How Does Your Religion Adapt to Scientific Discovery?

[SalixIncendium]

Recent scientific discoveries/theories have come into conflict with what is written in sacred texts of some religions and will likely continue to do so moving forward. How has your religion adapted to such scientific discoveries? While I understand that select religions blindly hold steadfast to their doctrine, if you subscribe to such a religion, how have you adapted your personal beliefs?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Recent scientific discoveries/theories have come into conflict with what is written in sacred texts of some religions and will likely continue to do so moving forward. How has your religion adapted to such scientific discoveries? While I understand that select religions blindly hold steadfast to their doctrine, if you subscribe to such a religion, how have you adapted your personal beliefs?

Agnosticism always adapts. However, Since no one will ever know how the universe began, I will never be "gnostic."

 

[Brickjectivity]

Christianity is flexible over long periods. I guess that 40-60 percent of Christians have adapted to life with evolutionary theory and could potentially participate in scientific research if they trained for it. This seems like a low number, but I think the number is changing and will be closer to 70 percent in twenty years. All of these numbers are personal guesses.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Since real science was created by God, there is no conflict between science and religion. On the other hand most religions are not based on God's teachings and much science is just theories and guesses that have not been proven. That is when there is conflict.

 

[SalixIncendium]

...much science is just theories and guesses that have not been proven.

Please define scientific theory. Protip: "Just a guess" is not the correct definition.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Christianity is flexible over long periods. I guess that 40-60 percent of Christians have adapted to life with evolutionary theory and could potentially participate in scientific research if they trained for it. This seems like a low number, but I think the number is changing and will be closer to 70 percent in twenty years. All of these numbers are personal guesses.

How many have or are willing to train for it? In my experience, the majority of Christians I associate with IRL struggle to define scientific theory and define Darwin's theory of evolution as "a guess".

 

[Desert Snake]

There's no adaptation required, presuming that you mean actual 'science', and not speculation.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There's no adaptation required, presuming that you mean actual 'science', and not speculation.

Your presumption is spot on. What religion or belief system are you speaking for?

 

[Desert Snake]

Your presumption is spot on. What religion or belief system are you speaking for?

Theism. I'm not an exclusivist.
/not universalism, I should specify

ie I don't think that all deities are the 'same'

 

[SalixIncendium]

Theism. I'm not an exclusivist.
/not universalism, I should specify

ie I don't think that all deities are the 'same'

What scientific theory or discovery compelled you to change your beliefs? What did you originally believe before the theory was introduced and what was amended?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Recent scientific discoveries/theories have come into conflict with what is written in sacred texts of some religions and will likely continue to do so moving forward.

Scientific discoveries/theories are never in conflict with Hinduism in most sects (even theories are accepted for consideration and not denied out-right). Mythology is generally taken not as God's own word, but as an advice to learn from. My own belief has no outstanding problem save one: What is energy?

 

[Desert Snake]

What scientific theory or discovery compelled you to change your beliefs? What did you originally believe before the theory was introduced and what was amended?

Hmm I didn't change my beliefs. This is the type of theism that I'm familiar with

 

[1137]

How has your religion adapted to such scientific discoveries?

It's the very act of and desire for Xeper that leads humans to scientific advancement. My beliefs are adapted to scientific understanding inherently, because it tells us truths about our shared world.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Recent scientific discoveries/theories have come into conflict with what is written in sacred texts of some religions and will likely continue to do so moving forward. How has your religion adapted to such scientific discoveries? While I understand that select religions blindly hold steadfast to their doctrine, if you subscribe to such a religion, how have you adapted your personal beliefs?

To tell you honestly, the only religious I know that has less adaptive goals to science aret he Amish. Other than that, you have some christians I known four years ago that hold you down thinkng they get the holy spirit from you rather than calling 911 because you had a seizure. But in general, and doctrine as well, science isnt an issue. Many priests visit hospitals and promote the heatlh of patients (given they dont believe in 'letting people die') and have volunteer organizations that put money into science.

Most non-denomni christians I know never questioned science in their religion until they hear bias about it and someone uses it as a threat to their beliefs. In and of itself, they have no opinion but to save lives.

If youre talking about evolution, I think many religious are stuck on aall atheist believe in evolution. It not that they dont believe in science, its just they are ignorant to actually take interst in what other people elieve without comparing it to their own beliefs.

As for my beliefs, I dont know what science is outside of medicine, geology, biologies, all the ologies, psychology, et cetera and things we can test with our five senses. Religion incorporates all of that. Bias doesnt.

I think taking a different perspective would be a good approach on this topic and posts.

 

[Desert Snake]

I disagree with some scientific theories. This itself is variable as to what we take as scientific fact, and what we consider speculation, so forth.

 

[psychoslice]

I like what the Dalai Lama said:
“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

 

[Desert Snake]

I like what the Dalai Lama said:
“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

That's a guru I would advise against following.

 

[Laika]

Recent scientific discoveries/theories have come into conflict with what is written in sacred texts of some religions and will likely continue to do so moving forward. How has your religion adapted to such scientific discoveries? While I understand that select religions blindly hold steadfast to their doctrine, if you subscribe to such a religion, how have you adapted your personal beliefs?

(Its not a religion but) Marxists struggled to reconcile many new scientific discoveries with their beliefs. Notably the big bang, quantum mechanics and genetics caused a great deal of philosophical and scientific controversy within the Soviet Union. This was to do with how they related to religion (e.g. Does the big bang imply creation by a deity), society (e.g. How far does biology or genetics play a role in human behavior and social development and how fast can these be changed due to environment), or deterministic conceptions of nature and society as the precondition to successful planning (e.g. Is quantum indeterminism real or an illusion in which we project "free will" or "consciousness" onto sub atomic particles). Each of these connected to crucial areas in the offical ideology and served to create "crisis" conditions due to a failure to reconcile new evidence with ideological preconceptions.

In the USSR this required the intervention of the Communist Party in the early 50's into many scientific disputes, many of them with Stalin's involvement which happened on a dispute in genetics with lysenko as well as linguistics, political economy and others. The one on physics was left more open ended and unresolved due to the importance of the Soviet nuclear programme so that the Party didn't want to stop scientists developing better bombs for the sake of ideological orthodoxy. Most of my knowledge of these disputes comes from western historians commenting on the politicisation of science but they are obscure and are not of general historical interest, so the avaliability of english sources is very low. One of the best for physics and the big bang is in the link below if you fancy a read:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1625.pdf

Whether this is a failure of the ideas to adapt to new scientific discoveries or a failure of the intellectual system remains an open question for me but I suspect adaption is possible although I'm unclear what it would look like. As a rule I defer to modern scientific thinking based on the assumption that "scientists know better", but I still freely question such ideas in private. For the purpose of discussions, I just don't give it the authority of saying "this is the truth" and instead focus on philosophical criticisms of these theories that originate from Marxist ideology. For example, The reliance of quantum mechanics or the big bang on mathamatics that may not correspond to objective phenomena. Interestingly that could apply to a variety of areas now that were not considered during the USSRs existence such as grounds for scepticism of mathamatical modelling of climate change (even if the concept of the anthroprocene had soviet origins).

Maybe thats cowardice on my part, but its simultaneosly unfamilar scientific territory as well as some of the most abstract areas of reasoning in Marxist ideology and therefore highly prone to error. You need a really good understanding of Marxism to even contemplate challanging them as well as the guts to accept your going to be wrong alot of the time due to ignorance of the subject matter. So I don't commit myself on these subjects and just approach with a mixture of respect and caution. That said, It does feel like your treading on "sacred" ground when you start opposing mainstream scientific theories based on philosophical hunches and an inferior intellect with limited knowledge of a specialism.

 

[buddhist]

Recent scientific discoveries/theories have come into conflict with what is written in sacred texts of some religions and will likely continue to do so moving forward. How has your religion adapted to such scientific discoveries? While I understand that select religions blindly hold steadfast to their doctrine, if you subscribe to such a religion, how have you adapted your personal beliefs?

Early Buddhism is essentially the application of the scientific method to suffering.

 

[psychoslice]

That's a guru I would advise against following.

Why, he is only telling the truth, there's a lot of things they didn't know about many years ago, they were ignorant of a lot things that they have found out today, if we all stayed in the past where would we be today, not here on the net that's for sure lol.