Why religious organizations are forced to use “scientific” language to prove their po (ritual, homosexuality)

[Tony]

I think they do that because of the few things that they consider dangerous for religion:

1. Rapid advance of science. More and more facts from science contradict religious points of view.
2. People become more educated. Simple religious slogans are not convincing enough for them anymore.
3. Advance of democracy. People don’t want to be slaves anymore – not for kings, not for gods.

That’s why religious organizations are forced to look for more sophisticated ways for keep their psychological and financial “slaves” in check and recruit new ones.

You know what’s the most ironic thing?

The actual fact that religious organizations are forced to use “scientific” language is the proof that they are losing the battle for the minds of people.

Scientists don’t have to use “religious” language to prove their point.

The interesting thing is that even the pope said recently that religion and science should work together.

Scientists don’t say these things. They don’t need religion to continue their work.

Science rules!

J

[c0da]

What scientific language are you talking about? Maybe you could quote some credible religious figures...

[Feathers in Hair]

I'm sorry, but your continued antagonistic approach to theism is still not helping your 'cause'. You also don't seem to take into account those religions that embrace science, nor does your labelling of us 'slaves' include those religions that do not believe themselves to be the only path to god. (If there is a path to Diety.)

I will be creating a thread based on my confusion over your approach to these things. Please do me the honor of attending it.

[nutshell]

Tony, if you call me a "slave" for believing my religion then I must return the favor and call you a "slave" to the physcial world.

My religion does not use the scientific language you speak of. It leaves the spiritual to religion and the science to the scientists.

Not too hard a concept. To each his own.













....and never imply I'm a slave again. Free will is very important to me.

[evearael]

As I have said innumerable times before... the choice between science and religion is not binary. They are two separate fields with different methodologies, different requirements and coming from completely different perspectives. You can have both. Subjecting religion to science is absurd as subjecting the quadratic formula to literary criticism... it is irrelevant to the task at hand. This entire battle is completely irrelevant as science will never be able to disprove God and religion will never be able to prove God. There is a strong tendancy in humans to criticize what they do not understand, which brings out the worst in the scientist and believer alike.

[Mike182]

many religious speakers use philosophical language.... is philosophy a science? not in my mind, but i could be wrong

[Sunstone]

Science rules? Well, perhaps if you're willing to take ads claiming to sell a "scientifically designed" fishing pole as evidence for your thesis, then science rules.

For many people (perhaps for most people) science and technology are synonymous, and the proof that science is valid is nothing much more than its peculiar ability to come up with fuel injected cars, life extending pacemakers, new home cleaning products, and portable music. Those people don't so much look at the world through the lens of science, as they value and desire the technological marvels spun off from science. Both their desire for, respect, and understanding of, science is similar to a woman who loves a man only for his wealth, or a man who loves a woman only for her sex. If science ever quite spinning off new technology, they would fall out of love with it, and they would do so without ever having bothered to really understand and appreciate science in the first place. For the most part, I don't think you can properly call their views of the world "scientific", and it's questionable whether the impression science makes on them has much significance to their religiosity.

When a preacher sermonizes that "60% of AIDS cases in America involve homosexuals" he might sound a bit "scientific", but he's really doing nothing more than the copywriter who inserts the words "scientifically proven design" into his ad about fishing poles. Both the preacher and the copywriter are playing on the emotional appeal of "science" in order to gain respect for their drivel, but they most certainly are not promoting a scientific view of the world.

You see the same thing on a much grander scale when you go to a creationist website that purports to refute the theory of evolution with "scientific facts", or you go to the Focus on the Family website and read up on their "scientific evidence concerning homosexuality". You could study each of those sites for years and it would still be an unassailable Act of God if you could learn from those sites to have a genuinely scientific outlook.

Tony, I just don't think I can take your statement, "science rules", without some significant qualifications.

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by Tony

1. Rapid advance of science.

Unitarian Universalists have no problem with science.

2. People become more educated.

I think about half the members of my congregations are college professors at several local schools.

3. Advance of democracy.

One of our Priniciples is affirmation and promotion of the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.

So Tony, I guess you're wrong.