3.14chan

[Geek/Nerd culture]
- [ geek ]

[Science]
- [ sci / ssh ]

[Support]
- [ sug / file ]

[Trial]
- [ diy ]

- [WT] [Home] [Manage]

/ssh/ - Social Sciences & Humanities

A board for social sciences and humanities history, philosophy, anthropology, psychology...

[Return]

Posting mode: Reply

File: 179300.jpg - (135.28kb, 603x600, 603px-Crab_Nebula.jpg) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Anonymous 22/6/2009(Mon)07:07:21 No.82835

I would like to discuss about the relation of different religions and science.

Also don't try to start a religion vs science war since most religions doesn't take all literally

Expand All Images

Anonymous 22/6/2009(Mon)07:08:18 No.82836

File: 175870.gif - (15.2kb, 550x387, evolution.gif)

Anonymous 22/6/2009(Mon)07:08:20 No.82837

File: 180222.png - (57.17kb, 800x600, 800px-Views_on_Evolution.svg.png)

>>82836

Roman Catholic Church (1981) Anonymous 22/6/2009(Mon)07:09:04 No.82838

Pope John Paul II
Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.

Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 3 October 1981.

Anonymous 22/6/2009(Mon)07:14:47 No.82845

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are compatible according to the Church. On the 12 August 1950, the Roman Catholic Church accepted that the �doctrine of evolution� was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis saying �research and discussions� take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution�. In the same encyclical the Magisterium holds that a Catholic can believe in the creation account found in sacred scripture. However, the encyclical rejects what it described as some �fictitious tenets of evolution�. Following this announcement Catholic schools began teaching evolution.

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said �Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.�

Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that �Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.� This statement was published by the Vatican on July 2004 by the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) who was the President of the Commission at the time.

Anonymous 22/6/2009(Mon)07:18:40 No.82867

Islamic creationism is the belief that the universe (including humanity) was directly created by God as explained in the Qur'an. Although there is little consensus on how many Muslims believe in Evolution Theory, Islamic Creationism is not incompatible with the idea. The only exception to this would be the assertion that God is the creator of everything that exists and that the creation of the universe was a planned series of events, unlike the random coincidence argument presented by evolution theory. Several liberal movements within Islam generally accept the scientific positions on the age of the earth, the age of the universe and evolution.

The Ahmadiyya Movement are, arguably, the only denomination in Islam that universally accept Evolution and actively promote it. Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has stated in his magnum opus Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth that evolution did occur but only through God being the One who brings about it. It does not occur itself, according to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The Ahmadis do not believe in Adam as the first human on earth but merely as the first prophet to receive revelation by God on earth.

Anonymous 23/6/2009(Tue)12:26:56 No.83181

Khalid Anees, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, at a conference, Creationism: Science and Faith in Schools, made points including the following: There is no contradiction between what is revealed in the Koran and natural selection and survival of the fittest. However, some Muslims do not agree that one species can develop from another.

Islam also has its own school of Evolutionary creationism/Theistic evolutionism, which holds that mainstream scientific analysis of the origin of the universe is supported by the Qur'an. Many Muslims believe in evolutionary creationism, especially among Sunni and Shia Muslims and the Liberal movements within Islam. However, even amongst Muslims who accept evolution, many believe that humanity was a special creation by God. For example, Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, an American Muslim and specialist in Islamic law has argued in Islam and Evolution that a belief in macroevolution among non-human species is not incompatible with Islam, as long as it is accepted that "God is the Creator of everything" (Qur'an 13:16) and that God specifically created humanity (in the person of Adam; Qur'an 38:71-76).

Anonymous 23/6/2009(Tue)03:26:09 No.83224

in the U.S., many Protestant denominations promote creationism, preach against evolution from the pulpits, and sponsor lectures and debates on the subject. A list of denominations that explicitly advocate creationism instead of Darwinism or evolution include the Assemblies of God, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod,[86] Pentecostal Churches, Seventh-day Adventist Churches, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Christian Reformed Church, and the Pentecostal Oneness churches.

Anonymous 23/6/2009(Tue)10:12:25 No.84176

I've been a Christian for three years now, and it's occurred to me that creationism v. evolution really doesn't matter. I think of religion more as philosophy, and when I read about doctrines and belief systems, I try to simplify them for that purpose, because all they are meant to be is practical and pragmatic. I am not of the opinion that logic, and even truth about things that may or may not be irrelevant, are as appealing to the human experience as meaning, which I have found can be supernatural or naturalistic in nature.

The issue of belief, in Christianity pertaining to Genesis, could be seen as a problem, and is definitely interesting to mitigate. I think knowledge for the use of science and faith in Jehovah are compatible as they don't really intersect in purpose at all. If science is a religion or even a philosophy, that's news to me. I'm an absurdist; I don't think there is any scientific conclusion to be made about the creation of our universe, which may have implications if it was by something intelligent, and I think that the desire for a purpose beyond the natural life is really quite rational, and that faith like in Fideism is a rational answer to it. To really confront the meaning of life and need to know what is after death and before life is a real need, an answer to which, "nothing" I don't believe is satisfactory--although cognitive dissonance is a fact of life--and this confrontation and need are the cause of intense angst for those who do. That is not to say that I am bigoted, as they are potentially irrelevant questions that may even have unintelligible answers, and like I said, I think meaning can be found in experience itself.

Anonymous 24/6/2009(Wed)02:57:48 No.84679

>>84176
>I think knowledge for the use of science and faith in Jehovah are compatible as they don't really intersect in purpose at all.
This is a good point, science has nothing to do with heaven or soul salvation.
"The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Also, many Christian organizations like Vatican doesn't have any problem with science accepting evolution.

Vatican considers homosexuality and
anti-conceptional methods sins. I don't see any problem if they think that this or that is wrong, if Jews think that eat pork and crustacenas is wrong or if Jehovah Witness think that blood transfusion will teke you to hell.
The problem is not what one believes, the problem is when one want force all to follow what he believes.
If you think that gay marriage is wrong it is okay, let the ones who doesn't think that way to marry and be happy.
If you believes that use anti-conceptional methods will kill your soul and send you to hell its your belief, let the ones who doesn't think that way to use them.
If you think that blood transfusion is a sin I will not force you to receive one, but let the others to receive it.
If you think that evolution is wrong and creationism is right you can keep your beliefs, but don't teach your holy book in schools as science.

Anonymous 24/6/2009(Wed)09:54:37 No.85465

>>83224
I'd like to add that the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and Latter Day Saints for that matter aren't Protestants but rather Restorationists, which is a genuinely different quality.

Anonymous 24/6/2009(Wed)10:13:17 No.85484

>>85465
You are right, they don't consider themselves as part of the Protestant movement, but are generally viewed as such by the public at large.

Anonymous 24/6/2009(Wed)10:27:00 No.85492

The Buddha instructs the Kalama People on which basis one should decide which religious teaching to accept as true. The Buddha tells the Kalamas to not just believe religious teachings because they are claimed to be true by various sources or through the application of various methods and techniques. He urges that direct knowledge from one's own experience should be called upon. He counsels that the words of the wise should be heeded and taken into account when deciding upon the value of a teaching. This is not a dogmatic acceptance but rather a constantly questioning and testing acceptance of those teachings which can be proven to reduce suffering.

This means that you shouldn't take take teachings as true without further verification. This has some similarity to scientific method.

Anonymous 24/6/2009(Wed)11:52:46 No.85554

>>85484
Well, see, when I said, "genuinely different quality," I meant that I don't approve of them. They have roots in Protestantism, but what makes them Restorationists is that they claim direct revelation during the 19th century that instructed them in the true religion, the restoration of early Christianity, which is conversely what separates them from all the other lineages, which are similar doctrinally in comparison, and what makes them almost completely different in theology and existential reasoning. Don'tcha find?

Anonymous 24/6/2009(Wed)11:57:36 No.85557

>>85492
I've heard this basic concept before, and wondered, how does this reflect on Buddhism itself? I know that part of it is a very sound philosophy, but is part of it not mystical? What about that part?

Anonymous 27/6/2009(Sat)02:02:18 No.87242

>>85557
Maybe there are many forms of Buddhism, some buddhists seems to have blind faith like in other religions, even if this contradicts with what I know about Buddhism.
You can't expect people to act in a logic way... just because someone is a buddhist doesn't means that he is more or less than any other person, there are a lot of people that can't think by themselves and live with blind faith.

Anonymous 27/6/2009(Sat)02:10:45 No.87244

>>85557
A samurai once asked Zen Master Hakuin where he would go after he died.
Hakuin answered 'How am I supposed to know?'
'How do you not know? You're a Zen master!' exclaimed the samurai.
'Yes, but not a dead one,' Hakuin answered.

I'm not sure since I never cared much about their mysticism but seems to be in some scripture a detailed explanation about life after death. Even knowing about them this Zen master answer is "I don't know", just because it is written doesn't means that it is true.
The koan above is about a Zen Buddhism, and there are others forms of Buddhism.

Anonymous 27/6/2009(Sat)03:54:25 No.88276

>>87244
Since Zen masters are superior why didn't they usher in China's industrial revolution earlier? Why didn't they figure out a way to inform Chiang Kai Shek that they must utilise capital and market forces to improve the nation's economic situation and thus achieve the funds needed to support and army to re-unify the country?

Surely after this enormous failure all zen masters should admit a materialist industrialist capitalist with fascist leanings who exploits his workers into the ground has done more good than they ever will since he is advancing science, improving the material wealth of his nation, making his workers more economically productive and thus giving them the eventual means to put an end to their and their children's existence of grinding poverty?

Anonymous 27/6/2009(Sat)04:58:19 No.88312

>>88276
I think you are mixing things or trolling.
Monks are not super scientits, statesmen or overlords.

Many advanced civilizations disapeared without reaching a industrial age. If roman empire was so cool why did they fall? The same goes to Inca, Maia, Egipt...

Anonymous 28/6/2009(Sun)02:03:22 No.88823

>>87242
>>87244
Interpretation aside, I thought the Buddha himself probably said a mystical or religious thing here or there, in seeming contradiction to that bit about the Kalamas. Are either of you saying that any actually supernatural parts of Buddhism are innovations? I would really like to know more about this topic, because all I ever see of Buddhism's actual quotations are vague bits of wisdom, and I would really like to know about the whole metaphysical model, and the reasoning behind the spiritual side.

Anonymous 28/6/2009(Sun)04:01:03 No.89452

>>88823
Yes, Buddha himself said mystical thigs (or were not to be taken literally like many things in other religions) but he also said to not just believe religious teachings because they are claimed to be true by various sources or through the application of various methods and techniques. He urges that direct knowledge from one's own experience should be called upon. He counsels that the words of the wise should be heeded and taken into account when deciding upon the value of a teaching.

Just because a wise guy said it doesn't means that it is absolute truth.

Anyway, this is not a Buddhist thread, is it?

Anonymous 29/6/2009(Mon)12:32:43 No.90006

>>89452
I will translate it to internet language:

Buddha: Just because I, your mother or your teacher said it or because it is in a book doesn't means that it is true! Hear what we have to say but use your brain!

Anonymous 29/6/2009(Mon)01:52:22 No.90210

>>88312
Sorry but I find it funny that buddhists and racists feel the need to maintain the fallacy that there is an eastern and western philosophy. There is just philosophy and if their philosophy were more advanced than a list of virtues they would have developed scientific method and China could have easily undergone an industrial revolution as Japan did.

Funnily enough China had a Socrates by the name of Lin Chin, if Europe never existed China would have undergone the industrial revolution first because of him.

"Followers of the Way [of Ch�n], if you want to get the kind of understanding that accords with the Dharma, never be misled by others. Whether you're facing inward or facing outward, whatever you meet up with, just kill it! If you meet a buddha, kill the buddha. If you meet a patriarch, kill the patriarch. If you meet an arhat, kill the arhat. If you meet your parents, kill your parents. If you meet your kinfolk, kill your kinfolk. Then for the first time you will gain emancipation, will not be entangled with things, will pass freely anywhere you wish to go."

He was a heavy critic and spared not bigotry that passed into his mind, he is like the /b/tard who seeks out your deepest most engrained and hidden flaws so he can abuse them and in doing so inadvertantly do more for you than any excessive flattery from friends would ever.

Anonymous 29/6/2009(Mon)02:57:50 No.90262

>>90210
Who said anything about differences between eastern and western philosophy?

Zen Buddhism accept other religions and many Christians, Jews and people from other religions pratice Zen.

Also, if you want to troll me I'm not Buddhist, your bizarre interpretations just make you look more stupid.

Anonymous 29/6/2009(Mon)04:36:07 No.90923

>>89452
I just think it's interesting to think about the implications of his whole message given that he taught empiricism along with mysticism. I mean, when he said something revelatory, what was the underlying claim about revelation itself? I wish someone with more knowledge would elaborate about that.

>>90210
>>88276
I feel sorry for you, for being such a tragic pessimist. Lin-chin sounds like an awful cross between Nietzsche and Marx, and while I'm willing to give him a chance, you just make him sound like a reactionary, which, if you didn't realize, is pointlessly superficial.

>Surely after this enormous failure all zen masters should admit a materialist industrialist capitalist with fascist leanings who exploits his workers into the ground has done more good than they ever will since he is advancing science, improving the material wealth of his nation, making his workers more economically productive and thus giving them the eventual means to put an end to their and their children's existence of grinding poverty?

Isn't it a little immature to assume people would agree with this, a little egocentric? I don't think science and materialism are all there is to humanity, or even enough of it to justify that. Nothing like that can compensate for feeling, for thinking about life and connecting with other people, and existing just to perpetuate one's existence makes meaning impossible. You've got a lot of growing up to do, to be perfectly honest.

Anonymous 29/6/2009(Mon)05:09:56 No.90929

>>90923
if you haven't noticed
>>90210
is the same guy trolling in all the others threads.

His trolling pattern isn't much different when trolling about division by zero, religion, science or whatever.

Anonymous 30/6/2009(Tue)03:51:33 No.92408

>>90929
I'm not trolling. Stop being mean.

Robert House 27/10/2009(Tue)07:48:16 No.335843

Those reading may be interested in "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramahansa Yogananda. He talks about the experiences of so-called mystics in scientific terms.

	[ File Only] Password
Description
Post Text Description Duration (in days; 0 is indefinite) Board Ban Host Name Ban Image Hash Delete Post
Move To

3.14chan Google Search��

share.chan3 imageboard banner exchange

pichan 314chan 3.14chan πchan

[sci / ssh / geek / sug]