Science vs Religion

[dorsk188]

Sorry,

but probably the most "universal" religion out there is the worship of self.

Or at least it would be if it was tax deductable...

My point about Hinduism though, was that it doesn't matter to Krishna who or what you worship, only that you do. From what I understand about Allah, God, and YHWH, he has a tendency to be a jealous God, who demands particular worship a particular way. Muhammad taught that people in Mecca should abandon the idols of their pagan tradition. Krishna would be fine with those idols, I think. But this is off topic, so I'll be happy to discuss it in another thread, but not here.

History: Religions teach creation accounts that conflict with scientific understanding of the world. If you say that "_____ isn't supposed to be taken literally," then you side with science, in a way. Religious institutions have typically insisted their creation myths are fact, though, so there is potential conflict here.

Of course, if you feel that creation myths are simplified morality tales that aren't meant as history, then you are probably right. Primative cultures used myth and history interchangably in a lot of cases, so it's a bit of a sticky wicket anyway.

A more accurate statement would be: Where science and literal translations of religious texts clash is often history. Religions themselves don't make many assertions, though, people representing the religions do. Such as the Virgin Mary appearing on the glass in a bank in Florida. The Bible didn't specifically mention it, but many people saw it as a miracle. In reality it was a natural phenomenon that is well understood and repeatable.

So, I guess what needs to happen is someone needs to define for me:

A) What religions actually assert.
B) Where those assertions can be found.
C) If people can assert things in the name of religion, and thus hold religion accountable for those assertions.

Before I know if science and religion really do contradict one another, it is necessary to determine what each of them say. I think it is safe to say: Science and Religious individuals conflict with one another.

 

[Ahmadi]

Or at least it would be if it was tax deductable...

My point about Hinduism though, was that it doesn't matter to Krishna who or what you worship, only that you do. From what I understand about Allah, God, and YHWH, he has a tendency to be a jealous God, who demands particular worship a particular way. Muhammad taught that people in Mecca should abandon the idols of their pagan tradition. Krishna would be fine with those idols, I think. But this is off topic, so I'll be happy to discuss it in another thread, but not here.

How can you be sure that Krishna would be fine with the idols? What if it's just an assertion by the people?

History: Religions teach creation accounts that conflict with scientific understanding of the world. If you say that "_____ isn't supposed to be taken literally," then you side with science, in a way. Religious institutions have typically insisted their creation myths are fact, though, so there is potential conflict here.

Real deep wisdom exists in the words of God and that's when things are not supposed to be taken literally because those same words have to stand the test of time and have to convince people of the future who have greater knowledge. And, Relgion never attempts to 'side' with science but here's a fact: 750 verses of the Quran actaully encourage man pursue scientific and rational knowlege.

Of course, if you feel that creation myths are simplified morality tales that aren't meant as history, then you are probably right. Primative cultures used myth and history interchangably in a lot of cases, so it's a bit of a sticky wicket anyway.

These are only a whole lot of claims... when did creation become a myth?

A more accurate statement would be: Where science and literal translations of religious texts clash is often history. Religions themselves don't make many assertions, though, people representing the religions do. Such as the Virgin Mary appearing on the glass in a bank in Florida. The Bible didn't specifically mention it, but many people saw it as a miracle. In reality it was a natural phenomenon that is well understood and repeatable.

This is where I totally agree

A) What religions actually assert.
B) Where those assertions can be found.
C) If people can assert things in the name of religion, and thus hold religion accountable for those assertions.

Which relgion do you speak of?

Before I know if science and religion really do contradict one another, it is necessary to determine what each of them say. I think it is safe to say: Science and Religious individuals conflict with one another.

Maybe it's safer to say: Scientific and religious individuals conflict with one another.

 

[JerryL]

They are at odds because they overlap. There's something of a tendancy to see the dicotomy between intellectuals and anti-intellectuals; but because religion tries to make claims that science can and does examine, they end up at odds.

 

[scitsofreaky]

I agree JerryL. I think that if religion is to survive, then it must redifine its parameters. Prior to science, religion was able to say what is going on in the physical and spiritual realms; but now that science is more accurately describing the physical realm, it has displaced part of what religion traditional had done. To me, this sense of tradition is one of the weaknesses of religion in general. It is time for relgion is relinquich its need to dictate both realms, and just focus on the spiritual realm. I think that this would not only save religion, it would actually make religion more effective and positive.

 

[michel]

I agree JerryL. I think that if religion is to survive, then it must redifine its parameters. Prior to science, religion was able to say what is going on in the physical and spiritual realms; but now that science is more accurately describing the physical realm, it has displaced part of what religion traditional had done. To me, this sense of tradition is one of the weaknesses of religion in general. It is time for relgion is relinquich its need to dictate both realms, and just focus on the spiritual realm. I think that this would not only save religion, it would actually make religion more effective and positive.

Wow, how would you, say, a scientist who believes in God, deal with that ?

"ooops sorry, wearing the wrong hat - when I sinned, I should have been wearing my scientist's hat ?"
Out of interest, when would you define as being the point in history which is 'Prior' to science?

 

[JerryL]

Out of interest, when would you define as being the point in history which is 'Prior' to science?

Pre-enlightenment. The time peroid where facts were not peer-reviewed and scientific method was not in wide-spread use.

That said, science has come into and out of vogue in varying populations over time.

 

[scitsofreaky]

ONce again, I concurr with JerryL. Science has been in and out, but it seems that recently it has had a more important role than the in the past.

Wow, how would you, say, a scientist who believes in God, deal with that ?

Deal with what? Science does not say there is no god.
I'm not saying that the physical and spiritual realms are totally separate, but that the physical and spiritual are each part of reality as a whole. Each has its place, and they should not try to be the whole of reality. I think that the only way to understand reality is to persue science and spirituality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Each has its place, and they should not try to be the whole of reality. I think that the only way to understand reality is to persue science and spirituality.

Great. You list your religion as Deism. What is Deism's position on "Intelligent Design"?

 

[scitsofreaky]

Great. You list your religion as Deism. What is Deism's position on "Intelligent Design"?

Depends on who you ask. Deism is non-dogmatic, and no deist speaks for all deists. Some would say that we a a part of god, while others say god is the "first cause." I am one of the latter, I believe god is that which caused whatever started the universe. For me, "god" has little importance because no matter who or what god is, I still can only live my life to the best of my abilities. Also, god isn't necessarily something that is spiritual, but may be only physical. To be honest, I was a materialist for most of my life, and recently I have realized the importance of balance.

 

[Bastion]

I wonder. Could it be that Religion goes against a lot of logic? (ogic being one of the most important factors of science.) The two are almost opposite.. which is why religion really should not be putting their content into science books.. That is like saying Religion is scientific enough to be put in Science books.. so Science MUST be spiritual enough to be placed in the bible? I don't think so. I think the two should stop stepping on eachothers toes and do their own thing.
I have a feeling this is going to turn out to be a damned stupid post.. I need to wake up.. Brain.. fuzzy.. Oh that reminds me.. I found a catipillar.. and I named him Fuzzy.. because he was fuzzy..
*Puts head down on desk and takes a nap.*

Asterisk --->* (Commonly used to emote actions as shown in previous post.)

 

[Sunstone]

I wonder. Could it be that Religion goes against a lot of logic? (ogic being one of the most important factors of science.) The two are almost opposite.. which is why religion really should not be putting their content into science books.. That is like saying Religion is scientific enough to be put in Science books.. so Science MUST be spiritual enough to be placed in the bible? I don't think so. I think the two should stop stepping on eachothers toes and do their own thing.
I have a feeling this is going to turn out to be a damned stupid post.. I need to wake up.. Brain.. fuzzy.. Oh that reminds me.. I found a catipillar.. and I named him Fuzzy.. because he was fuzzy..
*Puts head down on desk and takes a nap.*

Asterisk --->* (Commonly used to emote actions as shown in previous post.)

I applaud your courage in tackling this issue even before you've properly woken up!

I think, however, you might be confusing logic with materialism or some other concept. Religion doesn't necessarily go against logic, but it is usually opposed to materialism.

 

[alexander garcia]

Hi, just an opinion. Science has tried to prove scripture untrue and has never been able to. When I speek of scripture I am only speaking of what is called the bible. To me it seems strange that science only attacks scripture? It does not attack Islam, Buda or ant other, why? Now just one piont scripture tells the end before the beginning, while so called science makes it up as they go along. Think why was the world flat to the science world why scripture told a totally different story. Well they have been proved WRONG millions of times but their answer is we were not wrong we were just learning or incresing in knowledge or any of that trash. Do the same to science as they try to do to scripture. If you find ONE mistake throw it out! So is the world flat? Do we still have ONE ICE AGE? Throw the TRASH out!

 

[Sunstone]

Hi, just an opinion. Science has tried to prove scripture untrue and has never been able to. When I speek of scripture I am only speaking of what is called the bible. To me it seems strange that science only attacks scripture? It does not attack Islam, Buda or ant other, why? Now just one piont scripture tells the end before the beginning, while so called science makes it up as they go along. Think why was the world flat to the science world why scripture told a totally different story. Well they have been proved WRONG millions of times but their answer is we were not wrong we were just learning or incresing in knowledge or any of that trash. Do the same to science as they try to do to scripture. If you find ONE mistake throw it out! So is the world flat? Do we still have ONE ICE AGE? Throw the TRASH out!

Once again, I applaud the courage shown in someone's tackling this issue before, I must presume, they are fully awake.