Conflict between religion and science

[bhsmte]

And the majority of them end their journey with atheism because they cannot fathom the moral complex of Christianity.
Most all of the philosophers who turned from Christianity did so because instead of understanding it all, they just labored under self-righteous rationalizing which ultimately leads to a baseless reality with moral relativity. How superior and logical- a construct built on sand.

But also just importantly to note, science and such doesn't actually lead one from religion, which is what atheists tend to imply nonetheless when they revolt in their scientific ~shenanigans~.

Another one petending to be able to read people's minds.

 

[cristianprince67]

There's a really good related book to this topic that's about religion versus science. It's called "Darwinism under the Microscope". I just started reading it.

 

[WindStaff]

Another one petending to be able to read people's minds.

One doesn't need to read minds to know what is true. In fact, it's usually when one replies with the repeated statement you just put forward when one knows it's close to home, because it's basically one standing tall on nothing good to argue back with.

 

[bhsmte]

One doesn't need to read minds to know what is true. In fact, it's usually when one replies with the repeated statement you just put forward when one knows they hit close to home.

Sure, that is very convincing.

I completely understand why certain believers need to label those who disagree with them and pretend to know how they think. The pattern repeates itself on this board with certain posters and is quite predictable along with entertaining.

 

[WindStaff]

Sure, that is very convincing.

I completely understand why certain believers need to label those who disagree with them and pretend to know how they think. The pattern repeates itself on this board with certain posters and is quite predictable along with entertaining.

Saying that Christians usually become atheist because of something to do with morality is not a label, it is a fact that they outright demonstrate in the event of their dissent. Later on they use science and agnosticism as a crutch to continue on in that endeavor.

"God lets bad things happen" or "God is evil" or "God doesn't let me do what I want" are the trademark indictments on abandoning former belief- all which are rooted in moral dilemma.

 

[single eye]

Both arguments, God created the universe, and there is no God, lack credible evidence. That is why saint John told us that the creator of the universe is an evil imposter, not God. Everyone keeps ignoring or overlooking the obvious.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

One doesn't need to read minds to know what is true. In fact, it's usually when one replies with the repeated statement you just put forward when one knows it's close to home, because it's basically one standing tall on nothing good to argue back with.

Projection much? Apologists usually go down the "atheists are just atheists because they want to sin" route when they have nothing good to argue back with.

 

[Martin Moe]

Archaeopteryx, Talking about morality, When morality is defined by religion (most all religions especially those that stem from Abraham), the definition of morality comes from the historical scriptures, not the compassion of an individual for all of humanity. To wit— (evidently one of your favorite scriptural quotes),

If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

~ Isaiah 1:19-20

And if you pick up the Koran , almost every page incites the Islamic believer to war against and kill those that are not children of Allah,

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

So if morality is the trunk of religion, it supports a very selective tree, one that is a reflection of the origin of morality, the survival of the family and tribe that grew at the very origin of the human species when survival was based on navigating the narrow channel between protection of family and destruction of those that threatened destruction or controlled valuable resources. Religion provided the authority that allowed compassion for one’s own while raining destruction on the “others” who were not of the “true” religion. And that ancient “deal with the devil” follows us through history to the conflicts so wide in the world today. So if your religion pokes fun at those that do not believe as you do, or worse, if your religion provides the authority to kill and take the land and resources of those that do not believe as you do, then your morality is still based on the mentality of a primitive survival at all cost to “others” supernatural authority. Sorry, but that’s the way it seems to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Archaeopteryx, Talking about morality, When morality is defined by religion (most all religions especially those that stem from Abraham), the definition of morality comes from the historical scriptures, not the compassion of an individual for all of humanity. To wit— (evidently one of your favorite scriptural quotes),

If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

~ Isaiah 1:19-20

And if you pick up the Koran , almost every page incites the Islamic believer to war against and kill those that are not children of Allah,

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

So if morality is the trunk of religion, it supports a very selective tree, one that is a reflection of the origin of morality, the survival of the family and tribe that grew at the very origin of the human species when survival was based on navigating the narrow channel between protection of family and destruction of those that threatened destruction or controlled valuable resources. Religion provided the authority that allowed compassion for one’s own while raining destruction on the “others” who were not of the “true” religion. And that ancient “deal with the devil” follows us through history to the conflicts so wide in the world today. So if your religion pokes fun at those that do not believe as you do, or worse, if your religion provides the authority to kill and take the land and resources of those that do not believe as you do, then your morality is still based on the mentality of a primitive survival at all cost to “others” supernatural authority. Sorry, but that’s the way it seems to me.

What you've said seems to me reason enough to abandon religion as a source of morality.

 

[Erth]

Science is not about commitment because science is not revealed knowledge and has no one unifying principle or person. I think that's how Christianity and science are different, and nothing prevents a person from being involved in both. Many scientists are Christians and it doesn't stop them from excelling in science. If a person's commitment is strong, then he can rely on God and get strength from God, and feel safe in God even when going into new territory. If someone should be swayed towards leaving God by science, then that's a faith issue, not a fact issue. Scientific facts are always dependent on human reasoning, proofs gathered by humans, human logic, indications from a human point of view, human methods, etc. If a person should decide to leave God behind because of his own thinking, actions, perceptions, etc, then his love for God is very weak.

 

[Martin Moe]

Actually I believe that morality is essential to a functional society. Without a moral code, defined as law or just understood, members of the society cannot live with each other in peace. The problems with morality are in its origin. Morality defined by religion is absolute. It is proclaimed by a deity and is not subject to change (although over the years it does change); whereas morality defined by law can and does change as society changes. Thus morality is relative because different religions have different interpretations of morality and different societies also have different interpretations of what is and what is not moral. However morality is also absolute in those societies governed by a morality as defined by religion. So we cannot abandon morality, at least not without societal consequences, it is with us from birth to death, but we can and we do, fight horrible wars and have behavioral conflicts based on differing concepts of morality.

 

[Martin Moe]

Erth, I have been interested in religion, its meaning, its varieties, its effects on people and societies, its veracity and/or falsity, its history, and why I cannot comprehend any reality within it. I do not understand the blind emotional connection that many of my friends experience with organized religion and their personal reported “interaction” with a supreme being. Now I understand emotion, I understand the connection of love between people, the upwelling of an emotion that I would label as love when you look deeply into the eyes of someone and see the reciprocal of what you are feeling, and still have that emotion and still see in those same eyes 55 years later. And that emotion is immensely strong and indescribable when you hold your newborn child for the first time. I suspect that that is akin to the emotion that religion promotes in the heart of true believers. I also think that development of the capacity to experience that emotion usually has to be taught to the child though experience with parent. Mental disability and disease aside, the capability of “love beyond understanding” has to be awakened by the parental interaction with the child. The ability to love is certainly the best gift a parent can bestow upon a child. But a fundamental part of being human is the ability to reason, and reason and religion to not always play nice with each other. This quote from Martin Luther is a case in point.

“Reason is a harlot, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” Martin Luther

Some have been able to compartmentalize religion and reason, some have been able to eschew reason in religion, and some use reason in religion. Some see only tortured reason in religion, and some are just confused when reason does not enlighten religion. The following is a quote from a book I wrote back in 1981 and recently put a new edition in ebook form. It still describes my feelings about religion.

“What is religion? Ah—it is all but reason. It does not stand the test of rational scrutiny; yet it springs from the wells of emotion, tradition and intuition with unquestioning conviction. Religion has the great power to lift us far above the most abominable aspects of our nature, and concomitantly, to drag us to the depths of guilt, cruelty, and inhumanity. Despite the obvious futility, there are times I flail at religion with the clubs and stones of fact and knowledge and look with scorn at those that smile warmly from her close embrace. I exult with reason and plant religions firmly in the fields of superstition and myth from whence they arose. At other times, however, I feel as a hungry waif peering through the frosty window of a sumptuous banquet where fortunate ones are secure and comfortable in their belief and fellowship.

Such is the conflict that in one form or another has plagued rational minds since the first shaman claimed a personal link with supernatural entities. Religion does serve mankind, perhaps as often as mankind serves religion. For there is a need in us, a drive to be one with one another in a supportive social structure that religion, almost any religion, serves. This need may be met by secular organizations: political, fraternal, social, but seldom with the emotional intensity of religion.”

After all this and all the years, belief in the supernatural still eludes me and God has yet to break the barrier of reality and convince me of the reality of His existence.

 

[Erth]

Erth, I have been interested in religion, its meaning, its varieties, its effects on people and societies, its veracity and/or falsity, its history, and why I cannot comprehend any reality within it. ...

Are you interested in what religious writers have had to say or not? I don't understand if you are arguing a point or not; if you are presenting a conclusion against religion, or if you are open to arguments from Christians.

 

[Martin Moe]

"Are you interested in what religious writers have had to say or not? I don't understand if you are arguing a point or not; if you are presenting a conclusion against religion, or if you are open to arguments from Christians."

Erth, that is an honest question and it deserves an honest answer.

I have given it thought and retrospective and despite occasional forays into the land of “what if” my answer is no, but it’s complicated. Blood and bone, sex and death, we are one with the natural world. Physically, we differ only in the development of intricate brain capable of complex abstract thought, great manual dexterity, and in development of an expansive social culture made possible by the development of language. Religion and the concept of a supernatural God is a product of our intellect and culture.

My basic point is that without assurance that there is some substance to the supernatural aspects of religion and its required beliefs; what our religions ask us to believe about our existence and the nature and history of this planet and humanity is, basically... ridiculous. However, billions of people hold these irrational beliefs based on a firm apparent knowledge of the existence of supernatural beings that direct the events of humanity. My complications with this is summed up by the question, Why do they believe?

I can find possible answers to this basic question in history, evolution, biology, psychology, analysis, rationality, and reason, and that should be enough. But is it? My answer of NO to your question is based on complete lack of any evidence in the years of my physical existence and in the depths of my thoughts that anything supernatural actually exists. Prayers are simply wishes that may or may not come true, discussions with a supreme being are simply one sided ruminations, signs and portents are just the vagaries of nature, and the mind is private world where gods, angels, devils, and demons may comfort and rage, but as far as I can tell they only human concepts restricted to the definitive boundaries of individual human minds.

So I am interested in what arguments Christians, and others, can offer as to the veracity of their faith, but I see no “divinity” or supernatural truth in the teachings of the Bible or other ancient religious texts and can’t be persuaded that these texts are the actual teachings of a supreme being, interesting, and great, historical literature, yes, but evidence and teachings of a supernatural being, no. In themselves, these texts are historical products of human beliefs and politics and are not proof that God exists and cannot be used as a foundation for the truth of religious arguments when a supernatural basis of these texts is not accepted. Also attempts to bend the methods and products of science into proofs of supernatural origins are fatally flawed by preconceived convictions. So yes, my mind is set on doubt and disbelief, and nothing less than the unquestionable incursion of a supernatural being into my reality will convince me that the supernatural exists. I’m sorry if my questioning offends and frustrates believers, and I don’t do it foment distress, but it think it is important both for me to explore my curiosity and also to make a public case for my disbelief.

 

[Erth]

"Are you interested in what religious writers have had to say or not? I don't understand if you are arguing a point or not; if you are presenting a conclusion against religion, or if you are open to arguments from Christians."

Erth, that is an honest question and it deserves an honest answer.

I have given it thought and retrospective and despite occasional forays into the land of “what if” my answer is no, but it’s complicated. Blood and bone, sex and death, we are one with the natural world. Physically, we differ only in the development of intricate brain capable of complex abstract thought, great manual dexterity, and in development of an expansive social culture made possible by the development of language. Religion and the concept of a supernatural God is a product of our intellect and culture.

My basic point is that without assurance that there is some substance to the supernatural aspects of religion and its required beliefs; what our religions ask us to believe about our existence and the nature and history of this planet and humanity is, basically... ridiculous. However, billions of people hold these irrational beliefs based on a firm apparent knowledge of the existence of supernatural beings that direct the events of humanity. My complications with this is summed up by the question, Why do they believe?

I can find possible answers to this basic question in history, evolution, biology, psychology, analysis, rationality, and reason, and that should be enough. But is it? My answer of NO to your question is based on complete lack of any evidence in the years of my physical existence and in the depths of my thoughts that anything supernatural actually exists. Prayers are simply wishes that may or may not come true, discussions with a supreme being are simply one sided ruminations, signs and portents are just the vagaries of nature, and the mind is private world where gods, angels, devils, and demons may comfort and rage, but as far as I can tell they only human concepts restricted to the definitive boundaries of individual human minds.

So I am interested in what arguments Christians, and others, can offer as to the veracity of their faith, but I see no “divinity” or supernatural truth in the teachings of the Bible or other ancient religious texts and can’t be persuaded that these texts are the actual teachings of a supreme being, interesting, and great, historical literature, yes, but evidence and teachings of a supernatural being, no. In themselves, these texts are historical products of human beliefs and politics and are not proof that God exists and cannot be used as a foundation for the truth of religious arguments when a supernatural basis of these texts is not accepted. Also attempts to bend the methods and products of science into proofs of supernatural origins are fatally flawed by preconceived convictions. So yes, my mind is set on doubt and disbelief, and nothing less than the unquestionable incursion of a supernatural being into my reality will convince me that the supernatural exists. I’m sorry if my questioning offends and frustrates believers, and I don’t do it foment distress, but it think it is important both for me to explore my curiosity and also to make a public case for my disbelief.

Martin Moe, in my opinion you will not get answers that matter too much from just any Christians who are ready to talk to you - like me, for example. At the end of the day it matters little what opinions Christians have. What you should delve into if you want answers that matter is probably contemporary literature from clergy. And you should look for those authors which are widely recognised theologians in their respective churches.

But you say that Christian ideas about nature are ridiculous. You should know that they vary greatly. I myself am not part of the crowd that goes out to protest against science, even if those Christians do exist who do that. That's exactly why you have to look for more authentic sources if you want to research Christianity. Ultimately you should also go from contemporary literature to the older literature such as the church fathers. And you need to do your own thinking too. Then there is also the issue of different kinds of Christianity; the different churches, or denominations. Which have different sources. Augustine, for example, who is a saint in Western Christianity and highly influential in Protestantism too, is not a saint in Eastern Christianity, where John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, and Gregory the Theologian are the most influential ones.

If you think that a Christian understanding of nature has to be ridiculous then I much doubt that you have done your research. And concepts like "the definitie boundaries of individual human minds" have to be left behind for an earnest search to be possible. But I want to wish you good luck.

 

[Blue Wren]

I do not have, a conflict, with my religious beliefs, and with science, no. Other Christians, they do have this problem, from what they have said, yes.

 

[Soul2Soul]

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.

I personally believe that there is no, and shouldn't be, any (true) conflict between religion (Christianity in my case) and science.

If anything the conflict is between humans from "both sides" isn't it?

I'm committed to believing that the Earth is round and the Sun is at the centre of the Solar System as examples.

I believe that my religious mindset evolves as does the thinking in science - and I personally, am committed to both.

I believe that there are "constants" in both religion and science and equally both are open to discoveries.

A teacher once told me that "time means changes" and I have made many changes in my development as a Christian and continue to do so. Science is always evolving.

In any case I do not discern from the Scriptures any doctrine, teaching etc that is against science.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I personally believe that there is no, and shouldn't be, any (true) conflict between religion (Christianity in my case) and science.

If anything the conflict is between humans from "both sides" isn't it?

I'm committed to believing that the Earth is round and the Sun is at the centre of the Solar System as examples.

I believe that my religious mindset evolves as does the thinking in science - and I personally, am committed to both.

I believe that there are "constants" in both religion and science and equally both are open to discoveries.

Are they both really equally open to discoveries? That seems like a strong claim to make.

 

[Soul2Soul]

Are they both really equally open to discoveries? That seems like a strong claim to make.

IMO I believe they are. I suppose there is a question of proportion but in essence it's about growth/development of understanding and knowledge.

I do not honestly believe that any Christian could/should claim to know everything about the Bible in all it's contexts, nor do I believe that any scientist could/should claim to know everything about a particular subject.

I think my claim would rank well below any such claim

 

[Archaeopteryx]

IMO I believe they are. I suppose there is a question of proportion but in essence it's about growth/development of understanding and knowledge.

I do not honestly believe that any Christian could/should claim to know everything about the Bible in all it's contexts, nor do I believe that any scientist could/should claim to know everything about a particular subject.

I think my claim would rank well below any such claim

I'm not sure whether it is warranted to claim that religion impedes intellectual growth by principle. That would be a strong claim to make, and I'm uncertain about how true it really is. But in practice we often find that religion does impede intellectual growth in various ways, which is why, at least in practice (if not in principle), I think the idea that both religion and science are equally open to discoveries is questionable.

I do not honestly believe that any Christian could/should claim to know everything about the Bible in all it's contexts, nor do I believe that any scientist could/should claim to know everything about a particular subject.

The difference, in practice again, is that religious people often do claim to know a great deal about God, his nature, his personality and even his intentions. Many even imply, if not outright state, that their reading of scripture cannot be faulted.