Conflict between religion and science

[Archaeopteryx]

I asked you what I did in the hopes that you would come up with something other than the Galileo affair.

While I wait for you to furnish me with examples of those parts of history that indicate Christianity was a hindrance to scientific progress, I will ask that you explain why you think the Galileo affair was an instance where Christianity hindered science.

One need not look far into history for examples of religion hindering science, Christianity included. In fact, one need only look across the country, to Ken Ham's Creation museum; to creationists systematically degrading the school curriculum in an effort to "teach both" evolution and creationism; to dubious objections to stem cell research; and to the hollow promises of faith healers.

The Galileo affair is one example of where a thinker was accused of heresy because his or her thinking was not in line with Church doctrine. In case you wondered whether the problem were merely confined to the Catholic church, here is what Martin Luther had to say on the causes of illness: "Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads…" Helpful, or a hindrance to science?

Certain religious mindsets are indeed antagonistic and unconducive towards science. I already stated this.

Religion seeks to answer the fundamental questions posed by sentient human beings. Science is one of several methods at the disposal of said beings which allows them to acquire knowledge of the natural world in which they exist. Some religions are inherently unconducive to this method. They may stress for instance that there is no need to engage in scientific pursuits due to the fact that the natural world can never really be understood for what it is. They may stress that nature is sacred and must not be profaned by inordinate curiosity and spurious experimentation. They may stress, as many animist religions which still exist in Africa, that nature should be feared and worshiped and never subjected to the prying eyes and inquisitive minds of mere mortals.

These views and those like them are conspicuously absent from the views presented to us in the New Testament. In the latter we have an omnipotent, omniscient Creator bringing into existence a natural world of order and beauty with a specific end in mind. We have a loving Creator creating man in His own image and likeness and who is the one upholding and sustaining all that is by His mighty power. We have order, we have purpose, we have meaning, we have intention, and we have God back of it all who is the very grounds for the justification for what we call "induction" in the first place.

You are still confusing the issue. The argument was not over whether Christianity in particular is antagonistic toward science - in some respects, it clearly is; in others, not so much. Instead, the point centred on how being religiously committed to an idea differs from being scientifically committed. leftrightleftrightleft's posts provide further clarification.

It was the Judeo-Christian worldview that functioned as the womb wherein modern science as we know it was birthed and it was Christians who believed that there was a world of order and beauty that existed outside of themselves sustained by an unchanging God that were the catalysts for the spread of this thing we call science.

In fact sir, science is only possible for the one whose worldview can account for this grounding of induction.

So it is for good cause that when we hear atheists claim they do not believe in God we simply smile and recall what Paul says in Romans 1.

Anytime anyone uses inductive reasoning, they are assuming God exists. This means that everyone assumes God exists because everyone uses inductive reasoning. God has made life in such a way that reasoning itself is evidence of His existence. God is literally undeniable.

Has the rotten stench of presuppositional apologetics all over it.

 

[Skatterbrain]

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.

Meh, Christians change their beliefs all the time
before evolution it was believed that the story of adam and eve was literal. Now many christians believe that it was a metaphor. (and their entire recorded genealogy too, apparently)

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

One need not look far into history for examples of religion hindering science, Christianity included. In fact, one need only look across the country, to Ken Ham's Creation museum; to creationists systematically degrading the school curriculum in an effort to "teach both" evolution and creationism; to dubious objections to stem cell research; and to the hollow promises of faith healers.

How does Ken Ham's Creation Museum serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?

Why are creationist efforts to "teach both" evolution and creationism an example of a "systematic degradation" of the school curriculum?

Once you answer this then answer the following:

How does creationists systematically degrading the school curriculum in an effort to "teach both" evolution and creationism serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?

What dubious objections to stem cell research are you referring to? How do they serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?

What hollow promises of faith healers are you referring to? How do they serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?

The Galileo affair is one example of where a thinker was accused of heresy because his or her thinking was not in line with Church doctrine.

The Galileo affair is one example of where a thinker was accused of heresy because his or her thinking was not in line with Catholic church doctrine.

Fixed that for you.

Now, how does the views of the Catholic church at the time of Galileo serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?

In case you wondered whether the problem were merely confined to the Catholic church, here is what Martin Luther had to say on the causes of illness: "Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads…" Helpful, or a hindrance to science?

Once again, how does Luther's views on illness serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?

You are still confusing the issue. The argument was not over whether Christianity in particular is antagonistic toward science - in some respects, it clearly is;

Then you should be able to clearly answer all of the questions I have put to you thus far, if the matter is as you say, clear.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How does Ken Ham's Creation Museum serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?

Why are creationist efforts to "teach both" evolution and creationism an example of a "systematic degradation" of the school curriculum?

Once you answer this then answer the following:

How does creationists systematically degrading the school curriculum in an effort to "teach both" evolution and creationism serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?

What dubious objections to stem cell research are you referring to? How do they serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?

What hollow promises of faith healers are you referring to? How do they serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?



The Galileo affair is one example of where a thinker was accused of heresy because his or her thinking was not in line with Catholic church doctrine.

Fixed that for you.

Now, how does the views of the Catholic church at the time of Galileo serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?

Once again, how does Luther's views on illness serve to support your contention that Christianity is a hindrance to science?

Then you should be able to clearly answer all of the questions I have put to you thus far, if the matter is as you say, clear.

Oh, I see what you intend to do here. No matter how I answer your questions, or what historical events I refer to, you are going to shift the goal posts on the term "Christianity" so as to avoid having to admit that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has sometimes hindered scientific progress. Sorry to disappoint you Jeremy, but I'm satisfied that the information I have provided sufficiently warrants the claims I've made on this matter, and I have no interest in indulging you in your silly game of pin the tail on the donkey.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

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.

Does the religious mindset require commitment? Yes. Is it set in stone? No.
I am 70 years old. I have studied the Scriptures for over 50 years now. As I have matured and delved ever deeper into my studies of the Scriptures over these many years, I have changed my thinking along some doctorial lines. I truly believe as we study, more and more is revealed unto us.

I use science in my work. I am an electrical design engineer. Science is not my God however. There is a proper place for science and a proper place for God. God created the laws of physics. Mathematics is the language of God.

 

[lesliedellow]

How do there manage to be religious scientists -some of them on here?

Unless you are a moron, it is not that difficult to adlopt different approaches depending upon the context.

 

[WindStaff]

How do there manage to be religious scientists -some of them on here?

Unless you are a moron, it is not that difficult to adlopt different approaches depending upon the context.

The UK, save Ireland, is probably the worst place to be religious because you cannot even follow your own canon of belief without being ridiculously criticized.
It's the bedrock of the modern worldview and you all know it.

 

[lesliedellow]

The UK, save Ireland, is probably the worst place to be religious because you cannot even follow your own canon of belief without being ridiculously criticized.
It's the bedrock of the modern worldview and you all know it.

In my experience most people in Britain couldn't care about religion, one way or the other. The militant atheists are a small minority.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Does the religious mindset require commitment? Yes. Is it set in stone? No.
I am 70 years old. I have studied the Scriptures for over 50 years now. As I have matured and delved ever deeper into my studies of the Scriptures over these many years, I have changed my thinking along some doctorial lines. I truly believe as we study, more and more is revealed unto us.

I use science in my work. I am an electrical design engineer. Science is not my God however. There is a proper place for science and a proper place for God. God created the laws of physics. Mathematics is the language of God.

+1

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Oh, I see what you intend to do here. No matter how I answer your questions, or what historical events I refer to, you are going to shift the goal posts on the term "Christianity" so as to avoid having to admit that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has sometimes hindered scientific progress.

I have already agreed with you that some religions are unconducive and even positively antagonistic towards scientific endeavors.

I just want to make sure you understand what it is you are arguing. You are wanting to argue that Christianity is a hindrance to science. That is what you began arguing. Not that the Catholic church or Martin Luther or Ken Ham were a hindrance to science. Heck, I can agree that the Catholic church's response to Galileo was a hindrance to science! I can even agree that Luther's comment about illness would have been a hindrance to science if he were able to propagate that view. And even if I were to agree that Ken Ham's efforts were a hindrance to science, none of this shows that Christianity is a hindrance to science. What it shows is that there are Christians who have different views and opinions regarding scientific endeavors and are not afraid of making their views known. And so what that these people may have tried to label their views as "orthodox" or "Christian" as if they were somehow representative of what a Christian would believe? It would still have to be shown that these men were actually acting in accordance with what Christianity teaches. But both testaments are conspicuously silent on the issue. Jesus never forbids anyone from learning more about the beautiful and marvelous world He created. We never see God commanding men not to study, not to learn, not to try and find out the what and how and why of things. We never see the disciples or apostles forbidding people to engage in scientific endeavors either. In fact, we find the apostles encouraging their brothers and sisters to persevere in the faith and to endure persecution. Quibbling over whether or not the sun was the center of the universe was simply not something high on the list of their priorities my friend! We see Jesus emphasizing that man's greatest need is not knowledge of nature, but knowledge of God. But this in no way hinders science! It is Jesus' way of showing us that if we are to have true knowledge, we must have our priorities in order and seek to know Him first.

Indeed there is much we can learn about a Ford motorcar by looking at the engine, taking it apart, seeing how the pistons move up and down as the spark plugs cause a small explosion in the engine block etc. etc, but there is only so much investigating and examining that we can do. But what if Henry Ford invites us to his office, sits down with us and tells us how he actually made the engine, what his inspiration was, and better yet, the why of the engine. Why he even made it in the first place and what its purpose was.

Would that not be awesome? That is what God invites us to do. To sit down, to reason with Him, and to see the natural world not just as some random collocation of atoms, but the handiwork of a marvelous and grand Creator who alone can give use true knowledge.

Sorry to disappoint you Jeremy, but I'm satisfied that the information I have provided sufficiently warrants the claims I've made on this matter, and I have no interest in indulging you in your silly game of pin the tail on the donkey.

You are satisfied with tinkering and examining the engine block. That is cool. I have found that having a relationship with the "Henry Ford of the universe" so to speak, is far more satisfying and fulfilling. And guess what? I know that in the ages to come, I will still be learning more and more for my God is infinite.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have already agreed with you that some religions are unconducive and even positively antagonistic towards scientific endeavors.

I just want to make sure you understand what it is you are arguing. You are wanting to argue that Christianity is a hindrance to science. That is what you began arguing. Not that the Catholic church or Martin Luther or Ken Ham were a hindrance to science. Heck, I can agree that the Catholic church's response to Galileo was a hindrance to science! I can even agree that Luther's comment about illness would have been a hindrance to science if he were able to propagate that view. And even if I were to agree that Ken Ham's efforts were a hindrance to science, none of this shows that Christianity is a hindrance to science. What it shows is that there are Christians who have different views and opinions regarding scientific endeavors and are not afraid of making their views known. And so what that these people may have tried to label their views as "orthodox" or "Christian" as if they were somehow representative of what a Christian would believe? It would still have to be shown that these men were actually acting in accordance with what Christianity teaches.

Wrong. It would merely need to be shown that they were acting in accordance to whatever they believe Christianity teaches, regardless of whether you or any other Christian agrees or disagrees. You may not agree with Ken Ham's views, but he is acting in accordance with what his particular version of Christianity teaches. As I suspected, your intention was to shift the goal posts all along.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Wrong. It would merely need to be shown that they were acting in accordance to whatever they believe Christianity teaches, regardless of whether you or any other Christian agrees or disagrees. You may not agree with Ken Ham's views, but he is acting in accordance with what his particular version of Christianity teaches. As I suspected, your intention was to shift the goal posts all along.

Ok, that is all you had to say to begin with.

Some Christians have been a hindrance to scientific endeavors because of their adherence to views which they thought were in line with the teachings of Christianity.

I agree.

See how easy that is?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok, that is all you had to say to begin with.

Some Christians have been a hindrance to scientific endeavors because of their adherence to views which they thought were in line with the teachings of Christianity.

I agree.

See how easy that is?

I'm glad to hear you agree that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has sometimes been a hindrance to scientific progress.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm glad to hear you agree that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has sometimes been a hindrance to scientific progress.

That is not what I said.

Sorry.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is not what I said.

Sorry.

Then what did you say?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Then what did you say?

Some Christians have been a hindrance to scientific endeavors because of their adherence to views which they thought were in line with the teachings of Christianity.

As I stated earlier, I cannot find anything in the Bible which teaches that we should hinder the pursuits of science.

I, like the many scientists who were and are Christians who have come before me and are alive today, have found in Christianity, a wonderful, loving, awesome Creator who has made a world brimming with life and mysteries and wonders for us to behold and dive into with confidence that we can know them as they are and as the work of His hands. We have grounds for induction and for believing that tomorrow when we rise from our beds that our feet will hit the ground and we will be planted firmly upon the earth just like we have in the days past and that the sun will rise and the birds will sing all because we have a good God who is faithful and sustains and causes these things to be so.

Great is thy faithfulness! proclaims the hymn writer. Morning by morning, new mercies I see.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Some Christians have been a hindrance to scientific endeavors because of their adherence to views which they thought were in line with the teachings of Christianity.

Every Christian believes that their views are "in line with the teachings of Christianity." As I said earlier, you may consider Ham's views a hindrance to science, but he doesn't see it as such. To him, and to those who think like him, your views are out of step with both science and Christianity. In his view, you're hindering both.

What you seem to want to do is to push Ken Ham, Luther, and the Galileo affair aside and say that they do not represent the authentic teachings of Christianity. The problem is that Christians cannot agree on what the "authentic" teachings are. Christianity is diverse, and there are some Christians whose religious ideas clearly hinder scientific progress. If you want to argue that their ideas are not in line with Christian teaching, then you're going to have to convince them of that, since they are just as likely to accuse you of the same.

As I stated earlier, I cannot find anything in the Bible which teaches that we should hinder the pursuits of science.

Yes, but you're not the only Christian, and not every Christian reads the Bible as you do.

 

[single eye]

The only way to prove cause & effect is by the process of elimination, not trial & error. The hard part is knowing the difference. The other hard part is knowing what all the variables are, the rest is easy.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Every Christian believes that their views are "in line with the teachings of Christianity."

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.

As I said earlier, you may consider Ham's views a hindrance to science, but he doesn't see it as such.

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.

To him, and to those who think like him, your views are out of step with both science and Christianity. In his view, you're hindering both.

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

What you seem to want to do is to push Ken Ham, Luther, and the Galileo affair aside and say that they do not represent the authentic teachings of Christianity.

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.

The problem is that Christians cannot agree on what the "authentic" teachings are. Christianity is diverse, and there are some Christians whose religious ideas clearly hinder scientific progress.

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.

If you were to say that Charles Taze Russell's views were a hindrance to science, guess what, I would agree with you!

He forbade people from getting blood transfusion for one, a command we simply do not see in the bible.

So if you were to say that, then I would heartily agree and call your attention to the fact that he was not acting in accordance with the teachings of Christianity.

If you want to argue that their ideas are not in line with Christian teaching, then you're going to have to convince them of that, since they are just as likely to accuse you of the same.

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.

Yes, but you're not the only Christian, and not every Christian reads the Bible as you do.

I agree, I am not the only Christian, and not every Christian reads the Bible as I do. I believe God will hold me to a higher standard than most because I have been given the gift of teaching. In fact, the scripture specifically warns against people presuming to be teachers for they shall be judged more harshly. So it is not something I take lightly at all. That is one reason why I study how I do, and day after day, I am learning that I have to rely not upon my own understanding, but upon God in Christ in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found.

 

[WindStaff]

Science is not something which belongs only to atheists. 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.

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.

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!