Why science and religion are not compatible

[tsig]

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.

Why would the original teachings be any more true than the later additions?

 

[tsig]

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.

1. that there was a Christ

2. Christ died for your sins

3. Christ rose from the dead

4. You have to acknowledge him as your Saviour

 

[citizenzen]

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'.

And what if the original teachings *are* myths?

I absolutely agree. It is only 'crap" from my perspective. If a Buddhist feels the need to believe in any of the many Buddhist deities, bodhisattvas, and demons, then that's up to them. My point being that it's normal to pick and choose within a faith what resonates with us personally and to discard what doesn't.

As for the question "what if the original teachings *are* myths?" In Buddhism, the core teachings are a method for getting the practitioner to directly experience enlightenment for themselves. So it doesn't matter whether they are a myth, a song and dance, or a con. If they lead people to experience enlightenment, then they have succeeded in their goal.

 

[Resume]

So it doesn't matter whether they are a myth, a song and dance, or a con. If they lead people to experience enlightenment, then they have succeeded in their goal.

It doesn't matter if it's true? What kind of "enlightenment" is that? It sounds like wish fulfillment to me.

 

[citizenzen]

1. that there was a Christ

2. Christ died for your sins

3. Christ rose from the dead

4. You have to acknowledge him as your Saviour

You skipped the second part ...

Please show me the authority who enforces this requirement. Please show me the edict that this authority wields to demand such strict submission.

Otherwise, I'm free to believe any of the parts you mentioned. BTW, I couldn't also help but notice you didn't mention any of the teaching purported to come from Jesus himself.

"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?'

And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'"

(Matthew 25.35-40 ESV)

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?

You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye"
(Matthew 7.1-5 ESV)

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
(Matthew 5.43-45 ESV)

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
(Matthew 7.12 ESV)

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."
(Matthew 22.37-40 ESV)​

I don't have to believe any of the things you listed. But I could see the wisdom of the quotes above.

 

[citizenzen]

It doesn't matter if it's true? What kind of "enlightenment" is that? It sounds like wish fulfillment to me.

The nun Wu Jincang asked the Sixth Patriach Huineng, "I have studied the Mahaparinirvana sutra for many years, yet there are many areas i do not quite understand. Please enlighten me."

The patriach responded, "I am illiterate. Please read out the characters to me and perhaps I will be able to explain the meaning."

Said the nun, "You cannot even recognize the characters. How are you able then to understand the meaning?"

"Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?"​

I'm sure you understand.

 

[Dinwar]

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

Wrong. I merley take them at their word.

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.

Here you go--the official catechism of the Catholic Church. Please note, however, that I've amended what I said to saying that only Roman Catholics are required to believe this (because, well, they are)--other religions obviously have other beliefs, and I'll take them at their word. However, the catechism is what Roman Catholics are REQUIRED to believe--not believing in ANY of this is heresy, by definition; therefore, if someone says "I'm a Roman Catholic" I can at least start with the assumption that they believe this stuff, for the same reason that if someone says "I'm a biologist" I can assume they understand evolution, or if someone says "I'm a mechanic" I can assume they know what a 1/2" box end is (in short, it's a requirement to be a member of that group).

And this isn't me saying this--this is the Vatican saying it. They are the authority, according to Catholic dogma (or Christian; I've always confused the two--anyway, if you want to say "They don't believe that!", take it up with the Pope).

Can we PLEASE move on beyond the question of whether or not an atheist can have any knowledge of what a religion says it believes? Obviously I can. I've presented my credentials, I've presented an accurate version of Catholic dogman, and now I've presented the official RCC catechism. If anyone continues to believe that an atheist is incapable of knowing what a religion says they believe, they're being intentionally obtuse and obstructive. It's time to move on to the actual issue at hand, I think.

 

[The Norseman]

I absolutely agree. It is only 'crap" from my perspective. If a Buddhist feels the need to believe in any of the many Buddhist deities, bodhisattvas, and demons, then that's up to them. My point being that it's normal to pick and choose within a faith what resonates with us personally and to discard what doesn't.

As for the question "what if the original teachings *are* myths?" In Buddhism, the core teachings are a method for getting the practitioner to directly experience enlightenment for themselves. So it doesn't matter whether they are a myth, a song and dance, or a con. If they lead people to experience enlightenment, then they have succeeded in their goal.

And what if enlightenment is a myth?


ETA:

Ach! Looks like Resume beat me to it.

 

[Resume]

"Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?"

Truth is the motion of one hand stroking.

Wish fulfillment, as I'm sure you understand.

 

[citizenzen]

Here you go--the official catechism of the Catholic Church. .

So what if you aren't Catholic? You're only talking about half of the Christians in the world. What about the other half?

 

[citizenzen]

Truth is the motion of one hand stroking.

Ha. Masturbation humor.

It's very becoming of you.



Anyway, the point of that little quote was that Buddhists believe that any teaching, whether the original words of the Buddha, any sutras, anything
is just a finger pointing in a direction [at the moon].

It's up to the individual to do the work necessary to achieve enlightenment. No words, no holy texts, no saviors [which don't exist in Buddhism anyway] will get you there.

So the question, "What if the original teachings were a myth?" Is somewhat superfluous. All of the teachings are meaningless if you don't actually put the work in yourself. They are just fingers pointing in a direction.

 

[Resume]

So the question, "What if the original teachings were a myth?" Is somewhat superfluous. All of the teachings are meaningless if you don't actually put the work in yourself. They are just fingers pointing in a direction.

Here's the deal on that: You don't need these teachings at all. You might be surprised how many people try to get along, do as little damage as possible, do as much good as possible, and do as much living as possible without having to ascribe to dogma, or engage in excessive navel lint examination. Without hoping for heaven, or "enlightenment" or nirvana.

Just this one life as Minchin put it.

 

[Dinwar]

So what if you aren't Catholic? You're only talking about half of the Christians in the world. What about the other half?

I TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD.

I let them decide what they believe, and I merely ask for proof of anything that could potentially have proof. If they choose to believe that the Eucharist is symbolic, I have nothing to say on that count. If they choose to believe that illness can be cured via praying really hard (some Southern Baptists I've known do believe this), they're talking science and should provide proof (or at least point to someone who can).

And if they don't have any proof, they're contradicting known science, in the realm that science can discuss--and therefore they are in conflict with science. Which was my original point, before we got off on the (still on-going) tangent about whether an atheist can know what a theist believes or not (which has now become "Can we trust what theists say they believe?").

Seriously, have you read ANYTHING I've posted other than what you quoted? I've explained this before.

 

[citizenzen]

Just this one life as Minchin put it.

Enlightenment has nothing to do with the number of lives led. It could be one, it could be a million. It would make no difference.

Enlightenment can mean an end to suffering ... in this lifetime.

 

[citizenzen]

I TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD.

I let them decide what they believe ...

I'm happy to see that you let people decide what they believe.

There have been a number of posts here lately where people have not been so generous.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm happy to see that you let people decide what they believe.

There have been a number of posts here lately where people have not been so generous.

If you're referring to my posts, you'll note that I have only ever stated what others have said they believed, or what officials within the organization say members of the organization are required to believe. Mostly, so do others. It's not our fault that people say stupid things like "I believe the Bible is 100% facutal!" when they mean "I believe the parts of the Bible that I agree with are factual, and the rest is open to any interpretation I want".

My original point still stands, however: Anything a religious person believes which can be subject to scientific tests, and which contradicts scientific knowledge, is an area where religion and science are in conflict. If the believer refuses to accept the scientific fact, their religion is incompatable with science.

 

[Resume]

Enlightenment has nothing to do with the number of lives led. It could be one, it could be a million. It would make no difference.

Enlightenment can mean an end to suffering ... in this lifetime.

I understand how grandiose you imagine your worldview; I hear the same from christians, muslims, etc. The end to suffering, if it comes from anywhere, will likely entail doing something.

 

[Resume]

Ha. Masturbation humor.

Add the word mental.

 

[Paulhoff]

Some Christians do not believe in God either.

WELL THEN..................

"Christian" one that believes that Jesus is the son of a god.

OH MY!!!!!

Paul

 

[citizenzen]

If you're referring to my posts, you'll note that I have only ever stated what others ...

I was referring to the number of posts that have recently tried to deny westprog's claim to be a Christian while not having to accept literally everything the Bible says.

Again, I'm happy to see you aren't one of that crowd.