jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (58 posts)

Why is there a severe and discordant disconnect between religious

  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8570995.jpg
    people and reality?  There are some people who simply refuse to accept reality, especially scientific data and evidence, which disproves their religious reasoning.  Scientific evidence authenticated that there is evolution and that the earth is more than a billion years old; however, many religionists believe that the world is only thousands of years old and there was NO such thing as evolution.   Many religionists are also anti-progress in terms of gay/lesbian issues and women's reproductive rights.   Let's discuss this!

    1. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The better question is why some people insist that religious people across the board refuse to recognize reality. That is in itself a refusal to recognize reality.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Some people are not interested in truth - those relative few that cling to beliefs known to be false (young earth, anti-evolution, etc.) are among them.  Their perception of reality, what they want reality to be, is far more important to them than reality bits far removed from what will affect their everyday life.

      But accepting LGBT issues, OR the murder of babies, is not progress.  It is the devils work and if allowed to spread will condemn additional millions to eternal burning.  The bigger question is why this is so difficult for some to understand, particularly in the matter of baby killings.  True, proponents will often try to side step the issue by referencing women's reproductive rights, but women do NOT have the right to murder infants and all the talk about reproductive rights will never change that.

      And no, I'm pro-choice but do at least try to understand the opposition's position and where they are coming from.

      1. rosariomontenegro profile image90
        rosariomontenegroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is a very interesting subject. Thank you for initiating it.
        I think that it wold be useful that, starting with the initiator, every contributor give its own definition of "religious people" and "reality".

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          While the definition of "religious people" will vary enormously, why would a definition of "reality" vary at all?  There is, after all, only one even though there are several Billion perceptions of reality.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So. Whose perception takes precedent? Does the majority rule?

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              In such a fiercely individualistic society, yes and no.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The one with the most power.  Political or physical.

              It has always been so.  Galileo was sentenced to jail in 1633, later commuted to house arrest, where he remained until his death in 1642, because his perception differed from that of the church, the ruling power.

              In the US we see areas insisting they WILL teach ID as a science, and do just that.  In those areas the church is again the ruling power, while other areas it has fallen enough as to be unable to force their belief system on others.

              1. rosariomontenegro profile image90
                rosariomontenegroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I insist that everyone upon arriving states his own definition of religious or reality, it will facilitate the discussion. In parenthesis, I don't know which Church you are referring to, because it's been a while since the Catholic Church does not fight the notion of evolution, rather has tried to find a compromise between Creation and Evolution. Which should be, of course, entirely possible. (I'm not a Catholic btw).

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Religious: believing a religion is true.  Reality; something detectable by one or more of your 5 senses or by machinery designed to augment those senses.  Church: in the US, Christianity.  All the different sects are similar enough to, in most cases, be lumped together, and specifically in the matter of ID all of Christianity agree that an intelligent creature created the universe and everything in it.  Including Catholicism, the last I heard.

                  1. rosariomontenegro profile image90
                    rosariomontenegroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It would be good also not to jump back in the discission. Of course the Catholic Church proclaims a Creator God but many of its theologianns have found that Creation and Evolution are no contradictory but possibly complementary.

                  2. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Catholicism has a very nuanced view of intelligent design; so nuanced that it is, essentially, unrelated.

                    Remember, a Catholic priest (Georges Lemaitre) formulated what would come to be called the Big Bang Theory in about 1931.

              2. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The ID controversy is not as well understood as either side would like to believe. The fact is that in most areas (and anyone here who has gone to public school is almost guaranteed to have experienced this) evolution is taught as a done deal, signed sealed and delivered. And people who are not schooled in what a scientific theory is (and please don't lecture me on "What Is A Scientific Theory." It's been explained to me multiple times and I do understand it,) only know that it's called the Theory of Evolution. So in the false dichotomy of 'science v. religion' they see an attack on their religion from something that is far from proven, so if a theory is being taught in school as fact, why not more than one theory to show that there really is more than one strain of thought?

                The fact is that evolution is not ultimately and absolutely proven. The evidence at hand may well be overwhelmingly in favor of it but the Theory of Evolution is not accompanied by a corresponding Law of Evolution the way there is a Theory of Gravity and a Law of Gravity. And the stock response when I point this out is always (with no exception and little variation) "science will eventually prove it." The irony of a statement of faith being used to 'combat religion' seems to be lost on so many people (on both sides.)

                Evolution is not well taught in most schools. Many places to this day still teach it as Darwinian theory.

                Scientific Theory is not explained at all in most school systems, which has the dual effects of opening the door for the question "Why just one theory? What if it's wrong?" and also creating the chasm between those who know and those who don't. What I mean is that those who don't know what one is feel looked down upon and don't understand why, and many times those who do (accompanied by those who don't but put their faith in science anyway) actually do act like the other side are just ignorant, and thus kind of dumb.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's the thing about facts, they usually are a done deal and taught in school. That's why ID isn't.



                  ID has no facts, so it can't be formulated into a theory, which is a collection of facts.



                  Yeah, it pretty much is.



                  Laws have mathematical equations, evolution does not, hence it will never be a law. Gravity is both theory and law because there are equations and facts.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    and you prove my point for me.

                  2. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Let me rephrase, in your eagerness to make your point, you completely missed what I was saying. I wasn't arguing for or against ID, nor was I arguing for or against evolution. I was explaining a situation. If the only thing you can see is "ID is not science" or "evolution is indeed a done deal" then you've completely missed it.

                2. rosariomontenegro profile image90
                  rosariomontenegroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I couldn't agree more.

                  1. rosariomontenegro profile image90
                    rosariomontenegroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry, when I said "I couldn't agree more" I was replying to CHRIS NEAL.

                3. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  OK - I can go with nearly all that.  That species evolve is a fact, that species evolve into a different species (depending on your definition of "species") has not been observed and thus some will claim is not proven.  Just as the sun turning into a red giant is not proven or that it will one day run out of fuel.

                  So how do we fix this and the "what is a theory" problem?  Seems to me the best method is to keep religion strictly away from any education courses.  When ID becomes a "theory" equivalent to evolution, when our founding fathers are suddenly all staunch Christians (or pretty much ignored in egregious cases) it is way past time to take that step.  Shift textbook design and manufacture to Massachusetts, maybe, or use only atheists in the schoolbook department.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The attempt to marginalize or squash religion is seen as exactly that by the religious. I know, I'm one. I understand that many people who say 'let's keep religion out of it' think they are serving science and truth but that is only partially true and only sometimes.

                    IMO, the best first step would be to better explain what exactly a scientific theory is, because most people who are not really into it will only ever hear 'theory' and apply it the same way detectives have a 'theory' in a criminal case.

                    The second step would be to better explain as far as possible modern evolutionary theory. The fact that schools still mainly teach Darwin makes it all too easy for these conflicts to erupt.

                    The third, which is I admit a lot less likely, is to show that religion and science are not automatically incompatible. I understand this will not resonate well with people on both sides, but it is not un-Biblical to believe that God created the universe and all the physical laws in it. And understanding them does not detract from the wonder.

                    But I know, without even being told, that the last one will always be controversial and I fully expect to have people disagree with me about it here.

          2. 0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly.

            Define "religious".

            I know all kinds of people who are deeply religious---some even member so the clergy, who embrace very progressive secular political ideas including gay rights.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I already did: "Religious: believing a religion is true."

              You are absolutely right though, in that nearly all (all in my experience) religious people interpret their religion to mean whatever they wish it to.  So every "religious" person has their own religion.  Some claiming Christianity, for example, find god doesn't hate gays after all even though the majority of the religious people claiming that specific religion find that He does.

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Empathy matters, but sometimes it is very difficult to empathize with people who are steeped in extremism of any kind: religious, secular, right, left.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know - I don't find it difficult to empathize with those that find they live in only one reality; the reality trumps imagination every time.  It's true, after all, and that counts for far more than desire.  IMHO it does, anyway.

    3. willrodgers profile image79
      willrodgersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I find "GAy" <slur removed> to be repulsive has nothing to do with religion

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Is "fag" a term you think is appropriate in a public conversation?

    4. 0
      Lybrahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's interesting.  As far as how old the earth is, we can never really know.  All science theories are just that--theories.  I don't know that carbon dating is for real.  I don't know that the world is just 6,000 years old though.  I addressed the topic here: <link snipped>

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
        EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This was from your article, it's the funniest and silliest thing I've read today.

        "Obviously, the dinosaurs existed; we have their remains to tell us that. But I don't think they and man co-existed. I think God created them separately and had them exist for millions of years, and then He got sick of them"

        1. 0
          Lybrahposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Glad you enjoyed it!

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why would you question the credibility of carbon dating or consider it to be a theory when, in fact, it is a process?

        I don't understand.

  2. 0
    SusieQ42posted 3 years ago

    I firmly believe in creation, not evolution.  God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th according to the Book of Genesis. I also agree with the Bible when it comes to gay and lesbians.  I love the sinner, not the sin.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If you love someone that consistently, intentionally and with forethought violates some of your god's strongest and most important rules and orders, encouraging others to leave them alone as they do so, you have a very different definition of "love" than I do.

    2. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And do you agree with the Bible about dietary prohibitions or about women cutting their hair?

      Or is it just the stuff the resonates with you?

  3. tlmcgaa70 profile image69
    tlmcgaa70posted 3 years ago

    reality...makes me think of the matrix movie. in the movie you had the majority of people living their daily lives never understanding there was something bigger afoot. then you had a small minority who understood. those who understood moved about and mixed in with those who did not, and tried to enlighten them on occasion. you ask why religious people can not see reality. the truth is, it is you who do not see it. the reality i understand is that the majority of people, even many who are religious, go about their daily lives and believe that is all there is to it. they understand all they need to know about their world. meanwhile they miss the fact that the world they live in is only a temporary one...the physical world is not the "true" world. it is the spiritual world that is eternal, and once we give up this physical world, and move tot he spiritual one, we must answer to HE who created both, and accept HIS decision concerning our rewards or punishments. those who are not religious or spiritual live blind to that world, and so they accuse those who believe in it of being unable to live in reality, or delusional. the truth is, one mans reality is NOT everyones. we each have our own perception of reality and we live accordingly. to say believers are wrong is just as ignorant as saying non believers are wrong. while i may believe non believers are wrong, that is merely my reality, and i would be wrong if i tried to force them to believe or think the way i did simply because i disagreed with them. but then, i am a firm believer that GOD gave mankind the choice to accept or reject HIM...and no man has a right to force another to believe. also it is pointless.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sure, it's right in front and all around us. We all share the very same reality, yours is no different than anyone else.



      Considering that we all share the same reality, that would make sense.



      Yes, it is.



      That's something you nor anyone else can know, all you can do is speculate.



      Sure, you're free to have your own perception of reality, but reality doesn't change for either one of us no matter how much you want it to.

      1. tlmcgaa70 profile image69
        tlmcgaa70posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        i am not going to argue this point with you or anyone else. i stated my belief, i honestly do not care if you or anyone else agrees with it. and FYI...i CAN and DO know that spiritual world exists...i have been there. literally. through physical death. and you are probably one who thinks such things are all in the head. again, i agree to disagree and will leave it at that.

 
working