Discrepancies between Science and Religion? Origin(s) of the Universe

Many profound/ground breaking scientific facts and theories were discovered post-nineteenth century by teams of highly competitive scientists that constantly tested and retested each other's ideas; refining them if inconsistencies arose. There are primary sources of information to prove this; as many prolific researches are still alive.

During the origins of religion many of these scientific tools/concepts were still undiscovered by man/woman (ex. Humans thought the earth was flat, at the center of the universe, and unchanging.) resulting in an drastically different view of the earth, life, knowledge and existence in general. Yet astrophysics, molecular physics, evolutionary biology, etc. are regularly barraged with ridicule via unwarranted and malicious non-fact presented as legitimate scientific fact. How is this justified and why do so many people buy into it? Is it choosing to be ignorant?

If modern day life is unrecognizable compared to life 2000 years ago...how can fundamental religious principals correlate to, outweigh and guide complex modern principals that were refined for hundreds of years by the intellectual elite? How does religious scripture account/compensate for knowledge that had not even been imagined or foreseen yet? If scientific theory is always up on the chopping block being revised and improved, why does religion not pertain to this? Modern day technology and fact including: nuclear energy, advanced farming ( increase food output above K), medicines and medical procedures resulted from exploring/inventing tangible solutions for complex problems. If we all referred strictly to religious scriptures wouldn't we all simply wish those problems away?

Discrepancies between fundamental religious concepts and scientific fact (i.e. origin of existence) are evident to me, however, many people disagree.

Is the willingness of an individual to accept opinion as fact without questioning it also affect their thought processes in decision making and problem solving?

Image for post Discrepancies between Science and Religion? Origin(s) of the Universe
Science
Share
0 1

Ok, so you asked a lot of questions, and you're kind of all over the place. I'm gonna try my best to answer what I can. Before I start, it sounds like your target is only Christian religions, so that is how I will answer. Here we go:

1) How is ... justified?
You claim the religious opinion is unwarranted, malicious, and untrue. It tends to get malicious on both sides because this is a very emotionally charged topic. Also, both sides are fully capable of reasoned, well-behaved discussion and dailogue. With that aside, there's no proof that any religious opinion is untrue. If it is true, doesn't that make it warranted, to spread the truth to all?

2) Is it choosing to be ignorant?
I could ask you the same question. I really don't have an answer for this one. But there is strong evidence that a supreme diety exists (Read CS Lewis and GK Chesterton for proof), and I choose to believe it, because I want to. You choose to ignore it, because you want to?

3 and 4) If modern life is unrecognizeable ... forseen yet?
If you prove to me that modern life is unrecognizable from 2000 years ago, I will try to answer. But is killing still wrong? yup. Is rape still wrong? yup. Do we still need to eat? yup. Seems remarkably similar to me.

5) If scientific theory ... pertain to this?
How many times has the Bible been wrong? Zero
How many times has science been wrong? A lot

6) If we all ... problems away?
The fact that you said religion is equivalent to wishing problems away demonstrates your fundamental lack of knowledge of what religion is. If you truly think that I feel terrible for you and I wish I could change that. I'll pray for you.

7) "fundamental religious concepts"
That could mean two things. First the concepts that fundamentalists come up with. They think the Bible is 100% literal and they are crazy and there are huge discrepancies. That is because they are crazy, yes. Or second, it could mean the basic tenets upon which religion is built. Things including but not limited to: creation happened; killing is bad; virtuous, sacrificial charity is the best thing ever. They don't disagree with science. In fact, science agrees with them. The man who developed the modern big bang theory was a Catholic priest.

8) Is the willingness ... problem solving?
Well, yes. I think that the answer is super duper obvious. But tell me, of the two of us, who has assumed his opinion is fact? You've declared to yourself that there is no God, because you want to, and I've declared to myself that there is most likely a God, and if so, He's made some rules for me to follow.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.