1. Religion & Spirituality

Discuss in my forum

There is a lot of debate about whether science and religion conflict. Religious apologists commonly argue that, properly understood, the two are compatible. Materialists commonly argue that the two rely upon such diametrically opposed premises that it simply isn't possible for them not to conflict. There is one sense in which this latter view is more accurate: so much popular religion derives from the assumption that we are the center of the universe.

Read Article: Religion & Ego - Is Popular Religion Derived from Egotism?

January 29, 2010 at 8:18 am
(1) Mark Barratt says:

It’s also the case that when apologists make the case for compatibility of science and “religion”, the “religion” that they talk about is usually some kind of watered-down vaguely theistic dogma-free deism, which bears little or no similarity to the religion that believers are actually hearing about from pulpits.

That’s not just the case with specific science/religion disputes. I remember when Al Sharpton debated with Christopher Hitchens. Sharpton, a Christian minister, took a fairly hard-line agnostic position with occasional references to a kind of nostalgic regard for religion, or for what he thinks religion can accomplish or inspire people to accomplish. Hitchens even commented on it; Sharpton simply refused to make the case he was expected to make as a Christian minister, but still pretended to be interested in a serious debate.

Now I’m not saying they do this because they know their religious beliefs can’t be defended. That would be militant and fundamentalist, and exactly the same as firebombing Sharpton’s house. But it certainly raises questions.

January 29, 2010 at 9:20 am
(2) Leah says:

I don’t dispute that certain religious practices can be psychologically beneficial. Prayer or meditation can have a calming effect. Observing a day of rest every week helps one maintain balance. In this regard, I can see science and religion being compatible, but I don’t see any way to construe compatibility between science and a literal interpretation of dogma.

One could make the argument that atheism and humanism are more egotistical than religion because these schools of thought reject the idea that we need a higher power to validate our existence. Most religions emphasize humility before God and acknowledging that humans would be nothing without him.

On the other hand, most religions place humans on a higher pedestal than other life forms on our planet, and above the planet itself, and this is troubling.

January 29, 2010 at 10:56 am
(3) Mark barratt says:

One could make the argument that atheism and humanism are more egotistical than religion because these schools of thought reject the idea that we need a higher power to validate our existence.

One could make that argument, but if one did one would be falling prey to exactly the kind of unthinking egotism that Austin is discussing in this post.

No matter how much one may think we need a “higher power to validate our existence”, that has absolutely no effect on whether such a “higher power” actually exists or not.

It’s the very idea that information about empirical facts about the cosmos can be extrapolated from our own petty psychological needs that is self-indulgence of the highest order.

February 1, 2010 at 6:42 am
(4) Eupraxsophy says:

Is popular religion derived from Egotism?

It would appear to be so for Christianity and perhaps Islam as well. As far as the other religions go if they base their truths on deception such as Christianity does then they too are just as guilty. Deception is the wisdom of pride and pride is the wisdom that deceives.

When one is humbled one is not prideful. And to me science is quite humbled in the reconition that we are not special and privledged because of some divine deity’s will, but rather we are a part of a greater whole. Science means knowledge which is truths that have been established as being true, and not truths that require faith to make them true.
Science does not go outside nor contradict the known laws of science because these laws are laws of nature and not the laws of the supernatural. And beliefs that the known laws of nature can be contradicted is better known as superstition.
And no creditable scientist is going to give this nor any other kind of deception, consideration as being truthful.

Integrity of the wise is found in truth, so where shall it be found in that of the fool?

December 21, 2011 at 10:44 am
(5) nencedarla says:

I’m sure the best for you suprisely to your friends

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.