Whey do science & religion have to be at odds with one another?

[anyman]

Why do science & religion have to be at odds with one another?
The story of creation is vague & excludes detail. God created man from the dust of the earth & time is something entirely different to God than it is to man. If you accept both of those ideas then they are not at odds with science. If Genesis laid out all the details, would its origional readers really be able to grasp them? Is it possible that it used timeless language for all generations? No matter how the universe came to be, there will always be that first domino that fell & started everything. Just a thought.

 

[Wedjat]

Of course. Science and religion don't have to be at odds, you have countless TE's to testify to that fact, it's only some creationists and atheists who want to polarize the two.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Science and religion are at odds with each other because their basic nature can make it that way. Science relies upon evidence and logical deduction while religion requires faith (which by definition goes against evidence). If you cannot reconcile the two then you have opposition.

I'd say however, that religion and science do fit together quite well when you realise that religious beliefs are simply scientific hypotheses. The only issue there is that some religious people would not allow their belief to become a hypothesis as opposed to 'fact'.

 

[AV1611VET]

The story of creation is vague & excludes detail.

It is?

Genesis 1 says what was done, Who did it, where it was done, when it was done, what order it was done in, and how long it took to do it.

And that's just Genesis 1.

Factoring in other passages, we see why it was done and who the eyewitnesses were.

What more do you want?

And for the record, the story of creation isn't religion --- it's history.

 

[DiabeticDude]

It is?

Genesis 1 says what was done, Who did it, where it was done, when it was done, what order it was done in, and how long it took to do it.

And that's just Genesis 1.

Factoring in other passages, we see why it was done and who the eyewitnesses were.

What more do you want?

And for the record, the story of creation isn't religion --- it's history.

Tangible, experimentally provable evidence beyond that provided by a 2,000+ year old book.

 

[Freodin]

It is?

Genesis 1 says what was done, Who did it, where it was done, when it was done, what order it was done in, and how long it took to do it.

And that's just Genesis 1.

Factoring in other passages, we see why it was done and who the eyewitnesses were.

What more do you want?

And for the record, the story of creation isn't religion --- it's history.

I just created a twenty room mansion. By myself and me alone. I did it in my kitchen, just ten minutes ago. I created a roof and a chimney and doors and windows and walls. Didn´t take me more than 30 seconds, then I embedded some age in it (and a swimming pool) and then I went and took a nap.

Now is that concise and detailed?

 

[jayem]

What will ultimately be in conflict is naturalism and supernaturalism. These are fundamental premises about the universe. Science, in my opinion, is obligatorily naturalistic. Meaning it holds as an axiom that the universe is solely a function of matter, energy, and the natural behavior thereof. It is purely material. Supernaturalism, OTOH, holds that there are forces and phenomena that exist outside the realm of matter and energy, and aren't bound by the same laws. Yet at the same time, it accepts that these forces can affect the natural realm. Most all religions invoke supernaturalism to some degree to explain events in the material world. That's where conflict will occur. Science, as I see it, presumes naturalistic processes only. You leave the sphere of science when you posit supernatural phenomena.

 

[jpcedotal]

Why do science & religion have to be at odds with one another?
The story of creation is vague & excludes detail. God created man from the dust of the earth & time is something entirely different to God than it is to man. If you accept both of those ideas then they are not at odds with science. If Genesis laid out all the details, would its origional readers really be able to grasp them? Is it possible that it used timeless language for all generations? No matter how the universe came to be, there will always be that first domino that fell & started everything. Just a thought.

Science and religion go hand in hand....it is religion pretending to be science that is at odds with God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tangible, experimentally provable evidence beyond that provided by a 2,000+ year old book.

1

 

[AV1611VET]

I just created a twenty room mansion. By myself and me alone. I did it in my kitchen, just ten minutes ago. I created a roof and a chimney and doors and windows and walls. Didn´t take me more than 30 seconds, then I embedded some age in it (and a swimming pool) and then I went and took a nap.

Now is that concise and detailed?

I'd say so.

Where are your eyewitnesses?

 

[Freodin]

I'd say so.

Where are your eyewitnesses?

All this was witnessed by more than two million people.

 

[keith99]

Science and religion go hand in hand....it is religion pretending to be science that is at odds with God.

Well said. One version of the Christian faith has a lot to do with the roots of modern science. Christians felt their God was a rational God and that he had made a rational universe, one that men could at least in large part figure out. In a sense that little piece of faith is at the roots of science.

One other way of looking at things it that science explains how and religion explains why. Problems start when people confuse the two.

 

[Wedjat]

He wrote it down on this forum right here, in fact, I'll use it as a source to write my own version.
In the month of January in the year 2010, Freodin, whilst in his kitchen, set about creating a large, twenty room house. He began at the top with a roof and a chimney, then continued downward, adding doors, windows, and walls. The house was not thirty seconds old, but he wove into it a lifetime of memories and a swimming pool for good measure. Upon completion, he rested.

There, now it's documented in two places.

 

[Gracchus]

He wrote it down on this forum right here, in fact, I'll use it as a source to write my own version.
In the month of January in the year 2010, Freodin, whilst in his kitchen, set about creating a large, twenty room house. He began at the top with a roof and a chimney, then continued downward, adding doors, windows, and walls. The house was not thirty seconds old, but he wove into it a lifetime of memories and a swimming pool for good measure. Upon completion, he rested.

There, now it's documented in two places.

And it was all witnessed by the plaster gnome on the lawn. Unfortunately he is off traveling and is not available to testify at the moment.

 

[AV1611VET]

What will ultimately be in conflict is naturalism and supernaturalism. These are fundamental premises about the universe. Science, in my opinion, is obligatorily naturalistic. Meaning it holds as an axiom that the universe is solely a function of matter, energy, and the natural behavior thereof. It is purely material. Supernaturalism, OTOH, holds that there are forces and phenomena that exist outside the realm of matter and energy, and aren't bound by the same laws. Yet at the same time, it accepts that these forces can affect the natural realm. Most all religions invoke supernaturalism to some degree to explain events in the material world. That's where conflict will occur. Science, as I see it, presumes naturalistic processes only. You leave the sphere of science when you posit supernatural phenomena.

I agree.

I think we confuse ourselves by using the wrong terminology.

I think we should be using the terms:

1. supernatural = above and beyond the natural
2. natural = what can be routinely observed, tested, quantified
3. subnatural = never existed, myths, legends

Science works most effectively in the natural.

There would be gray areas of course; how would you categorize 'love', for instance?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science and religion go hand in hand....it is religion pretending to be science that is at odds with God.

Yup ---

 

[Nathan Poe]

Science and religion go hand in hand....it is religion pretending to be science that is at odds with God.

Now, if only the Creationists would realize this.

 

[AV1611VET]

All this was witnessed by more than two million people.

Neat.

 

[jpcedotal]

Yall really really really need to read C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity". This is the first thread with this type of debate that is staying objective for the most part.

 

[AV1611VET]

He wrote it down on this forum right here, in fact, I'll use it as a source to write my own version.
In the month of January in the year 2010, Freodin, whilst in his kitchen, set about creating a large, twenty room house. He began at the top with a roof and a chimney, then continued downward, adding doors, windows, and walls. The house was not thirty seconds old, but he wove into it a lifetime of memories and a swimming pool for good measure. Upon completion, he rested.

There, now it's documented in two places.

You guys realize what you're demonstrating, don't you?

Have you ever heard of Diabolical Plagiarism or Diabolical Mimicry?