Are religion and science compatible?

[Kannap]

Yep. I see no contradiction between my faith and science.

The Bible says that bats are birds, that the Canaanites were completely eliminated despite genetic evidence of the contrary, that the sun revolves around the Earth, and the ants have no hierarchy. No contradictions between Christianity and science there?

There are large parts of the Bible that have to be observed as they are: Ancient text. We know more information and are far more scientifically advanced today and just like any source of older, outdated information, parts of the Bible that say the sun revolves around the Earth or contradict modern scientific fact are to be viewed as ancient views of how we tried to understand how the world around us works.

[The Rich Port]

I was being dead serious. -_-

Divine inspiration is a fickle thing, and so are audiences.

It's not. It's a serious matter.

And of course I know you don't believe so, but what you believe about Christians and Christianity doesn't particularly matter.

Ahem... Methinks that divine inspiration is failing you.

I might be a practical atheist, but I am technically still a Gnostic Christian.

I believe in God... I just think the Bible is a bunch of baloney, and anybody who follows it without using their own judgment is ignorant and misguided about reality.

[Salus Maior]

I know God didn't directly write the Bible. I also know that is a collection of books not a single one. The problem is that there's no clear metric to determine which authors were divinely-inspired and which ones weren't. What's that wishy-washy goalpost moving strategy, one can easily say that every contradiction is a work of an independent author and everything that manages to be true or is at least unfalsifiable is divinely-inspired. That's unfair and disingenuous

There is for us, Church Tradition and Apostolic Authority.

[Deacarsia]

I know God didn't directly write the Bible. I also know that is a collection of books not a single one. The problem is that there's no clear metric to determine which authors were divinely-inspired and which ones weren't. What's that wishy-washy goalpost moving strategy, one can easily say that every contradiction is a work of an independent author and everything that manages to be true or is at least unfalsifiable is divinely-inspired. That's unfair and disingenuous

The clear metric to determine which authors were divinely inspired and which ones were not it the teaching of the Church.

The Church Synod of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Rome in 382 confirmed the existing the canon of the Bible, though it was not totally formalized until the Council of Florence in 1442 and the Council of Trent in 1546.

[Deacarsia]

I know God didn't directly write the Bible. I also know that is a collection of books not a single one. The problem is that there's no clear metric to determine which authors were divinely-inspired and which ones weren't. What's that wishy-washy goalpost moving strategy, one can easily say that every contradiction is a work of an independent author and everything that manages to be true or is at least unfalsifiable is divinely-inspired. That's unfair and disingenuous

There is for us, Church Tradition and Apostolic Authority.

Yes, exactly!

[Aureumterra]

Translations are not infallible. The Hebrew word that the KJV translated into "birds" can also be translated as "flying creatures" or even "insects". I'm pretty sure bats are flying creatures.

All of these are valid issues one can bring up, especially translation issues

[Cekoviu]

You don't understand what "Divine Inspiration" is.

It's not as if God wrote the Bible. God granted certain revelations to certain writers, who were men of their own time and worldview. So while the central message carries profound spiritual truths, not everything in the Bible is literal fact.

In fact, the Bible isn't even one book. It's 60+ books of varying themes and genres.

I've always wanted to write my own new book of the Bible, but people nowadays aren't as superstitious anymore >_>

I did that when I was younger. It was called Genexodus and abridged the contents of Genesis and Exodus.

Gnx. 4:16-17
16 And Lou did both, for any idea that would counteract the Lᴏʀᴅ’s plan for the earth was proper to execute, lest the Lᴏʀᴅ complete it unhindered.
17 But God would not know of these awful pranks until many years in the future, when Mankind invented first communism, and then open-source software.

[Cekoviu]

Lel, I love how unambiguously that's worded so that it's impossible to deny that they have no idea what ant societies are like.

Proverbs are literally...Proverbs. Wise sayings.

That's like saying that the "wolf in sheep's clothing" saying is useless because it's not scientifically accurate that wolves take on disguises.

They could've chosen literally any animal for that metaphor and they picked one out of the small minority that have actual rulers...

[Salus Maior]

Ahem... Methinks that divine inspiration is failing you.

I might be a practical atheist, but I am technically still a Gnostic Christian.

I believe in God... I just think the Bible is a bunch of baloney, and anybody who follows it without using their own judgment is ignorant and misguided about reality.

If I were you, I'd drop the pretentious label and stick with practical atheist. You calling yourself a 'Christian' isn't going to make me think of you or what you say any differently, because you don't actually believe anything Christians do and are openly bitter towards Christianity.

My faith hasn't failed me yet.

[Despoticania]

No. Religion fundamentally requires belief without evidence - and the rejection of all contradictory evidence. Science is all about approaching the truth by attempting to prove its own theories wrong - and embracing the ones that best resist these attempts.

[New Legland]

Sure, science and religious people can be compatible, but science and the doctrines they try to impose on their followers? No, not entirely.

[Salus Maior]

Proverbs are literally...Proverbs. Wise sayings.

That's like saying that the "wolf in sheep's clothing" saying is useless because it's not scientifically accurate that wolves take on disguises.

They could've chosen literally any animal for that metaphor and they picked one out of the small minority that have actual rulers...

Well, why don't you go complain to Solomon like 2700 years ago then.

[Kanadorika]

They aren't only compatible, they often go hand in hand. It was a Priest who outlined the Big Bang Theory, a Monk who discovered the basis of genetics, etc...

I can't speak for eastern religions because of a lack of knowledge, but at least in the west, it was the Church who preserved classical knowledge. The church didn't "suppress" knowledge as popular history would lead you to believe. The Church taught knowledge and continued to expand it. Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine are some of the most influential figures in western philosophy, ecclesiastical gothic architecture pushed the limits of design, and so on.

[Kowani]

I know God didn't directly write the Bible. I also know that is a collection of books not a single one. The problem is that there's no clear metric to determine which authors were divinely-inspired and which ones weren't. What's that wishy-washy goalpost moving strategy, one can easily say that every contradiction is a work of an independent author and everything that manages to be true or is at least unfalsifiable is divinely-inspired. That's unfair and disingenuous

There is for us, Church Tradition and Apostolic Authority.

Translation: Whichever ones were too proved wrong.

[Kannap]

Proverbs are literally...Proverbs. Wise sayings.

That's like saying that the "wolf in sheep's clothing" saying is useless because it's not scientifically accurate that wolves take on disguises.

They could've chosen literally any animal for that metaphor and they picked one out of the small minority that have actual rulers...

I'd imagine they chose a metaphor they were most familiar with. Shepherds with sheep have wolves seeking to eat their sheep.

[Antityranicals]

No. Religion fundamentally requires belief without evidence - and the rejection of all contradictory evidence. Science is all about approaching the truth by attempting to prove its own theories wrong - and embracing the ones that best resist these attempts.

Religion fills in the gaps that science can't cover. Any religion which rejects science is a stupid one, I'll grant you as much. But any scientist who rejects religion is being equally stupid, or at very least oblivious. Science can tell you all about the Big Bang, but it can't tell you why there is something rather than nothing, and that is a question that I would argue is more requiring of an answer than most questions science can answer.

[Salus Maior]

There is for us, Church Tradition and Apostolic Authority.

Translation: Whichever ones were too proved wrong.

What are you even talking about.

[Kowani]

No. Religion fundamentally requires belief without evidence - and the rejection of all contradictory evidence. Science is all about approaching the truth by attempting to prove its own theories wrong - and embracing the ones that best resist these attempts.

Religion fills in the gaps that science can't cover. Any religion which rejects science is a stupid one, I'll grant you as much. But any scientist who rejects religion is being equally stupid, or at very least oblivious. Science can tell you all about the Big Bang, but it can't tell you why there is something rather than nothing, and that is a question that I would argue is more requiring of an answer than most questions science can answer.

Is the Allegory of the Puddle just not well known in Christian circles?

[Antityranicals]

Religion fills in the gaps that science can't cover. Any religion which rejects science is a stupid one, I'll grant you as much. But any scientist who rejects religion is being equally stupid, or at very least oblivious. Science can tell you all about the Big Bang, but it can't tell you why there is something rather than nothing, and that is a question that I would argue is more requiring of an answer than most questions science can answer.

Is the Allegory of the Puddle just not well known in Christian circles?

Perhaps not. Please explain.

[Salus Maior]

Religion fills in the gaps that science can't cover. Any religion which rejects science is a stupid one, I'll grant you as much. But any scientist who rejects religion is being equally stupid, or at very least oblivious. Science can tell you all about the Big Bang, but it can't tell you why there is something rather than nothing, and that is a question that I would argue is more requiring of an answer than most questions science can answer.

Is the Allegory of the Puddle just not well known in Christian circles?

How about don't paint us all with the same brush. Not all of us believe in the "God of the gaps".

[Despoticania]

No. Religion fundamentally requires belief without evidence - and the rejection of all contradictory evidence. Science is all about approaching the truth by attempting to prove its own theories wrong - and embracing the ones that best resist these attempts.

Religion fills in the gaps that science can't cover. Any religion which rejects science is a stupid one, I'll grant you as much. But any scientist who rejects religion is being equally stupid, or at very least oblivious. Science can tell you all about the Big Bang, but it can't tell you why there is something rather than nothing, and that is a question that I would argue is more requiring of an answer than most questions science can answer.

Fair enough, although most religions that have ever existed are among the "stupid" ones, again and again denying mounting evidence against their most dearly held beliefs.

[Cekoviu]

They could've chosen literally any animal for that metaphor and they picked one out of the small minority that have actual rulers...

Well, why don't you go complain to Solomon like 2700 years ago then.

I would, but I don't think there's a time travelling complaints department to which I can send a strongly-worded letter.

They could've chosen literally any animal for that metaphor and they picked one out of the small minority that have actual rulers...

I'd imagine they chose a metaphor they were most familiar with. Shepherds with sheep have wolves seeking to eat their sheep.

How about locusts? They don't have a ruler, but can decimate a farm in little time. Gets a similar point across to the one in the verse.

[VoVoDoCo]

I think it was Proverbs 6 6-8

Lel, I love how unambiguously that's worded so that it's impossible to deny that they have no idea what ant societies are like.

That criticism is kind of ambiguous, but when you consider all the other scientific inaccuracies, even the the ones that appear less likely to be actual inaccuracies just start to be too much.

[Antityranicals]

Is the Allegory of the Puddle just not well known in Christian circles?

How about don't paint us all with the same brush. Not all of us believe in the "God of the gaps".

Hey, nor do I! I'm just as Catholic as you are, I just need to keep it simple for the superstitious Atheist.

[Kowani]

Is the Allegory of the Puddle just not well known in Christian circles?

How about don't paint us all with the same brush. Not all of us believe in the "God of the gaps".

Not all of you do. Unfortunately, a vast number does.

Is the Allegory of the Puddle just not well known in Christian circles?

Perhaps not. Please explain.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'”
-Douglas Adams.