Conflict between religion and science

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I find that some people on here argue that there is no true conflict between religion and science.

I think there is and it can be packaged quite neatly:

"Religious thinking demands unchanging belief while scientific thinking demands the ability to change your beliefs"

That's the crux of it all. The scientific mindset demands us to be able to evaluate a situation and change our mind if new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves. There can be no "commitment" in science.

The religious mindset demands commitment, does it not? Can you be a "tentative Christian" who is only Christian until new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves? To me, that is not the picture that the Bible paints.

 

[bhsmte]

I find that some people on here argue that there is no true conflict between religion and science.

I think there is and it can be packaged quite neatly:

"Religious thinking demands unchanging belief while scientific thinking demands the ability to change your beliefs"

That's the crux of it all. The scientific mindset demands us to be able to evaluate a situation and change our mind if new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves. There can be no "commitment" in science.

The religious mindset demands commitment, does it not? Can you be a "tentative Christian" who is only Christian until new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves? To me, that is not the picture that the Bible paints.

Depends on the type of religion one practices.

 

[Davian]

I find that some people on here argue that there is no true conflict between religion and science.

I think there is and it can be packaged quite neatly:

"Religious thinking demands unchanging belief while scientific thinking demands the ability to change your beliefs"

That's the crux of it all. The scientific mindset demands us to be able to evaluate a situation and change our mind if new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves. There can be no "commitment" in science.

I would say that "conclusions are tentative, subject to change with new information". Also, falsifiability is important.

The religious mindset demands commitment, does it not? Can you be a "tentative Christian" who is only Christian until new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves? To me, that is not the picture that the Bible paints.

Dunno. I see a lot of claims of "knowing" that they are right (whatever it is they believe). Falsifiability is an unattainable ideal.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

There seem to be two options. Abandon the theory in the light of the evicdence (science), or abandon the evidence in the light of the theory (religion).

 

[single eye]

Only the process of elimination can prove cause & effect, not trial & error. This is a fact regardless of what you call it. The process of elimination requires that we know what all the variables are, this is the hard part.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I find that some people on here argue that there is no true conflict between religion and science.

I think there is and it can be packaged quite neatly:

"Religious thinking demands unchanging belief while scientific thinking demands the ability to change your beliefs"

That's the crux of it all. The scientific mindset demands us to be able to evaluate a situation and change our mind if new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves. There can be no "commitment" in science.

The religious mindset demands commitment, does it not? Can you be a "tentative Christian" who is only Christian until new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves? To me, that is not the picture that the Bible paints.

A constant and a variable don't necessarily have to be in conflict with one another, do they?

To me whether Christianity and religion are in discord or harmony with one another is dependent on how how you approach and interpret scripture. If you dogmatically insist that it is absolutely inerrant and intended to be taken completely literally, then yes, it almost impossible to reconcile that faith with some key discoveries of science.

The foundational tenets of Christianity have remained essentially the same for the past two millenniums, but knowledge and understanding of scripture and the complexities of the world itself has continuously been built upon it. That has changed the outlook on numerous views that once blocked out science. Discoveries about the historical context of scripture and the writing patterns that were common at the time they were written, evolving knowledge about the original languages and meanings of words that can significantly alter the intent of a verse, and more critical examination of scripture have led to different understandings. Isn't what you believe dependent in huge part on what you know?

Many Christians believe passages that seem contradictory to science were intended to be allegorical or poetic, and therefore are actually compatible. The Catholic church and most mainline Protestant denominations have changed significantly over time. Of course that change has not been as rapid as ones in science, but nevertheless change has happened.

On a personal level, my own faith has evolved as I've grown, gained more experiences and education, and learned about scripture and from other people. I have a commitment to belief in God and the divinity of Christ, but Christianity encompasses much more than those two fundamentals. I have no idea what I'm going to believe when I'm 27, 37, 47, and so forth. Being here and relationships with key people in my life have radically changed some of my beliefs just in the past year, so who knows what I'll believe in decades worth of time. Isn't that normal, though? If our religion is a part of who we are, and we're naturally changing, wouldn't our beliefs naturally change with it? The basics of it would remain the same, just as our facial features do, but wouldn't the rest change a bit with us? I just assumed it did for most people but now I'm realizing I'm probably totally wrong about that. Huh. I'll have to think on it more.

Hope this made sense. My brain has officially collapsed under all the school stuff they shoved on us before break, so it might be dumb babble.

 

[Colter]

I find that some people on here argue that there is no true conflict between religion and science.

I think there is and it can be packaged quite neatly:

"Religious thinking demands unchanging belief while scientific thinking demands the ability to change your beliefs"

That's the crux of it all. The scientific mindset demands us to be able to evaluate a situation and change our mind if new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves. There can be no "commitment" in science.

The religious mindset demands commitment, does it not? Can you be a "tentative Christian" who is only Christian until new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves? To me, that is not the picture that the Bible paints.

Both science and religion are supposed to grow. Science does a better job of it than religious institutions do. Religion has changed forced upon it, but even then religion can be a very stubborn thing. Religious people confuse faith in God with the idolatry of faith in the narratives, speculations and conclusions of holy men who were writing about God; scripture worship. God is the constant, mans understanding of God evolves, reformed at times by revelation.

The Bible itself demonstrates the evolution of mans understanding of God. It wasn't God that changed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I find that some people on here argue that there is no true conflict between religion and science.

I think there is and it can be packaged quite neatly:

"Religious thinking demands unchanging belief while scientific thinking demands the ability to change your beliefs"

Yes, the two methods are incompatible.

But they are only in conflict if they try to answer the same question (and come up with different answers).

What is samsara?

As far as I know, no one has attempted to address this question with science.

How many protons are there in a carbon atom?

As far as I know, no one has attempted to address this question with religion.

If these two 'ways of knowing' had no overlap, there would be no conflict. This would be Gould's idea of Non Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA).

Of course, the creation/evolution debate is clear evidence that not everyone takes the NOMA route, and therefore there are conflicts between religion and science where there is overlap.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

Doesn't it all really just come down to faith?

What clear evidence does science present that God does not exist? I believe there is more evidence towards he does exist than he doesn't.

Free will, human emotion/intelligence, even the miracle of life. Isn't the question of free will baffling to scientists? How did matter become sentient beings? It's a far stretch of the imagination to even begin to consider the possibility. Consider looking at a stick and one day that stick evolving or coming into contact with other matter that creates something that can feel and think. It's pretty hard.

But the idea of there being a God that has always been there is hard as well. So it comes down to faith. If you are talking about disproving religious dating or theory, I don't believe it's been done yet or ever will be done with Christianity. I believe the major one is the flood issue, if the world was ever flooded or not. Well, according to many scientist, award winning ones, there is not a single shred of evidence that 100% disproves it. A debate that comes to mind is Bill Nye vs Ken Ham.

I believe many people will find the answer they "want" to find. Sort of the same thing as looking at clouds, and if you are determined to find a cloud that looks like a shoe, you're going to find it. People are never unbiased and that also addresses the scientific community.

Moreover, the bible is history book of proven events but is mainly there for us to know and understand who God is. The biggest argument I see from people is the disbelief that some people have figured out the "mystery" of life. If something created something surely they will reveal the itself to the created, why create something and just turn the on switch and walk away?

It comes down to faith, it doesn't discount Christian's intelligence of understanding the scientific world around us, we believe that science all applies to God's universal law of how this world turns. For example, how atoms react to other atoms, that's all God's doing.

So I please understand that Christianity's "unchanging" belief for us, is just more discoveries that help us understand closer God's creation. How someone wishes to view it, rather "this is evidence that we came from this!" or "this is evidence that we didn't!" all comes down to ones personal convictions.

 

[Resha Caner]

Depends on the type of religion one practices.

Right. There is no requirement that I cannot change my beliefs. I can, and I have.

With that said, there are fundamental differences in the approach to science and theology. Those different approaches do not necessitate conflict, but they can and often do.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

A constant and a variable don't necessarily have to be in conflict with one another, do they?

To me whether Christianity and religion are in discord or harmony with one another is dependent on how how you approach and interpret scripture. If you dogmatically insist that it is absolutely inerrant and intended to be taken completely literally, then yes, it almost impossible to reconcile that faith with some key discoveries of science.

The foundational tenets of Christianity have remained essentially the same for the past two millenniums, but knowledge and understanding of scripture and the complexities of the world itself has continuously been built upon it. That has changed the outlook on numerous views that once blocked out science. Discoveries about the historical context of scripture and the writing patterns that were common at the time they were written, evolving knowledge about the original languages and meanings of words that can significantly alter the intent of a verse, and more critical examination of scripture have led to different understandings. Isn't what you believe dependent in huge part on what you know?

Many Christians believe passages that seem contradictory to science were intended to be allegorical or poetic, and therefore are actually compatible. The Catholic church and most mainline Protestant denominations have changed significantly over time. Of course that change has not been as rapid as ones in science, but nevertheless change has happened.

You're missing my point. And you actually enhance my point here:

I have a commitment to belief in God and the divinity of Christ

This is religious thinking: unwavering commitment. It is unscientific thinking.

, but Christianity encompasses much more than those two fundamentals.

Does it? As you say, those are probably the two key fundamentals of the Christian faith: belief in God and belief in Christ's divinity. If you don't have those, then you probably aren't Christian…or, even if you identify as Christian, there is probably a more appropriate label for you that you are unaware of.

I have no idea what I'm going to believe when I'm 27, 37, 47, and so forth.

Maybe you'll be an atheist. Or a Hindu. Or an agnostic. Who knows?

But if you embrace that attitude then how can you say things like, "God is the rock on which my life is founded" or "I have made a full commitment to Jesus".

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes, the two methods are incompatible.

But they are only in conflict if they try to answer the same question (and come up with different answers).

What is samsara?

As far as I know, no one has attempted to address this question with science.

How many protons are there in a carbon atom?

As far as I know, no one has attempted to address this question with religion.

If these two 'ways of knowing' had no overlap, there would be no conflict. This would be Gould's idea of Non Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA).

Of course, the creation/evolution debate is clear evidence that not everyone takes the NOMA route, and therefore there are conflicts between religion and science where there is overlap.

I'm talking more about the different ways of thinking: one is a religious way of thinking and the other is scientific.

I believe some scientists can practice science with a form of religious thinking clouding their procedures. They get committed to a certain idea or hypothesis and then stick to it even when multiple lines of evidence present themselves which contradict it. That's religious thinking.

However, I find it is impossible to go the other way. How can someone, in a religious context, think scientifically about their faith?

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't think all religious people have unchanging beliefs. Some genuinely try to base their beliefs on reason and evidence.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

I don't think all religious people have unchanging beliefs. Some genuinely try to base their beliefs on reason and evidence.

What are these unchanging beliefs?

 

[Davian]

Doesn't it all really just come down to faith?

Define "faith".

What clear evidence does science present that God does not exist?

The continuing inability for theists to provide an evidenced, testable, and falsifiable hypothesis for what they mean by "god/God".

I believe there is more evidence towards he does exist than he doesn't.

Can you present this evidence in a testable, falsifiable manner?

Free will,

Free will? Free to do what?

human emotion/intelligence,

How is this evidence for gods?

even the miracle of life.

How is this a miracle? What is a miracle?

Isn't the question of free will baffling to scientists?

Not that I am aware of, that work with neuroscience on this subject.

How did matter become sentient beings? It's a far stretch of the imagination to even begin to consider the possibility. Consider looking at a stick and one day that stick evolving or coming into contact with other matter that creates something that can feel and think. It's pretty hard.

Arguments from incredulity and ignorance are fallacies.

But the idea of there being a God that has always been there is hard as well.

I would consider myself ignostic on that topic.

So it comes down to faith. If you are talking about disproving religious dating or theory, I don't believe it's been done yet or ever will be done with Christianity.

The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified. What could we find to show it wrong?

I believe the major one is the flood issue, if the world was ever flooded or not. Well, according to many scientist, award winning ones, there is not a single shred of evidence that 100% disproves it.

Of course not. But, that would be shifting the burden of evidence from those claiming that there was some sort of global flood, and intellectually dishonest.

A debate that comes to mind is Bill Nye vs Ken Ham.

Debates are a notoriously poor method of exploring reality.

I believe many people will find the answer they "want" to find. Sort of the same thing as looking at clouds, and if you are determined to find a cloud that looks like a shoe, you're going to find it. People are never unbiased and that also addresses the scientific community.

However, the scientific community acknowledges this, and holds to methodologies that reduce errors due to presuppositions and confirmation bias, where religions appear to be built on such things.

Moreover, the bible is history book of proven events

In the same way that the Spider-man comics mention New York. It must be true then.

but is mainly there for us to know and understand who God is. The biggest argument I see from people is the disbelief that some people have figured out the "mystery" of life. If something created something surely they will reveal the itself to the created, why create something and just turn the on switch and walk away?

No mystery. I do not presuppose the need for a creator.

It comes down to faith, it doesn't discount Christian's intelligence of understanding the scientific world around us, we believe that science all applies to God's universal law of how this world turns. For example, how atoms react to other atoms, that's all God's doing.

Unevidenced assertion.

So I please understand that Christianity's "unchanging" belief for us, is just more discoveries that help us understand closer God's creation. How someone wishes to view it, rather "this is evidence that we came from this!" or "this is evidence that we didn't!" all comes down to ones personal convictions.

I do not presuppose that reality will conform to my personal convictions.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

You're missing my point. And you actually enhance my point here:

No, I honestly think I did understand your point but I disagreed with your premise. There's a difference. To me, you're contributing to the promotion of the false dichotomy that religion and science are inherently incompatible.

If you still think I'm missing your point though, state it again for me as clearly but politely as possible, please.

This is religious thinking: unwavering commitment. It is unscientific thinking.

It being unscientific doesn't equate to it being incompatible to science. There are many scientists, like Dr. Francis Collins and my dad who are also dedicated Christians, and there are also deeply religious people like Pope Francis and his predecessors who have an appreciation and understanding of science. The Pontifical Board of Science has appointed evangelical Christians like Dr. Collins to help contribute to the mutual understanding between religion and science.

HuffPost Live

Does it? As you say, those are probably the two key fundamentals of the Christian faith: belief in God and belief in Christ's divinity. If you don't have those, then you probably aren't Christian…or, even if you identify as Christian, there is probably a more appropriate label for you that you are unaware of.

Of course it does! It's stunning to me that you would ask that question. Yes, as I explained, belief in God and belief in the divinity of Jesus are the two foundational tenets of Christianity, but so much is built upon that foundation. And your own interpretation and understanding of scripture will substantially influence how your own faith is built. My friend who is a creationist has an incredibly different approach to faith than I do, but we're both sincere Christians.

Maybe you'll be an atheist. Or a Hindu. Or an agnostic. Who knows?

Doubtful, but possible. What I meant is that some of my understanding abut scripture and therefore beliefs about is likely to change as I grow and have more revelation in my life. I just learned that Biblical scholars have been doubtful about Paul being the author of 1 Timothy for the past two centuries, and that therefore alters some of my perceptions of that scripture. That's just one example. My feelings towards Christians has changed significantly since joining here and being exposed to ones who act diametrically differently than anyone I've ever met in my personal life. That does NOT alter the basics of my faith, but it does alter how I practice my religion and the churches I will affiliate with in the future. I used to be embarrassingly naive about some aspects of Christian life and I'm not anymore.

But if you embrace that attitude then how can you say things like, "God is the rock on which my life is founded" or "I have made a full commitment to Jesus".

Because you're not getting what I meant by it. I embrace the attitude that my faith will grow and evolve with me while still remaining the essential basics. I'm going to be who I am until I die, but I'm going to keep changing as I age and move through life stages. Similarly, hopefully the basic tenets of my faith will remain the same, kept in my heart, but will just grow along with me. My mom was raised in a very conservative military family; her mother was the daughter of a Baptist preacher, and when possible they attended Baptist churches, sometimes traveling an hour or more from their base to the nearest one. She's still a Christian, she always has been, but she's a liberal-leaning Presbyterian rather than a Southern Baptist. That's the kind of changes that I meant. She just turned 48 and how she practices her religion is very different than it was when she was 17, but she's always retained the core faith. Going to college and to law school and living for that long just altered her understanding of scripture and how she applies it to her life.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

Define "faith".

The continuing inability for theists to provide an evidenced, testable, and falsifiable hypothesis for what they mean by "god/God".

Can you present this evidence in a testable, falsifiable manner?

Free will? Free to do what?

How is this evidence for gods?

How is this a miracle? What is a miracle?

Not that I am aware of, that work with neuroscience on this subject.

Arguments from incredulity and ignorance are fallacies.

I would consider myself ignostic on that topic.

The unfalsifiable cannot be falsified. What could we find to show it wrong?

Of course not. But, that would be shifting the burden of evidence from those claiming that there was some sort of global flood, and intellectually dishonest.

Debates are a notoriously poor method of exploring reality.

However, the scientific community acknowledges this, and holds to methodologies that reduce errors due to presuppositions and confirmation bias, where religions appear to be built on such things.

In the same way that the Spider-man comics mention New York. It must be true then.

No mystery. I do not presuppose the need for a creator.

Unevidenced assertion.

I do not presuppose that reality will conform to my personal convictions.

Pretty sure you understood exactly what I was saying but had to pull out the intelligent macho man act.

It's not necessary.

Nor do I care.

If you were looking for a debate you need to actually make sense. Because you break apart what I said to your own benefit, this is called taking out of context. You can't do that in formal debates, you know, actual debate teams.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Doesn't it all really just come down to faith?

What clear evidence does science present that God does not exist? I believe there is more evidence towards he does exist than he doesn't.

Free will, human emotion/intelligence, even the miracle of life. Isn't the question of free will baffling to scientists? How did matter become sentient beings? It's a far stretch of the imagination to even begin to consider the possibility. Consider looking at a stick and one day that stick evolving or coming into contact with other matter that creates something that can feel and think. It's pretty hard.

This appears to be both an argument from ignorance and from incredulity.

But the idea of there being a God that has always been there is hard as well. So it comes down to faith. If you are talking about disproving religious dating or theory, I don't believe it's been done yet or ever will be done with Christianity. I believe the major one is the flood issue, if the world was ever flooded or not. Well, according to many scientist, award winning ones, there is not a single shred of evidence that 100% disproves it. A debate that comes to mind is Bill Nye vs Ken Ham.

Why should we have to disprove the Flood with 100% certainty before we reject it as unlikely?

I believe many people will find the answer they "want" to find. Sort of the same thing as looking at clouds, and if you are determined to find a cloud that looks like a shoe, you're going to find it. People are never unbiased and that also addresses the scientific community.

The difference is that the scientific community has systems in place to limit biases. Does the religious community have anything similar?

Moreover, the bible is history book of proven events but is mainly there for us to know and understand who God is. The biggest argument I see from people is the disbelief that some people have figured out the "mystery" of life. If something created something surely they will reveal the itself to the created, why create something and just turn the on switch and walk away?

It comes down to faith, it doesn't discount Christian's intelligence of understanding the scientific world around us, we believe that science all applies to God's universal law of how this world turns. For example, how atoms react to other atoms, that's all God's doing.

So I please understand that Christianity's "unchanging" belief for us, is just more discoveries that help us understand closer God's creation. How someone wishes to view it, rather "this is evidence that we came from this!" or "this is evidence that we didn't!" all comes down to ones personal convictions.

It all comes down to faith for you. Don't confuse lack of faith for faith.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

It all comes down to faith for you. Don't confuse lack of faith for faith.

Google is awesome for looking up definitions for words you know.

Whatever you believe that can't be proven, you have faith in it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Google is awesome for looking up definitions for words you know.

Whatever you believe that can't be proven, you have faith in it.

You should speak for yourself here.