Compatibility of Science and Religion . . .

There's a discussion happening about Science vs Religion but for some bizarre reason it's happening on the Brexit thread and I'm hoping it can move to here . I am re-posting a comment I put on there which I got from the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine

Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion — including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

Now, before this goes any further, does anyone disagree with that and why?

Thanks for making this thread Rooi, I think we have derailed the other one enough. I'll bring my response here: "As for the NAoS quote, I agree 100% I am pro science."

Well the article contradicts the thread heading....it should not be versus, making it two opposing forces is the first mistake...and I know it was probably not the intention , but it's a trap we all tend to fall in way too often.

Hall Of Fame

8685 posts

"Dawkins is not a scientist,  he is a Christ hater hiding behind science. Humanist activist and arsehole of note. Should have been Dickins."

"A scientist is someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.

In classical antiquity, there was no real ancient analog of a modern scientist. Instead, philosophers engaged in the philosophical study of nature called natural philosophy, a precursor of natural science."

Dawkins is known more for his atheism than for his science. He is obviously a great scientist in his field, but the moment he puts on his "there is no God" hat, he is not speaking as a scientist any more, then he is an atheist trying to prove that there is no God. A scientist lets the facts do the talking without having preconceived ideas about where the facts should lead. Using your scientific achievements to give your views more gravitas in a different field is dishonest and unscientific...hence my comment. A blatant exploitation of science...a sin a real scientist should not commit.

And Blue, I am not trying convince anyone of anything, I reacted for being called a child abuser. I was not the one who brought religion into the thread.

Squad member

589 posts

Sorry Dradd i am not attacking you personally.

I am pointing out a view of the harm RELGION ( not just yours) does to children.

I am  commenting on one aspect and not saying you are a cruel and abusive parent in all aspects. 

So you support the act of criticizing religion to be outlawed and made a criminal offense now?

It is still a free world in most countries and I am free to speak just as you are so sorry if that offends you.

Go on youtube and there are thousands of videos attacking Atheist and their views but I dont get offended I just watch to see if they make any good points ( they dont).

I think your outrage is caused by the fact you cannot logical refute the information against you but you just cannot let go of the brainwashing from your childhood. You are a perfect example of my argument.

Hall Of Fame

7219 posts

Draad, by divorcing himself from religion and not wearing a "god hat" as you call it, Dawkins is doing exactly what science demands of any self-respecting scientist.

Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion — including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist. 

Hall Of Fame

7205 posts

“It was Protestants that eventually broke the shackles of the Catholic Church (Aka the Taliban)- to pick up from where the Ancient Greeks left off. Rejection (Protest) against absolute truth of religious dogma, and the revival of democratic values.”

Protestants are not Christians? Is that what you’re saying? It seems like that.

Hall Of Fame

8685 posts

Sader, I am well aware of the harm can be done by religious people.

And I know you are not attacking me personally...and although I differ with you on this topic, I have no problem with you personally and would gladly have a few beers with you if the opportunity should ever present.

"So you support the act of criticizing religion to be outlawed and made a criminal offense now?"

Whatever gave you that idea?

"I think your outrage is caused by the fact you cannot logical refute the information against youbut you just cannot let go of the brainwashing from your childhood. You are a perfect example of my argument."

What information against me? I am not as narrow minded as some on here seems to think.

Rooi,

"Draad, by divorcing himself from religion and not wearing a "god hat" as you call it, Dawkins is doing exactly what science demands of any self-respecting scientist."

I don't mind him doffing the "god hat". My problem is with him donning the "there is no God" hat. He should stick to science and not venture into religion, using the tools of science. He is aggressively anti-God, that is my problem with him. Just because he is clever does not mean he is always right. A scientist should not have an agenda, he clearly does.

As for the NAoS quote, I agree 100% I am pro science.

Hall Of Fame

8339 posts

Last comment on religion - before transferring to the new dedicated thread.

Third Reich: An Overview | The Holocaust Encyclopedia

People also ask

I love this subject.

Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

I just want to add something here before I say my bit.

Firstly ... there are many different religions or faiths out there ... of which the majority of them are based on superstition and traditional horseshit.

Worshippers of lifeless stone idols ... of sacred cows ... of heavenly bodies like the Sun and our Moon ... crocodiles and serpents ... of random images fashioned out of wood ...and of course of our very own forefathers. There are even those who worship mother Mary.

I have no interest in these non deities ...  and religion to me proves nothing, other than the stupidity of mankind.   

I hope the point of this thread is to uncover a little more substance than milking Betsy on Saturday ... and worshiping her reverently the day there after.

Science has developed the world as we know it ... it’s broken the unexplained down by using an assortment of theories and formulas ... and what once was beyond us, can now be explained through these tests and experiments. This covers a wide range of things ..the mysterious light in the dead of night ... or why it’s possible for a 100 ton hunk of metal to fly overhead to a land far away.

Science has established itself as the go to method of clarifying anything and everything, and it’s expected to deliver every time. When it fails, and it has many times over, then it’s been widely decided that what it was trying to uncover, doesn’t exist.

However ... there are certain things that cannot be measured by these scientific tools. We have this vast knowledge and yet it seems so limited at times. We aren’t even able to bring rain to a drought torn area ... science has failed us here. How many more failures can we place at science’s feet?   

A select few have been shown an open door to a different dimension ... to bear witness ... and to report what they’ve seen to the masses. Contact has been made by these deities, both good and evil and yet it’s been laughed at and labelled absurd by the majority.

One would think that in this day and age, all aspects of life would be celebrated, no matter from which dimension, but this is not the case. What they do not see ... and do not hear ... they do not believe. Science has apparently disproved it all ... or rather failed to prove any of it, and so it doesn’t exit. Those of us who have been given sight ... given an ear ... even experienced contact firsthand  are mocked and ridiculed by the uninvited.

Science cannot prove life ... nor can it explain where it goes to after it’s time here has come to an end.

Science can give you the biological breakdown of everything we see ... and yet cannot restore life to any of it. NOT ANY OF IT. That power has been retained exclusively by another.

So to answer your question, Redneck ... yes, I agree ... it is two totally different aspects of life, with two totally different sets of laws that rule each ... and science isn’t capable of explaining any of it. In the end, science is totally incompetent ... and we need another tool.

Thanks, Redneck ... yes ... my PC keeps switching itself off ... I need to get it looked at.

Don't be absurd, Redneck ... why would I do that? The IT man's just down the hall.

No ... I'm not blaming science for a drought ... are you deliberately being obtuse now. I'm saying it cant bring relief ... AT ALL ... and as much as you would want it to provide the answers for everything ... it doesn't ... not by a long shot. 

An example ... your science has apparently enabled us to date some artifact accurately ... um ... well ... at least to the nearest 100 millionth year ... lol!!! That sounds more like a coin toss to me ... or a thumbsuck.

By all means ... trust in your science ... I'll just look at it as a tool with a lot of limitations ... and that the theories that spring from it's failures are no more than fabrications from desperate and clueless people.

1. This line of argument is so stupid. Agreed




2. Religion neither makes a man good or bad. Religion not, but if the New Testament is right, then the Spirit of God will transform you...and if you follow the teachings of Jesus with your heart, you will not be able to do EVIL. Wrongs yes, but not evil. That pesky conscience? God's voice. 




3. There are countless evil religious men, and countless evil atheists or non religious men. There have been countless evil acts committed in the name of religion. Correct. "in the name of religion". Using religion as a tool of control. I cannot speak for other religions, but show me anything in the teachings of Jesus that can lead to evil. Jesus warned against false prophets




4. Religion is not the deciding factor. If it were, why would there be a need for Jesus (or Mohammed, or whoever) to forgive the sins of Christians?
5. Evil men are evil men. Some of these evil men land in positions of power, where they can manipulate others, and some come into positions of extreme power, where they can manipulate masses.
6. Each evil man has his own identity, his own history and his own course to evil. The details of weather the person is religious or not is just incidental. The reality is that religion plays no part.
7. Anyway, for those of you blaming atheism for evil men, please enlighten me, who's God created these men, knowing the course their lives would follow?  
   

Fixed, thanks.

"The Jews believed Jesus was not God, but merely a man- if he actually existed in the first place ". Given Jesus was a Jew, should this be considered? If so, then Jesus is a false God. How can all other Gods be written off as false except Jesus, if the Jews themselves do not accept one of their own? 

There is extensive evidence of people existing thousands of years ago such as Aristotle, Plato, Cleopatra etc- however, nothing for Jesus - outside of the bible.

If Jesus never lived, then he could not have died for thou sins.

Well Well Well

Something we fully agree on CupCake

I posted about this and discussed this many times in the past, possibly before you even joined us here, but my sentiments were basically the same as yours here

You say " Jesus gives redemption from that corruption and protects from evil" 

OK, I know this will sound stupid. The redemption is inward. Call it inner peace and the ability to accept things and be content with the things you can't change. Protected from becoming evil and doing evil things. The inner peace to accept that you are going to be assassinated? 

I remember CC accusing God as being a tyrant before, so nothing new. Didn't know DA felt the same...as for them being self serving....Calvary anyone?

Sharkbok: "There is extensive evidence of people existing thousands of years ago such as Aristotle, Plato, Cleopatra etc- however, nothing for Jesus - outside of the bible."

Horse sh!t (said with a Russian accent)

"Didn't know DA felt the same..."

I have voiced this opinion many many times on here, normally in Beeno's posts

I thoroughly respect anyone else's religion, and I would expect them to respect whatever my beliefs are as well.

I have never labeled God as a tyrant, but I have always and consistently questioned how he could be this "ever loving God", when he allows so much disease or destruction that affects good "Christian people" and everyone else.

I was once told that God punishes these people with these diseases and all other ailments or destruction, or horrible deaths because of the life they have lived and that they have sinned.

Then I asked the question about how this all loving God would allow a 6 month old baby to die a horrific death, and that baby has not even had the conscience to think a bad thought, lie about anything, or perform any horrendous act that God needed to punish.

So, why would this all and loving God even allow that child to be born, only to put it through an incredible amount of pain, torture and suffering, and die a horrible death, and put it's parents through a nightmare I could never even fathom or explain

How can something so incredibly innocent, have to experience so much, in such a short space of time in this life, and not have done a single thing wrong to upset this loving God.

How could a loving God allow that woman to experience the joy of carrying that child for 9 months, only to rip it away in such a very barbaric manner. 

How could a loving God allow Hitler to be born, and not rather make him a still born baby, which would have absolutely saved millions of lives in the process

I could go on but you get the picture

DA, Well, I get your poing from a human perspective, but free choice should allow for the wrong choice too. I'm not buying into the Hell, fire and brimstone thing...if you ate talking about the creator of the known universe, we are all les than a spec of sand, yet he sent someone to be with us and teach us etc. Jesus showed the way. 

What we know about God has been corrupted just as much as what we know about science. All will be revealed soon. Even Rooi might be redeemed against his own wishes. Go and read the proverb of the prodigal son.  God is Justice and justice is fair.

Draad, why did the bible say that the sun revolves around the world- and burn people who disagreed?  The same crew that now claim to be scientific...

The bible is meant to be a definitive gospel- but it is rewritten over the years- to suit the current era. Even the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John etc disagree over their storytelling of the same events- which one do you choose. The answer is which one you want to. There are so many different Christian bibles that also vary in their scriptures.

Just like any other religious person (of any religion) you claim your opinion to be the one true God. How can you be sure that your God is the true creator- when there are so many religions, and even people who do not follow a religion- many of which are the smartest people in t he world- (e.g. Einstein). You recently claimed that Dawkins is not a scientist- but Rooineck provided information that he is one of the most recognised scientists - judging by the most universities giving him honours. This was only a few weeks after you claimed that Rooineck should not argue with someone that teaches at Oxford- a teacher- that has little to no respect in the scientific community when compared to the likes of Dawkins.

Are your beliefs true- or is it just the brainwashing you've received at your local church that you confuse with faith. You could go read a proverb in the Koran and it will spout the same story- about selling the afterlife if you do XYZ- and believe- and make donations etc.

The Jihads believe that everyone must convert everyone to their religion, and you claim everyone must convert to your religion to be saved (even Rooineck). The point is it is "your" religion- your reality, your values and beliefs- not anyone else's. 

The same reality that can be twisted to suit anything you want to believe- and then confuse gospel with your own interpretation. It is self-delusion, but you are the centre of it all with the universe revolving around you. You have assumed that God will save you- but will "probably" also save Rooineck- making you superior to Rooineck.. 

Shark, if Lenox is only a teacher, then Dawkins is only a teacher too. 

Yes, BlueBok ... I know a man, a devoted Christian, a farmer, who decided to take his family and a few friends to their natural damn on the farm for a picnic and some swimming. They had a foefie slide (sp) rigged up from the tallest tree.

He hooked up the trailer to his tractor, loaded up the family etc and off they went.

His youngest son (7 years old) was sitting on the mudguard as he had countless times before while they plodded slowly through the rough terrain. He slipped and landed under the tractors rear tyre.

He was squashed like a bug.

I know that accidents happen ... but I found it very difficulty not to question many, many passages within the word that speak of protection for those who love God.

I was met with silence and so extended my middle finger.

Go and read my post where I elaborated on my previous statement of him not being a scientist....

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm responding to the fools who are telling me I'm stupid for believing in a creator.

You know very little about Christianity, only the vitriol spewed by aggressive atheists. You don't even believe in the existence of an historical Jesus and you thought Christmast celebrated His crucifixion. You claim to adhere to logic, but yet you argue with the same logic as Young Earh Creationists...if you don't like the facts, you simply ignore them, yet you call other people stupid???

Draad ... I am a little surprised to hear that you are so devoted to Him.

I've been there ... for many years ... but as time went on I saw that I had become one of many making excuses for this useless God and His empty promises.

Just ignore SharkShit ... he's totally clueless.

He wants to argue on a subject he knows nothing about ... much like his rugby.

Interesting POV...as for my devotion. ..well it isn't really what it should be according to mainstream Christianity...I'm still trying to make sense of it all, but for one thing, I think the whole "spiritual " thing is a lot less supernatural than most people think. Creation, for one, wasn't a magic wand thing...it was a gradual thing....a natural thing. Creation was natural,  humanity made it supernatural because they didn't understand it. 

I don't believe in a fair y god, sitting somewhere on a cloud...that would be daft.

Everything that is, seen and unseen, was created ... and anyone who claims that some mystical chemical reaction brought it all about is an idiot.

It was put together by a supernatural being, but as is the case with Him, he did it naturally over time.

This planet has been around for many cycles ... a do-over so to speak. Different forms of life have ruled here, as is evident by what we dig up from time to time ... from an age/s long before we were even a twinkle in His eye.

Our existence is just his latest version and I'm sure we won't be His last attempt at creation.

Our version began as is written in Genesis 1:1.

The earth had already been formed eions ago ... but was covered by the deep waters that rose during the flood of Lucifer.  It too wiped out all life, just like the flood of Noah did, but this one covered the globe and spared no one.

God All Mighty may be a lot of things but the one thing He isn't ... is boring.