Science vs. Faith

[_beefcalf]

My lay study of the ancient Hebrew tribes tends to give me the impression that the 'other gods' clause was literal. That during that time, monotheism was at the stage where, yeah, there were other literal gods, but it was vital that only one certain god be worshiped. I think a modern monotheist (jew, muslim or christian) would tend to view it as there was only ever one real god, and a bunch of fictional, false gods.

The movement was from multiple gods, all of the same basic substance, with one of them being the correct one, to an eventual denial that all those other gods were ever anything other than Satan-inspired fictions. I think this is a subtle, but significant shift.

[_MCB]

As Zeez has pointed out, the Greek gods are much like the Mormon god(s). Anthropomorphic.

An infinitesimal shift considering that it happened in the course of 6000 years.

[_Stormy Waters]

Both sides of this issue have concerning stances not without consequence. I agree with the secularists that fight the entanglement of creationist views in the science classroom, but the manipulative technique many secularists use that pits a naïve competition between science and religion - accentuated by atheists, creates real problems as well. We have a pathetic current production of passion, education and interest in the sciences in this country, a religious country. By teaching a ridiculous competitive notion that divides the two categories a hostile environment and perception towards science is created within the culture. If the atheist is right, and science simply shows self-evidently the folly of religion (outside of its own atheistic psychology) then the manipulative debate foisted by atheists is silly. Rather than denigrating religion - inspire religious adherents to study science and in so doing (since it is self evident) they will see the world the way the atheist does. But that takes real strength of character and real self confidence. Calling someone dumb, not so much. Other atheists see this as well:

I think the Science vs Faith dichotomy has in large part been powered by the evolution/creationism debate. It should be remembered that in the scopes trail in 1925 that it wasn't legal to teach evolution in Tennessee. Consider this quote by Woodrow Wilson, "Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised." (1992)
This fight has been going on for a long time, so I think Scientists tired of always being on the defensive, tired of trying to correct the misinformation that is spread by creationists about evolution have gone on an all out attack. To them it has been science versus faith for a long time.
I think this is in large part is the reason for the rise militant atheism. It comes out of years of pure frustration. I think if creationists were to stop spreading misinformation about evolution that in time you would see the faith vs science dichotomy start to fade.

[_mikwut]

Hi Stormy,

Both sides fuel it for sure from extreme positions. The warfare thesis predates the scopes trial by many decades, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White for example. Both sides of the isle have parties that have further added to the fire. Regardless, the atheists and secularists could learn a great deal from their antogonists. P.R. wise the secularists are a mess. They cater to such a narrow demographic, they show absolutely no ability to market their ideas, especially youth who are predominantly religious in this country. Secularists exaggerate the fundamentalists and even seem to ignore the moderate and balanced views. Science should not be tethered to philosophical views in education but empirical findings.

regards, mikwut

[_Stormy Waters]

Regardless, the atheists and secularists could learn a great deal from their antogonists. P.R. wise the secularists are a mess. They cater to such a narrow demographic, they show absolutely no ability to market their ideas, especially youth who are predominantly religious in this country.

I'm interested in this claim. Isn't atheism on the rise?

(ARIS findings regarding self identification)

[_Nightlion]

I will vote approval of Nightlions post on this matter.

Me too.

Thanks for noticing. A particularly lucid day that was. Hope for more.
I got a call from someone from Russia about Zion. Ya think maybe? hmmm? dunno.
Didn't sound like MrStakhanovite, Sounded more Russian.

[_mikwut]

Hello Stormy,

"Non-religious" certainly is on the rise. Atheism is much more difficult to quantify. I would estimate that over the last few decades atheism has risen, over the last couple hundred years it hasn't. I much more interested in truth though, rather than trends.

mikwut

[_Themis]

Hello Stormy,

"Non-religious" certainly is on the rise. Atheism is much more difficult to quantify. I would estimate that over the last few decades atheism has risen, over the last couple hundred years it hasn't. I much more interested in truth though, rather than trends.

mikwut

I have seen this claim from you before, but do you have any sources for this. I know atheism has been around for as long as people have, but the 1800's I don't recall seeing to many of them outside of some scholarly circles.

[_mfbukowski]

Mikwut

Love your siggy, love Polanyi! Keep fighting the good fight.

[_mikwut]

Hello Themis,

I have seen this claim from you before, but do you have any sources for this. I know atheism has been around for as long as people have, but the 1800's I don't recall seeing to many of them outside of some scholarly circles.

The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath is a good place to start.

regards, mikwut