• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why science and religion are not compatible

westprog said:
Through study.
Click to expand...

Dodge noted. All Christians cherry pick the bible. I worked last Sunday, when are you coming around to kill me? Have you studied that bit of the bible and if so, are you going to ignore it? I thought that you lot believed that the bible was the word of god?
 
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.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The assumption is that there's only one truth, and, seeing as how science by its nature demands proof up front, anything that contradicts it either needs to provide proof (in which case it will be science), or is wrong.

This is no different from the alt-med argument that "Everyone assumes that allopathic medicine is the only way to go!" It sounds reasonable up front, but rapidly falls apart during any serious examination.

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.
Click to expand...
The problem is, religion necessarily always states that. For example, Christians and Jews are supposed to believe (because it's in the Old Testament) that God stopped the Sun in the sky. This is something that's directly in conflict with scientific data--we have no evidence for the Earth stopping its rotation (and believe me, the massive tidal waves that would result would provide evidence). Similarly, the Bible states that Jesus died on a cross. Yet no Roman records exist of this event--and Romans were somewhat obsessed with records-keeping. The whole Exodus story conflicts with geology, archaeology, and known contemporary writings.

My point is, religion discusses the nature of the universe. In doing so, it necessarily steps into scientific territory--ie, anything that's ammenable to testing. Where it conflicts with science, it either needs to provide evidence (in which case it becomes science), or it's wrong.

Let me put it another way: So long as religion makes statements only about the untestable, it won't conflict with science. So long as religion provides the data to back up its statements, it is doing science. When religion makes testable clames without providing adequate evidence to support them, it conflicts with science.
 
westprog said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can show you christians who'll say you're full of it, and I don't live in the bible belt either. These people range from catholic to pentecostal to suburban born-agains. They don't play this Jesus light jive.
 
Dinwar said:
Christians and Jews are supposed to believe
Click to expand...

I really find this kind of thing bizarre. I mean, how does an atheist figure that he gets to state the basis on which religions operate? And in particular, that the basis for this is the literal word by word acceptance of a book. And no matter how often it's explained, repeatedly, over and over, that the belief in the book because the book says to believe in the book is not how all Christians arrive at their belief, they consider to insist that it is, and when a Christian doesn't conform to their idea of what religion is, they accuse them of being inconsistent.

Atheists are entitled to not believe. They are entitled to point out inconsistencies in religious belief. What they aren't entitled to do is define religion entirely in their own terms, and then argue against that.
 
Resume said:
I can show you christians who'll say you're full of it, and I don't live in the bible belt either. These people range from catholic to pentecostal to suburban born-agains. They don't play this Jesus light jive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know that those are the kind of Christians that a lot of people want to argue with. What is also odd is how they somehow think that being wedded to a self-referential logical fallacy is superior in some way.

This is at the heart of this argument. When faced with the obvious fact that a wide range of Christian belief is not in conflict with science, they have to come at it another way, and bring in the atheist inquisition to try to eliminate heresy.
 
Dinwar said:
Let me put it another way:

So long as religion makes statements only about the untestable, it won't conflict with science.

So long as religion provides the data to back up its statements, it is doing science.

When religion makes testable clames without providing adequate evidence to support them, it conflicts with science.
Click to expand...

Which is what I've been saying from the start. Where the disagreement lies is in the assertion that there is a scientific test for original sin.
 
westprog said:
Which is what I've been saying from the start. Where the disagreement lies is in the assertion that there is a scientific test for original sin.
Click to expand...

Prove that they were the first people and we can go from there.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
westprog said:
I really find this kind of thing bizarre. I mean, how does an atheist figure that he gets to state the basis on which religions operate? And in particular, that the basis for this is the literal word by word acceptance of a book. And no matter how often it's explained, repeatedly, over and over, that the belief in the book because the book says to believe in the book is not how all Christians arrive at their belief, they consider to insist that it is, and when a Christian doesn't conform to their idea of what religion is, they accuse them of being inconsistent.

Atheists are entitled to not believe. They are entitled to point out inconsistencies in religious belief. What they aren't entitled to do is define religion entirely in their own terms, and then argue against that.
Click to expand...



If it's any solace, this atheist-Buddhist agrees with you.

The level of debate has lately not been held to a very high standard.

I hope my fellow atheists can do a better job in the future.
 
I really find this kind of thing bizarre. I mean, how does an atheist figure that he gets to state the basis on which religions operate?
Click to expand...
8 years of Catholic School education, including daily religious classes. Life-long friends with several priests. My father is on a first-name basis with his local bishop, and attended the seminary. My older sister actually studied the Bible in Greek.

I'd say I'm pretty well-versed in the Christian catechism. And in case you're wondering, that's the stuff you're REQUIRED to believe if you're a Catholic--meaning that you either believe it, or you're a heretic.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear, shall we? Attacking me (and this is nothing more than an attack on ME, personally) does NOTHING for your argument. It doesn't negate anything I've said, it doesn't change Catholic catechism, it doesn't change the Papal decrees, it doesn't change the Nicene Creed, it doesn't change any of that. EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT and I'm only right by chance, my argument still holds, atheist, theist, or alien.

And in particular, that the basis for this is the literal word by word acceptance of a book.
Click to expand...
Please show where I said you had to accept the word-by-word (I think you meant "word-FOR-word") account given. I merely said you had to believe the story.

And no matter how often it's explained, repeatedly, over and over, that the belief in the book because the book says to believe in the book is not how all Christians arrive at their belief, they consider to insist that it is, and when a Christian doesn't conform to their idea of what religion is, they accuse them of being inconsistent.
Click to expand...
Again, please point to where I said that that was the case. I'm actually basing my understanding of Christian theology off of, well, Christian theology, including numerous writings by popes, monks, and the Nicene Creed (which, again, Christians are REQUIRED to believe).

You really, really need to argue against what is said. Because I'm not going to waste my time on you if you insist on arguing against what you think I should be thinking I said, or if all you have to offer is attacks against me rather than my arguments.

Which is what I've been saying from the start. Where the disagreement lies is in the assertion that there is a scientific test for original sin.
Click to expand...
No. First, not all religions believe in original sin--some don't even believe in the concept of sin as you understand it. Second, there's a LOT more that Catholics believe that falls into the realm of science than just original sin. The whole story of Genesis, the whole story of Exodus, transubstantiation (the whole Accidents vs. Substance argument is a cop-out), the healing of illness at various shrines, the raising of the dead (New Testament states that the dead left their graves either when Jesus was killed, or when He rose, I forget which)--you know what? Let's make this simple: every time the Church says a miracle has ever happened is a testable claim, just as much as any other archaeological or medical claim. So they're all testable, at least in theory (I'll let the loaves and fishes pass, and the water-to-wine thing, and the like--they're theoretically testable, but taphonomy has stripped that information from the historic record). If they happened, science should be able to verify it. If science cannot verify it, it's evidence that the event didn't happen.

When faced with the obvious fact that a wide range of Christian belief is not in conflict with science,
Click to expand...
So a wide range of Christians don't believe in miracles? Interesting--I wonder why no Roman Catholics, Mennonites, Mormons, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Charismatics, Eastern Orthodox believers, or the rest don't believe you.
 
Dinwar said:
<snip>
Click to expand...


Dinwar, just a little helpful advice ...

If you hit the quote button, then it attributes the quote to the person who wrote it, and it provides a link back to that post, in case you wanted to view it in full context or wanted to follow the thread even further back.

It's a very helpful tool.

After nearly 3,000 posts I'm surprised you didn't know about it.
 
Last edited:
westprog said:
Which is what I've been saying from the start. Where the disagreement lies is in the assertion that there is a scientific test for original sin.
Click to expand...

Cite? I think your memory is playing you false.
 
Egg said:
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.
Click to expand...
You claim this but when asked to elaborate you don't. I didn't see any links to a Christian or Catholic/Christian tenet describing original sin as a metaphor. Did I miss your cite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom