1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can Science and Religion be reconciled?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Runt, Mar 19, 2004.

  1. Green Gaia

    Green Gaia Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,780
    Ratings:
    +1,925
    Here is fine... :lol:

    I suppose your definition of "religion" and ideas about what that should be would determine the answer to your question. Some in the UU church probably do not look at it as a religion, and prefer to think of it as a philosophy or spiritual journey. Most members of the UU church today come from other religions, so calling UUism a religion is Ok with some of them. Like just about everything in UUism, it's up to the individual. We do not believe that all UUs should have identical beliefs.

    From UUA: What role does science play in your church?

    We accept the teachings of science and the scientific method. UUs believe that the scientific principle that states there is always more truth to be discovered about our world, also applies to religion.
     
  2. Master Hoomer

    Master Hoomer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1
    Science and religion were once intertwindd and will be again....

    Occam's razor really doesnt say much....but I know people like to point to it..lol...

    MODERN science increasingly re affirms ancient religious ideas.....

    such as the religious idea that everything is in a state of constant flux...modern science knows this....a person's dna mutates thousands of times in 1 day.....

    Science recently posited multi dimensional reality ....reigion posited this before the bible.....

    Science speaks of the the small influencing the large...the butterfly effect......hermeticism spoke of this first.....

    Science and religion are not seprate..and never were......and one day will be returned to a harmonious state.....
     
  3. Death

    Death Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    78
    Ratings:
    +1
    Occam's razor is the tool to choose between competing theories or reasoning by removal of unnecessary terms. For instance, life on earth by chemistry, or by god controlling chemistry...god is not known to exist, chemistry is, nobody knows how exactly this god would effect chemistry, and adding it explains nothing, as God happens to be inscruitible.

    So for that reason it's removed, as the one based in nature and chemistry work as we know these things exist.

    I can't find one reference to DNA in any religions predating the discovery of DNA. Same applies to QM. Unless of course, you mean things dying and changing, but pretty much everyone realises this, it's self evident and obvious.

    Really? Where?

    Again, this is obvious, as any child who plays with lego could explain.

    Wrong, look up the definitions of religion and science, you will notice they are quite seperate.

    I doubt it, religion only survives by nature of it's deities being inscruitible, not real. Science describes what's real, religion wants to describe things it wishes existed.
     
  4. Master Hoomer

    Master Hoomer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1
    WHAT is real????
    What truly IS real....science makes MODELS it does NOT deal in absolutes

    the observed cannot be removed from the observer
     
  5. Master Hoomer

    Master Hoomer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1
     
  6. Death

    Death Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    78
    Ratings:
    +1
    Wrong, it's the simplest answer which explains everything the best, you have a strawman version of it, likely thanks to the film "contact".

    So how is this profound? It's obvious from watching a windy field, let alone microscopic things.

    No, explain to me how they actually describe dimensionality please, not just say they do. It sounds like you're shoehorning what you'd like it to mean on what it does actually say.

    It shows how the existence of smaller things, or their absence can change an overall larger system.


    Red herring.

    Oh well, i guess if definitions can change we shouldn't use them and use yours, of course! :roll: The dictionary definitions are quite accurate, as well as neutral.

    A verifiable existence, something which objectively exists regardless of subjective thoughts on the matter. Not imaginary.
     
  7. Master Hoomer

    Master Hoomer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1
    :lol: right this could go on forever...

    I see no point in it...
    So why bother....
    Science accepts reality is an illusion it appears your faith in science is so srong it must be true.....

    Personally I think science has its faults ..it has its good points...
    A model works because you want it to work...
    But then as a person faithful of scince do you actually deal with the nature of conciousness? no I doubt it....

    Do I wish to continue this conversation..no not really whats the point...your mind has already decided..I could show you a cup..you wouldnt drink from it....

    c'est la vie..up to you and up to me...
    I realise you will think I am an idiot...but thats the price I pay I guess.. :lol: :shock: :shock:

    spiritus domni replevit orbem terrarum
     
  8. ONEWAY

    ONEWAY Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    57
    Ratings:
    +1
    :?: OK. Religion and Science, is it compatible? Well, first science would not be here if it were not for a creator, so the question may well be is there a creator? Absolutely! Now, before you sign out from reading on, let me ask you have you investigated each side of the question? To evolutionists, which believe there is no creator, your paradigm is shattered. FIRST, Darwin said that if evolution were to stand, there would be abundant fossil evidence for the transition from one species to another, macroevolution; however, there has not been one. Lucy, the nebraska man, and all other findings that were accumulated all have been found to be non-transitional fossils, hence they were completly ape, or pig,etc. All species have stayed within there kind: a snake is still a snake; a chicken (which according to fossil evidence says they should not exist) is still a chicken, etc. Not one transition in support of evolution to date, investigate you will see. SECOND, evolutionists try to fit all there findings with evolution, creationists all try to fit there findings with creation, however science (Neither evolution nor creation) looks at its findings objectively. Guess what? Science is finding evidence that is supporting creation. Seek and you will find. By the way faith is not blind, believing in something without thoroughly looking at the facts, is where one goes blind.

    I'm not trying to offend, but loving lead all to the truth (Romans 10:9-10)

    God bless
     
  9. ONEWAY

    ONEWAY Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    57
    Ratings:
    +1
    Is that True?
     
  10. Alaric

    Alaric Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    313
    Ratings:
    +5
    The entire fossil record supports evolution, Oneway - you can see the species evolving over from one fossil to the next plain as the nose on your face. Psychology supports it, biology supports it - do you realise that kids have traits from their parents, that you are physically attracted to attractive people, and that thoroughbred race horses didn't come from a herd of wild thoroughbred race horses on the Asian steppe thousands of years ago?

    But that's too easy. The question I have is: is your belief in Christianity based on scientific evidence? If someone proved that something is the Bible was wrong, would you stop believing until some Christian disproved it? You would be constantly going from belief to disbelief and back again. You would also have to admit that people who thought the scientific evidence supported atheism would be as justified in their belief as Christians or anyone else. I mean, it can be quite easy to reinterpret what the Bible says to allow for evolution. Would your belief be changed in any way if the world was older and God worked through evolution?
     
  11. ONEWAY

    ONEWAY Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    57
    Ratings:
    +1
    Hey Alaric, nice to talk with you. First, what you are talking about with traits of children in relation to their parents is microevolution (Limited genetic variations), not macroevolution (The evolved from ape thing), by which the Bible has no problem with microevolution it only says people and animals can look differently. However, macroevolution is where the main problem comes into play, due to the fact that again no fossil evidence has been found showing or even slight evidence of a transition from one species to another. Also, have you investigate this it is quite interesting what is out there. For example, in actual fossil evidence it has been found dinosaur with human footprints in the same fossilized rock, as well as cat and dinosaur footprints. These are millions of years apart according to macroevolution, and I would encourage you to maybe check out the books "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe and Philip E. Johnson's book "Darwin on Trial."

    I'm sorry for making my response so long, but to answer your second question "Would your belief be changed in any way if the world was older and God worked through evolution?", I could not believe that because the world is being shown to be younger not older (The magnetic field has been studied to show if in fact the earth was millions of years old it would have not been able to even exist), plus, though I do believe God could have worked through macroevolution if He had wanted to He didn't, for the Bible says He created everything in days not billions of years. Next, if one were to try to place the two together the Bible and macroevolution, then when exactly would have man/women sinned? Also, when would it had been possible, because Adam and Eve were created at different times, not simultaneously, macroevolution would say that both had already existed. Hence, to say that no confidence is lost because science (Neither evolution nor creation), is pointing to a creator in support of the bible not contrary to it.

    I beg your pardon, again, for the long response.

    God Bless (Romans 10:9-10)
     
  12. Alaric

    Alaric Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    313
    Ratings:
    +5
    Heck, that's not a long response, don't worry about it.

    Now, the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution - I'm worried you're looking for evidence supporting the Bible instead of looking for the most likely theories. The trouble is, even if you are right about the scientific evidence, that doesn't mean that the Biblical Creation story is right.

    Do you believe in Christianity because you think the fossil record doesn't prove the theory of evolution? Because there is no scientific evidence supporting the story of Adam and Eve at all.

    Christianity starts somewhere else. More and more Christians are rejecting Creationism, and Christianity is very different from what it once was; you are assuming your interpretation is correct, and in so doing denying the right of scientists to challenge your views. If you are actively looking for the most believable worldview, you need to put a great deal more effort into understanding science. If you are already convinced the God exists, forget about science that does or does not support what you want it to.
     
  13. (Q)

    (Q) Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    558
    Ratings:
    +12
    A scientist is always in search of mechanistic explanations for all phenomena and objects. Whereas any religion (Christianity included) presupposes a supernatural, non-mechanistic influence in the world. This is the main difference between science and religion.

    A "scientist" who is "Christian", is a person in conflict. They must suspend their faith while engaging in their trade, yet resume the faith at all other times. Not only is this hypocritical and inconsistent, but in all practicality it is also humanly impossible -- our minds simply don't work like that. At best, the "Christian" science merely consists of constantly emerging hypotheses in agreement with the Bible that subsequently get disproved (or had already been disproven a long time ago.) At worst, it turns into pseudoscience and snake oil.

    Aside from the primary hypocrisy involved, the second major fault of "Christian" science is its inherent lack of objectivity. It does not start unbiased from ground zero; instead, it presupposes enough unsubstantiated axyoms to fill a very thick book -- and it apriori refuses to ever reconsider any one of those axyoms. This is fundamentally and irreconcilably inconsistent with scientific methodology.
     
  14. Runt

    Runt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,833
    Ratings:
    +189
    You speak of "Christian" science... but what of other religions? I, for instance, am a Unitarian agnostic pagan, and I have personally reconciled spirituality and religion in my head. How? By thinking to myself--"Science does not know EVERYTHING". Not only is science unable to explain everything (nor do I think it ever WILL be able to explain everything), I believe that science is a study of forces... but does not cover the CAUSE of the forces, what created them, why they were created. Don't you ever stop to wonder "Gee, physics really makes the world work well...I wonder where it came from?"

    For me, a spiritual entity comes into play: either "God" is science itself, or it is the force behind science.

    The first is a personal, "visible" God that does not need to be worshipped but appreciated. "God is all around us; just look at Its wonders!"

    The second is an impersonal God that is completely beyond our understanding. I personally regard "God" as the second-the force BEHIND science. But I do not worship it; I doubt it cares for my worship. Instead, I admire Its creations: nature, science, beauty...

    And even science can say "Everything is energy." God is everywhere... God IS that energy. Why worship it? Just appreciate it!
     
  15. ONEWAY

    ONEWAY Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    57
    Ratings:
    +1
    Hello all and God bless. To clear up my previous statements, if they were indeed not clear, I was not refering to creationism or the creationist when I refered to "Science." I was simply refering to the fact that the objective scientists of today, which by definition is what a scientist is (Looking at all obtained, objectively which is not from the evolutionist perspective or the creationist perspective), are finding evidence of design that is in fact supporting the Bible, without any effort of the creationist. Science, by itself (Again, neither evolution nor creation), is finding evidence in support of the Bible, even the science itself is not guided by trying to support the bible. It is not "Christian" science, but science itself that is supporting what God had already explained in the Bible.

    God bless (Romans 10:9-10)
     
  16. ONEWAY

    ONEWAY Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    57
    Ratings:
    +1
    Hello Alaric, and God bless. Thank you for your thoughts and comments. I agree with what you are saying in the fact that if one is to believe in something, one needs to investigate both sides. Which I have done. Truth is something that is constistent in all instances, whether one believes in it or not, truth by definition does not change. Opinions change, but truth never changes. If truth changes it is not true. For example, if one believed in an all knowing god that said that Christians believe in three gods, is that god right? No, Christians believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-ONE GOD-Three persons, this is the truth, it cannot be any other way. However, this would in effect mean that the god one believes in, who was all knowing, just said something contrary to the god's nature. That is impossible, unless it indeed is a false god. This example is not a example at all, for Muhammad, his revelation came from Allah, in the Quran indeed makes this proclomation (Sura 4:171; Sura 5:116), yet Christians believe in one God (Deut. 6:4; Psalm 86:10; Isaiah 45:21-22; 1 Thess. 1:9; James 2:19; John 5:44, etc).
    Also, more and more Christians are starting to see that the evidence is not on evolutions side, but creations, not the other way around, though there are some trying to mingle the two, this as I mentioned earlier is not possible.

    God bless and Love (Romans 10:9-10)
     
  17. Death

    Death Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    78
    Ratings:
    +1
    Are you claiming because science, a human invention, needed humans to create it precludes to the universe needing creating by a "creator" who, i'm just going to go out on a limb here, is your god? If so, that's a non sequitur.

    I certainly have. I have a site dedicated to it.

    There are theistic evolutionists. The majority of educated christians are evolutionists.

    Wrong, there are transitionals all over the place, a few examples of which:

    Archaeopteryx; Basilosaurus and Ichthyostiga

    Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present

    Transitional from mammal to primate: Cantius, Palaechthon, Pelycodus, Purgatorius. Transitional from reptile to mammal: Biarmosuchia, Haptodus, Procynosuchus, Varanops. Transitional from reptile to bird: Coelophysis, Compsognathus, Deinonychus, Oviraptor. Transitional from amphibian to reptile: Hylonomus, Limnoscelis, Paleothyris, PrTransitional from fish to amphibian: Cheirolepis, Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, Sterropterygionoterogyrinus.

    Do you even know what a transitional is? What you said is an outright lie. Most of them are. Transitional fossils are fossils that exhibit traits of more than one other species (and will probably diverge into those species). For instance, all ceratopsidae share traits with protoceratops, who came earlier, and from the looks of it, diverged into all the others. Archaeopteryx is a dinobird, of which there are several examples. Archy itself may not be the common ancestor for all birds (as some quotes may say) but it is definitely a transitional.

    Humans are a great ape by the way, we're the only bipedal apes. Lucy was also a bipedal ape.

    Define what a kind is. According to Genesis, a kind implies reproductive seperateness, a change of which has been observed.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    What?

    You seem to have a ridiculously simplistic view of the world. Lions are cats. Domestic household cats are also cats. Therefore they are both still cats and there is no reproductive seperateness. This is of course absurd, and it shows why your uninformed view is also absurd.

    Bzzt! Wrong!

    Yes, you'll see that the fossil record is repleat with them, you just don't know what you're actualyl asking for do to your simplistic idea of "kinds".

    No, they present their findings and those findings happen to fit with evolution because evolution is a sound theory. Creation theory hasn't even been defined.

    There is nothing supporting creation; there are arguments from incredulity and that's IT.

    Actually, since humans are apes, it also counts as microevolution. We are apes like we are eukaryotes, chordates, craniates, vertebrates, mammals, primates, apes, great apes, hominids.

    Sure it does, take for example protoceratops splitting down into triceratops, styracosaurus, etc. Check out all the primates. Check out the human genome.

    That was a creationist hoax, subsequently destroyed so they have no evidence, naturally :roll: .

    Speaking of Darwin's black box, i have an article on IC: (note also that Behe accepts common ancestry, inclusing that of man from other animals, in other words, behe DOES accept macroevolution)

    http://www.ahraii.com/brokenreligion/create/Irreduciblecomplexity.htm

    The other i've not read, so i can't speak for that one.

    Would you PLEASE stop lying?

    The dynamo effect of the metal in the earth's core accomodates this. (Not that it makes that much sense anyway)

    Yes, of course, put your book before reality yet again. All this shows is your appalling lack of knowledge of science and reasoning.

    No, you're lying again, there are more scientists named steve that don't find there to be this design and support natural evolution.

    http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

    No, the Earth is not on pillars, there isn't a solid "firmament" holding water up in the sky, snakes and donkeys do not talk, etc.

    NO IT ISN'T.

    If by "examine both sides" you mean have an extreme ignorance of science and evolution, then yes, you have accomplished that magnificently. You've shown you know crap all about evolution in your posts.

    Now, before you attempt a reply, make sure you address my points and back them up with evidence. For the rest of you, i suggest you all read my creation section, all of these argument are textbook lies and misinformation.

    http://www.ahraii.com/brokenreligion/create/index.html
     
  18. Engyo

    Engyo Prince of Dorkness!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,386
    Ratings:
    +825
    Oneway -

    Is what true? Couldn't quite tell if a pun was intended here, or if you meant some question I missed......
     
  19. Green Gaia

    Green Gaia Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,780
    Ratings:
    +1,925
    *bows to Death*

    Oh wait, that sounds kinda morbid lol. :shock:

    Thanks for the link. :)
     
  20. Lightkeeper

    Lightkeeper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,634
    Ratings:
    +223
    I believe science and religion are compatable and becoming moreso everyday. We can percieve God as the "Unknown," that which is beyond all understanding. I believe we need to connect with this type of thing to keep us going. It gives hope. It tells us we will have more knowledge someday. It comforts us as we seek.
     
Loading...