Science vs Religion

**Malorn** · 2011-09-21, 12:54 PM

Meh.

Accuser · 2011-09-21, 03:09 PM

I'll try to avoid making a "no true scotsman" argument here, but agree that science is in the business of "how", and that religion is in the business of "why". However, religion began its existence explaining both "how" AND "why".

The transition to a scientific investigation and explanation of "how" is the primary source of conflict, as many religious people seem to think the validity of their religion hinges on maintaining the function of explaining "how" and "why".

This becomes more complicated when a scientist says that "God isn't necessary" based on the natural development of the Universe. However, it seems obvious that if a God was necessary, there would be little point to faith anyway.

Crator · 2011-09-21, 03:13 PM

Also, science is never based on Faith, and religion is. Main conflict thar'...

Vecha · 2011-09-22, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by Crator

Also, science is never based on Faith, and religion is. Main conflict thar'...

I'd say some science is based on faith...

A theory starts out as a belief and a faith that you will be able to prove it.

Are you familiar with tectonics? (might be spelling it wrong).

At one point...a section for scientists flat out didn't believe that they earth was always recycling the crust...another group did believe...but did not know how to prove this theory...

Eventually they were able to by taking samples off the earth's ocean floor in several places...

But I digress...

The point is..before they can prove...they must believe.

CutterJohn · 2011-09-22, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Vecha

The point is..before they can prove...they must believe.

Believe brought about by the misinterpretation of evidence is fundamentally difference than belief in the absence or even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Individual scientists can be obstinate and make wild claims based on little, or poor, evidence. They recognized this own fault among themselves centuries ago, which is why the scientific method has error checking procedures built into it to minimize the effect of bad evidence, bad procedures, and poor logic.

A scientist can fool himself, or let himself be tricked, but science can't be, not for very long. Young scientists love nothing more than proving the old geezers wrong.

**Malorn** · 2011-09-21, 03:38 PM

Meh.

AnamNantom · 2012-04-04, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

That's not a conflict.

Some scientists see the marvels of the universe and the complexity and reason that it is highly improbable that it is purely due to chance. Thus what they observe from science reinforces their faith.

I would also state that a lot of the actual conflict arises because some religious folk view their holy texts as absolute fact and interpret it literally, which does not seem logically sound given that contexts change drastically over hundreds and thousands of years, as does human interaction. The context under which a text was written may be entirely different in the present day.

Essentially there are many other ways with which to reconcile the dissonance caused by apparent belief-disconfirming evidence. One is to simply not believe. Another is to re-think the view or the meaning of the belief. Still another is accepting that both observations may in fact be correct.

To provide an example - science observes that the world is around 4 billion years old. In Judeo-Christian religions the world was created in 7-days. There is an apparent conflict here. But is there really? Is the "7 days" in Man-time or God-time? Was the observer (who was a man) experiencing a vision of the creation in fast-forward? Clearly he could not observe the creation in real-time if it actually took place over 4 billion years! Education and knowledge was not the same at the time of the writing, so what was observed may have been interpreted differently. It is possible for the observation and the text to both be correct. It is also possible for that story to have been written by a schizophrenic.

Does that invalidate the entire religion? Some religious scholars might say so, but logically it does not make sense for me. Religion is a study, like anything else, and it changes over time and is subject to the flawed thinking of Man just as scientific understanding is sometimes incorrect and changes. If someone takes the texts at face-value then this type of thinking is flat out heresy. But I believe that one can be spiritual and have faith but also be critical of one's own religion and desire to modernize it, or refine it to its key principles. Some stories may be factually inaccurate (as histories can sometimes be) and scientific study may reveal these, but that does not render the purpose or meaning of the story useless or wrong. It merely highlights the fact that our understanding is incomplete and authored by men. If anything it would mean that religion shouldn't be stagnated in the far past but rather evolving with time and refining its message and meaning, distilling it down to the core parts and not letting followers get distracted by literal details caused by the weakness of Man.

Man is flawed and man's walk will be flawed and many times his interpretation. One great view in this is that the Bible is inerrant (most Christians fully agree with this), but man's interpretation must always be questioned.

There are some things in the Bible that are so simple and really non-questionable. The message of Jesus Christs's sacrifice so that man can be being born-again and renewed to God, is one of them. (John 3:16)

There are things that are complex, symbolic, and a mystery. Not everything was revealed to man in the Bible, even the Bible says this (Revelations speaks of this where John was told to seal up something he witnessed). For people who are trying to please God, and there are "grey" areas in their questioning of certain things in life that are pleasing, the Bible even addresses this.

Romans 14:13-23

13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Just my two cents, and I know this was an old post, but I had to comment. :-)

Crator · 2011-09-21, 06:16 PM

I suppose. But I ask myself, "Why did man create the bible?". To force ideas upon a people for control purposes. I'm not saying those ideas are bad. I'm just saying, some of that stuff seems like pretty big fairy tales to get an uneducated people (no knowledge of science or the scientific method) to conform to the ideas of said publishers.

**Malorn** · 2011-09-21, 06:27 PM

Meh.

Accuser · 2011-09-21, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

What evidence pointed you to that conclusion of the Bible's origins?

I didn't think I've heard anyone say that the Bible wasn't written by men. As to the motive, the Bible clearly states what one is supposed to do, without mentioning that conveying this information is its intended purpose.

I'm itching to lay into the many exploits of Abraham, but since this is pretty civil, I'll just say that there are a lot of things in the Bible that I wouldn't expect God to condone (even if he recants it later). This reinforces for me personally that the Old and New Testaments are written by misguided, power hungry men.

Wahooo · 2011-09-21, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I would also state that a lot of the actual conflict arises because some religious folk view their holy texts as absolute fact and interpret it literally, which does not seem logically sound given that contexts change drastically over hundreds and thousands of years, as does human interaction. The context under which a text was written may be entirely different in the present day.

Not sure why I only snipped this part, I didn't want to re-quote the whole post but had a hard time picking out the exactly relevant parts.

Anyway the reason you are having such a hard time here is, there is really nothing about religion that is logical. You aren't supposed to change it to fit logic or meet with science. That is what faith is all about, unquestioning adherence to some illogical set of stories whose interpretation of the meaning changes, or rather classifies one denomination from the other.

1. If the Bible or other religious texts are/were the work of man, then they are inherently fallible and in no way are they fit to be the basis of a religion nor would they be authoritative on the wishes or intentions of God. If this is the case then the text SHOULD be questioned and SHOULD be changed and where it disagrees with what we learn through proper science then it should simply be modified or deleted. Good luck with that eh? At this point we can look at all the fallacies and inconsistencies we see in the texts and pretty much dismiss almost all of it in the name of logic and science and keep the good parts like don’t kill, don’t lie, love your neighbor… but not your neighbor’s wife that is a no-no as well. So in the end religion is a nice summary of rules on how to be nice. We may as well get Miss Manners to re-write the books.

2. If the Bible is the “inspired” word of God, then it is still a work of man, see above.

3. If the Bible is the true word of God then it is beyond reproach and perfect in every way. There should be no room for interpretation or issues of logic. God is by definition a perfect being incapable of error.

“Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

So God is aware of what will be, and therefore there should not be any need to “update” or interpret any of God’s word for a “more modern time” as he would be aware of these modern times and his word, being perfect will still hold true in this time and all times. We may need to dig and search and cross-reference the text to understand spiritual meaning within but every word of the Book MUST be taken as the pure word of God and read literally. If it is not then it is the work of man, and if it is the work of man… then see point 1.

So now the problem lies, does science disagree with the literal reading of the religious text? If it does, and the text is the pure word of God, then the scientific conclusions must be wrong. If the science is not wrong, then the text is in question. If the text is in question then how can it be the word of God, therefore the whole text is in question. If the text is 100% correct then every point of contention between the two pretty much turns up our whole understanding of the world and many different fundamentals of many different branches of science. I’d say that is a bit of a conflict.

**Malorn** · 2011-09-21, 07:57 PM

Meh.

Accuser · 2011-09-21, 08:21 PM

Let's put it this way:
A men wrote the Bible
B men are fallible
then
C the Bible may be flawed

More specifically though, I'm against the idea that God decided that adulterers should be stoned to death. Oh, but then He changed his mind and decided to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Where the hell was the compassion back before that? Did the omnipotent, eternal, unchanging, loving and just God wake up one morning and say "You know what... I think we've brutally murdered enough adulterers, let's stop that."

And Abraham... the founder of Christianity, Islam and Judaism... You see a guy getting ready to slice his son's throat open, you ask him what's up, he says "God told me to kill him". Call the cops? Try to save the kid? Hell no! Make him your religious leader!

Oh, and when he impregnates his two daughters, do you call Child Protective Services? Do you have him on Jerry Springer for having a F**KED UP family? NO! His sons are to be the kings of nations! And He surely is God's prophet.

And I'd like to see someone read Revelations with a straight face. John says "On the Lord's day, I was in the spirit" and goes on to say he saw a vision of Christ where "Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.'" Now if you ask me, "in the spirit" is one HELL of a drug.

And it's this ridiculous and self-contradicting book that we're supposed to acquire the wisdom of an eternal, serene, CONSISTENT, just and loving God? That my friend, requires faith.

EDIT:
Malorn: It seems that your point is that -most- of the Bible is good for society. Why would we expect a book directly inspired by an all-powerful and all-knowing God to be "mostly good"? I wouldn't expect God to lay out the scientific details of the beginning of life and the Universe to ancient desert tribesmen... but a consistent morality would be a damn good start!

And why would a God of the entire Earth (and Universe) only reveal these divine teachings to a fraction of humanity? The entire Western Hemisphere didn't learn about monotheism until a couple of hundred years ago! Why would God let them fend for themselves morally, if the Bible is the direct moral compass inspired by God?

**Malorn** · 2011-09-21, 09:05 PM

Meh.

CutterJohn · 2011-09-22, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Religion = Why our universe exists, our purpose within it, and rules by which we should live our lives.

Why does there have to be a why? Why does there have to be some grand purpose to life or the existence of the universe? Why is a 2000 year old book better at telling us how to live than a popularly elected government?

Religion has always tried to say how and why. And at every step of the way, every point in history, its hows and whys have been proven wrong. Over and over and over again. I don't see much reason to believe its hows and whys on behavior and purpose.