Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Stanmenistan]

I believe Religion and Science are compatible.

Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project and a very successful physician-geneticist, is also a devout Christian. His quotes about Science and Religion's compatibility inspire me every day I believe God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation. He is not threatened by our scientific adventures.

However, I think maybe Charlie Jane Anders said it best As anybody who's spent any time in the real world knows, religion and science mostly coexist reasonably well, unless you're Amish or Richard Dawkins

[Alvecia]

There's no controversy surrounding the big bang or evolution. That's just something made up by the minority that reject them to make their side of it sound more "equal", when it's anything but.

It's like calling "round earth" a controversial subject.

It shouldn't be controversial, but realistically, it is. The minority made it controversial.

Only if you buy into it. To say it's controversial is to admit that you take their arguments seriously. I, for one, do not.

[Geneviev]

It shouldn't be controversial, but realistically, it is. The minority made it controversial.

Only if you buy into it. To say it's controversial is to admit that you take their arguments seriously. I, for one, do not.

It is controversial just because so many people disagree with it. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

[The Alma Mater]

There's no controversy surrounding the big bang or evolution. That's just something made up by the minority that reject them to make their side of it sound more "equal", when it's anything but.

It's like calling "round earth" a controversial subject.

It shouldn't be controversial, but realistically, it is. The minority made it controversial.

So if I find a single person on this planet who believes Jesus was in fact a talking piece of living Poo called Mr Hanky (or Patrick Stewart if you prefer some class) - Jesus being human shaped would be controversial ?

[Alvecia]

Only if you buy into it. To say it's controversial is to admit that you take their arguments seriously. I, for one, do not.

It is controversial just because so many people disagree with it. That doesn't mean I agree with them.

"So many people" disagree that the world is round. Is that a controversial subject in schools?

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I tend not to, particularly when people pair them together like that.

I am confused by the Big Bang theory being biology. But maybe they just teach controversial science all at once.

It isn't biology, which is why I doubt the scientific integrity of what was being taught.

[Godular]

It shouldn't be controversial, but realistically, it is. The minority made it controversial.

So if I find a single person on this planet who believes Jesus was in fact a talking piece of living Poo called Mr Hanky (or Patrick Stewart if you prefer some class) - Jesus being human shaped would be controversial ?

Psh! Everybody nowadays knows that Jesus is a piece of toast.

[Alvecia]

So if I find a single person on this planet who believes Jesus was in fact a talking piece of living Poo called Mr Hanky (or Patrick Stewart if you prefer some class) - Jesus being human shaped would be controversial ?

Psh! Everybody nowadays knows that Jesus is a piece of toast.

I've seen more toast Jesus' than I have human ones.

[Anarcho Syndicalist Korea]

Are Religion and Science Compatible?

What Religions are meant? Organized Religion like the three great Abrahamic religions? They have defined doctrines and those may contradict the scientific facts laid down. And they often did, like the creation versus evolution debate up to Darwin's theses. What prevailed in the general mindset of the public? Of course, the one proved via theory and evidence. But Darwin himself studied Theology with the goal of furthering the creation theory until the came to the conclusion that these are probably not really true. The Catholic standpoint of today is that it accepts evolution as a fact, while not denying creationism itself.
I will not banter with radical evangelicals, who believe everything that their local preacher holds under their nose. Read what theologians write, it is truly interesting unlike the bland and fanatic hogwash of children's stories.

What about naturalist religions? Some of them would be called 'superstitions' or 'phantasms' rather than being religion religions. They stem from 'pagan' native religions, unlike the universalist world religions. Germanic paganism found its way as many know through various holidays and festivals, whereas Christianity originated in the Mediterranean area, such as the Easter festival, May Day (Not the labour movement one), Carnival and Fastnacht. You usually tend to not believe these stories, and nearly every culture has some sort of superstition that originated in a belief that spread to rationalize things they couldn't explain why it happened. They often still exist, however, and maybe you integrate scientific facts into it by changing some of the initial aspects of the religion.
Or everyday superstitions like the one in Eastern Europe, where you wait a while before you go on a long journey or where you don't shake your hands over a threshold.
They're customs of courtesy to not offend your host or the other person aren't they?
Many people in the Western hemisphere may not know let's say Japanese Shintoism or Korean Shindo how they are and that they are not like they think religions are. They're not clearly defined with who belongs to that religion via a initiation ritual or some membership validification like the Abrahamaic religions (besides the ones who serve as shamans and maintain the shrines etc.). You just believe them (or not). Theyre ethnic religions as you need to be groomed by these parents as you cannot "learn" to be "part of" that religion.

[La Xinga]

Sir/maam, please tell me your evidence then.

The fact that atheists can accomplish the same result. There is no functional difference between using religion as a source of motivation and using one's family/friends/having-read-a-decent-book.

And no, everything is in religion for me, which includes medicine. Every subject is in it.

That is just your 'belief'.

Science does not mean medicine, so how can that heal you?

Somehow, I knew you were going to try to argue semantics. I even tried to cut you off, but you pushed on anyway. Props for determination, I suppose.

Science produces medicine, which heals you. Religion produces wishful thinking, which when used in lieu of medicine typically results in coffins.

Wait wait wait......it's not a fairy tale, it's reality!

No, it is not.

Evidence? The belief that I had....I used a figurative term that religion can heal people, what I actually meant was G-d can heal people, who is the source of religion. If you go all the way back up, you can clearly see that was what the argument was about.

I know, it is my belief, a belief, not a 'belief', and not just a belief, but a belief.

Science does not produce medicine. I don't think science is an object, it doesn't really produce. Medicine comes from people who study on them and find out about them, and then use them on living stuff. G-d of course granted the ability to them to make that, and allowed their brain to function. The prophet Elisha healed the Aramic general Na'aman from a skin disease. G-d granted him the ability.

No, I'm sorry, but it is reality, it isn't a fairy tale.

[Godular]

The fact that atheists can accomplish the same result. There is no functional difference between using religion as a source of motivation and using one's family/friends/having-read-a-decent-book.



That is just your 'belief'.



Somehow, I knew you were going to try to argue semantics. I even tried to cut you off, but you pushed on anyway. Props for determination, I suppose.

Science produces medicine, which heals you. Religion produces wishful thinking, which when used in lieu of medicine typically results in coffins.



No, it is not.

Evidence? The belief that I had....I used a figurative term that religion can heal people, what I actually meant was G-d can heal people, who is the source of religion.

Not all religion, and claiming that God can purportedly heal folks is rather silly when (if God were to exist) he got them sick in the first place, too.

I know, it is my belief, a belief, not a 'belief', and not just a belief, but a belief.

Your belief is a 'belief' in that it has no evidence to back it up.

Science does not produce medicine.

Yes it does. It does remarkably well at it, to boot.

I don't think science is an object, it doesn't really produce.

That is neither relevant nor particularly coherent.

Medicine comes from people who study on them and find out about them, and then use them on living stuff.

All of which comes from employing scientific principles and procedures.

G-d of course granted the ability to them to make that, and allowed their brain to function.

If God exists, he also produced the illnesses that we're using science to combat in the first place.

No, I'm sorry, but it is reality, it isn't a fairy tale.

Inasmuch as the Harry Potter series is reality. They 'exist' as ideas just as any other fictional entity.

[Geneviev]

It shouldn't be controversial, but realistically, it is. The minority made it controversial.

So if I find a single person on this planet who believes Jesus was in fact a talking piece of living Poo called Mr Hanky (or Patrick Stewart if you prefer some class) - Jesus being human shaped would be controversial ?

If it were a whole Christian denomination, yes. It would have to be controversial.

I am confused by the Big Bang theory being biology. But maybe they just teach controversial science all at once.

It isn't biology, which is why I doubt the scientific integrity of what was being taught.

That doesn't immediately mean it was wrong.

[Alvecia]

So if I find a single person on this planet who believes Jesus was in fact a talking piece of living Poo called Mr Hanky (or Patrick Stewart if you prefer some class) - Jesus being human shaped would be controversial ?

If it were a whole Christian denomination, yes. It would have to be controversial.

Wikipedia has the smallest ones at around 10,000 people. I could get that many people to sign a petition about anything.

[Geneviev]

If it were a whole Christian denomination, yes. It would have to be controversial.

Wikipedia has the smallest ones at around 10,000 people. I could get that many people to sign a petition about anything.

They should believe it. If they do, it can be a controversy.

[Moikistan]

Depends on the context.

Both science and religion have their benefits but science diminishes the benefits of traditional religion; it's like a placebo. God may not be real, but many people with shared spiritual beliefs strengthen the community, promote family models, keep people in check - and faith gives people hope. That faith only works if you believe. Belief is the oposite of a scientific approach - which is to question and find evidence to disprove a theory. Faith no longer has a place when scientific method enters the picture, as those who disprove the existence of God are often ostracized from the religious community and lose out on any benefits they ever accrued from it.

Sure, religion and science can work if you make a cult based around worshipping logic and reason.

[Upper Nan]

I'd assume it's correct.

I tend not to, particularly when people pair them together like that.

If it's a Catholic school, I wouldn't worry about it, otherwise yeah, could be 50/50 since they just said, "Christian school." Could be a Mormon school in Utah for all we know.

[La Xinga]

Evidence? The belief that I had....I used a figurative term that religion can heal people, what I actually meant was G-d can heal people, who is the source of religion.

Not all religion, and claiming that God can purportedly heal folks is rather silly when (if God were to exist) he got them sick in the first place, too.

I know, it is my belief, a belief, not a 'belief', and not just a belief, but a belief.

Your belief is a 'belief' in that it has no evidence to back it up.

Science does not produce medicine.

Yes it does. It does remarkably well at it, to boot.

I don't think science is an object, it doesn't really produce.

That is neither relevant nor particularly coherent.

Medicine comes from people who study on them and find out about them, and then use them on living stuff.

All of which comes from employing scientific principles and procedures.

G-d of course granted the ability to them to make that, and allowed their brain to function.

If God exists, he also produced the illnesses that we're using science to combat in the first place.

No, I'm sorry, but it is reality, it isn't a fairy tale.

Inasmuch as the Harry Potter series is reality. They 'exist' as ideas just as any other fictional entity.

On your first 'point', he infects people to clean them for the next world.
The fact that I'm living right now and existing is proof.
Science cannot produce anything, neither does religion. They're both not objects!
Scientific principles and procedures? Please give me an example.
Once again, he makes the illness to clean people from sin!
And the story does exist.

[Necroghastia]

Not all religion, and claiming that God can purportedly heal folks is rather silly when (if God were to exist) he got them sick in the first place, too.



Your belief is a 'belief' in that it has no evidence to back it up.



Yes it does. It does remarkably well at it, to boot.



That is neither relevant nor particularly coherent.



All of which comes from employing scientific principles and procedures.



If God exists, he also produced the illnesses that we're using science to combat in the first place.



Inasmuch as the Harry Potter series is reality. They 'exist' as ideas just as any other fictional entity.

On your first 'point', he infects people to clean them for the next world.

What? Even if that was true, why does he need to do that?

The fact that I'm living right now and existing is proof.

How is your existence proof of a deity?

Science cannot produce anything, neither does religion. They're both not objects!

Science is how we learn about how the world works. If we did not apply our knowledge of how electricity works, NSG would not exist and neither would this conversation.

Scientific principles and procedures? Please give me an example.

Germ theory, experimentation to find chemical compounds that treat ailments, everything we know about the immune system, the list is nigh unending.

Once again, he makes the illness to clean people from sin!

Which is why babies fresh out of the womb can have horrible illnesses and the vilest people on the planet can be models of health.

And the story does exist.

Absolutely. The veracity is what's in dispute.

[La Xinga]

On your first 'point', he infects people to clean them for the next world.

What? Even if that was true, why does he need to do that?

The fact that I'm living right now and existing is proof.

How is your existence proof of a deity?

Science cannot produce anything, neither does religion. They're both not objects!

Science is how we learn about how the world works. If we did not apply our knowledge of how electricity works, NSG would not exist and neither would this conversation.

Scientific principles and procedures? Please give me an example.

Germ theory, experimentation to find chemical compounds that treat ailments, everything we know about the immune system, the list is nigh unending.

Once again, he makes the illness to clean people from sin!

Which is why babies fresh out of the womb can have horrible illnesses and the vilest people on the planet can be models of health.

And the story does exist.

Absolutely. The veracity is what's in dispute.

It is true! All of his punishments are exact!
The proof is that the universe exists. Without him, it wouldn't exist, because he created it!
Yeah, G-d gave them the knowledge to figure out how to do electricity.
Once again, G-d granted them the knowledge.
The illness of the baby, that is maybe to atone for the sins of their parents or ancestors, or their sins in past life. If evil people are powerful and mighty and rich, just wait for their punishments up there, which is much, much, MUCH worse! If we get punished on this world, we should be thankful, and repent and pray after!
The veracity? Exactly. We were debating that before, and now too.

[Green October Z]

Depends on the religion.

[Neutraligon]

I am confused by the Big Bang theory being biology. But maybe they just teach controversial science all at once.

It isn't biology, which is why I doubt the scientific integrity of what was being taught.

They link them together because their creation story (specifically young earth) is directly contradicted by both evolution and the big bang theory. In their mind they are directly linked.

[Necroghastia]

What? Even if that was true, why does he need to do that?
How is your existence proof of a deity?
Science is how we learn about how the world works. If we did not apply our knowledge of how electricity works, NSG would not exist and neither would this conversation.
Germ theory, experimentation to find chemical compounds that treat ailments, everything we know about the immune system, the list is nigh unending.

Which is why babies fresh out of the womb can have horrible illnesses and the vilest people on the planet can be models of health.

Absolutely. The veracity is what's in dispute.

It is true! All of his punishments are exact!
The proof is that the universe exists. Without him, it wouldn't exist, because he created it!
Yeah, G-d gave them the knowledge to figure out how to do electricity.
Once again, G-d granted them the knowledge.
The illness of the baby, that is maybe to atone for the sins of their parents or ancestors, or their sins in past life. If evil people are powerful and mighty and rich, just wait for their punishments up there, which is much, much, MUCH worse! If we get punished on this world, we should be thankful, and repent and pray after!
The veracity? Exactly. We were debating that before, and now too.

My response to pretty much all of this is to ask for proof, and also to ask why someone who punishes children for their ancestors' misdeeds is someone you claim to be a good guy. Seems like an asshole to me.

[La Xinga]

It is true! All of his punishments are exact!
The proof is that the universe exists. Without him, it wouldn't exist, because he created it!
Yeah, G-d gave them the knowledge to figure out how to do electricity.
Once again, G-d granted them the knowledge.
The illness of the baby, that is maybe to atone for the sins of their parents or ancestors, or their sins in past life. If evil people are powerful and mighty and rich, just wait for their punishments up there, which is much, much, MUCH worse! If we get punished on this world, we should be thankful, and repent and pray after!
The veracity? Exactly. We were debating that before, and now too.

My response to pretty much all of this is to ask for proof, and also to ask why someone who punishes children for their ancestors' misdeeds is someone you claim to be a good guy. Seems like an asshole to me.

You want proof? For what?

PLUS, that's how life works. G-d punishes the children if they are over 20. We don't know G-d's reason or his ways, too miraculous and glorious for us to make of it, Selah.

And who are you calling a something?

[Neanderthaland]

My response to pretty much all of this is to ask for proof, and also to ask why someone who punishes children for their ancestors' misdeeds is someone you claim to be a good guy. Seems like an asshole to me.

You want proof? For what?

PLUS, that's how life works. G-d punishes the children if they are over 20. We don't know G-d's reason or his ways, too miraculous and glorious for us to make of it, Selah.

And who are you calling a something?

It's safe to say that this guy's religion is not compatible with science.

[New Jewlan]

Yes, so long as science sticks to facts, it is compatible with the Catholic Faith.