They may agree on many things, but there is a fundamental difference. science values evidence, while religions (the desert ones) values ancient texts.
So you don't value the Jewish heritage or history? Can you honestly say their entire written record is made up and heresay? That is quite a broad stroke my friend. And MANY early and present scientists DID and still DO believe in God and Creationism. You guys are the ones trying to separate the two and say they can't coexist.
I don't really value any religious texts, but it's nothing personal, nor is it specific to any one group of people. I believe they are all the result of human intellect alone. So yes, I am painting with a very large brush.
Religion is often interested in many issues that (currently) fall outside of the purview of science (e.g. the meaning of life). Therefore it's no surprise that many scientists believe in a god.
Religion, however, is incompatible with Science when it attempts to explain things in the physical world. The obvious example is Creationism. People who believe in Creationism, at some level, do not believe in the scientific method when it contradicts their religious dogma.
Do you think you or any other known group of intelligence today could produce anything equivalent to the works contained within the Bible? If it is so easy to do, I have always wondered why more groups are not doing it. I have never seen any such work produced by the scientific community. And can it honestly and truly be a coincidence or accident that the Bible IS the all time best seller ever in history? You can verify that as FACT by any search. The real scientist could be asking questions like this and searching for answers if they wanted them.
And if God made the world, as most Christians believe, then there is no way to claim that religion can be incompatible with science. One would think that the Creator would certainly have a right to speak about what He created! Whether or not people agree with His account, is their choice and decision.
Not every religion is a "desert one." And you misunderstand Christianity if you think it's highest value is the Bible.
I'll be the first to admit I am not expert and any theology. Help me out then. Who wrote the Bible and why? Was it written by or inspired by God? Where also does Christian ideology come from if not the Bible?
Most Christians believe that the whole Jesus episode of history was God's response to people majorly misinterpreting the entire point of the Bible, and the hierarchy of the church manipulating it for their own gain. So Jesus showed up to say,
"You guys are being buttholes, just love God, each other, and yourself. You can ignore pretty much all the other rules."
Yes most of the Bible it was inspired by God, but passed down and re-purposed so much that most of the Old Testament is pretty irrelevant.
So many of the stories that make religion seem silly (e.g. God was pissed so he flooded the entire Earth except for one boat) are generally regarded (and respected) as fairy tales with nice messages.
As for the question of the origin of Christian ideology, most of the ideas come from the New Testament (the bulk of whose events are recorded elsewhere with less preachiness) but the main "rules" were established a significant time after, and have been revised in the past century.
The highest value is, as I mentioned, the Golden Rule. Although there are many church practices facilitated by incredibly old people that should die out soon enough.
This isn't to say that there aren't a lot of other beliefs held by Christians. The Trinity, Consubstantiation (by some groups), the afterlife, etc.
I'm not arguing with you, but those aren't Christian beliefs. Many different Christian groups hold them, but my religion doesn't believe in the trinity. We actually feel that it is just doctrine, taken from support of scriptures taken out of context. Basically, we believe everything in the bible is true. Jesus just changed the Mosaic law when he came because the earth was evolving, and changing, so the laws needed to be updated. For example, Leviticus 11:7-8 forbids eating pork. But that was a safety thing. At that time, with disease, and people not cooking meat, it would have been dangerous. But by the time Jesus came, there was no need for that law.
And by the way, science is compatable with religion. I am devout in my religion, and I'm a chem major in college, and I find that the two can actually work in harmony.
can you explain to me what exactly you believe in if not the Trinity?
Thanks. When there are no qualifiers I tend to assume there is an implied 'all'. Therefore, while it might not have been the OP's intent, I read the it to be "All branches of science are compatible with all religions".
I was thinking more of the hardcore followers of religion when I wrote my response.
One of the smartest guys I know - a graduate of Cornell - is a Christian who believes the earth is about 5,000 years old. He does this, I assume, because of what is written in the Bible. People like this cannot value evidence. That was my point.
Science and religion CAN be compatible, but not when adherents try to teach creationism as a science, or teach that faith is a valid way of proving an assertion.
The capitalization of religion makes me think this is referring to two people with odd names.
Maybe Science made a friend!
It's not Science's job or purpose to disprove Religion, and at the end of the day it never will since the existence of a supreme God that transcends reality itself could never be quantified in human understanding. The only reason that Science and Religion are locked in an endless battle of who's right is because people love conflict and won't let it go.
Though I mostly agree with you, the atheist and unbelieving scientist wants the Christian to "produce" or summons our God to appear to them visibly so they can SEE and TOUCH Him. The closest they will ever get to that was when Jesus walked the earth - and that is a past event (which they deny and refute as well). No matter what God or the Bible DOES offer, they have found a way to write it off and discount it. This, of course, will be their undoing in the end.
Interesting stance, I guess I'll be burning in hell while you enjoy heaven.
Religion is what humans come up with to explain what science can't. At the beginning of the human race, religion was used to explain absolutely everything because science hadn't come far enough to explain anything. And since that point, science has been gaining ground and religion has been losing ground. "Where knowledge ends, religion begins." Everything that we explain with religion does have a logical scientific explanation, but until we find those explanations, we're going to substitute. So no, science and religion are not compatible. They have the same goal (to explain and answer questions), but science is searching for the truth. Religion just finds something that can't currently be disproved and markets it as the truth.
Take this link with a grain of salt: http://www.freewebs.com/proofof...inthequran.htm
and by no means am I trying to start an argument, I just want to say that religion's purpose is not to explain scientifically why the world works the way it works, rather it is a guide to how to live your life.
If they absolutely are NOT compatible, then how did the God believing Creationism scientists live and get through life? Were they all phony fakes pretending that they believed in God when they really didn't? You guys refuse to admit these people existed, and yet some of our most famous and historical scientific discoveries were by men and women who believed in God! You can NOT deny history or rewrite it to suit your present day beliefs (or disbeliefs). And quit trying to rationalize the whole thing away and say it can't be done or that it is not possible. It HAS been done and it IS possible.
Scientists can be wrong. They're human. The one thing we are good at is rationalizing. They have rationalized what they believe. Just like every single one of us does (or is trying to).
I hope you are right to for your sake. We all seek to know and find the best possible choices in our lifetime. You have probably heard this a thousand times but it is worth repeating and is NOT based in fear. If I live my entire life believing there is a God and reading a book called the Bible, and die, only to wake up and find it was all a joke, then I have lost absolutely nothing and am none the worse off for having done so. If you live your entire life not believing there is a God and never seeking to know or understand the Bible, and die, and wake up to find it was all true, then you really have lost out and it will then be too late to fix it.
That is a reasonable and rational thought about the topic. I always just suggest to people to at least keep an open mind. We DON'T know everything, and never will.
Religion and gods have been around WAY before Pascal, so your pointing out his flaw makes you flawed as well.
And that made him "right" or able to be called "flawed" how?
Yes, and you say it is flawed. According to whom and on what grounds? You will say there is no God, Bible, or religion - so the whole thing is hypothetical to begin with. And my post clearly stated IF - you can NEVER throw out the possibility of IF existing in any equation.
And we are all entitled to our opinions - because when all is said and done, that is all any of us has! All systems of thought on this planet have flaws - that is my point. So whether I cite expert 1 and you cite expert 2, we will ultimately have to make a choice to agree with and espouse the flaws of somebody.
Actually that's a pretty stupid and irrational way to think. God can be real. I really don't give a shit. He isn't. Scientology is more rational that any of the Abrahamic Religions and it was started by. A Science Fiction writer who admitted he close his eyes one night and "saw" the religion. You go your whole life believing what you want, you're still going to die and that will be the end.
Saying the beliefs of millions of people throughout history is "stupid" and "irrational" is itself, very very stupid! I actually don't care what you think about any religion or God. But you have made comments about my comments, and I am on here posting what I feel, believe, and think. If you think your thoughts are superior to mine, so be it. And I agree with you about ONE thing at least: we all will die. If that is your end, then I wish the best for you. For millions of Christians worldwide, death is just the beginning.
I'm not refusing to acknowledge that believers can be scientists and make contributions to the field. I'm well aware of that. That doesn't mean that religion and science don't conflict.
There are plenty of religious people who are more scientifically literate than I am. However, in my experience, more often than not they are either closer to deists than they are theists or they are exhibiting some degree of cognitive dissonance.
I think religion can tolerate science if it wants to, but science cannot tolerate religion because science is about empirical data and religion cannot provide that. Religion can bend to accept data (think Galileo) but science cannot bend to accept unproven "truths".
You seem to be treating science as an entity of itself. Religion cannot be incorporated into science, but it is possible for scientists, or people interested in science, to also be religious.
Good point, but many of today's hard core atheistic scientists want no part of religion or religionists, as they would say. But in any scientific endeavor, sheer numbers mean something and speak for themselves. There are millions and millions of people who believe in some form of god or deity versus several thousand atheists worldwide. I have gone on the major atheistic websites to see for myself. And the atheistic movement is relatively NEW (1963 in America), so very young and unproven. And regardless of what science tries to do or undo regarding a Supreme Being, the concept and belief of His existence will never be eradicated. Men of no education all the way up the scale to the most educated genius's have affirmed a belief in a higher power or creator figure. Science will never be able to run test on it, but its existence can be seen and felt all over the world.
Nor can science. The tenets of science stipulate that the scientist must: 1)Formulate a Question 2)Develop a Hypothesis 3)Design an Experiment 4)Draw a Conclusion
The BEST any scientist can do is to observe and work with and from the world around them (which was already here and provided for them). In the experimental phase, ONLY hypotheses that can be tested with measurable experiments are valid - thus eliminating science from even speaking about or addressing the issue of creation. Science today can NOT produce a control group or other variation groups to support or deny a creation account - since it was a ONE TIME act, event, or occurrence. No scientist was THERE to observe, measure, test, or record data.
Also in real science, the only credible conclusions are those that do NOT include any bias. Since science can not conduct an experiment on or regarding creation, they can NOT honestly or objectively discredit the Creationist or Biblical record.
What are you on about?
Of course they can, and have, discredited the literal bible.
There is concrete "proof" that the world was not made in 7 days, that the moon is a reflector and not a second light source, that the earth revolves around the sun, that all humans are not descended from a single couple, that all animals are not descended from the survivors of the ark, etc. etc.
So there's that....
The ONLY ones who refute, discredit, and claim "proofs" against God or the Bible are of course, NON believers. For every scientist or Bible destroyer you can point to or name, I can name an equally credible believer who offers completely contrary views and proof. So, it really depends on what circles you choose to run with, what you read, who you listen to, and what you program your computer (brain) to process. But please to not think for a second that by citing critics, atheists, non believers, or such that you have automatically or conclusively proven all of your views and opinions are correct. You last post seems to suggest that very thing. There really ARE/IS two sides to every issue - both having valid and invalid points.
Wait a minute. I didn't say everything in the bible was disproven. I said some things were. But clearly arguing with you on this subject will not change your mind. If you want to believe the universe was created complete with fossil records or that dinosaurs lived and interacted with humans I am in no position to dissuade you. I have reviewed the evidence for those theories and find them dubious at best.
I'm in college for pre-med/bio, and I believe that the two very much are compatible.
... But seriously, which one do you want to produce your medications and smartphones?
Show me a religion that's compatible with science.
Depends on the religion. Even if we were to point one out, like Christianity, there are so many denominations that the question would be even more complicated.
On the base of it though, I don't see why "Religion" can't be compatible with science; there is nothing inherent to the concept of religion that goes against science, it's the specifics that can cause a problem (e.g. the Earth being 6000 years old etc.).
Science still has plenty of believers but much of the scientific community poo poos them because they would dare believe in an unseen God. However, they are just as credible and smart as the unbelievers. And history can not be re-written, and some of the greatest scientists of all time and people in the health industry were or are Creationists who believe in a Supreme Being. Their research has shown them that there is no way all of the Universe could be an accident or self caused.
I thought of something else to add to this. If science and religion are compatible, why are 93% of scientists atheists?
You could just as easily flip it the other way and ask that if science and religion are incompatible then why are ANY scientists religious.
That does not fit their pre-conceived ideas or eyesight.
I would like to see that study. I don't believe that for one second. Maybe 93% of a controlled group of atheists that were asked the question - but 93% of ALL living scientists? I am not buying it.
93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences...I believe.
7% Believe in a "personal God." The other 93% are agnostic/athiest
So does a body of 517 members of an upper intellectual community determine what IS and IS NOT for the entire country or world? All you have demonstrated is that more intellectual types are choosing to no acknowledge a Creator. There is nothing new or surprising here. When humans in their wisdom and intellectual endeavors reach the point where they see no need for a higher power, then their ignorance outshines their "smarts." They are in effect saying that humans are the creator and the created, and that all of life's questions and answers can be found from our own sources and power. If you wish to put all your eggs in to the science basket, that is perfectly fine by me. But if you are not a totally closed minded scientist, you would always want to keep the door open and leave room for the possibility of someone bigger and greater than yourself out there.
I'd leave that opprotunity open if that "someone bigger and greater than yourself out there" had even a shred of proof that it exists other than in the mind of people who can't accept that they aren't special. We are the highest form of intelligent beings, but we will still all die at somepoint, and that is where we end.
You live on one of the "proofs" - Earth. If God and/or religion are only in our mind, then so is an entire Universe that has self created. It is highly unscientific to say that matter somehow always existed with no beginning or Supreme Being putting it here. And since science can never produce an experiment observing or replicating Creation (it was a one time act), then it is unscientific for any scientist to offer answers about Creation. Splitting atoms is not creating a Universe. They are only working WITH and FROM things that were already here. They have all the raw stuff of creation to observe, question, and experiment with, but they have no answer as to how it got here. So, all I say is, since they will never be able to prove their point, the Biblical account of Creationism IS just as sensible and believable as anything being offered. And this debate will continue as long as humanity is in existence. The REAL proof begins when we die.
I could easily turn that back on you. Do you really think relgious leaders are qualified to say what is or what is not right for the entire world? You're saying scientists are close minded, but you should really be asking that question to yourself.
Who said they say what is or is not right for the entire world? The main purpose of religion is offer people an explanation of the after life and making preparations for such. I guess some religions want to take over the world, but their brand (and surely you know who they are) is still open for anyone to choose or reject. That is the beauty of religion or God - you decide which one you can live with for eternity. If there is an after life and an eternal life hereafter, then it seems only sensible for us to look in to it and prepare for such. So many scientists even today take great pride in the accomplishments of ancients such as the Mayans, Egyptians, Romans, etc. and those people prepared for an afterlife. So if modern science gets so high and mighty that it excludes the possibility of such, then my opinion is, they simply outsmarted themselves!
What are you defining as a scientist that 93% of them are atheist?
where did you get that from?
nah it aint cuz yea.
The more freespeechfreelancer posts, the less and less I believe in God. A caring creater would not like something like him/her to happen.
Science IS the religion of those who have no religion or belief in God or deity.
"Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[note 1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their ideas about the cosmos and human nature, they tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world." [taken straight from Wikipedia] ": a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" [Merriam-Webster online]
If a person chooses to deny and reject God and His claim of Creation in the Bible, then mankind must come up with some explanation as to his existence and reason for being here. And any scientist who rejects God because he can't see Him or prove His existence, must by logic and reasoning, reject original matter and space (since nobody ever saw it or witnessed creation). They must also reject all spirit and supernatural concepts.
As long as people are talking and open to views other than their own, we have nothing to worry about. But when ONE group's views or beliefs become dominant and take over all others, then we know there is a problem. You are free to rip me or say something original yourself. I am a big boy and have thick skin. I am not trying to win a popularity contest or seeking validation of any kind. All I ask from anyone is to be heard - pretty much what everyone alive asks. I am not sure if you had a genuine compliment mixed in with your twisted sarcasm, but either way, drivel is drivel and opinions are opinions. As much as I value my own, I realize they are just opinions. Yours (or anyone else's) are on no higher plane my own. And that is the beauty of swapping views and ideas. At the end of the day, we must all go home to face and live with ourselves. As long as we are content with that result, nothing else matters.