Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Science and Religion Need to Take Each Other Seriously [View all]rrneck
(17,671 posts)14. Does taking something seriously
mean accepting its inevitability or embracing it as our own? And if we embrace it, what are we embracing? How close do we hold it?
Science and religion don't take anything seriously. That's what human beings do. I just hate it when people anthropomorphize ideology. You can't outsource empathy and understanding. People take each other seriously by finding common ground in shared humanity.
But they're starting right. All you have to do is make a place where we can put aside ideology and pay attention to each other. You'd be surprised how much of others you'd find in yourself if you just look. It makes it a lot easier to take them seriously.
Looks like I need more coffee.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
155 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

I don't agree. Science does NOT have to take religion seriously. Religion has never had to open
still_one
Jul 2012
#1
Didn't read the full link, but what I read, it discusses civility, which is fine, but I still stand
still_one
Jul 2012
#5
As best as I can tell the author is claiming that scientists should respect religionists because
Cary
Jul 2012
#6
I think there is a place in science to try to understand why some people don't accept
Cary
Jul 2012
#13
Because just dismissing them as psych cases or animals who could be studied is weak
cbayer
Jul 2012
#16
Again, taken from your perspective, the answer would be that scientists don't need to
cbayer
Jul 2012
#25
Religious people are not children and scientists are not all adults in many ways.
cbayer
Jul 2012
#82
Again, we seem to be at the team sport part of this kind of debate where there must
cbayer
Jul 2012
#61
Sir, if you don't mind, I'd like you to elaborate on the great detriment science...
deucemagnet
Jul 2012
#123
You don't need more coffee. As you often do, you have made some interesting points.
cbayer
Jul 2012
#17
trying to understand why someone would hold something true that has been scientifically proven.
AlbertCat
Jul 2012
#88
Too broad brush. The organization discussed in this article refutes your premise.
cbayer
Jul 2012
#39
You, like many others, make an incorrect assumption about my *faith* or lack thereof, but
cbayer
Jul 2012
#72
So your best answer is that scientists need to take religionists seriously because there are
Cary
Jul 2012
#142
Look at where the 'conversation' is stuck: were Adam and Eve a real couple?
muriel_volestrangler
Jul 2012
#103
Ha...the scientist part of me wants even less to do with religionistas than the atheist part.
Evoman
Jul 2012
#85
It's more a general outburst to religious people. But if you like, you can answer the question.
Evoman
Jul 2012
#89
I have been extensively involved in the peer review process, though I am no longer involved.
cbayer
Jul 2012
#96
Are there that many journals out there? Ha.....I used to follow only about 9 or 10, and then
Evoman
Jul 2012
#112
It's my nature to side with the underdog, and in fact religion hasn't done exactly nothing.
dimbear
Jul 2012
#94
We do often talk down to them. Sometimes it can't be helped....when you know so much,
Evoman
Jul 2012
#121
Wrong. Science is under no obligation to take mythology of any kind into consideration.
kestrel91316
Jul 2012
#126