-Carl Sagan (via subatomiconsciousness)
(Source: goodreads.com, via subatomiconsciousness)
In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
It’s despicable, to say the least, to come across so many hardworking and kind scientists, science students, and science enthusiasts that are attacked for their personal religious and/or spiritual beliefs by others who ignorantly assume science and anti-religion and/or atheism are synonymous. Anyone who thinks this way and attacks others for not agreeing are showcasing their ignorance on an outstanding level, not to mention playing up a misleading and offensive stereotype of the science-minded community.
I know, interact with, and have come across plenty of scientists who are very religious and/or spiritual people. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS! For some people, science has helped them come to the conclusion there is no God, or probably isn’t a God/true designer of the universe. For others, science has helped them come to the conclusion that there is no other way for the universe to exist, than for there to be a God or an intelligent designer, and ultimately brought them closer to their religion/spiritual beliefs. Sometimes science has no influence on one’s belief[s] at all, it all depends on the person. There are so many variables, science can’t be shoved into one-size-fits-all definition, nor can religion, you know? I, as one personally who doesn’t accept there is a God or have any religious or spiritual beliefs, personally HATE when people use science and atheism/anti-theism interchangeably.
Either way, it’s your choice, and if people judge you for it then that’s their issue, not yours. As long as in the end, you keep questioning, and never just ‘accept things as they are’, you’re good to go. The argument, I feel, shouldn’t be religion vs. science [because that’s obviously stupid], it should be ignorance vs. knowledge.
Just keep educating yourself, exploring, and never stop expanding. Science is never stagnant, which is the best part about it, because the only constant in life is change, and we’re trying to understand those changes. Your viewpoints of the world due to science will likely evolve as well, but with that change your knowledge will grow. It would be awesome to just stop bickering amongst each other about such small things, but I doubt that will happen. Until then, rest assured, those who tell you you can not be involved in ‘true science’ whilst being ‘truly religious’ are ignorant, and should be ignored.
Like Carl Sagan said, “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
Originally from a few different scienceandreligion asks I’ve answered.
Little did Antonie van Leeuwenhoek know, but when he placed scrapings from his teeth underneath a microscope for the first time and gazed upon the microscopic creatures that inhabited his mouth, he called man’s theological superiority into question, and created a universe of new demons.
The advent of the microscopic age not only transformed science and medicine, but forced Christians to ask, if humans were the ultimate purpose of the Creator, why would God create so many things that we can’t see? In the centuries that passed before germ theory solidified their role in disease, nature’s smallest creatures became their era’s “daemons and faeries”.
Philip Ball writes in Aeon magazine:
In previous ages, natural philosophers had attributed the causes of processes to invisible, occult forces and emanations — vague and insensible agencies. The new mechanistic philosophers of the 17th century argued that nature worked like a machine, filled with levers, hooks, mills, pins and other familiar devices too small to be seen. As Hooke put it: ‘Those effects of Bodies, which have been commonly attributed to Qualities, and those confess’d to be occult, are perform’d by the small Machines of Nature.’
It took hundreds of years for man to reconcile that a universe beyond the macro existed, with forms and forces completely unrelated to our own. And we may be equally challenged in the digital age.
One of the most fascinating things I’ve read in a while.
There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without.
Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
-Carl Sagan - The Demon-Haunted World
Here Is What Some Schoolchildren in Louisiana Learn About Evolution
Fifth graders in some state-sponsored schools in Louisiana study both creationism and evolution as competing theories. “Fact or Theory?”
-source | Buzzfeed
Just a quick glance looks like it favors creationism pretty hard. And with tax payer money.
“If you pick out the proper verses of the Bible and interpret them with sufficient ingenuity, you can maintain that the Bible says for instance, that “Let there be light” is the theological translation of “big bang,” and that six days is not very different from fifteen billion years and you can freely state that the latest astronomical theories support Genesis.
What characterizes the value of science is not the particular conclusions it comes to. What characterizes the value of science is its methodology, the system it uses to arrive at those conclusions.
A hundred sages, though speaking ever so wisely, can neveroffer anything more persuasive than an imperative “Believe!”Since human beings can be found to believe each of the hundred sages, there are endless quarrels over points of doctrine, and people have hated vigorously in the name of love and have murdered enthusiastically in the name of peace.”
- Isaac Asimov
(Source: rationalhub)
Bill Nye says he isn’t attacking religion in his recent video comment on evolution versus creationism.
Known by many people as “Bill Nye the Science Guy” from his popular TV show, Nye’s BigThink.com video called “Creationism is Not Appropriate for Children” says adults who deny evolution and teach a literal biblical view are hurting America’s future.
The video has been viewed more than 1.2 million times in just five days.
On “CBS This Morning,” Nye said, “You can believe what you want religiously. Religion is one thing, but science, provable science is something else. My concern is you don’t want people growing up not believing in radioactivity, not believing in geology and deep time. You don’t want people in the United States growing up without the expectation that we can land spacecraft on Mars. You want people to believe in science, this process, this great idea that humans had to discover more about the universe and our place in it, our place in space. And I really want to emphasize, I’m not attacking anybody’s religion, but science, if you go to a museum and you see fossil dinosaur bones, they came from somewhere, and we have by diligent investigation have determined that the earth is 4.54 billion years old. The sun is a star, like all the other stars you see in the sky, and we are made of the same stuff. This is wonderful! This is fantastic discoveries that fill me with reverence, make me excited.
He continued, “But I encourage everybody who’s a voter this year to evaluate the candidates based on their stand on science. Rick Santorum made a reference to sonograms a few minutes ago. Well, you wouldn’t have sonograms without science, and furthermore, if you ask any physician, they will tell you, he or she will tell you, that science came, the modern medicine largely came from the space program.”
I’m glad someone finally made this post, everyone’s using the teaching science vs. teaching creationism video as an excuse to bash religion in general. That’s taking away from the point of the topic discussed in the video even more, and I’m more than pleased that Bill Nye has pointed this out.
Sagan.
“Science is forever whispering in your ears: ‘Remember, you’re new at this. You might be mistaken, you’ve been wrong before’.”
Absolutely spot on.
Especially when ‘logic & reasoning’ come into the discussion. Science and atheism are two different things, even if they may have some parallels. I’m sure all science enthusiasts aren’t all atheists, and I’m sure atheists don’t all support science 100%.
I understand the correlation, and will be the first person to support ‘logic & reasoning’, but come on now.
Reblogging because no one seems to be getting this lately.
(Source: thescienceofreality)
Yep, this. There was a Sagan quote on similar lines, but since I’ve not posted any Steven Pinker quotes. :)
This quote is part of Pinker’s answer to the question: Can You Believe in God and Evolution? His complete answer was:
It’s natural to think that living things must be the handiwork of a designer. But it was also natural to think that the sun went around the earth. Overcoming naive impressions to figure out how things really work is one of humanity’s highest callings.
Our own bodies are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer would have planned but that disclose a history of trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward, a seminal duct that hooks over the ureter like a garden hose snagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur.
The moral design of nature is as bungled as its engineering design. What twisted sadist would have invented a parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent designer lived on Earth, people would break his windows.
The theory of natural selection explains life as we find it, with all its quirks and tragedies. We can prove mathematically that it is capable of producing adaptive life forms and track it in computer simulations, lab experiments and real ecosystems. It doesn’t pretend to solve one mystery (the origin of complex life) by slipping in another (the origin of a complex designer).
Many people who accept evolution still feel that a belief in God is necessary to give life meaning and to justify morality. But that is exactly backward. In practice, religion has given us stonings, inquisitions and 9/11. Morality comes from a commitment to treat others as we wish to be treated, which follows from the realization that none of us is the sole occupant of the universe. Like physical evolution, it does not require a white-coated technician in the sky.
Can You Believe in God and Evolution? Time Magazine, August 7, 2005
~ Kim
(via project-argus)
Amen.
(Source: rori5000)
Especially when ‘logic & reasoning’ come into the discussion. Science and atheism are two different things, even if they may have some parallels. I’m sure all science enthusiasts aren’t all atheists, and I’m sure atheists don’t all support science 100%.
I understand the correlation, and will be the first person to support ‘logic & reasoning’, but come on now.
I automatically think of the scene from 30 Days of Night.
