Why science and religion are not compatible

[Patrick1000]

I agree whole heartedly with your last point

In response, I first ask you to watch this video, which makes points directly relating to the veracity of your arguments.



I'm going to restate my request from my previous post. Before I can even begin to take this as a serious concern, please demonstrate where any scientific theory is conventionally presented in the manner that you're arguing that evolutionary theory should be. Or, for that matter, cannot be presented in theistic terms. For example, one can theorize, in the common sense, that inertia is simply a Christian God's appendage moving things in a way that He has chosen to make predictable, for reasons of His own. Is this falsifiable? Not within science. However, it adds complexity without adding any measurable benefit in explanatory power at all, and therefore, is not particularly relevant or necessary.



I'm really not sure why anyone would freak out, honestly, given that, except for the points where science directly conflicts with literal interpretations of religious claims that honestly don't need to be taken literally, there's little to no actual conflict. There's lots of smoke and mirrors creating conflicts out of nothing, though. Personally, I'd say that most recognize that science is far too valuable to be ignored, regardless.

I agree whole heartedly with your last point. My sense is that the community's sense of the truth in what you have written there is the "explanation". I shall watch your video. Thanks for the tip. Pat

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

ftfy

I think that you intended to say that, at least.

Edit: Or... I'm tired. Either way works and do mean different things. Leaving it up, though, because I did post it.

Assuming that our race survives long enough, I'm of the optimistic opinion that there's a good chance that that situation will continue to change, leaving the forms of religion, in the (my opinion) high chance that religion remains, that don't contradict science in a far more prevalent position, given the overwhelming usefulness of that system.

Technically you just made the sentence more awkward, but it's not important.

I am in agreement with you because I am of the belief that the evidence has an advantage over myth. It's just a very slow process with a lot of two steps forward, one step back. For example, the church could only deny the nature of the solar system for so long, but eventually the evidence won. The same is true with what we are witnessing with people denying evolution theory. In 50 years most people will wonder how anyone could have possibly denied that the theory was correct.

In the book I cited earlier, the author showed historically how religious beliefs evolved with the culture yet claim still to be unwavering.

 

[Darat]

That's pretty flimsy. ...snip...

What on earth do you mean "flimsy", I'm well aware of "devil advocate" argument but you've given no indication that is what you are doing in this thread.

...snip...

Again that is all well and fine but it doesn't answer the very simple question I asked you. If you do not intend to provide the evidence you used to form your claim can you just say so so I can leave it be as an unsubstantiated assertion?

 

[Minoosh]

... the author showed historically how religious beliefs evolved with the culture yet claim still to be unwavering.

"beliefs ... claim still to be unwavering"? This isn't really parsing for me. Do beliefs make claims, or do people make claims?

I don't think this follows:

"Religions have scripture, and people align themselves with religion, therefore it necessarily follows that all people aligned with a religion understand that religion's scripture in the most literal, unvarying way possible, and therefore must disbelieve in the methods and conclusions of science."

That is essentially the argument the link in the OP is making and I don't think it holds up.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"beliefs ... claim still to be unwavering"? This isn't really parsing for me. Do beliefs make claims, or do people make claims?

It would make sense to you if you took 5 minutes to look at the citation. Basically the history of religious beliefs is they evolved to suit the needs of the humans that invented the fiction in the first place. If the beliefs were based on tenets inspired by real gods, the religious tenets wouldn't so closely serve the purposes of the culture that adheres to the fiction.

An example is the claim today that Jesus negated the cruelty of the Old Testament. Christians frequently claim, "God is love". Yet the actual NT text says Jesus advocated killing sinners and that all the old laws still applied. That narrative doesn't suit people trying to peddle "God is love" so they simply revise their religious tenets to suit their needs. No divine intervention in evidence.

I don't think this follows:

"Religions have scripture, and people align themselves with religion, therefore it necessarily follows that all people aligned with a religion understand that religion's scripture in the most literal, unvarying way possible, and therefore must disbelieve in the methods and conclusions of science."

That is essentially the argument the link in the OP is making and I don't think it holds up.

How does one reconcile evolution theory and the Original Sin myth? How does one reconcile the anthropological science of god beliefs being a human creation and current god myths? A scientist either has to ignore some areas of science, or distort the findings such as the NOMA apology does.

 

[citizenzen]

I took a moment to revisit the article cited in the OP and this part caught my eye ...

The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look. Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility.​

The first thing I noticed was that Sean (no last name?) writes "different religions make very different claims" but three out of the four religious claim are Christian. He then causally passes off that other religions "typically end up saying [the same kind of] things". It's hardly a wide or balanced look at other religious claims. When you're trying to argue incompatibility, it's important that you actually look more deeply into the matter, instead of unduly focusing on one religion.

The only other religion he mentions in this paragraph appears to be Hinduism: "dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden" And he goes on to state that "And science says: none of that is true". I wasn't aware that science had reached a consensus on the cycle of life and death and the role that karma plays in it. I would have appreciated if he had cited the studies that refuted that notion.

 

[Egg]

How does one reconcile evolution theory and the Original Sin myth?

By calling it a myth.

How does one reconcile the anthropological science of god beliefs being a human creation and current god myths? A scientist either has to ignore some areas of science, or distort the findings such as the NOMA apology does.

Or more to the point...how are you not aware that your position on where science is at in regards to the existence of god(s) is a highly controversial one? It's hardly in the same ball park as evolution theory, heliocentrism or even the no-world-flood hypothesis in terms of how widely accepted it is. No ignoring is necessary, they merely need only disagree on your conclusions.

...and NOMA is not an apology - it was first presented by an atheist who was fighting to keep creationism out of schools. In what way do you think it distorts any findings?

 

[Lowpro]

Well I think what SG meant, as he/she often means is how can one reconcile the conclusion of Original Sin myth (the genesis story of Adam and Eve being our first creation of humans and creation of all other life) versus evolution which provides the mechanism for life throughout history to be what it is.

One has evidence, the other doesn't and when it comes to validity, the myth of Original Sin just doesn't work.

So on what position can we allow people to say original sin myth to be true and let them keep saying it? It flies in the face of validity.

 

[Egg]

Well I think what SG meant, as he/she often means is how can one reconcile the conclusion of Original Sin myth (the genesis story of Adam and Eve being our first creation of humans and creation of all other life) versus evolution which provides the mechanism for life throughout history to be what it is.

One has evidence, the other doesn't and when it comes to validity, the myth of Original Sin just doesn't work.

So on what position can we allow people to say original sin myth to be true and let them keep saying it? It flies in the face of validity.

As I say - by accepting it as a myth - ie. allegorically or metaphorically true in some way, although not necessarily historically true - the message being the point rather than as an explanatory description of actual events.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

By calling it a myth.

Or more to the point...how are you not aware that your position on where science is at in regards to the existence of god(s) is a highly controversial one? It's hardly in the same ball park as evolution theory, heliocentrism or even the no-world-flood hypothesis in terms of how widely accepted it is. No ignoring is necessary, they merely need only disagree on your conclusions.

...and NOMA is not an apology - it was first presented by an atheist who was fighting to keep creationism out of schools. In what way do you think it distorts any findings?

I don't think my opinion is as much controversial as it is forward looking. Why do all paradigm shifts need to be Earth shaking? I don't think the discovery of helicobacter pylori was on par with plate tectonics. And I'm not claiming to have discovered anything. I am pointing out that one can ask a different question than, do gods exist? One can instead ask, what is the best explanation for god beliefs?

And NOMA is an apology. It happens to be an apology on the science side for why we should apply a double standard to god beliefs.

 

[tsig]

As I say - by accepting it as a myth - ie. allegorically or metaphorically true in some way, although not necessarily historically true - the message being the point rather than as an explanatory description of actual events.

What would this message be?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I say - by accepting it as a myth - ie. allegorically or metaphorically true in some way, although not necessarily historically true - the message being the point rather than as an explanatory description of actual events.

Please explain to me the meaning behind original sin myth in a world where evolution theory is accepted. Then point to a discussion of said explanation including one by the Catholic Church if you can find one where said Christian believers teach Original Sin as a parable. I'm truly curious.


Or, answer tsig as he/she beat me to it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I say - by accepting it as a myth - ie. allegorically or metaphorically true in some way, although not necessarily historically true - the message being the point rather than as an explanatory description of actual events.

This doesn't really answer Lowpro's, tsig's and my questions.

 

[Egg]

Please explain to me the meaning behind original sin myth in a world where evolution theory is accepted. Then point to a discussion of said explanation including one by the Catholic Church if you can find one where said Christian believers teach Original Sin as a parable. I'm truly curious.


Or, answer tsig as he/she beat me to it.

As I recall, the first and second chapters in Genesis contradict each other in regards to the sequence of events in creation, so right away it's not even compatible with itself, let alone evolution, if taken as literal history.

As for the meaning, I've heard different interpretations and I don't think it's particularly relevant to the issue at hand, but the common understanding is of man's relationship to God. Here's as good a place as any to start, if you're interested in how theologians have looked at the subject over the centuries: WP Augustine

If you want to see Catholics discussing the issue, I'd recommend looking here. I was having a quick look at a discussion there and what struck me that was relevant to this thread is how being "religious" doesn't necessarily mean accepting any particular dogma or having all the answers to apparent contradictions. As I was saying earlier in the thread, we all come to the table with our own cultural influences, beliefs and prejudices. It's holding on firmly to those so as not to accept evidence or causing us to interpret evidence with a bias which might be argued can create incompatibilities with science, or at least create some problems. While religion can be such a cultural influence, it's not necessarily a stronger influence than plenty of others.

 

[westprog]

I would have appreciated if he had cited the studies that refuted that notion.

For a thread dealing with what science says you may notice a shortage of actual references to confirm the claims being made. In fact, I've been asked to justify my assertion that no such scientific references exist.

 

[westprog]

As I say - by accepting it as a myth - ie. allegorically or metaphorically true in some way, although not necessarily historically true - the message being the point rather than as an explanatory description of actual events.

No fair referring to what Christians actually believe.

 

[westprog]

This doesn't really answer Lowpro's, tsig's and my questions.

Of course it does. It's just that you don't like the answer. What does Science say about the doctrine of Original Sin? Nothing. Original Sin is scientifically meaningless.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course it does. It's just that you don't like the answer. What does Science say about the doctrine of Original Sin? Nothing. Original Sin is scientifically meaningless.

No, the scientific evidence supports the conclusion, just like Zeus is a myth, so is the Original Sin story a myth.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I recall, the first and second chapters in Genesis contradict each other in regards to the sequence of events in creation, so right away it's not even compatible with itself, let alone evolution, if taken as literal history.

As for the meaning, I've heard different interpretations and I don't think it's particularly relevant to the issue at hand, but the common understanding is of man's relationship to God. Here's as good a place as any to start, if you're interested in how theologians have looked at the subject over the centuries: WP Augustine

If you want to see Catholics discussing the issue, I'd recommend looking here. I was having a quick look at a discussion there and what struck me that was relevant to this thread is how being "religious" doesn't necessarily mean accepting any particular dogma or having all the answers to apparent contradictions. As I was saying earlier in the thread, we all come to the table with our own cultural influences, beliefs and prejudices. It's holding on firmly to those so as not to accept evidence or causing us to interpret evidence with a bias which might be argued can create incompatibilities with science, or at least create some problems. While religion can be such a cultural influence, it's not necessarily a stronger influence than plenty of others.

I can do my own Google search. Why should I? You are the one that made the claim. Your link to a forum discussion is not what I asked for. I asked for an official church position.

 

[Chupacabras]

I confess that I didn't read but the first page and then jumped all the way to see how this thread has evolved. That said, a while ago I started to write something about a specific allegation and I intended it for publishing, but I never concluded. However, I will patch and edit it today so it may be useful in terms of the OP. If you will excuse me:

Every so often we hear the argument that Religion and Science are not opposed and, in fact, science tends to prove in time things found in religion texts, such as in geology, but also astronomy, archaeology, history, etc...

Even if this debate is put forward in a non-confrontational way, I suspect that the idea is anything but well intentioned.

Here are four notions that stand in the way for a reconciliation of science and religion:

a) There isn't agreement as to the terms of the debate, specifically in the required merits for something to be accepted as valid.
How do we know something is true? While the scientific method requires results that can be proved anyhow, Religion's concept of the world and existence is based on faith, which requires no evidence and cannot / need not be measured or proved in any way. Science looks for outside references, Religion references only itself.

b) There is a direct opposition about the unchanging nature of "truth".
One of the accepted - "honorable" if may I - terms of any civilized discussion is the disposition to admit error, retract and correct. The scientific community is self-criticizing and based on consensus; it actively looks to falsify any and all "truths" known, in theory or practice, in order to discredit, corroborate or re-state with more precision. As more things are discovered, Science modifies voluntarily (and humbly) its perception of the world. Religion claims and states the absolute truth: its word is Law and won't change position because it won't admit, much less promote, questioning.

c) There is a completely different approach when it comes to spreading information.
In Science, discoveries are put forward for the entire world to see and criticize. This is usually spread in up-to-date journals, meaning that for anything to be known in full, you have to actively dig it. Religion actively spreads its unchanging, and even scientifically outdated, knowledge in the form of conclusions and with the clear purpose of imposing, not criticizing.

d) Religion explains things "a posteriori" - after the fact, whereas Science seeks to predict and, with a correct prediction, support and validate knowledge.

Science and religion are opposed both by definition and attitude. Lets put an end to the idea that they can ever be reconciled.