continued...
Religious authorities, in general, hold a very conservative position especially in issues involving morality but don't equate religion to being an impediment to scientific and social progress. Religious institutions are just cautious that they prefer to stick with the tried and tested normative principles and religious wisdom that made it possible for their civilization to thrive and last this long. An open dialogue between the government and religious institutions would have cleared confusions and misconceptions both on their part. Again, eradicating religion has never been a good solution.
The issue of RH bill is not an issue of morality; rather, it is plainly seen as an affront to the authority and internal code of living unique to the Catholic Church and other forms of Christianity (I don’t really have a figure about other denominations or sects). On the other hand, the Vatican has constantly met with flak from countries already strained from various economic and population issues. It is not the first time that the Vatican has found itself on the wrong side of the fence about many things in society. Its attitude about homosexuality and the ordination of women, along with abuses of altar boys by priests all over the world are just some of the issues that easily come to mind. Are these issues paramount to morality and the survival of societies? No, but they are paramount to the freedom of choice that is the essence of rational societies. They are not “tried and tested normative principles and religious wisdom” as you claim. They are merely opposing views to the position of the Catholic Church that threaten their powers of prerogative, enough to earn the ire of church authorities and perhaps burning at the stake sessions in age past. Fortunately, people are wise to the ways of the Vatican, not just now, but for longer time.
continued...
It is not the role of religion to unite countries (that's politics) but people regardless of countriy, ethnicity, language and cultural background. And this has more to do with moral unity even amidst diversity. It means that they all share the same moral sentiments and general ethical standards in a society.
Czechoslovakia is no more. It has split into two countries already since 1993. And they are not particularly remarkable compared to the more religious European countries like Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria. BTW, Slovakia is a religious country. You could've cited a better example. LOL.
Scandinavian countries are probably the closest to a utopian society. Wealthy, peaceful, progressive, liberal, educated. Yes, they are not quite religious which is a result of their very high socioeconomic class, and not the cause. (More than any other factor, it is the economic status that has a negative correlation to religiosity.) But don't ignore the fact that these countries have been deeply religious for centuries. I mean, look at the cross in their flags. And the fact that they have state churches. These countries are historically Protestant since the 16th century and have integrated the so-called "Protestant work ethic" into their way of life. In case you didn't know, Protestant work ethic is a cultural ethos that is derived from the Bible that encourages hard work and frugal living and is also the driving force behind capitalism and the reason for the economic progress of Protestant-based countries which is also the reason why Protestant countries (US, UK, Scandinavia/Nordic countries, Netherlands) are generally wealthier than Catholic countries (Spain, Italy, France, Poland, Latin American countries). And although these countries are becoming increasingly secular, this particular cultural ethos persists. So let's not pretend that religion did not have a massive role in shaping their society into what it is today.
Now you are rebutting your own previous arguments about religions as a unifying force.
There are many unifying forces in societies, but foremost of them are race/ethnicities, language, color, and culture. Religion is at best a fleeting unifying force, easily forgotten when pieces of lands, petroleum and other resources critical to the survival of countries take precedence above petty and superficial unifying forces. Proof? You know it: World War I and II were fought by Christians whose very own New Testament at least teaches nothing but peace and nonviolence. AS for Muslims, the Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other for centuries now, and there is nary any sign in the horizon that it is going to stop soon.
Ah yes, I mean the Czech republic instead of Czechoslovakia. You are of course quite right that they were previously the apex of religion, Christianity even, and I will even say that not just them, but the whole of Europe. What turned them away from the old faith? So many things come to mind, but I will not go there. Perhaps, a few words are enough:
they have found better ways. And for that, there is some
interesting study made awhile back.
continued... (last part)
The society/civilization mentioned in your first link had already disappeared even millenias before the Europeans sat foot on that continent probably decimated by another (barbaric) native American civilization for being so unwarily passive.
I could also post the lists of Christian scientists, and Catholic scientists, and Roman Catholic cleric scientists, and Christian Nobel laureates, and Jesuit scientists, and Jewish scientists, and Muslim scientists, and Quakers in science and Hindu scientists. I mean, the number of religious people, past and present, and their contributions to science patently overwhelm those of the atheist scientists. And for the record, it's not true that most contemporary scientists are atheists. That's an atheist propaganda. 51% of scientists believe in God and 48% have a religious affiliation. Only 17% are actual atheists.
Science is a secular pursuit. There is no single religion or group that has monopoly on science. It is open to all participants from ALL religious faiths. And there is no particular position that a scientist must assume as science is neutral in matters of belief.
And your last paragraph would have been reasonable if not many political and legal concepts and principles in the West like secularism, separation of church and state, human rights, freedom of conscience, branches of the government/separation of powers, rule of law, due process and a lot more have their actual roots in the Judaeo-Christian Bible whereas the Islamic world has an entirely different version of those which are derived from their own scripture.
Atheists have no reason to deny or be mad in learning that the society they live in is founded by the institution that they don't believe in. And it's useless disputing this fact as the United States Congress has affirmed and made it clear that very foundation of our civilization was indeed built specifically upon the Judaeo-Christian values.
"Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws."
The Olmecs, the Mayans, Aztecs, and those other countless South American civilizations were never entirely different from the other civilizations of Europe, Asia, South Asia, subject to the same principles of peace and war throughout their histories. Bear in mind amidst this that most world cultures were at one time or another human sacrifice-practicing traditions. Even the Hebrews are subject to such practices, before saner heads took over and eradicated the practice once and for all, labeling them as anathema to humans and gods alike, yet the irony is that even Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac for that. Heck, even the myth of Jesus is cloaked in the concept of sacrifice and bloodbath if you know what I mean, Jesus being called the ultimate and final sacrifice to redemption. A lot of things can happen in the human head, as psychologists will readily tell you.
What does it mean? It means that the Spaniards landed at the American coasts at a wrong time, when the Spaniards’ sensitivities were high against human sacrifice (forgetting that they were just early graduates of it) and the need for natural resources and wealth were critical to the campaigns against the hated enemy, England, and the Mayans and Aztecs were at that stage of their history where the merits of human sacrifice were hotly debated and contested among the ruling elites. Did you get that? Left alone to their own devices, the Mayans and Aztecs themselves would have gotten rid of the abominable practice themselves without prodding from external elements. As it was, they paid dearly by the sheer coincidence of history.
No one’s stopping you from posting the number of Christian or even Thuggee scientists. In my case, it just occurred to me that there was once a study of members of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States where it was found that a good
93% of them were atheists (Vatican post, even, I think). Now if you want a more comprehensive profile about this, there is just
one that does that for what it’s worth.
I wouldn’t really mind if the pope himself was a scientist. It would just mean that he got it wrong in some parts of his life. Why?
Many things constitute a man. One might get it right that atoms are made of electrons and protons, yet still subscribe to the cult of Ahura Mazda. In this case, we say that he got it right in one part, but totally miss the other part. He is not an atheist, by all means; he is a theist in the dodo category, we would say now, in hindsight. But in the peak of that religion somewhere in Persian golden age, who would say that he was mortally wrong?
I am appalled that you are so whacked out to claim that most of the principles of modern societies have their roots in the bible. Substantiate. Perhaps you mean the Magna Carta and the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is a reason that the latter ones excluded any matters of religions during their promulgation: religion has so far torn the Old World apart to let any of that bull do it again in the good ole US of A.
Our civilization founded on Judaeo-Christian values? The corrupted parts of it that tears the world apart even now, yes, but the ones that worked went all the way from classical Greece and Rome. China, India, and Egypt would also have their say about that too.
“Atheists have no reason to deny or be mad in learning that the society they live in is founded by the institution that they don't believe in”? Hell, no!
Who or what even put that idea in your head? See, my parents and their parents before them were devoted Catholics all. Do I hate them now? No! In fact, I love them dearly. I can even afford to smile at the little lies they told me when I was young. You know—the lot about Mama Virgin Mary, Sta. Claus, etc. etc. How could I hate them for those? I enjoyed the time I believed those, but I’ve gotten old and wiser. Recalling those episodes, I could not help but smile, you know. They were good people, and
they had no way of knowing any better. See, I happen to remember the fond words of Santayana: “I believe there is no god, and that Mary is his mother.”
Done!
- - - Updated - - -
The idea of religious pluralism
has always existed in the scriptures and teachings of various religions. It is inherent among those religions. Society has just started officially codifying and making laws and policies about religious pluralism and tolerance rather recently.
It's only the idea and conception of God that differ based on limited human understanding and that people have confused but YWHH, Christ, and Allah are essentially the same God. Christians, Jews, Muslims and even Hindus worship the same God. They just don't perceive God the exact same way.
Satanism and other false religions exist by HIJACKING other religions and twisting the truth taught by those legitimate religions. They are cults not religions. But they are tolerated nonetheless in liberal societies so long as they do nothing bad or harmful to anyone. The United States is actually one of the few countries in the world that legally recognizes the most bizarre religions and cults. It even classifies Secular Humanism as a religion.
Show any part of the scriptures or teachings of other religions that prescribe religious pluralism. Inherent among those religions? Enlighten me, because for the life of me I just couldn’t see the Brahmins sharing with the other castes the goodies of their societies, or the followers of Allah allowing even the establishment of any other church in their holy lands. It appears you are reading texts we ordinary humans have no access to.
This I have to hear from Muslims themselves that God YWHH, Christ, and Allah are the same. Figment of imagination, yes. Let us not read too much conclusions where none exist. I would, however, grant a further investigation to the claim that Mohammed himself, when he said that all he wanted was to bring back the old faith, referred to the god Vishnu, or Krishna or whatever of the Hindu faith, as, even in the times of Voltaire, it was readily understood that all faiths, including Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism, all have their roots in the Indus Valley civilization. This is not an empty claim. For that, there is this
strange work.
AS that site that I gave you claim, it was Christianity that stole from and HIJACKED old mysticism practices that we now call Satanism, the latter having been there thousands of years before Jesus ever saw Bethlehem and Pontius Pilate himself. I would not go as far as to believe all their claims, but man, do they make such a compelling case! Besides, they are not the stereotypical Satanists that people came to believe them to be. Fortunately, I am far beyond all the issues discussed to even care.
- - - Updated - - -
Have you been living under a rock? The
Steady State Theory is already an obsolete idea in science. It (along with other related ideas about an infinite universe) is more metaphysical and theoretical than scientific. It has never been a valid scientific theory unlike the Big Bang. Quantum fluctuation, on the other hand, is more than just an ordinary idea but less than a scientific theory. It is not substantiated. Just like other popular ideas in science, quantum fluctuation is also theoretical and hypothetical but is yet to be refuted unlike the Steady State Theory. And if ever it was shown to be true, it would still not "disprove" God. Do you know what quantum fluctuation disproves? Materialism and determinism - two atheistic philosophies and main intellectual opponents of belief in God.
You really enjoyed this part, didn't you.
Well, apparently and as I suspected, you are far from being aware of the latest developments in science, especially physics and cosmology. It is so that I am almost tempted to call out your ignorance in the field, and yet here you are insinuating I have been living under a rock. I just love it when people are so brave like ants exuding confidence yet substantiated by nothing but their egos.
But apparently I am holding back to the temptation. As it is, I’ve known long ago that physics and cosmology are not everybody’s cup of tea, so I’m willing to close my eyes to arrogance and ignorance, a deadly combo if you ask me.
You will recall that I’ve mentioned the names Ali and Das. I did that to see how far you are willing to go down the road of investigation and updating your knowledge on the subject. Obviously you chose the shorter method.
Now to the subject of Steady State Theory: The Steady State Theory is dead. Long live the Steady State Theory!
Why? Because, for all intent and purposes, the
newest models proposed by these scientists are creating quite a stir in the scientific community (and, gulp—religious communities!). Why? They take care of singularities that BBT could not hope to explain away. What else? They are able to shed some light on the nature of dark energy and dark matter in one fell swoop.
Now, before things get out of hand, let us make one thing clear: Das and Ali’s papers are not refutation of BBT. Rather, they are meant to extend the BBT to areas it could not go. However—and this is a big HOWEVER—in the process, they do away with matters of beginnings and ends, limiting concepts for most human brains, suggesting instead that the universe has lived and will live forever. Sounds familiar? Yes, it’s the steady state theory all over again, in new mathematical and computational dressings.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. There is a lot of work needed to be done still, but the die is cast in the direction of some established theories at this exciting point of time for sure.
Quantum fluctuations and God: when nothing is able to come up with everything, who needs god? No wonder the Churchmen are so vehemently against the concept of quantum fluctuations. God is about beginnings and ends. Quantum fluctuations and a steady state theory that speaks of no beginnings and endings are thus an anathema and an abomination to the religious at heart.
And this is not all.
Remember the also-ran and long dead aether theory? Yes? Then, what do you know, it is also making a comeback from the dead. Ask me why, I might elucidate.
