Kasz216 said:
While true. I think this has less to do with religion itself as it does the way religion has been recently positioned against science by major figureheads of said religions. After all at one point the opposite was true... seemingly every scientist was ridiculiously religious and was a scientist because they thought to themselves "How did god do it... how does what he do work." The problem is a lot of people who said scientsits told how it worked were afraid because it didn't match up exactly with their particular religious scripts that even a majority of religious scholars don't take as literal. The reason for this is fairly obvious in my mind. The shift from supporting science to stifling it happened right when the Church got it's power another ironic contradiction of the Dark Ages of Europe. With Rome gone... the Vatican eventually became the elected "treaty maker" and head of the Germanic nations version of the "UN." Such a power was addicting to the relgiious leaders who were used to not being the number 1 group when it came to both spirtual and natural authority. Such natural authority corrupted the leaders and as such literal interpretations have become more popular. An ironic contradiction since the Dark Ages and fall of Rome are also seen as to what lead to Europe being the intellectual powerhouse it became overshadowing even that of the Arabs who freely encouraged learning. Were not religion and science pitted as enmies by many... I believe it wouldn't be statistically different from the norm in large degrees. |
Exactly! That's how I've always understood it.
There are several religious scientists in every field, even evolution, although the culture-war-obsessed media wants to paint them all as G-d-hating atheists. They're just not literalists, and don't believe in some of the newer claims, like "Satan altered our DNA to trick us into believing in evolution on the genetic scale." They're still just trying to learn more about G-d's handiwork, and other religious people think they are doing Satan's work. It's hilarious. You'd expect that after the Enlightenment and the Reformation people would have more freedom to believe how they want to, but it seems that now people will argue "Sorry, your science and my religion don't match up, so you're actually an atheist but didn't know it yet."
Re: TV, yeah, there wouldn't really be a reason for an atheist show. They're not a "wacky" subculture worth celebrating for comedic effect, the way people expect entertainment out of gay TV.
I'm not sure what an atheist game would even be. The way you described TV, I could say that Mario is an atheist franchise, but Zelda definitely isn't. It's interesting that religion is just about everywhere BUT video games. And now game development is too expensive for most religious game developers. (I think I have almost every Wisdom Tree NES game. I'm missing Sunday Funday and the board game one, Bible Buffet.)
