Conflict between religion and science

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Changing from one belief that must not be questioned to another that also must not be questioned is not much of an improvement. People can and do change in the dogmas they believe in. That does not change the nature of dogma itself however.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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.

This is a great talk by Sapolsky. I watched it before some time ago but thanks for bringing it back to my attention

I fail to see what it has to do with the topic though.

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

Again, you're not really understanding what I'm saying. And perhaps, looking back, it is because my OP is somewhat misleading. I'm not "really" talking about "science" and "religion". I'm talking about "scientific mindset" vs. "religious mindset". And it seems that, fundamentally, to hold to a religion, you must, on some level, disregard other options.

For example, do you read the Bible every night? What about the Quran? The Upanishads? Tao Te Ching?

What does it mean to be a Christian to you specifically?

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.

We are really having a hard time communicating! And I still feel as though we are talking past one another.

I know you said you didn't disagree on those fundamental tenets. But (as I said in my previous post), if you did, then one of you would not be a Christian, by definition.

Again, what does it mean to be a Christian?

For the past two thousand years there has been a great multiplying of interpretations of Christianity, but at its core the central tenets have remained essentially unchanged: God exists, Jesus is divine, Jesus died for a supernatural purpose.

What does the word "Christian" even mean if you remove those tenets?

Personal philosophy and religious beliefs are intertwined for many people.

Yes of course. And that was precisely the point I was making. But beneath all that personal philosophy is a rigid and unchanging belief about the world which you can't truly question. For if you question that, then you will lose your faith, by definition.

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?

This is a forum for talking to people. I don't think I really need a particular reason to have interest in people's belief systems on this forum.

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

I'm not sure why, but we constantly seem to be talking past one another and repeating ourselves. Sometimes communication is hard.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

I ate turkey in October. (I'm Canadian )

But I hope you had a great thanksgiving

 

[variant]

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

Do you really think religious thinking remains unchanged though? That would be a remarkable conclusion given what we know about history and religion. The mechanism for change must simply be different.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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?

See Archaeopteryx's comment.

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.

Thank you for highlighting my point.

You won't question the idea the Bible is truth. That is religious thinking at work.

Maybe the Bible is part of the "blind faith" which you rail against. Perhaps, to take your own advice, you should step back and look at whether the Bible is actually relevant or important to the discussion of truth.

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".

Um, I said it right here: "The scientific mindset demands us to be able to evaluate a situation and change our mind if new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves"

But you conveniently glossed over that…for what?

Error again. Most scientists have a commitment to finding the ultimate answer in a discipline or field.

No they don't. No scientist I've ever met is seeking the "ultimate answer" in a field. Science depends on incompleteness. Each answer you find should open the door to a thousand new questions. If you reach a "dead end" in science where you've "discovered all there is to know", then you are doing something wrong. In fact, you're probably thinking religiously…thinking you found "ultimate unchanging truth".

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?

No, that isn't what I'm suggesting and I have no idea at all where you got the idea that I would be suggesting that.

A blind faith, non-thinking 'commitment' to a bad idea is good for neither science or Christianity.

Precisely.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I was raised Catholic and I was taught that religious truth doesn't change, but our knowledge of it does.

Why did you insert the word "religious" into that sentence?

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.

How much can beliefs change before the word "Christian" ceases to mean anything?

As I said before, what if that "journey to find truth" means "discovering Christianity is false"?

 

[Davian]

Do you really think religious thinking remains unchanged though? That would be a remarkable conclusion given what we know about history and religion. The mechanism for change must simply be different.

The mechanism for *consensus* is different. Scientific consensus is evidence based.

If the basis for a religion is untestable and unfalsifiable, you are left with opinion. I would expect opinions to change over time as we gain more knowledge, hand down rituals to the next generation, move to different areas, and encounter other peoples. Religious dogma is reinterpreted, and if differences of opinion cannot be resolved, there are few options: split into new groups/religions, or violence. Change happens, but differently.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

This is a great talk by Sapolsky. I watched it before some time ago but thanks for bringing it back to my attention

I fail to see what it has to do with the topic though.

Your premise seems to be that one cannot have both a scientific mindset and a religious mindset; that they are fundamentally incompatible. He is explaining a duality of thought and the ability to simultaneously believe in two contradictory things or hold two seemingly conflicting mindsets in harmony with one another.

Again, you're not really understanding what I'm saying. And perhaps, looking back, it is because my OP is somewhat misleading. I'm not "really" talking about "science" and "religion". I'm talking about "scientific mindset" vs. "religious mindset". And it seems that, fundamentally, to hold to a religion, you must, on some level, disregard other options.

I've understood what you were saying all along, but I've disagreed with you. There's a difference.

We are really having a hard time communicating! And I still feel as though we are talking past one another.

Eh. Well we don't have to worry about it any longer because I'm unsubscribing after hitting submit. Please don't take offense. You seem like a personally nice dude, but this this isn't a fulfilling or engaging conversation, and I'm just here now because I'm trapped in the middle of nowhere for the holiday and I'm bored. But this is more boring than my previous state of being bored. I actually am taking a philosophy and neuroscience class right now so I don't have to come here to get an itch for it scratched. I hope you have an enjoyable conversation with others. Peace out!

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

I assume from your OP that you are primarily speaking of evolution? The problem with those scientists who put forth the theories of evolution is that they do not own and are not the sole beneficiaries of mathematics. Were that the case and they were the only ones privy to mathematics, they might be home free with their theories. Thankfully, mathematics is on the open market and accessible to all.

The truth is glaring that most of the evolution theories range from the overwhelming to the almost virtually impossibility of mathematical probability.

 

[Davian]

I assume from your OP that you are primarily speaking of evolution? The problem with those scientists who put forth the theories of evolution is that they do not own and are not the sole beneficiaries of mathematics. Were that the case and they were the only ones privy to mathematics, they might be home free with their theories. Thankfully, mathematics is on the open market and accessible to all.

The truth is glaring that most of the evolution theories range from the overwhelming to the almost virtually impossibility of mathematical probability.

Show your math.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

Show your math.

You know my keyboard won't allow me to type out equations. I can search the internet and locate some websites for you that can give you some probability figures and argument if you want me to but you could do that as well as I can.

Here's a real good article to start you off with. It's easy to comprehend

Sorry but they won't let me post a link because I'm new here. I'll type it out and you can add the www

icr.org/article/493/

Read it and then disprove it. I showed you mine. You show me yours.

 

[Davian]

You know my keyboard won't allow me to type out equations. I can search the internet and locate some websites for you that can give you some probability figures and argument if you want me to but you could do that as well as I can.

Here's a real good article to start you off with. It's easy to comprehend

Sorry but they won't let me post a link because I'm new here. I'll type it out and you can add the www

icr.org/article/493/

Read it and then disprove it. I showed you mine. You show me yours.

The “Tornado in a Junkyard” Fallacy.

Also, the false dichotomy fallacy (if the theory of evolution were to be falsified, it would in no way be evidence for the existence of gods).

The error on your page occurs here, at "Multiplying all these numbers together, "

That is not how evolution works. I prefer the bank vault analogy:

(my bold)

"Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step. That would be like having the almost infinite luck to hit upon the combination number that opens a large bank vault. But if you spun the dials of the lock at random, and every time you got a little bit closer to the lucky number the vault door creaked open another chink, you would soon have the door open! Essentially, that is the secret of how evolution by natural selection achieves what once seemed impossible. Things that cannot plausibly be derived from very different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only slightly different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently long series of such slightly different predecessors, you can derive anything from anything else.

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God. But is there any evidence that evolution actually has happened? The answer is yes; the evidence is overwhelming. Millions of fossils are found in exactly the places and at exactly the depths that we should expect if evolution had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found in any place where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this could very easily have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would be enough to disprove the evolution theory."

The Improbability of God

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

changing from any system that is faulty to any other system that is faulty won't help anyone.

whoever has the Son has life (eternal life),
whoever has not the Son, has not life.

it really is that simple. Yhvh willing, you must seek Yhvh to have life some day. (those who trust in Him and have faith in His Son and rely on Him have never been and cannot be disappointed).

(and, since all things were created through Him, He's the One to ask about all things. NO ONE ELSE will nor can show or teach you the truth unquestionably. again, simple)

Changing from one belief that must not be questioned to another that also must not be questioned is not much of an improvement. People can and do change in the dogmas they believe in. That does not change the nature of dogma itself however.

 

[Cearbhall]

Why did you insert the word "religious" into that sentence?

Because the topic at hand is truths that have to do with religion. This is also true for other truths, by definition, but we're talking about religion.

How much can beliefs change before the word "Christian" ceases to mean anything?

As I said before, what if that "journey to find truth" means "discovering Christianity is false"?

Then that's that. It wouldn't be the first time. Humanity largely had to leave other religions behind in order to adopt Christianity and other monotheistic religions. It's silly and counter-intuitive to refuse to look at new evidence simply because you're afraid you might be wrong.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

The “Tornado in a Junkyard” Fallacy.

Also, the false dichotomy fallacy (if the theory of evolution were to be falsified, it would in no way be evidence for the existence of gods).

The error on your page occurs here, at "Multiplying all these numbers together, "

That is not how evolution works. I prefer the bank vault analogy:

(my bold)

"Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step. That would be like having the almost infinite luck to hit upon the combination number that opens a large bank vault. But if you spun the dials of the lock at random, and every time you got a little bit closer to the lucky number the vault door creaked open another chink, you would soon have the door open! Essentially, that is the secret of how evolution by natural selection achieves what once seemed impossible. Things that cannot plausibly be derived from very different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only slightly different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently long series of such slightly different predecessors, you can derive anything from anything else.

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God. But is there any evidence that evolution actually has happened? The answer is yes; the evidence is overwhelming. Millions of fossils are found in exactly the places and at exactly the depths that we should expect if evolution had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found in any place where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this could very easily have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would be enough to disprove the evolution theory."

[You nailed the hard truth of it all right there. Evolution is a theory and not a proven science. Science cannot in and of itself prove anything. Science can only disprove things. Mathematics says it cannot work.

 

[Davian]

You nailed the hard truth of it all right there. Evolution is a theory and not a proven science.

The "only a theory fallacy".

"Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record." wiki

Science cannot in and of itself prove anything. Science can only disprove things.

I am glad you are here to set us right on these things. Gravitational theory, atomic theory, germ theory, semiconductor theory. Your computer doesn't actually work, it is a scam to put money into the pocket of Steve Jobs.

Mathematics says it cannot work.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

If your plan here is to work your way through the entire Big Book of Fallacies, head on over to the Physical & Life Sciences forum, and jump right in.

Welcome to CF!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

changing from any system that is faulty to any other system that is faulty won't help anyone.

whoever has the Son has life (eternal life),
whoever has not the Son, has not life.

it really is that simple. Yhvh willing, you must seek Yhvh to have life some day. (those who trust in Him and have faith in His Son and rely on Him have never been and cannot be disappointed).

(and, since all things were created through Him, He's the One to ask about all things. NO ONE ELSE will nor can show or teach you the truth unquestionably. again, simple)

The problem is that many believers are under the strong impression that they have been taught "the truth unquestionably" by God, yet the content of their belief - of "the truth unquestionably" - differs between them, often in very significant ways. Each will insist that, if you sincerely seek God, you will arrive at exactly the same beliefs as he or she holds, and that you will not question those beliefs. Consider this from an outsider's perspective for a moment and you will see what the problem is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You nailed the hard truth of it all right there. Evolution is a theory and not a proven science.

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

Science cannot in and of itself prove anything. Science can only disprove things.

Where's the proof in science? There is none

Mathematics says it cannot work.

What do you mean? You appear to be suggesting that it is highly improbable to leap from no eye to an eye in a single bound. That's right; that is extremely improbable. As Davian already elucidated, however, that's not how evolution works.

 

[Cearbhall]

The problem is that many believers are under the strong impression that they have been taught "the truth unquestionably" by God, yet the content of their belief - of "the truth unquestionably" - differs between them, often in very significant ways. Each will insist that, if you sincerely seek God, you will arrive at exactly the same beliefs as he or she holds, and that you will not question those beliefs. Consider this from an outsider's perspective for a moment and you will see what the problem is.

I think it may be difficult for someone who isn't an outsider to see the problem. That seems to be the problem itself. I've gone in circles with people in many a thread.

 

[Liberation]

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 idea that there is a conflict between religion and science is a philosophical notion. It's based on the belief that there is nothing or only somethings that are truly knowable. Science works on the belief that truth can only be attained through what is repeatable. Religion is about meaning found through divine revelation.

In terms of what you are saying here, both science and faith function in the same way. Science is based on faith of what is already known and attempts to expand on that. Faith is based on what is already known/believed and attempts to expand on that.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Changing from one belief that must not be questioned to another that also must not be questioned is not much of an improvement.

That might mean something IF there were any truth in the premise. There isn't, so your conclusion is not only wrong, it's silly.