Conflict between religion and science

[Archaeopteryx]

Science is not something which belongs only to atheists.

No one ever claimed that it was.

They neither invented it nor have authority of it. It is not even a thing or concept to be had.

What it is, is simply knowledge. And knowledge is not made of concept, but fact.

And this makes it very easy for people to claim something as knowledge rather then a worldview. Evolutionists have done exactly that- for all the pointing of the finger to the religious.

The theory of evolution is no more then a worldview. It is a concept of no divine work of creating life, based on evidences that are not backed on the most important things needed- a factual conclusion of causation itself and an incontrovertible explanation of producing what it proposes.

No, evolution is not a worldview. It is a theory that explains the biodiversity we observe on our planet.

Intelligent design is a very real problem for evolution, one only needs to sit back and think about it- if the universe can produce life from stardust, then we should be seeing primordial soups all over the place producing complex systems.
But we don't. It's virtually non-existent.

Not only is ID not science, it's not even junk science.

You seem to be confusing evolution for abiogenesis.

Or here's even another one- scientists fixing their flat tires with chewing gum:
Mathematically there should be 78 civilizations in the Milky Way alone. There's completely nothing to support this supposed certainty no matter how much we look up and send our signals, so lo and behold, let's call it a paradox. Problem solved!

Who said that it was a certainty?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The forum was slow and I was perusing this thread and saw your post so I will take the time to address it as best as I can.

I think I get your point above. To be as precise as I can, I think I would say that most Christians believe their views are orthodox i.e. in line with the teachings of Christianity, i.e. Biblical. The reason why I think the word every is too strong is because I can envision some Christians out there who believe their views about certain things are unbiblical but don't care. Here I envision the back-slidden or carnal, fleshly Christian. I at one point in the past would have fit in that category.

But for the most part I can agree with what you say.



I do not know what his views are. For the sake of brevity, I won't disagree that Ham does not see his views as a hindrance to science.



Once again, I will agree for the sake of brevity.

Okay.

I will not comment on Luther's views because I have not delved into a comparative analysis of his views. As for Ken Ham, I had never heard of him until you mentioned him so I will also not comment on his views.

As for the Catholic priest's responses to Galileo, I will unashamedly maintain that their views were not representative of the authentic teachings of Christianity.

Okay, but it's not me you have to convince here.

Bingo Archaeopteryx! You hit the nail right on the hand and that is what I wanted you to understand more than anything.

I agree with everything you said here and that was my point in my previous post.

It is far easier to defend a position if you pin it down and are precise and specific. For example, it would be far easier for you to say that Charles Taze Russell's views were a hindrance to science than to say something like, "Christianity is a hindrance to science." One claim is specific and one claim is hopelessly vague, indistinct, and indeterminate; especially if, as you admit, Christianity is diverse.

Importantly, I don't think I said that "Christianity is a hindrance to science." As I recall, I qualified that statement appropriately by adding in "sometimes," in view of the fact that Christianity has not always, and does not always, hinder science. You seem to be under the impression that I claimed that Christianity is intrinsically a hindrance to science. I made no such claim. Arguably, certain versions of Christianity are intrinsically inimical to science, but given that Christianity is a diverse religion, it would be wrong to generalise that to every denomination.

I am ready, willing, and able to speak with those who claim their beliefs are Biblical but really are not with meekness and fear. I have done so in the past, and will do so if I am called to in the future, always endeavoring to make sure that I myself am not in error by relying upon the light and illumination of the Holy Spirit to lead me and guide me into all truth and studying diligently and humbly the inspired word of God as my standard.

I'm glad you understand then that it's not me you have to convince here, it's your fellow Christians. I suspect you will encounter problems, however, given that your fellow Christians probably feel that they too are relying upon the illumination of the Holy Spirit to guide their interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm glad you understand then that it's not me you have to convince here, it's your fellow Christians. I suspect you will encounter problems, however, given that your fellow Christians probably feel that they too are relying upon the illumination of the Holy Spirit to guide their interpretation of Scripture.

There are tests to determine whether or not people are relying upon the illumination of the Holy Spirit to guide their interpretation of Scripture.

Jesus gave us the test. He said a tree is known by the fruit it bears. He said there would be many wolves in sheep's clothing and that there would come a time when men would hold to a form of godliness but deny its power.

Jesus knew that there would be those among His flock that would twist His words and interpret them wrong, intentionally or unintentionally, the test works.

Take in hand any number of men and women who have claimed to be inspired by God who have come and gone. Simply look at the fruit they bore.

A tree is known by the fruit it bears.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There are tests to determine whether or not people are relying upon the illumination of the Holy Spirit to guide their interpretation of Scripture.

Jesus gave us the test. He said a tree is known by the fruit it bears. He said there would be many wolves in sheep's clothing and that there would come a time when men would hold to a form of godliness but deny its power.

Jesus knew that there would be those among His flock that would twist His words and interpret them wrong, intentionally or unintentionally, the test works.

Take in hand any number of men and women who have claimed to be inspired by God who have come and gone. Simply look at the fruit they bore.

A tree is known by the fruit it bears.

This doesn't seem like a very good test. It simply shifts the disagreement to whether the fruits are good or bad with reference to the Scripture, the very subject of the disagreement in the first place.

 

[WindStaff]

You seem to be confusing evolution for abiogenesis.

No I am not. There is no point in even noting the difference.

And this is exactly the sort of nonsense that proves my points. You apparently haven't given much thought considering you completely separate abiogenesis and evolution.
Did you think evolution came from nothing? Did it just form animals one day without a natural genesis? Then guess what, you believe in God.

 

[bhsmte]

No I am not. There is no point in even noting the difference.

And this is exactly the sort of nonsense that proves my points. You apparently haven't given much thought considering you completely separate abiogenesis and evolution.
Did you think evolution came from nothing? Did it just form animals one day without a natural genesis? Then guess what, you believe in God.

Why don't you read what the theory states and get back with us.

 

[WindStaff]

Why don't you read what the theory states and get back with us.

If you can't explain where life came from, and evolution itself has issues, then your theory of evolution sits on arbitrary assumption. The evidences are just confirming biases.

Evolution stands way better as a worldview then anything else. There is a reason why Einstein and Darwin are not comparable to each other.

Get back to me when you all can actually face these dilemmas and pretending like evolution is 'proven fact'.

 

[bhsmte]

If you can't explain where life came from, and evolution itself has issues, then your theory of evolution sits on arbitrary assumption.

Get back to me when you all can actually face these dilemmas and pretending like evolution is 'proven fact'.

Get back to us when you can address the specifics of what evolution states and avoid the typical biblical creationist straw man arguments.

We will wait patiently.

 

[WindStaff]

Get back to us when you can address the specifics of what evolution states and avoid the typical biblical creationist straw man arguments.

We will wait patiently.

This isn't a classroom, this is me telling you that evolution is a worldview and not a fact.

 

[bhsmte]

This isn't a classroom, this is me telling you that evolution is a worldview and not a fact.

You can claim whatever you like, knock yourself out.

What you seem to have difficulty with, is showing us you understand what the TOE actually states, but display a need to manufacture your own reality of the TOE, which you can not support with any evidence.

 

[Tree of Life]

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 activity of science has all sorts of theological and philosophical commitments built into it. Here's a few:

1. The uniformity of nature - this is a philosophical assumption.
2. Empiricism as an epistemology. There's nothing scientific about empiricism. Empiricism is the basis of science, not the result of science.
3. The moral demand that we only believe what can be verified empirically. There's nothing scientific about this. It's purely moral.
4. The basic reliability of our cognitive faculties. We've got to assume that our sense experience and rationality are somewhat reliable. There's nothing scientific about this.
5. The existence of God. Science assumes that the world is orderly, consistent, and intelligable. This presupposes an intelligence behind the universe. Without theism science has no basis.

 

[Davian]

The activity of science has all sorts of theological and philosophical commitments built into it. Here's a few:

1. The uniformity of nature - this is a philosophical assumption.

Or, a tentative conclusion based on observations.

2. Empiricism as an epistemology. There's nothing scientific about empiricism. Empiricism is the basis of science, not the result of science.

If not for science, how would we know that empiricism works?

3. The moral demand that we only believe what can be verified empirically. There's nothing scientific about this. It's purely moral.

I make no such demand. However, if you are going to assert something as an accurate description of reality, then you should be able to substantiate that assertion.

4. The basic reliability of our cognitive faculties. We've got to assume that our sense experience and rationality are somewhat reliable. There's nothing scientific about this.

Our sense experience and rationality are demonstrably unreliable, hence the need for and success of scientific methodology.

5. The existence of God. Science assumes that the world is orderly, consistent, and intelligable.

Which god? From what I have read, the world of the God of the bible stories is not orderly, consistent, or intelligible. Seas can be parted, mountains can be moved, virgins get pregnant, and the very much dead can get up and walk around. How can you trust what is under your microscope to be consistent in a world such as that? What if prayer is affecting your experiments? What if someone is praying for different results?

This presupposes an intelligence behind the universe. Without theism science has no basis.

Like a fish without a bicycle.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

This doesn't seem like a very good test. It simply shifts the disagreement to whether the fruits are good or bad with reference to the Scripture, the very subject of the disagreement in the first place.

No. It shifts the focus to people's actions.

The disciples of Christ loved and prayed for their enemies. Muhammad's followers behead theirs.

For example...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. It shifts the focus to people's actions.

The disciples of Christ loved and prayed for their enemies. Muhammad's followers behead theirs.

For example...

How does a Christian's actions "test" for whether or not they believe in the authentic teachings?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This isn't a classroom, this is me telling you that evolution is a worldview and not a fact.

Yes, I know, we can see that. Until you present a worthwhile case, we dismiss it too.

 

[Cearbhall]

This isn't a classroom, this is me telling you that evolution is a worldview and not a fact.

That's a fascinating point of view, but not one that I can accept. I have no idea how you can think that a scientific theory is a paradigm.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

How does a Christian's actions "test" for whether or not they believe in the authentic teachings?

The test is looking at the fruit.

If the fruit is the same kind of fruit Jesus and His disciples produced then they are the same tree. If not , then its a different tree.

Does one gather grapes from a thorn bush?

 

[bhsmte]

The test is looking at the fruit.

If the fruit is the same kind of fruit Jesus and His disciples produced then they are the same tree. If not , then its a different tree.

Does one gather grapes from a thorn bush?

Who grades the test for pass/fail?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Who grades the test for pass/fail?

The sons and daughters of God. For all those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The activity of science has all sorts of theological and philosophical commitments built into it. Here's a few:

[*]The uniformity of nature - this is a philosophical assumption.

The scientific method doesn't assume this. It is based upon what has been observed. The uniformity of nature is a results of the scientific method not an assumption for it. Unless you want to argue for Last Thursdayism

[*]Empiricism as an epistemology. There's nothing scientific about empiricism. Empiricism is the basis of science, not the result of science.

"If not for science, how would we know that empiricism works?" - Davian

Empiricism and the scientific method are very-nearly synonyms. I'll re-write your above quote and you'll see how they are synonyms and how the above quote is somewhat circular:

"The scientific method as an epistemology. There's nothing scientific about the scientific method. The scientific method is the basis of science, not the result of science."

[*]The moral demand that we only believe what can be verified empirically. There's nothing scientific about this. It's purely moral.

I don't see how this is a moral demand. People can believe whatever they want.

[*]The basic reliability of our cognitive faculties. We've got to assume that our sense experience and rationality are somewhat reliable. There's nothing scientific about this.

The scientific method has shown that our cognitive faculties are actually incredibly unreliable.

If you are referring to the "brain in a jar" issue, then I agree. But that is not an assumption of the scientific method, that is an assumption of humanity.

[*]The existence of God. Science assumes that the world is orderly, consistent, and intelligable. This presupposes an intelligence behind the universe. Without theism science has no basis.

How do you know that the "God-less" universe would not be orderly, consistent and intelligible?

(I guess if empiricism isn't one of your epistemological assumptions, you could just "know" this because the bogeyman told you...and I'm just supposed to take your word for it??).