Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[The Alma Mater]

I don't think talking about whether God is loving or not has anything to do with the topic of whether religion is compatible with science.

Well, if God is a total dick that enjoys messing with measurements and putting fake dinosaur bones into the earth it kinda matters.
But that indeed does not seem to be the angle of debate.

[Bombadil]

Typically compatible does signify a degree of working together, whether a program is compatible with my OS assumes some need for them to work together. This is more like asking whether a banana is compatible with my OS, sure they co-exist, but they serve entirely different purposes and the question of whether they're compatible is moot.

Even if I take the exact definition.

adjective
(of two things) able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict.

Ok, well then no, they're not compatible, clearly.

A lot of fighting and misunderstanding can occur when people are using different definitions for the same words (as valid of those different definitions are). Thank you for your clear and precise definitions. They help to provide context for your argument.

To take it even further, the root of compassion requires suffering or endurance, com-pat - with suffering or endurance. That implies that each takes from the other, similar to compassion.

However as I noted, science needs nothing from religion to exist and religion needs nothing from science. However religion does create problems for science and science does create problems for religion so, in the strictest sense, they're not compatible.

[The Alma Mater]

However as I noted, science needs nothing from religion to exist and religion needs nothing from science.

Not entirely true - the rise of the scientific method owes a lot to christianities "it is good to admit you are fallible' teachings. If we were still a society that believes admitting one was mistaken is the ultimate dishonour the science as we know it would never had existed.

There is irony here. I like it.

[Bombadil]

However as I noted, science needs nothing from religion to exist and religion needs nothing from science.

Not entirely true - the rise of the scientific method owes a lot to christianities "it is good to admit you are fallible' teachings. If we were still a society that believes admitting one was mistaken is the ultimate dishonour the science as we know it would never had existed.

There is irony here. I like it.

That is simply looking at a coincidence and calling it a prerequisite.

[Mirjt]

A lot of fighting and misunderstanding can occur when people are using different definitions for the same words (as valid of those different definitions are). Thank you for your clear and precise definitions. They help to provide context for your argument.

To take it even further, the root of compassion requires suffering or endurance, com-pat - with suffering or endurance. That implies that each takes from the other, similar to compassion.

However as I noted, science needs nothing from religion to exist and religion needs nothing from science. However religion does create problems for science and science does create problems for religion so, in the strictest sense, they're not compatible.

I find your argument to be reasonable. Though I still side with the position that religion and science are compatible, my answer to the various aspects of what compatibility could mean, was provided many, many pages back.

[Bombadil]

To take it even further, the root of compassion requires suffering or endurance, com-pat - with suffering or endurance. That implies that each takes from the other, similar to compassion.

However as I noted, science needs nothing from religion to exist and religion needs nothing from science. However religion does create problems for science and science does create problems for religion so, in the strictest sense, they're not compatible.

I find your argument to be reasonable. Though I still side with the position that religion and science are compatible, my answer to the various aspects of what compatibility could mean, was provided many, many pages back.

Forgive me for not reading back but..

If it's to mean can science and religion co-exist in the world without causing any problems then, perhaps, but they would have to remain strictly separate from each other, in which case they're not strictly being compatible but simply co-existing.

However I'd argue it's impossible for religion not to interfere with science since science indirectly challenges the notion of religion, and science cannot but impinge on questions formerly owned by religion. In that sense they inherently interfere with each other causing conflict and problems.

The only way to resolve them possibly, is to go back to UMN's notion of logos, that what we might call god or the Word is simply a single point of energy from which all things emanate. However in terms of religion, that would be all we could say, we could not ascribe any characteristics, intents or anthropomorphise it in any way, as the Word says, I am unknowable.

So, fine, believe in that source, we call it the Big Bang, hardly a big difference given neither can really know what occurred prior to that energy explosion. It cannot or should not inform as to how we conduct our lives though.

Philosophy is compatible with science, science has no morality and so how it's used requires a process of how we, as humans, think life should be conducted. Religion has long served as a proxy for this, it's simply no longer required.

[The Free Joy State]

First forum post
Something to think about: If the Earth and space and everything on Earth was created in 7 days, why would they be Earth days? Human reckoning of time didn't exist, so it's entirely plausible that the Earth is billions of years old, but that's only 7 days long in pre-Earth time.

Technically, that's similar to the theory that "six ages" was mistranslated to "six days" in the first translations of Genesis, thus leading to Young Earth Creationism (as an age can have an intedeterminate period, including one of millions to billions of years).

The order of Genesis 1 (the light, the sky, the land, the seas, the plants and trees, the moon and stars, animals and finally humans) sort of is similar the order of evolution, so I've always seen it as a religious man's allegory to try and explain evolution.

A shame that after a couple generations their descendants would be a bunch of retarded inbreds and humanity would have died out.

No, Adam and Eve had incredible genetic diversity, much more than us, which allowed for the variation in humankind.

Firstly, even if they were the most genetically diverse couple who ever lived, they were still two people. Who had two sons, who would then have had to breed with their mother or an unnamed sister, whose offspring would then have had to breed with their first cousins (producing a family too genetically weak to produce a long and healthy line to populate the earth -- just look at the Hapsburgs).

This is why the Bible does not work literally, IMO.

The people at AiG, including the PhDs they have on board, admit that they would not change their interpretation of the Bible if scientific evidence contradicted it. This should remove most of their scientific credibility.

Where did the PhDs come from? If it's an institution like Bob Jones University or Pensacola Christian College (which seems to produce a lot of... scientists in the creationism field), creationism is what they would have been taught as science, anyway.

[Geneviev]

No, Adam and Eve had incredible genetic diversity, much more than us, which allowed for the variation in humankind.

Firstly, even if they were the most genetically diverse couple who ever lived, they were still two people. Who had two sons, who would then have had to breed with their mother or an unnamed sister, whose offspring would then have had to breed with their first cousins (producing a family too genetically weak to produce a long and healthy line to populate the earth -- just look at the Hapsburgs).

This is why the Bible does not work literally, IMO.

There are other people mentioned in Genesis. Genesis 4:13-16, if I remember correctly.

[The Free Joy State]

Firstly, even if they were the most genetically diverse couple who ever lived, they were still two people. Who had two sons, who would then have had to breed with their mother or an unnamed sister, whose offspring would then have had to breed with their first cousins (producing a family too genetically weak to produce a long and healthy line to populate the earth -- just look at the Hapsburgs).

This is why the Bible does not work literally, IMO.

There are other people mentioned in Genesis. Genesis 4:13-16, if I remember correctly.

Cain's son Enoch, who was the father of Irad, who was the father of Mehujael, who was the father of Methushael, who was the father of Lamech (Genesis 4:13-19).

But it doesn't specify where the mothers came from. Cain has a wife, but no other people are mentioned, apart from Adam and Eve beforehand.

Which is fine, if we accept evolution. We just assume Adam and Eve were the protagonists, so the writer wasn't following anyone but them -- no need to mention the neighbours, their wives, their kids and their fulfilling work in the fields. The wives just show up in Genesis when needed (nice biological diversity).

But if Adam and Eve were literally the only man and woman... where does Cain's wife come from... or Enoch's, or Irad's...

That's my problem with literalism.

[Albrenia]

I don't wish to be mean, but I don't think any of the qualifications carried by people who work for AiG would be worthwhile as anything more than doodle paper. They're thankfully not representative of most religious people though, or their compatibility with science.

[Geneviev]

There are other people mentioned in Genesis. Genesis 4:13-16, if I remember correctly.

Cain's son Enoch, who was the father of Irad, who was the father of Mehujael, who was the father of Methushael, who was the father of Lamech (Genesis 4:13-19).

But it doesn't specify where the mothers came from. Cain has a wife, but no other people are mentioned, apart from Adam and Eve beforehand.

Which is fine, if we accept evolution. We just assume Adam and Eve were the protagonists, so the writer wasn't following anyone but them -- no need to mention the neighbours, their wives, their kids and their fulfilling work in the fields. The wives just show up in Genesis when needed (nice biological diversity).

But if Adam and Eve were literally the only man and woman... where does Cain's wife come from... or Enoch's, or Irad's...

That's my problem with literalism.

Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

There are definitely other people mentioned there. I don't think Adam and Eve were the people he was afraid of.

[The Free Joy State]

Cain's son Enoch, who was the father of Irad, who was the father of Mehujael, who was the father of Methushael, who was the father of Lamech (Genesis 4:13-19).

But it doesn't specify where the mothers came from. Cain has a wife, but no other people are mentioned, apart from Adam and Eve beforehand.

Which is fine, if we accept evolution. We just assume Adam and Eve were the protagonists, so the writer wasn't following anyone but them -- no need to mention the neighbours, their wives, their kids and their fulfilling work in the fields. The wives just show up in Genesis when needed (nice biological diversity).

But if Adam and Eve were literally the only man and woman... where does Cain's wife come from... or Enoch's, or Irad's...

That's my problem with literalism.

Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

There are definitely other people mentioned there. I don't think Adam and Eve were the people he was afraid of.

No, according to Genesis 4, his conversation was with the Lord. It was the Lord who was driving him out from his land:

13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear.
14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

That there were unrelated people he was afraid of is unsupported by the text (if read in a literalist interpretation). Remove the literalist interpretation and you're probably right; it's highly unlikely that all of humanity was related to one Cain (I certainly don't believe they would have been; I accept the science of evolution).

But there's nothing in the whole of Genesis 4 (and I've just reread it) to support that reading, if you're reading it literally.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

First forum post
Something to think about: If the Earth and space and everything on Earth was created in 7 days, why would they be Earth days? Human reckoning of time didn't exist, so it's entirely plausible that the Earth is billions of years old, but that's only 7 days long in pre-Earth time.

Technically, that's similar to the theory that "six ages" was mistranslated to "six days" in the first translations of Genesis, thus leading to Young Earth Creationism (as an age can have an intedeterminate period, including one of millions to billions of years).

The order of Genesis 1 (the light, the sky, the land, the seas, the plants and trees, the moon and stars, animals and finally humans) sort of is similar the order of evolution, so I've always seen it as a religious man's allegory to try and explain evolution.

No, Adam and Eve had incredible genetic diversity, much more than us, which allowed for the variation in humankind.

Firstly, even if they were the most genetically diverse couple who ever lived, they were still two people. Who had two sons, who would then have had to breed with their mother or an unnamed sister, whose offspring would then have had to breed with their first cousins (producing a family too genetically weak to produce a long and healthy line to populate the earth -- just look at the Hapsburgs).

This is why the Bible does not work literally, IMO.

The people at AiG, including the PhDs they have on board, admit that they would not change their interpretation of the Bible if scientific evidence contradicted it. This should remove most of their scientific credibility.

Where did the PhDs come from? If it's an institution like Bob Jones University or Pensacola Christian College (which seems to produce a lot of... scientists in the creationism field), creationism is what they would have been taught as science, anyway.

It seems that either God intentionally didn't want people to really understand the Bible, or modern theologians had to take part in some scientific arguments to make it more believable.The Bible doesn't just work literally.Two people can't guarantee genetic diversity.The birth of mankind is a long evolutionary process. Many of our cousins have failed in the evolutionary competition.Creationism,This is only based on the understanding of the world 2000 years ago. If religious people still insist on creationism today, it's better not to let them see astronomy and geology and paleontology.The sun existed for billions of years before the earth existed.There are stars before the sun, there is light before the stars.Ten billion years before the earth.Religious people always think that human beings are special and the earth is special.Now I usually think that the Old Testament is a romantic record of the history of ancient Judea.Novels of ancient people.

[The Alma Mater]

The order of Genesis 1 (the light, the sky, the land, the seas, the plants and trees, the moon and stars, animals and finally humans) sort of is similar the order of evolution, so I've always seen it as a religious man's allegory to try and explain evolution.

Note that Genesis explicitly creates the sun after the earth and fruit bearing trees. The source of the light on day 1 is never explained.

[Bombadil]

This conversation is more suited to the Christian Discussion Thread no, but there is no mention that Cain is the first child of Adam and Eve, most explanations I've seen is that the 'others' are previous children of Adam and Eve and their related families.

Most religious scholars don't demand absolute literal truth from the Bible, more absolute truth of the message and guidance not the details.

Anyway, it has little to do with the compatibility of religion and science.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Religious people always think that human beings are special and the earth is special.

Human beings are special. We don't get an epoch named after us for nothing, and as far as we know, we're the only intelligent life in the universe, Earth has perhaps the only life. We have yet to find any evidence to the contrary. Creationism is bunk, but I think we Humans can say we're special even putting aside religion.

[The Alma Mater]

Not entirely true - the rise of the scientific method owes a lot to christianities "it is good to admit you are fallible' teachings. If we were still a society that believes admitting one was mistaken is the ultimate dishonour the science as we know it would never had existed.

There is irony here. I like it.

That is simply looking at a coincidence and calling it a prerequisite.

Being willing to accept and admit the possibility of being wrong definately is a prerequisite for the scientific method. It is in fact its basis.

It is true that it is coincidence that a religion was the thing that provided this will and that other philosophies could have provided it as well... but history is what it is.

[Bombadil]

The order of Genesis 1 (the light, the sky, the land, the seas, the plants and trees, the moon and stars, animals and finally humans) sort of is similar the order of evolution, so I've always seen it as a religious man's allegory to try and explain evolution.

Note that Genesis explicitly creates the sun after the earth and fruit bearing trees. The source of the light on day 1 is never explained.

The light is clearly the sun, stars would be counted as separate to the sun.

[The Alma Mater]

Note that Genesis explicitly creates the sun after the earth and fruit bearing trees. The source of the light on day 1 is never explained.

The light is clearly the sun, stars would be counted as separate to the sun.

The sun is explicitly mentioned as being created on the fourth day:

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

That the moon technically is a not a light is something I am willing to forgive; it functions as one after all.

[Bombadil]

That is simply looking at a coincidence and calling it a prerequisite.

Being willing to accept and admit the possibility of being wrong definately is a prerequisite for the scientific method. It is in fact its basis.

It is true that it is coincidence that a religion was the thing that provided this will and that other philosophies could have provided it as well... but history is what it is.

China created gunpowder in AD300, that is certainly a form of chemistry, engineering and physics have long been used, mathematics is ancient - it's just Western Europe, for a variety of reasons, reached the tipping point of the scientific revolution and codified it.

It would have happened somewhere, it happened in Western Europe but that's hardly to say it was due to Christianity as opposed to a whole host of reasons.

[Bombadil]

The light is clearly the sun, stars would be counted as separate to the sun.

The sun is explicitly mentioned as being created on the fourth day:

God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

That the moon technically is a not a light is something I am willing to forgive; it functions as one after all.

Colour me corrected. I always actually had the idea that he created the firmament and stuff in the dark, that's how amazing he was, he went 'woodgy woodgy woodgy', turned on the lights and thought ' fucking hell that's good'.

[The Alma Mater]

Being willing to accept and admit the possibility of being wrong definately is a prerequisite for the scientific method. It is in fact its basis.

It is true that it is coincidence that a religion was the thing that provided this will and that other philosophies could have provided it as well... but history is what it is.

China created gunpowder in AD300, that is certainly a form of chemistry, engineering and physics have long been used, mathematics is ancient - it's just Western Europe, for a variety of reasons, reached the tipping point of the scientific revolution and codified it.

It would have happened somewhere, it happened in Western Europe but that's hardly to say it was due to Christianity as opposed to a whole host of reasons.

There were certainly many discoveries before the scientific method was devised. Heck, people were able to build Rome without it.
But science as we know it today is defined as using the scientific method - devise a hypothesis to explain an observation and then try to disprove said hypothesis, asking help of your peers if you fail to do so.

[Mirjt]

Technically, that's similar to the theory that "six ages" was mistranslated to "six days" in the first translations of Genesis, thus leading to Young Earth Creationism (as an age can have an intedeterminate period, including one of millions to billions of years).

The order of Genesis 1 (the light, the sky, the land, the seas, the plants and trees, the moon and stars, animals and finally humans) sort of is similar the order of evolution, so I've always seen it as a religious man's allegory to try and explain evolution.


Firstly, even if they were the most genetically diverse couple who ever lived, they were still two people. Who had two sons, who would then have had to breed with their mother or an unnamed sister, whose offspring would then have had to breed with their first cousins (producing a family too genetically weak to produce a long and healthy line to populate the earth -- just look at the Hapsburgs).

This is why the Bible does not work literally, IMO.


Where did the PhDs come from? If it's an institution like Bob Jones University or Pensacola Christian College (which seems to produce a lot of... scientists in the creationism field), creationism is what they would have been taught as science, anyway.

It seems that either God intentionally didn't want people to really understand the Bible, or modern theologians had to take part in some scientific arguments to make it more believable.The Bible doesn't just work literally.Two people can't guarantee genetic diversity.The birth of mankind is a long evolutionary process. Many of our cousins have failed in the evolutionary competition.Creationism,This is only based on the understanding of the world 2000 years ago. If religious people still insist on creationism today, it's better not to let them see astronomy and geology and paleontology.The sun existed for billions of years before the earth existed.There are stars before the sun, there is light before the stars.Ten billion years before the earth.Religious people always think that human beings are special and the earth is special.

I don't think the Earth or humans are particularly special. I think that their might be unique things about the Earth or humans, but that does not make us particularly special. For all I know there are many intelligent, technological civilizations filled with sentient beings (with their own souls), that God also planned, or expected, or arranged, or allowed to exist. I personally think that the evidence suggests that despite the overwhelming number of worlds and physical/chemical phenomenon out there, that technological civilizations (at least in this period of time and/or this area of the Universe) is just so rare we may be the only technological civilization (and we are still only a 0.73 on the scale), among the first technological civilizations, or one of a very small number. However, I also think the evidence (of which we only have models, and so on) suggests that life itself is common, but not civilizations. Though all of that is just conjecture and speculation. If we do become space-faring, I personally do not expect us to leave our social system, let alone our galaxy, but regardless if we colonize only local celestial bodies or celestial bodies across the Milky Way and beyond, I expect us to diversify into many species pretty quickly. I also think that while our sentience affords us special consideration, we are not better than the animals that inhabitat this world, they are all God's creation and God loves all of their creation (in fact for all I know God may use reincarnation into various animals as a part of our spiritual development, in which case it becomes even more imperative that I love my fellow creatures, just as the Jains, and the Sikhs, and the Hindus, and the Buddhists all prescribe). I would still believe in God though, even if these possibility occur, as none of them contradict my Christianity.

[Bombadil]

China created gunpowder in AD300, that is certainly a form of chemistry, engineering and physics have long been used, mathematics is ancient - it's just Western Europe, for a variety of reasons, reached the tipping point of the scientific revolution and codified it.

It would have happened somewhere, it happened in Western Europe but that's hardly to say it was due to Christianity as opposed to a whole host of reasons.

There were certainly many discoveries before the scientific method was devised. Heck, people were able to build Rome without it.
But science as we know it today is defined as using the scientific method - devise a hypothesis to explain an observation and then try to disprove said hypothesis, asking help of your peers if you fail to do so.

I'd argue this was more to do with the extent that the ancient greek rationalists were held in reverence, less to do with Christianity, in fact it was that philosophy finally overcoming the grip of Christianity.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

There were certainly many discoveries before the scientific method was devised. Heck, people were able to build Rome without it.
But science as we know it today is defined as using the scientific method - devise a hypothesis to explain an observation and then try to disprove said hypothesis, asking help of your peers if you fail to do so.

I'd argue this was more to do with the extent that the ancient greek rationalists were held in reverence, less to do with Christianity, in fact it was that philosophy finally overcoming the grip of Christianity.

Because the feudal regime was not strong enough after the decline of RCC, capitalism developed. A new system needs a new set of ideas.In fact, the economy has overcome religious control. The economic basis determines the political and ideological models