fiksal wrote: ↑Tue, 16. Jun 20, 05:09
I think there are multiple ways I can answer it. Because I see more than one question.
Nah it's just one question, I think you're just trying to inject your own statement into what I'm not asking.
Not that I mind.
Can one do it fully, following the same teachings, realizing that supernatural concepts don't exist? I see why not. With one downside, one would inadvertently become an atheist.
Not necessary. Again I said this many times, unless you go full stereotype, it's not like it's rare for you to find a religious scientists, or those you found are fake scientist. Here is an example: even astronaut can be religious.
- The three Astronauts on Apollo 8 read the book of Genesis as their craft orbit the moon.
- Buzz Aldrin performed a self-communion service on board Apolo 11.
- David Scott left a Bible on the Lunar rover on Apollo 15.
- In 2010-2011, Russian Cosmonauts celebrated Christmas on the international space station ... twice, one on Dec 25 and one on Jan 7 for the Orthodox Christmas.
And those are just a few example among many of such occurrences happened on earth orbit. If you go look for more detail, you may be surprise the length some astronauts go to keep a connection and practice their faith even in space. So, as the flat earth stereotype argument is often brought up as the beating stick ... I would ask who among us would be more qualified to use that stereotype to refute religion than astronauts/cosmonauts? Yet ... doesn't seem to be a problem for these folks. Hum, maybe they are not just scientific enough? Question, do you think you are 'more' scientific than these astronauts?
I think there was a lawsuit against the astronauts back then- predictably enough from some atheism organizations on the ground of inappropriate use of government facility (the space crafts) and violation of first amendment. Well, I somehow doubt that was the 'real' reason for the lawsuit. This goes back to the debate near the beginning of the thread about what is atheism, and some brought up the idea of "real atheism" and "fake atheism". Well, I won't claim to know the real answer to that, but I would so far based on the opinion expressed, Ketraa would fit the bill of my version of a real atheist (assuming he is an atheist, don't think it was ever expressed explicitly).
Again, I believe the key to 'harmony' is an open mind, that's why flexibility and adaptability is good, together with keeping a respectful distance between the two sphere of influence. I believe 'purity' is bad.
Atheists are not superiority built. The evidence and reasoning they hold is held by everyone else. The experiences and upbringing however differ wildly. But I get it.
I never said they are, I just said may be they are or at least I hope they were. Btw, "experiences and upbringing" are something I always find both meaningful and useless at the same time. It's great as a retrospective study: you see where a person ends up, trace back their life and satisfy yourself that "oh it makes sense this person turned out like this given what he/she went through". The problem is, if the person had the same life experience but with a completely different end point, than that same retrospective study would still make sense in most cases. Mathematically, it means that they make poor predictors, as you can not say "if a person go through this and this and that, their life would turn out like this" with any kind of certainty.
Human are creature who are capable of thinking and acting both rationally and irrationally (and that's not saying rational is always good or irrational is always bad). Science or math, being a tool that only capable of explain rational thought will never be sufficiently explain our relationship with the universe
by itself. That's why we need another tool, or tools to cover the irrational aspects. The pitfall of (some) religion was that it tried to assert itself as the one ultimate tool for everything, and there is no saying that science would not fall into the same pitfall if it tries to make the same assertion.