Why science and religion are not compatible

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Your ad hom is a Fail.

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.

Why would you need proof of that? It's rather blatantly obvious if there were no Adam and Eve, how could they have sinned?

 

[Leumas]

Yes, it should make it easier for the skeptic theists and skeptic NOMA apologists to see the problem.

I like these terms....nice ones.... I think there are many Theist-Atheists too.


There are many that for all intents and purposes, are Atheists as long as no one debunks the SUBSTANCE of their religion.

They don't mind attacking the substance and tenets of other religions quite ferociously. However when it comes to theirs they can accept QUESTIONS and even some debunking, but when it comes to attacking the SUBSTANCE of the CHERISHED stories they can be quite indignant about it.

They can accept QUESTIONS and even some debunking, but when it comes to the SUBSTANCE of the CHERISHED TRADITIONS of their religion they can be quite indignant about it.

I do understand this however. Religion blends with CULTURE. These theist-atheists don’t mind rejecting the God aspects but are incapable of divorcing the cultural aspect. In their mind the cognitive dissonance is alleviated by claiming the stories are historical and cultural but without all the supernatural elements.

They are people who try to explain the red sea splicing by tides or as the READ SEA, or whatever. But it never occurs to them that the whole thing does not need any explanation because it never took place. It is like someone who wants to believe that Harry Potter may be based on a real boy in some boarding school but without all the wizardly stuff.

 

[tsig]

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.

your concern is noted.

 

[Egg]

Your ad hom is a Fail.

You appear to have mistaken my advice for an argument (admittedly slightly snarky advice, but not really any more than when you suggest to a creationist that they might want to read up on evolution before continuing to display their ignorance of the subject).

Why would you need proof of that? It's rather blatantly obvious if there were no Adam and Eve, how could they have sinned?

So therefore the Catholic church must understand the story as an actual historical event?

 

[westprog]

Let's make one thing perfectly clear, shall we? Attacking me (and this is nothing more than an attack on ME, personally)

Really? Your definition of "personal attack" is remarkably broad. I hope tsig and Skeptic Ginger aren't feeling slighted.

You might want to report the relevant posts to the moderators. No reason why you should have to suffer this level of abuse.

 

[westprog]

What scientific studies determined that?

Oh, it's all implicit. It's there in the scientist's loyalty oath if you read between the lines.

 

[westprog]

If science cannot verify it, it's evidence that the event didn't happen.

Are you really willing to stand by this statement? On the face of it, it seems absurd.

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.

If you don't read what I actually say, then no wonder you think you're under attack.

The point of miracles is that they are miracles. If they don't happen, then they don't contradict science. If they do happen, then the only way that they qualify as miracles is that they contradict science. Does science preclude miracles - no, it says that they only happen if they are miracles.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What scientific studies determined that?

Which god beliefs aren't magical beliefs?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I like these terms....nice ones.... I think there are many Theist-Atheists too.

You'll need to explain that one a bit more. Are you referring to the, I believe in one less than you, theist-atheist? Interesting way to put it.

...These theist-atheists don’t mind rejecting the God aspects but are incapable of divorcing the cultural aspect. In their mind the cognitive dissonance is alleviated by claiming the stories are historical without all the supernatural elements.

For example….the people who try to explain the red sea splicing by tides or READ SEA, or whatever. But it never occurs to them that the whole thing does not need any explanation because it never took place. It is like someone who wants to believe that Harry Potter may be based on a real boy in some boarding school but without all the wizardly stuff.

I don't think it is wrong to speculate supernatural historical events might have a basis in reality. I lean toward, "historical Jesus probably didn't exist", but I think it is legitimate scientific inquiry to look at the evidence pro and con when drawing such a conclusion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You appear to have mistaken my advice for an argument (admittedly slightly snarky advice, but not really any more than when you suggest to a creationist that they might want to read up on evolution before continuing to display their ignorance of the subject).

When the ignorance is demonstrably evident the description applies. But claiming I don't know more about religion than what is in the SAB because it is a convenient resource I often site, that is not demonstrably evident.

So therefore the Catholic church must understand the story as an actual historical event?

Or they consciously don't put 2 & 2 together and simply ignore the cognitive dissonance.

 

[Darat]

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? ....snip...

I would say that it would be that the atheist reads what the religions themselves say about their beliefs, all the major religions of the world are very clear about what their beliefs are. If you are interested in the actual beliefs of a religion here is a good starting point for the religion with the most self-identified adherents in the world: http://www.vatican.va/

 

[citizenzen]

I would say that it would be that the atheist reads what the religions themselves say about their beliefs ...

Yet discussions on what constitutes atheism reveal a good number of different interpretations of the term. If anybody here has taken part in one of these discussions they'd realize that even "no belief" comes in many different flavors.

So why is this so hard to accept for Christians? They believe in God. They believe in Jesus Christ. They believe in (at least) Jesus's teachings in the Bible. That doesn't mean they have to swallow hook,line and sinker anything else.

I'm Buddhist. I follow the teachings of the Buddha. Is there a lot of other crap I can add to those teachings, depending upon what various cultures have added to it during the last 2,600 years? Yes there is. But it doesn't take a genius to look past what is added to a religion in order to focus on the core teaching.

There is/has been a good amount of study into both of these religions to allow anybody interested and inquisitive enough to separate out the myth, the superstition, the cultural excess in order to get to the original teachings.

I find it hard to believe that some of you aren't able to understand this. I guess that sometimes knocking down straw men is more fun than really trying to delve deeply into a conversation. Again, I urge you to try harder.

 

[Dinwar]

Really? Your definition of "personal attack" is remarkably broad.

What I meant is that your entire argument hinged on who I am (an atheist), rather than what I said (Catholic Catechism).

You might want to report the relevant posts to the moderators. No reason why you should have to suffer this level of abuse.

I didn't say you were abusive. Again, please read what I wrote, rather than what you think I think I wrote. Your argument--through implication, that an atheist cannot know what Catholics believe--ignores what I said and addresses me, personally. This is wrong, and a fallacy (either ad homonym ["You're wrong because you're an atheist"] or poisoning the well ["You're an atheist--you can't know anything about this!"]).

The issue isn't that you insulted me--I've been insulted before, and I think I'll live if you decide to. The issue is that your argument hinges on my religious beliefs, and not the validity of the statements I've made. Thus, it is entirely irrelevant.

Are you really willing to stand by this statement? On the face of it, it seems absurd.

Only because you're equivocating between "evidence" and "proof". Lack of any scientific data supporting a statement is evidence for that statement being false, in that it supports the argument--but the statement can still be true (the lack of evidence can occur for valid reasons, such as is often the case in paleontology and geology).

If they do happen, then the only way that they qualify as miracles is that they contradict science.

You missed my point entirely. HOW the miracles happen may well be outside of science--but they have consequences, which science can detect. Diseases being cured, for example, or motion of astronomic bodies, or geologic data suggesting a flood, or the like. I'm not interested in how the miracles happen. I'll grant you that "God wills it!" is a perfectly fine explanation. It's everything AFTER they happen that science can deal with. And if they don't have any effect, how can you say they happen?

 

[Dinwar]

So why is this so hard to accept for Christians? They believe in God. They believe in Jesus Christ. They believe in (at least) Jesus's teachings in the Bible. That doesn't mean they have to swallow hook,line and sinker anything else.

Westprog mentioned that I'm an atheist specifically to invalidate my statement of Catholic catechism--the dogma that a Christian is required to believe (in at least one sect). In other words, he's saying "Dinwar is an atheist, therefore we don't need to believe what Christians say they believe".

I find it hard to believe that some of you aren't able to understand this.

And I find it facinating how many theists try to wiggle out of what their own religion requires them to believe. It's almost as if they themselves don't believe it.

 

[The Norseman]

Yet discussions on what constitutes atheism reveal a good number of different interpretations of the term. If anybody here has taken part in one of these discussions they'd realize that even "no belief" comes in many different flavors.

So why is this so hard to accept for Christians? They believe in God. They believe in Jesus Christ. They believe in (at least) Jesus's teachings in the Bible. That doesn't mean they have to swallow hook,line and sinker anything else.

Some Christians do not believe in God either. And Darat, to whom you directly replied, specifically said to look at what the religions themselves say. *Most* of the atheists on JREF that I've read essentially say this same thing: they argue based on what theists themselves say.

I'm Buddhist. I follow the teachings of the Buddha. Is there a lot of other crap I can add to those teachings, depending upon what various cultures have added to it during the last 2,600 years? Yes there is. But it doesn't take a genius to look past what is added to a religion in order to focus on the core teaching.

Apparently there are millions of people who don't think that what you cavalierly dismiss as 'crap' is such and you're using an ad hominem fallacy -- "only non-geniuses look past what is added to religion (whatever that really is; how did you arrive at this, btw) and focus on the CORE." You know, not like anyone has what they consider to be legitimate reasons for treating 'crap' as 'core'.

There is/has been a good amount of study into both of these religions to allow anybody interested and inquisitive enough to separate out the myth, the superstition, the cultural excess in order to get to the original teachings.
I find it hard to believe that some of you aren't able to understand this. I guess that sometimes knocking down straw men is more fun than really trying to delve deeply into a conversation. Again, I urge you to try harder.

And what if the original teachings *are* myths?

 

[Dinwar]

And what if the original teachings *are* myths?

I just avoid the issue entirely. I take theists at their word. The Roman Catholic Church requires its members to believe that the bread and wine during the Eucharist become the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a testable claim, and it does not stand up to scientific analysis. Southern Baptists (some, anyway) state that they believe illness is caused by demons and can be cured through praying. This is a testable claim, and does not stand up to scientific analysis. Each claim made by religion must be analyzed individually, just as any other claim is analyzed, and the person making the claim gets to say what the claim is--which means neither an atheist, nor a Buddhist, gets to say what the claim is unless we're making it.

 

[The Norseman]

Westpogo mentioned that I'm an atheist specifically to invalidate my statement of Catholic catechism--the dogma that a Christian is required to believe (in at least one sect). In other words, he's saying "Dinwar is an atheist, therefore we don't need to believe what Christians say they believe".

Sorry, not sure if he'll bother to correct you, but it's westprog.

And I find it facinating how many theists try to wiggle out of what their own religion requires them to believe. It's almost as if they themselves don't believe it.

QFT.

 

[Dinwar]

Fixed. Thanks.

 

[The Norseman]

I just avoid the issue entirely. I take theists at their word. The Roman Catholic Church requires its members to believe that the bread and wine during the Eucharist become the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a testable claim, and it does not stand up to scientific analysis. Southern Baptists (some, anyway) state that they believe illness is caused by demons and can be cured through praying. This is a testable claim, and does not stand up to scientific analysis. Each claim made by religion must be analyzed individually, just as any other claim is analyzed, and the person making the claim gets to say what the claim is--which means neither an atheist, nor a Buddhist, gets to say what the claim is unless we're making it.

I agree absolutely. I was curious about how he could separate the core from the myth and how does he know that there even is a separation in the first place.

 

[citizenzen]

And I find it facinating how many theists try to wiggle out of what their own religion requires them to believe. It's almost as if they themselves don't believe it.

1. You don't give people enough credit to decide for themselves what they believe and what they don't.

2. What does Christianity require its followers to believe? Please show me the authority who enforces this requirement. Please show me the edict that this authority wields to demand such strict submission.