Jump to content

Reconciling science and religion


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 396
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Most of your posts are also nonsense most of the time because I realize you really post a lot of nonscientific bullshit.

It's impossible to reconcile science and religion because religion is bullshit while science is not. Any moderately intelligent person can see that religion is total bullshit.

The irony is that you have been saying the same thing, even although multiple members have refuted/destroyed/countered your arguments/evidence/assertions.

Which religion?  Although the answer is probably no for all of them. How can science ever tow the line that a big man in the sky made everything with his words? I used to believe it, but finally, I see how totally dumb and false it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Are you agree that science and certain religion could be reconciled? 

I can see the benefit of such a reconciliation, but the onus is squarely on religion to move its position into line with science, not the other way round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity. Philosophers and scientists now found the data on their studies and research well-favored to Christianity. Brother/sister, take a look at the data or studies conducted by philosophers and scientists, they somehow favored the existence of God. It seems that some humans go in assuming that something is not true by not looking at the evidences. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Randolpin said:

Christianity.

In which case - No.

There is no evidence for god whatsoever beyond peoples personal testimonies....  which are often very naïve and can easily be explained with other possibilities.

The 'History' in the old testament has also been shown to be made up for a lot of it...  so how could it possibly come into line with what we know from science?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DrP said:

In which case - No.

There is no evidence for god whatsoever beyond peoples personal testimonies....  which are often very naïve and can easily be explained with other possibilities.

The 'History' in the old testament has also been shown to be made up for a lot of it...  so how could it possibly come into line with what we know from science?

1

The church of England is trying...

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The church of England is trying...

but only by totally disregarding the bible...  which is the whole basis of their faith and teaching. So it isn't Christianity anymore if they do not believe in god or think that the earth was formed over billions of years rather than days.

So - can science and religion be reconciled?  -  imo, no.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Randolpin said:

Are you agree that science and certain religion could be reconciled? 

As long as you agree that where there is a difference, science is probably correct and religious belief wrong. 

There is no requirement for them to be in conflict. Many (most?) religious people have no problem with evolution, for example. Or the real age of the Earth. It is only a few literal-minded and ignorant people who do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, DrP said:

but only by totally disregarding the bible...  which is the whole basis of their faith and teaching. So it isn't Christianity anymore if they do not believe in god or think that the earth was formed over billions of years rather than days.

1

I don't see that at all, you're falling into the trap of the extremist who literally believes the bible can't be wrong; any reasonable person can see that that is a fallacy, whatever their religion; it seems to me that it's perfectly reasonable that Jesus would do the same if he lived today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What's wrong with the "Science will handle the natural explanations and Religion can have the rest" reconciliation?

Mostly the fact that religion can't seem to stay relogated to "the rest." Religion quite frequently makes claims about how the natural world functions. If they were to stop doing that, I'm sure the apparent conflict with science would diminish.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria#Criticisms_of_NOMA

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What's wrong with the "Science will handle the natural explanations and Religion can have the rest" reconciliation?

because it becomes a god of the gaps thing...  and religious people, I for one when I was one, won't stand for that - either it's true or it isn't and it is clearly not true.  (imo).

 

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I don't see that at all, you're falling into the trap of the extremist who literally believes the bible can't be wrong; any reasonable person can see that that is a fallacy, whatever their religion; it seems to me that it's perfectly reasonable that Jesus would do the same if he lived today.

Maybe...  maybe it is an extremist view...  I was pretty literal with it when I believed it.  Sorry - either it is true or it isn't...  if it isn't then why should we entertain it al all?   If we started again and wrote a set of 'rules' for modern life that outline moralities and such then some of them would come straight out of religion, of course they would. But why put up with the rest of the nonsense? Lets just thrash out what is important and admit the mistakes of our past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bimbo36 said:

None of the holy books has the word science in it ... lol

they claim things as fact. 'Science' means 'knowledge' in Latin and is from where the word is derived. When they claim something as a fact (like the 'the moon was struck in two" or "they went on board 2 by 2") the religious texts are claiming these to be facts.  We have enough knowledge to know these aren't facts.

Edited by DrP
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DrP said:

 

Maybe...  maybe it is an extremist view...  I was pretty literal with it when I believed it.  Sorry - either it is true or it isn't... 

 

Nothing in life is black and white, true or false.

 

6 minutes ago, DrP said:

if it isn't then why should we entertain it al all?

Both science and religion has things to offer society, so it seems to me a collaboration would benefit us all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dimreepr said:

Nothing in life is black and white, true or false.

That is not true. A zebra is black and white. ;-)     (alright - they are a little pink also if you look close enough).

Also, being serious, it isn't true anyway - some things are what they seem to be. Either god exists or it doesn't. What ever we believe personally it doesn't change whatever the absolute truth is. It is either real or it isn't...  there is no middle state or shade of grey when talking about whether something is real or not real. Zebras are real - we all know this. Pegasus's aren't real...  we know this too. There is no shade of grey over some matters. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DrP said:

Also, being serious, it isn't true anyway - some things are what they seem to be. Either god exists or it doesn't. What ever we believe personally it doesn't change whatever the absolute truth is. It is either real or it isn't...  there is no middle state or shade of grey when talking about whether something is real or not real. Zebras are real - we all know this. Pegasus's aren't real...  we know this too. There is no shade of grey over some matters. 

2

That doesn't change my answer; the existence of God is immaterial to the existence of religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Manticore said:

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of
intelligence."
        -- Bertrand Russell

 

Maybe not, but there are words in praise of understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Science i guess is simply the observation of the observable universe ... I am not against science , but i am not against the mysticism that religions has to offer  . No science text is capable of that , which is why religion is winning many times ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bimbo36 said:

Science i guess is simply the observation of the observable universe ... I am not against science , but i am not against the mysticism that religions has to offer  . No science text is capable of that , which is why religion is winning many times ...

6

That's not helping.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bimbo36 said:

but i am not against the mysticism that religions has to offer  . No science text is capable of that , which is why religion is winning many times ...

If you want to look at it that way then any creative writing or book of fantasy would 'win' as you put it. If you want to look at actual facts then you go to the reference section, not the fiction section of the library.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me that reconciling science and religion is akin to trying to reconcile avocado salad and the internal combustion engine - an amusing intellectual exercise, relatively easy to achieve, but ultimately rather pointless.

If we examine the character of science as understood by practicing scientists, or philosophers, with that of religion as understood by serious theologists there is little or no significant overlap. The conflict arises when militant atheists, such as Dawkins, or aggressive evangelicals, such as the ID mob, inappropriately seek to extend the boundaries of science and religion respectively.

Some posters here appear to conflate religion with fundamentalist views. All the religions I am aware of are much more nuanced than that. Just as the scientists who claim science has proven the non-existence of God are misguided and unscientific, so to the fundamentalists insisting on a Young Earth are misguided and the antithesis of Christian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

It strikes me that reconciling science and religion is akin to trying to reconcile avocado salad and the internal combustion engine - an amusing intellectual exercise, relatively easy to achieve, but ultimately rather pointless.

If we examine the character of science as understood by practicing scientists, or philosophers, with that of religion as understood by serious theologists there is little or no significant overlap. The conflict arises when militant atheists, such as Dawkins, or aggressive evangelicals, such as the ID mob, inappropriately seek to extend the boundaries of science and religion respectively.

Some posters here appear to conflate religion with fundamentalist views. All the religions I am aware of are much more nuanced than that. Just as the scientists who claim science has proven the non-existence of God are misguided and unscientific, so to the fundamentalists insisting on a Young Earth are misguided and the antithesis of Christian.

Indeed, utopia always seems achievable, we can but hope...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.