco has taken this statement of an intelligent man out of context. Let’s see what Einstein really said… (Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.)
“At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
Anyway, let’s take a good look on what this Christian is saying.
According to Milkhey Pasco, “ Science can't stand alone without religion but religion doesn't care about science.” I don’t have any idea if this Mr. Pasco knows what he’s saying. Was the post intended to irritate rational people? Well, I am not irritated… surprised, maybe but irritated? Do he really believed what he posted? Maybe?
Do science needs religion?
Mr. Pasco never gave us any good example of how scientific studies are dependent with religion. In fact, there are even clashes with religion. The Dalai Lama XIV (which fortunately not a Christian) even nailed this issue in the lid when he said, “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” But it seems Mr. Pasco is ignorant on the matter.
Ken Ham, founding president and CEO of Answers in Genesis have expressed his idea of what science is all about. For these Bible literalists and Evangelical Christians, science must follow what the Bible declares. It must base its finding on what the Bible teaches. But how can science follow religion as what Mr. Pasco was trying to imply? Science is based on a trial-error method, not on absolute authority and revelation.
Religion doesn’t care about science?
It seems history will prove Mr. Pasco wrong. For many years, religion was affected by what science discovered. From a heliocentric solar system, up to biological evolution and even on the issue of vaccination, bio-ethics (stem-cell research, cloning), artificial birth control, the religious community reacts, even violently.
“Science is completely incapable of proving such as a proslogion.”
To most, science is not about proving the existence of a god. It is not a scientific problem. Others have already used science to prove the god hypothesis and as scientist Victor J. Stenger had already said, by using science, we will discover that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity and that God's existence, while not impossible, is improbable.
Theories and “unsolved mysteries.”
Theories are not about “unsolved mysteries.” Theories are working models in a scientific sense and “unsolved mysteries? Well, as my favorite character Dr. Gilbert Arthur "Gil" Grissom of CSI have said, there are no mysteries, just questions waiting for an answer.
“Albert Einstein said science without religion was lame…”
Mr. Pasco has taken this statement of an intelligent man out of context. Let’s see what Einstein really said… (Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.)
“At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
*****
Noticed that Einstein said religion deals only with evaluations of human thought and action. He’s not talking about God or the Christian Bible, but of barring selfish actions and instead aspiring to improve the world for the greater good. That’s what religion was for Einstein. Science without a goal for implovement is lame and the greater good [which is religion] without science is blind.
So before we copy-paste a quote, see to it that we really know our facts first.
Well, that’s all folks.
Thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment