why do scientists always say that religion clouds there views of evolution, creation and so on?
Im not a religious person or a scientific person Im a layman. but in my opinion, there are experiences that i have had, others have had and people of science cant explain said experiences. they have a theory, but no real proof.
so i just dont get how scientists just dismiss something that doesnt have 110% proof behind it, even if they seen it happen with there own eyes.
to me it doesnt really matter, life is great and things change, but ive always wondered why scientsts just hate on religion, whats the reasoning behind that?
In my experience, it seems that many religious people don't have enough faith in their own beliefs to listen to others' opinions and many scientists are too prideful to admit that they don't know all the answers. Put those two together and you get a recipe for argument, hate, and fear.
thats a really great and logical way to explain it. that totally makes sense now!
when it comes down to it, id say its ego based. not everyone has all the answers but they feel, pretend or think that they do, than comes the arguments, hate and fear as you put it
thanks!
It seems to me that if we question to understand and not destroy we still destroy all belief. For at some stage we have to realise that sincerity is a measure of honesty not truth. If we honestly question then we end up being honest but not truthful. Ignorance is not the best place to be but better than putting our faith in a belief, i.e. a thought.
i ... dont really understand what your saying. read above im a layman, this is like reading Swedish to me. its going over my head.
"if we question to understand we will destroy all belief" what? how would it destroy belief if we wanted to understand our beliefs in the first place?
and if we believe in our thots were ignorant?
sorry im not understanding what you mean here
The point of questioning anything is to understand. But the more we question deeply the more we realise that actually "the more we know the less we know".
My way of explaining this to myself by analogy. I live on a small island of knowledge. I can walk round the island in a day. I know it well. The shore line is where my knowledge stops and ignorance begins. As the island gets bigger - my understanding increases - the shoreline gets longer and it takes me more than a day to walk round. But the island is still an island in an ocean of ignorance. No matter how big the island gets it will still be a dot in an immense ocean.
So what I am saying is that to attack or defend beliefs is less important than realising that personally we do not know how or why the universe exists and that includes ourselves. The evidence for evolution is limited spatially and temporarily to one planet in a non-descript galaxy in the back of beyond.
Think of it this way. Evolution implies "better", more evolved. There is that word again. Or maybe more complex. But what is "better".
So not exactly a position for me to argue from. :)