Religious scientists?

[Memammal]

@Raider5678, when I posted earlier that I get confuse when I read the things you wrote, I meant confuse in the sense of being flabbergasted, like shaking my head in total disbelief. It is a tedious exercise for the more enlightened and those who are more scientifically inclined among us to point out the many fallacies in just those few lines that you posted yesterday, which is why it is easier to just refer you to other, existing sources and hope for the best. Do you know when and how our universe started, how stars were formed, more or less how long it took for the light from the stars to become visible here on earth, do you know when and how our solar system came into existence, do you accept evolution and if so, do the implications thereof sink in (like Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, no original or inherited sin, in fact seeing that we are animals we can "sin" only as much as the next animal...zilch, therefore no need for Jesus to have died for humanity's sins, etc.)? DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC MERITS OF WHAT I HAVE JUST POSED TO YOU? Whether you do or don't, I would like to copy an extract from an important sticky that is pinned second from the top on the "front page" of this sub-forum:

If you define God as some sort of entity that not only can but with some regularity does intercede in natural physical processes, then there is a great deal of objective evidence that no such God exists. In fact, the existence of anything that regularly upsets what we have come to expect as the orderly processes of nature is antithetical to science, which seeks to uncover and explain that natural order in terms of predictive models. Without that order there can be no science.
Science seems to work rather well. So any concept of God or any religious tenets that directly contradict science as buttressed by experimental evidence is clearly indistinguishable from superstition. Superstition is, essentially by definition, wrong.

@CroMagnon, we have a lot in common in (among other things) the way we perceive the nature = (abstract) god equation, how our species still hold a deeply-rooted psychological need to believe in something, how man-made religions originated and developed along cultural groupings. Let me repeat something I posted earlier: I have no problem with personal spirituality, but I find it hard to buy into- or to condone a belief or religion that requires ignorance and faith to suppress knowledge. Which is why I have a problem with this line:

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that things such as ghosts, demons, or angels may exist.

These "things" are supernatural and metaphysical. There is not a shred of evidence for their existence, just very good explanations for why it is the staple food of folklore.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Memammal

[Raider5678]

@Raider5678, when I posted earlier that I get confuse when I read the things you wrote, I meant confuse in the sense of being flabbergasted, like shaking my head in total disbelief. It is a tedious exercise for the more enlightened and those who are more scientifically inclined among us to point out the many fallacies in just those few lines that you posted yesterday, which is why it is easier to just refer you to other, existing sources and hope for the best. Do you know when and how our universe started, how stars were formed, more or less how long it took for the light from the stars to become visible here on earth, do you know when and how our solar system came into existence, do you accept evolution and if so, do the implications thereof sink in (like Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans, no original or inherited sin, in fact seeing that we are animals we can "sin" only as much as the next animal...zilch, therefore no need for Jesus to have died for humanity's sins, etc.pp? DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC MERITS OF WHAT I HAVE JUST POSED TO YOU?

So you would just accept that life just is. There's nothing special about it, nothing seperating us from the rock ouisde our doors. Also, the bible says we have the ability to reason, which puts us above animals. I believe in God. The christian God. If you don't, that's fine, and if I do, what does of matter? I still get great grades, and I am not a irrational murderous lunatic as people would have you believe. Christians are discriminated against, Muslims are accepted, and life goes on. They blamed a christian movie for a terrorist attack. There's always things we can find wrong with something. And since there are inconsistences in the bible, maybe you think its wrong, but I don't. So I ask a question to you. Why did christians let them selves be tortured, crucified, murdered, slaughtered, boiled alive, just because of something that couldn't be true because of science.

 

What is it about christians that people hate so much that they would kill, mutilate, and torture them?

Edited May 22, 2016 by Raider5678

[Prometheus]

... The christian God. If you don't, that's fine, and if I do, what does of matter?

 

 

Christians are discriminated against, Muslims are accepted, and life goes on...

 

Well you have displayed one problem with worshipping the Christian god: it is another tool for us to manifest our primal 'us' versus 'them' mentality. While there are teachings in the monotheistic faiths that preach tolerance, the emphasis seems to be on segregation. While i do not doubt this violent aspect of our nature would manifest without religions, many religions feed rather than quench the tendency. I am not saying you are violent; but already you have displayed a religiously based 'us' versus 'them' mentality which could be exploited by charismatic religious leaders in the right circumstances - this is how religious extremists are groomed.

 

Also, staying on topic, many religions make it a requirement that salvation is attained through faith. While many religious people seem able to perform the mental gymnastics required to give faith primacy in one aspect of life and evidence in another, there are some (creationists) who will deliberately muddy the waters making it harder for the general population to understand what counts as evidence in science.

 

Both my arguments are intended to convey that while religion can be beneficial at the level of the individual, it seems detrimental on a population level in the modern world.

[John Cuthber]

Christians are discriminated against, Muslims are accepted, and life goes on.

This is your idea of acceptance?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/16/us/texas-student-ahmed-muslim-clock-bomb/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/ivy-league-economist-interrogated-for-doing-math-on-american-airlines-flight/

 

Now, where's this persecution of Christians then?

Let's see some evidence.

[Tampitump]

Huh, I always thought fire gave off light too. I guess it conflicts with science. Oh well.

 

What are you talking about? It does not say anything about fire. The creation story in Genesis says God made light on the first day, but didn't make the light source (the sun) until the fourth day. You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make that seem right.

 

There also evidence of a "super tsunami" that might be the great flood.

 

The book specifically says God sent RAIN upon the Earth and flooded it. While I agree that its likely that a lot of these ancient flood myths (because there are more than just the Christian/Jewish one) probably were the result of primitive people who lived in the Mesopotamian and were subject to tsunamis and floods. However, the Geological column does not support the notion of a global flood ever taking place. No other cultures outside of the one in this very small part of the globe seem to recognize this flood ever happened.

 

And classes of things don't really count. For a LONG time people classified anything that flew and wasn't an insect a bird, so if after a while we separated everything, would the bible have to magically change too? It worked until we separate mammals and reptiles.

 

Why not? If the Bible was inspired my an omniscient deity, why is it filled with vague, unclear descriptions of things and partial-truths? Why is it that humans can write much better, well-developed, and informative books? Wouldn't a book that was the perfect word of an all-powerful, all-knowing God be much more clear about what it means? Especially when said God is threatening to torture you for an eternity for not believing it. You are basically proving my point with your answers here because you are taking what the book says and using facts and science to try and make some meaning out of it. Its a sort of post-hoc rationalization.

 

http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud

 

Yeah, you see the Hebrew language wasn't the most advanced. To them, hand ment from your finger tips to your elbow, which what, your going to claim the bible is wrong because the Hebrew language doesn't translate well?

 

I think this definitely takes some credibility away from it, yes. If you're a God who wants the people you created to have your message, why deliver it to an illiterate group of ancient barbarians in iron-age middle east? Why not give it to modern humans who can understand it better? If this God exists, then he is the most capricious, and ineffective communicator I can imagine.

 

At the end of the day it boils down to this. In order to be in science and still be religious, there must be some profound cognitive dissonance going on. When you find something in the bible that is just patently untrue, you have to find an "interpretation" for it that turns it into a metaphor or an allegory. But often when it says something that DOES match reality, people don't say its a metaphor, they take it to mean what it actually says. So if you're just going to reinterpret the things you know don't match reality just to try to justify keeping your religion, then the religion becomes practically useless because it is not really providing you with anything of substance.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Tampitump

[Raider5678]

Well you have displayed one problem with worshipping the Christian god: it is another tool for us to manifest our primal 'us' versus 'them' mentality. While there are teachings in the monotheistic faiths that preach tolerance, the emphasis seems to be on segregation. While i do not doubt this violent aspect of our nature would manifest without religions, many religions feed rather than quench the tendency. I am not saying you are violent; but already you have displayed a religiously based 'us' versus 'them' mentality which could be exploited by charismatic religious leaders in the right circumstances - this is how religious extremists are groomed.

 

Also, staying on topic, many religions make it a requirement that salvation is attained through faith. While many religious people seem able to perform the mental gymnastics required to give faith primacy in one aspect of life and evidence in another, there are some (creationists) who will deliberately muddy the waters making it harder for the general population to understand what counts as evidence in science.

 

Both my arguments are intended to convey that while religion can be beneficial at the level of the individual, it seems detrimental on a population level in the modern world.

This is your idea of acceptance?

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/16/us/texas-student-ahmed-muslim-clock-bomb/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/ivy-league-economist-interrogated-for-doing-math-on-american-airlines-flight/

 

Now, where's this persecution of Christians then?

Let's see some evidence.

http://www.persecution.com

 

Maybe there's a biased against Muslims, which is wrong, but people in political positions have repeatedly blamed christians for things, while saying we want to kill Muslims, murder others yadayadayada. Also, in the Koran it says to kill all infedels, and infidels are people who do not believe in allah. They're out to get you. Not really. While it does say to kill infidels, some of the Muslims don't listen to that, and are called shitites. They are the peaceful ones, and the mean ones do what their holy book tells them. Also, why is it discrimination against people usually only goes one way? Us vs them mentality, where they only show one side, while making Tue other side seem demonic.

 

Huh, I always thought fire gave off light too. I guess it conflicts with science. Oh well.

 

What are you talking about? It does not say anything about fire. The creation story in Genesis says God made light on the first day, but didn't make the light source (the sun) until the fourth day. You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make that seem right.

There also evidence of a "super tsunami" that might be the great flood.

 

The book specifically says God sent RAIN upon the Earth and flooded it. While I agree that its likely that a lot of these ancient flood myths (because there are more than just the Christian/Jewish one) probably were the result of primitive people who lived in the Mesopotamian and were subject to tsunamis and floods. However, the Geological column does not support the notion of a global flood ever taking place. No other cultures outside of the one in this very small part of the globe seem to recognize this flood ever happened.

And classes of things don't really count. For a LONG time people classified anything that flew and wasn't an insect a bird, so if after a while we separated everything, would the bible have to magically change too? It worked until we separate mammals and reptiles.

 

Why not? If the Bible was inspired my an omniscient deity, why is it filled with vague, unclear descriptions of things and partial-truths? Why is it that humans can write much better, well-developed, and informative books? Wouldn't a book that was the perfect word of an all-powerful, all-knowing God be much more clear about what it means? Especially when said God is threatening to torture you for an eternity for not believing it. You are basically proving my point with your answers here because you are taking what the book says and using facts and science to try and make some meaning out of it. Its a sort of post-hoc rationalization.http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud

Yeah, you see the Hebrew language wasn't the most advanced. To them, hand ment from your finger tips to your elbow, which what, your going to claim the bible is wrong because the Hebrew language doesn't translate well?

 

I think this definitely takes some credibility away from it, yes. If you're a God who wants the people you created to have your message, why deliver it to an illiterate group of ancient barbarians in iron-age middle east? Why not give it to modern humans who can understand it better? If this God exists, then he is the most capricious, and ineffective communicator I can imagine.

 

At the end of the day it boils down to this. In order to be in science and still be religious, there must be some profound cognitive dissonance going on. When you find something in the bible that is just patently untrue, you have to find an "interpretation" for it that turns it into a metaphor or an allegory. But often when it says something that does match reality, people don't say its a metaphor, they take it to mean what it actually says. So if you're just going to reinterpret the things you know don't match reality just to try to justify keeping your religion, then the religion becomes practically useless because it is not really giving you anything of substance.

 

So something CANNOT be true just because something else might be true? Hmmmm.

 

Also, what is so unclear by saying a bat is a bird? What's so confusing that your mind can't absord it? In the bible, once again, a bird is anytin that can fly but isn't an insect.

[Tampitump]

So something CANNOT be true just because something else might be true? Hmmmm.

 

If the two things conflict, then yes absolutely. You see, between science and religion, only one of them rests on empiricism and skeptical inquiry to discover what is true. The other one rests of a-priori and magical thinking. I'll let you figure out which one is which.

 

Also, what is so unclear by saying a bat is a bird? What's so confusing that your mind can't absord it? In the bible, once again, a bird is anytin that can fly but isn't an insect.

 

You really don't seem to realize how much you are proving my point here. Like I said, the Bible says one thing (i.e. bats are birds, or insects are birds), and science has told us otherwise. In order to reconcile the two and make the religious texts match with science, you have to reinterpret the what the holy book says and nuance its meaning in order to continue believing it.

 

The errant nature of religious scriptures continue to be exposed by scientific investigation. If you are going to remain religious at the end of the day and still embrace science, then there is no way you can take the books at their word. It has nothing to do with the Bible being so "confusing that my mind can't absorb it". It has to do with the fact that they say things that don't quite scale with the evidence, but they are just vague and unclear enough about what they mean that religious people can effectively reinterpret what they say in order to make it fit reality. I understand that the Bible says everything with wings is a bird. Its wrong, and we have figured this out through science. If there is an all-knowing God who dictated what the Bible says, he did a very poor job articulating correct information in his "good book".

Edited May 22, 2016 by Tampitump

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Tampitump,

While I will acknowledge that you have outlined an okay topic for debate, the tone of your OP and your subsequent posts reads more like you wish to use this thread simply to rail on religion. This is a science forum, however we very much discourage threads that seemingly set out to flame a group of people or person. It does not open the way for genuine discussion, which is what we aim to achieve at SFN.

With this in mind, and considering the fact that this is apparently turning into more of a conversation about the many ways in which the Bible is not accurate, I am closing this pending further review.