Why science and religion are not compatible

[Egg]

I can do my own Google search. Why should I?

I took you at your word that you were curious. But, since you ask: if you're going to discuss theology on a public forum, it might be a good idea to have a broader reading than the Skeptics' Bible.

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.

Actually I was countering your claim. If by doing so I claimed anything, I claimed the story can be understood metaphorically and provided links outlining some of the theological thinking on Original Sin. I didn't claim to be an expert on the precise position of the Catholic church on the issue. Doesn't the individuals discussing such issues provide a better example of how actual believers reconcile the two?

If you're the one suggesting that the Catholic church's position on Original Sin is incompatible with evolution, you're the one who should be providing the evidence to back that up.

 

[Chupacabras]

I will edit my next-to-last paragraph to:

d) Religion explains things "a posteriori" - after the fact - whereas Science seeks to predict.
The basic premise of "under same conditions, same results" is one os Science most valuable concepts. A correct prediction supports and validates knowledge, and the other way around. In Religion, failed predictions are explained away with more absolute statements, such as "the Lord works in mysterious ways", but truths are never recanted.

 

[tsig]

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

That's a he.

 

[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?

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.

Actually I don't want to see Catholics discussing anything I wanted you to state what the point of the message was in your own words. You seem to be waffling.

 

[citizenzen]

There isn't agreement as to the terms of the debate ...

So let's start with the term "religion".

Is Buddhism a religion? Buddhism is all about looking at oneself and the world, removing delusion and false beliefs, and seeing things in the most basic, natural way. Buddhists believe that everything is transitory and a result of cause and effect.

The Buddha's enlightenment did not concern deities, the supernatural or eternal salvation, it concerned the very terrestrial issue of human suffering, the causes of it and the way to end it.

So is Buddhism a "religion"?

re·li·gion   noun

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.​

This thread and the OP seem to be focused on Christianity. And it is understandable why. But the more natural and investigative religions like Buddhism has been overlooked. And it leads me to wonder what other more obscure practices likewise are perfectly compatible with science. I'm sure there are some others out there.

Are science and religion compatible?

It depends on what religion we're talking about.

 

[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?

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.

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.

Maybe you could show me where Egg answered the question.

Since evolution is true original sin is false. There was no Garden of Eden and no Fall of Man so no sin.

 

[tsig]

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

Yes, when the Origins Story is proved fake the the Original Sin myth goes with it.

 

[citizenzen]

Yes, when the Origins Story is proved fake the the Original Sin myth goes with it.

A google search brought me back here to JREF where a thread already looked into this report using poll results to illustrate trends in religious beliefs. Here is one of the questions from Gallup, May 5-8, 2011 ...

"Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible? The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally. OR, The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."

Actual — 30%
Inspired — 49%
Fables — 17%
Unsure — 3%​

So when you're talking about people who literally believe that Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden, ate the fruit from the forbidden tree and therefore originated sin, you're talking about the minority of Christians.

This poll from Gallup, December 17, 2010, showed nearly the same percentage of Americans believe humans evolved with God's guiding vs. were created in their human form 10,000 years ago ...

Which of the following statement comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so ...

1 — 38%
2 — 16%
3 — 40%​

So I have to ask, how long will we let the minority opinion represent the faith?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's a he.

Thought so, but I am cautious since I have been mistaken for a he when I am a she.

 

[Egg]

Actually I don't want to see Catholics discussing anything I wanted you to state what the point of the message was in your own words. You seem to be waffling.

Why? It's not relevant what I or anyone else think the point might be, only that the story can be understood metaphorically and therefore not contradict evolution. If you're interested in ways the story has been interpreted, I gave some links to give a starting point. It's a pretty big subject for a quick forum post and not really on topic.

 

[westprog]

Maybe you could show me where Egg answered the question.

Since evolution is true original sin is false. There was no Garden of Eden and no Fall of Man so no sin.

Oh, I see. Another atheist bible literalist. Every bit as wedded to the actual text as a deep South preacher.

It could be pointed out that the understanding of the bible as metaphor goes back at least to Aquinas but experience tells us that that won't be accepted.

 

[westprog]

So I have to ask, how long will we let the minority opinion represent the faith?

When a fundamentalist Christian insists on his interpretation of the Bible, at least he's fighting his own corner. When an atheist insists on a fundamentalist Christian interpretation of the Bible, and tells non-fundamentalist Christians not only what they should believe, but what they do believe, it's beyond contradiction into farce.

It's particularly silly to use something that people don't believe in - a literal garden of Eden, a literal Adam and Eve created from dirt - to disprove something that is entirely meaningless in scientific terms. Of course it simplifies the argument if you argue for both sides.

 

[Leumas]

Oh, I see. Another atheist bible literalist. Every bit as wedded to the actual text as a deep South preacher.

It could be pointed out that the understanding of the bible as metaphor goes back at least to Aquinas but experience tells us that that won't be accepted.

Why is it that every time a bible casuist is faced with an awkward part he pulls the "it is a metaphor" chicanery?

Why follow the Bible at all if you are going to interpret it every which way but what it actually says?

Why not just use Aesop's Fables or the Iliad.....they too are full of metaphors that can be interpreted anyway one decides if one is able to fool one's self enough.

So why the Bible exactly?

And if one is going to say the wicked bits are allegories for good stuff because HE decided it does....then why can't I say that the other bits which are taken literally are also metaphors for vile stuff and not good as might appear at face value?

If Jesus telling people to cut their arms off and pluck their eyes out is a metaphor..... why isn't the part about him rising from the dead a metaphor too?

If when Jesus says that the Mosaic Laws are to be followed to the last tittle is a metaphor...then why isn't the part about Mary being a virgin just a joke?

 

[westprog]

Why is it that every time a bible casuist is faced with an awkward part he pulls the "it is a metaphor" chicanery?

Why follow the Bible at all if you are going to interpret it every which way but what it actually says?

If you ask a bible fundamentalist what he follows, he says the bible. Ask a christian, and they will say Christ, and the Church. The whole "Isn't your faith based on the Bible" thing makes no sense to most Christians. It's a wrong paradigm. It's not relevant.

 

[The Norseman]

"That's just how it works" makes my point. And I believe you missed mine.

If informational change occurs at clock-like rates then some mutations are occurring and being maintained independent of environmental conditions, independent of natural selection.

Sure it was/is a "trick question". It's only not a trick, if one knows about Motoo Kimura's famous response to my very own question. If one doesn't know that, know about Kimura's ad hoc response, then as a Darwinist, you are dead in the primordial oozy water.

I know how cytochrome c works by the way. Anchoring a protein in a membrane by the way constitutes a "function" Ichuemonwasp. Let's not play games here. The protein stem to stern is functional. It was made so, functional that way, whether by the hand of God, or nature. Intentionally, or unintentionally functional, stem to stern

*snorts*

It was this highlighted and the constant use of the phrase "neo-darwin" that makes me think that Patrick1000 is trolling.

If you ask a bible fundamentalist what he follows, he says the bible. Ask a christian, and they will say Christ, and the Church. The whole "Isn't your faith based on the Bible" thing makes no sense to most Christians. It's a wrong paradigm. It's not relevant.

And how do people know about Christ, exactly? How did the church gain it's wisdom that the Christians will follow if not the bible?

 

[Leumas]

If you ask a bible fundamentalist what he follows, he says the bible. Ask a christian, and they will say Christ, and the Church. The whole "Isn't your faith based on the Bible" thing makes no sense to most Christians. It's a wrong paradigm. It's not relevant.

Norseman beat me to it.... he says exactly what I was going to say

And how do people know about Christ, exactly? How did the church gain it's wisdom that the Christians will follow if not the bible?

How does ANYONE know about who and what Jesus was if it is not THROUGH the Bible?

Are christians abrogating REASON and just admitting that they are not capable of making heads or tails of the scripture and just delegate the process of THINKING to "specialists" who can then go ahead and tell them what to BELIEVE?

Why then even BOTHER reading the Bible?...wait…they don’t

Also.....who is to say that these "experts" got it right? Most assuredly, if the history of the church is any indicator, it is not these experts.

If the experts got it right, why are there over 1500 different DENOMINATIONS of the so called Jesus?

It seems to me the fact that they fought wars over what and who Jesus was and what he meant indicates that they NEVER knew the message in the first place.

Paul's epistles are about resolving disputes and misconceptions that arose in the various churches that he himself started.

If even in the lifetime of the instigator of the faith it gets corrupted, how on earth is it in any way a sound one? Not to mention the hundreds of other sects that were extirpated and nuances of interpretations that were extinguished by wars.

And despite all the efforts of the orthodoxy, today there are over 1500 different interpretations of Jesus and the bible.

But the primary point is….why even have a bible….. if everyone is just going to ignore it and make up whatever suits the POLITICAL EXPEDIENTS of the day….why bother with it at all.

Why is it that Christianity asserts that people are INCAPABLE of reading the text and understanding it for themselves? Isn’t Jesus able to make sure that every reader of the bible gets the right idea from the black and white (and some red) words?

Are Christians going back to the days of when they could not read or understand the bible and where the Church had it as ILLEGAL for laity to actually read the bible?

 

[tsig]

If you ask a bible fundamentalist what he follows, he says the bible. Ask a christian, and they will say Christ, and the Church. The whole "Isn't your faith based on the Bible" thing makes no sense to most Christians. It's a wrong paradigm. It's not relevant.

How do you find out about Christ?

 

[tsig]

Oh, I see. Another atheist bible literalist. Every bit as wedded to the actual text as a deep South preacher.

It could be pointed out that the understanding of the bible as metaphor goes back at least to Aquinas but experience tells us that that won't be accepted.

How can you tell what part of the Bible is to be taken literally and what part is metaphor?

 

[Aridas]

How does ANYONE know about who and what Jesus was if it is not THROUGH the Bible?

Through the movings of the Holy Spirit, the interpretations of the trusted, and the parts of the Bible that they choose to think are relevant.

Are christians abrogating REASON and just admitting that they are not capable of making heads or tails of the scripture and just delegate the process of THINKING to "specialists" who can then go ahead and tell them what to BELIEVE?

Wait, you're accusing faith of not being reasonable? Amazing revelation, that.

Why then even BOTHER reading the Bible?...wait…they don’t

Err... not quite. Most do tend to read the Bible. The glasses of Faith tend to make them see a less than objective picture of it, though.

Also.....who is to say that these "experts" got it right? Most assuredly, if the history of the church is any indicator, it is not these experts.

The experts are right if they agree with you. How could you not understand this? Seriously.

If the experts got it right, why are there over 1500 different DENOMINATIONS of the so called Jesus?

1) God works in mysterious ways. 2) Obviously, there are no significant differences worth mentioning. 3) Same God, right?

But the primary point is….why even have a bible….. if everyone is just going to ignore it and make up whatever suits the POLITICAL EXPEDIENTS of the day….why bother with it at all.

Because it's hard to see the larger picture when you're not looking.

Why is it that Christianity asserts that people are INCAPABLE of reading the text and understanding it for themselves? Isn’t Jesus able to make sure that every reader of the bible gets the right idea from the black and white (and some red) words?

It you're asking that seriously, you'd probably be surprised at how many Christians would completely disagree with you on the first, and never give a thought to the second.

Are Christians going back to the days of when they could not read or understand the bible and where the Church had it as ILLEGAL for laity to actually read the bible?

Not anytime soon, likely.

 

[westprog]

Wait, you're accusing faith of not being reasonable? Amazing revelation, that.

What should be a debate on whether and when science and religion conflict seems to go the same way that all these debates go. The assumption seems to be that if religion doesn't operate in exactly the same way, and according to the same rules as science, then it's in conflict. The unstated assumption is that science is not just a methodology by which we can find out how the universe works - it's a complete way of life which provides all the answers. This is scientism - which is only rarely explicitly stated.

The demands that Christianity provide scientific proof of its claims are missing the point entirely. Religion isn't science. The same applies to many other aspects of human life. The only conflict with science happens when religion (or something else) directly contradicts a well-founded scientific theory. Most of what's been written here is simply irrelevant to this.