If you lived 300 years ago with the knowledge you have today, you would have been persecuted. Religious leaders saw how science was the biggest threat to their control. The only way to seem legitimate, was to try to take the credit for it. Tell me why I am wrong.
2007-05-27 20:05:54 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I miss the days of my youth more than you could imagine.
2007-05-27 20:12:42 · update #1
religion is dogmatic and seldom changes with progress , science is advancing and becoming more widespread and as society ever so slowly matures it will leave the antiquated behind.
2007-05-27 20:11:14 · answer #1 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
First off, Nice King reference.
I dont see how you are wrong. The cool thing about today is that you have the ability to express your religious views and have little or no threat to life (depending on where you are in the world when you express them).
Science is facts and research and discovery and the bible is a book of stories with morals (no different than The Brothers Grimm) to help guide you in life toward a good and peaceful life.
And religious leaders really didnt take credit for it, they wanted to squash science and called it blasphemy and herasy. God was the truth and Science was fiction. But today its flipped, which is for the better. Because today now we know better.
2007-05-28 03:21:49 · answer #2 · answered by Pho Z 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't agree -- mostly because science is largely irrelevant to religion. Indeed, if you consider that religion requires belief in supernatural phenomena, while science prohibits it, you can see that science is totally irrelevant to religion. So, the remaining believers ignore science, or deny it outright, if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. We see that all the time in this forum. Bottom line: religion does not bother to take credit for scientific advance -- because it can't.
2007-05-28 03:15:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hah, yyyeah. Even today. Over and over you see the whole:
"Hundreds of years ago they thought the world was flat"
--"Nuh uhhh! There's proof in the Bible that they knew it was round! (lists off vague verses that could be taken different ways)"
"Dinosaurs didn't exist in the Bible."
--"Yes they did! Look! They talk about dragons! And leviathan! Those are dinosaurs! Obviously, though they don't talk about their extinction for some straaaange reason that would have been epic were it in the Bible."
"Microevolution. Not in the Bible."
--"Yuh-huh! That macro crap is bull, but the Bible talks about microevolution!"
2007-05-28 03:08:49 · answer #4 · answered by Tedium 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Religion can no longer deny science. It is too definite. A religion must learn to use science to reshape and fix older religious concepts to come to truer enlitenment. As Einstein once said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. "
2007-05-28 03:08:47 · answer #5 · answered by captainspecial8 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who told you that religion is conceding to science to survive. Religion will survive even without science. Science is separated on ways with religion. You are still young to comment such false comments.
jtm
2007-05-28 03:11:12 · answer #6 · answered by Jesus M 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
well..that's ok they shouldn't persecute..they shouldn't allow the publishing houses exist ...
2007-05-28 07:30:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there would've been more atheists today if less scientists and other intelligent people hadn't been killed off!
2007-05-28 03:09:18 · answer #8 · answered by nicky 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋