Conflict between religion and science

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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.

The scientific mindset demands that we be able to change our mind on any subject when new evidence presents itself.

The religious mindset demands that we have unchanging belief in certain dogmatic truths. If our mindset changes on those subjects, then we are likely no longer part of the religion we claimed to be.

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

I agree. But can the Pope stand before the world and say, "I accept Jesus as my Savior and my God, unless new evidence presents itself"?

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.

What does it mean to be a Christian? It means: "Belief in God and belief in the divinity of Jesus"...(in a nutshell).

If you and your friend disagreed on those fundamental tenets, one of you would not be a Christian.

There's tons more built upon those foundations, but as you say, both those are the foundations for a reason. Everything else is just personal philosophy.

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.

What would convince you that Christianity is false?

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.

Once again, it seems that we are talking past one another.

"essential basics" is what I equate with "religious thinking". You can change your mind on creationism and social justice and political leanings and homosexuality all you want...but fundamentally deep down you aren't really open to changing your opinion on "essential basics". That's the religious thinking that I'm referring to.

What if "letting your faith grow" meant losing it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Once again, it seems that we are talking past one another.

"essential basics" is what I equate with "religious thinking". You can change your mind on creationism and social justice and political leanings and homosexuality all you want...but fundamentally deep down you aren't really open to changing your opinion on "essential basics". That's the religious thinking that I'm referring to.

What if "letting your faith grow" meant losing it?

Letting one's faith grow sometimes leads to growing beyond one's faith.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

You should speak for yourself here.

I.......

Have faith?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I.......

Have faith?

Yes, you do. Don't assume that the same applies to everyone else.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

This depends on which philosophical approach one takes with science: that of "methodological materialism," or instead, "philosophical materialism."

 

[Davian]

Pretty sure you understood exactly what I was saying

The impression I got was, you wanted to deliver a sermon, and perhaps have an echo chamber to hear it in. If that was the case, you are in the wrong forum.

but had to pull out the intelligent macho man act.

It's not necessary.

For the purposes of discussion, it works. To lump my response at the end yet keep it specific to the things you wrote would be entirely impractical.

Nor do I care.

Why are you here?

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.

This is not a debate. If we were discussing this in person, I would stop you at those exact spots to ask for clarification.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

The scientific mindset demands that we be able to change our mind on any subject when new evidence presents itself.

The religious mindset demands that we have unchanging belief in certain dogmatic truths. If our mindset changes on those subjects, then we are likely no longer part of the religion we claimed to be.

Fastforward to 32:15 and watch from there to the end.
The Uniqueness of Humans | Dr. Robert Sapolsky Class Day Lecture 2009 - YouTube

If you still disagree, that's your prerogative. I just have a different mindset than you.

I agree. But can the Pope stand before the world and say, "I accept Jesus as my Savior and my God, unless new evidence presents itself"?

He doesn't need to do that, and he has opened his mind to science already.

What does it mean to be a Christian? It means: "Belief in God and belief in the divinity of Jesus"...(in a nutshell). If you and your friend disagreed on those fundamental tenets, one of you would not be a Christian.

You misconstrued what I explained to you. I never stated that we disagreed on those fundamental tenets, and in fact explained that we both agree upon them and have those same core beliefs. What I said was that we disagree on many of the other aspects of Christianity that are built up upon those tenets. For the past two millenniums there have been numerous disagreements about how to interpret key scriptures and hundreds of denominations primarily established because of those disagreements, but most have had the common denominator of faith in God and the divinity of Jesus.

There's tons more built upon those foundations, but as you say, both those are the foundations for a reason. Everything else is just personal philosophy.

Personal philosophy and religious beliefs are intertwined for many people.

What would convince you that Christianity is false?

What would convince you that it is true or false? What is your religious belief, and why? And why would you care what mine is?

Once again, it seems that we are talking past one another.

Then keep up. (I'm saying that in a cheerfully teasing way, not an antagonistic one)

"essential basics" is what I equate with "religious thinking". You can change your mind on creationism and social justice and political leanings and homosexuality all you want...but fundamentally deep down you aren't really open to changing your opinion on "essential basics". That's the religious thinking that I'm referring to.

What if "letting your faith grow" meant losing it?

It's what YOU equate. It's not the universal equation.

What if letting your faith grow also means letting it become wiser? What if you lose your faith only to find it again? What if, what if, what if. Whatever.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

The conflict does not exist if one "includes" the other one: No matter how fluid is science, its understanding is always included in a religion.

Religion includes science. This is generally true for religion. It is particularly true for Christianity.

 

[Paradoxum]

What are these unchanging beliefs?

I was just using the phrasing used in the first post. That probably isn't the right way to describe it though.

 

[WindStaff]

Science, and biases of scientists. The vast majority of people simply do not differentiate the two. They just assert what the scientists reveal and adopt their bias as their own.

This is the default route society will take when one takes God out of the picture. On other words, the heroes of evolution aren't even the evolutionists, but secular progressionists. That's why the bias has grown and swayed, down to the tiniest fluctuation, with them.
It is their theory, resulted by their abitrary opposition to God and His revelations.

It has been demonstrably shown from Darwin to now that scientists are unwilling to accept God, and will go as far as to call a theory a fact- which is utterly unscientific in and of itself, to put that bias to others.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Science, and biases of scientists. The vast majority of people simply do not differentiate the two. They just assert what the scientists reveal and adopt their bias as their own.

This is the default route society will take when one takes God out of the picture. On other words, the heroes of evolution aren't even the evolutionists, but secular progressionists. That's why the bias has grown and swayed, down to the tiniest fluctuation, with them.
It is their theory, resulted by their abitrary opposition to God and His revelations.

It has been demonstrably shown from Darwin to now that scientists are unwilling to accept God, and will go as far as to call a theory a fact- which is utterly unscientific in and of itself, to put that bias to others.

"I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it... and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it's a good thing too." - Steven Weinberg

 

[WindStaff]

"I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it... and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it's a good thing too." - Steven Weinberg

I don't expect you to understand that technology has brought no good to the world because for everyhing good, it has brought just as much bad with it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't expect you to understand that technology has brought no good to the world because for everyhing good, it has brought just as much bad with it.

Do you see the irony in using a computer to post this comment to the internet?

 

[single eye]

If we want our efforts to produce more satisfying answers requires better questions. We have spent enought time attempting to answering the who, what, when, where, how, and why questions. It is time to learn to find the answers to the so what question.

 

[WindStaff]

Do you see the irony in using a computer to post this comment to the internet?

No, I don't. Because someone in this world has and will kill theirself due to internet bullying. People are being stalked, there's a gargantuan black market among other things in the unidexed underworld of the internetz..

My post is perfectly valid.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I don't. Because someone in this world has and will kill theirself due to internet bullying. People are being stalked, there's a gargantuan black market among other things in the unidexed underworld of the internetz..

My post is perfectly valid.

So people weren't being bullied or stalked prior to the creation of the internet? It's all the fault of the internet?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't expect you to understand that technology has brought no good to the world because for everyhing good, it has brought just as much bad with it.

The question at hand is not whether technology is good, but whether science is correct. To the extent that technology works, it is evidence that the science on which it is based is correct.

 

[Cearbhall]

"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 was raised Catholic and I was taught that religious truth doesn't change, but our knowledge of it does. Obviously the Church was wrong in the past about the Sun revolving around the Earth, for example. There's no problem with saying that the Church was wrong about something. We know better now. Religion is a journey to find the truth, so yes, beliefs can change without a problem. To refuse to look at new evidence is to close oneself to the truth.

 

[True Scotsman]

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.

The two are based on contradictory fundamental principles. Religion on the primacy of consciousness principle-that things are what they are and do what they do because a consciousness wills it so-and science on the primacy of existence principle-that things are what they are and do what they do independent of any conscious will. They are not compatible in any way. The only way to reconcile them is to drop the distinction between the real and the imaginary. This is the stock in trade of religion. It is its purpose and method.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

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"

There is the error. Neither of the two assumptions are true.

"Religious thinking demands unchanging belief..."

Really? So how does a Christian change between being an Arminian and a Calvinist? How does a Christian change from basing one's righteousness on works to basing one's righteousness on Grace?

How does one change one's understanding of the Bible from an Earth-centered to a Sun-centered concept of the Solar System?

Clearly, by realizing one's initial belief of what the Bible says is incorrect. Then adhering to what the Bible really says. By casting off the unconscious blind-faith loyalty to Mom or Dad or Reverend Sourpuss or the Pope or writings of C. S. Lewis and facing up to Biblical truth.

...scientific thinking demands the ability to change your beliefs"

Just change them? How often? Daily? Whenever one bathes? Every birthday? At random intervals, marked by seeing a certain person manning the trash truck?

You neglected the phrase "... upon new evidence".

There can be no "commitment" in science.

Error again. Most scientists have a commitment to finding the ultimate answer in a discipline or field. You are confusing 'commitment to misunderstanding or incompleteness' with 'commitment to understanding, no matter what'.

The religious mindset demands commitment, does it not?

Don't confuse 'religious' with 'Christian'. Are are you suggesting Christians must all 'commit' to an Earth-centered Universe, taught and ordained as Biblically inspired in the early Middle Ages and prior?

God does not demand 'commitment' to known fallacies. Regardless of Mom, Dad or Reverend Sourpuss. Or Mohammed.

There are those who misuse science in various ways just as there are those who misuse both the Bible and Christianity. A blind faith, non-thinking 'commitment' to a bad idea is good for neither science or Christianity.