Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Religion is not against science and the Internet as one of the technoscientific “miracles”: if, of course, one does not identify the position of a particular religion with the opinion of its individual representatives, including clergy – among whom there may be some obscurantists (as, by the way, among scientists: otherwise, in particular, the Higher Attestation Commission would not deprive associate professors and doctors of sciences of scientific titles in such numbers).
In the words of Max Planck: “Religion and natural science do not exclude each other, as some people now think or fear, but complement and condition each other… For just as knowledge and skills cannot be replaced by ideological beliefs, so it is impossible to develop a correct attitude to moral problems on the basis of purely rational knowledge. However, both of these paths do not diverge, but go in parallel, meeting in infinity at the same goal” (Planck M. Religion and Natural Science / / Voprosy filosofii. — 1990. — № 8). And for example, V. I. Vernadsky, in his famous work “On the scientific Worldview,” argued that ” the growth of science inevitably leads in turn to an extraordinary expansion of the boundaries of the philosophical and religious consciousness of the human spirit; religion and philosophy, having taken the data obtained by the scientific worldview, expand further and further the deep recesses of human consciousness.”
In general, for superficial people there are mutually exclusive points of view, for thoughtful people – complementary ones: nothing prevents a scientist from being a believer, if in principle he distinguishes between scientific and religious values and does not try to replace one with another, that is, he does not create hybrids such as scientific religion or religious science. For example, the great cosmologist of the twentieth century Zh. Lemaitre, the creator of the “expanding Universe” model, the first winner of the Eddington Medal (“Nobel Prize in Astronomy”), was not just a Catholic priest, but the president of the Vatican (Pontifical) Academy of Sciences, whose significance is comparable to that of the French, Russian and other national academies of Sciences. Many members of the Pontifical Academy became Nobel laureates: in particular, the great physicists N. Bohr, P. Dirac, E. Schrodinger, N. Bohr's son Oge Bohr or the same M. Planck.
Regarding specifically the Internet and computerization from a religious point of view-in particular, Deacon A. Kuraev has a long-standing but effective article “In defense of the computer”: http://ilynka.prihod.ru/zhurnal/view/id/1172256
Yes, the truth is that there were not claimed by previous commentators. First of all, because science is based on facts, and religion is based on faith. Even in the modern world, there are a lot of contradictions and there is a lot of research on this subject. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses do not recognize blood transfusions, as a result of which thousands of followers of this branch of Christianity died, although modern science and medicine could have saved them. in 1998, an interesting article was published in the journal Pediatrics, authored by Seth Esser and Rita Suen. The aim of the article was to determine how many children died due to neglect of medical care for religious reasons in the 20 years after 1975, and how many of them could have been saved.
The results are both amazing and sad at the same time. Of the 172 children who died during these two decades after refusing medical care for religious reasons, 140 (81% of the total) had diseases that were curable with a probability of more than 90%. Another 18 (10%) could expect to be cured with a probability of more than 50%, but less than 90%. Only three children (victims of a car accident, serious heart disease, and anencephaly) would have been rendered useless by medical care. Here are three examples from the heartbreaking list compiled by Esser and Suen:
– A two-year-old girl choked on a banana. Her parents frantically called their co-religionists and asked them to pray for her for an hour, during which the girl still showed signs of life.
– A teenage girl asked her teachers to help her get medical treatment for fainting spells (her parents refused to do so). The girl ran away from home, but law enforcement agencies returned her to her father. She died three days later of a ruptured appendix.
“One father received a medical degree and completed a year of residency before joining a church that denounced medicine. After four days of high fever, his five-month-old son periodically stopped breathing. The father later told the coroner that with each episode, he “drove away the spirit of death” and the baby “jumped up and started breathing again.” The baby died the next day from bacterial meningitis.
-Among the believers in the cases described by the authors were not only adherents of Christian Science (16% of all deaths), but also 22 Christian denominations from 34 states.
The problem of compatibility between science and religion is primarily related to the fact that religion uses faith, and science, on the contrary, uses working hypotheses. A clear criterion separating belief and hypothesis is the willingness to give up. A believer cannot imagine a situation that will make him give up his faith in God. The scientist, on the contrary, constantly
it seeks to refute its hypothesis in order to replace it with a better one.
Yes, this is absolutely true. However, not the whole religion, but what you now understand by it – MONOTHEISTS are against science at the level of intuition. In order to defend their power. Any centralization, even in religion, leads to exactly this. It can lead to nothing else. Yes, the Arab Caliphate was pleasantly surprised for a short historical period, but only because it was a fragile entity – a weak central government (which is always a great blessing). Then the Muslims” came to their senses”, unfortunately.
Monotheistic Greece (which idiots for some reason called Byzantium) it has become a GARBAGE DUMP instead of its former prosperity. This is a complete disgrace, an abomination, brilliant knowledge and technology were left on paper, books were locked in the basements of these monotheistic scum. Only AFTER CENTURIES, for a short time, under pressure, Leo the Mathematician allowed to learn about Plato, Aristotle and the SPHERICAL SHAPE of THE EARTH (shame!) a small part of the population. Freaks, pathetic cretins. Flourishing Greek cities were reduced by half and three times to garbage, squalid fortresses. The baths were dismantled to please the temples. No one was trained to do anything but ramble on monotonous sermons.
What is it? The Eastern Roman Empire had survived. What is it, SCUM? Did Byzantium also have a dark age? Ba… they really DID COME. Eco divo! Because of the feeble-minded bearded males who clumsily struggle with their own aggression and lust and because of this let EVERYTHING go under the comb. All knowledge.
In the West, the situation was no better. Cardinal Peter Damiani: “Why do Christians need science? Do they light a lantern to see the sun? Plato explores the secrets of mysterious nature, determines the orbits of the planets, and calculates the movements of the stars — all of which I reject with contempt. Pythagoras draws parallels on the sphere of the Earth — I have no respect for that… Euclid struggles with intricate problems about his geometric shapes — I also reject him.”
Which made me even angrier. Pope Gregory the First: “It has come down to us that we cannot remember without shame, namely, that you teach someone grammar. The news of this act, for which we feel great contempt, made a very heavy impression on us.”
GRAMMAR is impossible to learn, according to this nit! Grammar! You filthy bastard. Scum that makes me not immortal today, although if you and the philosophers hadn't slowed down science, I might have had it! It is clear that in the end, even the tsars got tired of living in the shit and not improving weapons, and they gave you a kick in the ass, but it's too late, for me it's too late.
Damn you, males. Seriously. If it weren't for you, I'd be happy. Be damned forever. Nasty, stupid bastards.
No, that's not true. Modern science came out of the libraries of medieval monasteries and there are a lot of believers among modern scientists, as well as among representatives of other specialties. And about the Internet and a strange question at all. I recommend Googling “religious sites”. Good luck!
Yes, it is true that religion has always struggled with development, with science, with any knowledge and sanity in general, i.e. for 2000 years. It is difficult to control knowledgeable people, so it is difficult to inspire fears, incite other people, fuck them, instill hatred, fill their heads with vulgarity with the fall.
Here is the opinion of a religious obscurantist
and here is the scientist's opinion
and this is already a conclusion about the absurdity of religious scribbles
… Make your own conclusions, but don't listen to storytellers !!!
“The church is a place where gentlemen who have never been to heaven praise them to people who will never go there.
Henry Louis Mencken
Officially, I don't mind. All the world's religions use the Internet as a means to promote their own ideals. But in any religious community there are different layers, different subcommunities. And there are in each of them such passionaries-alarmists-zealots, sometimes even clickers and fanatics. Moreover, their status within the church or its equivalent is sometimes very low, but their voice is always heard. Here they are usually against everything progressive.
And this is not only in Orthodoxy or in Islam. There are such people in Catholicism, and Protestants, Buddhists, and Hare Krishnas have creationists.
No. Not true. Because “spiritual” and “scientific” knowledge are based on completely different laws of the universe. In the invisible (spiritual world), as well as in the visible (material world), there are laws of their own, the neglect of which leads to negative consequences.
The Internet, as such, is just a modern means of communication.
Indeed, 70 years of imposed consciousness has made religion against science and vice versa. In fact , religion is science itself , we must consider these 2 concepts in unity. The final message of the Almighty and his messenger allow us to reveal many philosophical questions of science. Something like that…
Against what science and against what Internet ??? There are pseudosciences for example astrology or alchemy or Darwin's theory or in vitro fertilization or surrogacy or cloning, etc .. Yes, religions are against such sciences because there are spiritual reasons that prohibit the development of such delusions of humanity … The Internet is also different on the Internet you can watch porn and promote homosexuality and abortion and religions are also against such an Internet… I will not give alternative examples, and it is clear what these alternative examples are… Do not interfere with everything to zero write with reasoning …
Hello, very interesting question. Many people, when they say the word,, religion,, mean religion and the Bible. But you need to separate these concepts. Because religion does not always base its teachings on the Holy Scriptures. For me, the Holy Scriptures are the authority.
For example: In Isaiah 40; 22, it is written almost 2,800 years ago that the earth is shaped like a ball, although 500 years ago in the Middle Ages, people had the idea that the earth was flat. This is just one example that the Holy Scriptures do not contradict science. There are other examples: about the water cycle in nature. Ecclesiastes:1: 7… All rivers flow into the sea, but the sea does not overflow. From where the rivers come out, they return to flow again.,,
Regarding the Internet. If you can read the Holy Scriptures in your native language, is that a bad thing? There is a website where you can read the Bible in 2,800 languages and dialects. So you can also learn about the Creator and his plan with the help of modern technologies. But the Internet also carries with it a lot of negative and incorrect information.
That's another question.
Good luck!
How can there be a religion against science, if it itself was at its origins, and practically contributed to its development?Since pagan times, science has mostly been the prerogative of the cultists (priests)of ancient religions.In the early Middle Ages of the West and Russia, scientific research was mainly carried out by monks in the Christian religion and not only.But even then, religion tried to curate scientific research in the sphere of its interests to the best of its ability.And about the Internet.If church officials claim that they all ignore the Internet , it will be the height of hypocrisy.
Is the relationship between science and art based on a compromise? So why is this format offered to religion? Relations should be complementary, like, say, continuous and discrete approaches to explaining the world. With the informatization of culture, the concept of “world semantic field” has become quite accepted, So science is object – object communication with it, and religion is subject-subject. That's the whole short story. In addition, there is no mysticism in subjectivity (personification), which makes religion quite “decent” in the eyes of the scientific community. Use it.
It would be good to clarify exactly which religions you are interested in. I can say for Christianity, but I won't say for others, because I don't know.
In Christianity, there are 3 directions – Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism. �
As Nikita pointed out above, Catholicism generally welcomes modern science, in particular the Big Bang theory, saying that it does not contradict Christian teaching and faith in God in any way.
There are a lot of trends in Protestantism and they all have different points of view on this topic, so I won't say anything.
In Orthodoxy, it is a little more complicated. The position of Orthodoxy as a whole can be expressed by a Pan-Orthodox Council, which should convene 15 local churches and decide this issue unanimously. There are a huge number of private opinions of the Holy Fathers and other personalities who are related to the Church. But in general, so far the Orthodox Church de facto declares “We do not discuss such issues”
I consider the position of the Orthodox Church not to discuss such issues very rational. The fact is that science's view of the world often changes. When science was of the opinion that the universe is stationary, it always existed in the form in which it is (correct experts if I was wrong). Thanks to Hubble, science's understanding of the universe has changed dramatically. It is quite possible that in 50-100 years the world view of science will change again. And if Orthodoxy now declares: “Yes, the big bang is exactly what was meant in the Holy Scriptures,” and in N years scientists will say that it did not happen – it will be somehow not clever, at least.) What's the point? My point is that religion should not interfere in the affairs of science, be “for”or ” against”.