Does science changing cause religion a problem?

[Michael]

I was counting down until this response came from you Michael.

We are talking about religion, not science.

While changing science has a *direct* impact on science itself, it may or may *not* have any impact on any specific branch of religion. I'm simply noting that the more *likely* cause of friction/denial in terms of adopting change is likely to be other *scientists* and their attachment to their "pet science theories".

 

[bhsmte]

While changing science has a *direct* impact on science itself, it may or may *not* have any impact on any specific branch of religion. I'm simply noting that the more *likely* cause of friction/denial in terms of adopting change is likely to be other *scientists* and their attachment to their "pet science theories".

Michael, I used a very simple example, the TOE in this regard.

Decades and decades ago, the vast majority of religions did not accept the TOE because it went against their current religious beliefs and philosophies, would you agree?

Since that time, so much evidence has accumulated, that is has become untenable for most religious people to reject the TOE, and hence, the need for their beliefs and the religions themselves, to evolve.

I don't see how anyone can deny this simple fact.

 

[Merlin]

Depending on the brand of faith/religion one practices, will determine what problem science will provide for the same.

Religious beliefs as a general rule have had to adapt to what science has discovered over many many decades and people have adapted their views to accommodate the same. Others, who don't choose to accommodate science, go the route of; denial, confirmation bias and selective reasoning.

As more gaps continue to close because of science, more people will need to adapt their belief structure. Some will adapt and still believe, some will get to the point of not believing any longer and others will dig in and follow the denial, confirmation bias and selective reasoning path.

Long history of this and the pattern will continue.

It is true that religions need to change, however Christianity is a relationship and not a religion. Christianity does not change.

 

[bhsmte]

It is true that religions need to change, however Christianity is a relationship and not a religion. Christianity does not change.

We could argue until the cows come home as to whether Christianity is a religion or not. It certainly appears to meet the definition of a religion, but that is for another thread.

My point is directly related to the OP: does science changing cause religion a problem?

To me, it is quite clear; philosophies and beliefs that religions have held for a long time, have had to adapt and evolve because of scientific discoveries.

There are really three options for religious people to take when confronted with scientific evidence that a current religious belief is likely false:

-They can recognize the evidence and accept it and adjust their belief to accommodate the evidence.
-They can reject the evidence, because it goes against their current belief.
-They can come to conclude, that religious belief or belief in God has gotten to the point they can't go along with it anymore and they become a non-believer.

IMO, these three options, are happening all the time.

 

[HitchSlap]

literalist do not need to ignore reality. they only need to understand that what they believe may not be what the bible actually says.very often they are quoting tradition rather than bible.

So as long as literalists literally use reality to interpret scripture, they're ok?

 

[HitchSlap]

It is true that religions need to change, however Christianity is a relationship and not a religion. Christianity does not change.

A relationship with whom?

 

[Merlin]

A relationship with whom?

Christianity is a relationship with "Christ" or Jesus. That is how we get the term Christianity from the term Christ, which is a Greek title of Jesus.

 

[Merlin]

So as long as literalists literally use reality to interpret scripture, they're ok?

As long as we understand that reality is not always as science teaches.

 

[bhsmte]

As long as we understand that reality is not always as science teaches.

What do you base the realities of the universe we live in on?

 

[Michael]

Michael, I used a very simple example, the TOE in this regard.

Decades and decades ago, the vast majority of religions did not accept the TOE because it went against their current religious beliefs and philosophies, would you agree?

Sure. Darwin also me with skeptical "scientists" too wouldn't you agree?

Since that time, so much evidence has accumulated, that is has become untenable for most religious people to reject the TOE, and hence, the need for their beliefs and the religions themselves, to evolve.

I don't see how anyone can deny this simple fact.

I'm certainly not denying anything. Your example demonstrates a scenario where science *did* happen to come into conflict with some religious viewpoints. The Catholic religion "evolved" and adjusted to that new information as one might expect. Not every Protestant *individual* did so however, hence the tension between their religious and scientific viewpoints to this day.

Likewise some 'scientists' adapted to a non Earth centric view of the universe, and some ''scientists' probably went to their grave believing in 'epicycles', and that Earth was the center of the universe.

 

[Michael]

A relationship with whom?

Christ within.

 

[HitchSlap]

Christ within.

Please explain.

 

[Merlin]

What do you base the realities of the universe we live in on?

I find the bible to be quite okay so long as I remember that the bible is a book on the relationship between me and God and it is not meant as a science textbook.
I do study science but I do understand it has limitations also.
Even a peer reviewed double blind study is going to be limited by many factors including the editor of the journal who decides based on his own biases and beliefs what should be published.

 

[bhsmte]

I find the bible to be quite okay so long as I remember that the bible is a book on the relationship between me and God and it is not meant as a science textbook.
I do study science but I do understand it has limitations also.
Even a peer reviewed double blind study is going to be limited by many factors including the editor of the journal who decides based on his own biases and beliefs what should be published.

Ok, so you admit the bible is not a science book and is limited in explaining the realities of the natural world I gather. And, since your relationship with God is something personally subjective, that is not something that can be examined or verified beyond your own interpretations.

So, what do you do when confronted with scientific evidence that may go against the bible? Do you go with what the bible says, or do you recognize the bible is not a science book and accept the evidence?

 

[Merlin]

Ok, so you admit the bible is not a science book and is limited in explaining the realities of the natural world I gather. And, since your relationship with God is something personally subjective, that is not something that can be examined or verified beyond your own interpretations.

So, what do you do when confronted with scientific evidence that may go against the bible? Do you go with what the bible says, or do you recognize the bible is not a science book and accept the evidence?

I have not found science to conflict with the bible.

 

[bhsmte]

I have not found science to conflict with the bible.

You then accept established scientific theories like evolution to be correct?

 

[Merlin]

You then accept established scientific theories like evolution to be correct?

I do not accept evolution for reasons other than the bible.

 

[bhsmte]

I do not accept evolution for reasons other than the bible.

What reasons would those be?

And, do you think evolution conflicts with the bible?

 

[Merlin]

What reasons would those be?

And, do you think evolution conflicts with the bible?

Something that contains the information and structure of the DNA molecule from random chance is just NOT acceptable to me.
I think that evolution conflicts with reason.

 

[bhsmte]

Something that contains the information and structure of the DNA molecule from random chance is just NOT acceptable to me.
I think that evolution conflicts with reason.

Well, through reason, many biologists have been able to figure out how evolution happened and the theory has mountains of evidence to support what it states, regardless of whether you think it doesn't make sense.

Do you think you know more about how evolution claims to work than PHD level biologists?