Why do religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and Science?

[Ihcisphysicist]

Because Mr. Strange, if there is more than religion than there definitely is more than Science too.

[Strange]

Because Mr. Strange, if there is more than religion than there definitely is more than Science too.

 

So what?

 

There is no reason to invent a conflict between them. Science and religion don't really have any connection or grounds for conflict. The things that religion deals with (gods, the supernatural, etc) have nothing to do with science and science has nothing to say about them.

 

Science investigates the natural world and attempts to understand it.

 

Unless your beliefs are contradicted by reality (such as people who believe the Earth is flat) then there should be no reason for conflict between your beliefs and science, because science just explores the real world.

[Ihcisphysicist]

 

So what?

 

There is no reason to invent a conflict between them. Science and religion don't really have any connection or grounds for conflict. The things that religion deals with (gods, the supernatural, etc) have nothing to do with science and science has nothing to say about them.

 

Science investigates the natural world and attempts to understand it.

 

Unless your beliefs are contradicted by reality (such as people who believe the Earth is flat) then there should be no reason for conflict between your beliefs and science, because science just explores the real world.

What!!! the world isn't flat?????

Edited June 22, 2016 by Ihcisphysicist

[Strange]

Very droll.

[Memammal]

Unless your beliefs are contradicted by reality (such as people who believe the Earth is flat) then there should be no reason for conflict between your beliefs and science, because science just explores the real world.

As I stated elsewhere, most religious beliefs are contradicted by scientific reality.

[Strange]

As I stated elsewhere, most religious beliefs are contradicted by scientific reality.

 

I am not convinced of that. For example, there is not really any evidence against a god or gods, they are just irrelevant to science. You can't scientifically prove god doesn't exist.

[Memammal]

Are you referring to a deistic god, or a theistic god? A god defined by religion, or a spiritual god-like entity?

[Strange]

Are you referring to a deistic god, or a theistic god? A god defined by religion, or a spiritual god-like entity?

 

I don't see what difference it makes.

[Memammal]

The difference lies in the level of compatibility with scientific knowledge. It is all very easy to say that science cannot disprove a god, but a totally different thing to state that God X, Y or Z is compatible with scientific knowledge.

[Strange]

The difference lies in the level of compatibility with scientific knowledge. It is all very easy to say that science cannot disprove a god, but a totally different thing to state that God X, Y or Z is compatible with scientific knowledge.

 

Surely, if a god is compatible with reality then it is compatible with scientific knowledge (which is based on reality).

 

If your god tells you that the Earth is flat then your god is not compatible with science because it is wrong.

 

But if your god tells you her favourite ice cream is stracciatella then can't really be incompatible with science.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Strange

[Memammal]

Fair enough...ala an imaginary friend..? But let me just repeat myself:

 

As I stated elsewhere, most religious beliefs are contradicted by scientific reality.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Memammal

[Strange]

I guess, the title should be made more general: "why do some religious people and some atheists [anti-theists] invent a conflict between belief and science"

 

Fair enough...ala an imaginary friend..? But let me just repeat myself:

 

 

Repeating yourself doesn't magically make it true, as you seem to believe. (The power of faith?)

I'm sure you can list beliefs that are incompatible with reality/science. And I could list beliefs that are not. That would be pretty pointless, I think.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Strange

[Memammal]

@ Strange, what religious beliefs cannot be contradicted by scientific knowledge? I am not talking about the run-of-the-mill kind of stuff, I am referring to those (core) beliefs that define a religion or a religious (theistic) god. For example, i.t.o. Christianity think Nicene Creed.

[Strange]

I am not familiar with the Nicene Creed. And I'm not sure I want to try and explain other peoples beliefs (there are plenty of religious scientists who can do that). Perhaps you can give an example of a mainstream religious belief (e.g. not Creationism) that contradicts science. The Roman Catholic church, for example, has made explicit statements that it accepts modern science and they are consistent with its faith. If one of the more conservative religions is able to say that, who am I to disagree.

 

Do you also think that political choices or tastes in music are contradicted by science?

[Memammal]

The RCC also uses the Nicene Creed as its statement of faith (it is the most widely used statement of faith among most Christian churches). The RCC claims to be progressive in accepting modern science, yet they cling on to creationism by virtue of their opinion that something must have preceded/created the Big Bang. Creationism is part and parcel of the Nicene Creed. Arguably the biggest drawback of Christianity (and the Nicene Creed) lies of course in its core doctrine which is humanity's fall to sin which affects every single baby that has (and will) ever been born and the need for a divine saviour (Jesus) to have died for our sins in order to save our souls from eternal death (or hell) and to secure immortality for our souls in heaven. Our knowledge of evolution implies that this belief is scientifically flawed. Without it Christianity has no foundation.

[Prometheus]

The Roman Catholic church, for example, has made explicit statements that it accepts modern science and they are consistent with its faith. If one of the more conservative religions is able to say that, who am I to disagree.

 

Well, transubstantiation is still official Catholic belief: surely we can test that quite easily.

 

It might seem a small point but in religions making all sorts of claims, influencing a large swathe of people i think it is important that they outline whether all, some or none of their scriptures are to be taken literally - and if some, specifically which ones. Else violent verses could be taken to be commandments from god.

[Strange]

The RCC also uses the Nicene Creed as its statement of faith (it is the most widely used statement of faith among most Christian churches). The RCC claims to be progressive in accepting modern science, yet they cling on to creationism by virtue of their opinion that something must have preceded/created the Big Bang.

 

As there are is no science that says anything about what created the big bang (or even if such a thing happened) I don't see how anyone's opinions on that - whether Hawking or the Pope - can be said to contradict science.

 

 

Arguably the biggest drawback of Christianity (and the Nicene Creed) lies of course in its core doctrine which is humanity's fall to sin which affects every single baby that has (and will) ever been born and the need for a divine saviour (Jesus) to have died for our sins in order to save our souls from eternal death (or hell) and to secure immortality for our souls in heaven. Our knowledge of evolution implies that this belief is scientifically flawed. Without it Christianity has no foundation.

 

While I find that doctrine bizarre beyond all belief, I can't see how evolution has any connection to it. Evolution says nothing about morality, sin or other abstract human inventions.

 

It seems to me that you are either reading too much into it, or grasping at straws in your desire to attack people's beliefs.

 

Do you also think that political choices or tastes in music are contradicted by science?

Well, transubstantiation is still official Catholic belief: surely we can test that quite easily.

 

I'm sure that they could come up with all sorts of reasons why it couldn't be tested. (It doesn't happen in the presence of measuring instruments. Or it is like the uncertainty principle: it happens to quickly to be detected. Or ...)

 

I'm not sure why anyone would care.

[Memammal]

As there are is no science that says anything about what created the big bang (or even if such a thing happened) I don't see how anyone's opinions on that - whether Hawking or the Pope - can be said to contradict science.

So by your reasoning there is no contradiction between the RCC's refusal to let go of divine creation and the scientific consensus?

 

While I find that doctrine bizarre beyond all belief, I can't see how evolution has any connection to it. Evolution says nothing about morality, sin or other abstract human inventions.

Actually evolution has everything to do with it. a) Biblical Adam & Eve could not have been the first humans b) If they were not the first, how could they have passed on this alleged genetic trait to the entire human race? c) How would evolution explain humanity's ability to sin (how and when did we naturally acquire this extraordinary ability)? d) What process in evolution brought us eternal souls? I can agree with you that these are mere abstract human inventions, but trust me that is not what Christians belief. If these were accepted to be abstract human inventions, it will render Christianity as a religion rather futile, no?

 

It seems to me that you are either reading too much into it, or grasping at straws in your desire to attack people's beliefs.

Do you also think that political choices or tastes in music are contradicted by science?

You think? I.m.o. neither. I can't see how one can reconcile true religious beliefs (faith) with science without compromising one or the other.

No.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Memammal

[Sensei]

I don't see what difference it makes.

Well, there is huge, deistic god won't reveal himself/herself to humans, so scientists can't make any experiment with him/her.

To start making experiments, scientist has to have some revelation of phenomena.

Humans wouldn't know about magnetism if there would be no natural magnets, and any other way to magnetize objects.

Humans wouldn't know about electrostatics if there would be no way to charge objects by rubbing them.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Sensei

[Strange]

So by your reasoning there is no contradiction between the RCC's refusal to let go of divine creation and the scientific consensus?

 

As there is no science that says anything either way about "creation", I can't see how there can be a contradiction.

 

 

If they were not the first, how could they have passed on this alleged genetic trait to the entire human race?

 

Is sin a genetic trait? That is a bizarre belief.

 

 

How would evolution explain humanity's ability to sin (how and when did we naturally acquire this extraordinary ability)?

 

Are you saying that people never do bad things because evolution doesn't allow it?

 

 

What process in evolution brought us eternal souls?

 

As such things are not detectable and there is no evidence they exist, what does evolution have to do with it?

 

 

I can agree with you that these are mere abstract human inventions, but trust me that is not what Christians belief.

 

But we are talking about science, not whether you or I agree with their beliefs. I don't care if they believe that; science has nothing to say about it and can have nothing to say about it. Unless you think you have a soul detector?

 

 

If these were accepted to be abstract human inventions, it will render Christianity as a religion rather futile, no?

 

But Christians would not accept that. And science can't show them to be that.

 

 

I can't see how one can reconcile true religious beliefs (faith) with science without compromising one or the other.

 

Plenty of people do. So I guess you just lack imagination or an understanding of human nature.

Well, there is huge, deistic god won't reveal himself/herself to humans, so scientists can't make any experiment with him/her.

 

I assume that would be true of any god. Do you know of any experiments that can be done on gods?

 

I assume you are agreeing with me that gods are outside the scope of science.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Strange

[Prometheus]

 

I'm sure that they could come up with all sorts of reasons why it couldn't be tested. (It doesn't happen in the presence of measuring instruments. Or it is like the uncertainty principle: it happens to quickly to be detected. Or ...)

 

I'm not sure why anyone would care.

 

Probably, but science does have something to say about the issue.

 

I think It's important because science can do religion a massive favour here: by giving limits on what religion should be talking about. They don't have to worry about how the universe came to be, or the nature of of celestial bodies. Science has it covered, and if there gaps in a knowledge the track record of science gives us every confidence that it is the correct method to plug the gap. This liberates religions to consider more important things like how best to bring communities together, and how best to live the lives we are given.

 

Consider, it is only because of the progress science has made that you can say god is outside the remit of science. Before such progress religions were free to make up all sorts of claims about how their god influences the world. Science has in effect defined what god cannot be: that is very important.

 

So while i agree with you that scientists can say "We have no need of that hypothesis,"for religious people what science has to say about what cannot be is extremely important.

[zapatos]

 

Probably, but science does have something to say about the issue.

 

I think It's important because science can do religion a massive favour here: by giving limits on what religion should be talking about. They don't have to worry about how the universe came to be, or the nature of of celestial bodies. Science has it covered, and if there gaps in a knowledge the track record of science gives us every confidence that it is the correct method to plug the gap. This liberates religions to consider more important things like how best to bring communities together, and how best to live the lives we are given.

 

Science has something to say about how the universe evolved, not about how it came to be.

[Strange]

So while i agree with you that scientists can say "We have no need of that hypothesis,"for religious people what science has to say about what cannot be is extremely important.

 

 

I'll go along with that.

[Prometheus]

 

Science has something to say about how the universe evolved, not about how it came to be.

 

If that is the only claim made by about a god then i agree.

 

We think of it as the only claim of most moderate people's god because science has set limits on what can be said about god. No longer can people say, 'yes, god just came along and parted that massive sea over there'. Surely science would have something to say about that?

[MonDie]

Science consists of claims arrived at through a particular method of investigating the world. Religions are probably best defined as consisting of statements originating from a common set of authorities or texts with no limit on the sorts of claims made as long as they include claims about non-animalian minds or other planes of existence and descriptions of recommended ritualistic behavior. The word "religion" ends up being pretty useless.