Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[The Alma Mater]

Kind of curious since most people have just been focused on Christianity, what do you specifically think about Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Asian religions' compatibility with science?

Similar problems. Believing islands were created by giant monkeys throwing rocks and geology do not really mix.

[Godular]

Kind of curious since most people have just been focused on Christianity, what do you specifically think about Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Asian religions' compatibility with science?

I’m given to understand that Shinto is pretty decent. It’s pretty much entirely philosophical/meditative.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Kind of curious since most people have just been focused on Christianity, what do you specifically think about Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Asian religions' compatibility with science?

Similar problems. Believing islands were created by giant monkeys throwing rocks and geology do not really mix.

The more you claim, the harder it is to defend.

[Neanderthaland]

Kind of curious since most people have just been focused on Christianity, what do you specifically think about Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Asian religions' compatibility with science?

It's a broad category to paint with a single brush.

I know you're a Buddhist, so let's stick with that. There's a lot of... fluff? I'm not sure what to call it. Miscellaneous beliefs that can and do attach themselves to Buddhism, which are not strictly necessary to the religion. And some of which and plainly mythological and contradict science. So sometimes people try to carve away at Buddhism in an effort to reduce it to something less supernatural and more compatible with science. At it's most extreme, and painfully simplistic, we might reduce Buddhism down to a statement like, "Suffering is related to desire, and eliminating desire can eliminate suffering."

"Suffering is related to desire," seems intuitively true. And does not contradict any science that I am aware of. But imagine that tomorrow neurology discovers that "actually, the mechanics of suffering are more complicated, and largely unrelated to desire."

Well, now even that horribly concise Buddhism - made exclusively to appeal to the scientifically minded - contradicts science.


Now, of course, I don't know that science has actually shown this. But something like this could easily happen, and if it did... I don't think Buddhists would stop being Buddhist. They would just ignore it. Which is "coexistence" perhaps, but not true compatibility. So I'm going to have to say "no." Not compatible.

[Neanderthaland]

Kind of curious since most people have just been focused on Christianity, what do you specifically think about Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Asian religions' compatibility with science?

I’m given to understand that Shinto is pretty decent. It’s pretty much entirely philosophical/meditative.

I'm by no means an expert, but I know enough to know it get's pretty weird.

I'm not sure what the philosophical significance of giant animal testicles is. But I know that there's a lot of statuary devoted to the subject.

[Godular]

I’m given to understand that Shinto is pretty decent. It’s pretty much entirely philosophical/meditative.

I'm by no means an expert, but I know enough to know it get's pretty weird.

I'm not sure what the philosophical significance of giant animal testicles is. But I know that there's a lot of statuary devoted to the subject.

I’m given to understand that’s primarily the result of some damn funky folk stories.

[Hanafuridake]

Kind of curious since most people have just been focused on Christianity, what do you specifically think about Hinduism, Buddhism, and other Asian religions' compatibility with science?

I’m given to understand that Shinto is pretty decent. It’s pretty much entirely philosophical/meditative.

Shinto is more of a label for a bunch of different Japanese shrines and movements who's beliefs can wildly vary. I wouldn't say it's very philosophical since families such as Yoshida, Watarai, etc. derived their cosmological theories from Buddhism, Chinese naturalism, etc. and the Meiji government had to end its plan for an organized belief system because of how much priests were arguing with each other over who's shrine's mythology was correct.

I’m given to understand that Shinto is pretty decent. It’s pretty much entirely philosophical/meditative.

I'm by no means an expert, but I know enough to know it get's pretty weird.

I'm not sure what the philosophical significance of giant animal testicles is. But I know that there's a lot of statuary devoted to the subject.

That's just folk stuff, which is weird in just about any religion tbh.

[Neanderthaland]

I'm by no means an expert, but I know enough to know it get's pretty weird.

I'm not sure what the philosophical significance of giant animal testicles is. But I know that there's a lot of statuary devoted to the subject.

I’m given to understand that’s primarily the result of some damn funky folk stories.

Let's not forget children's songs!

[Hanafuridake]

I know you're a Buddhist, so let's stick with that. There's a lot of... fluff? I'm not sure what to call it. Miscellaneous beliefs that can and do attach themselves to Buddhism, which are not strictly necessary to the religion. And some of which and plainly mythological and contradict science. So sometimes people try to carve away at Buddhism in an effort to reduce it to something less supernatural and more compatible with science. At it's most extreme, and painfully simplistic, we might reduce Buddhism down to a statement like, "Suffering is related to desire, and eliminating desire can eliminate suffering."

People do try and do this, but it betrays a fundamentally Protestant worldview and was historically advanced by ex-Protestants who visited Asia, such as Henry Steel Olcott. If we had to reduce it to a statement, I would say that a much more accurate one would be "ignorance about the impermanent and composite nature of existence is the cause of craving and suffering." since the doctrine of the skandhas and anatta are some of the main things which distinguish Buddhism from Jainism or Hinduism.

Well, now even that horribly concise Buddhism - made exclusively to appeal to the scientifically minded - contradicts science.

Would it really be Buddhism at this point though? It doesn't really seem any different from the Buddha's teachers Alara Kalama and Uddaka Rāmaputta who he rejected. And we're working under the assumption that the proposition you proposed is untrue, while it has not.

[La Xinga]

\
Because it cannot come from anything else as we are created

Humanity's existence has nothing to do with the formation of the universe.

to perfectly

The human body is not perfect in the slightest. Most other animals do not have the pain of labor. Our respiratory tract runs alongside our digestive tract in such a way that makes choking quite easy. There's all manner of genetic disorders out there.

for us to be created from nothing

Evolution does not allege this.

and for our cells magically to split apart, wonder how that happens.

Here's an overview.

I wonder how our brains somehow function, not like it's G-d causing an electrons to move an amah.

There's no reason to believe that, so yeah, it's really not like that.

With all of this, I will tell you that the people that G-d granted knowledge to people to say that.

And you would be wrong.

With all of that, I think it's clear his punishments are just!

Even if you were right about all of this, it still does not demonstrate that your god is a just god.

Is giving kids cancer miraculous and glorious? Indeed it is!

yikes

Then what is not miraculous? Nothing! A nuclear bomb being dropped is miraculous, as how does a bomb just go into the air and explode?

Well, they don't "just" do that, we have to bring them up there and then-

Fission uranium YADAHYADAHAYDAH,

Well, never mind then.

but they cannot keep on existing if G-d doesn't allow them to!

What reason is there to believe that?

Humanity existence doesn't? If your explosion thing never happened, to you we would never exist, am I correct?
The fact that we have trillions of cells that usually don't go crazy is just amazing. The fact that a plant can just pop out of the ground is just perfect. The fact that we can move is a miracle, considering the fact that why should a piece of flesh and blood be able to move?
Evolution doesn't allege this? Then what DOES it alledge?
How can a chromosome move, by itself?
And there is a reason to believe that G-d was the one who made us move an amah, because how else would it be moving?
And I would not be wrong.
If he is keeping everything in place and in existence, he is surely just, is he not?
On the last part, how does it explode? Why doesn't it just touch the ground and make a mess all over the ground of uranium?

[Godular]

Humanity's existence has nothing to do with the formation of the universe.

The human body is not perfect in the slightest. Most other animals do not have the pain of labor. Our respiratory tract runs alongside our digestive tract in such a way that makes choking quite easy. There's all manner of genetic disorders out there.

Evolution does not allege this.

Here's an overview.

There's no reason to believe that, so yeah, it's really not like that.

And you would be wrong.

Even if you were right about all of this, it still does not demonstrate that your god is a just god.

yikes

Well, they don't "just" do that, we have to bring them up there and then-

Well, never mind then.

What reason is there to believe that?

Humanity existence doesn't? If your explosion thing never happened, to you we would never exist, am I correct?

Contrary to what the name suggests, the Big Bang was not an explosion.

The fact that we have trillions of cells that usually don't go crazy is just amazing. The fact that a plant can just pop out of the ground is just perfect. The fact that we can move is a miracle, considering the fact that why should a piece of flesh and blood be able to move? Evolution doesn't allege this? Then what DOES it alledge?

What you said before regarded the creation of life from nothing. Evolution does not cover this. That falls under Abiogenesis.

How can a chromosome move, by itself?

It doesn’t.

And there is a reason to believe that G-d was the one who made us move an amah, because how else would it be moving?

Chemistry. ‘I don’t understand it’ does not equal ‘God did it’, no matter how much you try to assert otherwise.

And I would not be wrong.

You are wrong about that.

If he is keeping everything in place and in existence, he is surely just, is he not?

We reject your conditional statement.

On the last part, how does it explode? Why doesn't it just touch the ground and make a mess all over the ground of uranium?

Chemistry.

[The Alma Mater]

Humanity's existence has nothing to do with the formation of the universe.

The human body is not perfect in the slightest. Most other animals do not have the pain of labor. Our respiratory tract runs alongside our digestive tract in such a way that makes choking quite easy. There's all manner of genetic disorders out there.

Evolution does not allege this.

Here's an overview.

There's no reason to believe that, so yeah, it's really not like that.

And you would be wrong.

Even if you were right about all of this, it still does not demonstrate that your god is a just god.

yikes

Well, they don't "just" do that, we have to bring them up there and then-

Well, never mind then.

What reason is there to believe that?

Humanity existence doesn't? If your explosion thing never happened, to you we would never exist, am I correct?
The fact that we have trillions of cells that usually don't go crazy is just amazing. The fact that a plant can just pop out of the ground is just perfect. The fact that we can move is a miracle, considering the fact that why should a piece of flesh and blood be able to move?
Evolution doesn't allege this? Then what DOES it alledge?
How can a chromosome move, by itself?
And there is a reason to believe that G-d was the one who made us move an amah, because how else would it be moving?
And I would not be wrong.
If he is keeping everything in place and in existence, he is surely just, is he not?
On the last part, how does it explode? Why doesn't it just touch the ground and make a mess all over the ground of uranium?

Why assume "G-d" and not e.g. Brahma though ? Or Atum ?
Why not assume accidental creation through magic, like the Greeks did ?

[MC United]

It's been said that the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. So to that extent, I see religion and science as fully compatible.

If your understanding of the Bible conflicts with observable scientific fact, then maybe the problem is with your understanding of the Bible. The same applies to other religions.

While I admit that this kind of religious understanding is infinitely preferable to the creationist, I think it's still wrong.

It's as good as saying, "religion can't possibly be wrong. Ever. If it seems like it is wrong, you just have to find a way to stretch the meaning of the words until it seems right again."

Not really. When religion is kept focused on its proper sphere (theology, morals, ethics, etc.), there is little need to "stretch the meaning of the words until it seems right again." Philosophical debate about such topics as the existence and nature of God, what sinful behavior is, whether or not one must love one's neighbor, etc., can all continue with little need to refer to physical phenomena. Although one can make arguments in favor for God's existence based on observations of the universe.

The problems arise when religion tries to carry out the function of science, and vice versa.

What do you mean by "religion can't possibly be wrong"? If religion makes a statement about an observable, measurable scientific fact, it can be wrong. That comes about because, again, religion is trying to do something it isn't suited for. But when a religion makes a specifically religious statement, it's hard to say that is "wrong", although you may disagree with it. Conversely, when science tries to make a statement on a religious topic, such as, "God does not exist because reasons . . . .", trouble ensues.

[The Alma Mater]

While I admit that this kind of religious understanding is infinitely preferable to the creationist, I think it's still wrong.

It's as good as saying, "religion can't possibly be wrong. Ever. If it seems like it is wrong, you just have to find a way to stretch the meaning of the words until it seems right again."

Not really. When religion is kept focused on its proper sphere (theology, morals, ethics, etc.), there is little need to "stretch the meaning of the words until it seems right again." Philosophical debate about such topics as the existence and nature of God, what sinful behavior is, whether or not one must love one's neighbor, etc., can all continue with little need to refer to physical phenomena. Although one can make arguments in favor for God's existence based on observations of the universe.

The problems arise when religion tries to carry out the function of science, and vice versa.

What do you mean by "religion can't possibly be wrong"? If religion makes a statement about an observable, measurable scientific fact, it can be wrong. That comes about because, again, religion is trying to do something it isn't suited for. But when a religion makes a specifically religious statement, it's hard to say that is "wrong", although you may disagree with it. Conversely, when science tries to make a statement on a religious topic, such as, "God does not exist because reasons . . . .", trouble ensues.

Yet few religions do not make claims that belong in the realm of science. The Bible is not a short 25 page book about morals, but a large tome containing claims about things happening, timespans, the order of events, the nature of things etc. etc. etc. Same goes for the Qu''ran, the Vedas etc.

[Last Breath]

While I admit that this kind of religious understanding is infinitely preferable to the creationist, I think it's still wrong.

It's as good as saying, "religion can't possibly be wrong. Ever. If it seems like it is wrong, you just have to find a way to stretch the meaning of the words until it seems right again."

Not really. When religion is kept focused on its proper sphere (theology, morals, ethics, etc.), there is little need to "stretch the meaning of the words until it seems right again." Philosophical debate about such topics as the existence and nature of God, what sinful behavior is, whether or not one must love one's neighbor, etc., can all continue with little need to refer to physical phenomena. Although one can make arguments in favor for God's existence based on observations of the universe.


The problems arise when religion tries to carry out the function of science, and vice versa.

What do you mean by "religion can't possibly be wrong"? If religion makes a statement about an observable, measurable scientific fact, it can be wrong. That comes about because, again, religion is trying to do something it isn't suited for. But when a religion makes a specifically religious statement, it's hard to say that is "wrong", although you may disagree with it. Conversely, when science tries to make a statement on a religious topic, such as, "God does not exist because reasons . . . .", trouble ensues.

The idea of different domains for religion and science is very trite. The very claim that god exists is a statement about physical phenomena, the nature of a universe with a god is dramatically different than the nature of a universe without one. Furthermore while there is not necessarily much evidence that god doesn't exist, there is also not any reason to thin that such an entity does exist, and there is definitely evidence that if adeity exists, it is not a loving on. As for the idea that religion concerns itself with morals, this is highly inaccurate, the idea that an ultra powerful entity wants you to do something does not give you any moral imperative to do it, though it may be in your own best interest. Philosophical thought is perfectly capable of existing without religion, and in many cases does. There is very little religion concerns itself with that does not infringe upon a more rigorous field.

[La Xinga]

Humanity existence doesn't? If your explosion thing never happened, to you we would never exist, am I correct?
The fact that we have trillions of cells that usually don't go crazy is just amazing. The fact that a plant can just pop out of the ground is just perfect. The fact that we can move is a miracle, considering the fact that why should a piece of flesh and blood be able to move?
Evolution doesn't allege this? Then what DOES it alledge?
How can a chromosome move, by itself?
And there is a reason to believe that G-d was the one who made us move an amah, because how else would it be moving?
And I would not be wrong.
If he is keeping everything in place and in existence, he is surely just, is he not?
On the last part, how does it explode? Why doesn't it just touch the ground and make a mess all over the ground of uranium?

Why assume "G-d" and not e.g. Brahma though ? Or Atum ?
Why not assume accidental creation through magic, like the Greeks did ?

The Egyptians worshiped everything, like sheep and signs in the sky, so why should I believe in that? I'm not comfortable with any religion that has more than one lord, because most of these religions are shown in stone, making their lords into stone that looks like people, but stone cannot do anything!

I still think the world is to perfect to be made in an accident.

[Kowani]

Why assume "G-d" and not e.g. Brahma though ? Or Atum ?
Why not assume accidental creation through magic, like the Greeks did ?

The Egyptians worshiped everything, like sheep and signs in the sky, so why should I believe in that? I'm not comfortable with any religion that has more than one lord, because most of these religions are shown in stone, making their lords into stone that looks like people, but stone cannot do anything!

You...do you think the stone is the god?

I still think the world is to perfect to be made in an accident.

...No? It's just statistics.

[La Xinga]

The Egyptians worshiped everything, like sheep and signs in the sky, so why should I believe in that? I'm not comfortable with any religion that has more than one lord, because most of these religions are shown in stone, making their lords into stone that looks like people, but stone cannot do anything!

You...do you think the stone is the god?

I still think the world is to perfect to be made in an accident.

...No? It's just statistics.

Even if the stone isn't a a lord, I don't feel so comfortable with more than one G-d. It's hard to express my feelings, but i just feel that A g-d needs to be everywhere, and if it isn't then what is blocking it?

And uh what's the statistics? And for what? And with what? Now I'm confused!

[Godular]

Why assume "G-d" and not e.g. Brahma though ? Or Atum ?
Why not assume accidental creation through magic, like the Greeks did ?

The Egyptians worshiped everything, like sheep and signs in the sky, so why should I believe in that? I'm not comfortable with any religion that has more than one lord, because most of these religions are shown in stone, making their lords into stone that looks like people, but stone cannot do anything!

I still think the world is to perfect to be made in an accident.

Exceptionalism at its finest...

[Godular]

You...do you think the stone is the god?

...No? It's just statistics.

Even if the stone isn't a a lord, I don't feel so comfortable with more than one G-d. It's hard to express my feelings, but i just feel that A g-d needs to be everywhere, and if it isn't then what is blocking it?

The lack of existence. That'd be a big one.

And uh what's the statistics? And for what? And with what? Now I'm confused!

In an infinitely large universe, we were going to pop up somewhere. There's a 100% chance that there's some kind of insectoid critter utterly convinced that Ch'chxtl'swrt The Great Goddess Who Laid The Egg Of The World did so in order to ensure her people were the most perfect people in all creation. Prove me wrong, you eggless spiderclaw demon.

[La Xinga]

Even if the stone isn't a a lord, I don't feel so comfortable with more than one G-d. It's hard to express my feelings, but i just feel that A g-d needs to be everywhere, and if it isn't then what is blocking it?

The lack of existence. That'd be a big one.

And uh what's the statistics? And for what? And with what? Now I'm confused!

In an infinitely large universe, we were going to pop up somewhere. There's a 100% chance that there's some kind of insectoid critter utterly convinced that Ch'chxtl'swrt The Great Goddess Who Laid The Egg Of The World did so in order to ensure her people were the most perfect people in all creation. Prove me wrong, you eggless spiderclaw demon.

No, it's not lack of existence.
And on your last part....

[Godular]

The lack of existence. That'd be a big one.



In an infinitely large universe, we were going to pop up somewhere. There's a 100% chance that there's some kind of insectoid critter utterly convinced that Ch'chxtl'swrt The Great Goddess Who Laid The Egg Of The World did so in order to ensure her people were the most perfect people in all creation. Prove me wrong, you eggless spiderclaw demon.

No, it's not lack of existence.

Yes it is.

And on your last part....

Rest assured, they don't get you either.

[La Xinga]

No, it's not lack of existence.

Yes it is.

And on your last part....

Rest assured, they don't get you either.

No, G-d exists.
And who does not get me?

[Godular]

Yes it is.



Rest assured, they don't get you either.

No, G-d exists.

Prove it. Independently verifiable and reproducible evidence, please.

And who does not get me?

The Centipoids of the Unimaginable Benevolent Empire of Skzzz find your views misinformed and would like to challenge you to a bout of battle-debate. Make sure you get plenty of practice in before the bout, as their chosen speaker has over 700 confirmed kills.

[La Xinga]

No, G-d exists.

Prove it. Independently verifiable and reproducible evidence, please.

And who does not get me?

The Centipoids of the Unimaginable Benevolent Empire of Skzzz find your views misinformed and would like to challenge you to a bout of battle-debate. Make sure you get plenty of practice in before the bout, as their chosen speaker has over 700 confirmed kills.

I'm going to start off with Judaism.

Let's say it WAS made up, which it wasn't, but fine.

Now whoever made this up needs to have people, right?

SKITTY SKIT TIME!

Hello? Uh, G-d spoke to me and told me this. Ya interested?

Suppose the guy doesn't slam the door in your face.

Ok, what does it say?

Well it says you need to keep kosher, close your business on Saturda-

You crazy? You want me to close my business every Saturday?

WAIT UP! Give 10% of your money to charity, give 12% of your produce to the priests, don't cut off your beard and leave the sides of your hair complete. You also need to give your male child a circumcision on the 8th day! If you area farmer, every seventh eyar you cannot work on your field.

A-lot of people in those days were farmers, so that was horrifying to hear!

OH WAIT! When you plant a fruit tree, you can't eat from its fruit for the next three years! OH WAIT, the 4th year you need to bring it to Jerusalem to eat!

If the guy didn't slam the door in your face yet, oh boy!

No one would accept something that tells you to allow poor people to collect funny-looking bundles of grapes in your field, or that you can't ware wool and linen together, that you cannot mix fruit, or that you can't have 2 of the same animals plowing your field!

It msut be the Jews saw something, heard something, and had something, as no one would accept this without experience!

you were taken out of Egyp-

Wait, no i wasn't!

Right now is the Jewish Sephira, a time that you cannot make weddings (you can't do that anyway now!), get new clothing, or listen to music! Would you be fine with that?