I Am Sick Of How Both The Religious And Scientific Community Only Look At One Side

Like Religious Fundamentalists and Naturalists fall into this trap of intolerance. I can understand why people would be turned off by Theism and Atheism when looked at from the perspective of Naturalism and Fundamentalism. On one hand, Atheism can be a cold system stripping all meaning out of anything, and reducing all existence to meaningless scientific processes. On the other hand, theism can be another cold system where a persons existence is centered around worshipping a vindictive god, who is going to send you to hell if you dont. SO I can see why people would be turned off from both. Then on the other hand, Atheism can offer people the choice to create their own meaning, and not have to worry about an angry sky monster out to smite them for not doing things as he wants done. Yet theism can also be appealing, as one is considered a meaningful existence with a purpose.

Yet neither side I see is willing to see the other side. And I'll be the first to admit, I think both Naturalism and Fundamentalism are messed up, as they suck all meaning and purpose in our life, reject any internal morality, and can have a "might makes right" attitude. If you think about it, secular and religious fascism are not that much different. Only real difference is that one is taking mandates from themselves, and the other is taking mandates from their perceived version of higher powers. Neither religion or atheism killed anyone. The problem was They both had ideas of orthodoxy, and were willing to enforce their orthodoxy by and means possible, whether it is from secular or religious sources.

Lets look at Scientism and religious fundamentalism, and their similarities. In Scientism, science is an end in itself, scientific findings are THE TRUTH, only what science can tell us is true, any scientific findings that contradict orthodox science are branded as pseudoscience, and everyone must accept scientific facts, no matter how useless in their life. Religious fundamentalism can be the same, only religion is an end in itself, religious dogma is the full truth, anything that contradicts the dogma is wrong, and everyone must accept our dogma, no matter how ridiculus.

In both cases, Scientism and Fundamentalism are both intolerant, and think they have all the explanations to all things.

The only reason people hate quantum mechanics is because it contradicts scientistic orthodoxy. This is what it all comes down to is how we use religion and science.

With both sides, we want to use both to help the human race. The difference is Science asks how, and Religion asks why. And either way, both sides should not be interferring. Ancient myths were never meant to explain the "How" only the "Why". And whats more is that mythology was more concerned about the human experience than explaining natural events. The evolution vs. Creationist debate is utterly ridiculus. Evolution only tells how, and the creation myths tell why. So in reality, the whole quarrel is stupid. People use evolution to prove that we came about by accident, through "survival of the Fittest", and others use creationism to prove that the world and life came into existence a certain way.

Then we see the confrontation between Psychiatry/Neuroscience and religious theory of the soul. However both sides have views that contradict eachother. The only reason they do get into this quarrel is because they are both going outside their boundaries. Psychiatry and Neuroscience are only meant to attempt to understand how certain biological processes effect our thoughts, emotions, personality and behavior. Soul theory is only meant to attempt to answer why we think, behave, and feel certain ways. So there should be no contradiction. THe problem is on both sides, people overstep their boundaries on science and religion, and try to explain things that should not be explained by those two, and then get all aggressive if anyone questions their orthodoxy.
ratburn ratburn
18-21
Dec 2, 2012