Reconciling science and religion

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Randolpin said:

Thank you for your consideration. I may fail but God never fails. 

 

God never tries so, of course, it never fails.

2 hours ago, Randolpin said:

My motive also here is not to convince anybody but to share the validity of my belief.

When you believe you know, you'll never learn.

Edited September 5, 2017 by dimreepr

[seriously disabled]

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.

Edited September 6, 2017 by seriously disabled

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

It's impossible to reconcile science and religion because religion is bullshit while science is not.

 

If you say so...

8 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

Any moderately intelligent person can see that religion is total bullshit.

 "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Shakespeare

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

Any moderately intelligent person can see that religion is total bullshit.

So, you are saying that I am not moderately intelligent? I would be offended except I have noticed that most of your posts are nonsense.

[seriously disabled]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

So, you are saying that I am not moderately intelligent? I would be offended except I have noticed that most of your posts are nonsense.

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

Edited September 6, 2017 by seriously disabled

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, seriously disabled said:

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

url.htm

[seriously disabled]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

url.htm

Now you're just trolling.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

The topic is reconciling science and religion.

 

[Area54]

1 hour ago, seriously disabled said:

Any moderately intelligent person can see that religion is total bullshit.

Then, relating to the OP,  you not only think religion and science cannot be reconciled, you believe they should not be reconciled?

[Itoero]

How can you reconcile science and religion? They are two different things. It's like reconciling apples and oranges.

[Area54]

18 minutes ago, Itoero said:

How can you reconcile science and religion?

Contact a spiritualist and have them channel George Lemaitre. He'll explain.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Area54

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Itoero said:

How can you reconcile science and religion? They are two different things.

 

They are also believed by people and people can always be reconciled.

9 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It's like reconciling apples and oranges.

What!! two different fruits are still fruits, whats to reconcile?

[Itoero]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

They are also believed by people and people can always be reconciled.

 

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

Contact a spiritualist and have them channel George Lemaitre. He'll explain.

You can only reconcile science and religion if religion doesn't deny science. This makes it for many religions impossible to reconcile with science. For the religions that don't deny science...how are you going to reconcile them? Are you going to make it a subject at school? I don't think you can willfully reconcile science and religion.

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, Itoero said:

You can only reconcile science and religion if religion doesn't deny science. This makes it for many religions impossible to reconcile with science.

It isn't religions (generally) that deny science. It is some individuals who have a (usually) distorted view of religion (and maybe of science). For example, people who take every word of the bible literally (which, obviously, was never the purpose).

24 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I don't think you can willfully reconcile science and religion.

And yet plenty of people do. Religious scientists, for example.

 

[Itoero]

18 hours ago, Strange said:

It isn't religions (generally) that deny science. It is some individuals who have a (usually) distorted view of religion (and maybe of science). For example, people who take every word of the bible literally (which, obviously, was never the purpose).

This again. Why isn't the bible meant to be taken literally? Which words are meant to be taken literal and which not? Have you never heard of young earth creationists (not only Christians) and all those  people that don't believe abiogenesis and believe in a guided evolution?

 

19 hours ago, Strange said:

And yet plenty of people do. Religious scientists, for example

And what do religious scientists do to reconcile science and religion?

[Area54]

8 minutes ago, Itoero said:

This again. Why isn't the bible meant to be taken literally?

Because human languages are generally (perphaps all) rich in metaphor and other rhetorical devices. Humans are great story tellers and stories are routinely enhanced. Fables are constructed to make a point. Language is poetic. All of this finds particular and extensive expression in our most important works, which the bible was to its creators.

[Itoero]

1 minute ago, Area54 said:

Because human languages are generally (perphaps all) rich in metaphor and other rhetorical devices. Humans are great story tellers and stories are routinely enhanced. Fables are constructed to make a point. Language is poetic. All of this finds particular and extensive expression in our most important works, which the bible was to its creators.

That's very correct but you can't know which is metaphor and which is literal.

[Area54]

I can't, because I'm not a time-served theologian. I also can't tell an up quark from a neutrino, but there are people who can.

[dimreepr]

28 minutes ago, Itoero said:

That's very correct but you can't know which is metaphor and which is literal.

There's a good rule of thumb; if it says kill, maim, disfigure or hate and take revenge then ignore it and if it says tolerate, forgive, help or love and understand then read on.

Edited September 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

33 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I can't, because I'm not a time-served theologian. I also can't tell an up quark from a neutrino, but there are people who can.

Ok but  bad bible-stuff is often taught to people....it doesn't matter what theologians think.

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There's a good rule of thumb; if it says kill, maim, disfigure or hate and take revenge then ignore it and if it says tolerate, forgive, help or love and understand then read on.

That's your rule of thumb. But you are an atheist.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

This again. Why isn't the bible meant to be taken literally? Which words are meant to be taken literal and which not?

It is pretty obvious that much of it is not intended literally. Even if, say, the creation story was believed to be realistic initially(*) anyone know (and for the last few hundred years, if not longer) knows that it is not literally true. 

(*) I'm not convinced that even early people would have believed the myths to be literally true. People usually have a clear idea that the stories of gods and heroes in a "golden age" describe a world that is not the same as the one they live in (and not just because gods and heroes existed then). The Australian native peoples know that their "dream time" myths happen on another plane, not in this world.

Quote

Have you never heard of young earth creationists (not only Christians) and all those  people that don't believe abiogenesis and believe in a guided evolution?

Of course I have. And nearly all theologians (the relevant subject matter experts) would say they are misguided.

Quote

And what do religious scientists do to reconcile science and religion?

I don't know. You would have to ask some. But I assume they don't think there is anything to reconcile. (The word "compartmentalisation" has already been mentioned on this thread, if you think that is a helpful concept.)

Edited September 7, 2017 by Strange

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Itoero said:

That's your rule of thumb. But you are an atheist.

 

No, it's a rule of thumb for anyone who has a decent moral compass and doesn't have a political agenda.

[Area54]

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

Ok but  bad bible-stuff is often taught to people....it doesn't matter what theologians think.

Bad science stuff is often taught to people. That's not the fault of science. Nor is the teaching of "bad bible stuff" the fault of religion, but of misguided fools.

[Itoero]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, it's a rule of thumb for anyone who has a decent moral compass and doesn't have a political agenda.

Many Christians and Moslims seriously dislike homosexuals/atheists/apostates...so you acknowledge Islam and Christianity can mess up your moral compass which inhibits a normal moral evolution. A real Christian or Moslim can't just take the good verses literal and ignore the bad stuff.

35 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Bad science stuff is often taught to people. That's not the fault of science. Nor is the teaching of "bad bible stuff" the fault of religion, but of misguided fools.

There is a big difference. Bad science stuff concern wrong interpretations which will disappear from the world of science (if they are disproven or can't be proven) and no longer will be taught to people...there is no science bible, science changes continuously. Bad bible stuff stays in the bible, regardless whether it's taught or not.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

It is pretty obvious that much of it is not intended literally. Even if, say, the creation story was believed to be realistic initially(*) anyone know (and for the last few hundred years, if not longer) knows that it is not literally true. 

(*) I'm not convinced that even early people would have believed the myths to be literally true. People usually have a clear idea that the stories of gods and heroes in a "golden age" describe a world that is not the same as the one they live in (and not just because gods and heroes existed then). The Australian native peoples know that their "dream time" myths happen on another plane, not in this world.

Of course I have. And nearly all theologians (the relevant subject matter experts) would say they are misguided.

I don't know. You would have to ask some. But I assume they don't think there is anything to reconcile. (The word "compartmentalisation" has already been mentioned on this thread, if you think that is a helpful concept.)

True but it doesn't really matter what seems obvious to you or what theologians think...it does not change the amount of people that take the OT literal.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Itoero

[Area54]

24 minutes ago, Itoero said:

There is a big difference. Bad science stuff concern wrong interpretations which will vanish from the world of science (if they are disproven or can't be proven) and no longer will be taught to people...there is no science bible, science changes continuously. Bad bible stuff stays in the bible, regardless whether it's taught or not.

I am talking about pseudoscience, third rate and second rate popular science books, frauds, etc. They are likely to be around for a very long time. There is very little, if any, bad bible stuff in the bible; the bad stuff arises from ignorant interpretations.

Itoero, we could go on like this indefinitely. I don't have a problem with religion. I do have a problem with some followers of religion. I value the Bible as an outstanding compendium of myth, poetry, moral guidance, folk history and the esoteric. (And, in the case of the King James version, a beautiful piece of literature.)

As I have previously noted, many scientists have had no problem reconciling science and religion, and many church people have had no problem either. That's a demonstrable fact. Therefore, your insistence that the two cannot be reconciled is disproven. I have no issue with you making a personal choice not to reconcile your views of the two, just don't demand your narrow view be applied universally.