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

[disarray]

What evidence Raider5678? You only presented a highly speculative, unfounded and extremely unlikely claim in order to raise doubt about the real facts that were presented to you. You are right, I cannot accept that and neither should I. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no measure of understanding that it is entirely impossible for Biblical Adam & Eve to have been the first male and female of our species who produced their children Cain, Abel, Seth and the rest. Yet you remain steadfast in the midst of your ignorance. Feel free to do so, but please do not expect the rest of us to take you seriously.

There are some things in (a literal interpretation) of scriptures that the vast majority of scientists confirm, some they put into question, and others that they flatly deny. That a female came from the rib of a male is flatly denied.....debate.

 

Edited July 25, 2016 by disarray

[Moontanman]

 

There are some things in (a literal interpretation) of scriptures that the vast majority of scientists confirm, some they put into question, and others that they flatly deny. That a female came from the rib of a male is flatly denied.....debate.

 

 

 

 

Can you name one scientific fact that the study of the bible has uncovered?

 

Can you name one thing about reality that science confirms in the bible?

[Raider5678]

Can you name one scientific fact that the study of the bible has uncovered?

 

Can you name one thing about reality that science confirms in the bible?

 

The writers of Job knew the earth was round. So did isiah. And its hinted about in Luke.

What evidence Raider5678? You only presented a highly speculative, unfounded and extremely unlikely claim in order to raise doubt about the real facts that were presented to you. You are right, I cannot accept that and neither should I. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no measure of understanding that it is entirely impossible for Biblical Adam & Eve to have been the first male and female of our species who produced their children Cain, Abel, Seth and the rest. Yet you remain steadfast in the midst of your ignorance. Feel free to do so, but please do not expect the rest of us to take you seriously.

Just because you say its speculative doesn't mean it is. It IS founded by historical comparisons and translators of the Hebrew language, along with several examples and proof is provided. Once again, I don't see why its extremely unlikely. Also, why is it "impossible" that Adam and Eve were the first humans? Your evolution theory doesn't really work because according to us its god. Say in the likely hood of 2 humans showing up in a pair is extremely small doesnt say anything about that.

[Prometheus]

The writers of Job knew the earth was round. So did isiah. And its hinted about in Luke.

 

I look forward to you providing the exact passages/verses so i can check out how they unambiguously state the earth is round.

 

I think this issue is actually the crux of the matter when it comes to conflict between science and religion. The bible is very obviously a terrible source for factual information - it can't even get pi right. But that only matters if a religion is trying to make factual claims about the physical world. If religion gave up this pretence and instead focused its energies on the spiritual development of its followers, there would no longer be any conflict and our spiritual development might be able to catch up with our technological development.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Prometheus

[Raider5678]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

This offers some information.

http://www.revelation.co/2009/06/19/does-the-bible-say-earth-is-flat-or-round/

Edited July 25, 2016 by Raider5678

[Memammal]

It IS founded by historical comparisons and translators of the Hebrew language, along with several examples and proof is provided. Once again, I don't see why its extremely unlikely.

Either I missed that "proof" or it is simply not there. There was just a vague reference to a possibility that any number of possible links in the Biblical genealogical lineage might have been omitted, i.e. that it might not be 100% complete. In essence it means nada as the other sources that I provided clearly spelled out how the age of the Biblical genealogy was determined, including filling any gaps with alternative information provided by other Biblical references. Your claim is an extraordinary one...it attempts to bridge >150,000 years...your so-called "proof" is seriously lacking.

 

Also, why is it "impossible" that Adam and Eve were the first humans? Your evolution theory doesn't really work because according to us its god.

It is often said that it is useless to debate with a creationist. How does one argue with such blatant ignorance? Please lad, I appreciate the fact that you are still young and inexperienced but this is a science forum and you are really out of your depth. I rest my case.

[Prometheus]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

This offers some information.

http://www.revelation.co/2009/06/19/does-the-bible-say-earth-is-flat-or-round/

 

Cheers.

 

It all seems to depend on a translation of a Hebrew word which could be taken to mean either circular or spherical. I think this quote from the second link summarises it best:

 

 

...what we see is a circular or spherical description of the Earth

 

In other words, ambiguous. Else there never would be any debate in medieval Catholic Europe about its shape: they could refer to the inerrant bible.

 

Something unambiguous, would be like when Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's circumference, by using knowledge that the Earth is round, to a good approximation.

[Raider5678]

Either I missed that "proof" or it is simply not there. There was just a vague reference to a possibility that any number of possible links in the Biblical genealogical lineage might have been omitted, i.e. that it might not be 100% complete. In essence it means nada as the other sources that I provided clearly spelled out how the age of the Biblical genealogy was determined, including filling any gaps with alternative information provided by other Biblical references. Your claim is an extraordinary one...it attempts to bridge >150,000 years...your so-called "proof" is seriously lacking.

 

 

It is often said that it is useless to debate with a creationist. How does one argue with such blatant ignorance? Please lad, I appreciate the fact that you are still young and inexperienced but this is a science forum and you are really out of your depth. I rest my case.

Its hard to argue with you, as you think that simply dissmissing the idea is proof its fake.

In the time the geaneologies were written it was common practice to skip plenty of generations. That's historical comparison. If that's how geaneologies were written in that time period, surely you can assume the same of the ones in the bible? Or do you saying it wouldn't mean its not true?

The word yalad in the Hebrew language can be translated to begat. Inside the bible, begat is commonly used to signify relations, but they dont have to be direct. Inside the Hebrew language there's also a mark they would put front of the geaneologies to mean several generations were

skipped. And not just one or two, but significant numbers of generations. This mark was placed many times in the genesis geaneologies. But I'm sure your going to argue that because you don't believe it eh? Because your the best Hebrew translator ever?

 

And the "sources" you mentioned don't prove anything. They just make assumptions, using the same estimations i disproved.

 

In what way am I ignoring your question? Please, answer!

 

And your dismissing this because you don't want to answer? You can't prove Adam and Eve weren't the first humans. Your previous argument was that the possibility of two human beings showing up in a pair was impossible. If God made them, can you honestly say its impossible? You can't disprove God. You can't prove God. Its called russels teacup. Simply dismissing everything I say because I'm "young and inexperienced" kind of seems rude.

[Moontanman]

Its hard to argue with you, as you think that simply dissmissing the idea is proof its fake.

In the time the geaneologies were written it was common practice to skip plenty of generations. That's historical comparison. If that's how geaneologies were written in that time period, surely you can assume the same of the ones in the bible? Or do you saying it wouldn't mean its not true?

The word yalad in the Hebrew language can be translated to begat. Inside the bible, begat is commonly used to signify relations, but they dont have to be direct. Inside the Hebrew language there's also a mark they would put front of the geaneologies to mean several generations were

skipped. And not just one or two, but significant numbers of generations. This mark was placed many times in the genesis geaneologies. But I'm sure your going to argue that because you don't believe it eh? Because your the best Hebrew translator ever?

 

And the "sources" you mentioned don't prove anything. They just make assumptions, using the same estimations i disproved.

 

In what way am I ignoring your question? Please, answer!

 

And your dismissing this because you don't want to answer? You can't prove Adam and Eve weren't the first humans. Your previous argument was that the possibility of two human beings showing up in a pair was impossible. If God made them, can you honestly say its impossible? You can't disprove God. You can't prove God. Its called russels teacup. Simply dismissing everything I say because I'm "young and inexperienced" kind of seems rude.

 

 

Seriously dude, are just being obtuse or do you not understand the burden of proof? I do not have to prove adam and eve never existed anymore than I have to prove there is no bigfoot or loch ness monster.

 

If you want to posit adam and eve you must provide evidence, the bible is not evidence of anything, it is the claim that requires evidence...

[John Cuthber]

I nodded off fora bit there. Did I miss the explanation of the fact that the "chain of begettings" only includes something like 10% or 1% of the people it should have*, and yet the rest of the book should be regarded as essentially correct and complete?

 

 

* It explains about 6000 years, but we know that there have been people for something like 10 or 100 times longer (depending on what you actually count as "people")so something like 90% or 99% of it is missing with no note of this fact, nor any explanation.

Of course, the other problem is that the "chain" only goes back to the first human. The first life goes back a few thousand times longer.

But, according to the Bible we were all made within a week or so. So the "chain" needs to go back not just 6000 years but nearer 3,000,000,000

So 99.98% of it seems to be missing.

Seems a bit shoddy for the "word of God".

[Raider5678]

I nodded off fora bit there. Did I miss the explanation of the fact that the "chain of begettings" only includes something like 10% or 1% of the people it should have*, and yet the rest of the book should be regarded as essentially correct and complete?

 

 

* It explains about 6000 years, but we know that there have been people for something like 10 or 100 times longer (depending on what you actually count as "people")so something like 90% or 99% of it is missing with no note of this fact, nor any explanation.

 

Of course, the other problem is that the "chain" only goes back to the first human. The first life goes back a few thousand times longer.

But, according to the Bible we were all made within a week or so. So the "chain" needs to go back not just 6000 years but nearer 3,000,000,000

So 99.98% of it seems to be missing.

Seems a bit shoddy for the "word of God".

Actually it does have a note that it skips generations but it was lost in translatiooff..You would know that if you didn't nod off

Seriously dude, are just being obtuse or do you not understand the burden of proof? I do not have to prove adam and eve never existed anymore than I have to prove there is no bigfoot or loch ness monster.

 

If you want to posit adam and eve you must provide evidence, the bible is not evidence of anything, it is the claim that requires evidence...

 

While this is true, you would yet to disprove Adam and Eve. Comparing them to bigfoot or lochness seems like a way to just avoid it. I know it's Russels teacup but hey, still works.

[Moontanman]

Actually it does have a note that it skips generations but it was lost in translatiooff..You would know that if you didn't nod off

While this is true, you would yet to disprove Adam and Eve. Comparing them to bigfoot or lochness seems like a way to just avoid it. I know it's Russels teacup but hey, still works.

 

 

There is both geological, fossil, and genetic evidence that shows conclusively there was never a first human. If you could indeed line up a picture of ever one of your ancestors over many thousands of generation there would be no point where you could point to a first human, everything gives birth to what species it is. At no point is there a line that can drawn, no dogs giving birth to kittens, no crocoducks, just a slow gradual change that is still going with each generation of living things...

[disarray]

 

 

Can you name one scientific fact that the study of the bible has uncovered?

 

Can you name one thing about reality that science confirms in the bible?

 

Well, I was not getting into much depth here, really. I suppose science acknowledges that people reproduce sexually and have children, finds questionable that a woman in her nineties can give birth, and denies the possibility of a woman having a child on her own (at least without the intervention of modern science: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-79711/We-create-babies-men-claim-scientists.html).

 

It would appear that the odds of a mitochondrial Eve and a Y-chromosomal Adam having teamed up is somewhat astronomical, but there are always those who will play around with the wiggle room that the complexity of the issue affords.

 

But unlike Adam and Eve, there would have been many modern humans (homo sapiens) who did not descend from m. Eve and y-c Adam. Furthermore, science shows a whole ensemble of pre-modern homo sapien hominids, while the Bible does not.

 

But if the goal of literalists is to show that science supports the tale of Genesis etc., I tend to cut to the chase by pointing out things that science just would not support. Indeed, they are so in contradiction to biology as we know it that it is pointless to demand that scientists provide evidence to show, as I mentioned, that Eve was not created from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:22: "Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man"). No gray areas here....just not on the cards when it comes to science.

 

But ditto for a man parting an enormous sea with the wave of his cane (if one is to believe Cecil B DeMille's vision), or voices coming out of a continuously burning bush, or a spiritual being writing commandments into rock tablets, or talking serpents, etc.

 

If the goal of literal Biblical apologists is to demonstrate that the events in the Bible could have happened in accordance with the precepts of modern science, they are barking up the wrong Edenic tree.

Edited July 27, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

There is both geological, fossil, and genetic evidence that shows conclusively there was never a first human. If you could indeed line up a picture of ever one of your ancestors over many thousands of generation there would be no point where you could point to a first human, everything gives birth to what species it is. At no point is there a line that can drawn, no dogs giving birth to kittens, no crocoducks, just a slow gradual change that is still going with each generation of living things...

Moontanman, I wanted to vote this post up and somehow and by mistake I voted it down... Sorry for that. I am not sure if I can restore it again but I will try! For the record it was at +1 before I messed it up.

[zapatos]

Moontanman, I wanted to vote this post up and somehow and by mistake I voted it down... Sorry for that. I am not sure if I can restore it again but I will try! For the record it was at +1 before I messed it up.

 

Did my part to fix it for you...

[Memammal]

Its hard to argue with you, as you think that simply dissmissing the idea is proof its fake.

In the time the geaneologies were written it was common practice to skip plenty of generations. That's historical comparison. If that's how geaneologies were written in that time period, surely you can assume the same of the ones in the bible? Or do you saying it wouldn't mean its not true?

The word yalad in the Hebrew language can be translated to begat. Inside the bible, begat is commonly used to signify relations, but they dont have to be direct. Inside the Hebrew language there's also a mark they would put front of the geaneologies to mean several generations were

skipped. And not just one or two, but significant numbers of generations. This mark was placed many times in the genesis geaneologies.

I read all about that. It is not going to solve your dilemma with wanting to move Adam & Eve back to the very start of the origin of our species though. Let me quote:

While it may be true on the one hand to say that a precise age of the Earth is unobtainable from the genealogies, at the same time let us hasten to point out that using the best information available to us from Scripture, the genealogies hardly can be extended (via “gaps”) to anything much beyond 6,000 to 7,000 years. For someone to leave the impression (even if inadvertently) that the genealogies do not contain legitimate chronological information, or that the genealogies are full of “gaps” that render them impotent, is to misrepresent the case and distort the facts.

(Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1143)

Another informed view that strongly opposed yours is this one: Interlocking Time Specifications Of The Genesis Genealogies

 

Allow me to add another perspective on the likely age of Biblical Adam & Eve at the end of this post.

 

In what way am I ignoring your question? Please, answer!

 

And your dismissing this because you don't want to answer? You can't prove Adam and Eve weren't the first humans. Your previous argument was that the possibility of two human beings showing up in a pair was impossible. If God made them, can you honestly say its impossible? You can't disprove God. You can't prove God. Its called russels teacup. Simply dismissing everything I say because I'm "young and inexperienced" kind of seems rude.

With "ignorant" I meant ignoring all the scientific knowledge at your disposal. With "young and inexperienced" I intended to highlight the fact that as you grow older you are likely to be exposed to- and become more open-minded to other external influences that may (hopefully) open your eyes and help you to consider the facts in a more enlightened manner. We are all products of the interaction between our genes and our environments and at this stage it appears as if your genetic make-up in combination with your particular environment is limiting your willingness to learn..?

 

Moontanman already touched on what you posted, but let me do my part in providing you with a brief overview of the scientific knowledge that I referred to above:

 

As an introduction have a look at this Human Family Tree and feel free to navigate through all the topics under the Human Evolution Evidence link.

Another (unexpected) source of evidence in this article: Evolution of gut bacteria tracks splits in primate species

More here: Genetic Study Reveals New Insight into Origins of Our Species

This explains the multi-disciplinary facets of the scientific research into evolution of our species A Record of the Past. Again, please explore it beyond just the link.

And now we start to narrow it down...first read the introduction to the Paleolithic.

Then The Human Journey

And if you need more supporting evidence of the above, read this very important scientific research paper Anthropological Genetics: Inferring the History of Our Species Through the Analysis of DNA

 

So after you have read all of that, you will understand that science pretty much wrapped up the origin of our species. There is NO NEED to insert supernatural creation, in fact creatio ex nihilo of the human race will not only compromise all the scientific knowledge that have been acquired, it will simply NOT FIT.

 

Now back to Genesis and the "challenge" of placing alleged Biblical Adam & Eve in the appropriate historical context. See how these verses from Genesis tie in with other (more recent) historical events:

 

Gen 3:19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread

Cereals and bread became a staple food during the Neolithic, around 10,000 years ago, when wheat and barley were among the first plants to be domesticated in the Fertile Crescent. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bread)

 

Gen 4:2: Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground.

The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200 – 8,800 BC. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered the use of wild cereals, which then evolved into true farming. The Natufian period was between 12,000 and 10,200 BC, and the so-called "proto-Neolithic" is now included in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic between 10,200 and 8,800 BC. As the Natufians had become dependent on wild cereals in their diet, and a sedentary way of life had begun among them, the climatic changes associated with the Younger Dryas are thought to have forced people to develop farming. By 10,200–8,800 BC, farming communities arose in the Levant and spread to Asia Minor, North Africa and North Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is the site of the earliest developments of the Neolithic Revolution from around 10,000 BC. It has been identified as having "inspired some of the most important developments in human history including the invention of the wheel, the planting of the first cereal crops and the development of cursive script, mathematics, astronomy and agriculture." Early Neolithic farming was limited to a narrow range of plants, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat, millet and spelt, and the keeping of dogs, sheep and goats. By about 6,900–6,400 BC, it included domesticated cattle and pigs, the establishment of permanently or seasonally inhabited settlements, and the use of pottery...

Unlike the Paleolithic, when more than one human species existed, only one human species (Homo sapiens sapiens) reached the Neolithic.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic)

 

Gen 4:14: Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

This was Cain speaking shortly after he killed Abel. Who was he afraid of?

 

Gen 4: 16 – 17: And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic#Early_settlements

 

So in conclusion - based on the evidence before you the dates that I previously quoted for the Biblical Adam & Eve that also coincided with the above Genesis narratives make much more sense within the historical setting as described above as opposed to the origin of our species more than 150,000 years earlier. Keep in mind that it still does not prove their actual existence, but it paints a realistic setting for their story.

 

Did my part to fix it for you...

Thank you!

[Raider5678]

I relent.

[disarray]

Though many Catholics and Protestants attempt to assimilate scientific advancements, 41% of Protestants hold the Bible is literally true and 46% take the Bible to be the inspired word of God. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

 

I think that religion has done a lot of good in the world, though the proportion of good to bad is a matter of speculation and personal opinion. But the pillars of Christianity, for example, are like dominoes....arguably they all stand or they all fall:

Bible is literally true>Creation of everything by God in 6 days>Creation of Adam and Eve in a single gesture (from his rib!) as beings superior to and separate from other animals>Temptation of Adam/Eve by satan/serpent>Fall of mankind (sic) and expulsion from the paradisaical garden of Eden>Mankind's state of fallen grace>Christ's redemptive act>Need to accept Christ's redemptive act>Personal or Group redemption>Eternal life

 

Anything that might press on and wobble any one of these pillars, e.g., alternative religions, heretical beliefs, scientific claims, demythology, etc. is often seen as a threat. Hence, the reason that 'religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and science'.

 

Of course, one defense is that scientists themselves have their own agenda, e.g., to spread atheism, their own worldview (aka, atheistic religion), materialism, etc., as if, it is often claimed, they are on their own sort of crusade to eradicate all faith, moral values, and religion from the face of the earth. So, not surprisingly, many scientists, not wishing to be unfairly maligned, continue to point out that they have nothing to gain except their usual reward of common, ole, sensible knowledge.

Edited July 28, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

I relent.

I trust that this was in good faith. I also just noticed this post in another thread that seems very applicable to the discussion that we had: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96729-intelligent-design/page-9#entry934349

[disarray]

Memammal (to Raider): "I trust that this was in good faith" ...

Some sort of ironic pun?

 

No doubt you are using the word "faith" in the 13th c. sense of faithfulness to a trust or promise, but in a related early 14c. sense of accepting religious beliefs despite a lack of evidence, "faith is neither the submission of reason, nor is it the acceptance, simply and absolutely upon testimony, of what reason cannot reach. Faith is being able to cleave to a power of goodness appealing to our higher and real self, not to our lower and apparent self." [Matthew Arnold, "Literature & Dogma," 1873]. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith&allowed_in_frame=0

 

Matthew Arnold was, I think, a bit of a hypocrite in this regard, (according to Terry Eagleton) because he had a rather skeptical, scientific worldview himself, but wrote as if he subscribed to Christian beliefs because he thought that they kept the masses in line, e.g., minimize crime.

 

But I think that he is being quite inclusive in his definition of faith in that he seems to reject the notion that religious faith entails believing in all sorts of things peculiar to a particular religion, whether or not such beliefs are in keeping with common sense and science; rather, he defines (good) "faith" in the more generic sense that we focus on what is good in life rather than on denouncing what is or seems bad, and focus on transcending our own baser instincts by (I think he would agree) forming communities that uphold higher ideals.

 

Personally, I have no compunction, in general, about disputing those who claim that a particular religion or dogma is in keeping with scientific "beliefs," particularly when someone also claims that one must subscribe to their particular religion (with its particular superstitions/ethnocentric historical narrative/creeds/its moral and would-be legal codes/and exclusive formulas for salvation) and denounce, as heretical and/or damned, all who don't.

 

If only all religious groups could just focus upon their faith in goodness, rather than clinging to ancient texts and symbols, while denouncing those who don't, such as scientists who are busy pursuing knowledge in accordance with their own modern calculations and sextants. It's a shame that they keep instigating conflicts with science because we are all trying to keep afloat on whatever sea of faith we think makes life most fulfilling. Matthew Arnold laments the growing skepticism about traditional religious belief brought about by scientific progress in his mid-19th c. poem Dover Beach:

 

The Sea of Faith

Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore

Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd.

But now I only hear Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,

Retreating, to the breath

Of the night-wind...

 

-Matthew Arnold

 

Edited July 28, 2016 by disarray

[Memammal]

 

Temptation of Adam/Eve by satan/serpent>Fall of mankind (sic) and expulsion from the paradisaical garden of Eden>Mankind's state of fallen grace>Christ's redemptive act>Need to accept Christ's redemptive act>Personal or Group redemption>Eternal life

I would like to focus on this part of the equation (again). This, of course, relates to the teaching of original- or hereditary sin, one of the "pillars of Christianity" as you put it. I previously referred to it as hideous. Let me expand upon that. Consider what has been happening in Christian families for centuries and continues to happen. Children have been- and are still being brought up and taught that they were born in sin because of what happened in Eden and that as a result they (as everybody else) are destined to end up in eternal hell unless whatever divine intervention they subscribe to (Jesus' substitutionary atonement on the cross, grace of God, their names in the right book, faith, righteous deeds, salvation through the church, etc). These same children would grow up, marry another Christian, conceive and give birth to their own children who they would baptise and later inform them of their own fate, the burden of that sin that they passed on to them. And so it goes on and on and on without anybody questioning the merit thereof. Does it not seem freakish? There are those who think that it might have psychologically scarred (and scared) generations of people; I can understand why. Which may explain this:

 

Though many Catholics and Protestants attempt to assimilate scientific advancements, 41% of Protestants hold the Bible is literally true and 46% take the Bible to be the inspired word of God...

Hence, the reason that 'religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and science'.

 

 

 

Memammal (to Raider): "I trust that this was in good faith" ...

Some sort of ironic pun?

No comment

Edited July 28, 2016 by Memammal

[disarray]

Consider what has been happening in Christian families for centuries and continues to happen. Children have been- and are still being brought up and taught that they were born in sin because of what happened in Eden and that as a result they (as everybody else) are destined to end up in eternal hell unless whatever divine intervention they subscribe to (Jesus' substitutionary atonement on the cross, grace of God, their names in the right book, faith, righteous deeds, salvation through the church, etc). These same children would grow up, marry another Christian, conceive and give birth to their own children who they would baptise and later inform them of their own fate, the burden of that sin that they passed on to them. And so it goes on and on

 

You and I are agreed upon this and it seems patently obvious to us that telling children that they are born sinful and will go to hell or heaven depending upon whether they behave and/or believe is not a constructive parenting approach. But I think that it is an interesting question as to why what seems patently obvious to us (and others) seems so absurd and outrageous to many Christians. To them, it makes children realize that they are bad and need to shape up.

 

I recall a study (circa 1950s) that concluded that parents from Protestant homes were more likely to adopt an authoritarian parenting style, with a higher than average tendency to physically discipline their children. Despite its shortcomings, I don't think that it is far-fetched to mention the relevance of Adorno's book on the 'authoritarian personality'. In short, from their perspective, parents who tell their children they might not go to heaven, but suffer agonizing pain in hell forever are being good parents.

 

They fail to see the irony of such an approach. Moreover, they fail to see the irony in suggesting that other Christian sects or other religions who practice slightly different views about going to heaven or hell are just plain wrong.

 

Indeed, I have mentioned that even telling ones children that there is a Santa who will reward them or leave them neglected (without presents) depending upon whether they have been "good or bad," as the song goes, is a questionable practice. Santa, like God, even knows what you are thinking and doing when parents aren't around...something, again, that many parents think is a great idea. However, even atheists have been upset by this observation because they say that they enjoy Christmas time and opening presents with their beloved relatives at Christmas...so how dare I make such a statement.

 

I agree that things such as the notion that Santa comes down the chimney in the middle of the night and eats the cookies mom baked on Christmas Eve is a quaint folk custom, and I am not advocating that we do away with a national holiday. I am just pointing out the ubiquity of Christian beliefs in our culture, the often accompanying assumption that the U.S. is a Christian Nation (either officially or de facto), and that attempts to provide a level playing for all religions by prohibiting expressions of Christianity in public places (e.g., court house lawns and schools) by banning displays such as the 10 Commandments and nativity scenes are outrageous attempts by people (perhaps inspired by the devil) to eradicate all religious expressions and beliefs from the country.

 

So to touch base with OP, religious people invent conflict and assert their rightness/righteousness, in large part, to maintain control.

 

Without typing much more, for sake of brevity, I would note that 20th c.. psychology/sociology in theory and practice tended to move away from the extremes of the sort of strict aloof, and authoritarian parenting legacy of Victorianism, while still eschewing permissive parenting. A less authoritarian approach (e.g., the assertive approach) tends, I would suggest, to place less emphasis on children's (innate) sinful nature, less emphasis on the existence of absolute moral truths (and more emphasis on critical thinking, discussion, and compromise), and, in general more emphasis on children's innate self-worth, their ability to think for themselves, their ability to independently regulate their own conduct (without some form of Big Brother or Big Father always watching over their shoulder), and their ability to have healthy children of their own someday, untainted with the mark of original sin, or Cain, or of any other blemish on the core of their Being.

Edited August 18, 2016 by disarray

[Tampitump]

I'd say there is GREAT conflict between religion and science, unlike Gould would have you believe. The conflict comes when religion makes an assertion about how the natural world is (i.e. Parthenogenesis in humans, global floods, 6-day creation stories, resurrections, etc.), science and religion have competing answers to these questions. This conflict is easily solvable by weighing the evidence presented by both sides. Science respectfully presents its position with mounds of empirical data and observation to support its case, never tries to use force or threats to coax people into belief, and doesn't claim to have the ultimate truth. Religion, on the other hand, asserts the utter perfection of its words, provides little to no evidence of its assertions, claims ownership of the truth so you can't refute it (if you do, it's your flawed nature), and tells you that you are an unworthy sinner who must burn eternally if you disagree. The choice between the two is about as clear as day.

 

When there is a conflict between what science says and what religion says, it is religion that has to be "re-interpreted" to fit the evidence of science, and not the other way around. Science has never had to nuance or re-interpret its position to be reconciled with religion. We'll, at least not without force, and not outside of religious minds. There is a conflict, and science is the victor without exception.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Tampitump

[disarray]

I'd say there is GREAT conflict between religion and science, unlike Gould would have you believe. The conflict comes when religion makes an assertion about how the natural world is (i.e. Parthenogenesis in humans, global floods, 6-day creation stories, resurrections, etc.), science and religion have competing answers to these questions. This conflict is easily solvable by weighing the evidence presented by both sides. Science respectfully presents its position with mounds of empirical data and observation to support its case, never tries to use force or threats to coax people into belief, and doesn't claim to have the ultimate truth. Religion, on the other hand, asserts the utter perfection of its words, provides little to no evidence of its assertions, claims ownership of the truth so you can't refute it (if you do, it's your flawed nature), and tells you that you are an unworthy sinner who must burn eternally if you disagree. The choice between the two is about as clear as day.

When there is a conflict between what science says and what religion says, it is religion that has to be "re-interpreted" to fit the evidence of science, and not the other way around. Science has never had to nuance or re-interpret its position to be reconciled with religion. We'll, at least not without force, and not outside of religious minds. There is a conflict, and science is the victor without exception.

 

Its all a matter of having vested interests. Despite claims by the religious to the contrary, science is not on a crusade to bless materialism and destroy decency in the modern world....When it comes to knowledge, it has no bias or prejudice or ulterior motives....it merely wants to get the job of providing comfortable homes, sturdy bridges, reliable airplanes, etc. Religion, on the other hand, wants to maintain control, dictate morality, hang on to it often ill-gotten land, collect donations, gather money to build churches, control women's reproduction, etc. The truth of the matter is that science is now far more of a threat to religion than religion is to science. It didn't always used to be that way.

Edited August 21, 2016 by disarray

[zapatos]

I'd say there is GREAT conflict between religion and science, unlike Gould would have you believe. The conflict comes when religion makes an assertion about how the natural world is (i.e. Parthenogenesis in humans, global floods, 6-day creation stories, resurrections, etc.), science and religion have competing answers to these questions. This conflict is easily solvable by weighing the evidence presented by both sides. Science respectfully presents its position with mounds of empirical data and observation to support its case, never tries to use force or threats to coax people into belief, and doesn't claim to have the ultimate truth. Religion, on the other hand, asserts the utter perfection of its words, provides little to no evidence of its assertions, claims ownership of the truth so you can't refute it (if you do, it's your flawed nature), and tells you that you are an unworthy sinner who must burn eternally if you disagree. The choice between the two is about as clear as day.

 

When there is a conflict between what science says and what religion says, it is religion that has to be "re-interpreted" to fit the evidence of science, and not the other way around. Science has never had to nuance or re-interpret its position to be reconciled with religion. We'll, at least not without force, and not outside of religious minds. There is a conflict, and science is the victor without exception.

 

 

Let's not pat ourselves on our backs too hard. I've seen 'science' be quite disrespectful while presenting its position, including on this site.