Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[La Xinga]

Addressing the debate over the Great Flood.

It is extremely unfeasible and unlikely that a flood cover the entire globe leaving no dry land, there is not enough water on Earth to do that, and there is no real evidence in the geologic record of such an event. Many things in Genesis are metaphorical (as any biblical historian or religious studies expert can tell you), and it is very possible that the Great Flood was not literal. That said this flood myth is present in multiple cultures from the Near East areas (Mesopotamia) of the Meditterranean Sea, where the Jewish people lived. There is evidence that there was a massive flood that happened in this area (and around the time we would have expected Noah to live), and to the people of the area, this was their whole World (their maps had the Meditteranean Sea at the center), and the Flood would have been perceived to them as engulfing the whole World. I believe the Great Flood did happen, it just was more localized then we think, and the story was passed on by the various peoples and cultures that lived in the area as myth, and eventually the Jewish texts included the story as well (as the Jewish texts were likely the last group to record the story which was likely passed on orally before this point).

The Jews didn't write it down, G-d did! If I remember correctly, 974 years before the earth was created.

[La Xinga]

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.

I'm referring to the "whoever finds me will kill me." Even a literalist interpretation should acknowledge that that is referring to other people.

Animals, of course! Little cutie-blushy-faced cats willBITE OFF HIS HEAD!

OH WAIT! free joy state, Adam had another son! He had three! In Hebrew text, his name is Shes, not sure in Latinized.

[Geneviev]

I'm referring to the "whoever finds me will kill me." Even a literalist interpretation should acknowledge that that is referring to other people.

Animals, of course! Little cutie-blushy-faced cats willBITE OFF HIS HEAD!

OH WAIT! free joy state, Adam had another son! He had three! In Hebrew text, his name is Shes, not sure in Latinized.

Animals aren't generally treated like people like that. Also, they wouldn't do that. They're too cute and potentially soft.

[La Xinga]

Animals, of course! Little cutie-blushy-faced cats willBITE OFF HIS HEAD!

OH WAIT! free joy state, Adam had another son! He had three! In Hebrew text, his name is Shes, not sure in Latinized.

Animals aren't generally treated like people like that. Also, they wouldn't do that. They're too cute and potentially soft.

I mean animals would eat him. Not exactly furries and catgirls!

[Salus Maior]

Well, have you been describing the way you assign meaning, then? Or just “musing” on *a* way?

That's typically the way I assign meaning. It's in line with some other Catholics I know of, but then again there's plenty of other ways to assign meaning.

This is something almost every theologian has an opinion on. Nobody ignores the "problem of evil".

Isn’t it sort of a cop out to basically make the whole case and then say “well I don’t know I’m just musing” at the end when pushed? I mean, either you believe something to be true about God or you don’t, and you presumably have a case for why you think that thing - either make the case, or don’t, but if you’re participating in the conversation I don’t know why you wouldn’t be making it.

No, it's called being honest with myself.

I can state my opinions, as I have, but ultimately this is something beyond all our ken.

[Jedi Council]

I have a challenge fr religious believers.

Stop seeking doctors. If you are afflicted with a disease, pray over it. Doesn’t the scriptures teach the God or the Gods will heal it ? Fine. Avoid surgery or medicine. The Lord or Gods you follow will do it by prayer. Surely as the scriptures say you will live.
This experiment will go on a full year. If there are more healings from it, the Lord or the Gods get all the credit. If not, then one should question the real presence of the Lord or the Gods.

God doesn't tell us to be idiots, so no.

Well he expects you to have faith in him.
Given that faith is belief without, or contrary to, evidence, I would argue that that could qualify as at the very least discouraging critical thinking.

[Salus Maior]

God doesn't tell us to be idiots, so no.

Well he expects you to have faith in him.
Given that faith is belief without, or contrary to, evidence, I would argue that that could qualify as at the very least discouraging critical thinking.

That's not a given, and to have faith without thinking is a sign of an immature an inauthentic faith; just plain superstition. The intellect is part of what we are, discerning is part of what we are, criticism is part of what we are, and that plays a part in the maturation of faith and sincere spirituality.

[Jedi Council]

Well he expects you to have faith in him.
Given that faith is belief without, or contrary to, evidence, I would argue that that could qualify as at the very least discouraging critical thinking.

That's not a given, and to have faith without thinking is a sign of an immature an inauthentic faith; just plain superstition. The intellect is part of what we are, discerning is part of what we are, criticism is part of what we are, and that plays a part in the maturation of faith and sincere spirituality.

You can critique, and discern all you like, but you cannot change the fundamental nature of faith.
Faith is illogical and is a sign of either poor, or incorrect, critical thinking.

[Ayytaly]

That's not a given, and to have faith without thinking is a sign of an immature an inauthentic faith; just plain superstition. The intellect is part of what we are, discerning is part of what we are, criticism is part of what we are, and that plays a part in the maturation of faith and sincere spirituality.

You can critique, and discern all you like, but you cannot change the fundamental nature of faith.
Faith is illogical and is a sign of either poor, or incorrect, critical thinking.

So is mercy. Only the ruthless change the world, just ask the people behind the Manhattan Project.

[Necroghastia]

You can critique, and discern all you like, but you cannot change the fundamental nature of faith.
Faith is illogical and is a sign of either poor, or incorrect, critical thinking.

So is mercy. Only the ruthless change the world, just ask the people behind the Manhattan Project.

Ah yes, because scientists like Hawking and Darwin, as well as artists like Shakespeare and Da Vinci... well known for being ruthless monsters.

[Mirjt]

That's not a given, and to have faith without thinking is a sign of an immature an inauthentic faith; just plain superstition. The intellect is part of what we are, discerning is part of what we are, criticism is part of what we are, and that plays a part in the maturation of faith and sincere spirituality.

You can critique, and discern all you like, but you cannot change the fundamental nature of faith.
Faith is illogical and is a sign of either poor, or incorrect, critical thinking.

I would argue that a faith that is unquestioned is a weak faith because those who hold it don't believe that their faith is strong enough to handle questions. I would argue that a faith that leaves no room for doubt, or mistakes, or mystery, is a faith that is weak because it is afraid of the unknown. I would argue that, in the Christian context, the Jesus answered questions with more questions and used parables and allegory, is because he wanted us to be critical thinkers, he was opposed to just accepting what the state or the religious leaders told the people without any real challenge. I would argue that, in the Christian context, God gave us a mind with rational faculties, and wanted us to use it not do nothing with it. I do not think that religion is a sign of irrationality or subpar critical thinking.

[Valrifell]

So is mercy. Only the ruthless change the world, just ask the people behind the Manhattan Project.

Ah yes, because scientists like Hawking and Darwin, as well as artists like Shakespeare and Da Vinci... well known for being ruthless monsters.

J. Robert Oppenheimer wasn't even particularly ruthless...

[Godular]

Ah yes, because scientists like Hawking and Darwin, as well as artists like Shakespeare and Da Vinci... well known for being ruthless monsters.

J. Robert Oppenheimer wasn't even particularly ruthless...

He owned that Rap Battle though...

[Albrenia]

Ah yes, because scientists like Hawking and Darwin, as well as artists like Shakespeare and Da Vinci... well known for being ruthless monsters.

J. Robert Oppenheimer wasn't even particularly ruthless...

Shh, that doesn't fit the narrative of only people with the social outlook of Scrooge being smart.

[Valrifell]

J. Robert Oppenheimer wasn't even particularly ruthless...

Shh, that doesn't fit the narrative of only people with the social outlook of Scrooge being smart.

Several physicists were romantic dorks who did stuff like poetry. Being an asshole does not make you smart, in fact I'd wager most smart people are very socially functional.

[Rojava Free State]

Addressing the debate over the Great Flood.

It is extremely unfeasible and unlikely that a flood cover the entire globe leaving no dry land, there is not enough water on Earth to do that, and there is no real evidence in the geologic record of such an event. Many things in Genesis are metaphorical (as any biblical historian or religious studies expert can tell you), and it is very possible that the Great Flood was not literal. That said this flood myth is present in multiple cultures from the Near East areas (Mesopotamia) of the Meditterranean Sea, where the Jewish people lived. There is evidence that there was a massive flood that happened in this area (and around the time we would have expected Noah to live), and to the people of the area, this was their whole World (their maps had the Meditteranean Sea at the center), and the Flood would have been perceived to them as engulfing the whole World. I believe the Great Flood did happen, it just was more localized then we think, and the story was passed on by the various peoples and cultures that lived in the area as myth, and eventually the Jewish texts included the story as well (as the Jewish texts were likely the last group to record the story which was likely passed on orally before this point).

I theorize that climate change of some kind caused an increased level of rainfall and floods in multiple parts of the world.

Not that all of earth was water world. There were still areas that were not flooded.

[Necroghastia]

Ah yes, because scientists like Hawking and Darwin, as well as artists like Shakespeare and Da Vinci... well known for being ruthless monsters.

J. Robert Oppenheimer wasn't even particularly ruthless...

Fair point. I kinda took that post as meaning the military brass who ordered the development of atom bombs, but yeah.

[Rojava Free State]

Shh, that doesn't fit the narrative of only people with the social outlook of Scrooge being smart.

Several physicists were romantic dorks who did stuff like poetry. Being an asshole does not make you smart, in fact I'd wager most smart people are very socially functional.

Being an asshole may actually be kinda stupid. You can't do everything on your own and sometimes it takes a team, so being an insufferable retard won't help you get anywhere.

[Salus Maior]

That's not a given, and to have faith without thinking is a sign of an immature an inauthentic faith; just plain superstition. The intellect is part of what we are, discerning is part of what we are, criticism is part of what we are, and that plays a part in the maturation of faith and sincere spirituality.

You can critique, and discern all you like, but you cannot change the fundamental nature of faith.
Faith is illogical and is a sign of either poor, or incorrect, critical thinking.

No, it's an acceptance that we can't explain everything. And not everything we believe every day is rooted in logic or critical thinking.

Human reason and rationality only get so far, and human observation can't account for everything simply by the fact that our own faculties are limited.

That is not to say that science is unimportant, it has its place and it is good. But so does faith.

[La Xinga]

You can critique, and discern all you like, but you cannot change the fundamental nature of faith.
Faith is illogical and is a sign of either poor, or incorrect, critical thinking.

No, it's an acceptance that we can't explain everything. And not everything we believe every day is rooted in logic or critical thinking.

Human reason and rationality only get so far, and human observation can't account for everything simply by the fact that our own faculties are limited.

That is not to say that science is unimportant, it has its place and it is good. But so does faith.

Awesome point

[Salus Maior]

No, it's an acceptance that we can't explain everything. And not everything we believe every day is rooted in logic or critical thinking.

Human reason and rationality only get so far, and human observation can't account for everything simply by the fact that our own faculties are limited.

That is not to say that science is unimportant, it has its place and it is good. But so does faith.

Awesome point

That's not to say we should doubt our observation and reason when it is conclusive.

[Mirjt]

No, it's an acceptance that we can't explain everything. And not everything we believe every day is rooted in logic or critical thinking.

Human reason and rationality only get so far, and human observation can't account for everything simply by the fact that our own faculties are limited.

That is not to say that science is unimportant, it has its place and it is good. But so does faith.

Awesome point

I concur

[Bombadil]

You can critique, and discern all you like, but you cannot change the fundamental nature of faith.
Faith is illogical and is a sign of either poor, or incorrect, critical thinking.

No, it's an acceptance that we can't explain everything. And not everything we believe every day is rooted in logic or critical thinking.

Human reason and rationality only get so far, and human observation can't account for everything simply by the fact that our own faculties are limited.

That is not to say that science is unimportant, it has its place and it is good. But so does faith.

Faith is merely an indulgence, it's a double chip chocolate cookie when you're wallowing in self-pity on the sofa, or perhaps a nice vanilla ice cream on a hot day as you appreciate the world around you. It's comfort food.

It's not necessary, lots of people have their own version and some don't need it at all. It's merely a tool to achieve what can adequately be achieved without such things.

[Neanderthaland]

You can critique, and discern all you like, but you cannot change the fundamental nature of faith.
Faith is illogical and is a sign of either poor, or incorrect, critical thinking.

No, it's an acceptance that we can't explain everything. And not everything we believe every day is rooted in logic or critical thinking.

Human reason and rationality only get so far, and human observation can't account for everything simply by the fact that our own faculties are limited.

That is not to say that science is unimportant, it has its place and it is good. But so does faith.

It just isn't though. Accepting that we can't explain everything doesn't get you anywhere near faith. And if that's all faith was, no one would "have faith" in anything.

It might get you near science, if you decide to learn more.

[Salus Maior]

Faith is merely an indulgence, it's a double chip chocolate cookie when you're wallowing in self-pity on the sofa, or perhaps a nice vanilla ice cream on a hot day as you appreciate the world around you. It's comfort food.

It's not necessary, lots of people have their own version and some don't need it at all. It's merely a tool to achieve what can adequately be achieved without such things.

People don't die for chocolate chip cookies or ice cream, people often do for their faith.

I'm not telling you to live your life a certain way. I don't care what you do. But simplifying the concept of faith to a mere comfort completely disregards the lengths people go to in order to protect their faith, defying government oppression and terrorist threats in order to practice and stay true to it. If someone stuck an AK to your head and told you to swear off cookies and ice cream forever, nobody would care enough to risk getting a bullet in the head over it.

It's pure arrogance to even suggest that.