Comments on: Religion, Science, and Owen Barfield http://consideronline.org/2010/02/12/religion-science-and-owen-barfield/ Read. Discuss. Enjoy Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:35:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Aaron Bekemeyer http://consideronline.org/2010/02/12/religion-science-and-owen-barfield/comment-page-1/#comment-649 Aaron Bekemeyer Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:01:15 +0000 http://consideronline.org/?p=1242#comment-649 Interesting remarks about Dawkins, Elton. I'm curious, though as to what you mean by science and religion in their "purest" forms - what sort of purity are you getting at? Interesting remarks about Dawkins, Elton. I’m curious, though as to what you mean by science and religion in their “purest” forms – what sort of purity are you getting at?

]]> By: Elton Li http://consideronline.org/2010/02/12/religion-science-and-owen-barfield/comment-page-1/#comment-629 Elton Li Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:57:50 +0000 http://consideronline.org/?p=1242#comment-629 "I like to think that the message that should be taken is:" sorry, I have a bad habit of proofreading AFTER I hit submit :) “I like to think that the message that should be taken is:”

sorry, I have a bad habit of proofreading AFTER I hit submit :)

]]> By: Elton Li http://consideronline.org/2010/02/12/religion-science-and-owen-barfield/comment-page-1/#comment-628 Elton Li Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:55:51 +0000 http://consideronline.org/?p=1242#comment-628 Science and religion in the PUREST sense are completely and undoubtedly imcompatible. And there isn't a single professional text that anyone will be able to find otherwise (except for the rogue scientists)... however, they will never be found in the purest sense. Looking at Dan Brown's Angels and Demons, I like the message that needs to be taken is: "religion has withstood the test of time, and so has science, so there needs to be compromise and communication". Dawkins may be firm and convincing in his philosophy, but he is utterly stupid when it comes to compromise and communication. Dawkins doesn't need to change his views, I agree with his views, but Dawkins needs to learn how to talk to people. Aaron, I've come to realize that communication boils down to connotation, and Dawkins isn't as ignorant or non-knowledgeable as you say he is... but he is INCREDIBLY BAD AT COMMUNICATING HIS OPINIONS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. His extremist statements are oftentimes taken out of context (because he sets them up that way to have confrontation) and used against atheism. Dawkins is far too confrontational about his views, he should come to realize that if he actually tried making a public appeal to the church, they might actually listen and start compromising on science. Elton Science and religion in the PUREST sense are completely and undoubtedly imcompatible. And there isn’t a single professional text that anyone will be able to find otherwise (except for the rogue scientists)… however, they will never be found in the purest sense.

Looking at Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, I like the message that needs to be taken is: “religion has withstood the test of time, and so has science, so there needs to be compromise and communication”.

Dawkins may be firm and convincing in his philosophy, but he is utterly stupid when it comes to compromise and communication. Dawkins doesn’t need to change his views, I agree with his views, but Dawkins needs to learn how to talk to people.

Aaron, I’ve come to realize that communication boils down to connotation, and Dawkins isn’t as ignorant or non-knowledgeable as you say he is… but he is INCREDIBLY BAD AT COMMUNICATING HIS OPINIONS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. His extremist statements are oftentimes taken out of context (because he sets them up that way to have confrontation) and used against atheism.

Dawkins is far too confrontational about his views, he should come to realize that if he actually tried making a public appeal to the church, they might actually listen and start compromising on science.

Elton

]]>