Tuesday, April 6, 2010
I am an atheist. Unfortunately, this label comes with a high level of baggage. Atheists are often portrayed as cold-hearted cynics, desperate to berate those of faith. Similarly, believers are equally ridiculed in the non-believer community as hapless dupes. But perhaps the true source of this conflict lies in the greater never-ending battle between the powerful institutions of science and religion. As eager as both sides are in continuing this pointless shouting match, the only way for true progress to be made on a global scale is if both science and religion learn to cooperate.
Science and religion have had a long and ruinous relationship throughout history. When Galileo dared to show the natural world did not conform to the rules of the church, he was met with derision and anger.
Still today, religious activists continue to fight for the inclusion of creationist literature in public school lesson plans, despite the mountain of evidence behind the biological theory of evolution. In an age of the exponential growth of information and research, religion and science still fight for dominance.
But the religious are not the only ones on the offensive. Scientists and atheists have also been quick to spar with religious authority. Many atheist authors, such as Hitchens and Dawkins, dismiss religion as an antiquated adherence to the allure of the supernatural. However, this attitude overlooks the more serious issue of religion’s ubiquity and undeniable importance on a sheer global scale.
Not all scientists are atheists and not all atheists trust science. There are religious men and women working in laboratories, fulfilling their curiosity of the natural world through the lens of faith. Similarly, there are atheists and agnostics who reject the notion of gods, instead following beliefs of magic or spirits against scientific establishment. The first step to understanding the conflict between science and religion is coming to terms with the diversity within both.
Regardless of whether one is a person of faith or of doubt, a churchgoer or a secularist, the tremendous potential of both religion and science cannot be ignored. Science has given the world novel medicines, fantastic technologies, and an investigation in how our minds, bodies, cells and atoms function. Religion has provided individuals with hope, a sense of purpose and the infrastructure by which to live fulfilled lives.
Instead of the continual bickering between science and religion — between atheists and believers — both groups need to reallocate their intellectual resources to work toward solving the problems of the world. Climate change, poverty, hunger, environmental destruction, political unrest and war are all issues that get pushed aside in the battle between these groups.
Religion and science are unquestionably two of the most dominant methods to understanding the world around us. They have developed into powerful institutions, inciting fervor within their followers in their efforts to improve the world. They give us hope that progress can be made.
Science and religion, in the words of scientist Stephen Jay Gould, are “nonoverlapping magisterial.” However, only through a commitment to cooperation and ending senseless bickering can an increasingly inpatient world expect to witness any change.
— Folmsbee is a senior from Topeka in neurobiology.
Letter to the Editor: History of peaceful ...
Many religious traditions are based on science and logic.
Blackmon: Religious tolerance on campus needs work
Struggles with religious tolerance still exist on campus
Atheists lead a discussion to educate public
People have the chance to ask questions of a belief system they ...
Students ask questions about faith and the ...
Panelists answered questions about Christianity in the “Ask a Christian a Question” ...
Letter: Religion and evolution don't have to ...
It's possible to accept evolution while also holding religious beliefs.
Puliltzer Prize winner examines debate
Edward Humes’ new book ‘Monkey Girl’ tries to explain the evolutionary debate ...
Folmsbee: Don't 'believe' in evolution
Theory is something that is to be accepted.
Professor uses science to benefit humanity
Michael Murray shares his experiences and discusses how physics can help us ...
Free: Time to clear up some misunderstandings ...
Here are a few word that should enlighten the enlightened.
Two theories of science debated
Adams: China should be seen as a ...
Let's Talk Foreign Policy takes a look at negative stereotypes of China.
Bond: Develop personal definition of religion to ...
It is important and necessary to faith to develop a definition of ...
Sandal: Religion can bridge differences rather than ...
The idea of love is common in most religions. So why do ...
Speaker asks for change
Derek H. Davis explains problems with religious practices and their interaction with ...
Free: Separation means politicians should keep beliefs ...
It's time our policy members realize the true meaning of separating church ...
Students face religious dilemmas
At the college level, some students find growth in challenging spiritual beliefs.
Darwin debate remains amid celebrations
The University has arraged multiple events recognizing Darwin’s scientific impact in conjunction ...
Bond: Expand your mind in class, enlarge ...
Educational experience should take different religions in to account.
Cosby: Credits should be considered from Baha'i ...
We have a long way to go when it comes to eliminating ...
All hail the queen
Saha: Evolution is not 'just a theory'
Monica Saha dismisses presidential candidates who don’t accept evolution
Bond: Know yourself and faith will come
Now is the best time to figure out the direction of your ...
Free: Global warming doesn’t depend on weather
Despite scientists across the world confirming and re-confirming data on climate change, ...
Editorial: Religious freedom for all
Tolerance of all religions is important.
Group auctions their souls for charity
Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics hosts event to raise awareness of ...
Islamic Center spreads tolerance
Historic rival sects, the Sunnis and Shiites worship together in the Islamic ...
Folmsbee: Genetically modified food needs support
Benefits of GMs made foggy by politics.
Islamic law conference brings understanding
Raj Bhala said it's important to understand Islamic law and distinguish between ...
Public debate on atheism draws protest from ...
Westboro Baptist Church to picket atheism debate this weekend.
Hafner: A not-so-Christian nation
Separation of church and state hasn't always been so separate throughout history.
Love Your Partner As You're Taught
Different variables, including religion, influence how we see and express love.
Epic a heavenly piece of history
Art contest brings out students’ view of ...
Students submitted 21 works of art in the first occurrence of the ...
Dance group combines education and theater
Group dances to a multimedia performance of genetic research.
Folmsbee: America needs new space race
Throwing support behind NASA means bolstering research and learning across America.
Bond: Explore religions to find importance in ...
Faith is more important in everyday life than most students might think
Folmsbee: Doctors just as responsible for safe ...
Doctors should know how a valid a drug is before prescribing it.
Folmsbee: Science Nobel Prizes Overlooked
The American public loses interest in important Nobel Prize winners in science.
From left: Kimberlee Hinkle, Libby Johnson and Hannah ...
1 comment
Kansas Jayhawk fans hold aloft a reproduction of ...
2 comments
Erin Saupe, a Ph.D. student from St. Cloud, ...
1 comment
0 comments
Armed robbers continue to threaten.
3 comments
Lecture from Greg Mortenson, co-author of New York ...
0 comments
Comments
Folmsbee: Why can't we all get along?
Naturally, because a select portion of a population represents its entirety. It's exactly like how Harlow and Mengele represents the ethical standards of the scientific community. Just because that some folks feel the need to thrust their personal beliefs upon others does not mean that that's an essential trait of religiosity.
Our explorations into the cosmos above and the microcosm within so far indicate that we are just a product of accident, an insignificant speck in the countless infinities of timelines and universes. Let's be fair--is this what we want our society to ponder upon every moment? Religion may have brought with it its own baggage, but one must admit that it has always been inspirational in one way or another. Most classical masterpieces were written to honor a principle of universal compassion. Innumerable temples and shrines were erected to communicate the sublimity of faith to the world. Does physics explain the mechanics of awe? Has medicine discovered the formula for inner peace? Can mathematics express the poetic glimmer of the stars in the night sky? It's tragically foolish to fantasize that science is the only paradigm that humanity requires. Both science and religion are powerful weapons that humanity has naturally discovered to conquer our fears and flourish. To reject one because our own stupidity demands so is to cut away the most powerful faculties of our brain.
For reference purposes, I'm an apologist atheist. Don't throw anti-religion comments at me, because I wouldn't know what you are talking about! braces for it anyways
Folmsbee: Why can't we all get along?
Gosh, I'm sorry to throw a wrench into such a sincere plea for science-religion peace, but I noticed that you brought up Stephen Jay Gould and his lovely little scam of "non-overlapping magisteria" (Commonly known as "NOMA.")
The fact is that Gould's NOMA is not a peace treaty but instead an All-Out Surrender Demand, aimed straight at people of faith. Under no circumstances should Christians accept NOMA, even if they are supportive of evolution.
In chapter two of his NOMA book, "Rocks Of Ages", Gould lays down the ultimatum:
"The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating:
'Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science.'
In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat."
Read that one carefully. He's quite serious about it. Gould is saying that, unless you want to violate the NOMA, you must--it's not optional--you MUST abandon your belief in divine miracles taking place at ANY point in Earth's history.
Yes, that would include the Big Miracle---the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Gotta give it up, permanently, and forget about it being historically true, Gould says. Otherwise you violate NOMA. Period.
So, let's start there. NOMA may be kewl for you atheists, but it's a straight declaration of war against every Christian. So......are you willing to abandon Gould's NOMA gig, for the sake of promoting peace between science and religion? :
Folmsbee: Why can't we all get along?
How does the divine fiat work anyways? Isn't the Resurrection just as miraculous as the universe coming to exist in the first place? If God is the prime and sole source of everything, then I find it hard to accept that something is more divine than others. If the events that created the circumstance is divine in nature (i.e.: the Genesis) to begin with, does interfering with it make it (i.e.: the Christ) any more divine? Maybe it was meant to happen that way all along.
Just saying. :p
Folmsbee: Why can't we all get along?
Why can't we continue to not get along?
I am an atheist. Fortunately, this label comes with a high level of baggage. Atheists are often portrayed as cold-hearted cynics, which is good, because that means people are more likely to keep their dated superstitions to themselves. Correctly, believers are ridiculed as hapless dupes. The only way for true progress to be made is to eagerly continue this purposeful shouting match. Regardless of whether one is an atheist or skeptic, an agnostic or simply not delusional, the tremendous potential of science and not religion cannot be ignored. Science has provided the modern comforts that we all take for granted today. Religion has provided obstructionist dogma, suicide bombers, and recently, shelter for child molesters. Instead of the continual bickering between atheists and believers, atheists should hold their ground, and believers should renounce their bronze-age myths and join the ranks of the rational. If it appears that I wrote a hopelessly biased post, then I am satisfied.
Folmsbee: Why can't we all get along?
So much of Old Testament law banned practices likely to spread disease (tattoos; eating insects, pork etc.; butt sex) or cause followers to doubt god (no gods before God or false idols; discouragement of free thought; honor father and mother). Stories yes, but, more specifically, fables. Sodom and Gomorra seems, for example, a fable about the ill fortune (stds!) that may befall an overly-promiscuous society.
Think of the time between when Biblical events happened and when the books describing them were written, and that's how many years of telephone game those stories went through. Any bass fisherman will tell you the likelihood that kind of story is purely factual is damn near 0%.
When you consider research showing that the brain's rational decision-making areas (the ones that also lead 4-year-olds to ask "Why?" on loop for hours upon hours) are found to be inactive when the information the brain is processing comes from an "authority figure", it's hard to deny that religion has played an immeasurable role in keeping humans alive thus far. Pattern recognition may take time, but we sure noticed quickly in the 80s that AIDS was a "gay" disease.
Would we have made it this far without religion? I have no idea, but we'd likely have had a markedly harder time.
~QHC
Folmsbee: Why can't we all get along?
Wow, who are these atheists trying to convince here...Christians or themselves?
Folmsbee: Why can't we all get along?
"If the resurrection really happened, why were the apostles confused about the empty tomb? Where is the historical evidence? (Let me help: there is none.) Religions are all man made, made up, stories"
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num9.htm
Amazing what a simple google search will bring up...
Folmsbee: Why can't we all get along?
You said there was no historic evidence for the resurrection, and I disproved this asinine assertion. The author first uses logic to argue against arguments against the resurrection. So let's analyze the statement "it doesn't list all possible theories." So what other theories are there? 1) The idea that "the writers of those texts made it all up" would fall into the Conspiracy section of the apologetic. 2) The "they believed in what they wrote, but it's still made up" statement would fall into the Myth category argued in the website. 3) The "the texts were written after people already believed in those things" is neither here nor there. Of course the apostles wrote their descriptions of the events of the resurrection after it occured! Of course the apostles went out and told people of the miraculous events they had witnessed! (thus increasing believers before anything was ever put on paper [or whatever they had back then])
"Proving a negative doesn't prove a positive." The writer also includes reasons WHY the resurrection occured outside of reasons why other explanations are untrue. His argument is complete as it stands, so it is up to us to either accept/belief what is presented it or reject it. But don't pretend evidence for the resurrection can be dismissed by a perfunctory, snarky response or that it is somehow more "rational" to have a Materialstic view of the world as opposed to a Supernatural worldview.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID