Conflict between religion and science

kristina411 · Jan 22, 2015

Science and religion can go hand in hand. Problem is when science claims something as factual when it is merely possible (evolution... Which can in part tie into Christianity... Is an example)
Unfortunately the line is drawn when people begin to make comments such as "blindly following" and the like. If you have a point to make, is not making that point enough? Or is it not enough so it must be ridiculed because you don't understand?
Let the attack begin on my response, but I'm tired from responding to those who refuse to hear. There is a difference between disagreeing and criticizing.

Archaeopteryx · Jan 22, 2015

kristina411 said:
Science and religion can go hand in hand. Problem is when science claims something as factual when it is merely possible (evolution... Which can in part tie into Christianity... Is an example)

This is a good example of what I meant earlier. Science doesn't merely claim that evolution is factual. It shows that it is. The problem here isn't with science, but with religion refusing to acknowledge the facts when they do not cohere well with theology.

kristina411 · Jan 22, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
This is a good example of what I meant earlier. Science doesn't merely claim that evolution is factual. It shows that it is. The problem here isn't with science, but with religion refusing to acknowledge the facts when they do not cohere well with theology.

Christians have a hard time believing in the old idea of evolution. The idea that somehow some of us became human while the rest continued being apes.
When you consider that after Adam and Eve, leading even until a century or two ago in some countries, incest was common and in some places encouraged. It makes logical sense that many early humans could have had common deformities like evolution describes.
Where science refuses to budge is in their willingness to admit that their dating methods are not full proof and that there are miles under every square inch of earth that has not been uncovered. They are just as clueless, if not more so, than they claim the Christians to be about the history of Earth. But we have a written account of our history that dates back thousands of years. Sounds more practical to believe to me.
But again, they can go hand in hand if the scientists would admit they didn't know everything. They should be able to admit this because that is their job. What good scientist stops their search for answers?
When science learns to include Christianity into their ideas (if they ever do but highly unlikely), you would see more growth and understanding and the world would change. I guess that's the reason for the division. We are meant to fight for our faith, not gain proof before belief.

To sum it up.... We don't have all the answers and we aknowledge this... We knowledge we may never know because some things are for God to know only. Scientists dont have all the answers but pretend they do. We are all in search for answers. You can't explain how my Grandmother was healed the morning she was scheduled for a triple bypass, due to prayer, any more than I can explain how the brain works to process information.

Soul2Soul · Jan 22, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
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.

Please see below

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.

My thoughts are that (those religious) individuals place restrictions on themselves whether deliberately or inadvertently with regards to "impeding intellectual growth". In the context of this thread though, I am not sure why any religious person is against science and learning more of what it has to offer .... after all it is unbiased and is simply delivering evidence.

I don't really have much of a problem with anyone claiming to know a great deal about something ....... but having complete and infallible understanding/knowledge? I think such people suffer from self delusion.

Archaeopteryx · Jan 22, 2015

kristina411 said:
Christians have a hard time believing in the old idea of evolution. The idea that somehow some of us became human while the rest continued being apes.
When you consider that after Adam and Eve, leading even until a century or two ago in some countries, incest was common and in some places encouraged. It makes logical sense that many early humans could have had common deformities like evolution describes.
Where science refuses to budge is in their willingness to admit that their dating methods are not full proof and that there are miles under every square inch of earth that has not been uncovered. They are just as clueless, if not more so, than they claim the Christians to be about the history of Earth.

I had to stop you here to make two points. First, many Christians are scientists. Second, no, they are not "just as clueless, if not more so" than the religious fundamentalists who claim that they are wrong. To say that is to imply that scientists and fundamentalists are on equal footing when it comes to claims about the history of the Earth. Nothing could further from the truth.

But we have a written account of our history that dates back thousands of years. Sounds more practical to believe to me.

More practical than evidence?

But again, they can go hand in hand if the scientists would admit they didn't know everything.

Scientists already do admit that they don't know everything. I've never read an academic paper that ends with "And now, we know everything." To the contrary, papers often end with a reflection on the limitations of the reported study and with recommendations or questions for future research.

They should be able to admit this because that is their job. What good scientist stops their search for answers?

Exactly, and they do admit it.

When science learns to include Christianity into their ideas (if they ever do but highly unlikely), you would see more growth and understanding and the world would change. I guess that's the reason for the division. We are meant to fight for our faith, not gain proof before belief.

Science can only accommodate Christianity in the way you describe if there is good reason to do so (i.e., evidence).

Why shouldn't Christianity accommodate science?

To sum it up.... We don't have all the answers and we aknowledge this... We knowledge we may never know because some things are for God to know only. Scientists dont have all the answers but pretend they do.

No they don't. They acknowledge openly that there are many things we do not know.

We are all in search for answers. You can't explain how my Grandmother was healed the morning she was scheduled for a triple bypass, due to prayer, any more than I can explain how the brain works to process information.

If we cannot explain it, then we are ignorant. We don't know. In what way does "Goddidit" follow from that?

kristina411 · Jan 22, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
I had to stop you here to make two points. First, many Christians are scientists. Second, no, they are not "just as clueless, if not more so" than the religious fundamentalists who claim that they are wrong. To say that is to imply that scientists and fundamentalists are on equal footing when it comes to claims about the history of the Earth. Nothing could further from the truth.

More practical than evidence?

Scientists already do admit that they don't know everything. I've never read an academic paper that ends with "And now, we know everything." To the contrary, papers often end with a reflection on the limitations of the reported study and with recommendations or questions for future research.

Exactly, and they do admit it.

Science can only accommodate Christianity in the way you describe if there is good reason to do so (i.e., evidence).

Why shouldn't Christianity accommodate science?

No they don't. They acknowledge openly that there are many things we do not know.

If we cannot explain it, then we are ignorant. We don't know. In what way does "Goddidit" follow from that?

When you say "evolution is fact. That proves Christianity wrong.", you (not you specifically) as a scientist are saying you know the answers. You are discrediting christianity without seeing how it could fit into Christianity. But I see Christianity making room for science constantly. Did the Pope not recently confirm the possibility of the big bang and creation co existing, which was a major divider for many years? I mean it doesn't take a genius to see how but he publicized the possibility in an attempt to bring both science and Christianity together.
I am not catholic and I do not see the church and science coming together but this is my example of how the church has been willing to work with science.

How do scientists think they know it all? By claiming they know for fact that my beliefs are wrong when they themselves have no evidence to make that claim.

Archaeopteryx · Jan 22, 2015

kristina411 said:
When you say "evolution is fact. That proves Christianity wrong.", you as a scientist are saying you know the answers.

Where did I say that? Where has anyone said that? Evolution is a fact, regardless of whether Christianity is the "one true religion" or not. At most, evolution discredits a literalist interpretation of Genesis, but it doesn't even address the core doctrines of Christianity, so your statement doesn't even make sense.

How do scientists think they know it all? By claiming they know for fact that my beliefs are wrong when they themselves have no evidence to make that claim.

Which scientist has claimed to know for a fact that your beliefs are wrong? I strongly doubt that anyone with a scientific background has made such a sweeping statement about all your beliefs.

kristina411 · Jan 22, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
Where did I say that? Where has anyone said that? Evolution is a fact, regardless of whether Christianity is the "one true religion" or not. At most, evolution discredits a literalist interpretation of Genesis, but it doesn't even address the core doctrines of Christianity, so your statement doesn't even make sense.

Which scientist has claimed to know for a fact that your beliefs are wrong? I strongly doubt that anyone with a scientific background has made such a sweeping statement about all your beliefs.

Firstly, you can see where I edited my original post to say "not you specifically" and I apologize that I did not make that clarification to begin with. My writing was in general speaking to the mindset of the science mind, the mind that is discussed frequently on this board. Not to one specific person but to the general group of scientists that deny Christianity has possibility. Perhaps I should have been more clear but I try to sum up so I do not end up writing an entire book.
Fact is, the majority of scientists (not all of course there are always a few who stand out from the pack) deny Christianity's possibility. I have shown through example twice how Christianity has worked with science but have yet to see an example of how science has been willing to work with Christianity. If you give credit to history when looking at hieroglyphics, there should be no reason the Bible is not given the same credit when considering our history.
Unfortunately this conversation is drawing to an end. I very much enjoy a good discussion between two people who do not agree. Until reaching for reasons to disagree begin. If my evidence presented (such as the popes speech on the big bang) is ignored, as well as my request to see how science has been willing to admit Christianity could have merit is ignored, I have no further reason to debate. At this point I bow out. God bless, take care, and have a wonderful day!

ETA I do think the segregation also comes from the Christians as they/we often feel our beliefs being attacked and our ideas being ridiculed. The Christians who do this often get in arguments that cause drama because they feel like they have to defend God. I try to remember He doesn't need me to defend Him but to just speak truth. That is the reason for me editing, to admit Christians too take part in the segregation between science and Christianity and often put down the ideas before learning about them because they feel offended and attacked.

Archaeopteryx · Jan 22, 2015

kristina411 said:
Firstly, you can see where I edited my original post to say "not you specifically" and I apologize that I did not make that clarification to begin with. My writing was in general speaking to the mindset of the science mind, the mind that is discussed frequently on this board. Not to one specific person but to the general group of scientists that deny Christianity has possibility.

Then I don't who are referring to at all because, the "general group of scientists" doesn't deny that Christianity has "possibility". Yes, it is possible. But many things are possible. It doesn't follow that we should believe something just because it is possible.

Fact is, the majority of scientists (not all of course there are always a few who stand out from the pack) deny Christianity's possibility.

Where is the data that bears out this conclusion? I'm highly skeptical that "the majority" of scientists deny that Christianity is "possible". As I said above, accepting that something may be possible does not imply that one ought to believe that it actually is the case.

I have shown through example twice how Christianity has worked with science but have yet to see an example of how science has been willing to work with Christianity.

I already made clear that science can only accommodate Christianity in the way you describe if there is good reason to do so (i.e., evidence). It's not a matter of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Science is under no obligation to accommodate religious ideas if there is no good reason to do so. In fact, it would be unscientific to accommodate doctrines for which there is no evidence solely for the purpose of being conciliatory.

AionPhanes · Jan 22, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
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 think there may be differences in some of the means of inquiry, rules for what constitutes a good belief or teaching, methods, etc... but there is no necessary conflict between religious and scientific beliefs about specific phenomena or events. A religious belief may correspond to a scientific understanding of an issue, say the age of the earth for example, or it might conflict like we see with Christian (Muslim, etc..) "young earthers". Other religious people might very well agree with whatever the commonly held (general consensus) age of the earth is among scientists.

While I agree that it is common for many religious people to have near immovable commitments to specific religious ideas before they have actually verified their specific reliability (at times without even the most cursory of examinations!) that doesn't necessarily imply that all religious people fall into the category. I doubt anyone, regardless of their religious or non religious commitments*, is perfect in that regard but some people are more open than others and some of the more open people can be, and are, religious.

I'm afraid the near black and white terms you are using might result in a person simply ignoring what "religious people" say or dismissing them with some broad generalizations and hand waving. Each person has to be viewed on their own terms.

* Even the non religious tend to have their "isms", roles, and self definitions that come with certain requirements that they may not have perfectly verified on an individual basis. It's a common human trait and applies even to scientists.

Archaeopteryx · Jan 22, 2015

AionPhanes said:
I think there may be differences in some of the means of inquiry, rules for what constitutes a good belief or teaching, methods, etc... but there is no necessary conflict between religious and scientific beliefs about specific phenomena or events. A religious belief may correspond to a scientific understanding of an issue, say the age of the earth for example, or it might conflict like we see with Christian (Muslim, etc..) "young earthers". Other religious people might very well agree with whatever the commonly held (general consensus) age of the earth is among scientists.

While I agree that it is common for many religious people to have near immovable commitments to specific religious ideas before they have actually verified their specific reliability (at times without even the most cursory of examinations!) but that doesn't necessarily imply that all religious people fall into the category. I doubt anyone, regardless of their religious or non religious commitments*, is perfect in that regard but some people are more open than others and some of the more open people can be, and are, religious.

This brings us back to the question of whether there is a conflict in principle or only in practice.

I'm afraid the near black and white terms you are using might result in a person simply ignoring what "religious people" say or dismissing them with some broad generalizations and hand waving. Each person has to be viewed on their own terms.

It would indeed be wrong to dismiss what a religious person had to say simply because they are religious. It isn't wrong to dismiss what they say if it is lacking in evidence, however. The same obviously applies to non-religious individuals. Take someone who denies climate change on the basis of the Bible as an example. We don't dismiss their views on climate because they are religious, but because the evidence for them is poor.

kristina411 · Jan 22, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
Then I don't who are referring to at all because, the "general group of scientists" doesn't deny that Christianity has "possibility". Yes, it is possible. But many things are possible. It doesn't follow that we should believe something just because it is possible.

Where is the data that bears out this conclusion? I'm highly skeptical that "the majority" of scientists deny that Christianity is "possible". As I said above, accepting that something may be possible does not imply that one ought to believe that it actually is the case.

I already made clear that science can only accommodate Christianity in the way you describe if there is good reason to do so (i.e., evidence). It's not a matter of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Science is under no obligation to accommodate religious ideas if there is no good reason to do so. In fact, it would be unscientific to accommodate doctrines for which there is no evidence solely for the purpose of being conciliatory.

united states - Are only 700 out of 480,000 life scientists creationists? - Skeptics Stack Exchange
^ a study done in 1991 that shows that the majority of scientists (over 90% I believe) are not creationists. There are more references but it is of no use to dig, some will be unhappy with any evidence shown.

If you believe paintings and murals on the walls of caves as evidence of their civilization and history, I fail to see how the Bible is not granted as much value and seen as evidence and reason to explore the topic more. But it is ignored for reason, God does not owe proof to anyone, so even when it is there you will not see until you have faith. Sounds backward but I have lived it now. You will not see all of the evidence as evidence until your faith has grown. He does not want you to have faith because you see, rather to see because you have faith.
Those 700 scientists, I'd like to get to know them. I'm sure they have great minds.

Archaeopteryx · Jan 22, 2015

kristina411 said:
united states - Are only 700 out of 480,000 life scientists creationists? - Skeptics Stack Exchange
^ a study done in 1991 that shows that the majority of scientists (over 90% I believe) are not creationists. There are more references but it is of no use to dig, some will be unhappy with any evidence shown.

You are conflating Christianity with Creationism, even though many Christians are not Creationists. That the majority of scientists do not accept a literal 6-day Creation does not imply that they outright deny that Christianity (broadly construed) may be "possible," in the same way that it doesn't imply an outright denial that Islam (broadly construed) may also be "possible," or Judaism, or Hinduism, etc.

If you believe paintings and murals on the walls of caves as evidence of their civilization and history, I fail to see how the Bible is not granted as much value and seen as evidence and reason to explore the topic more.

Which topic specifically? There are many holy texts. Should they all be seen as evidence?

But it is ignored for reason, God does not owe proof to anyone, so even when it is there you will nit see until you have faith. Sounds backward but I have lived it now. You will not see all of the evidence as evidence until your faith has grown. He does not want you to have faith because you see, rather to see because you have faith.

If it only becomes "evidence" because you want it to be evidence, then that sounds like either confirmation bias or wishful thinking.

AionPhanes · Jan 22, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
This brings us back to the question of whether there is a conflict in principle or only in practice.

It would indeed be wrong to dismiss what a religious person had to say simply because they are religious. It isn't wrong to dismiss what they say if it is lacking in evidence, however. The same obviously applies to non-religious individuals. Take someone who denies climate change on the basis of the Bible as an example. We don't dismiss their views on climate because they are religious, but because the evidence for them is poor.

I agree. Good point.

kristina411 · Jan 22, 2015

Archaeopteryx said:
You are conflating Christianity with Creationism, even though many Christians are not Creationists. That the majority of scientists do not accept a literal 6-day Creation does not imply that they outright deny that Christianity (broadly construed) may be "possible," in the same way that it doesn't imply an outright denial that Islam (broadly construed) may also be "possible," or Judaism, or Hinduism, etc.

Which topic specifically? There are many holy texts. Should they all be seen as evidence?

If it only becomes "evidence" because you want it to be evidence, then that sounds like either confirmation bias or wishful thinking.

I'm curious how you can back your claim that many Christians are not creationists when that is the foundation of our belief, that Jesus is the Son of God, The God of Abraham and Moses, God is the creator of heaven and earth. So to say opposite would not classify you as a Christian. Some other new off the wall belief (spinning off of Christianity) maybe but Christian no.

If you read the article and backing information you would see the scientists deny any claim to creationism completely.

I have shown through illustration twice why the Bible should be used as evidence and yet you still ignore this as well. If paintings and murals are considered evidence of Earths history. So should text, and all of it, be considered as evidence to explore. I have yet to be given a reason to say why it should not be considered.

I do not wish to run in circles on this topic as it is exhausting repeating myself.

AionPhanes · Jan 22, 2015

Kristina411 : I'm curious how you can back your claim that many Christians are not creationists

The term can apply to different things. Often when non-Christians (or even Christians speaking about the term in relation to evolutionary science) use the word I find that they are talking about a rejection of evolution and the belief that instead God directly lifted up literal dirt and created man in a supernatural fashion rather than through the use of actual physical laws. Most all Christians believe in "creationism" in the sense of "God created the universe and the laws of nature" but a good number of Christians do not agree with "creationism" in the sense I described above. I believe that evolution took place for example. Evolution lead to the eventual arrival of the human brain/body organism. I also believe that God created the world.

Archaeopteryx · Jan 22, 2015

kristina411 said:
I'm curious how you can back your claim that many Christians are not creationists when that is the foundation of our belief, that Jesus is the Son of God, The God of Abraham and Moses, God is the creator of heaven and earth. So to say opposite would not classify you as a Christian. Some other new off the wall belief maybe but Christian no.

I take Creationism to mean Young Earth Creationism. Not all Christians are Young Earth Creationists, and many do not consider a literal 6-day Creation (as depicted in Genesis) to be an essential Christian belief.

If you read the article and backing information you would see the scientists deny any claim to creationism completely.

Which does not imply that they deny that Christianity (broadly construed) is "possible." Once again, you are conflating Creationism with the totality of Christianity even though, as I have already pointed out, being a Creationist is not an essential requirement to being a Christian.

I have shown through illustration twice why the Bible should be used as evidence and yet you still ignore this as well. If paintings and murals are considered evidence of Earths history. So should text, and all of it, be considered as evidence to explore. I have yet to be given a reason to say why it should not be considered.

It can be considered. Where have I denied this? But why should we lend it the preponderance of epistemic weight?

kristina411 · Jan 22, 2015

Creationism isn't defined by the six day idea but by the idea of creation. You can differ on the specifics but to be a Christian you have to believe we were created. There are different types of creationism but they all tie back to a creator, and you can not be a Christian without acknowledging your creation in some way was no accident but by the hand of God.
Have a lovely day!

AionPhanes · Jan 22, 2015

Not to send the discussion off on a tagent but I wanted to quickly elaborate on why I said "Evolution lead to the eventual arrival of the human brain/body organism" rather than simply saying "man." I believe that the nous, the highest 'part' of man, was a direct creation of God brought about in a divine manner. We inherited our body and irrational soul from evolutionary processes (which were also brought into being by God) but our nous, the throne of God in man, came from above. In that sense we have a dual nature - part shaved "monkey" and part divine angelic type being whose glory can be matched even with that of the Seraphim*.

In other words I believe that science is correct when it speaks of evolution from a common ancestor. For that reason some people would say I'm "not a Creationist." But I do believe in the direct creation of the Universe (and their laws) as well as of the nous.

*God did become man rather than angel for a reason. We are the true image of God and can grow into the likeness of God.

Archaeopteryx · Jan 22, 2015

kristina411 said:
Creationism isn't defined by the so day idea but by the idea of creation. You can differ on the specifics but to be a Christian you have to believe we were created. There are different types of creationism but they all tie back to a creator, and you can not be a Christian without acknowledging your creation in some way was no accident but by the hand of God.

Then it seems we have been talking across purposes here, since I have been referring to Creationism whereas you have been talking broadly about "creation" in a nonspecific sense. Scientists resolutely reject Creationism, as your own source indicates. This does not imply, however, an outright denial that "creation," in the nonspecific sense, is possible.

Conflict between religion and science

kristina411

Guest

Wanderer

kristina411

Guest

Love is .....

Wanderer

kristina411

Guest

Wanderer

kristina411

Guest

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

kristina411

Guest

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

kristina411

Guest

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

kristina411

Guest

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency